Sitting of 6 May 1881

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Committee—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Motion for Bill—Parliamentary
Oaths, debate further adjourned.
Ordered—Land Drainage Provisional Orders*
Ordered—First Reading—Merchant Shipping* [151].
Third Reading—Bridges (South Wales)* [129], and
passed.

QUESTIONS.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. BLAKE.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the language reported to have been used by Mr. Blake, paid resident magistrate at Tuam, when refusing an application for a licence under the Arms Act, to the effect that he would never grant a licence to a member of the Land League; whether the Government approve of this ground of refusal; whether he is aware of the habit of Mr. Blake when trying cases on the bench to put queries of a hurtful nature to supposed members of the Land League; and, whether this official's "Letters of Terence McGrath" have been brought under the notice of the Government?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, with respect to the first Question, I have been furnished with a report of the observation made by Mr. Blake on the occasion referred to; and he is the licensing

  1955
  officer appointed by law to grant the use of arms in the district. With the observations Mr. Blake is reported to have made I have no fault to find, and, so far, I think they were right under the circumstances. Mr. Blake informs me he has never made any observations offensive or hurtful to the Land League, or to any one of its members brought before him judicially. With regard to the third Question, I am not aware that an offender has been brought before Mr. Blake who has connection with the League. With regard to the last Question, I believe there is an amusing book which has the title described in the Question; but, unfortunately, I have not had time to read it.
  MR. HEALYasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was not a fact that a very severe caution had been given to Mr. Blake by the late Government for having written articles of a political nature?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he had better ask the Question of a Member of the late Government.

  MINES—MINING IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES— REPORT OF RESIDENTS ABROAD.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, considering the great need there is (in order to lessen the sacrifice of life) for diminishing the risks to those engaged in and carrying on the coal, iron, and other mining industries, by obtaining all possible information bearing upon the scientific improvement in mining in all its branches from all mining Countries, as well as our Colonies, Whether he will direct the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to instruct our Embassies, Legations, and Consuls to Countries where mining operations are prosecuted, to embody in their Trade Reports any valuable improvements, and the cause or causes of explosions and other mining disasters, where such may have been ascertained, which may occur in the various Countries where they are situated, so that full and reliable knowledge may be obtained in furtherance of this object?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Earl Granville is willing to comply with my hon. Friend's request, and has given instructions that the information for which he asks respecting mines abroad
  1956
  shall be given in the Reports furnished annually by Her Majesty's Secretaries of Embassy and Legations and Consuls.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT— RELIEF WORKS AT ARKLOW.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any objection to obtain from the Local Government Board (Ireland) a statement of the number of people employed daily on relief works in the vicinity of Arklow during the prevalence of distress in that town last winter; how many in family each person so employed represented; whether the majority, if not all, belonged to the class of fishermen; what was the nature of the employment at which they were engaged; and, what was the total sum expended on such relief works, and from what source derived?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERin reply, said, he had learnt from the Vice President of the Local Government Board in Ireland that no more relief works would be sanctioned in the neighbourhood to which the Question referred. The further information asked in the Question might be obtained from the Guardians of the Union; but he could scarcely see that, when obtained, it would be of any practical value. He would suggest that the hon. Member should see him in private on the subject.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868—THE SANDWICH ELECTION COMMISSION.
  MR. LEWISasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor, in the case of the Sandwich Election Commission, to take the course adopted by him in the case of the other Commissions, viz. to call on such of the scheduled bribers as hold the Commission of the Peace to show cause why their names should not be struck off the list of magistrates?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, I understand that some time ago communications passed of the nature referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Member.

  PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION— THE VACANT SEATS.
  MR. LEWISasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Government has ar-

  1957
  rived at any, and what, decision as to the issue of new writs in the cases of any of the Boroughs now vacant owing to the decision of Election Petitions?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, I stated some time ago that it would be necessary for the Government to introduce a Bill to deal with the seven boroughs in which corrupt practices had prevailed. That Bill will be introduced at the first convenient opportunity, and it would, therefore, be premature for me now to state the intentions of the Government.

  BANKRUPTCY BILL—ESTATES IN LIQUIDATION.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he would consider the expediency of extending the provisions of the Bankruptcy Bill to estates now in liquidation?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the subject raised by the Question of the hon. Baronet is one of great importance, and it has already engaged my careful attention. I did not propose to deal with it in the Bankruptcy Bill, because I was afraid of overloading that measure. When, however, the Bill reaches the Committee stage, I shall be glad to consider any Amendments that may be proposed with this object.

  ARMY (CHANGES IN ORGANIZATION)— REGIMENTAL ORGANIZATION.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether in the changes in regimental organisation which are to come into force on the 1st July next, all the captains who are now serving in regiments, and who will be at that date over forty years of age will, with the exceptions given in page 11 of the Memorandum presented to Parliament, be passed over in filling up the regimental ranks and be retired on pensions or on half-pay?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, my hon. Friend has put to me a Question which I am not sure that I quite understand; but if he will speak to me privately, I shall, I hope, be able to give him a satisfactory answer.

  CROSSED CHEQUES ACT, 1876—CORPORATION BONDS.
  MR. JACKSONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the provisions of
  1958
  "The Crossed Cheques Act 1876," as regards the crossing of cheques, are applicable to the bearer coupons issued with the bonds of Corporations such as Leeds, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Nottingham?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Member had only within the last few minutes furnished him with a copy of the coupon; and, as far as he was able to form an opinion at so short a notice, the coupon did not come within the Act, and would not be protected by the provision referred to.

  PORTUGAL—THE LORENZO-MARQUES TREATY.
  MR. W. CARTWRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he could state when the promised Papers relating to the negotiations connected with the Lorenzo-Marques Treaty will be in the hands of Members?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, a Report upon this subject which Mr. Morier was called upon to furnish has just been received, and, with other recent Papers, will be added to the correspondence which is already in print and in a forward state. The Paper must be submitted to Mr. Morier before it can be laid on the Table, so that it is difficult to name any exact day for doing so; but no unnecessary delay will occur.

  BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRELAND) ACT, 1857—PAYMENT OF CLAIMS OF SERVANTS.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, under the 249th section of "The Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857," the servant, clerk, labourer, or workman of any bankrupt or insolvent is not entitled to have his debts (not exceeding six months' wages, and not exceeding £30, in the case of a servant or clerk, and not exceeding £5 in the case of a labourer or workman) paid to him in full by the Court of Bankruptcy out of the estate; whether, notwithstanding this section, the official assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy, in cases where an arranging debtor compounds with his creditors under the protection of the Court, do not refuse to allow the servant, &c. of such arranging debtor to prove for more than the amount of the composition

  1959
  offered to the other creditors; whether the official assignees so acting act legally; if so, whether it is not the fact that the Law puts the servants, &c. of an arranging debtor in a far worse position than the servants, &c. of an actual bankrupt; and, whether in that case the Government will take steps to redress this anomaly, by inserting a special Clause dealing with Ireland in the English Bankruptcy Bill, or otherwise?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Under the Act in question, persons in the position referred to have no absolute right to payment of their claims in full, as the Question appears to suppose; but the Court has power to make an order to that effect if it thinks fit. The provisions of the Act do not apply to cases of arrangement, the terms of which are left to the parties themselves. I cannot promise any special legislation on the subject.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—SMALL-POX (METROPOLIS):—HOSPITAL TENTS.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will give to the House the result of his inquiries on the subject of the Smallpox Tents in the Imperial Road, Fulham?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, Dr. Bridges, one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board, visited the place, and found that there are two tents, surrounded by a high wooden paling, placed on the river bank on a piece of waste land. The nearest buildings are the works of the Imperial Gas Company, nearly 300 yards distant. The Hospital is at the end of the Imperial Road, which, he believes, belongs to the Fulham Board of Works; but with the exception of the Hospital, there are no buildings whatever there. It is right to add that the tents have been erected to meet a pressing emergency, and the Inspector considers that there is not sufficient ground for the complaint against their position.

  COLONIAL GOVERNORS.
  MR. WARTON, who had the following Question on the Paper:—
  "To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any instance of a colony in which the appointment of its governor, even in those cases where that office had been hereditary or elective, has not been originally made by the Crown?"
  1960
  said, that in the absence of the Prime Minister, from indisposition, he would postpone the Question until Monday.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: In the absence of my right hon. Friend, I have been directed to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question.
  MR. WARTON: No, thank you; I would prefer to have it answered by the Prime Minister on Monday.

  THE EXCISE—TRADING BY EXCISE OFFICERS.
  MR. ELLIOTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is aware that it is the practice of excise officials employed in breweries to solicit orders for saccharometers and the like from brewers; and, whether he considers such a practice conducive to the public interest, and will take steps to put an end to it should it be found to exist?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, such a practice as that described in the Question is distinctly prohibited by the printed instructions given to every Excise officer. I learn that the Board of Inland Revenue is unaware of any case in which a departure from this rule has occurred; and any such departure, if made known to the Board, would be visited with a very severe mark of their displeasure.

  MONUMENT TO THE RIGHT HON. THE LATE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD, K.G.—THE INSCRIPTION.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, that, in the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury, he begged to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, If the inscription for the proposed monument to the late Earl of Beaconsfield for his services to the Country and its dependencies has yet been prepared; and, if so, will he inform the House the nature of the same, or the words thereof, or lay the words upon the Table of the House prior to the time when he moves his Resolution for the erection of the monument? He wished to add that his Question had been so mutilated that he scarcely recognized it. But no doubt the noble Marquess had seen it in the newspapers.
  MR. RYLANDSalso desired to ask, in reference to this subject, whether, in view of the importance of the Irish Land

  1961
  Bill, the Government would be good enough to postpone the Motion relative to the Beaconsfield monument until after that Bill had been read a second time?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury being slightly unwell, and unable to be in his place today, has desired me to answer the Question of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). I must say, in the first place, that I have not seen any other version of the hon. Member's Question than that which stands on the Paper, and that I am not aware in what respect it has been altered. In reply to his Question, I have to state that the view of the Government is that the words of the inscription should very closely follow the terms of the Address which my right hon. Friend will move on Monday next. In reply to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), I have to state that it is impossible for me to answer his Question in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I can only say that I believe that my right hon. Friend has fully considered the time when his Motion should be brought on, and I do not think that he will be disposed to adopt any suggestion for its postponement.
  MR. MACDONALDwished to know, whether the inscription would contain any reference to the political services of the late Lord Beaconsfield as the head of a Party?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I can only refer the hon. Member to the terms of the Address of which my right hon. Friend gave Notice yesterday.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARMS LICENCES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the magistrates at Ballineen, county Cork, have refused arms licences to all Catholic farmers and others even when the applications were supported by the local police constable; whether licences were granted to all Protestants; whether the local rector sat on the bench to back up the applications of his own people; whether all the magistrates on the bench are Protestants; and, whether a periodical Return can be laid upon the Table of
  1962
  the House showing the number of cases in which arms licences have been granted in the proclaimed districts, the number in which they have been refused, the reason of the refusal, and the religion of the applicant in each case?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he was informed that all licences to Catholic farmers in the locality named had not been refused, but some of them had been postponed; nor was it true that all Protestant applications were granted. It was true that the Rector had a seat upon the Bench and bore witness in a few cases to the character of his parishioners. It was not true that all the magistrates were Protestants, because the Resident Magistrate, who had most influence in such matters, was a Catholic. He could not grant the Return asked for by the hon. Member.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was to be understood as saying that all those who received licences were not Protestants?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought he had already answered that Question when he said it was not true that all the Catholic farmers were refused licences.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table of the House, a Return showing the value claimed, and the amount paid upon, arms surrendered in the proclaimed districts of Ireland up to the 30th April; and, whether there is any objection to furnish a similar Return periodically during the continuance of the Arms Act in Ireland?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I think the information as to the value of arms surrendered in Ireland ought to be laid on the Table of the House, and I hope to be able to lay it on the Table when the Estimates are brought forward. I do not think that a periodical Return is necessary, or any Return, until the Act has been in operation for some time.

  THE NEW HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE— ACCOMMODATION FOR THE BAR.
  MR. GRANTHAMasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the room intended for the use of the Bar at the new High Court of Justice is now to be devoted to another purpose; and, if so, if he will state what accommodation it is intended to devote for the use of the Bar in exchange for such room?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, a room will be provided for the accommodation of the Bar above that which was originally intended for them.

  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS—THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, 1868, THE PARLIAMENTARY AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT, 1879, AND THE PARLIAMENTARY AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT, 1880—THE BOSTON ELECTION.
  MR. MELLORasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to another article of the "Boston Independent" newspaper, extensively circulated, in which the following passage appears:—
  "Let the Attorney General do even-handed justice, and do not let his victims be selected to gratify party spite or appease party passion;"
  whether this is the same newspaper as that referred to in the evidence before the Boston Election Commissioners, page 599, given by Mr. R. W. Millington, as follows:—
  "On the day before the polling, or perhaps two days before, an intimation was made to my partner that the proprietor of the 'Independent' newspaper thought that a donation should be given to him for the support which had been and was about to be given to the Conservative cause. It was at once referred to Mr. Garfit. He asked our opinion about it. I myself was present with my partner on that occasion, and we thought the amount asked (£150) was a reasonable one. The grounds for the subscription alleged were that the proprietor had lately been the editor of the opposition paper, the Liberal newspaper, and that, in consequence of his having gone over with certain of his staff, he encountered a good deal of opposition, and that he was likely to lose possibly some appointments as agent for other newspapers, and, altogether, we thought it was a proper payment to make, and Mr. Garfit was advised to sanction it, that is, the promise of it. The money has not yet been paid. I distinctly swear that in advising Mr. Garfit to give the money I had not in view the buying of the vote of the proprietor of the paper. That vote we counted on as a
  certainty:
  "Question:—Then it was a pure gift. Did you during the election, whenever there were meetings, buy certain numbers of the newspaper and pay for them for the purpose of distribution?—Yes.
  "And you also paid for your advertisements?—
  Yes; we also paid for our advertisements.
  "In the ordinary way?—Yes."
  and, whether he will direct inquiries to be made as to who the persons are who have found the money for and caused articles of this newspaper to be reprinted and circulated throughout Lin-
  1964
  colnshire in a manner calculated to affect the course of justice? In putting the Question, he asked to be allowed to make a short personal statement. On Monday last, when he put a similar Question, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) made a remark which he did not hear. He had, however, been told that the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked whether it was proper that such a Question should be put by a Gentleman who was counsel for the prosecution. As this suggestion had been made, he wished to say that he had nothing whatever to do with the prosecution. He simply put the Questions as the Representative of a Lincolnshire constituency which was interested in the subject.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he believed on Monday that the hon. Member was at that time retained for the prosecution; but he found he was mistaken. He wished to ask the Attorney General what was the date of the article referred to in the Question, and whether he was aware that the paper mentioned was very small and circulated in Boston only?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, he believed the date was not a recent date, and the article had not been published since the hon. Member's previous Question. He knew nothing of the size or circulation of the paper; but the particular article had been widely circulated among the class from whom the jurymen would probably be drawn, and slip copies had been sent to himself and to other Members of the House. The paper was the paper referred to in evidence. It was painful to him to have to take such proceedings of the kind pending, and the only object of the Government was to uphold the administration of justice.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY ACT, 1881—KILMAINHAM PRISON.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is necessary for any of the purposes of the Irish Coercion Act that the following rules should be enforced in Kilmainham Prison:—1. The rule that no person detained on suspicion under Warrant of the Lord Lieutenant shall receive a visit anywhere but in the cell or "cage" crossed by the iron gratings, which in-

  1965
  tervene between the visitor and the prisoner; 2. The rule which, by prescribing this "cage" alone as the place for the reception of visits, precludes the general body of prisoners from seeing their friends and relatives while any one prisoner is receiving a visitor; whether these rules might not be relaxed so far as to allow the prisoners to receive visits in an ordinary cell or room; whether several such cells or rooms might not be provided for the purpose, so as to allow of several persons being visited at one time, and thereby relieve the friends and relatives of prisoners, who often come long distances to see them, from being obliged to stand for hours outside the door of the jail, exposed to the stares and comments of policemen; and, whether the purposes of the Coercion Act are not satisfied by detention without the infliction of any painful humiliation upon prisoners or any distressing inconvenience upon those who come to visit them?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I only saw the Notice of the Question this morning, therefore I have not had time to inquire; but I have to-day received some information which, I think, will enable me to answer the Question. With respect to visiting rooms, there are two which are always available, and another one is being fitted up. Some modification will be made in the so-called "cage," which, I think, will be considered reasonable. There is no waiting-room for visitors, and the accommodation at the disposal of the Governor does not permit of a waiting-room being provided. Accommodation will probably be provided at the Court-house close by; and the Irish Government are at present in communication with the Grand Jury of the County of Dublin on the subject. Prisoners in the hospital are allowed to receive visitors subject to the approval of the medical officer.

  NAVY—DESTRUCTION OF H.M.S. "DOTEREL."
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he should like to ask his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether there is any foundation for the suggestion contained in a letter in the "Standard" of to-day, that the accident to the "Doterel" might have been caused by a Whitehead torpedo lost by
  1966
  the "Shah" when practising at Sandy Point some time ago? He had no doubt about it in his own mind; but it would be satisfactory if they could hear from the Secretary to the Admiralty some information on the question.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the letter in The Standard of to-day from the late signalman of the Shah is, so far as the fact goes that a torpedo was lost from the Shah at Sandy Point in 1878, quite correct. But that torpedo was unloaded, and was only used for experimental practice, and being such it was picked up a short time ago by a man who was handsomely rewarded, and it was subsequently brought home in Her Majesty's ship Opal.

  AFGHANISTAN—REPORTED RUSSIAN MISSION TO CABUL.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURbegged to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Standard," that another Russian Mission has just been despatched from St. Petersburgh to Cabul; and, if so, whether the Government intend to take any steps in the matter?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: On seeing the statement in the newspapers to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I telegraphed to the Governor General of India asking him whether there was any foundation for it. As the hon. Gentleman has only just given me Notice of the Question, I cannot give him a full reply; but from the answer which I have received from the Governor General of India, I gather that he has not received any information which confirms the statement. I think it is also stated that the Government of India have received several communications from the Ameer, Abdurrahman, with reference to communications that had taken place between them and the Russian authorities on the subject of the return of the Ameer's son from Russia to Cabul. The Ameer, so far as they were aware, had asked the advice of the Government of India in regard to all these communications. So far as I am aware, no Russians have accompanied the Ameer's son beyond Mazar-i-Sheriff, in Afghan Turkestan. Further inquiries will be made; but the House will see that the substance of the reply of the

  1967
  Governor General does not confirm the statement of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BOURKE: Can the noble Lord state whether there is there any British Agent now at Cabul, Native or otherwise?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There is no accredited Agent.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I may, perhaps, be allowed to supplement the statement of my noble Friend with some information which has been received at the Foreign Office from St. Petersburgh on the subject. On the 7th of February, Lord Dufferin was informed by the acting Minister for Foreign Affairs that General Kauffmann had given the ladies of the family of Abdurrahman an escort as far as the Russian Frontier, who had returned, by one of the Sirdars, an answer of simple compliment for the attention thus shown. That statement is inconsistent with what has since appeared in the newspapers, and, therefore, further inquiries will be made.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—MORNING SITTING FOR TUESDAY.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURgave Notice that in the event of the Prime Minister on Monday moving that there should be a Morning Sitting on Tuesday, he would oppose the Motion.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' HABITATIONS (IRELAND).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. CALLAN, in rising to call attention to the condition of agricultural labourers in Ireland, and to the pressing necessity that existed for affording facilities for the erection of cottages and providing suitable garden plots for them, and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient and necessary that measures should be taken in the present Session of Parliament to improve the condition of agricultural labourers' habitations in Ireland;"
    said, the question intimately concerned a large majority of the population of
    1968
    Ireland, and indirectly affected the whole nation. Therefore, it was unnecessary to dilate on its importance, which was, indeed, self-evident. As far back as 1843, on the representations of Mr. Sharman Crawford, a Royal Commission was issued to inquire into the subject. Major O'Reilly, a resident proprietor in County Down, gave evidence that nothing could be more distressing than the condition of the labourers, mainly in consequence of the landlords requiring that the cottier tenements should be got rid of, and wherever grazing farms were the condition of the labourers was most wretched. The evidence of Mr. Sharman Crawford, County Down, before the Devon Commission, and also that of Mr. William Smyth, County Limerick, showed that the condition of the labourers and their dwellings was wretched in the extreme. Upon the evidence the Devon Commission reported that the Irish labourers were "the worst fed, worst clothed, and worst housed in Europe." That was published in 1846 or 1847; and what had since then been done by the British Parliament to remedy the grievances of the Irish labourer? Nothing, until they came within a measurable distance, as the present Prime Minister expressed it, of civil war. In introducing the Land Act of 1870, the Prime Minister referred to the position of the Irish labourer, remarking that between the years 1849 and 1860 there was a great and general increase of wages throughout Ireland; but that from 1860 up to 1870 the rate of wages there had not advanced; and, alluding to the evictions which had occurred, the right hon. Gentleman said that some of those evictions were of the most painful, some of the most indefensible, and some even of the most guilty character. Another process, he explained, had been going on in Ireland—namely, the conversion of tillage land into pasturage, the result being a large increase in pauperism. At the present time ail the labouring population of Ireland, if not in absolute receipt of poor relief, would be in receipt of such relief if the Irish Poor Laws were administered with something like the humanity and liberality which attended the English Poor Law system. The Prime Minister, in introducing the Act of 1870, however, said that the Government had done for the Irish labourer what the circumstances of the case would permit—

    1969
    they allowed the tenant to divide and sub-let for cottages and gardens to be let to the labourers employed on the holding; and they offered from public funds facilities for the acquisition of land in small quantities. The Land Bill of 1870 emerged from that House with a clause in it affecting the labourer; but that clause was unwisely and uncharitably expunged by the House of Lords. The Bill came hack to the House of Commons with a number of other clauses disagreed to by the Lords, and it became the duty of the Government to consider whether they should agree or disagree with the Lords" Amendments. They moved the House of Commons to disagree with several of the Lords' Amendments. Three or four Divisions were taken, but they threw a sop to Cerberus. They threw over the Irish labourers—the Government threw over the Irish labourers. He (Mr. Callan) wished very much they would make an example, and throw over somebody else now, and if they did so he might say they would confer an inestimable boon upon the country. The Lords' Amendment affecting the labourers came before the House on the 12th of July—a fated day for Ireland—and Mr. Chichester Fortescue said, he
    "Moved, That the House do agree to the Lords' Amendment, by which certain exceptions from the general effect of the clause which were intended to give the tenant the power of setting aside pieces of land for the purpose of building labourers' cottages, were struck out. If he were simply to consult his own wishes, he should prefer the Bill as it dealt with that point in its original shape; but the matter was one with regard to which he did not, for the reason stated by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, think it would be wise to insist by dissenting from the Amendment."—[3 Hansard, cciii. 125.]
    The Government, however, promised that the following year a measure should be introduced dealing with the entire question of labourers. The House met late in 1871, and on March 24th, Sir William Henry Gregory moved—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient that measures should be taken in the present Session of Parliament to improve the condition of the agricultural labourers' habitations in Ireland;"
    and, in doing so, said—
    "He wished to bring under the notice of the House, and of the Government, the condition of the most helpless and most hopeless class in the United Kingdom—namely, the agricultural
    1970
    labourers in Ireland. Last year, during the passing of the Land Bill, he had been anxious to make some provisions for the encouragement of the erection of suitable habitations for these unfortunate people, but was unable to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) who had charge of the Bill, opposed the proposal made by him (Mr. W. H. Gregory), not on the merits or demerits of the proposal, but because the subject was too large to be fully and fairly entered into in a Land Bill. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the subject deserved the fullest consideration, and gave the House to understand that it was the intention of the Government to legislate in the coming Session for the evils which he fully acknowledged."—[Ibid. ccv. 575.]
    The Motion to which he had alluded was proposed by Sir William Henry Gregory, the hon. Member for Galway, and no Land Leaguer, which was seconded by Sir Frederick Heygate, a Conservative, the Representative of Londonderry County. He trusted the present Member for the constituency (the Attorney General for Ireland) would be quite as sensible of the interests of the Irish labourers as his Predecessor. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) who had then been recently appointed Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, said—
    "Were it not for technical reasons he did not know that he should have thought it necessary to ask his hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion. However, as it had taken the form of an Amendment to the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, he hoped, in the event of his being able to give a satisfactory assurance on the subject, his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment and be content to leave the matter in the hands of the Government."—[Ibid. 590.]
    If he (Mr. Callan) to-day got across the floor of the House a similar assurance, he would withdraw his Motion; but if he did not get some such assurance, he should consider himself bound in honour to go to a division. But if that assurance were given, he hoped it would not be unfulfilled as on the previous occasion. He appealed to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to use his influence in the interest of the Irish labourer; and he would ask the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) also to use his influence to have the promises which had been made on this question carried out, and the pledges which he had given redeemed. In May, 1871, Mr. M'Carthy Downing asked the Chief Secretary when he expected to be able

    1971
    to lay on the Table a Bill for the improvement of the condition and habitations of labourers in Ireland, which had been promised? The noble Lord said, in reply, that he had been in communication with the Board of Works in Ireland, and he would, as soon as possible, lay on the Table of the House a Bill for the improvement of the condition of labourers and their habitations. He could not promise that it should be done before Whitsuntide. Why, the name of the Board of Works was a byword in Ireland, and so it would remain until it was swept away. Nothing was done in 1871. Then they came to 1872, and no Bill was introduced. Mr. Maguire asked when a Bill on the subject of improving the condition of the Irish labourers would be brought in, and the Chief Secretary, in reply, said the subject was one which had long engaged the attention of the Government. That was true, for the subject had engaged attention for 30 years. ["Hear, hear!"] He heard an hon. Member opposite say "Hear, hear!" but nothing had been done. The noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington), in 1872, added that he trusted to be able to bring in a Bill to extend the operation of Sir William Somerville's Act; but he was not able to say whether he would he able to introduce it, though he hoped the day would not be long. Formerly, when it was the practice to execute prisoners after sentence they used to cry out—"Give me a long day, my lord." If any such prisoners had had as long a day as the Irish labourers on this subject, they might be alive till now. Sir Frederick Heygate each Session renewed his questions and remonstrances. Early in the Session of 1863 Sir Frederick Heygate asked a question about the promised Bill, and the noble Lord said he hoped to bring in such a Bill; but before he did so it would be well that the House should be in possession of certain Returns. The Returns were duly forwarded, but no Bill was forthcoming. On the 16th of June the same year, Sir Frederick Heygate asked the Chief Secretary if he had given up the intention of bring in the Bill, and the noble Lord replied that he feared he should not have an opportunity of bringing in the Bill that Session. He must do the noble Lord the justice to say, while referring to these repeated pro-
    1972
    mises which remained unfulfilled, that he did thoroughly sympathize with the Irish labourers in their wretched condition. But still nothing was done. The noble Lord had presided over a Select Committee which sat on the subject, and had thus become well acquainted with the condition and the wants of the Irish agricultural labourer. In 1873, on the 31st of July, Mr. Bruce, who was then Home Secretary, said that as soon as the Returns of the Inspectors had been received, they would be carefully considered by the Government, with a view to legislation. In the following year a Conservative Ministry was in Office, and he wished to do them the justice of acknowledging that they had broken no promises, for they made none, and, in fact, treated the question, as they treated every Irish question, with neglect. But there were ample Returns for the year 1869–70, upon which the Government might have acted. The Returns made by the Inspectors of many counties of Ireland were unanimous in describing the habitations and manner of living of the agricultural labourers as wretched beyond description, and the labourers as thoroughly discontented with their lot. Their condition was a standing disgrace to Christianity and civilization. But, notwithstanding the degrading circumstances in which the Irish poor were compelled to live, large families of both sexes and all ages huddled together night and day in one room, the modesty and purity of their lives were proverbial among the nations of Europe. Mr. Lane Joint, a gentleman of high authority on this subject, who was well known to many Members of the House, expressed a strong opinion that the farmers should be assisted in providing suitable cottages for the farm labourers; and his suggestion was that the assistance should come from the Board of Works in the shape of advances at a low rate of interest, the repayment to be extended over a long period. That opinion was expressed and that suggestion made in the year 1851, and since that time the condition of the agricultural labourer had changed for the worse. The Bessborough Commission, of which his hon. Friend the Member for the county of Cork (Mr. Shaw) was a Member, had given attention to this very important subject. Mr. Kavanagh, himself a large landed proprietor,

    1973
    was also a Member of the Commission, and the Commissioners, all of whom were landlords, reported that the subject of the condition of the agricultural labourer "demanded speedy consideration, for the sake of the country as well as for the sake of the labourers themselves." Between 40 and 50 witnesses were examined, and on their evidence the Report in question was founded. One witness, named Butler, who resided in the county of Kilkenny and stated that he had been a farm labourer, but was then a large farmer, replying to Mr. Kavanagh, stated that he considered the labourers' dwellings in his district to be unsuitable for human habitations, being badly lighted, badly ventilated, without out-houses or gardens. The witness added that the labourers were left without help from the landlord, and that there was no one to raise a voice on their behalf. The next witness was a Conservative landlord, lately a Member of that House, (Colonel King-Harman), who, replying to his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) stated that the farm labourers were badly housed and badly paid. Mr. Bolster, an extensive farmer, deposed that the labourers' question was one which pressed for immediate settlement. He also said the Irish labourers were the worst treated men in any part of the world. Slaves in South America were better off as far as food and lodging were concerned, while the slaves were better paid, better housed, and better clothed. Other witnesses—men who spoke from experience and with authority—stated that the labourers were being cleared from the land, and that the subject was one which the Government ought to take without delay into their serious consideration. He would not occupy the time of the House by going through the evidence, which he had merely skimmed, because he thought he had made out his case. On the introduction of the Land Bill he took occasion to express his regret that no provision was contained in it to improve the condition of the agricultural labourer. The Solicitor General for Ireland said that the Government had very much at heart the sufferings of a very large number of the population—sufferings borne with unexampled patience—but that, in the view of the Government, it would be inexpedient to overload the measure with a matter which could be dealt with separately; adding that he
    1974
    felt no doubt as to the fact that, if sufficient time were afforded, the Government would be very glad to deal with the question in a separate measure. There could be no doubt that the Solicitor General knew a great deal about the subject, and, as he was a rapid draftsman, there could be no doubt that, if leisure were afforded to him, he would in a fortnight produce a measure dealing in a satisfactory manner with the whole question. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be content to disconnect himself from a small question of this kind, and leave it to the Solicitor General to deal with. He could not but think it a somewhat Machiavellian suggestion that to attempt to deal with this question in the Land Bill would be to overload the measure The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said he sympathized with the labourers. No doubt he did, and perhaps he also sympathized with the "village ruffians," as his sympathies were of a very large character. Now, the Chief Secretary at the time stated that it would be for the House to consider most carefully how the condition of the agricultural labourers could be improved, and he (Mr. Callan) submitted that now was the time for the Government to take the matter in hand. He had just returned from his native country, and the 10 days he spent there had been the greater part of them absorbed in visiting the farmers and labourers. He saw how their hopes were excited by the promised Land Bill. He saw their miserable condition. He knew them, and he respected them. He would rather do something to serve the poor labourers of Ireland than any Prince or Nobleman in the land; and now, in the strict performance of his duty, and having stated his case without any attempt at exaggeration from official records, he asked the House, in view of the Report of the Devon Commission in 1843, the Report of the Royal Commission in 1871, and the Report of the Besshorough Commission, to accede to the Motion standing in his name.
    MR. DALYsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the Resolution. The necessity for the speedy amelioration of the condition of the Irish agricultural labourers had been so fully placed before the House by his hon. Friend that he would not detain the House long with any remarks of his own. His hon.

