Sitting of 7 February 1882

Preamble
The House met at half after One of the clock.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and having returned;—

NEW WRIT ISSUED.
For Westminster City, v. Sir Charles Russell, baronet, Manor of Northstead.
NEW WRITS DURING THE RECESS.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House,—that he had issued Warrants for New Writs, for Berwick upon Tweed, v. Sir Dudley Coutts Marjoribanks, baronet, now Baron Tweedmouth; for Tiverton Borough, v. Eight honble. William Nathaniel Massey, deceased; for Stafford Borough, v. Alexander Macdonald, esquire, deceased; for Carmarthen Borough, v. Benjamin Thomas Williams, esquire, Judge of the County Court of Glamorganshire and Brecknockshire; for York County (North Riding), v. Honble. Reginald William Duncombe, commonly called Viscount Helmsley, deceased; for Preston Borough, v. Sir John Holker, one of the Lord Justices of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal; for Londonderry County, v. Eight honble. Hugh Law, Lord High Chancellor of Ireland.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Thomas Salt, esquire, for Stafford; John Jones Jenkins, esquire, for Carmarthen; Right honble. James Lowther

57
for Lincoln County (Northern Division); James Redfoord Bulwer, esquire, for Cambridge County; Right honble. Henry Cecil Raikes, for Preston; Hubert Edward Henry Jerningham, esquire, for Berwick upon Tweed; Thomas Alexander Dickson, esquire, for Tyrone County; Honble. Guy Cuthbert Dawnay, for York County (North Riding); Alexander Asher, esquire, for Elgin District of Burghs.

PARLIAMENTARY OATH.
Mr. BRADLAUGH, returned as one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton, came to the Table to take and to subscribe the Oath, and the Clerk was proceeding to administer the same to him, when——
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Member for the Northern Division of the County of Devon, rose and said; Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit to the House a Resolution identical, or nearly identical, with that which was passed on April 26 last year, the occasion when the hon. Gentleman who is now at the Table presented himself for the purpose of taking the Oath. This Resolution only differs from that one by reciting the Resolution taken on that occasion in addition to that which had previously been taken. The Resolution I have to submit is—
"That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880 and of the 26th April 1881, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statute 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72."
Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to import on this occasion, any more than on the former occasion, any considerations but those which are raised by the circumstances of the case, as I stated them last year, and as they are doubtless in the recollection of the House. The hon. Gentleman was returned, in the first instance, to this Parliament, and on the occasion of his proposing then to take his seat he requested that he might be—or he claimed that he should be—allowed to affirm, instead of taking the Oath, and he rested his claim upon certain Statutes which were only applicable in the case of persons upon whom the Oath was not binding. [Mr. BRADLAUGH dissented.] Such, at all events, was
58
the contention of those who objected to the hon. Gentleman making an Affirmation, and such was the opinion of the two Committees which sat upon the occasion; and such also, I think, was the opinion of the Courts of Law. At all events, the objection was taken, and the hon. Gentleman was held by the House, on the recommendation of the Committee, to be disqualified from making an Affirmation. Subsequently, he had permission given to make the Affirmation, subject to the decision of a Court of Law. We know that the result was that the decision of the Court was against his being admissible to affirm, and that, consequently, his seat was vacated—vacated by reason of his having sat without having taken the proper Oath or Affirmation. He was, however, re-elected, and the question arose as to his being permitted to take the Oath. The House had been previously advised by one of the Committees which sat upon this subject that for a Gentleman to claim to repeat the words of the Oath with such modifications as were necessarily implied in the proceedings which had taken place in Mr. Bradlaugh's case was not a taking of the Oath according to the law; and I accordingly moved—and the House by a majority, after discussion, affirmed—a Resolution which prevented his taking the Oath last year. This is the same House as was then sitting, and the hon. Gentleman is, I understand, in precisely the same position as he was then; and I presume the decision of the House will be the same as it was last year. I do not think it necessary, or even seemly, to trouble the House at any length upon the subject; and I will, therefore, content myself with submitting and placing in your hands, Sir, the Resolution which I have read to the House
MR. SPEAKER: Before the Question is put, I think it right to inform the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton that, according to the usual practice, he ought now to withdraw to a place below the Bar.
MR. BRADLAUGH (who had remained standing at the Table): In complying with your direction. Sir, I respectfully submit that I may be heard before the House comes to a decision upon my claim to take the Oath.
MR. SPEAKER: That is a matter for the House to determine.
[The hon. Member then withdrew.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880 and of the 26th April 1881, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statute 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and S2 Vic. c. 72."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I deeply regret the accidental absence of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen, surely, do not imagine that his absence is intentional? If necessary, I will assure them that it is not. My right hon. Friend had intended to be in his place to make the Motion which it now devolves upon me to make. He probably imagined that he would not be called upon to do so until half-past 4. I shall, I think, best fulfil the duty which has so unexpectedly fallen upon me by following the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and, importing into this matter as few personal considerations as possible, place before the House as simply as I can the Motion which it is my duty to submit on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The view which the Government has always taken of this question is—this being a matter—whether it be an Oath or an Affirmation—which is prescribed and determined by the Statute—the Statute referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in his Motion, ordering a certain form of Oath which is prescribed by the Statute to be taken—the view which the Government have always taken in this matter is, that the House of Commons ought not—and, indeed, speaking with all respect, has not the right—to vary the provisions of that Statute. That is to say; that the House has no right to interpose and say that a person duly elected by any constituency is not entitled to come to this Table and take the Oath which the Statute affirms he is to take. That is the short and simple view of the question. We regard a Resolution of this character as, in effect, doing what a Resolution of the House of Commons ought not to do—namely, set aside the provisions of an Act of Parliament. We consider that the House of Commons has no business to inquire into the opinions of any individual. We con-
60
sider that, when a duly-elected Member presents himself to take the Oath prescribed by Statute, he ought to be permitted to take that Oath, as the Statute prescribes that he must. That is the short and simple view which we present, and which we have always taken of this matter. Now, that being so, I understand that a Member elected by a constituency has come to the Table and claimed to take that Oath which the Statute prescribes. The right hon. Baronet then interposes with a Resolution which refers to a transaction with which the House is very familiar. There is one sentence only in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman which I will comment upon. That sentence is, I understand, a speculation upon the character of the Oath, and draws a distinction between the Oath, as prescribed by the Statute, and a form of words to which the right hon. Gentleman makes reference. It is for us, apparently, according to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, to determine whether a person uttering a certain form of words is, or is not, taking the Oath. That introduces a consideration with which, I venture to submit, this House has nothing to do. If it be the fact that there are certain circumstances which prevent the repetition of this form of words constituting the Oath, according to the true intent and meaning of the Statute, that, in our opinion, is a question for a Court of Law to determine. We have the right only to allow the form of words to be administered to the person claiming to take the Oath. If that in law is not an Oath, then the Court of Law will determine that a man has not taken the Oath, though he has pronounced the form of words. That, we venture to submit, is not a question that the House has to determine, but is a question that ought to be left to the decision of a Court of Law; and from that point of view, if it be contended that the taking the form of words prescribed by the Statute is not taking the Oath within the meaning of the Statute, then we say that question ought to be referred to a Court of Law as a question for it to decide, just as the House decided that the Affirmation should be left to a Court of Law. And, therefore, the course that we take—and, as far as any advice of ours is valued, we should advise the House of Commons to take—is, as they permitted Mr. Brad-