    1975
    Friend had contended, and with perfect correctness, that the Trish labourers were the worst housed and fed labourers not only in Europe, but in the civilized world. Stronger testimony as to their deplorable condition could not be afforded than that given by Colonel Gordon, better known as Chinese Gordon, who stated that during all his travels, even in the lowest condition of life in China and Africa, he had never met a human being in as barbarous and miserable a condition as the Irish labourer. These poor labourers had received a promise from the English Government in 1871 that their wants would be attended to and their grievances remedied; but that promise had never been fulfilled. These men were no isolated portion of Her Majesty's subjects, for they numbered nearly 500,000. Their condition had been aggravated by the fact that English Law had suppressed manufactories, and so compelled a large number to take to the fields or deport themselves to other countries. Many of these men could read, and many of them knew that £20,000,000 had been expended by the British Parliament for emancipating the Blacks; and they also know that in more recent times over £17,000,000 had been spent for the rectification of the scientific Frontier in Afghanistan. And they knew that although money was spent in similar objects, and that although in the lowest depths of wretchedness, their crying wants were ignored, many of the sons of these labourers had swelled the ranks of the British Army, and had very materially helped to gain those victories of which Englishmen boasted. He would remind those who deplored the agitation in Ireland that the Irish labourers were the backbone and sinew of the agitation. There was no other class of labourers who had waited so patiently for justice as had these men and their families; and now were they to be told that their wants were not to be relieved, whilst millions were spent in emancipating the Blacks of another land? He had no hesitation in telling this House that no legislation ameliorating the relations between landlord and tenant would be complete which did not provide for the amelioration of the condition of the Irish labourers. That was as true as the Gospel of Almighty God. The Government might violate every law of political economy, in bringing forward a measure
    1976
    for the amelioration of the relations between landlord and tenant, and carry out their system to the fullest extreme; but the agitation by Irish labourers would not cease one jot or one iota unless their claims were attended, and they indeed required immediate attention, by Her Majesty's Government. There could be no subject more worthy of the attention of Her Majesty's Government than that which had been introduced to the notice of the House by the hon. Member for Louth.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is expedient and necessary that measures should be taken in the present session of Parliament to improve the condition of agricultural labourers' habitations in Ireland,"—(Mr. Callan,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. A. MOOREremarked, that it was very refreshing to see the noble Lord the late Postmaster General in his place on that occasion. The position of the Tory Party in reference to the Irish question reminded him of the old lines—
    "When the devil was sick, the devil a monk would be;
    When the devil got well, the devil a monk was he."
    If the Tory Party returned to power, they would do nothing on behalf of the Irish labourer. He (Mr. A. Moore) was sure they were all indebted to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) for the very great care and study he had brought to bear upon this subject. There was no doubt that this was the moment to strike. They were now engaged in conferring great rights upon certain classes in Ireland—the farming classes—and this was the time to also deal with the condition of the Irish agricultural labourers. He would not dilate upon their condition, as that had already been sufficiently done by the hon. Member who had just spoken. He had only to say that nothing could be more deplorable than their condition, not only in the West of Ireland, but in the more prosperous districts. They lived in wretched cabins, without a foot of ground attached to them, and they paid extravagan rents for their dwellings. Numbers

    1977
    them only received about 6s. a-week; and he had lately come across a servant of a local politician in Ireland—who was probably engaged in denouncing landlords—who only received 3s. a-week and two meals a-day of sour milk and potatoes from his patriotic master. He denied that the labourers had approved the land agitation, for their indignation at the consequences which that agitation had brought upon them knew no bounds. They were starving. [Cheers.] Hon. Members might cheer that observation; but he was not going to join them in their Quixotic attempt to oppose the Bill which the Government had brought in at the express desire of the whole nation. He earnestly desired the amelioration of the Irish labourers; but he did not wish to leave them at the disposal of the Land League. He was of opinion that the Commission established by the Bill ought to have enlarged powers so as to deal with these labourers. If the tenant farmers were made secure in their holdings, without provision being made for the labourers, the latter would be placed at the mercy of the former. He questioned whether it would not be wise to put a stop to conacre by Act of Parliament, because there was not the slightest doubt that the poor labourer taking a quarter of land at the rate of £16 an acre, and expending his labour upon it, paid for his potatoes twice as much as he could get them for at the nearest town. The effect of such a prohibition would be to induce the farmers to grow an abundance of food supply. They could not hope to deal practically with the labourers' question unless they revised the Poor Law. There was no question that the Poor Law in Ireland was in a very unsatisfactory condition. In England, if a man left his home his wife and children were enabled to receive relief from the rates; but it was not so in Ireland. That House was well aware that a large number of Irish labourers came to England annually to save the harvest, and during their absence their wives and children were absolutely at the mercy of the winds. Then, again, they had to meet the important question of electoral rating. They should alter the law with regard to electoral rating, because the present incidence of that law afforded a direct inducement to the clearance of large estates. Upon the whole, the law as it
    1978
    stood at present very largely affected the labourers' question, and before they could hope to obtain a satisfactory settlement of the question they should remove the differences which existed between the English and the Irish Poor Law. There was not a single one of those fine patriotic maxims they had heard at Land League meetings throughout Ireland that did not apply à fortiori to the Irish labourer. They had seen upon platforms and banners the motto—"The land for the tiller of the soil." The legitimate outcome of that was that the labourer was entitled to the first consideration. St. Paul had been quoted as laying down that the husbandman must first be partaker of the fruits, and if the maxim had any application to Ireland at all it applied to the Irish labourer. He trusted that the Government would not neglect the great opportunity now afforded them of dealing thoroughly and satisfactorily with this vital question.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he was a Member of that House for seven years, and he never rose with greater pleasure to support any Motion than he did at present to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Louth. He believed that in the civilized world there was no class of people in so miserable a condition as the labourers of Ireland. It was a well-known fact that in place of having homes, as they should have, throughout the country, and as they had previous to 1847, they were driven into the towns and forced to live in crowded and ill-ventilated lodging-houses. Frequently 10 or 12 persons were huddled together in a miserable apartment for which they paid a most exorbitant rent. That state of things caused a loss to the farmers as well as to the unfortunate labourers themselves, because, if they were scattered throughout the country on the different farms, a sympathy would exist between them and the farmers; they would be always on the spot to perform their work, and their families ready to enter into service. In most cases there was no sympathy existing at present between the farmers and labourers in Ireland, in consequence of their separation, and of the residence of the latter in the towns and villages instead of on the different farms throughout the country. He need not tell the House that in addition to the other evil results the forced residence of these poor

    1979
    labourers in the towns injured their health, caused great demoralization and detriment to society, and to the welfare of the country. That system was commenced on a large scale in 1847, and was carried out largely by the landlords, because the Union rating in Ireland induced them to rid their estates as much as they could of the population. After giving them some trifling sum of money they tumbled down their houses, and the poor people were obliged to take refuge in the towns. According to the old divisional rating, they were not charged to the place where they lived all their lives, but to the small towns to which they had come, and in which they had lived for 12 or 18 months. He thought there were many defects in the Land Bill, particularly that which excluded leasehold, and also that which restricted the repayment of the money advanced to too short a period; but of all the defects, and of all the shortcomings of the Land Bill, there was none which showed so much want of sympathy with the bulk of the Irish people as the omission of any proposal to settle the labourers' question. He might tell the Government that no matter how much the Land Bill might serve the farmers of Ireland, there never would be peace, happiness, or contentment in Ireland until the grievances of the labourers were redressed as well. There was another great consideration in the settlement of the labourers' question. If the farmers had the labourers on their farms, they would be able to perform much more work than they did. At present, to his own knowledge, farmers had to walk three or four miles in the morning to employ labourers, and when they remembered that these men had to walk out two or three miles before they commenced work, and to walk back the same distance in the evening, it was quite impossible that they could perform a proper day's labour. During the winter he attended 15 or 16 public meetings throughout the counties of Limerick and Cork, and there was not a single meeting lie attended at which resolutions were not passed urging a settlement of the labourers' question. He just happened to have with him a resolution passed at the Shanagolden land meeting in December, and it was in the following terms:—
    "That the labouring classes have as good a right to live by the land as the farmers and
    1980
    landlords, and that no settlement of the Land Question will bring either peace or satisfaction to Ireland until the labourers are placed as firmly on the soil as the farmers."
    That was only one of hundreds of similar resolutions passed throughout the country. In the Report of the Devon Commission of 1845, he found that special attention was called to the miserable and disgraceful condition of the labourers; but, though nearly 40 years had elapsed since, he regretted to say that no steps had been taken by any of the various Governments to remedy the grievance. He knew the question was a very difficult one to deal with; but he would throw out a suggestion which might be made the basis of some settlement. He would make it compulsory that upon every farm valued at £50 per annum or upwards there should be one labourer's cottage. He mentioned £50, because he considered that any man holding a farm worth £50 per annum must require at least one labourer every day. Whether they made the landlord or the farmer, or both, jointly build the cottage, he thought that no farm valued at such a sum should be without it. Then, for every farm valued at £100 and upwards, he would suggest that there should be two cottages, and so on in proportion. He proposed that there should be attached to each cottage half a statute acre of land, which should be given to the labourer occupying it at the same rate as that paid by the tenant, or, if the tenant was owner, at the Government valuation. He proposed that the rent of the cottage should not exceed a sum of 5 per cent per annum on the capital sum which it cost to build the cottage. If such a plan were adopted it would diffuse new life into many parts of the country. In his own district, and in the midland grazing counties, whole tracts of land afforded employment only to a few herdsmen, and he believed that pernicious mode of dealing with the land was adopted because it was the easiest way for making money. But he maintained that if the fine lands of Limerick and Tipperary were devoted to ordinary agricultural purposes, it would pay the owners far better, it would give employment to the people, and it would bring peace and prosperity to the country. He trusted the House would not allow the Land Bill to pass without dealing with this question, because it was a fearful

    1981
    thing to contemplate that 500,000 or 600,000 persons were left in a condition more wretched and miserable than any class on the face of the earth.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I do not think there is any difference of opinion about the condition of the agricultural labourer in Ireland. It is very bad. Still, notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) has stated, I maintain it is not so bad as it was 25 years ago. It was then very bad indeed. I think it is the opinion of every Member of the House that what can be done should be done. The hon. Member for Louth thinks it would be an unpleasant task for me to have to do something to benefit the agricultural labourers of Ireland. If that were so, I should be an exception to every Member in the House, for I believe there can be no more pleasant task than to do everything for the Irish labourer that can be done. But this is not a very easy matter to deal with. The tenure of land will require amendment, and I hope that by an alteration of the law in that respect the position of the tenant will be greatly improved. The position of the labourer after all is very much owing to the smallness of his earnings. If the position of the tenant were improved, the labourer would get better employment. But there is another matter which has been discussed and which holds out rather more hope, and that is legislation with regard to labourers' dwellings. I am very careful about what I say, because I know the position of these poor people, and I do not wish to hold out hopes to them which may not be justified. Therefore, hon. Members must not do injustice to the Government because of my reticence, for if I do not speak as much as they expected, it is not to be imagined that we are not desirous to do what we can in the matter; but we must be guided by possibilities. The hon. Member for Louth has given me and the House some information with regard to the Land Act of 1870 which is very useful. I have looked at the Land Bill of 1870 as brought into the House of Commons, and I find there was a clause in it which was to this effect—that, as regards disturbance, the tenant should not lose the right to compensation on account of sub-letting, if that sub-letting provided a dwelling for a labourer. I
    1982
    cannot understand why that was struck out in the House of Lords, and the fact that such a proposal was made in 1870 proves that it is not intended to overlook the case of the labourers. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, if he were present, would agree with me in that. I understood my right hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Villiers-Stuart) to say that he intended to raise the question also. I do not mean to say that we care so little about the matter that we intend to leave it to private Members to devise schemes; but it would be a help to us to see Amendments of that kind on the Notice Paper. We cannot do more than express our great anxiety to do what can be done both as regards labourers' dwellings and as regards allotments. I believe that allotments are of the greatest possible advantage; they have been found to be so in England, and no doubt it would be the same in Ireland; though how to arrive at allotments by law I do not exactly see. It is true that the Land Bill is a very difficult and complicated question, and it is undesirable that it should be overweighted more than can be helped. On the other hand, I admit that we ought not to allow the Land Bill to pass without provisions properly germane to it, if we can rightly insert them. More than that I can hardly say. My hon. Friend the Member for Clonmel (Mr. A. Moore) has alluded to the question of the Poor Law. I fear it is impossible for us to deal with that question this year. I confess I have not been personally as strong an advocate of outdoor relief as many other persons; but, after all, there is a very strong argument for it, and apparently a very great feeling in Ireland in favour of out-door relief. Then, with regard to Union rating, I see a great reason why we should have Union rating. That matter would, however, come more under the Local Government Department; and if it could be brought on this year we should be glad to do it. The indisposition of my right hon Friend is, I hope, slight; but the House will feel that in his absence I cannot pledge the Government as to the time of action, nor pledge him, as he has charge of the Land Bill, to Amendments. But I may say this much, that we shall look most carefully to the Land Bill itself and to what was proposed in the Land Act of 1870, as well as to the

    1983
    suggestions that have been made and the information that we have obtained, and we shall see whether we can propose anything ourselves in the Bill. In any case, we shall thoroughly consider Amendments which may be suggested. I think it may be expedient to pledge the House to the proposition that measures should be taken to improve the condition of the dwellings of agricultural labourers in Ireland, if the hon. Member for Louth would consent to leave out of his Resolution the words "in the present Session of Parliament." But I could not, in the absence of my right hon. Friend, pledge myself more positively.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that, after the very candid and satisfactory answer he had received from the right hon. Gentleman and the explanation he had given of the reason why he proposed that the words "in the present Session of Parliament" should be struck out of the Resolution, he would not insist on retaining those words. As he had obtained substantially the end for which he had laboured, he felt himself fully justified in accepting the very fair proposition which the right hon. Gentleman had made; and he hoped that, although the Government was not pledged to bring forward the question this Session, it yet might be dealt with this Session, or, at all events, at the very first opportunity next year.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question proposed,
    "That the words 'in the opinion of this House, it is expedient and necessary that measures should be taken in the present session of Parliament to improve the condition of agricultural labourers' habitations in Ireland,' be there added."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "in the present Session of Parliament."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR. GIVANwas exceedingly glad that the discussion, which had been so ably conducted by the hon. Member for Louth, had resulted in a termination which he thought they should consider exceedingly creditable to the Chief Secretary. But, suppose the words "in
    1984
    the present Session, &c." were left out, and that the Land Bill was passed in its present shape, the land would be tied up in the hands of the tenants for 15 years, and there would be no power to take any land for the labourers. Then, if the Government refused to insert the provisions proposed respecting the lease holders, the leaseholders, even if they wished it, would not have power to give land for the accommodation of labourers, because in most of the cases they were absolutely prevented by the terms of their leases from erecting labourers' dwellings. He felt very strongly on this question, because although residing in the North of Ireland, where the labourer was perhaps in a better condition than in the South or West, yet he knew from experience that even in the North of Ireland the labourers were in a most deplorable condition, having dwellings that were unfit for human habitation. He would, therefore, strongly suggest that some provision should be introduced into the present Land Bill to improve their condition. If the tenants were permitted to borrow money independently of the landlords, upon exceedingly low terms, to enable them to erect labourers' cottages, the expense of which the labourers themselves would be able to pay by a very, very small rent, he believed the farmers would be willing to take the money, and would themselves co-operate with the labourers in improving their condition. For these reasons he would suggest that, instead of putting off the matter till another Session, something should be done immediately, and that they should deal with the whole question during this Session.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTexpressed the satisfaction with which he had heard his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster) state that this matter would receive at no very distant period the attention of the Government. He had hoped, however, that so pressing a subject might have been dealt with effectually in the present Session; and he earnestly trusted that it would be taken up by Her Majesty's Ministers at the earliest possible moment, and he suggested that if the words "in the present Session of Parliament" were to be omitted, there should be substituted for them "at the earliest possible moment." As to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who had

    1985
    been depreciated by hon. Members below the Gangway. No man who had carefully watched the career of his right hon. Friend could deny that he had deserved well of his country for the efforts he was making to elevate the state of Ireland. He should probably not have an opportunity of giving expression to his views on the Land Bill; but there was one part of that measure to which he wished to refer.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot on this Motion discuss the Land Bill.
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, as it was really so difficult to get an opportunity of speaking in that House, he thought he might take that opportunity of saying something about the Bill. As to the Irish labourers, there was no doubt that their condition was a disgrace not only to the civilization of England, but to that of Europe. It was the bounden duty of the Government to take the question of the Irish labourer into its serious consideration at the earliest possible moment. Our French neighbours expressed their astonishment that we so wealthy, and, as they themselves acknowledged, so liberal a nation, who had generously given £20,000,000 to emancipate our West India slaves, could not, in the day of her distress, contribute a few millions out of our superabundance to raise the prostrate and suffering condition of Ireland. It must be recollected that that country laboured under immense disadvantages. In England was the principal centre of expenditure, and the seat of Government with its necessary cost and outlay. What was the difference between the English and the Irish labourers? It was not that England had such a good soil or good climate, but it was because the Government, with its Dockyards, its arsenals, and its public works, opened out a field of employment to the English labourer which the Irish labourer did not possess. Let them consider the case of this unfortunate class, and let them act in a manner worthy of themselves and of the great country to which they belonged.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not see why some attempt should not be made in the Land Bill to improve the condition of the labourers, although he did not suppose they could do much by direct legislation as regarded the labourers themselves. The fundamental reason
    1986
    why the condition of the labourers in Ireland and England was so bad was because it was quite impossible for them to become owners of land. The labourer had, practically speaking, under the territorial system in England and Ireland, nothing but the workhouse before him, and if he worked hard and made a little money he had nothing in which he could invest it. If he could hope that, as the result of his labour, he could obtain a piece of land, an incentive would be held out to the labourer which was not now in existence. If, therefore, the Land Bill was capable of being made to work to bring about a large number of small occupiers of land in Ireland, he would have thought the ultimate result of that Bill would be a great blessing to the Irish labourer. But, in the meanwhile, there was something which they could do for the labourer by direct legislation, and which, he submitted, the Irish labourer was entitled to. The Irish labourer was entitled to be placed, at all events, in an independent position as regarded his house and a small bit of land for growing vegetables and other food for his family. There was no reason why they could not provide for this matter in the Land Bill. If they gave the Commission power to buy land for the purpose of allotting it in small portions among the labourers, and to help in the building of little houses on the land, which the labourers could build themselves, under the system described by Professor Baldwin before the Royal Agricultural Commission—if they did this they would place the labourer in an independent position as regarded entering into contracts for labour with the farmer. As far as any immediate benefit by legislation, that was the only thing that appeared to him to hold out any hope of doing good. The labourers would also require to be in an independent position as regarded their houses, that the houses should be waterproof and tolerably habitable, and they should also be in an independent position as regarded a little bit of land for growing food for themselves and their families—say from half to three-quarters of an acre. They would then be independent of the farmers and landlords, and neither the farmers nor the landlords had shown in the past they deserved to have the future of the labourers under their con-

    1987
    trol. Before he left home in Ireland to come to that House he had a visit from a labourer, who said to him—"The farmers are the worst men in the world as regards the labourers. They will grind them down and do nothing for them, and make them exist on starvation wages." He would suggest to the Government, if they wanted to prevent the uprising of another agitation in Ireland such as the present, to consider whether they could not give power to their Commissioner to buy land in suitable localities and allocate it in small portions to the labourers of the country. It would not be necessary to interfere with the tenant right of tenants. There was plenty of land from which the tenants bad been cleared, and where the tenant right had been appropriated by the landlords, and he submitted it would be fair that the labourers should have some chance of getting an allotment of this land. In that way they would avoid any contact between the tenant farmers and the labourers; and the labourers would be placed in the independent position which was so necessary for their welfare.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Sir, I must make an observation or two after the speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). It has always been one of the misfortunes of discussions of this nature that hitherto no plan has been laid before the House which appeared practical, or, being practical, was likely to answer the purpose. Now, the hon. Gentleman has suggested a plan which is the only original scheme I have heard of; and I think the way he put it before the House was in itself sufficient to condemn it, because, if I understand him aright, the Commission to be appointed under the Land Bill is to be allowed to purchase or possess itself of plots of land here and there throughout the country—it may be any particular farm in a neighbourhood, or the junction of two or three farms—and build as many cottages as are wanted for the labourers of that immediate locality, and each house shall have its half-acre or acre—I do not remember that the hon. Member was exact as to the amount—of land attached for the purpose of growing vegetables, which is like a little garden allotment. The hon. Member says that then the labourer would thus be independent of the farmer
    1988
    and the landowner. [Mr. PARNELL: So far as the allotment goes.] So far as the amount of food that he would grow on the plot of land which he had in his possession. Well, the House will see that this tends to bring back the condition of Ireland to that in which it was before the abolition of the
    40 s. freeholders. You now complain of the smallness of the holdings in the West. When a bad harvest comes the small farmers are in a state of suffering and ruin. If this plan were adopted, and you had another condition of things, which drove the small tenant of this allotment to endeavour to subsist upon his allotment rather than upon the wages which he might obtain from the neighbouring farmer, you would, it seems to me, have built up another state of things, another class, quite as bad as anything you already have in Ireland, and probably much worse. I am quite as anxious as anybody in this House for the improvement of the condition of the Irish labourers; but it is quite a mistake to suppose that the Irish labourer is the only labourer who is so badly off. The hon. Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot) says that the condition of the Irish labourer is a disgrace, not to this country alone, but in the eyes of Europe also. I believe that. I have seen labourers' cottages in the West of Scotland as bad as anything that can be found in Ireland. I recollect also that during the time we were endeavouring to carry the repeal of the Corn Laws it was proposed by the Council of the Anti Corn Law League that they should bring bodily a labourer's cottage from Wales and set it up in this City, and invite the people of London to come and see what sort of places the Welsh labourers' families lived in. I could tell some sorrowful and dreary stories of the state of things I have seen in Scotland. In Scotland labourers are not able to get plots of land. Ireland is far more favourable to the labourer than either England or Scotland in that particular, because in England and Scotland, as a rule, a labourer cannot obtain a piece of land for his own possession. He cannot even obtain a piece to rent, whereas in Ireland the farms are so small that a labourer who has saved a £10 note can compete for a farm, and in all probability obtain one. In England or Scotland it is 10 times

    1989
    more difficult for a labourer to obtain possession of a small farm than in Ireland. The fact is, there is no kind of conjuring by which you can improve the condition of the labourer except by stimulating the industry of the country. I would agree to any plan Irish Members may propose that would have oven a probability of being useful to the Irish labourers. Labourers' wages, as everyone knows, have greatly increased within the last 30 or 40 years. The Irish labourer at this moment is obtaining, when he works, three times—I am sure, at least, more than double the wages he had when I first went to Ireland, 30 years ago. In England there has been no alteration in the law, no new mode by which the labourers could have better cottages or plots of land, yet the labourers' wages in England have nearly doubled since that time. I saw a letter the other day—it is a matter that excites feelings which one cannot express now—the letter published I think since the death of Lord Beaconsfield was one which he had written to Mr. Heath, who sent him a book he had written on the condition of the agricultural labourers, a book which I have the pleasure to possess myself, and Lord Beaconsfield said he thought that Mr. Heath took too much of a discouraging view of the condition of the labourers in the South and West of England, because in his own county of Buckingham wages in the time to which Mr. Heath referred had risen 40 percent. The increase, I believe, has been greater than that, for I know that in Buckinghamshire 30 years ago labourers received only 7s. or 8s. a-week. I do not know what they are now; but I know that not long ago they were at least double that figure. Now, what has caused that increase of wages? The increased stimulus which has been given to the industry of the country, and farm labourers have taken advantage of it as other labourers have done. What you want in Ireland is a stimulus of the same kind. How is it to come? Not, I presume, from cotton or other factories, because you have not got them, and there seems to be nobody in Ireland who is able or willing to turn to account the great resources of water-power in that country. At Galway 30 years ago I recollect I was shown a run of water from Lough Corrib which would have
    1990
    been of extraordinary value for manufacturing purposes. Why, then, has no manufacturing industry been carried on in Ireland, I should like to know? We hear a good deal in this House of the destruction of the woollen manufacture in Ireland by laws which came to an end 100 years ago. I should like to know why, during that 100 years, no attempt has been made to establish or to revive that industry? Go to the North, to the river which separates us from Scotland—the Tweed. I do not know how long the manufactures have been going on there; but you have Hawick, Galashiels, and some other towns, among the most prosperous towns in Great Britain. You see that from the condition of the people, from their cottages, and the good houses built round about where the manufacturers live. Last October, at the station at Hawick, a gentleman connected with the manufactures of the town to whom I spoke told me that trade there was satisfactory and good; and I believe there is no part of Great Britain in which for many years past there has been greater prosperity than on the banks of the Tweed. What is it they work on the banks of the Tweed? Wool. I do not know whether the wool is chiefly home-grown or imported. If it be imported, Ireland can import wool quite as well as England or Scotland. If it be home-grown, Ireland is not very far from Scotland, and Ireland itself grows a good deal of wool. I do not see why, if there was that spirit amongst the Irish people—I am not speaking of the poor labourer, but of the middle classes—why, in the name of common sense, is it that during the last 100 years there has not been a single manufacture of any importance established and sustained in Ireland? Why is nothing done with the water that runs from Lough Corrib into Galway harbour? If it were in America it would be used. If it were in Great Britain it would be used. Why is it not used in Ireland? It is no answer to say that the Land Laws in Ireland have been bad. Our Land Laws have been bad also. What has been done in England has been done in the teeth of our Land Laws, which have been as bad, and in some respects worse than yours. I think Irishmen ought to ask themselves why something is not done to utilize the vast stores of water and the many other advantages they

    1991
    have. I do not know of any disadvantage they have, except that they have not so good a supply of coals as we have. [Mr. DAWSON: Or capital.] Capital! Do you suppose that the people of Great Britain, who have invested scores, if not hundreds, of their capital all over the world and lost millions of it, would not invest it in Ireland if there was any disposition on the part of the Irish people to utilize it, and, at the same time, to convince them that it would be secure? I am only telling you what I have observed in Ireland. I recollect very well the first time I went to Ireland it was said that if a man had £100 a-year he thought it necessary to keep a jaunting car, and there was the least possible disposition on the part of the people for trade or industry. Wherever I went there was not a mother who did not expect her son to get into the Constabulary, the Customs, the Excise, or some other Government appointment. It was an old habit I suppose; but there seemed to be none of that anxiety to get into business and to succeed in business which is universal with the middle-class in Great Britain. I do not know how it is. It is not for me to find fault with the Irish people. They are, if anything, I think, rather cleverer than the English or the Scotch. They beat us in many things; but in their own country they do not appear to be interested very much in business. It is only fair to say, at the same time, that the Irish labourers who come to this country—and I suppose we have 1,000,000 of them—work pretty well. I recollect a gentleman, engaged in manufacture in Ireland, telling me not long ago that owing to the prevalence of, as he thought, unnecessary Saints' days, his firm lost £500 a-year from the idleness to which their machinery was condemned. That is a disadvantage which the Irish people, if they liked, could get rid of. [Mr. DAWSON: What about fast days?] I am glad that the hon. Member for the City of Cork has made the speech that he has, because he has approached the subject with a proposition which we can discuss and understand; but if hon. Members wish the Government to introduce some clauses affecting this question, I would recommend them to give them careful consideration, and try whether it is possible to put into two or three clauses
    1992
    some mode by which the condition of the labourers can be improved in Ireland. Hon. Members from Ireland have not said much about the labourers until lately. I do not know that they said anything until there was a meeting of labourers somewhere in the South of Ireland complaining that the Land League was not doing much for them. Now, if I understood the hon. Gentleman aright, he seemed to think that the worst friends of the labourers were the farmers. According to his theory, the landowners are the great oppressors of the tenants, and the tenants are the oppressors of the labourers. I suppose that the labourers have nobody below them, or they would be oppressors to somebody else. Now, is there any possibility of approaching the condition of the labourers except through the tenant farmers? The farmers are the employers of the labourers, who, if there is no manufacturing industry in the country, must work on the land; and if the farmers are harsh, severe, and unjust, what is to be done? You ask, in what I should call the extreme extravagance of your views, that something should be taken from the landlord and conferred upon the tenant. Well, someone may say, Why should not something that belongs to the farmer be conferred on the labourer? The question, therefore, is one of extreme difficulty; but I think hon. Members who come to this House from Ireland—I will not say for the first time, but for the first time in great force—and speak on behalf of the Irish labourers, should be able to show some scheme by which the Government can aid the labourers. I should recommend the House, however, not to agree to any plan which would withdraw the labourer from employment to give him a patch of land which would be fit only to raise a few potatoes for his family, and which would consign him to a condition even worse than that in which he is at present. I admit frankly that in travelling through the South of Ireland many years ago, I saw scenes affecting enough to make any man weep; and as I look back now I can see some of the cottages, as they are called, but are no better than Indian wigwams, and which, in my opinion, are a disgrace to the country. I do not know whether this is the fault of the Government or not. We may, perhaps, divide the blame between

    1993
    the Government and the people; but if the Irish Members can suggest any plan which does not rob anybody else, any honest and practicable plan, by which the condition of the Irish labourer can be improved, depend upon it they will find none more anxious than Her Majesty's Government, and no Member of that Government more anxious than myself, to aid them in promoting that object.
    MR. CRAIGsaid, the hon. Member for County Louth, in his speech, had described a state of things which was precisely similar to that with which he (Mr. Craig) was acquainted in the North of Northumberland 30 years ago. It was not at all unusual then for a whole family of 10 or 12 to live in one room, and often behind the box beds a cow had quarters in the same cottage house. That was the case both in the mining and in the agricultural districts. Such a state of things had happily given place to arrangements which were more conducive to the moral, intellectual, and physical health of the people. He had had a very long experience in the establishment of cottage homes for labourers in connection with large industrial establishments—at least extending over a period of upwards of 25 years—and the result of his experience was the conviction that there was nothing more conducive to morality, industry, and sobriety than good homes for the labouring population. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had objected to the views of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), who advocated independent cottages and gardens for the labourers, giving them an acre of ground or more, and a good cottage as an allotment. He (Mr. Craig) thought the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in his objection; because it would not be conducive to the general interests of the community to make the labourers independent of both the landlords and the farmers. The fruits of their labour ought to make them independent of everything, except the labour itself. He (Mr. Craig) found from experience in Staffordshire that those colliers who possessed their own house and a piece of land, although they were industrious and sober and thrifty, nevertheless absented themselves from their employment frequently, and occasionally at very inconvenient times. He thought also that one acre of land
    1994
    was too much for a labourer's garden. What he required was sufficient to occupy his time during leisure hours, and to afford him a beneficial pastime, which would be the case if he had a quarter of an acre, in connection with a good five-roomed cottage. He was, however, disappointed in hearing the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster describe the case as a difficult one, and say that there was not a probability of its being settled in connection with the Land Bill. His (Mr. Craig's) own opinion was that it was not so difficult, and it was certainly a matter which would not involve a very large amount of money, having regard to the enormous good which would be produced. The right hon. Gentleman said, in comparing Ireland with England, that there was a want of will and determination among the Irish which prevailed in England, and which was the cause, to a great extent, of England's superior prosperity. The fact was, however, that the will and determination did not exist owing to the demoralized condition of the people, in consequence of the deplorable homes in which they were compelled to live. It was one of those cases where the assistance of a superior power was required, and it was incumbent upon the State to give a start—at least, to set an example—to the erection of superior dwellings. Now, he could state as a fact—because he had built many hundreds of cottages—that in their manufacturing districts a five-roomed house could be erected for £120. He did not think it would take half that amount in many districts in Ireland; but even supposing it took the whole of that sum, they could erect 50,000 cottages of five rooms each for the total amount of £6,000,000, and that would be sufficient to accommodate 500,000 people with homes which would be sufficient for health of both body and mind. Let the Government, therefore, put a clause into the Bill, making it compulsory upon tenants who purchased their own holdings, under the clause of the Bill, to borrow, in addition to that required for the payment of the price of the holding, a sum of money on the same conditions, to establish, under proper inspection, good five-roomed cottages for the labourers who cultivated the land. And let the Government also offer, upon easy

    1995
    terms, the amount necessary to build cottages upon holdings where the present relation of landlord and tenant continued to exist. This amount of £6,000,000, in his opinion, would bring about a state of things in Ireland which would result in greater intelligence among the people and a higher state of morality, which were the necessary causes of commercial prosperity. Re should not be surprised if the Government took this step and settled this important question in connection with the Laud Law (Ireland) Bill, to see a similar condition of prosperity introduced to Ireland to that which had prevailed in England during the last 40 years.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was sorry to find the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster speaking in the same anti-Irish spirit that evening as he had done 26 years ago, and taunting the Irish Members with never bringing forward any proposal of a practical nature. The right hon. Gentleman, too, he regretted to see, could not refrain from displaying somewhat of a sectarian feeling against the religious observances of the Roman Catholics in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had a varnish of religious toleration, but real toleration was far from his heart and from his lips; and now a gratuitous sneer was wantonly flung at the Roman Catholics by "the illustrious friend of Ireland." At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman's sense of toleration was extremely delicate with regard to some people. He could make excuses for forms of belief, which need not be more particularly referred to in a Christian Assembly; but, dealing with the Catholics of Ireland, he did not hesitate to suggest that the progress of civilization might lead them to give up the holy days of their Church, forgetting, apparently, that more time was wasted by drunkenness and debauchery in other parts of the world than by strict adherence to the requirements of a religious creed. But these were some of the idiosyncrasies of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was not disposed to deal hardly with them. The right hon. Gentleman had once more displayed his utter ignorance of those rural questions upon which he was so fond of dilating. The right hon. Gentleman might, however, have recollected the work of Pro-
    1996
    fessor Kaye, which was full of statements illustrating the advantages of enabling labourers to secure possession of their homes and gardens. Speaking of Prussia, Professor Kaye stated that in 1858 there were 800,000 day labourers working for wages who owned small plots of land; and he also spoke of the French system, and that which existed in Norway. After alluding to the position of single labourers, Professor Kaye described the married labourers as living on the outskirts of the farm in cottages of their own, containing generally four rooms and glass windows. The leases were for their lives, and attached to each cottage was a piece of land capable of producing enough corn and potatoes to supply the wants of the occupant. Considering that men were in many parts of Europe in this comfortable position, it was indeed strange that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should have declared that the scheme of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was one which must be at once condemned by the House. The presence of the right hon. Gentleman in the Cabinet was anything but a guarantee that the Irish people would again know the blessing of prosperity while a British Government existed to blast their prospects. The action of England had strangled the national industries of Ireland; and yet the right hon. Gentleman dared to read the people of that country a lecture upon the absence among them of manufacturing industries! Having heard such language from a distinguished and eminent Liberal, he had, at any rate, the satisfaction of knowing that the great sham of Liberalism had that night exploded for ever. No longer would the Irish people be in danger of being turned away from its own attempts to free itself from the injustice of centuries by the pro-Irish sympathies of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The right hon. Gentleman had cast aside the mask, which it had not been difficult to see through in any case; and, for his part, he was glad of it. The proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork could easily be carried out by a National Government, though the execution of the plan might be beyond the intelligence and capacity, as it seemed certainly to be beyond the good will, of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The right hon

    1997
    Gentleman's confession of incapacity and ill-will would go to swell the number of the many existing proofs that the Imperial Parliament would never promote the welfare of the Irish people.
    MR. LITTONsaid, that when the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) charged the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with showing sectarian feeling in his speech, the hon. Member must have forgotten there was no Member in the House who himself indulged in "sectarian flings" so often as he did. The hon. Member who did not sit for Northampton could bear testimony to that fact, and the hon. Member for Dungarvan possessed a monopoly in that style of argument. The warmth and energy the hon. Member for Dungarvan had shown were misplaced. The question they were discussing was one of the greatest interest and importance, and it was one of eminent difficulty. He had failed to see any practical way whereby the condition of the labourer could be improved without inflicting an injustice on the very class of persons for whom a struggle was being made to free them from the incubus of excessive rents, and enable them to manage their own holdings uncontrolled and unfettered. If the proposal of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was carried out it should be necessary to enact that the labourers of Ireland should be put in possession of sufficient plots of land for comfort, and to this extent deprive the peasant proprietors of so much of their holding—against their will, and when they, perhaps, did not require labourers at all. If that was done by an Act of Parliament it would be regarded by the tenant farmers as the most oppressive Act that this or any Government could inflict. What would be said by the tenant farmers who were now seeking to be freed from the incubus of heavy rents if they found an Act of Parliament or a clause of an Act insisting that they should employ a labourer, whether they wanted him or not; and also be told that their dealings with the labourers were to be regulated by the Act. It appeared to him that this sympathy for the labourers was quite a new-born zeal on the part of the Land League. It was now the fashion to take up the cause of the labourer. But the labourers were never thought of until they had broken up a Land League meeting at Shana-
    1998
    garry in the county of Cork last autumn. The landlords had also made advances to the labourers, and it was but a day or two ago the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had given Notice of a Resolution on their behalf.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. LITTON,resuming, said, that the subject ought not to be made a stalking horse by either the Conservative or the Home Rule Party. It appeared to him that a practical remedy for the evils complained of had not been suggested; and he thought that they could not deal with them by the insertion of clauses in the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. In conclusion, he must enter his protest against the attempts made from the Benches opposite to lead the country to imagine that hon. Members on his side of the House were indifferent to the welfare and happiness of the Irish labourers.
    MR. SEXTONdesired to give a most direct contradiction to the statement that the interest felt by the Irish Members in Irish labourers arose from a new-born zeal. The question had been the subject of many speeches and resolutions at meetings held in Ireland; but it appeared to be obvious that the improvement of the condition of the labourers depended largely upon the previous improvement of the condition of the farmers, and that one would follow the other.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) had ineffectually attempted to defend the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster against the attack of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), which betrayed the vehemence of just anger. From either a religious or a political point of view the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was equally deserving of condemnation; and the Government must by this time regret that the discussion, so far as they were concerned, was not allowed to close with the speech of the Chief Secretary, who approached the question in a calm, practical spirit, and professed his desire

    1999
    to avail himself of any useful suggestion. The speech of his Colleague offered a most painful contrast, and was devoid of the humanity and the friendliness towards Ireland with which the right hon. Gentleman had always been credited. Why did the right hon. Gentleman go out of his way to sneer at the religion of the Irish nation? He spoke of the number of Saints' days observed in Ireland. Why, the wisest observers and soundest critics of modern civilization were of opinion that if holidays were increased it would be well for this country. No doubt, there were more religious holidays in Ireland than in England; and, perhaps, if the Irish people were less devoted to their religion—if they had less of the patience and hope which ranked so high among the Christian virtues—the English method of rule in Ireland, but for the influence of that religion, would have been treated by the people in such a way as even the intellect and the resources of the right hon. Gentleman would have found it difficult to contend against. The right hon. Gentleman had been eloquent on the subject of manu—factures; but he altogether ignored the fatal system of English legislation which in former days crushed out the manufactures of Ireland. Manufacture was a plant that did not grow in a single day. The interests of the English people in manufactures, as in every other regard, had been carefully cherished by the Legislature; but in Ireland an opposite course had been followed, and the life of Irish manufactures had been crushed out with such completeness as to render impossible any chance of their reviving. How could manufactures revive, and how could the necessary funds be applied, in a country where society was dislocated? In Ireland society consisted of two classes—the one embarrassed and needy, descendants of a race of spend-thrifts, seeking only to draw the last penny, were the miserable tillers of the soil. How could such a class find money for manufactures? They could not find money enough for their own miserable wants and extravagances. As to the other class, the poor tenant farmers, the fruit of.their labour went to the landlords. How, then, in this condition of society, could they expect manufacturing capitalists to spring into life? It was impossible, and the right hon. Gen-
    2000
    tleman, while he talked so eloquently of the growth of manufactures in England, and while he pandered to England's nationality and vanity, quoted only the primer history, and entirely ignored its philosophy. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had attempted to point out how the condition of the Irish labourer could be improved, and. he had no doubt that such a plan was well within the reach of human ingenuity. But if there were any defects in the plan, it did not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to emphasize them as he had done in his tart and severe speech of that evening. They were there as Representatives of the people, to explain the wants of the people, and to insist upon the direction in which remedy should proceed. The obligation did not lie upon them to prepare schemes of reform in the fulness of detail. It was enough for them to point out the particulars in which the Government had failed; and when the right hon. Gentleman criticized the scheme of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork, he felt entitled to reply to him that when the State appointed a Government, when the State selected the best ability at its disposal, and when the State offered large practical inducements to the men whom it took into its service, to employ their ability for the good and advantage of the people, it was for them, and not for private Members, to elaborate schemes of reform and progress. But it did not well become experienced statesmen to endeavour to give only the cold shoulder to such schemes of reform and progress as might be introduced by private Members. Therefore, he had heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with regret. He believed the unfortunate condition of Ireland with regard to the farmers, labourers, and in many other particulars, could be traced to causes bearing directly or indirectly upon the government of the country by England, and not to any cause that was prejudicial or disgraceful to the character of the Irish. people. He was extremely sorry that when the subject had been already wisely and patiently dealt with by one of his Colleagues (Mr. W. E. Forster), the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to interfere without improving the condition of the question, to injure his own

    2001
    character in Ireland, and to add to the discredit of a Government whose character was already irretrievably damaged. If he were to live for 50 years, and were at the end of that time to look for an example of the spirit of British Philistinism, he would refer to the speech of the right lion. Gentleman. It was a speech which was singularly marked by an unperceptive spirit—it was singularly deficient in the dramatic sympathy which should be one of the first attributes of a statesman, and it was singularly distinguished by the spirit of arrogance and self-sufficiency which was very frequently to be found displayed in the British character, and which, while, perhaps, it supplied the secret of the success of the English people in attending to their own interests, also suggested the explanation of the opinion with which English rule had been regarded since ever it began to have sway over Ireland.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDthought the hon. Member who had just spoken had somewhat misunderstood the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. [An hon. MEMBER: But you did not hear it all.] The Land Bill, as a great measure for the benefit of agriculture, must improve the condition of the labourers. The proposition of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was obviously open to the objection that it might import a large quantity of labour where it was not wanted. At the same time, he hoped conditions would arise under the Land Bill which would be taken advantage of for the benefit of the Irish labourer. Where large or small areas of land were reclaimed by the agency of Companies or under baronial guarantees, there was nothing to prevent the Land Commission entering into engagements for allotments to labourers. He reminded the hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was impossible to separate the welfare of the people of Ireland generally from the Bill of the Government. He had noticed lately that the value of shares in certain Irish banks had increased—which was probably duo to the introduction of the Land Bill, and might be held to prove that the greater security given to the property of the people of Ireland would naturally be followed by an increase in the value of capital in that country. With regard to the observations of his
    2002
    right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, they had been misrepresented. He understood his right hon. Friend to refer simply to a fact, but to draw no inference from it. If hon. Gentlemen opposite would set themselves, might he say, dutifully to support the Land Bill and to introduce Amendments, they would not only promote the welfare of the Irish farmers, but would bring a large amount of happiness to the labouring class, which had hitherto been greatly neglected.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, his opinion was that if they improved the social condition of things in Ireland each class would benefit of necessity the class below it. Therefore, without any fictitious bolstering up, when they improved the state of one class they would improve that of the other. Every attempt had been made to draw away the labourers from the side of the farmers in the present agitation; but, as the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had shown, the labourers had too much acumen to be led astray. They saw that if the number of employers was increased the demand for labour would be also increased, and the labourers would be able to make their own terms. It appeared from evidence taken by the Devon Commission that at that time there was a waste land society, which bought up half the side of a country, and settled upon it labourers who were before periodically in a state of famine, giving them 31 years' leases. The families so treated emerged from their poverty, and before half the term was over they had a smiling in place of a barren land. If, therefore, they were to plant Ireland again, he must protest against its being planted by Englishmen, or any others than Irishmen, who were both willing and able to work. Indeed, the cause of the labourers, whether English or Irish, ought to appeal to their hearts. The English labourer was not a bit better off than the Irish labourer. Mr. G. F. Heath had written a book in which he told us that the honeysuckled cottages of the English labourers were but whited sepulchres. It could be seen, too, from the correspondence in The Times and other papers, that the labouring population of England was in a fearful state. Coming now to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham

    2003
    (Mr. John Bright), whom Irishmen had looked upon as a friend, upon what grounds had he thrown in the face of Ireland that it had no capital and no manufactures? Was not that like the robber upbraiding the man he had robbed? Then the right hon. Gentleman, in his reference to Saints' days, had made another most unfortunate remark—a remark which lie was compelled to describe as of the lowest and most unworthy character. He protested against such sneers at the holy days of the Church, and preferred days consecrated by religious customs to holidays appointed by Act of Parliament. For himself, if the inconvenience of solemn days was to be discussed, he might observe, as an Irish trader, that the fast days in Scotland occasionally delayed his mercantile transactions. However, he would, refrain from criticisms on such matters, and only hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would regret his suggestion that the nine days observed as holy in Ireland were a hindrance to the prosperity of the country. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman exhibited in a striking manner his utter want of knowledge and sympathy in dealing with the Irish people.
    MR. SHAWsaid, when he had left the House a couple of hours ago, he thought the discussion was about to come to an amicable conclusion; but, on entering again, he found that it had taken rather an unpleasant turn. He could gather from hon. Gentlemen opposite that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had said something that Irish Members seemed to have a right to complain of. Well, he must say that if he had done so it was the first time during his long political life that he had ever said anything in reference to Ireland that had not been for the benefit of Ireland. He always felt that when a friend of long standing, of venerable years, whose sympathies and feelings he know to be good, said anything severe, it was wrong to lose one's temper over it; but that one should take it home and think over it. He believed it came from the fact of a man speaking during the dinner hour, when the House was empty. He might, perhaps, be allowed to say one or two words as to the employment of labourers in Ireland, and as to the conditions under which he
    2004
    carried on his industry there. Something had been said about Saints' days and holidays. He could not tell exactly the number of Saints' days and. holidays, he was sorry to say—[Mr. SEXTON: Nine altogether in the year.] At all events, he could say that they had a very largo number in their employment, 99 per cent of whom were Catholics, and he believed they never lost an hour on ordinary working days owing to their absence on those holidays. They had in the City of Cork a Prelate of great wisdom, and a clergy of great experience and great piety, and they had come to them and told. them that they knew very well the immense loss that would be caused to their business establishment by a cessation of work on those days, and they had special services in their churches for the workers in their mill. The workers went there, and, as a matter of fact, they could do their business as well and as successfully in their mill as in any mill in Belfast, and they were as little interfered with by these Saints' days and holidays. As to the aptitude of the Irish people for manufactures, that was a very different question. Manufacturing aptitude, like other habits, became localized, and he believed the habit of industry must be born with a people. Unfortunately, industry had been interfered with, and he could speak with practical experience of the almost insuperable difficulty of starting a new industry in a country. He felt himself this Land Question would do an immense deal of good to the labourers of Ireland. But he believed it was only one of the means that they should look to for elevating the working classes. If they gave the tenant farmer a hold of his farm, enabled him to drain his land and make improvements, and let him feel that those improvements were his own, he believed that in two years they would not have a single able-bodied man in Ireland in want of employment. In the South and West of Ireland there was a great want of industrial establishments, and if they could only get these, employment would be found for thousands of persons, and they would be spared. the necessity of emigrating. If they could get some industrial manufactures and less oratory by slow degrees and by patience the very greatest good would. be done to the country. He had more

    2005
    respect for the man who laboured clay after day to plant some industry in Ireland than for all the eloquence and writings about the progress of the country. He knew of cases of extraordinary success attending men who had striven to establish some small industry in the South of Ireland. He knew of instances of working mechanics amassing small fortunes by patience, thrift, and sobriety. They required more industries, and if they could settle down they would very soon get them. As to the agricultural labourers, the experience of the Land Commission taught him there was nothing more disgraceful than the condition of three-fourths of these people. Their houses, pay, food, and prospects were wretched; their children were a burden to them, and soon as they got old enough for service they left home, and it was miserable to see the poor men, with hardly any prospect before them in their old age but the poor house. He believed they could, if not in this Bill, by another Bill, make it obligatory on country sanitary authorities to see that where labourers were employed they should be well housed. The people of the South of Ireland could engage in industrial occupations as well as the inhabitants of any part of the world; and if some rich persons would come over there and plant their industries—["No, no!"]—No! that was certainly an interruption he did not expect. He repeated, if some persons could be induced to come over to Ireland with their hundreds of thousands of pounds, and plant their industries in the country, they would find as good workers and as honest workers, and they would make as much money, as in any part of the Three Kingdoms. As to any people interfering with or injuring their capital, the investor would find his capital as safe in Cork as in Manchester.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he had risen to address the House more than two hours ago, when his remarks would have occupied only a very few minutes; but since the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the debate, which had been businesslike and conciliatory, had been less strictly confined to the question before the House. He would first make one or two observations on what had fallen from his bon. Friend the Member for
    2006
    County Cork (Mr. Shaw). His hon. Friend had referred to the great amount of effort which had been diverted from practical work to political questions. The feeling of every Irishman was that every talent and all the energy of thousands of Irishmen must be thrown into the work of bringing Ireland into competition with the other civilized countries of the world. Why was so much energy wasted in political struggles? Because this country, already overburdened with its own responsibilities, insisted upon managing the affairs of Ireland, with which it was not competent to deal. His hon. Friend had referred to the majority of the sanitary authorities exerting themselves on behalf of the poor in their dwellings. The fact was, the sanitary authorities did nothing. Beggars went from village to village, carrying often with them the germs of disease, which were scattered broadcast over the country, and the sanitary authorities did nothing to prevent it. The police, instead of preventing such things happening, were engaged in looking after imaginary political offenders. He would next refer to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which was an extremely offensive speech. In a calm discussion he had got up and had gone off into one of his general sermons upon the faults of the Irish character and the virtues of the English, sermons which were more easy to deliver than they were agreeable to listen to. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Saints' days in Ireland; he apparently did not know that there were only nine altogether, and that as the four Bank Holidays were scarcely observed at all there, this left only five days more of holidays in Ireland than there were in England. But he believed that in Lancashire, and particularly in Rochdale, a general cessation of manufacturing operations took place in Whit week. When the right hon. Gentleman attributed the holidays of the Irish people to their religion, it was simply because the bigotry in his nature must find some expression. Ever since he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had thought upon political subjects, he had conceived a great contempt for the views of the middle classes in England upon political questions, which were narrow and insular. The right hon. Gentleman was an extremely good representative of the

    2007
    middle classes. He had the highest respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and had carefully read his speeches; and in reading the speeches which he delivered 30 years ago with his recent ones, he found that the right hon. Gentleman's mind had not widened one inch. There was not a single new idea, and they too often expressed prejudices in which he had been brought up, instead of statesmanlike breadth of thought. It was too often the case that the right hon. Gentleman's words were the result of temper instead of the expression of the workings of his own clear intelligence. One of the most frequently-quoted passages from the right hon. Gentleman had once been his remark that "the Irish people were idle because they were Catholic, and were poor because they were idle." If, however, the Irish Representatives would only consent to represent English opinions and not Irish, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman would forget all the unkind things he had ever said about Ireland, and would give them what they did not desire, a patronizing benediction, which, no doubt, would make them all very happy. The right hon. Gentleman had asked how it was that there was no commerce in Ireland, while there was commerce in America, and also why English capital did not find its way into Ireland? He would answer the last question first. There was a mistaken idea abroad that capital was insecure in Ireland. Capital was certainly much safer invested in Ireland than in Turkey or in the South American Republics. Certainly property in Ireland was much safer from robbery than it was in England. It was thought, too, that public peace and security were not so well established in Ireland as in England. Such peace and security could never be established till the present system of government was altered root and branch, and the Irish were enabled to exercise self-government. And if commerce did not flourish in that country, whose fault was it in America the Irish were as successful in commerce as any people. The fault, therefore, lay with England. The mis-government of England had compelled the Irish to devote energies to political questions which could more profitably be directed to commercial pursuits. He could quote the right hon. Gentleman himself in sup-
    2008
    port of what he said; for the right hon. Gentleman had himself drawn a powerful contrast between the Irish in Ireland with the Irish in America, showing the energy and industry which they could display when a fair field was opened. He understood the proposal of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to be to advance money to Companies for the reclamation of waste lands; but that plan had been condemned by Professor Baldwin, who instanced the failure of the Galtee experiment.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member was travelling beyond the Question before the House.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was endeavouring to show the true way of benefiting the material condition of the labourers of Ireland, and he was going on to show that was by the reclamation of waste land. If they wanted waste land reclaimed, they must trust to labour for it, and not to capital. The proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had been misunderstood. What he would like would be that the Commission should have the power to buy up waste or semi-waste land, and that it should be given rent free for some years to a certain number of labourers. An important experiment of that kind had been made by Mr. Pitt Kennedy, who had charged 1s. per annum per acre to the labourers for the first year, adding 1s. per acre each year up to 21 years. They were now paying 14 s. per acre for the land, and it was flourishing and valuable. He believed that was the true solution of the difficulty for getting rid of the surplus agricultural population; but with regard to the other portions of the population, he was not prepared to make any suggestions.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENregretted that so much time should have been wasted by hon. Members from Ireland in attacking the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, instead of informing the House of their views upon the question of the agricultural labourer, whose hopes they had been instrumental in exciting. He rose, however, in order to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland not to postpone to another year, as had been suggested, the subject raised by this Motion. The expectations of the labourers of Ireland had been raised by the promises which

    2009
    had been made; and they would suffer bitter disappointment if they found that, after the part they had taken in the agitation in favour of the tenant farmers, they were told that nothing could be proposed at present for the benefit of the agricultural labourers. They were told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were to trust to economic laws! But that was because it was a difficult question that was to be faced. It would be amusing, were it not so sad, to observe how the labourers had been imposed upon by the members of the Land League—at every meeting an unmeaning resolution, embodying no statement of intended action, was passed sub silentio at the end of the proceedings, somewhat in the same manner as the toast of "The Press" was proposed, as a matter of form, at the tail end of public dinners; and now, after strong hopes had been excited, they were told by Gentlemen opposite that one thing only could be done at a time; that they should wait till the tenant question was settled before their case could be considered—a kind of "live horse, and you will get grass" sort of advice, as it occurred to him (Sir Patrick O'Brien). The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said that the landlord "sat" on the tenant, and the tenant performed the same operation on the agricultural labourers; but he made suggestions which required attention, although he thought the hon. Gentleman's plan would be somewhat inadequate. For his own part, he thought some plan might be devised for carrying out the capital suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Craig), as regards the building of cottages, and also of, in certain cases, granting small gardens to the labourer. Where so much was proposed to be done for the tenant, he could not object to making this small concession to the labourer who tilled his farm. Whatever was done for the labourers, at all events, would, he trusted, be done without delay. He would only add that although, no doubt, there were blots upon the Land Bill, it would confer great benefits upon the tenant farmers, and lie hoped the Prime Minister would not relinquish any of its provisions.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was sorry to say that the condition of the agricultural labourer in Ireland had been entirely overlooked in the legislation of that House; and would suggest,
    2010
    that in the improvement of the Poor Law, and the making it more in accordance with the system which prevailed in England, the most practical remedy for the recurrence of famine in the case of that class of the population was to be found. He should like to point out, he might add, to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the late Lord Mayo, in a debate on the milling trade in Ireland in 1851, showed that since the legislation of 1846, for which the right hon. Gentleman was mainly responsible, that trade had rapidly decreased. He was surprised, therefore, to hear the language with respect to the promotion of manufactures in Ireland in which the right hon. Gentleman had indulged. He did not know, he might add, any specific for all the ills of Ireland; but he might observe that they seemed to be somewhat analogous to those which prevailed in the Pontifical States before their emancipation.
    MR. LAINGsaid, that he had recently spent some time in the South-West of Ireland, and must state that the condition of the labouring classes there had impressed him with a feeling of most profound and intense pity. No words could exaggerate the lamentable and deplorable condition in which the great mass of the population existed. That part of the country contrasted strongly with the respectable and comfortable circumstances of the peasantry in the North-West of Sutherlandshire—a district that greatly resembled the South-West of Ireland in physical conformation. He must confess that he came away from Ireland with a much larger feeling of toleration towards the excesses of the Land League, and the gentleman who might go to excesses of agitation in that direction. He had met men in Ireland who were glad to dig in most difficult ground and to remove boulder stones for 1s. a-day. According to a reasonable calculation, the earnings of such men could not exceed 200 s. a-year. The things that were wanted for the labourers were constant employment and better wages. The Land Bill, he thought, would, in a measure, supply these wants. It would cause an increase in the demand for labour; and, consequently, more labourers would obtain employment, and their remuneration would be greater. If the condition of

    2011
    the stratum of society next above the labourer—namely, the farmer—were improved, there must, he maintained, be more demand for agricultural labour. But in over-populated districts no remedy would be effectual unless the demand for labour could be increased and the supply diminished. He must express his convictions. The best means of reducing the supply was by establishing a well-organized scheme of emigration, which would also be a boon to the female population. In America and elsewhere, girls could find employment without difficulty at remunerative wages, and their chances of matrimony were greater than at home. It seemed to him almost inhuman to interpose any obstacle in the way of emigration. At the same time, he was quite of opinion that it ought to be voluntary. He would conclude with one appeal to the Irish Members, and another to the Government. He appealed to the former to co-operate with the Liberal Party in facilitating the progress of the Irish Land Bill. There was far more sympathy with their cause on the Ministerial side of the House than the Irish Members had any idea of; and, therefore, he hoped that they would not throw any obstacles in the way of the Government by pursuing a policy of exasperation. He would also appeal to the Government, and ask them to throw a little more energy into their proceedings for the passing of the Bill. A good many days had already been wasted in skirmishing upon the second reading; and no little dissatisfaction was caused by the fact that measures of minor importance should be allowed to impede the progress of a Bill of so vital a character. He must also condemn the bringing on of the Motion, of which Notice had been given for next Monday. ["Question!"]
    MR. SPEAKERintimated to the hon. Member that he was not discussing the Question before the House.
    MR. LAINGsaid, he regretted having inadvertently trangressed the Rules, and begged to apologize.
    MR. LEWISdesired to call attention to the action of the Government in reference to the Resolution before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had stated on behalf of the Government that they were prepared to accept the Resolution, save as to that part of it which said that the subject should be
    2012
    dealt with during the present Session of Parliament. Well, he bad been in the House long enough to remember the objections which Members of Her Majesty's Government had taken to the passing of abstract Resolutions; and he thought nothing could be more improper than that they should bind themselves down to the acceptance and carrying out of the abstract Resolution before them. The fact should be borne in mind that the House had not yet had any statement on the part of the Government as to their entire policy with respect to the Land Question in Ireland. But the present Resolution was only a part of the Land Question, affecting, as it did, a large class of the agricultural population of Ireland, whose existence had been, so far as the Land Bill was concerned, totally ignored by the Government, and of whom, indeed, nothing had been heard until a certain great meeting had been held in their interest. Now, however, the new-born zeal of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway had, like an epidemic, spread to the Treasury Bench. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) sought to bind the House to a proposal as to the practical details or results of which neither the Government nor the House had had any explanation afforded to them. They were asked to assent to two propositions, the first of which was that it was matter of pressing necessity that facilities should be afforded for the erection of cottages and the providing of garden plots for agricultural labourers. At whose expense was that to be done? Had the Government the least idea how the proposal thus made, and to which they had assented, was to be carried out? Was the cost to come out of the property remaining to the landlord after the passing of the Land Bill, or was it to be borne out of the property of the landlord which was to be conferred upon the tenant under the proposed legislation? The second portion of the Resolution pledged the Government to take steps to improve the condition of the agricultural labourer, a duty which would very soon come home to roost. He could not help thinking that there had been a great deal of sound and a great deal of hollowness in the speeches which had been made upon this question. When, he asked, did this zeal on behalf of the Irish agricultural labourer begin? When the Land League

    2013
    agitation commenced nothing was heard of the agricultural labourer. The only questions raised were how injury could be inflicted upon the landlords, and how the tenants could become proprietors of the soil. But the labourer caught the prevailing spirit, thinking that if the farmer could possess himself of a portion of his landlord's property he might fairly try to become possessed of a slice of that which belonged to the farmer. Then the great meeting of which they had heard was held, and the Land League thought it prudent to take up the cause of the labourer. Her Majesty's Government, however, had no notion of the sort in their minds when they issued their Land Commission, or, if they had, why did it not form part of the scheme of the Commission or of their Bill? Were they to deal with this question of the Irish land piecemeal, and, if not, why had not the Government possessed the House of their entire policy? In his opinion, the Government did not know their own land policy. What was likely to be the effect of the present debate when it became known all over Ireland that the House of Commons had passed a Resolution that agricultural labourers were to have cottages built for them and allotments of land made to them? Was it right to give rise in the minds of an excitable people to hopes, which more or less must prove delusive, unless the Government were prepared to follow up the passing of the Resolution by the proposal of a practical measure to give it effect? The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), with an amount of complacency which, under the circumstances, was almost astounding, asked why rich English manufacturers did not set up manufactories in Ireland? His answer was that they were not so foolish to do so under the patronage and protection of a Liberal Government. They had had the painful experience of knowing that for months together life and property were at the mercy of men whose conduct appeared to be patronized for the time being by the Government, which allowed the reign of the law to be subdued and overridden by the reign of the mob. Everyone who knew Ireland knew that, save in a few counties in the North of Ireland, there was no protection for English capital in Ireland. They had heard from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) that "no
    2014
    public peace would there be in Ireland until the entire system of government was uprooted." What encouragement, then, he asked the hon. Member for the County of Cork, was there for the investment of English capital in Irish industries? A discussion like the present merely presented a false and delusive aspect of a great social question to a large portion of the ignorant population of Ireland. If the Government did not intend to give effect to the Resolution, they would only be adding another serious difficulty to the pacification of Ireland. While he thought it was advisable on the part of owners of land in Ireland to make great concessions in order to prevent their property entirely passing away from them, yet he hoped that, after their property was reduced, they were not to be called upon to build cottages for the labourers upon the farms of their tenants.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: There is one remark of the hon. Member with which I entirely concur. [Cries of "Spoken!"] I have not spoken on the present Motion. [Cries of "Chair!"]
    THE SPEAKER: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that, having already addressed the House, he cannot speak again on this question.
    MR. HEALYremarked, that the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had the usual port wine flavour. The hon. Member had endeavoured to answer the question of the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) as to the reason why English capitalists did not carry their capital to Ireland. He would ask why rich English solicitors endeavoured to obtain Parliamentary seats in Ireland for the purpose of vilifying the country from which they obtained some share of distinction? The condition of the Irish labourers was most deplorable. On the Devonshire estate they were paid only 8s. a-week, and he trusted the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India would duly read and digest the Resolution which was about to be acceded to by the House.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient and necessary that measures should be taken to improve the condition of agricultural labourers' habitations in Ireland,

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Resolved, That this House will immediately resolve itself in the Committee of Supply.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  AFFAIRS OF GREECE.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,in rising to call attention to the action of the Government in connection with the affairs of Greece, and to move—
  "That Her Majesty's Government, by their encouragement to the Greeks to mobilize their Army, by their injustice to Turkey, and by their refusal to publicly advise Greece to moderate her excessive demands, have alienated the Mussulman feeling of the East, have imposed overwhelming burdens upon the Greek Nation, and have tended to disturb the peace of Europe,"
  said: Sir, at the outset, I wish to protest against the character of the Papers on the Greek Question issued by the present Government. They are of a singularly meagre character, and from the end of January to April there is not a despatch of any kind whatever among them. This is without precedent. I also wish to protest against the manner in which the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replies to Questions addressed to him. His style and language is certainly more endurable than the vacillating and helpless answers of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, than the verbose, confusing, and incomprehensible replies of the Prime Minister, or than the turgid prolixity of the Postmaster General. The language is unobjectionable, but the matter is invariably inaccurate. My charge against the Government is briefly this—that by their unwarrantable encouragement to Greece, official and unofficial, they have raised hopes that could not be fulfilled, that they have been the means of involving that misguided State in tremendous military preparations and a crushing expenditure, and all to no purpose; that they have alienated Turkey by their unjust and unprovoked persecution; and that they have disturbed the whole East of Europe, and rendered a general war, if not imminent, at all events possible, and perhaps even probable. They have run this terrible risk out of sheer wantonness and without any
  2016
  necessity. They wished to reverse the policy of Lord Beaconsfield, and to discredit the action of the late Government; so they took up the cause of Greece as a stalking-horse, without reflection and without discretion, and they have ended by producing there, as everywhere else, general confusion. They have effectually got rid of old allies, and they have disgusted and acquired the hatred of the people whose cause they affected to espouse. For what is the fact about the negotiations between Greece and Turkey? That now in the month of May, 1881, they are pressing upon a reluctant Greek Ministry the very terms which might have been obtained from Turkey six months ago—yes, and 10 months ago—without cost or risk of war. They are now obliged to do what every sensible and impartial politician in Europe has been predicting for the last eight months they would have to do—urge upon Greece to moderate her demands and to be contented with the very generous offers of the Porte. Let hon. Members read the despatch of the Porte of October 3rd, in Blue Book No. 2, and see what Greece might then have had without trouble. How much has Greece gained by the delay? Advantages, if ally, not appreciable. What has she lost by the month after month of war-fever and expense? £6,000,000 at least of money, an amount as great for her scanty population as £250,000,000 would be for England; 80,000 men taken from their natural industries, and kept in enforced idleness while they are being drilled into combatant machines. Other Powers warned Greece and warned Her Majesty's Government, months ago, that the line suggested by the Berlin Conference could not be carried out. Yet the British Cabinet adhered to it with pernicious obstinacy through thick and thin, and refused to advise Greece to be moderate, until at last, brought face to face with the almost certainty of war, they have hurriedly beaten a retreat, reversed all their previous advice, and done what France did four or five months earlier. Why had not Her Majesty's Government followed the praiseworthy example of M. St. Hilaire, the French Foreign Minister, whose admirable Note to Greece of December 28, 1880, conveyed such sound warnings, and made such a profound impression upon Europe? Simply because they

  2017
  were so wedded to the monstrous off-spring of their injustice, the line of their ridiculous Conference of Berlin, that they could listen to neither reason nor justice. In August last the British Government formally withdrew the advice of the late Ministry against Greek mobilization. It was said that Great Britain was the last to take that most foolish and disastrous step; but what evidence could the hon. Baronet allege in support of this statement beyond the statement of M. Tricoupi, the Greek Minister? Even if it were so, to withdraw advice against mobilization was a most unfortunate step. For what did it mean? It was a practical incentive to war, and so it had acted. Governments do not say—"Arm and attack your enemy." That is too gross and outspoken a method for modern diplomacy. But when one Government says to another, "We no longer advise you not to mobilize your army," its practical effect is—"We do not object to your going to war;" and so the Greeks understood it. Even in so serious an act as this the British Government appear to have allowed themselves to get into some confusion, for they seem to have believed M. Tricoupi, that "mobilization meant the training of untrained men." At all events, from this moment the Greek Question assumed a new and menacing aspect, as such questions always do when inflammable material in the shape of large bodies of hostile and armed men are brought face to face. This encouragement of Greek mobilization was the chief blunder of the British Government. Now, at last, they were literally compelled to menace Greece with all sorts of penalties, unless she accepted about three-fifths of the Berlin line, after they had all along urged her to take nothing less than that line. Was it any wonder then that the feeling in Greece now should be, as one of her most ecstatic friends, the Correspondent of The Standard, had written on April 5th—
  "European diplomacy has worked Greece up to fever heat, and Greece refuses to swallow the palliatives Europe, for its own convenience, now proposes to administer?"
  What had the conduct of Her Majesty's Government cost the other party to this dispute, the long-suffering, reviled, much-abused people of Turkey? What preparations had they been compelled to make? What cost had their exhausted Treasury been put to in consequence of
  2018
  the inflammatory policy of the English Cabinet? It would be too much to expect the right hon. Gentleman to consider any sufferings of Turkey in this or any other matter; but when they wanted an Ally in Europe or in Asia, they would realize their folly. First, there was their boasted concert of Europe. This is a plausible phrase invented to satisfy those timid people who never had the courage to have a policy of their own. It originated in the attempts of the Liberal Party, in 1878, to suggest some counter policy to the manly and successful action of Lord Beaconsfield in checking the aggression of Russia. It has also been very useful to the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as a shield behind which to hide the policy, or want of policy, of the Government, and to avoid giving plain answers to inconvenient Questions. Any real "concert of Europe" could not exist at present, and never had existed. When the nations of Europe were all armed to the last man, watching each other with the utmost keenness and anxiety, and ready, as the past 25 years had shown, to take advantage of each other's weakness or perplexity for individual aggrandizement, what likelihood was there of any practical "concert" to accomplish any really important results? A perusal of the Blue Books would show that there never was any real concert, that independent action was being constantly taken, and, what was most curious, that the British Government had almost invariably been the principal obstacle in the way of "concert." Once, and once only, had there been something approaching to concerted action. The famous Naval Demonstration, that never dared to demonstrate, had united the Powers in a brief appearance of a common movement. Their only achievement was the conspicuous fiasco of Dulcigno. After six months of despatch-writing, 10 weeks of demonstration by 20 great ships and 135 enormous guns, some 8,000 Albanians were transferred from the rule of a Sovereign they preferred to that of a Prince they detested. That was, perhaps, the most signal instance of disproportion between the means adopted and the results achieved. But what was the truth about this flash in the pan of a "concert," which rendered its participators, and especially its originators, ridiculous from one end of the world to

  2019
  the other? Not that it was a means to an end, and that end the settlement of the Montenegrin Frontier, as it professed to be, but that it was an end in itself, or rather the means of keeping up the pretence of a concert which did not exist. This is made clear in a despatch of Sir Henry Elliot to Lord Granville, of November 5th, in which Baron Haymerle, the Austrain Minister, is reported to have said that the "Dulcigno Demonstration was only necessary for the maintenance of the concert." In other words, it was to gratify the caprice of the Prime Minister of England that Turkey could be bullied with impunity, and always yielded to force. The negotiations relative to the Dulcigno Demonstration showed long ago the hopelessness of the "concert." The process by which the appearance of union was established has been laid bare by the Austrain Red Book. First, Russia and England put their heads together and agreed to try to bring the rest of the Powers into their net. The British Cabinet, for the first time in history, played the dishonourable rôle of henchman to the cruel despotism of St. Petersburg. Then they got Italy with them, only too glad to air her spick-and-span men-of-war in such big company. The relations between the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and M. Gambetta secured the support of France, for moral coercion at all events; though, as the sequel showed, when it came to action, the French Government showed a most desperate reluctance to move. This very nearly upset the Demonstration at starting. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and Russia thus got two other Powers more or less with them, and so put Austria and Germany in a minority. What happened is worth particular notice. The British Cabinet declared itself prepared to go on with its demonstration with Russia and Italy alone, France being friendly, but not joining. Such a course would have been fatal to European peace. Russia would have, by hook or by crook, succeeded in doing what she so much wished—putting the torch to the magazine of mischief she had so carefully prepared throughout South-Eastern Europe. Italy was by no means averse, for she has always hoped, in a fresh scramble, to pick up some of those titbits which, to her bitter and unconcealed
  2020
  chagrin, did not fall to her lot at Berlin. Once start this conflagration, and Austria and Germany knew perfectly well it would never end without a struggle of nations such as Europe has, happily, not seen since the wars of the First Napoleon. So, not being able to prevent the follies of the British Cabinet, they joined in the Demonstration, to control and moderate it. That there never was any real concert is perfectly plain from the disclosures of the Austrian. Red Book, and from the tone of the whole German and Austrian Press right through the crisis. First of all, Austria distinctly refused to assent to the Fleets appearing off Dulcigno, or to armed ships' boats going up the Boyana river. These proposals might fairly have been construed by Turkey as acts of war. They were simply, as proposed by the British Cabinet, the most detestable of all modern artifices—unofficial warfare. In them the Prime Minister took another leaf out of the book of his favourite Russian instructors. Austria further limited the number of each Squadron to two ships; and both Austria and Germany made a distinct declaration that they would consent to no active measures, either to place the Montenegrins in Dulcigno, or to keep them there when once they were in occupation. Then followed the courageous refusal of Turkey, last October, to be bullied. The friendly intervention of the German Powers, assisted by France, was a Deus ex machinâ to the British Cabinet in the forlorn plight to which this open resistance of Turkey reduced them. There was no longer any question of demanding the immediate surrender of Dulcigno. The Turkish Government were to have unlimited time. They were not to be pressed in the least. And so it came about that even after the concession made by Turkey, owing to the separate action of two Powers, five or six weeks elapsed before the completion of the transfer. Let this be marked by those who are disposed to crow over the success of a coercion policy, that it was only after six months of diplomatic pressure, three months of actual demonstration, and volumes of Notes, remonstrances, and counter-pleas, that "the concert" of six Powers extracted from Turkey—what? Not a cession of territory to Greece, not reform in Armenia, not Constitutional Government, not a

  2021
  purified Administration at Constantinople—none of these things; but the surrender of a small Albanian village on the Adriatic, with a few thousand inhabitants, to the satellite and instrument of Russia! Then they made the Smyrna proposals, about which so little has been made known. Austria, Germany, and France absolutely refused to have anything to do with the monstrous piracy and robbery suggested. Russia was most anxious to go on with her promising game, which was to bring about a war with England on the wrong side, and so to destroy, in a single campaign, the fruits of three generations of English statesmanship. Then came, as I have said, the private and separate influence of Germany and Austria at Constantinople, supported by France in the interests of peace. There was no nonsense of "the concert" about it. It was simply friendly and diplomatic pressure, exerted in the old-fashioned and accustomed way, independent of the Triumvirate who were in favour of reckless coercion. If the Porte gave up Dulcigno unconditionally, the interceding Powers engaged to give up the Demonstration, and to allow ample time for the settlement of the Greek Question. These Greek Papers illustrated further proofs of absence of "concert." First, the proposal of England to extend the Demonstration to the case of Greece was promptly declined; and even the ingenious proposition that the squadrons "should arrange a place for call" was refused. In October, Austria, Germany, and France were urging Greece to be prudent, and to suspend her military operations. Lord Granville was in a state of the greatest surprise, almost of indignation. He hastily saw all the Ambassadors of Foreign States, and wished to know the exact tenour of the advice given to the Hellenic Government, and reminded Prince Bismarck and Baron Haymerle that they were pledged to the Berlin Conference. In a very humble - minded interview with General Menabrea on November 11th, Lord Granville denied that "the European Concert" was broken up, "although it was possible that it might at any moment terminate." All of the Powers, meanwhile, had given Greece sound advice. On November 3, Prince Bismarck sent Herr Radowitz as Special Envoy to Athens—
  2022
  "To explain to the Greek Government his views as to the necessity of abstaining from precipitate action."
  On November 8, Baron Haymerle in-sisted—
  "That the tension in which Europe had been kept should come to an end.….After the experience we had had of the resistance of Turkey to the most trifling territorial cession, he would deprecate insisting upon further sacrifices….What now was most required was breathing time, which would allow the excited feeling throughout the East to calm down."
  And the Austrian Envoy made strong representations to this effect at Athens. On November 8, Lord Lyons informs Lord Granville that M. St. Hilaire, the French Foreign Minister, had said to him—
  "That a Naval Demonstration would be wholly inadequate to the Greek case, and that the French Government could not consent to any such measure;"
  and, further on, that—
  "The Greeks were trying to force the hand of Europe by crossing the Frontier.….That the French Government had sent instructions to their Representative at Athens to urge the Greeks in the strongest terms to be patient and quiet."
  Italy also gave like advice on December 15th; and even Russia, who all through these Blue Books acted as the warm admirer of Gladstonian policy in the East, felt bound to warn Greece of her folly. M. de Giers hoped all the
  "Powers would impress on Greece the absolute necessity for prudence. Any rash step might promote a conflagration the limits of winch no man could foresee."
  All this was six months ago. Had England joined this concert of remonstrance, it would have been effectual. It is not surprising that the British Government was agitated at finding that the other Powers were making pacific remonstrances at Athens, when we read in a despatch of November 18, from Mr. Corbett, the British Minister at Athens, that—
  "In accordance with your Lordship's instructions, I have scrupulously abstained from giving the Greek Government any advice as to the employment of force by Greece to obtain possession of the Frontier recommended by the Conference of Berlin, though both M. Tricoupi and M. Coumoundouros were anxious to ascertain the views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject, and both showed a disposition to be guided by their advice."
  Here is the British Representative at Athens actually forbidden to give Greece

  2023
  the peaceful advice she almost craves, and which Greek Ministers "were anxious to be guided by." When, reluctantly, Lord Granville affected to concur in the general peacefulness, it was with this strange proviso—which altogether nullified the good intentions and neutralized the value of the efforts of the other Powers—that
  "Greece was to be placed in no worse position by such advice than she had held under the Conference of Berlin."
  This begged the whole question. The object of Germany, France, and Austria was to get the Hellenic Government to take less than was so foolishly there suggested for her. The Prime Minister's Cabinet, blindly wedded to their pet Conference and its scheme, held out to the last minute; and now, in May, 1881, are obliged ignominiously to recommend Greece with threats to accept three-fifths. Her Majesty's Government stated over and over again that they would not withdraw from what they called the decision—there really was no decision at all—of the Conference at Berlin. In a Note of last October, the Ottoman Government declared that it would evacuate Dulcigno only on the following conditions:—First, that the Naval Demonstration was not to be repeated; secondly, that Janina and Metzovo were excluded from the territory demanded for Greece; and, further, that the Porte should be assured that the Powers renounced definitely the application then and for the future of all forcible pressure on the Empire. That pressure has been renounced, and I do not think it will be again repeated. All these points have been since conceded by Her Majesty's Government and by the Powers. They might have been obtained with ease six months ago, but for the opposition of the British Government. Greece and Turkey would have been saved great expense, and Europe much alarm, and imminent danger of war. Then there was the arbitration proposal of the French Government in December last, a very sensible and promising plan for bringing both parties to refer their differences to the five Powers of Europe, and agree to be bound by their decision. This was immediately accepted by the other Powers. England alone held aloof. Three times had the French Minister in London to beg Lord Granville to join in the "Concert of
  2024
  Europe" on this subject. Week after week was Mr. Corbett left without instructions; and then, finally, when he was allowed to join the other Envoys in their advice, it was with the same reservation that nothing less than the Conference Frontier should be recommended. Lord Granville's first observation regarding the Arbitration proposal was "that there was not much likelihood of the Powers" agreeing to it. Then, when the remarkable Circular of M. St. Hilaire, of January 7th, to the European Governments was made known to the British Cabinet, Lord Granville sent a despatch all over Europe, and in it actually denounced the arguments of the French Government as "Turkish reasons," without at all answering them. M. St. Hilaire, the French Foreign Minister, very properly replied that, whether they were Turkish reasons or not, they were sound and valid, and he adhered to them. That was a sample of the fairness of Her Majesty's Government towards Turkey. Finally, when arbitration failed, owing to the obstinate refusal of the Greek Government, encouraged by the action of the British Government, to make any concessions, Lord Granville could not conceal his joy. He informed the French Minister, on being told that it had failed, that "they were not premature in abandoning the scheme." So much for the "Concert of Europe," and the part played by Her Majesty's Government in that notable farce. In the next four months, we have no information whatever afforded by Her Majesty's Government. There is the unique and unprecedented fact that between the early part of January, 1881, and the end of April, 1881, not a single Paper has been issued. The reason is not far to see. Doubtless the gradual increase of the peril, the warnings of the Powers, the obstinacy of Greece, the ruin and cost of the warlike preparations, the slow and painful process by which the Prime Minister of England and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the President of the Board of Trade were brought to acquiesce in the opinions expressed by the other Powers five months before and even longer, are too awkward and unpleasant reading for Her Majesty's Government to lay before Parliament. The suppression of 70 pages of the Austrian Red Book—to effect which Sir Henry Elliot had been sent post

  2025
  haste to Pesth—was not more necessary for the reputation of the British Cabinet than the silence of their new Blue Books. They would not confess the absolute failure of their Conference at Berlin. The first effort of the new Government was that as Lord Beaconsfield had held a Congress, so they must hold a Conference. It was to settle everything off-hand, and do that in a fortnight which the late Government had failed to do in as many years. All went smoothly enough at first. By intriguing with "Republican France and free Italy," the Prime Minister's Cabinet got an unusual majority for its boundary line. Austria and Germany opposed it, but did not long resist, feeling sure that their time would come, and that the ridiculous failure of the exorbitant demands of the British Government would soon be made manifest. Lord Granville's piteous despatch of April, 1881, is their practical confession of failure. Read between the lines, it is the last moan over the blighted off-spring of their hopes, the Berlin Conference, "the Concert of Europe," and the Naval Demonstration. "The Turkish reasons," so derided, have prevailed. The confession of failure is embodied in a despatch of April 6th from Lord Granville to Mr. Corbett—
  "The course of events have shown that these anticipations were of a sanguine character. The feeling of the Albanians created a difficulty which would in us be overlooked."
  This is a valuable concession, for it is the first time Her Majesty's Government have admitted that Mussulmans have any feelings at all, or that, having them, such feelings are entitled to the slightest respect; but this very Albanian resistance was what every impartial critic inside and outside of Parliament had been predicting for 12 months. The cruel fiasco of Dulcigno has aroused a spirit of indignation throughout Albania which has lately culminated in open rebellion and serious bloodshed. The Dulcigno Demonstration did not settle, it only aggravated, the Albanian difficulty. Again, the despatch goes—"The opposition of the Porte became more marked." Another important admission. Formerly, Turkish opposition counted for less than nothing. It only existed to give the British Premier a chance of bringing the Porte down on its marrow-bones by main force.
  2026
  "It soon became evident that all Europe was not prepared to insist on the line laid down at the Berlin Conference.…..This line could only be acquired under present circumstances to Greece as the result of a successful war against Turkey. This would be ruinous to Turkey, and scarcely less fatal to Greece. … Her Majesty's Government, though they would have preferred a line more nearly approaching that of the Conference, yet they feel it their duty to press upon Greece in the strongest manner the acceptance of the present arrangement."
  Precisely so. But why did they not make this discovery and press this advice four, six, or eight months before, when they might have saved their proêtegé untold troubles and expense. The indisposition of the Powers of Europe to go to extremities was perfectly evident in October, November, and December of last year. It is remarkable to notice how closely the arguments used by Lord Granville on April 6th, 1881, resemble those used by M. St. Hilaire in December, 1880, and January, 1881, which arguments the British Cabinet denounced as "Turkish reasons." The French Minister well retorted that they were all the same "sound reasons;" and so sound were they that they won the victory in the end. In this and a preceding Note of April 6th, there is an attempt made to show that the terms finally offered to Greece were "decided upon by the Powers," and given as "an award." The Collective Note, however, of the Ambassadors at the Porte, dated April 19th, disproves this. It says—
  "After a full examination, the Representatives of the Powers at Constantinople unanimously concluded that the last proposals of the Ottoman Delegates might supply the basis of a solution. ….. These conclusions are henceforward formerly substituted by the Powers for those of the Conference of Berlin."
  The truth being that the proposal of the Porte last January to re-open the negotiations by a Conference of the Ambassadors at Constantinople—and denied at the time by the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreigh Affairs for fear its admission should seem to throw a doubt on the infallibility and irrevocability of his favourite Berlin Conference—had been carried into effect, and, after long negotiations, the latest offer of Turkey had proved acceptable. Europe and England thus formally urged Greece to take two-fifths less than the Berlin Conference had suggested. The efforts of the British Foreign Office to

  2027
  substitute the words "award" and "decision" for those of "mediation" and "suggestions," and that with regard to both the Congress and Conference, are very amusing. In this respect they closely followed the example of the ingenious, but not ingenuous, Government of Greece, who always spoke and wrote of the conclusions of the two Assemblies as if they were "final awards." The Turkish Government, however, alive to its rights, and to the facts of the case, have never accepted these assumptions, and have always repudiated, quietly and with dignity, the attempt to get in the thin edge of the wedge of authoritative interference. The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his Friends were always trying to assume the right of perpetual interference. But no such power was conferred by the Treaty of Berlin. This was made perfectly evident by the masterly argument with which M. St. Hilaire exposed the fallacies of the Greek claims in his Circular Despatch of January 7th, and in his Letter of December 28th:—
  "In both Assemblies, that is, the Congress and Conference of Berlin, the Powers neither wished to be, nor were, anything but mediators; their intention was to facilitate negotiations between the interested parties; they had no wish to go and they had not gone beyond this. They had not, as the Greek Government assumed, a sentence to be executed, for they had no right to take by force that which had not been conceded by the legitimate proprietor. Europe could not dispose of Crete, of Epirus, and of Thessaly, because Europe does not possess them, It had simply counselled Greece and Turkey to arrange a rectification of frontiers, and she had indicated what seemed a practical line."
  Then, quoting Vattel, M. St. Hilaire says—
  "A mediator is not a judge. He is a conciliator. He must observe an exact impartiality. His vocation is to procure peace. This is exactly what the Conference of Berlin did, and as mediator it could not do more."
  He then proceeds to point out how
  "Greece has interpreted matters quite differently, and persisted in this erroneous interpretation."
  He adds—
  "Greece has not right on her side, and the aggression which she meditates is nothing but a gratuitous attack on the Law of Nations. She is not even menaced by Turkey, for the Porte only puts itself on the defensive against the attack which Greece announces."
  2028
  Further on, M. St. Hilaire, after warning Greece of the fatal consequences that will result from her folly, ruin to herself, and in all probability a general war, says—
  "The mediating Powers have never accorded to Greece the right to seize by open force the territories which have not been legitimately conceded to it. Nations must guard themselves no less than individuals against these egotistic illusions."
  In the Circular of January 7th, after quoting in detail the phraseology of the Congress and Conferences, M. St. Hilaire says of Protocol 13 of the Berlin Treaty, which offered mediation to facilitate negotiations—
  "Nothing is clearer than the different texts; their sense is not susceptible of the slightest equivocation. Europe never had any intention of regulating the property in territories which did not belong to it."
  Of the Conference he writes—
  "It had no title to change nor to modify any of the intentions and stipulations of the Congress. But in effect the Conference absolutely did nothing more than execute the benevolent mediation offered by the Congress."
  It suggested a
  "Fresh line on the advice of the International Commission, which might prove more acceptable to the two parties."
  And so and so forth. I recommend every Member of the Greek Committee—and particularly the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold)—to read these two despatches of the Foreign Minister, and to answer them if they can. Nor does M. St. Hilaire stand alone. Baron Haymerle, on November 4th, said that the Austrian Government—
  "Had never assumed the responsibility of acquiring for her the new frontier which had been laid down, not as a line to be enforced, butt as one upon which to mediate, and for the carrying out of which the Powers were as little pledged as to any of the other provisions of the Treaty of Berlin."
  In this view Prince Bismarck concurred. This large cession of what Lord Granville calls "very fertile territory" to Greece, so long offered by the Porte, and now at last accepted, is, in fact, an act of pure grace on the part of Turkey, and one for which, as made by a stronger to a weaker Power, without a war, and without any compensating advantage, Turkey deserves the gratitude of Europe, as made in the interests of public peace. The Under Secretary of State for

  2029
  Foreign Affairs is distinguished for the inaccuracy of his replies in this House. There is his famous statement as to the recall of General Skobeleff, introduced to point his arguments in a critical debate, which has been disproved. The hon. Gentleman made a speech at Chelsea in December last, every statement of which relative to this question was inaccurate. First, he said that the French proposed the Berlin Conference. A reference to these Papers will show that the British Government on May 4th, 1880, proposed an Identic Note to the Porte, and on May 11th proposed the Conference, before France had made any mention of it. It might be that France had over a year before, and to a different English Government, made some mention of a Conference; but there was no continuity in the proposal. This was an entirely fresh proposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Then there is the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the initiative properly belonged to France, and that she, rather than England, was responsible for what had happened owing to "the Concert" and the Demonstration. What was the opinion of the two French Foreign Ministers upon this extraordinary assumption? On August 4th, M. de Freycinet, in refusing to draw up the Collective Note to the Porte proposed by Great Britain, said—
  "With respect to the Greek Frontier Question he could not admit that the initiative remained with France. Her initiation entirely ceased from the period of the Berlin Conference."
  And M. St. Hilaire, on November 8th, in objecting to the continuance of the Naval Demonstration, writes—
  "A Naval Demonstration would be utterly inadequate in the Greek case, and the French Government could not consent to any means which could be construed as pledging them to use their naval forces for settling the question of the Greek Frontier."
  Yet, in spite of these emphatic declarations, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did not shrink from telling the English public that the chief responsibility rested with France, a sentiment which was re-echoed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone). It was true that Lord Granville himself, and through his agents abroad, made frantic efforts to get the French Government to assume the lead and the responsibility.
  2030
  Mr. Adams, the Chargé d'Affaires in Paris, after stating what an elaborate argument he had entered into to persuade M. de Freycinet to take the lead, says—
  "I then made a strong appeal to M. de Freycinet in favour of your Lordship's request, and I expressed the earnest hope that the French Government should draw up the collective rejoinder."
  Subsequent attempts to entrap the French Ministers proved equally unfortunate, and the Collective Note, which met with such an effectual rebuff from the Porte, was drawn in London. Then there are the repeated inaccuracies of the hon. Gentleman with regard to the proportions of the Christian and Mussulman populations in the district proposed to be ceded by the Berlin Conference. On one occasion he stated that only one-seventh were Mussulmans. As a matter of fact, at least three-sevenths of the total are Mussulmans, and of the remaining four-sevenths, by no means all are anxious for union with Greece. The assertion seemed to be made on the authority of Mr. Kirby Green, who was a sort of stalking-horse for the hon. Baronet.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEdenied that he had ever quoted Mr. Kirby Green as an authority. He had quoted others—Sir Lintorn Simmons and Captain Sale—but he had not quoted Mr. Green.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I will accept the statement; but the hon. Baronet, who has spent his political life in denouncing the civil and military servants of the Crown, has gone out of his way no less than three times to eulogize Mr. Kirby Green, and that is enough to make others suspicious. What personal acquaintance has Sir Lintorn Simmons with these countries? It is like the hon. Baronet's (Sir Charles W. Dilke's) famous statement that most of the people of Dulcigno were Christians, whereas there is hardly a Christian in that district. When challenged to give details as to the population of certain of the chief cities, the hon. Baronet had egregiously failed, alleging as his excuse that he had the details for the whole districts, but not for the principal towns. But that was clearly inconsistent, and showed the unreliability of all the hon. Gentleman's figures. If any estimates would be accurate, they might be expected to

  2031
  be those for the large centres of the population whose amounts could be readily ascertained and checked. The hon. Baronet was, however, too wise to give details. I can, however, help the hon. Baronet. Taking Larissa as one of the chief towns in which the hon. Baronet stated the Greek population is in a majority, I find a Return of Mr. Consul Longworth, which states that there are 9,000 Mussulmans, 4,000 Christians, and 5,000 Jews—figures which are totally opposed to the estimates of the Government. Again, the hon. Baronet found grave fault in his Chelsea speech with Lord Salisbury, for stating that the entente cordiale with Austria and Germany had been broken by the present Government, and that the paramount influence of Russia and of France had been substituted. This is a notorious fact. The Government of Lord Beaconsfield had, in order to secure the carrying out of the Treaty of Berlin, and to preserve the balance of power in Europe, and to check the aggression of Russia, formed an alliance with the only two stable Powers of Europe—the great German States of Central Europe. This was an effectual guarantee for the peace of Europe; for no counter combination could be strong enough to defy such an alliance. But no sooner had the present Government come into Power than, in their anxiety to overthrow everything done by their Predecessors, they at once set to work to make fresh alliances. The admiration of the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister for Russia, her Rulers, and everything connected with her despotism, is notorious. Then there are subsidiary preferences, such as that of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for an eminent French statesman. The hon. Baronet has, indeed, avowed his desire of carrying out a fresh policy in conjunction with what he calls "Free Italy and Republican France"—the old Republican tendencies of the hon. Gentleman once more asserting themselves even as a Minister of the Crown. The influence of Russia has been but too evident. The British Government wished to deal with the Greek Question first of all; but, in deference to the strong wishes of the Czar on behalf of his interesting protegé, the Prince of Montenegro, the least important clause of the Berlin Treaty had been put in the forefront, and
  2032
  the painful and absurd blunder of Dulcigno had been perpetrated. In the course of the Greek negotiations, the only Power that displays any cordiality towards the British Government was Russia. They have managed by their weakness and injustice to alienate "Republican France." "Free Italy," with much judgment, holds aloof from the complications their folly engendered. Russia alone is bursting over with affection. "She rejoices to accede to the British proposals." M. de Giers expresses "the warmest feelings of cordiality towards Her Majesty's Government." "The Russian Government are most anxious to do all in their power to act with the British Ministry;" and so forth. As to the changed feelings of Austria and Germany towards England, since the change of Government here, they are perfectly well-known. They are evident from the tone of the whole German which was enthusiastic in its admiration of Lord Beaconsfield, and which is as unanimous in its condemnation of his Successors. Nor is it in Germany alone such a feeling prevails. In East or West—in America, in Asia, as well as in Europe, a similar estimate of the two Ministries is expressed. It is clear from these Papers, that the statement of the hon. Baronet that the Government is on perfectly good terms with Germany and Austria, is not supported by any evidence. Austria and Germany have, in a manner which alarmed Lord Granville, taken the initiative in advising Greece to moderate her demands. There is not a cordial word from Austria or Germany to be found in the Blue Books. The poor opinion Prince Bismarck holds of the present Government is a matter of notoriety; that estimate has steadily got lower and lower as he knows more of their incapacity. He has made it the subject of his common talk. I challenge the hon. Baronet to show a single instance in which the Austrian or German Government have shown any feeling of cordiality towards Her Majesty's Government. I charge the Government with having needlessly alienated the Turkish nation and the whole Mussulman feeling of the East. Hon. Members opposite do not regret this much. What have they got in exchange, however, for "the 500,000 of Ottoman warriors, who fought without pay and without reward?" Do they expect the

  2033
  wily and commercial Greek, the savage and truculent Bulgarian, the soft-hearted Servian, the wild Montenegrin, to be their allies in the future? If so, they will be grievously disappointed. The British people have not now a single Ally on whom they can depend in the troubles of the future. The name of Gladstone is associated throughout the whole East with persecution of the Mahometan religion and people. The course of the Government with regard to the Berlin Treaty has not tended to dissipate previous impressions. Of all the unfulfilled clauses of the Berlin Treaty, they have fixed upon those only which are to the loss of Turkey, and have totally neglected those which are in her favour. The Danubian fortresses are still standing; Russo-Bulgarian gunboats are still on the Danube; no tribute has been paid to the Porte by the Vassal Principalities; the Balkan line is still unoccupied by Ottoman troops; the Mussulman population is still oppressed and kept out of the enjoyment of its property. The mischief of this injustice is not only felt in Turkey alone, but it is working throughout the whole East. Do not let the Government imagine that in these days of rapid communication all these facts are not known to the Mahometans of India. The policy of the Government is having an evil effect among the 60,000,000 of Mussulman subjects of the Queen, and that is not a matter lightly to be disregarded. The Greek people, also, are most indignant at having been so grievously misled. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is now as unpopular in Greece as he is in Ireland. The feeling among the Greeks is much what the feeling of the Danes was in 1864 after a similar betrayal by a Liberal Ministry. As to the claims of Greece, and the policy of the Government with regard to Greece, I ask on what grounds they are based? They are based on the pretended right of Nationality, and on the fact that the majority of the population of the district are said to be anxious to transfer their allegiance to the King of Greece. The principle of Nationality is often an extremely dangerous principle. It is one which has received much mischievous development of late years, and has largely supplanted an older and more important principle, the principle of liberty. It often proves to be not only injurious to the public
  2034
  peace, but subversive of liberty. I am disposed to ask what has Greece done to show herself worthy of the immense claims she is now making? How has she used her 60 years of freedom? Greece incurred a Debt 40 or 50 years ago; why has she not paid her Debt? Why do the Greeks abroad, though rolling in wealth, not contribute to the satisfaction of her honour by paying their country's liabilities? The Greek Governments are little to be relied upon. No Ministry exists in Greece more than six months, if it lasts so long. Greek politicians are all dishonest and corrupt. Only four good roads exist in the whole of Greece. The country has been drained to make a beautiful capital. I have sympathies with the Greek people, and should be glad to see them get a moderate accession of territory; but why should gross injustice be done to Turkey in order to satisfy the extreme demands of Greece? The only hope for the future of the Greeks is the preservation of the Ottoman Empire in Europe. If Turkey is destroyed, it will not be the Greek people who will succeed her; but it will be the more virile Sclavonian races. No policy could have been more disastrous to the Greek race than that of encouraging Russia. The events of 1876, 1877, 1878, have been fatal to the progress of Greece. Previous to their occurrence Greeks occupied the highest position in the Ottoman Empire, and their intellectual superiority would soon have given them dominant influence throughout the Empire. But that influence has been destroyed, and the Russians and the Bulgarians have persecuted the Greek people, and driven them out of the Balkan Provinces. The Blue Books of the last three years are full of the complaints of the Greeks against the Russians and the Bulgarians. The Greeks, with all their intellectual refinement and commercial ability, are deficient in the virile qualities found in the Turkish and even in the Bulgarian people. The Turkish peasantry are, perhaps, the finest peasantry in the world; no people are so courageous, honest, and truthful, and religious; but I am speaking of the people, and not of the Government. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India laughs at that statement. [The Marquess of HARTINGTON: I did not hear it.] It is to be regretted that

  2035
  the noble Marquess pays as little attention to important statements—[Laughter]—as he does to the speeches of his own Colleagues. I challenge anyone to controvert my statement as to the good qualities of the Turkish people, the possession of which is affirmed by all who have had dealings with them. If the Greeks succeed in annihilating the Ottoman Empire in the present struggle, I warn them that they will do away with the only people who can assist them in resisting Sclavonian aggression in the future. It is only by a cordial alliance with Turkey that the Greek people can hope to survive the dangerous and difficult position in which they now find themselves. I am afraid that I have detained the House much too long; and I thank it for the patient and attentive hearing I have received. I regret that I have not been able, owing to the late hour of the evening, to do justice to the Blue Books. I could make a very large number of quotations which would be exceedingly awkward hearing for Her Majesty's Government; but I will not abuse the indulgence of the House. The policy of Her Majesty's Government has been unfortunate and disturbing, not only in Greece, but in every quarter of the globe, has alienated our Allies, has not obtained for us a single friend, and has tended to disturb the balance of power in Europe. The Greek Minister has, in public speech in the Parliament at Athens, given evidence of the disturbing effect which the advent to power of the present Ministry has had—
  "The Party which came into power in England has publicly assumed obligations towards the English nation to work on behalf of the Greek Question. At once we set ourselves to work. …. We gave orders for war material, and we commenced then to negotiate a loan,"
  So it is throughout the whole world. In Central Asia, the hasty retreat from Cabul and the weakening of the garrison of Candahar encouraged Ayoub's march, and led to the terrible disaster of Maiwand. In South Africa, the Boers, incited to rebellion by the reckless harangues of Members of the present Ministry, broke out into rebellion, and inflicted painful reverses upon the British arms. A war conducted with discredit has been concluded with dishonour. Even at home the same warlike
  2036
  and injurious effects have been produced. Ireland has been allowed to arm, and that country has, by the weakness, and worse, of the Ministry, been converted from "a state of unusual peace and prosperity" into a "condition that is a shame and disgrace to England in the eyes of the civilized world." The whole of the East has been stirred into action. From Kurdistan to Albania armed men have sprung into existence like Deucalion's crop; and no one can foresee the end of the present complications. The policy of Her Majesty's Government has produced anarchy at home and disturbance abroad; and if European war has been averted, it is in no way due to their action, but to the moderating influence of Austria and Germany. I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Her Majesty's Government, by their encouragement to the Greeks to mobilise their army, by their injustice to Turkey, and by their refusal to publicly advise Greece to moderate her excessive demands, have alienated the Mussulman feeling of the East, have imposed overwhelming burdens upon the Greek Nation, and have tended to disturb the peace of Europe,"—(Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was much astonished when the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) originally gave Notice of his Amendment; but he was still more amazed when he found the hon. Gentleman intended to bring it forward that night, because the statements of the Amendment were, he was sorry to say, of a piece with the hon. Member's speech—that was to say, they were statements which most undoubtedly could not be borne out in fact. The speech of the hon. Member had been, indeed, very wide of the Amendment, because he not only discussed the transfer of Dulcigno, which was not mentioned in the Amendment, but he had alluded to the affairs of Central Asia, of the Transvaal, of Ireland, and other portions of the world. No one could obtain the slightest information as to the nature of his speech from the words

  2037
  placed upon the Paper. Neither was it possible for him to understand that the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) intended to devote a great part of his remarks to a speech which he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) made in Kensington in December last. The hon. Member did not inform him that he intended to refer to that speech; otherwise, he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would have refreshed his memory. He was the more astonished that the hon. Member should have brought forward that Amendment to-night, because, a few days ago, the country was addressed through the Press by the Leader of the Opposition in that House; and, although the right hon. Gentleman made a most elaborate and lengthy attack on the conduct of the Government, he refrained from saying a single word upon their conduct of foreign affairs. He rather gathered from the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which embraced not only Colonial, Home, and Irish, but other questions, that he did not omit foreign affairs from any desire to omit them, but because he found no criticism which he could justly apply to them.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he must beg the hon. Baronet's pardon. He (Captain Price) was present at the meeting, and the right hon. Baronet made the most distinct allusions to the affairs of South Africa.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Department he represented had no responsibility for South Africa. The hon. Member for Eye, in referring to the speech to which he had alluded, ascribed to him words which certainly he had never used. The hon. Member, speaking of what he said with respect to Germany and Austria and our relations with those Powers, told the House that we were entirely out of harmony with them and received no friendly assurances from them.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he disputed the accuracy of the hon. Baronet's representation of his remarks, and would like him to state what the words were which he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) had quoted from the hon. Baronet's speech. He had merely stated that there were no friendly assurances from the Powers contained in the Blue Books.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he was unable to write down all the
  2038
  hon. Member's words; but the words in which he undoubtedly misrepresented him were when he said that he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) desired to substitute an alliance with Italy and France for the general concord with the European Powers. The hon. Member had not given the reference, and he confessed that he was unable to follow him.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he had not referred to that particular speech. He could not state the exact date on which the words were used, but they were quoted by the correspondent of a Hungarian newspaper, and also appeared in all the English papers. The words of the hon. Baronet amounted to an announcement that the Government intended to pursue a policy "in accord with Free Italy and Republican France."
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, lie had never had any communication with the correspondent of a Hungarian newspaper, and had never seen anything purporting to be a report of anything of the kind. The hon. Member had forgotten the mode in which the last phase of the Greek Question had been approached. The present settlement of the Greek Question had, according to the opinion of all the Powers, been reached by an agreement at Berlin between Mr. Goschen and Prince Bismarck, which led to the united action of Germany and England. [Mr. ASHMEADBARTLETT: When?] That was when Mr. Goschen returned to Constantinople and visited Berlin in the course of his journey. In the closing words of his speech, the hon. Member had used very unjust and ungenerous language with regard to the Greeks—language that was out of harmony with that of the Leaders of the Conservative Party, and at variance with the declarations of several Members of the late Government, including the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the late President of the Board of Trade, the late Postmaster General, and the present Leader of the Opposition in that House. The statements of the hon. Member did not coincide with what those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had said. When the hon. Member had compared the conduct of Greece to that of a burglar or a footpad—[Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT dissented.] He had quoted the words of the hon.

  2039
  Gentleman, which he had taken down at the time.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTrose, amid loud cries of "Order!" and said, that the hon. Baronet was misrepresenting him. He, therefore, felt bound to correct him, and explain what it was he really had said. He had said that the arguments of those who defended the Greek claims on certain grounds were arguments that might have been used by burglars or footpads.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreplied, that those were arguments that had been used by the late Government, who had maintained that Greece deserved the consideration of her territorial claims on account of her conduct during the late war. The hon. Member had also spoken of Greece in a disparaging manner, on the ground that brigandage was still rife in that country; but the fact was that, on the contrary, Greece had earned credit for having purged herself of that curse. ["Oh, oh!"] At any rate, no case of brigandage had occurred in Greece during the political recollection of the hon. Member. Again, the arguments of the hon. Member as to the present position of Greece were at variance with the view taken by Baron Haymerle, the Minister of Austria, his favourite Power, whose language was wholly inconsistent with that of the hon. Member. Then, to pass on to another point. The hon. Member had, in more than one part of his speech, made merry over the statistics of the Foreign Office, while his own figures were far less trustworthy. He had spoken, for instance, of the massacre of 1,000,000 of innocent people in Bulgaria—a statement wholly contrary to fact, but on a par with the romantic character of many passages in his speech. He was sorry that his criticisms on the speech of the hon. Member were necessarily so discursive; but that was unavoidable, as the hon. Member had not kept to the terms of his Motion, but had delivered all the speeches that he ought to have made on the four occasions on which he had had Notices in the Order Book. It was to be borne in mind, however, that the hon. Member had not always been fortunate enough to find an opportunity of bringing on his Motion, and had, therefore, been compelled, during the hour in which he had given unmixed amusement to those who sat opposite him and pain to his
  2040
  own Friends, to compress all his speeches into one. Then the hon. Member told the House that the result of our policy would be the destruction of the Turkish Empire, and that the destruction of the Turkish Empire would be the annihilation of the Turkish race.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,interposing, remarked that he did not say it was their policy.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he took down the words at the time the hon. Member uttered them. The hon. Member shook his head when he told him that he had spoken at considerable length of the Dulcigno incident. The House was informed by the hon. Member that there was a ridiculous disproportion between the force displayed and the result achieved. In point of fact, however, the transfer had been successfully accomplished and carried into effect. And when the desired result had been achieved, we ought not to be too much disposed to talk about the disproportion of means to ends. The hon. Member had stated that many thousands of Albanians had been transferred from the Government which they preferred to the rule of a Government which they detested. There was no shadow of a foundation for that statement. Her Majesty's Government were officially informed that there was now no portion of the population of Dulcigno that had permanently left the town or the district in consequence of the transfer. The few families—under 20 in number—who left the town in order to avoid the transfer had now returned, and nothing could be more popular than the Montenegrin rule in the district of Dulcigno at the present time. Again, the hon. Gentleman told the House that the concert, of Europe had broken down, and that the result was obtained by Austria and Germany, and not by the other Powers. It was on record, however, that it was the proposal with regard to the Smyrna scheme that induced the Porte to consent to the Dulcigno proposition. The hon. Member's account of the transactions with regard to the Greek Frontier was as romantic as his account of the Dulcigno affair. In one portion of his speech the hon. Member attacked Her Majesty's Government for having promoted the concert of Europe, and in another for having destroyed it. In regard to the charge that Her

  2041
  Majesty's Government encouraged the Greeks to mobilize their Army and went beyond the other Powers in this direction, he must once more place the real facts before the House. Her Majesty's Government having been informed that the Greek Government intended to mobilize their forces, Mr. Corbett was instructed on the 7th of July last to inform the Greek Government that Her Majesty's Government considered such a step to be premature. On the 28th of July, as it appeared that all the other Powers except England had withdrawn their objections, Her Majesty's Government were unwilling to incur the responsibility of imposing their advice on the Greek Government, and they then ceased to press them any further to abstain from issuing the proclamation, if they thought it necessary to do so. The Greek Minister so informed the Greek Chamber on the 29th of July. The same statement was repeated to Mr. Corbett on the 30th of July and the 3rd of August. M. Tricoupi stated in the Greek Chamber on November 10, that—
  "All the Powers one after another ceased to represent to the Greek Government that they were opposed to the issue of the mobilization decree, and, last of all, England gave up its representation concerning the postponement of the mobilization."
  On January 1, 1881, Mr. Corbett was instructed to support the arbitration scheme, not only on the ground of the general objections of Her Majesty's Government to a war,
  "The necessity for which might be avoided by peaceable means, but on the particular risk and danger both of war and even of preparations for war in the present case."
  On February 17, 1881, Mr. Corbett told the Prime Minister, in reply to his statement that the King was advised to call out the Reserves at once, that the proceeding appeared very ill-timed, and pressed upon M. Coumoundouros the importance of explaining clearly to the country and to the Powers that the step contemplated was not meant as a menace against Turkey. M. Coumoundouros assured Mr. Corbett that explanations should be given in that sense, which was done. [Mr. ASHMEADBARTLETT: That is not published.] It would be published. So much for the statement that Her Majesty's Government pressed Greece to mobilize her forces. He thought, however, it would
  2042
  be impossible to convince the hon. Gentleman by any argument. It was not easy, perhaps, to keep up the concert of six European Powers; but when it was maintained its action was as valuable as it was difficult to secure. Her Majesty's Government had succeeded in saving Europe from war, both immediately and in the future. The hon. Member had taunted the Government with having failed in obtaining a sufficiently advanced frontier for Greece. At any rate, Her Majesty's Government had obtained a far better frontier for her than the hon. Member and those who thought with him would have done. They had secured for Greece 14–20ths of the population she sought to obtain, and the most fertile of the Provinces she had asked for. The hon. Member had raised the question of the accuracy of the Foreign Office statistics, and had been peculiarly severe upon Mr. Kirby Green; but it must be recollected that that gentleman had the confidence not only of the present Government, but of the late Government, and that he never had any connection whatever with the Greek Frontier Question. The figures on this subject, to which the hon. Member had objected, were supplied by the late Government. The hon. Member had also attacked Sir Lintorn Simmons, who certainly knew more on this subject than any other man in Europe. The hon. Member had taunted the Government with having brought about universal war, whereas, in fact, they had brought about universal peace. It was true that the area of freedom secured was less than the Government had expected to obtain; nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government had constantly been on the side of the greatest possible extension. They had prevented war, and had done so by means that he was satisfied did not deserve the censure of that House.
  MR. O'DONNELLcould not but regret that the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had marred the general effect of his speech by commenting upon the supposed ignorance of his adversary of that French language of which he intimated that he himself was such a proficient. On the whole, he (Mr. O'Donnell) considered it was at least open to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to suppose that the hon. Member for Eye was of opinion that a document in the French language, though quite open to the com-

  2043
  prehension of the Liberal Party of the House, might not be equally clear to the electors of the country, and, consequently, that where Blue Books in the French language professing to explain the general policy of the Government were put in circulation by them, there was a certain difficulty among true-born Britons in following that policy. He would admit that if they kept an eye on only one of the policies offered by Her Majesty's Government on Eastern Affairs, the explanation offered by the Under Secretary was cogent and convincing; but the fact was, that the Government had at least two policies with regard to Grecian matters. There was the official, above board, behind the Table, which was always observable in the able and convincing statements of the Under Secretary when Questions were put from that (the Conservative) side of the House; but, then, alongside of this policy on Grecian affairs was what he might call the Greek Committee policy. The Under Secretary, whose dexterity in dealing with foreign affairs he himself had had some reason to admire, doubtless had convinced the House that the Government never encouraged the Greeks to expect extensive concessions from Turkey, and had never encouraged the armament of Greece. Strictly speaking, in an official manner, this could be proved; but there was the awkward fact that, at this moment, the popular Press in Greece was complaining that the "Gladstone" policy had misled them—that, owing to that policy, as explained by such credited Representatives as Lord Rosebery, for instance, the Greeks had been led to mortgage their remaining resources, to plunge themselves in debt, and to call out all their male population, the result being that they only obtained about half that which Her Majesty's Government—if not officially, at least unofficially—gave them to understand they would secure by agitation. In the manipulation of diplomatic documents by the Government, everything had depended upon the position of a comma; but it was not by the position of a comma that the world at large would judge the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Eastern affairs. It so happened that the Greek Government believed that Her Majesty's Government were prepared at one time to back them up through thick and thin; and he strongly
  2044
  suspected that Her Majesty's Government would have done so, only for that inconvenient default of the French Government just in the nick of time. When Her Majesty's Government thought they were going to begin a crusade against the Turks, France said that not a shot should be fired by her in support of the belligerent policy of England. Undoubtedly, as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had said, there had been other declarations besides those of Lord Rosebery which had misled the Greeks. He did not refer to the utterances of that all-important Member of the Liberal Party, the Member for Salford, but there had been the speeches of the Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. No one who had read in the magazines statements as to the part the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) had taken in obtaining the success of the Liberal Party through his marvellous caucus organization could doubt that, when the President of the Board of Trade addressed the men of Birmingham, and assured them of what England was going to do for Greece, the Greeks who read his sentiments must have believed that one of the most important Members of the Liberal camp was giving them the pledge of Liberalism—and, of course, the Greeks were not supposed to be as fully acquainted as hon. Members were of the value of the pledges of Liberalism. Of course, it was not necessary to follow the discursive reply of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs too closely; but he might point out to him that it really was hardly an argument to lay before the House of Commons, even at this advanced hour of the night, to say that the people of Dulcigno were in favour of being transferred to Montenegro, because so very few of them had consented to be torn from the land of their birth and take up a settlement in some other part of the Ottoman Empire. If the Under Secretary was capable of that argument he might, with equal justice, argue that because the Irish population did not emigrate to America on masse, therefore, the policy the Government of that country represented was in the highest possible favour in Ireland. The hon. Member for Eye might not have been able to pin down Her Majesty's Government to official statements, espe-

  2045
  cially when it could be easily shown that even when official statements had been forthcoming, and when attempts had been made to pin then down to those statements, they had replied on another tack. The general belief in Europe was that Her Majesty's Government had directly encouraged the Greeks to expect more than they got; and that after promising mountains, Her Majesty's Government had been obliged to agree to a policy in which the Greeks had obtained only little more than mole-hills. It was said that England and Germany had taken the initiative—had gone hand-in-hand in arriving at a triumphant settlement. But there was more than one way in which two persons could take the initiative. For instance, there was this way—Prince Bismarck, seeing the difficulty Her Majesty's Government were in, put out his strong arm and tucked under it the Representative of British Foreign policy, and carried him in the way the German Chancellor was going. That might be described as "England and Germany taking the initiative;" but he was afraid that, beyond being an official explanation, the statement would not be of much value. With the few trifling exceptions that he had ventured to point out, he agreed, generally, with the explanations of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question is "That I do now leave the Chair." As many as are of that opinion say "Aye;" contrary, "No."
  MR. GORST: "No."
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the "Ayes" have it.
  MR. GORST: The "Noes" have it.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member who challenges the division wishes to keep me in the Chair.
  MR. GORST: I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to keep you in the Chair; but I submit that the Motion should not be allowed to be withdrawn.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. and learned Member desires a division on the Question, that is another matter. The Question is "That I do now leave the Chair."
  EARL PERCY: I should like to ask you, Sir, what position are we now in? As I understand it, the Motion of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) has been negatived, and the present Question before us is "That you do now leave the Chair."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS (MOTION FOR BILL).

  ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd May], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" for Committee on the Parliamentary Oaths (Motion for Bill).
  Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be further adjourned till Tuesday next, at Two of the clock."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he objected to the Motion. He, for one, at all events, had no wish that the Bill the Government had to introduce should not be, as soon as possible, in the hands of Members. He was anxious that not only the House but the country should be able to proceed to judgment on the Bill; therefore, it was not with the view of preventing the Government from making progress that he made the present objection, but it was because he altogether rejected the proposal for a Morning Sitting on a Tuesday early in May, without a much stronger reason being alleged by the Government than any which had yet been offered, or than he was able to imagine. It seemed to him that the Government had attempted this Session to reverse every tradition that had hitherto governed the House. They began the Session a month earlier than usual. No sooner had they begun it than an entirely new engine was devised for managing their debates. Before Easter the rights of private Members were entirely sacrificed—he admitted for a great public object—and they met after Easter on a most unusual day for the transaction of Business. And now the Government intended to add to this

  2047
  long list of innovations the innovation of taking a Morning Sitting as early as the 10th of May. He would like to know what the justification for this course was? The Government, they knew, intended to bring in a Bill. Was this Bill for the relief of any large class of Her Majesty's subjects? Was it to carry out any principle of reform? He was perfectly aware that in its provisions the Bill was general, that it dealt with a class in form and not with an individual. But he apprehended there was no man in the House who doubted for a moment that the whole object of the Bill was to deal with an individual and not with a class. The Bill was general in form, but it was particular in substance—it dealt with an individual as truly as a Bill of Attainder and a Bill of Indemnity did. Everyone knew that it was simply brought in to meet a difficulty which one single individual, by his own conduct, created. He had nothing more to put before the House; but he wanted to ask the Government this one question. Were they prepared to state that the measure they were laying before the House was one of great public importance—were they prepared to state that they were going to confer a benefit upon any large class of Her Majesty's subjects? If they were prepared to make these statements, the House would know exactly on what ground it was that Ministers wished to take away the rights of private Members who had Bills on the Paper for Tuesday, and to introduce a most dangerous innovation in Parliament. It was most important for them not to assent to any precedent rashly. If their debates were governed by precedents, next year, or the year after, the Government then in power might wish to trespass upon the rights of private Members, and might wish to bring forward some measure which a large section of the House might think of small importance. They might wish to have a Morning Sitting soon after Easter; and if the House assented to the Motion now made, a future Government would be able to refer to the precedent established this year and to say—"How can you refuse what you granted in 1881?" For these reasons, he hoped the House would refuse to pass the extraordinary Motion now made; and he begged to move as an Amendment that
  2048
  the words "Two of the clock" be omitted from the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "at Two of the clock."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'at Two of the clock' stand part of the Question."
  SIR JOHN HAYasked, whether this was not an opposed Motion, which, owing to the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, could not be taken, due Notice of the opposition having been given?
  MR. SPEAKER: This is an Order of the Day, and the House cannot do otherwise than postpone it. It is the duty of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill to state what he proposes to do with the Order of the Day—either to proceed with it at once, or to postpone it. I do not consider the Rule with regard to opposed Business applies in this case.
  MR. GORSTrose to another point of Order. He wished to ask whether it was open to any Member of the House to postpone an Order of the Day to a time which, in the ordinary course, the House would not be sitting? The House had never resolved that it would sit on Tuesday at 2 o'clock, and, according to the Standing Orders and Rules by which Business was conducted, the time of sitting on Tuesday was 4 o'clock. The House having made no other different Resolution, the time at which they might be expected to meet on Tuesday was therefore 4 o'clock. In illustration, he might ask whether it was competent for an hon. Member to propose the postponement of an Order of the Day until Sunday? If the House had already resolved to sit on Tuesday at 2 o'clock, he could understand the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to say that, according to the ordinary practice of the House, the House fixes the hour at which it will sit. If no particular hour is specified at which the House will meet on a given day, the House will sit at the usual time. It is competent for the House to fix any particular hour it thinks fit.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he should be the last person probably in the House, with the experience he had had of the difficulty of conducting the Business, to interpose any objection to the course proposed by the Go-

  2049
  vernment on this occasion except for one particular reason. The House ought to consider very carefully the question of the rights of private Members. Now, Tuesday next, in the ordinary course of things, would be devoted to the consideration of a question which affected a very large class of people in the country, whose interests had long been in abeyance, and whose case it was very anxiously expected would be brought under the notice of the House on Tuesday. He need hardly remind the House how difficult it was after a Sitting had been taken to get in the evening that attention directed to any particular subject which the subject might very properly deserve. The hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) had, on more than one occasion, obtained the first place for the consideration of the question of police superannuation throughout the country; and on two occasions already this Session, when he had so obtained the first place, he had been obliged to forego it for the convenience of the Government. And now, again, with fortune which was perhaps unequalled, he had obtained the first place for Tuesday next; and it did seem hard that a large class of people, whose case the hon. and gallant Gentleman hoped to bring before the House on Tuesday, should have, for the third time this Session, to submit, in consequence of the appeal of the Government, to a postponement of the consideration of their claims to a time which might never arise during the present Session. It was scarcely necessary to say how difficult it was for private Members to obtain opportunities for the discussion in this House of questions in which they were particularly interested; and it was hard if they were, at an early period like the present, to lose the opportunities they had gained after much labour and waiting. But it was doubly hard if they were required to sacrifice for the third time during a Session the opportunities so obtained. He did not like, from the experience he had gained in the House, to offer any opposition to the Motion of the Government; but he thought the House ought to consider that, in agreeing to the Motion, they would be dealing almost unfairly with a class of men who had long and anxiously been wishing for their grievance to be brought before the House, and who had at last obtained
  2050
  an opportunity, which, however, they seemed on the point of losing.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONgathered from the tone of the few speeches delivered that there would not be any reason for any very great difference of opinion between the two sides of the House upon this occasion. The hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had based his objection upon the importance of the Business which was already on the Paper for Tuesday next. He (the Marquess of Hartington) thought he was in the recollection of the House when he said that many most animated and important debates had taken place at an Evening Sitting. Of course, if the House agreed to the Motion which had been made by the Government to give a Morning Sitting to the consideration of the introduction of the Parliamentary Oaths Bill, the Government would feel bound to do whatever was in their power to make a House in the evening. It, moreover, seemed to him that if the subject to be discussed first thing on Tuesday was, as he had no doubt it was, of that importance to deserve attention, there would be, apart from any undertaking on the part of the Government, a sufficient attendance to insure its adequate consideration. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Courtney) informed him, though he did not wish to put it forward as a matter of much importance, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr must be under no apprehension that the subject of police superannuation would escape the attention of the Government; in fact, matters had proceeded so far that a Bill had been drafted by the Government authorities on the subject. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had said he was extremely anxious to see the measure of the Government brought in, and to see what the Government proposals were on the subject. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: No!] He understood the hon. Member to say he was anxious to see the Bill, but that he required very strong reasons to justify him in assenting to a departure from the ordinary practice of the House in taking a Morning Sitting at so early a period of the Session. The hon. Member need not be alarmed that they would establish any dangerous precedent if they agreed to the present Motion, for he was informed that in

  2051
  1879 the late Government asked for and obtained from the House a Morning Sitting on the 6th of May fur the purpose of considering a Valuation Bill, to which they attached so little importance that it was abandoned before the close of the Session. But the hon. Member wanted strong reasons to persuade him of the importance of the Bill, and he asked whether it was intended to relieve a very large class of persons? He (the Marquess of Hartington) thought there was very little difference of opinion that the Bill was one of a most important character, and that whether it affected a large class of persons or not, or whether it be for the relief of Mr. Bradlaugh, or a large number of Her Majesty's subjects, it was undoubtedly a Bill which was pressing, inasmuch as it would relieve the House itself. As was pointed out by the Attorney General the other night, the suggestion that this difficulty ought to be met, and could only be met by legislation, came last year from the Front Opposition Bench—from the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton. Cross). During the present Session the suggestion had been made on both sides of the House. The House had undoubtedly found itself in a very considerable difficulty. ["No, no!"] He did not blame the majority of the House; but it had, by passing a certain Resolution, placed the House in a position of considerable difficulty. The majority would make no definite proposal; but, after a great deal of unseemly discussion, a suggestion came from both sides of the House that the difficulty should be met, and ought to be met, by legislation. The Government were very far from saying the legislation they proposed was the proper remedy; but, at all events, it was the proposal they had to make to the House. The Government were anxious to lay before the House as soon as possible a proposal to meet the case; and surely it was a matter of importance that the House should be relieved from the position of difficulty and embarrassment in which it found itself. If ever there was a legitimate occasion for a Morning Sitting it was the present. For these reasons, he thought the House would be disposed to assent to the Motion.
  SIR ASSHETON CROSS: My right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) is unfortunately unable to be here to-night;
  2052
  but we have had some correspondence on this matter, and on his behalf and my own, and that of my Colleagues, I have to say that we undoubtedly object to a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. Whatever may have happened under peculiar circumstances in 1879—into which I will not enter at this moment—it is very well to quote one instance, but not without taking the surrounding circumstances which made it necessary at the moment into consideration. We object to a Morning Sitting at this early period of the Session under such extraordinary circumstances; but when we come to what the circumstances are, our opinion undoubtedly is that they make rather for not giving facilities than for giving facilities. The noble Lord has said that the House is agreed that there should be legislation, and has referred to something which fell from me in the early part of the discussion, to the effect that legislation was the only way of dealing with the subject. What I stated was, that for those persons who wished to introduce Mr. Bradlaugh into the House the only possible way was by legislation. I was perfectly convinced that he could neither affirm nor take the Oath; but it is one thing to say that, and another to give facilities for legislation; and I, for one, can only say that I have no wish to admit Mr. Bradlaugh into this House at all. Whatever the substance of the proposed Bill may be, I should feel bound to vote against it; and, under these circumstances, I—and my right hon. Friend who has asked me to speak to-night is of the same opinion—am of opinion that it is a question on which there is not the slightest reason, but rather the contrary, for giving facilities. The Bill should come forward in the ordinary course. It is objected to by a large number of persons in this House, and we can see no reason for giving facilities for bringing in a Bill to which we strongly object.
  MR. HEALYwished to draw a parallel between the way in which the Government had treated one hon. Member of that House, and the way in which they had treated another hon. Member. One hon. Member who, in the last Session, acted towards them in a way which was exceedingly servile, and who had stated that he did not believe in God, and was charged by some people with having blasphemed God, was, in order that he might obtain admission to the

  2053
  House, to get from the hands of the Government the extraordinary favour of a Morning Sitting all to himself. Another hon. Member, whose only offence was that he had saved hundreds of people from starvation, and had gone through America hat in hand begging for the starving people of his country, and had prevented families from being evicted; who had not blasphemed God, but who had blasphemed the Government in Ireland, had not been allowed a minute's time for the discussion of his arrest.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 128; Noes 122: Majority 6.—(Div. List, No. 195.)
  Main Question proposed.
  MR. RITCHIE,in rising to move the adjournment of the debate, said, he thought that after the division which had just taken place, and looking to the divided nature of the opinion of the House on the subject, as evidenced by the narrow majority the Government had obtained, such a departure from the ordinary mode of taking Business ought not to be insisted on. Therefore, in order to give the Government time for further reflection on their extraordinary position, he should conclude by moving the adjournment of the debate. The noble Lord had said that the object of the Bill was to get the House out of a position of great difficulty, in which its action the other day had placed it; but he considered that the House was placed in a position of difficulty, not by the action of the House, but by the non-action of the Government.
  MR. MONKrose to Order. The right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had, on a previous occasion, ruled that it was not necessary for the House to decide to what future day a debate should be adjourned, and that it was not competent to an hon. Member to move the adjournment of a debate. He (Mr. Monk) had, therefore, to ask, whether it was not necessary that the day for the resumption of the debate should now be fixed?
  MR. SPEAKER: The judgment of the House with regard to the time at which this debate should be resumed is about to be finally taken on the Question now proposed from the Chair. The hon. Member is not out of Order.
  MR. RITCHIE,continuing, said, the difficulty in which the House found it-
  2054
  self was owing to the want of action on the part of the Leader of the House in not seeing that the conclusion to which the House came was carried out. The House surely had power to see that its Resolutions were carried into effect without any alteration in the law; and he maintained that it was totally unnecessary that in order to carry out the Resolution of the House the Government should propose an alteration of the law, and to do that by the unusual course, at this time of the year, of a Morning Sitting. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) had told the House that the last Government had asked the House to sit in the morning in the beginning of May; but this year there was an altogether different state of circumstances, for the House met a month before the usual time, land until within the last week or two the Government had had control over every day of the Session. Now they proposed, by the method they asked the House to adopt, to still further curtail the rights of private Members, as there could not be any doubt that there was not that amount of energy and vigour shown when the House met at 9 o'clock in the evening as when it met in the ordinary way. He wished to warn the House as to what they were about to embark in. The question was not only one of a Morning Sitting, but it was one of carrying this Bill through by Morning Sittings. It was perfectly useless and idle for the Government to say that they only wanted a Morning Sitting to place the Bill in the hands of the House. The Leader of the House did not disguise the fact that the only method by which he hoped to carry the Bill was by Morning Sittings; and if the House consented to depart from the ordinary course and commenced Morning Sittings on Tuesday, the next thing the Government would propose would be to have Morning Sittings on Fridays and Tuesdays, and so coerce the House until this Bill was passed. The object of the Morning Sitting was to pass a Bill in which the country was not generally interested. It was to give admission to a Gentleman who had been elected, and had come before the House on two or three occasions proposing to enter the House in two or three different ways. It was immaterial to him in what way he entered, or what principles he sacrificed; but the House was asked to sacri-

  2055
  fice a great principle in order to admit him—to adopt a course involving matters of serious moment to the country in order to admit this man. If they were going to have Morning Sittings there were plenty of measures which the Government might deal with which were of much more importance that the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh. There was a question in which a much larger number of persons were interested, which they might bring forward. What had become of that Bill in which every inhabitant of the Metropolis was interested—the Metropolitan Water Supply Bill? Hon. Members who were in the last Parliament would remember distinctly that every Gentleman now sitting on the Treasury Bench constantly pressed the Government, in season and out of season, to take up that measure, looking at the importance of passing it into law. Yet it was now placed on one side and ignored. If the Government were to ask the House and private Members to sacrifice their time and meet at 2 o'clock in the day in the beginning of the month of May, it ought to be for the purpose of dealing with questions of great Imperial importance, and not such a question as the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh into Parliament. The Jews and the Roman Catholics were knocking at the door of that House for years before they were admitted; but the Government now came down in hot haste and asked for the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh against the wishes of an immense majority of the people of the country the moment he presented himself. Under all the circumstances, and in order to give the Government time for further reflection as to the extraordinary course they proposed to adopt, he would move that the debate be now adjourned.
  MR.R. N. FOWLERbegged to second the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie). He approved of the proposition of his hon. Friend, but upon somewhat different grounds from those which he had assigned. His hon. Friend made a strong point of the rights of private Members; but he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) wished to point out that the Government had a most important measure before the House—the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill—and if they asked for a Morning Sitting for the sake of proceeding with that important measure, which considerably affected the interests
  2056
  of the commercial community, probably no objection would have been raised. But what was it that Her Majesty's Government were asking a Morning Sitting for? The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) said he was anxious to see the Bill. He (Mr. R. N. Fowler) had no curiosity to see the Bill. He thought it had been sufficiently explained by the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General. There was no doubt whatever what the Bill was. It was a Bill to admit into that House an hon. Member who, by his own confession, was an Atheist; and as he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was opposed to the admission of an Atheist into that House, and as he intended, by every means in his power, to resist such an admission, he opposed the Bill of the Government, and seconded the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I wish to say a few words upon the matter. Nothing, I think, could be more unfortunate than for the House to get into a long wrangle upon this question; and I would therefore put it to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) whether, seeing the very even division that has just taken place, it would not be the wisest course, in order to avoid that which would be a great misfortune, to allow the debate to stand over until Monday, when it could be decided by a very different House? It must be adjourned until some time, and if adjourned now until Monday, there would be plenty of time to settle the question of the further adjournment. The wisest course, then, would be that this debate should now be adjourned, and I recommend that course for two reasons—in the first place, in order to give the Government time to consider whether, seeing the strong expression of opinion in the House against having a Morning Sitting for this purpose, it would not be wise to give it up; and, secondly, to give the House a fuller opportunity of considering the proposal which the Government has made.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) and the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler) have

  2057
  told us very plainly what their object is in objecting to the adjournment of the debate until 2 o'clock on Tuesday. I would therefore ask right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench to consider their position in the matter, because on Wednesday week, when I took the opportunity of stating at some length my opinion upon the question, and suggested a mode of extricating the House from the difficulty in which it is now placed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) appeared entirely to agree to the proposition I made that legislation on this subject should be resorted to. [Cries of "No!" from the Opposition.] As some proof of the accuracy of what I say, I beg to recall the recollection of the House, and especially that of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. R. N. Fowler), to what occurred, because the hon. Member got up afterwards and stated that although right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench might adopt the suggestion which I had made, they must make their account with certain other Members of the House who held different opinions. As the hon. Member (Mr. R. N. Fowler) lifted his hat when I referred to him, I have no doubt that he assents to the representation I have made.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. What I said was that whatever my right hon. Friends did I should oppose the Bill.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The hon. Member also said that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench must make their account with hon. Members on the Benches behind them. I recollect the words expressly.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER: I do not recollect having used that expression.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The hon. Member also said—and I do not wish to disguise it at all—that although he should not take any part in obstructing the Bill, he should feel it his duty in every division to vote against it. What I complain of, and what I say is extraordinary, is that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader on that side of the House, not being here to-night, should have commissioned his Colleague the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to make a statement which, in my opinion, is entirely at variance in spirit with the declaration made on the
  2058
  occasion to which I refer by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon. The House will remember the condition the House was in on that occasion. It was felt—I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon felt, and most men in this House felt—[An hon. MEMBER: No!]—I say, yes—that the House was in a very unpleasant position, and that it was most desirable we should extricate ourselves from it. When I put a question as to whether he objected to the admission into the House of the hon. Member for Northampton on the ground of his disbelief, or on account of the manner in which it was proposed to admit him, the right hon. Gentleman stated distinctly that it was because he objected to the profanation of the Oath. One hon. Member opposite got up and said I had been endeavouring to pin the right hon. Gentleman to that view. [Mr. WARTON: Yes!] I did not pin him to any view. I said that was my own view, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman felt it to be so sensible a view that he found himself bound to coincide with it. Her Majesty's Government now propose that there should be a Morning Sitting on the 10th of May, in order to discuss the introduction of the Bill which my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has already explained to the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that in regard to a measure of less importance than this, their own Government had a Morning Sitting on the 6th of May. All that we propose now is that we should take a few hours—from 2 to 7 o'clock—and that the House shall meet again in the ordinary way at 9 o'clock. Any other course would materially retard the progress of the most important Business that can possibly come before the House. ["No!"] I speak of the question we have before us in the Bill now standing for second reading in regard to the state of Ireland. I put it to every thoughtful man in the House if it is wise on the part of the House of Commons to allow that question to drag on from day to day—[Mr. HEALY: Declare urgency.]—or to oppose its uninterrupted progress by an accidental question like that which has now come before us? The Government have no interest in the question of altering the Oath. Some hon. Members have said this Bill is only for one man.

  2059
  Now, I undertake to say that when the House shall have passed the Bill brought in by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, there are scores of Members in this House who have hitherto taken the Oath, who will gladly avail themselves of its provisions to make an Affirmation in place of taking an Oath; and, on that account, we may fairly ask the House to allow us to pass the Bill. The feeling of the House has already been shown to be in favour of meeting at 2 o'clock on Tuesday. If the majority had been the other way, what would the House have thought if my noble Friend had got up and asked the House, because the numbers were so evenly balanced, to allow the Government to have their way? The House has determined by a majority what ought to be the course of proceeding. I therefore ask, not on account of Mr. Bradlaugh, but on account of the pressure of great and most momentous Business, that the House should facilitate and not interpose any obstacle in the way of the Government, whose labours during the Session have been exceptionally onerous, and who have been subjected to a pressure which they cannot throw off, which they must grapple with, and which they must bear. I trust that, under the circumstances, the House will agree to what has already been decided, and will agree upon adjourning the debate until 2 o'clock on Tuesday.
  VISCOUNT SANDON: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. John Bright) used strong words when he spoke of the great and momentous Business before the House. I think he underrates the feeling of hon. Members on this side of the House. He does not appreciate the fact that we consider this question of altering the Parliamentary Oath to be as great and momentous a question as can be brought before us. I appeal to the knowledge of hon. Gentlemen of what has happened on both sides of the House in regard to the question. What is the meaning of the division which has just taken place? The right hon. Gentleman is a Member of a Government which possess a very large majority. What, then, was the meaning of the absence of some 200 Members who usually support Her Majesty's Government? I say, with the right hon. Gentleman, that we feel this to be a great, a grave, and a momentous question.
  2060
  [Laughter."] It is a question that is not to be treated slightingly with laughter and jest. Surely our feelings are to be considered in a matter of this kind. The question is either a very small one—and nobody can suppose that it is a very small one—or it is one of the very gravest and of the very last importance. All we say on this occasion is that we do not want to interfere with the progress of Business; but we do say this—that we are determined that no extra importance shall be given to this question of the admission of the hon. Member for Northampton, by giving to it special and unusual facilities. We do not intend to oppose his admission in any undue way; but we conceive the question to be one of the gravest and most momentous which can be brought before us in regard to the constitution of the House; and we expect that every opportunity will be given to us for expressing our opinion upon it.
  MR. WARTONremarked, that he was extremely sorry for hon. Members who thought it right to indulge in laughter, because they evidently understood the importance of the question. He should be as ashamed of himself as he was of them if he were not prepared to treat the matter in the most serious light. He certainly regretted to see a Liberal Government bringing all its influence, just and unjust, and using arguments perverted and false, in order to induce the House to see in the question anything but a determination on the part of a Radical Government to foist an Atheist upon the House. It was a question upon which the spirit of the country was fairly aroused, and it was rapidly rising to a pitch of which those who sat on the Front Bench opposite were utterly ignorant. He held it to be his duty, superior to his action on any other question, to avail himself of every means that were possible to resist this wicked attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He called it a wicked attempt because the grossest perversion had been used. He was exceedingly sorry that the subject had been forced upon the attention of the House, and he regretted that the duty of opposing the proposition now made by the Government had been supported by such weak arguments. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) put it on the early period of the Session;

  2061
  the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), on the prejudicial interference it might have with the discussion of the question of police superannuation. No doubt, that question was of the utmost importance, and he sympathized with every word that had been said in regard to it; but when these grounds were assigned as the reason for objecting to the Government proposal they only formed an excuse for the ingenious perversion and misrepresentation which had been indulged in on the other side of the House, certainly by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as to what the real motives of those who opposed the Bill were. The right hon. Gentleman had done him (Mr. Warton) the honour to refer to him, because he was the Member who had charged the right hon. Gentleman, as he charged the right hon. Gentleman now, with having picked out one part of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) made, and misrepresenting it as the whole of the argument of his right hon. Friend. Let it now be known that the Radical Party—not the whole of them, because some voted against the Government, and others stayed away—let it be known that Her Majesty's Government and those who supported them were determined, rightly or wrongly, although there were important Bills before the House, such as the Land Law (Ireland) Bill and others, to bring Mr. Bradlaugh into that House, and that the Tory Party were determined to do all they could to prevent him from being admitted. Both the country and right hon. Gentlemen opposite now knew what his feeling was in the matter. All the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon said was that he objected to the profanation of the Oath. The Tory Party as a body objected to the profanation of the Oath, and they objected, also, to the admission of an Atheist into that House. The country must be made aware of that, and see that there was no further misunderstanding upon the matter.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that last year the House, acting on the Reports of two Committees, placed Her Majesty's Government in a minority upon the question relating to Mr. Bradlaugh. It would,
  2062
  therefore, do very wrong in allowing the independent expression of its opinions by its majority to be passed over by Her Majesty's Ministers. Either that House was an independent Assembly, or it was an abject following of the Government; and if it intended to retain the character which it had borne during the last 300 years, it would not submit to having its opinions slighted in any manner by Her Majesty's Ministers. The House now objected to having that which, by its majority, it had declared to be a great question taken at unfitting hours, and on undue occasions, at the instance of Her Majesty's Ministers; and he could assure hon. Members that the communications which both he and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench of the Opposition had received all proved that the feelings of the country would be outraged if this question were treated by the House with less gravity than the great majority of the English people attributed to it. He should vote against the exceptional appointment of a Morning Sitting, because he considered it indicated that Her Majesty's Government were at liberty to shuffle off this question. Perhaps they were conscious that, by their conduct, they had already violated the deepest feelings of the people. He was convinced Her Majesty's Government were making a great mistake. Throughout the whole of this business they had been wrong in law; they had obliged Mr. Bradlaugh to incur heavy penalties; and he supposed if they succeeded in altering the law for his convenience, the next Motion they proposed would be that Mr. Bradlaugh should be indemnified out of the public money for having broken the law at their suggestion.
  MR. HICKSpointed out that at that time of the year there was a number of Committees sitting upstairs. The Business under their consideration was of a kind that involved great expense to the parties connected with it. He wished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether these Committees were to be suspended during the discussion of this question; and, if so, whether the parties who would undoubtedly lose large sums of money by their adjournment were to be indemnified? On the other hand, if the Committees were not suspended, were the Members constituting them who wished to take part in the debate

  2063
  on a question of vital Constitutional importance to be debarred from doing so? The House should bear in mind that if this Motion was agreed to, it would be competent for Her Majesty's Government, or any private Member, on Motion for adjournment, to take the House at a disadvantage at any moment. Why, he asked, did not Her Majesty's Government demand a Morning Sitting for the Land Law (Ireland) Bill as well as for the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, of which they had at one time heard so much, but now heard so little? In the last Parliament hon. Members opposite were never tired of talking about bribery, surely they had abundant evidence of bribery at the last Election. Why, then, was not the Bribery Bill pressed forward?
  MR. GORSTthought he could give a reason which might possibly induce Her Majesty's Government to assent to the Motion for adjournment. When they moved that the debate on the Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," be postponed until Tuesday at 2 o'clock, he had no doubt they believed that with their large and docile majority they would be able to carry the Motion. He thought that the division which had just taken place must cause Her Majesty's Government some slight misgivings as to whether, when the Motion was put on Tuesday, it would be carried. In his opinion, it was likely that the House would refuse it; and, looking at the narrow majority for the Government on the last division, he suggested that it would be well to wait until Monday, to see whether there was to be a Morning Sitting or not.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that a flood of light had been thrown upon the Bill by the statement which had been made from the Benches opposite that it was not merely intended for the purpose of bringing Mr. Bradlaugh into the House, but for the relief of "scores" of persons who were anxious to affirm, instead of taking the Oath. He pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman who made that statement (Mr. John Bright) that there need be no hurry at all so far as that point was concerned, for it was impossible for those hon. Members who, it was said, now desired to affirm to shuffle off the Oath they had already taken. Therefore, unless, in consequence of the narrow majority for the
  2064
  Government, as shown by the last division, the right hon. Gentleman saw another General Election looming in the immediate distance, it was quite impossible for the hon. Members in question to exercise the right which the Bill would give them until the next Parliament.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was surprised at the simplicity of the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins) in attaching the least importance to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman which he had just referred to. Had the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster been speaking a week ago, and there was a necessity of coming to an early decision upon the question, he would have said—"Look at the constituency of Northampton, deprived of one of its Representatives in this House; is not that grossly unfair to the people of Northampton?" Why did not the right hon. Gentleman use that argument now? It was because he knew that by making an allusion to a constituency which had but one of its Representatives in the House, he would call to mind the fact that another constituency was deprived of its Representative—not by the law of the land, but by a breach of that law, and of the Constitution, committed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was difficult to say which of the two speeches delivered in the course of the evening by Members of the Government was the more unsatisfactory. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had referred to the number of Saints' days which were observed in Ireland in a manner which was scarcely appreciated by the Irish Members. With the permission of the right hon. Gentleman, he would remind him that the great mistake of the Government, of which he was a Member, was that they had, so to speak, too many Saints' days in the carrying out of their present proposals. The right hon. Gentleman, with the endeavour to shift on to Irish Members the responsibility for the blunders committed by the Government in Ireland, had said there were great questions before the House with regard to that country, which must be immediately settled. Let the Government, then, proceed with the Land Bill, than which there was nothing more momentous, de die in diem, and defer the Parliamen-

  2065
  tary Oaths Bill, which could very well wait, until it was settled. For his own part, he intended to support the principle of the Parliamentary Oaths Bill; but he was not at all bound to admire the blundering tactics of the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. The answer of the Irish Members to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman that they would support the Government in urging on the settlement of the question with regard to Northampton was that they would do so, if he would give them like support in filling up the vacancy for Tipperary.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 127: Majority 12.—(Div. List, No. 196.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. CHAPLINrose to make an appeal to his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington), in view of the strong feeling shown by the Opposition on this question. He did not see much importance in the argument that, even under a Conservative Government, a Morning Sitting had taken place early in May, for private Members were still justified in insisting on their rights. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had attempted to draw a red herring across the path, saying, "Do not interfere with the Land Bill." Private Members manage the Business of the House; they did not fix first, second, or third readings of Bills. It was the Government who put down the Bills; and if the progress of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill was interfered with, it would be entirely owing to the course the Government had adopted. ["No, no!"] Well, he was stating the simple fact, and was pointing out to the Government that if that Bill had been delayed, or was likely to be, it was owing to hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House. The noble Marquess said no other suggestion had been made. Here, then, was a suggestion—let the Government introduce and proceed with the measure in the ordinary way. If they did this, he would answer for himself—of course, he could not answer for others—that he would not place any obstacle in the way of the measure proceeding to the second reading stage. Of course, he would
  2066
  reserve to himself the right to do what he liked on the second reading. He could not conceive anything more unreasonable than to ask private Members to give up their rights for the purpose of allowing the introduction of a measure they most strongly opposed. If the noble Marquess was prepared to bring on the measure in the ordinary way, let him consent to the proposal that he (Mr. Chaplin) now made, that the House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  COLONEL BARNEsaid, he wished to support the Motion. He had the strongest objection to giving the Government facilities for the introduction of a Bill which would have the effect of introducing an Atheist into the House.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dublin (Colonel Taylor) would state, on the part of the Opposition, that they were determined to pursue he (the Marquess of Hartington) would not say "Obstructive" tactics, but that active opposition, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing; but, as the noble Viscount the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who had taken so prominent a part in the discussion, were now not in the House, he did not know whether the Opposition intended to refrain from offering further impediment to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate until Tuesday. ["No, no!"] He was sorry it was not so. The noble Viscount the Member for Liverpool had made rather a curious statement a few minutes ago, when he said that the matter was one of most vital importance, and that the magnitude of it could not be exaggerated, and had qualified it with the assertion that the question as to the Morning Sitting was of even greater importance. And there was one argument which had struck him very much indeed. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had complained of the inaction of the Government. Surely they could be no longer charged with that. They were desirous of introducing a Bill, and they

  2067
  had explained what the measure was they desired to introduce, and it was only right that they should be afforded an opportunity for their proposal. The Government should strive as long as they reasonably could to get their proposal considered. It had been said that they should put it down for a Government night; but the Government had no intention of doing that to the exclusion of the consideration of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. If the House refused to adopt the proposal they made, that the measure should be dealt with at a Morning Sitting, then he was afraid the difficulty could not be removed, and that it would be for hon. Gentlemen opposite, under the guidance of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, to say when the Bill should be taken.
  COLONEL TAYLORsaid, he had only to say this—that he had had no communication with his Friends who usually sat on that (the Front Opposition) Bench since the last division; but he could inform the noble Marquess that hon. Members on that side of the House were determined to continue the present opposition.
  EARL PERCYsaid, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had expressed surprise at hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench, who took such an interest in the question, having left the House. He (Earl Percy), however, rose to express his inability to understand the exact position in which Her Majesty's Government professed to be placed, because, on the one hand, they were informed by one right hon. Gentleman that this was a very small measure—one merely for the purpose of removing a temporary difficulty—but, on the other hand, another right hon. Gentleman declared that it was a most important Bill, and that they ought to make the greatest sacrifices in order to bring it forward. The noble Marquess said it was owing to no fault of the Government that they were placed in the difficulty in which they now found themselves; but he (Earl Percy) would ask, was the difficulty not owing to the action of the Government last Session? The Government were fairly warned, and might have foreseen that this difficulty would arise. They should have avoided it by early legislation if they intended to deal with it at all. They had chosen to put it off to a crowded Session when a
  2068
  great difficulty arose, and did not now propose to give the facilities that were ordinarily afforded when such Bills were brought forward. The noble Marquess seemed anxious that one-half of the House should fix a Morning Sitting against the wish of the other half, notwithstanding that, in a matter of this sort, it was desirable that they should have, practically, the unanimous consent of the House.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that, as a Scotch Member, he wished to say that this proposed measure was repulsive to the good sense of the Scotch people, and that as it could not be denied that the measure was for the relief of Atheists—for Atheists in general, or one in particular—he should remain there as long as he could find any ether Member to join him in offering every Parliamentary means to oppose the Motion.
  DR. LYONSdesired to explain the course he was about to take. He was strongly opposed to the admission of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, and last year had voted against the Government with regard to the hon. Member being permitted to take his seat. He had a conscientious objection to Mr. Bradlaugh's admission into that House, and upon that question he had recorded his vote with hon. Gentlemen opposite. But the question was now losing the aspect of principle, and degenerating into one of unreasonable obstruction. Though he still abided most strongly by his conscientious convictions, and should take every opportunity of recording his vote in affirmation of them, he would not countenance an unreasonable obstruction in any matter upon which the House had arrived at a decision. It was greatly to be regretted that the Army without Leaders, as he might venture to designate the Opposition at the present moment, should put themselves in the position of unreasonable hostility to the action of the Government on this subject. He could not see that any good purpose whatever would result from it. They might continue to sit until that time to-morrow; but he did not see that that would advance the cause which he (Dr. Lyons), in common with hon. Gentlemen opposite, had mostly at heart. He felt it his duty, in the present aspect of the case, to support Her Majesty's Government, because he could not conceive what good

  2069
  object could be served by the obstruction which was being adopted by the Opposition.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he should be sorry to abandon principle for the sake of Party. He would remind the House that the position taken by the Opposition on this occasion was one which was hardly fairly designated by the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) as pure obstruction; because, when a division was so close as the one they had just taken, the course taken by the Opposition was seldom strongly resisted by the Government, especially when the real question at issue was the postponement of a subject to a further day. Under the circumstances, he hoped the noble Marquess the Leader of the Government on the present occasion would see that this was not a case of pure obstruction; but that the demands of the Opposition were perfectly legitimate.
  LORD EDWARD CAVENDISHsaid, if the Government were prepared to resist the Motion for adjournment, he would very cordially support them; but, at the same time, he regretted they had decided to oppose it, although he did so for a different reason to what had been given by the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons). A number of irresponsible minor lights appeared to think that that evening they were playing a very important part; but they seemed to have forgotten one consideration, and that was the very difficult position in which they were placing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). When their excitement had cooled down, and when they had received the castigation which they would probably receive in the course of a very few hours for their conduct this evening, they would regret the course they had adopted, and on Monday put on the white sheet.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had asserted that the Government were bringing forward this Bill for the purpose of getting the House out of a difficulty. It was the Member for Northampton who was in a difficulty; it was the constituency of Northampton, and not that House, which had deliberately put itself in a difficulty. From the beginning of the Bradlaugh business to the present moment the House had been
  2070
  of one opinion, and Mr. Bradlaugh had been of another. In the first place, he was legally wrong; and, in the second place, he was wrong in the action he took; and he imagined now that by keeping up a kind of threat that he would appear constantly at the Table of the House and claim his right in spite of the decision of the House, and in spite of the decision of the Courts of Law, he would be allowed to take his seat. The Government had been beaten on every occasion, and they wanted to thrust him upon the House. The Government did it deliberately, and when they were resisted they resorted to the charge of obstruction. They who, upon principle, were opposed to the admission into that House of a man who had no belief in God, and no regard for principle or decency of any kind, would resist him by every means in their power.
  MR. E. STANHOPEappealed to the noble Marquess to consent to the adjournment. He did not pretend to speak as an exponent of his Party; but he was satisfied there was a considerable section in the House who were prepared to go into the Lobby in support of the adjournment, and do their utmost to resist the proposal of the Government.
  MR. LABOUCHEREdid not know what hon. Gentlemen meant by saying they were not engaging in obstruction. There had been two divisions, and in each of them the Opposition had found themselves in the minority. He (Mr. Labouchere) was always under the impression that the minority ought to cede to the majority. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed at the very idea of such a thing. They now said they would not resist; they say, "although a minority, we can sit as long as you, and perhaps longer; and therefore, possibly, we may win." [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord said "Hear, hear!" If he (Mr. Labouchere) remembered rightly, the Irish Members took a similar course when the Coercion Bill was before the House, and he (Mr. Labouchere) thought they were right; but Conservatives who did not think they were right were constantly attacking them for their obstructive tactics. As hon. Gentlemen opposite had asserted their intention to resist, by every obstructive means, the introduction of this Bill, he would ask the Government

  2071
  what was the use of a Morning Sitting on Tuesday? It seemed to hint that at the end of the Sitting they would be in precisely the same position as they were now. They would have a number of speeches, and that was all. Under those circumstances, anxious as he was that the measure should be brought on, he would ask the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) whether there Was any use in continuing that strife? It seemed they would revert to the position in which they found themselves before it was suggested that the Bill should be introduced. And then he did not say what would happen. It was possible on Tuesday evening Mr. Bradlaugh might come to the Table. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear. Hear!] The noble Lord cheered. No doubt he would be glad to see Mr. Bradlaugh at the Table. Be that as it might, Mr. Bradlaugh had always claimed he had a statutory right to come to the Table, and that had been the difficulty which the Government was now attempting to meet. If the Bill of the Government could not be brought in, Mr. Bradlaugh would maintain his statutory right; consequently, when hon. Gentlemen opposite said that if a Morning Sitting was not taken on Tuesday they would be able to bring forward the question of police superannuation, he was sorry to say he feared they would be greatly dis- appointed.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the House had been treated to a threat in a perfectly undisguised form. Mr. Bradlaugh's alter ego had informed the House that if it did not assent to a Morning Sitting, Mr. Bradlaugh would come to the Table and repeat those discreditable scenes of which they had lately had so many. All he could say to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and his alter ego (Mr. Bradlaugh) was, that if Mr. Bradlaugh thought it necessary to assert what he considered his statutory right, the House of Commons would think it necessary to assert its authority.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 121: Majority 21.—(Div. List, No. 197.)
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLLFtrusted that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would now see his way
  2072
  to meet the wishes of the large minority. The noble Marquess must have seen from the first that the opinion of the House was divided, and he could hardly congratulate himself on the small majority which the Government had obtained. All that was being proposed was that the debate should be adjourned till Monday, in order that the discussion might be continued when it was more expected than it had been that night. The House had received no Notice of a Morning Sitting for Tuesday; but it had been started upon them by surprise, and he thought it would only be within the courtesies of Parliamentary life, and fair, that the noble Marquess should agree to the proposal. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. EDWARD CLARKEseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: If we cannot congratulate ourselves upon a very large majority, we can congratulate ourselves upon a sufficient majority. I acknowledge that the minority appear to be extremely determined; and, while I have been delighted to hear several times this evening that there is no desire on their part to resort to obstruction, their action appears to my mind to bear so close a resemblance to obstruction that I do not propose to contend with them any longer. I am quite willing to accede to the wishes of hon. Members opposite.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders under "The Land Drainage Act, 1861," ordered to be brought in by Mr. COURTNEY and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to explain and amend the provisions of "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854," with respect to the measurement of tonnage, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN and Mr. ASHLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 151.]
  House adjourned at Three o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Second Reading—Municipal Franchise (Scotland) (55).
HIS IMPERIAL MAJESTY THE EMPEROR OF ALL THE RUSSIAS.

  H.R.I.H. THE DUCHESS OF EDINBURGH'S ANSWER TO MESSAGE OF CONDOLENCE.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDreported, That his Grace and the Duke of Bedford waited on Her Royal and Imperial Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh, Grand Duchess of Russia, with the message of the 15th of March last, and that Her Royal and Imperial Highness had returned the following answer; viz.:—
  MY LORD DUKES,
  I receive the message of condolence which the House of Lords has charged you to present to me with sincere gratitude.
  May I ask you to have the goodness to offer to the House in return my heartfelt thanks, and to say that I am deeply sensible of the manner in which it has expressed its sympathy towards me in my heavy affliction.

FRANCE AND TUNIS—OCCUPATION OF KEF, &c.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that with the permission of the noble Earl the

  1927
  Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he would put a Question to him relative to what was now passing in Tunis. He wished to know, Whether the noble Earl could give any information relative to affairs in the Regency of Tunis, more especially as regarded the occupation of Kef, Tabarca, and Bizerta by French troops, and the contemplated advance to Porto Farina, Beja, and other places in the interior of the country, in opposition to the protest of the Bey, and without any intimation of change in the previously existing friendly relations between France and Tunis? He feared, judging from imformation on which he could rely, that there would be further occupation unless there were some understanding or intervention in the case.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the information which reaches us from Tunis and Paris is frequently not in accord. There appears to be no doubt that the French have crossed the Frontier and occupied Kef and Tabarca, and I believe 3,000 men have been landed at Bizerta, in order, as is stated, to maintain a cordon of troops. I may mention incidentally that H.M.S.
  Monarch and a gunboat have been stationed opposite Tunis, in the interest of British subjects, in case there should be any popular disorder, of which I hope there is no chance. It does not appear unreasonable that the French should resent outrages within the Algerian Frontier, and should take measures to prevent the recurrence of such outrages. The French Government have constantly given us assurances that they have no intention to annex territory; and yesterday they formally and distinctly authorized Lord Lyons to assure Her Majesty's Government that there was no idea of conquest or annexation with regard to Tunis. My Lords, we are not jealous of the legitimate influence which a great country like France may exercise over a weak and much less civilized neighbour, as long as that influence is not exercised to the injury of our Treaty rights or the position of British subjects trading or residing in Tunis. I need not say that it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to carefully watch that any arrangements which may arise out of the operations now going on do not clash with those rights.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL— THE SURRENDER OF POTCHEFSTROOM.— OBSERVATIONS.
LORD WAVENEY, seeing the Colonial Secretary in his place, wished to say a word with regard to the Transvaal, although he could hardly expect a reply. Whether or not, he could not refrain from making a suggestion to the noble Lord. After the defenders of Potchefstroom had surrendered, the Boers stated that they would return the arms taken, and allow the garrison to be replaced; but, although half a regiment had been detached for the purpose, it had not yet reached the citadel, the arms had not yet been restored, and there was an avowed determination—so far as popular rumour could justify the assertion—on the part of the Boers to prevent that restoration. He was aware of the unwillingness of Her Majesty's Government to interfere with the discretion of the Colonial officials; but he thought this was an occasion when the Government would do well to take steps to support the garrison by a strong column of troops.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I must point out to my noble Friend that it is rather inconvenient to introduce a matter of considerable interest without regular Notice. I do not, at the present moment, feel disposed to enter into the subject further than to say that we have every confidence in Sir Evelyn Wood, who will take whatever military precautions may be necessary and adapted to the occasion.

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 55.)
(The Earl of Camperdown.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill was another step in the direction of the emancipation of women. Its object would be found in the Preamble—
"Whereas in the Act thirty-two and thirty-three Victoria, chapter fifty-five, it is provided that in that Act, and other Acts of Parliament therein recited, whenever words occur which import the masculine gender, the same shall be held to include females for all purposes con-

1929
nected with and having reference to the right to vote in the election of Town Councillors in England; and whereas it is expedient that in this respect the municipal franchise in Scotland shall be assimilated to that of England."
He knew of no reason why the females of Scotland should be placed in an inferior position to the females of England; therefore he asked their Lordships to give the measure a second reading. He might add that there had been no opposition to the measure in the other House of Parliament.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a".(The Earl of Camperdown.)
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and
committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

NAVAL EDUCATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD MONTEAGLErose to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the advisability of raising the limit of age for the admission of cadets to the Navy? He would also take occasion, as this was a naval matter, to ask if the Government possessed any further information with respect to the sad loss of Her Majesty's ship Doterel? With regard to the subject of the Question of which he had given Notice, it was stated that cadets should be taken at an early age because there was so much to learn, and further, because the service was so disagreeable and the pay was so bad that if the officers did not join at a very early age we should never get them at all. The latter argument was almost beneath the dignity of the House to consider. He hoped it had not come to this—that a great nation like England should have to decoy officers into one of the most important Services at an age when they did not know what they were doing, in the hope that they would perforce have to remain in the Service, because when they came to the years of discretion, and other men were entering into life and selecting their professions, they would be so handicapped that they would be unable to leave the Service and take any other path in life. In his opinion, the limit of age was at present too low, and the system of education after the admission of cadets was unsatisfactory. After their admission they were put on board the Britannia for two years, during
  1930
  which time they were instructed in the theoretical or scientific part of their naval education. Then they were sent afloat for five years for practical education, after which they were sent to the Naval College at Greenwich, where they had theoretical instruction, which was little more than a repetition of what they had received on board the Britannia. He thought it was a mistake not to have the theoretical and practical instruction combined in one educational course. If boys could enter the Navy at the age of 15 or 15½ years instead of between 12 and 13, they could go to public schools, and in them obtain a more liberal education before entering the Naval Service as cadets, and on their entry they could at once commence their practical education. He trusted that the matter would be taken into consideration by the First Lord of the Admiralty and his Colleagues.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH, while thinking that the noble Lord who had brought forward this subject was entitled to the thanks of those who took an interest in the Naval Profession for having introduced this question, hoped the First Lord of the Admiralty would carefully consider the matter in consultation with his Naval Advisers before he adopted the suggestion of the noble Lord. He thought he spoke the opinion of all naval officers of high standing when he said that nothing tended to form the character of our naval officers more than the early age at which they entered the Service. Sending a lad afloat early inured him to the hardships of naval life, and enabled him to learn what was still more essential than scientific knowledge. It gave him habits of discipline, and afforded him an opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of the wants and wishes of the sailor. It was the opinion of the most distinguished naval officers that no one ever could become a thorough seaman unless he went to sea early. The Admiralty had proceeded in a wrong direction when they made cadets pass a long period in the Naval College at Greenwich, when they ought to be at sea. The proximity of Greenwich to London made a residence at that College pernicious to young men.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: My Lords, this is not a Party question; and as, I believe, my noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty is anxious that

  1931
  it should be discussed, I will ask to be allowed to make a few observations. There are several things which ought to be borne in mind whenever this question is considered. One is, that the entire system of training young officers, to which we still adhere in the British Navy, is a thing by itself. It is totally unlike that of every other nation in the world. Of course, we may be wiser than the rest of the world. But when we find that America and Russia, France and Germany, Sweden and Denmark, have all of them adopted systems of naval education which in some degree resemble each other, and are all of them widely different from ours, I think we should best show our wisdom by carefully considering this matter. Another point is, that on two occasions, at least, within the last eight years, we have been seriously contemplating fundamental changes in it ourselves. If Mr. Goschen had remained longer at the Admiralty, I believe he would have dealt very thoroughly with this question. And I know that when the late Admiral Sir Hastings Yelverton held the Office of First Sea Lord of the Admiralty under Mr. Ward Hunt, he, too, came to the conclusion that the entire system of entering and training young naval officers ought to be recast. But his illness and retirement from Office postponed the question for the second time. Again, I think that when we find that our system, besides differing entirely from all others with which it can be compared, is in itself of so peculiar and anomalous a nature that any unprejudiced person approaching it for the first time would assuredly condemn it on general grounds, the presumption in favour of its modification is, at least, as strong as that in favour of its retention. Moreover, I believe that the officers of the Navy are themselves by no means generally satisfied with the present state of things. I know that the minds of some of our best officers, from Sir Thomas Symonds downwards, have been for years past considerably exercised on this subject. I frequently hear it said that, at all events, naval officers agree as to its cardinal feature—namely, that boys should be sent to sea as early as possible. But, my Lords, that is not the case. I have already mentioned the name of the late Sir Hastings Yelverton, who, I may say, is generally admitted
  1932
  by naval men to have been one of the most accomplished officers that the British Navy has produced in modern times, as disapproving the present system of naval education. Now, among other things, he was in favour of raising the age of entry. And he was not alone in his opinion. Admiral Sir Geoffrey Hornby, who only the other day, and at a very critical time, was Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, and is now President of Greenwich College, holds, I believe, similar views. And Admiral Fanshaw, who for some time held the appointment of President of the Naval College at Greenwich, and was afterwards, only the other day, Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth, has expressed himself very strongly on this point. I could mention other names, only that their owners might object to my doing so without permission. But I have said enough to show that I have good reason for asserting that our best officers arc by no means unanimous as to the advisability of sending boys to sea as soon as possible. On other points opinions differ still more widely. Some officers think that cadets should not only be entered later, but that they should be systematically taught both the theoretical and practical parts of their Profession, as much, at least, as they require to know in order to perform its ordinary duties, before they are sent to do the work of officers in sea-going ships. I will presently endeavour to show your Lordships that this plan would be preferable to the present arrangement. But, first, I will describe what the present arrangement is. Cadets enter the Britannia by limited competitive examination between the ages of 12 and 13½. Many of them are then mere children. Some are almost babies. But all are far too young to choose a profession for themselves; and they are too young, also, for a competitive examination to be a satisfactory test of their intellectual ability. They enter the Navy, some because in their simplicity they fancy it offers the nearest escape from lessons and from school; others because their imaginations have been fired by Peter Simple and Midshipman Easy; but the greater number because their parents are anxious to get their children off their hands—and the Navy offers the earliest and cheapest opportunity of being rid of them. Having

  1933
  passed the examination, they go for two years to the Britannia, the trainingship at Dartmouth. I may say, in passing, that it is only by courtesy that the Britannia can be called a ship. It is not really a ship at all. It is only a hulk, or rather two hulks, securely moored in Dartmouth Harbour, and as steady as any house. There are no masts, except a jury foremast and bowsprit; and the internal fittings and arrangements do not resemble, in any way, those of a man-of-war. The course of instruction embraces elementary mathematics, French, navigation, and such seamanship as can be taught by books and models. All this could, of course, be better taught on shore. But that is a mere matter of detail, although I must say it is a very expensive one to the country. On passing out of the Britannia, cadets go to a sea-going ship as officers, for a time varying from 4½ to 5½ years. Now, I especially wish to call my noble Friend's attention to those five years of sea service as midshipman, because, next to the early age of entry, this point is, to my mind, the weakest in our present system. The life that a midshipman leads, although I myself thought it a very jolly life at the time, is a curiosity in its way. From an educational point of view, looking at it merely as a means of training young officers in the duties of their Profession, it seems to me now, now that I am able to look back upon it with more knowledge and experience, to involve a very great and unavoidable waste of time. It is about as ill-organized and as unprofitable, even from a purely professional point of view, as can well be conceived. It combines the maximum of hard work with the minimum of opportunity for acquiring professional knowledge and experience. And chiefly for this reason, that a midshipman is expected to do both the duties of an officer and the lessons of a schoolboy—two things which are absolutely incompatible with each other. He has to lead, as it were, a double life; and except in those ships where the naval instructor is a man of exceptional zeal and ability, or where the captain of the ship takes a great interest in the midshipmen, only the cleverest and most energetic boys succeed in performing that feat satisfactorily. The teaching staff of the British Navy is probably nearly equal
  1934
  in number to that of all the other Navies in the world; but it is impossible to expect that all the 72 naval instructors whose names are on The Navy List should be men of exceptional ability. Neither can every captain of a ship find time to look very closely after his midshipmen. I know that an average boy in an average ship finds it very up-hill work, and makes little progress in anything, partly because his time is so broken up, and partly because, owing to the age at which he left school, he has not, generally speaking, been sufficiently grounded in anything. First, as to his officer's duties. He is generally in four watches—that is to say, he has to be on deck for six hours out of the 24, and on three nights out of every four he has a four hours' night-watch, either from 8 to 12, 12 to 4, or 4 to 8. Then he has his quarters—I mean his division of guns—to attend to. The cleaning and inspection of these, and the inspection of the men belonging to them, together with their rifles and cutlasses, give him, on an average, another hour's work every day. He has also to keep lists of all the clothes of the men belonging to his division, and to help the lieutenant of the division to inspect periodically the men's kits and bedding. He has to attend all drills and evolutions aloft, and all the general drills of great guns and small-arm companies, besides being drilled himself for his own instruction. When on watch his duties, though useful and even necessary for the discipline and cleanliness of the ship, are, generally speaking, not very improving to himself. I might almost say that, unless the ship is at sea under sail, or under steam, and in company with other ships, these duties, so far as the acquirement of professional knowledge and experience go, are scarcely better than waste of time. There is little more to be learnt from them than habits of obedience and tact in the management of men—two things which, if he is made of the right sort of stuff, an English boy does not require five years to learn. He has, of course, at all times to see that the officer of the watch's orders are carried out, and sometimes, no doubt, he learns a good deal by doing so. Then at night he has to go the rounds periodically, generally once every half-hour, in company with the ship's corporal. In the day-time he has to see that the decks

  1935
  are properly swept and scrubbed, and the brasswork properly polished. When these performances are going on it is the midshipman of the watch's duty to act as a sort of house-maid superintendent. I should not object to his doing this if only he had already learnt the rudiments of his Profession instead of having them still to learn, and no time to learn them in. Some of your Lordships may, perhaps, have seen the burlesque called H.M.S. Pinafore. Well, the opening scene of that burlesque is really not much of a caricature. It is a tolerably accurate representation of what takes place on board a man-of-war every morning. I need not, therefore, describe in detail those bits of routine. Neither will I enlarge upon their educational value. I will leave your Lordships to judge of that; and I feel sure that when my noble Friend has time to look into this question of naval education, and to examine it for himself, he will agree that it is a mistake that young officers should be compelled to give so much time to the superintendence of mere details of routine, at a time of life when they ought to be employed in acquiring knowledge that would be of use to them afterwards. In addition to these duties, a midshipman is expected to study for a couple of hours, at least, every forenoon, and in some ships again in the afternoon as well, with the naval instructor. It is becoming more and more the custom to relieve midshipmen from their watch on deck, in order that they may attend school, as it is called; and to such an extent is this carried now-a-days, that a captain of a ship now in commission applied, not many weeks ago, to the Admiralty for some additional warrant officers to do midshipmen's duties, because his midshipmen were constantly down below with the naval instructor. I know that many officers think that this change is not for the bettor, though that is not, I believe, the general opinion, nor, under the circumstances, is it mine. But I admit that it is very possible that midshipmen may thus lose much of the practical experience which is the main object of their being sent to sea, and that it is equally possible that they may gain comparatively little theoretical knowledge to make up for that loss, owing to the many hindrances to study which are inseparable from ship life. As to the first of these two points, I am only stating a
  1936
  well-known fact when I say that it is the general complaint among officers in the higher ranks of the Navy that, whatever be the cause, midshipmen are less useful as officers, and that they learn less seamanship now-a-days than formerly. Here is a statement made by Admiral Ryder, who is now Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth. He says—
  "I think that a change has come over our Service, and that lads from 16 to 19 learn much less seamanship than they used to do. For this reason I should have no objection to officers, who have passed an examination at 19 for the rank of sub-lieutenant in certain branches of seamanship, undergoing an examination of a more advanced description subsequently—say at 21 or 22—for the rank of lieutenant."
  Well, my Lords, if there is any falling off in respect of seamanship, it is a serious thing. To my mind, no amount of theoretical and mathematical knowledge could make up for any falling off in the ready practical instinct which is supposed to be, and ought to be, characteristic of a naval officer. But how would the case stand, my Lords, if, instead of gaining a great deal of theoretical knowledge by this sacrifice, it should turn out that in the great majority of cases the gain is almost nothing, and in some cases even a minus quantity? What do the highest authorities say on this point? Admiral Sir Cooper Key says in evidence—
  "We know that the course of study at sea is very desultory and irregular, and that the midshipmen, therefore, lose a great deal of what they learnt in the Britannia."
  He also says, speaking as President of the Naval College, and referring to the six months' course through which midshipmen, or rather acting sub-lieutenants, have to go after completing their five years' service at sea—
  "All we teach, or nearly all we teach them, they ought to have known when they left the Britannia."
  Dr. Hurst, the Director of Studies, says that this examination for sub-lieutenants is almost, if not quite, as simple as the examination which they passed as naval cadets on leaving the Britannia. And one of the Naval Instructors of the College, Mr. Oborn, says—
  "Speaking in a very general way, they have forgotten everything nearly; but, of course, there are exceptions. I think you may say that they have forgotten everything."
  Mr. Laughton, the senior Naval Instructor at Greenwich, says—

  1937
  "They have so utterly forgotten what they learnt in the Britannia, that it would be difficult to say that they had learnt anything."
  The Committee, in their Report, commenting on this evidence, remark, with a simplicity which seems almost ironical—
  "It is unsatisfactory that these young officers, after having been six years at sea, mostly under naval instructors, and after the half-yearly examinations on board ship, should have to recover at the College the knowledge which they had carried with them when they left the Britannia."
  Well, my Lords, this evidence, I think, proves pretty conclusively that a midshipman's studies in a sea-going ship—except, as I have already said, in the case of men of unusual energy and ability, or placed in exceptionally favourable circumstances—are a snare and a delusion. And this is precisely what any unprejudiced person acquainted with the internal economy of a man-of-war would expect. For what sort of a school do you suppose, my Lords, is it possible to set up on board of a man-of-war? Why, even under the most favourable circumstances, when the captain gives up his cabin, as he sometimes does, to be used as a school-room, it must still be vastly inferior to a school on shore. In bad weather it collapses altogether, and in fine weather it is impossible to escape from the noise of work on deck and from the word of command of the drill instructors. And apart from those hindrances there is not much work to be got out of an average boy of 16 or 17 who has had a four-hours' watch the night before. Therefore, I say that the attempt to set up a good school on board ship is futile, and ought to be discontinued. No regulations that my noble Friend may issue will enable an average boy to learn as much book work in three years on board a sea-going ship as he could learn in one year on shore. Why, then, persist in a system which involves so great a waste of power, and of which officers in the higher ranks of the Service complain that it costs too great a sacrifice of practical experience? Whether it be regarded as a means of acquiring practical knowledge of seamanship, or as a means of acquiring scientific and theoretical knowledge, I am convinced that these five years' sea service as half officer and half schoolboy are eminently unsatisfactory. And I must confess that
  1938
  for some time past it has been a mystery to me how it is that such evident and palpable waste of power and time should still go on. There is another point to which I should like to call my noble Friend's attention. In our present system of naval training there is no provision whatever for training officers in what I may call the A B C of practical seamanship. By practical seamanship I mean dexterity in the art of handling ships in every variety of circumstances, coupled with a certain faculty of judgment in such matters as wind and weather. Your Lordships will understand that it requires long experience at sea to make a really accomplished seaman; but there is a great deal in the beginning which can be taught and ought to be taught, and which is taught in every Navy except our own. Our midshipmen are expected to pick it up for themselves, even if the whole of their five years' sea service should be spent, as it sometimes is, in an iron-clad. Nothing, my Lords, can be more unreasonable than this. You might as well expect a boy to learn to swim on dry land as expect that he will become a seaman by serving in an iron-clad. Practically, seamanship can only be learnt at sea; and it would be learnt more thoroughly and quickly if it were systematically taught. But I complain not only that no pains are taken to teach young officers this branch of their Profession, but also that so many of them do not even get a fair chance of picking it up. For it is the custom now-a-days that midshipmen should be only appointed to ships which carry naval instructors, and a great many of these are iron-clads, which rarely move out of harbour, and never go on a long cruise. Other Navies have sea-going training ships for their young officers; but we only have them for our men. Perhaps my noble Friend will remind me that, not very long ago, we did have sea-going training ships for naval cadets, but that they were found a failure, and were given up in consequence. That is perfectly true. But there were reasons for that failure, with which I need not trouble your Lordships, but which fully accounted for it. I will only say that these training ships never had a chance. Under the circumstances they were bound to fail, and they did fail. My Lords, after having said so much, I feel that I am bound to make some suggestion.

  1939
  I fear that I shall be thought presumptuous; but I must run the risk of that. The first thing to be done is to endeavour to make sure of getting the right sort of material for making good officers before going to the expense of working it into shape. That is one of the things that it is utterly impossible to do now owing to the age of entry. No human being can say what sort of a man a boy of 12 will grow into. I cannot say that I have any faith in nomination, because I know that during the two and a-half years that I served as commander on board the Britannia it did not exclude many unpromising boys. Nor have I much faith in competition either in the case of boys of 12 and 13. But, on the whole, I think it is the best of the two. In theory I grant that, in some respects, nomination is charming; but, in practice, boys are, for the most part, nominated by the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, however great his ability as an administrator may be, can have no personal knowledge of the boys nominated, and is, consequently, in ignorance of the important point as to whether or not they are likely to make good officers. The opinions of fathers and mothers, and relations and friends, are not to be trusted. For that reason, and for other reasons of a general and obvious character, I would abolish nomination entirely, and raise the age of entry to 15 or 16, when competition would be less objectionable. By that time a lad would be able to judge for himself whether the Navy was likely to suit him or not, and the Civil Service Examiners might then be fairly asked to select the ablest boys. Then, as personal fitness for the Service seems to me to be undoubtedly the most important point of all, the newly entered cadets should be tested at once. I would, therefore, send them straight to sea in a training ship for, say, five or six months, in order that they might get over their sea-sickness, see something of the ships of the Fleet, and generally make acquaintance with naval life. During that time they should be, as it were, on probation; and at the end of the cruise all those who find the life too hard or too irksome, or were evidently unfitted for it, should be allowed to go. The remainder should be sent to a College or naval school for 18 months or two years. During that time they should learn all the mathematics and
  1940
  theoretical navigation that they would require for the ordinary duties of a naval officer, together with such seamanship and knowledge of steam machinery as can be taught with the help of books, and models, and diagrams. They would learn far more book work during those two years than they now do during the five years' sea service as midshipmen. At the end of the College course they should go to sea for, say, one year in a sea-going training-ship. During the first half of that time they should work with the men; during the latter half they should perform officers' duties; and during the whole of that time they should receive practical instruction in the working of steam machinery. At the end of that year, after going through a short course of gunnery, in order to learn their drills, I would send them to sea-going ships as midshipmen. The youngest would then be over 17, the oldest under 19. After two years' service as midshipmen, during which time they should take a certain number of nautical observations, they should pass an examination in seamanship for the rank of sub-lieutenant. But they should be required to serve at least one more year at sea before being eligible for promotion to the rank of lieutenant. That is an outline of the course of training I should like to see adopted. It would not be any longer than the present course. It differs from it in that it would not begin almost in the nursery; and as it would only attempt to teach one thing at a time, it might fairly be hoped that something, if not everything, would he thoroughly well taught. It would avoid the unhappy and impossible combination which midshipmen now-a-days are made to attempt, and it would certainly provide for a far better practical training than is now given. Of course, it would require a great deal of careful consideration to put it into shape. Nevertheless, I am convinced that some such plan as I have indicated must be ultimately followed, if our naval officers are ever, as a body, to make full use of the ample opportunities for higher education which the Naval College at Greenwich affords, and are, at the same time, to regain the dexterity in practical seamanship which so many people think is gradually disappearing. I will even go farther, and say that if our officers are, in future years, to hold their own with

  1941
  the highly-trained officers of foreign Navies, some such changes as I have advocated must be introduced. But without making any radical change at all in the plan of our present system, the noble Earl would greatly improve its working if he could see his way to adopt, in some degree, the suggestion of my noble Friend. Suppose the age of entry were raised by a year and a-half, or even a year only. Surely that is not a very alarming suggestion. Its effect would be this—It would allow the standard of examination both for passing into and out of the Britannia to be slightly raised, and cadets would get a fair hold of mathematics, navigation, physics, and general book work, which the majority now do not get; they would afterwards require less study during their five years' sea service in order to keep them up to it, and would arrive at their sub-lieutenant's examination at Greenwich better prepared than they are now. In addition to this they would have more leisure when at sea in which to exercise their powers of observation, and to gain practical experience as officers, than they have now. No new machinery would be required, and no expense incurred. Of course, I know well what will be urged against even this change. In the first place, it will be said that the chief defect in young officers of the present day is want of experience in handling ships, and want of practical knowledge of the details of a seaman's duty, and that this defect is not to be put right by an additional year at school. In that I agree. But while I admit the defect, the remedy is not the one I propose. My remedy is to give young officers more actual sea experience than they have now by relieving them of some of their schoolboy work while they are at sea. Moreover, I would require every officer to serve a certain length of time as sub-lieutenant in addition to his five years' service as midshipman. I do not think that anyone should be allowed to reach the rank of lieutenant before the age of 22 or 23 at the very earliest. The average age would be a year or two later. It seems to me quite unreasonable to suppose that because in the days of Nelson a naval officer was considered qualified to hold that rank at the age of 19, he should, therefore, be considered equally qualified to do so now, when so much more is required of him. Those
  1942
  who object to the age of entry being raised invariably say the same thing—what is the use of entering boys at 14 or 15, instead of at 12 or 13, when all you want out of the majority of them is that they should become good practical seamen? Well, even admitting, which I, however, do not, that an average naval officer need be nothing more, I must point out that people who argue this assume, in an entirely arbitrary and unreasonable manner, that if officers are entered later than 12 or 13, they must necessarily have a less thorough practical training than they now have. But I have already disposed of that point. And I have shown, moreover, that, as matters stand, our young officers have scarcely any practical training at all. My Lords, I am as far as possible from wishing that all naval officers should be men of science rather than practical seamen. It is desirable that there should be a few here and there with high scientific attainments. But to my mind it is enough if the general run of them are thorough seamen, with sufficient scientific knowledge and intelligence to have a general understanding of the ships and the weapons with which they may have to fight, and whose general culture includes the knowledge of one modern language. It is one of the faults of our present system of naval education that, by attempting too much training, or rather too many things in too short a time, it achieves nothing satisfactorily. Another well-worn objection that is sure to be urged against my noble Friend's proposal is, that lads who are 16 years old when they pass out of the Britannia would be unprepared for the rough and uncomfortable life they would experience during their first few years at sea, and would not be able to stand it. Well, my Lords, judging from my own experience and my own recollection of what a midshipman's life was, I do not believe that. But the real answer to it is, that those who cannot stand a certain amount of hardship are not the sort of stuff out of which naval officers should be made. Men have gone to sea a great deal older than 16, and have done very well. The finest seaman that, perhaps, the Navy ever possessed—Lord Dundonald—was nearly 18 when first he went to sea, and in those days the hardships of a sea life were worth talking about, which now

  1943
  they are not. Far too much importance is attached to the supposed roughness and discomfort of a sea life. Things are very different now from what they were 50 years ago. But even supposing the hardships were as great as many people seem to fancy, I should still feel confident that in these days, when the sons of rich men, and even of noble Lords in this House, are seeking employment in the backwoods of Canada and in the Western States of America, we should be able to get an ample supply of young men willing enough to face the discomforts of ship life. Again, I have sometimes heard it said that it would be difficult to instil into lads of the age of 16 the habit of implicit and ready obedience to superiors, and the knowledge of the character of seamen, which are necessary to fit a man for command at sea. Well, my Lords, I cannot agree in that opinion. It is based on no reason that I can see. But as it is only an opinion, and not a fact, it is extremely difficult to disprove it. It is said, too, that the ways and habits of seafaring life can rarely be adopted except at a very early age. My Lords, I doubt that very much, and I certainly do not believe for a moment that one year or a year and a-half would make all the difference. Boys are not boys at 15, and old men at 16. If it be true that naval officers should begin so very young, how is it that every other nation on the face of the earth not only thinks, but acts differently in regard to this particular point? Is it that Englishmen have less aptitude for the sea than the men of other nations? I trust, my Lords, I have shown the reasonableness of my noble Friend's suggestion. I trust, too, that I have shown some reason for the dissatisfaction with which I regard the entire system of training young officers—if, indeed, that can be called a system which is so very unsystematic—and for the changes I have advocated. But my case will seem stronger, perhaps, if your Lordships will allow me to quote from a Report on this subject, presented to the Senate of the United States about a year ago by the Secretary of the United States Navy. It was drawn up by an American naval officer who was sent to Europe for the express purpose of examining into the systems of naval education pursued in England, France, Germany, and Italy. It is an exhaustive document, and I have it here
  1944
  bound in the shape of a book. After devoting no less than 88 pages to a minute examination into the details of naval education in the English Navy, he sums up his criticism in the following words:—
  "In the English Service there seems to be a theory that a naval officer is a creature of a delicate and sensitive organization, whose regard for his Profession, and whose zeal for a high standard of professional attainment must be stimulated by surrounding him internally with all its minor details, to an extent unknown in any other walk of life. To make a sailor, he must begin at 12 or 13, even though he does not go to sea for two years, to accustom him early to his duties. During these two years he must live on board a ship, and be able to climb the rigging, to familiarize himself with details, though the ship lies at anchor in the river, a few yards from the shore, and carries no spars but her foremast and headbooms. He must sleep in a hammock to inure himself to hardship. In the opinion of a majority of officers, he must have his College for higher instruction in a naval port, or he will forget his duties, and he must pursue his scientific researches in a Dockyard, because he will be surrounded by officers engaged in the work of the Profession, with whom he can discuss articles in the professional magazines. If the Naval Profession has become what many enlightened officers of the present day would have us believe, an occupation involving accurate scientific knowledge, the system of training in England has a tendency to grasp the shadow while losing the substance. The expedients adopted with reference to the higher education of voluntary students, and the admirable courses of instruction for officers who have taken up one branch of the Service, notably in the Excellent and Vernon, do lunch to remedy the inherent defects of the system. And the promotion in two grades by selection excludes the most incompetent officers from positions of great responsibility. But it seems impossible that the injurious effects of the method of training pursued with young officers during the first eight years of their professional life should not be felt by the vast majority throughout their whole career.….The fatal defect of this system has been aptly set forth in a remark of one of the Greenwich Professors in his evidence before the Commission, where he says that the standard for sub-lieutenants is that for cadets in the Britannia; but the essential difference lies in the fact that at Greenwich the students actually reach the standard, while at Dartmouth they do not. No one who has had much experience in educational methods will deny that such a system must be productive of harmful results when applied. rigorously to the training of a body of young men; and one is, therefore, led to the conclusion that the high scientific and professional attainments of many English officers are not in consequence, but in spite of their early education."
  I have trespassed far too long on the indulgence of the House, and fear that I have sadly wearied your Lordships. My

  1945
  best and only excuse for doing so is that this question is one of the very greatest importance to the Navy, and I am deeply impressed with the conviction that, in regard to it, we have hitherto taken an entirely wrong road. I am aware that my noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty wished that this question should be fully ventilated and discussed. But I can assure your Lordships that nothing would have induced me to address this House at such length but a sincere and strong desire to do my duty to the Service.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that the noble and gallant Earl who had just spoken had done so with so much weight, with such a clear and intimate knowledge of the subject, acquired from having been for two years and a-half commander of the Britannia, that it was impossible to follow him in this discussion without a considerable amount of diffidence. But having always taken great interest in the question, and having served for some years in the Navy, he trusted their Lordships would allow him to make a few remarks. The noble Earl had rightly said that the training of our young officers, and all matters connected with their age of entry and their subsequent education, were of the greatest possible importance—indeed, they could not overrate it. It was undoubtedly of the first consideration that they should get the most qualified officers and the best instructed it was possible to obtain at any cost. During the last 30 years our Navy had been quite revolutionized, and it was day by day becoming more and more imperative that our officers should be thoroughly educated, not only in seamanship, but that they should be well versed in every science and every art it was possible for them to acquire. When they remembered that they had ships like the Inflexible, with 30 or 40 steam engines on board, costing nearly £750,000; when they considered the complications of gunnery, with its hydraulic apparatus, together with the mysteries of torpedoes; and when they reflected on the greatly enhanced difficulty of managing these enormous mechanical ships, it was impossible not to recognize the fact that the officers who were to become the captains of these vessels must be highly trained and of great cultivation and capacity. So far, he was cordially with his noble Friend,
  1946
  and agreed with him that no pains ought to be spared in the training of our officers to fill these difficult posts. We had of late years made enormous strides in this direction, and, so far as the advanced education was concerned, for the older officers, they had in Greenwich College all that could be desired; but he quite concurred that there was very much to be done to improve the early training between the time of entry and the period of going to Greenwich College. He could not, however, agree with the noble Earl in his main contention, that the remedy was in altering the age of entry, and that anything would be gained by leaving the boys at the public schools until they were about 16. The idea was that they would thus acquire a more general knowledge and a higher moral standard, instead of being brought up in narrow professional subjects. The noble and gallant Earl believed that at that age their minds would be more developed, and that they would have a far greater guarantee of personal fitness than they now had. Now, he maintained that this supposed advantage of public-school training applied to the Navy was an utter fallacy. In the first place, he was convinced that they could not make a greater mistake than to postpone the age of entry to 16. Whatever might be the merits of a public school, it had hitherto boon considered one of the greatest boons to the Service to obtain young cadets at an age when they were plastic and could easily be moulded into the shape they wished the raw material to take. It was an age when habits of strict discipline could easily be acquired, which was absolutely essential. In early boyhood they could train their lads to stand the roughness and encounter cheerfully the hardships which undoubtedly belonged to a naval life. Public-school training was, no doubt, of the greatest value in civil life, and boys obtained not only an amount of general knowledge, but by the time they reached 17 or 18 they acquired a high tone, and their character had been formed. But, however good this might be in civil life at the age of 18, surely he was right in saying that if they took the boy away at 16 from the public school, what he had gone through actually tended rather to unfit him for a naval life. During that time he had learnt to know how to make himself

  1947
  comfortable, if not luxurious, and to have an idea and opinion of his own position which must be unlearnt in the Navy. He might contrast the life of an Eton boy with that of a midshipman in the Navy. The Eton boy had his little room, his fires, his comforts, his all-night in, his constant holidays to a luxurious home; while the midshipman had his hammock, he had to wash on his chest, and to dress himself with the minimum of privacy, with night watches, long periods away from home, and with innumerable privations and disagreeables to encounter. His firm belief was that this discomfort would, at 16, be felt so intolerable that not one out of 10 would remain in the Service, and those that did would be discontented and unhappy. It was a well-known fact that very few naval officers would not admit that if they entered the Service at 16 they would in a very short time have tried to leave it. But, looking at this matter from another point of view, he would ask, was the education given at public schools up to the age of 16 such as they would select for a boy going into the Navy? Surely he was right in saying that, except in very rare instances, Latin and Greek were the main elements of knowledge at public schools, whereas mathematics and foreign languages, which they specially required a boy to be well grounded in in the Navy, were utterly neglected. In the Report of the Committee which sat in 1875 on the Britannia system this is stated very clearly—
  "At the principal schools in the country far more attention is paid to Latin and Greek than to geometry and algebra. For every hour given to the latter four or five are devoted to translations and composition; and Mr. Hayward, mathematical master at Harrow, when asked if Harrow boys at the age of 15 could work the mathematical paper set at the final examination in the Britannia, stated that only a very small proportion would be likely to obtain half marks in them."
  He could not help thinking that these reasons were conclusive against the proposal; but, supposing for one moment they altered the age and brought the boy at 16 from a public school, how would they proceed? The noble and gallant Earl would send him to sea first for six months to test his fitness, and after that he would make him go through four or five years of College life, interspersed with cruises in training ships for obtaining the necessary knowledge in seaman-
  1948
  ship. That plan would dissociate the midshipman entirely from man-of-war life until he came on board finally as a trained officer, and would be of great harm, not only to the boy, but also to the Navy. It had been the bright spot in our Navy that the seamen had always looked up to their officers, knowing that they had learnt all the practical duties of the Profession from early childhood in the same school and ship life as themselves. Would there not be great danger of losing that, and also that practical eye for wind and weather, that ready resource, and that rapid and. unerring judgment, which could only be acquired by a life spent constantly at sea? The system suggested might undoubtedly give well read, well cultivated, and highly scientific men; but they would be theoretical and not practical seamen. Seamanship was as necessary now as ever, and it would be an evil day when we allowed our officers to sink to so low an ebb in practical seamanship as he often heard it was in other countries. His noble and gallant Friend pointed to foreign Navies as a reason why we should adopt this system, and especially to the American Navy, and quoted some remarks made by Mr. Soley, an American gentleman, who had written a most admirable Report on the system pursued in other Navies. So far as America was concerned, he doubted very much if we ought to take it as an example. In the first place, he understood that of those who entered in America at 16 or 17, no less than two-thirds left in the first two or three years, and of those who remained he much doubted if they turned out as practical seamen as our officers became. He was lately informed by a distinguished naval officer, who had served in a high post on that station, but whose name for obvious reasons he could not give to the House, that constantly when he had discussed the rival systems with American naval officers, they had one and all stated their conviction that the fault of their system was that it gave them theory, but far too little practical seamanship, and that they preferred our plan of entering cadets young and letting them become practical water-rats. As to the opinion of Mr. Soley, it must not be forgotten that it was that of a professor and not of a sailor. But we had

  1949
  had our own Committees, and we had two Reports, one in 1870 and the other in 1875. That of 1875 reported in the strongest way against any alteration of the system—
  "We are unable to approve of entering boys at 15 or 16 from schools, for the reason that the young officer should commence his active sea service at the earliest possible age. We concur in the necessity for a three years' course of training before going afloat, but, in our opinion, is a reason for entering even younger than at present."
  And the Report of 1870 was, though not so strongly, to the same effect. Surely we need not go to foreign Navies to see what our officers ought to be. He had always thought that our Navy was a model to all foreign countries, and he was certain that our officers were equal in knowledge and experience to any they might come in contact with. Above all, it was an undoubted fact that our officers had the reputation of being thorough practical seamen. His noble and gallant Friend had alluded to H.M.S. Pinafore. If he was not afraid of offending against the dignity of their Lordships' House, he should be much inclined to remind his noble and gallant Friend of the jocular advice given in H.M.S. Pinafore—
  "Stick to your desks and never go to sea
  And you all may be rulers of the Queen's navie."
  But while so opposed to altering the age of entering, he fully concurred with much that his noble and gallant Friend had stated as to improvements which ought to be effected. There were many recommendations in the Report of 1875 which ought to be carried out. In the first place, the
  Britannia system was not complete until they had proper training ships attached and the two years extended to three, so that the lads might have sea-cruizing and have seamanship properly taught them. Then, again, as to the four and a-half years' man-of-war life between this preliminary stage and the time when the young officers went to Greenwich, there was no doubt that there was much force in what had been said as to the little school work done with the naval instructor, though it must not be forgotten that the knowledge acquired in the Britannia was kept up. The remedy seemed to be to shorten this period, first by the extra year in sea cruising attached to the Britannia, and
  1950
  also by increasing the time a sub-lieutenant spent at Greenwich from six months to 12 months. "Naval instructors" might in this case be very well dispensed with, except in flag-ships for examination purposes, and the money should be applied to the training ships. He trusted that the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty would say that he had no intention of radically altering our present system by altering the age, but that he would improve and amend it as he had ventured to suggest. His noble and gallant Friend deprecated the Britannia system in no measured terms. Now, he would bring forward the noble and gallant Earl as a living witness against himself. The noble and gallant Earl had gone through the whole course, and certainly the finished article was a credit to the system. Of this he was confident—that if the Britannia continued to produce officers so well trained, so polished, and so able as his noble and gallant Friend, no one would regret more than their Lordships that a change such as he desired should be made.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he would first answer the Question which had been asked by the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) as to the sad loss of the Doterel. He had only to say that the whole of the information received by the Admiralty consisted of two telegrams, which had been communicated to the public Press. With respect to the question which had been under discussion, none could be of greater importance to Her Majesty's Naval Service than the entry and training of officers, and there was none which deserved more fully the candid consideration of their Lordships. He was, therefore, exceedingly glad that his noble Friends behind him had discussed the question so ably and fully. It struck him that those who criticized the present system of the entry and education of the officers of Her Majesty's Navy had omitted to lay the grounds which should be laid for that criticism, for they had not pointed out in what manner the officers who had entered and been trained under the present system had failed in performing the duties they were put to discharge, or were wanting in those high qualifications which were at present required in consequence of the vast improvements, if so they might be called, or, at all events, the vast alterations, in our men-of-war, and in

  1951
  the conditions of naval warfare. None of the noble Lords who had criticized the system had denied that we possessed officers at present in the Navy who were fit to hold their own in respect of scientific requirements with officers of the Royal Artillery and Engineers, though the latter entered at a later age by public competition, and had received a different class of training. If he might venture to express an opinion on such a subject, not being a professional man, but being in a position of responsibility with respect to the Navy, he would venture to assert that the system which now existed, if capable of improvements, had produced a body of most able scientific officers, among whom there were many who would compare favourably with the officers of any other Service in the world. He agreed with the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Sidmouth) that it would be rash to make any changes in the training of the Cadets without consulting the constitutional advisers of the First Lord of the Admiralty. He might, therefore, state that the subject had been under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty, which consisted of men peculiarly well qualified to form an opinion upon it, and that all his three Naval Colleagues, Sir Cooper Key, Lord John Hay, and Admiral Hoskins, concurred in thinking it undesirable to raise the age of entering into the Service. There was probably no officer in the Service who was better qualified to express an opinion upon the subject than Sir Cooper Key, who, in addition to his distinguished services, was an officer of high scientific acquirements, and had constantly promoted the scientific instruction of naval officers. Other officers with whom he had communicated had expressed the same views. The arguments on either side had been plainly stated—on the one hand, that the suggested change would introduce to the Navy cadets of increased scholastic acquirements; and, on the other hand, that older boys would not so readily gain habits of discipline and a complete knowledge of the Service. The balance of professional opinion was decidedly in favour of the earlier as compared with the later age. It had been said by the noble and gallant Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) that foreign nations, while they all differed from us, agreed among themselves in the adoption of another system. They certainly did differ from
  1952
  us; but he must demur to the statement that they were agreed among themselves as to the proper age of entry into the Naval Service. The fact was that there was every variety in foreign systems. In France boys were entered between the ages of 15 and 17; they were two years on board a stationary ship, and one in a sea-going ship. In Italy the age of entry was from 13 to 17 years, and the cadets spent three years in a naval school. In Germany the age of entry was 17, and the cadet first went to sea for six months, and then to a training ship for a like period, after which he went to sea in the ordinary course. In the United States boys were entered from 14 to 18, and spent four years at College, and three on board a training ship. The House would observe that there was every variety, both as to the age of entry and as to the subsequent system of training. But he did not think they were to be bound or guided by the action of any nation in the world in this particular matter, but should, from time to time, be guided by the experience and advice of the first officers of our own Service. His noble and gallant Friend had alluded to the American Professor Soley's Report, and had quoted it as condemnatory of our system of naval training. He fully admitted the ability of that Report, which, by the way, contained some words of praise for the results of our system; but he was informed that the American authorities were dissatisfied with the naval training in the United States, and were now proposing to send cadets to sea at the age of 16, which was about the same age at which they went afloat in our own Service. He believed those responsible for the training of naval officers were less satisfied with the training of young officers during the five years after they leave the Britannia than with any other part of our present system; and the House might rely that the possibility of remedying the defects would not be lost sight of. With regard to the criticisms that had been passed on the education of officers when they enter the Naval College at Greenwich, it was to be remembered that Sir Cooper Key, whose opinion had been quoted, had written seven years ago that since that time many improvements had been made, and that the gallant officer's words were not applicable to the existing state of

  1953
  things. He thought that Mr. Goschen had done wisely in promoting the establishment of the College, and he was heartily glad that the services of so distinguished an officer as Sir Geoffrey Hornby had been secured. Without entering particularly into the details of the various plans which had been suggested, he might state that he did not consider that a year or a year and a-half could make such a difference in the plan of education as his noble Friend suggested, nor was it, in his opinion, of the value which he attached to it; but, on the other hand, they might, by adopting that change, cause considerable practical deterioration in the quality of their Naval officers. The Board of Admiralty were not insensible to the necessity of making such changes in the regulation of the Service from time to time as were deemed most advisable; and in making such alterations they would be directed not only to the scientific attainments of the officers, which were necessary in a certain proportion, but more especially to the maintenance of those practical acquirements which could only be gained by the constant exercise of professional duties.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETtrusted that, as the two young Princes were receiving a Naval education, the system was a good one; but its merits had been questioned by the noble and gallant Earl, who differed from the authorities both as to the time of entry and as to the general method of education. As he understood the noble and gallant Earl, neither competition nor nomination was satisfactory, but a compromise between the two was preferable. There was a difference of opinion as to the comparative advantages of education in a ship in harbour and in a College on shore. They ought to give a lad an education proper for the profession which he was afterwards to follow; and it was no use to give him a smattering of Latin and Greek. It was far more important that he should have a knowledge of modern languages, and of the practical science specially required in the Navy. At all events, they ought not to begin by sending him to Eton or some other public school where classical subjects were taught, and scientific studies comparatively neglected. At such schools, too, he would get expensive habits and notions which were wholly inconsistent with service in
  1954
  the Navy. He did not wish to prolong this discussion; but he must express his belief that the First Lord of the Admiralty had decided rightly. It had been truly said that unless boys were sent to sea early they did not get web-footed. He should be glad to see an improvement in the education; but, at the same time, he trusted the minds of boys would not be strained too much by severe competitive examinations when they came to enter the Naval Service.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.