61
laugh to take the Affirmation, subject to the decision of the Court of Law, so he should be allowed to take the Oath in the form of words prescribed by the Statute, subject to the judgment of the Court of Law, whether that is a fulfilment of the conditions presented by the Statute. I have endeavoured to make this statement as clear and simple as I could. I will say no more on the subject; but my right hon. Friend will supply all that which I have left unsaid, if it be necessary. I will now conclude by proposing the Motion which I know it was the intention of my right hon. Friend to make. I move the Previous Question.
Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put."—(Sir William Harcourt.)
MR. NEWDEGATE: It is well known that I have supported the issue of a writ against Mr. Bradlaugh for having sat and voted in this House without having duly made the Affirmation contemplated by the Statute; and the Courts of Law have already decided that he has not complied with the law in that respect, and the only question remaining before the Courts on appeal is the time at which the writ impugning his action was issued; I may therefore conclude from Mr. Bradlaugh's present proceeding, and from the proceedings of the Court on appeal, that the law has decided that he is not duly qualified to be a Member of this House. That is proved, I think, by his appearance here to-night and his claim of last Session to be allowed to go through the form of taking the Oath, which the House has emphatically refused him permission to do. The question now raised, in fact, is, whether, in going through the form of repeating the words of the Oath, Mr. Bradlaugh can evade the effect of the sanction of the Oath, which the Courts have declared to be of the essence of the Oath; this is contained in the concluding words, "So help me God." These words Mr. Bradlaugh, before a Committee of this House, has admitted to be to him meaningless. I presume that the course which he now intends to take is to induce the House to accept his mere repetition of the words of the Oath, and thus deliberately to allow him, standing before the House, to take the name of God in vain. He proposes to
62
do this, pretending that this performance can be taken as equivalent for the declaration provided purposely by Parliament under the Act of 1869 for persons who desire to give evidence, but are known not to believe in God. I repeat, that Mr. Bradlaugh wants this House to accept his empty repetition of the words of the Oath as equivalent to the declaration to be made by unbelievers under the Act of 1869. Now, Mr. Bradlaugh, in my hearing, complied with this Statute, for he summoned me and my solicitor before the Police Court at Bow Street for the ancient offence of "maintenance" in the action for recovery of a penalty from him for sitting and voting in this House without having taken the Oath of Allegiance. I appeared, and I am glad to say that the summonses were dismissed. When Mr. Bradlaugh rose to give evidence against me I could not, from where I sat in the Court, hear what he said; so I want to one of my counsel and asked him whether the magistrate was allowing Mr. Bradlaugh to affirm in the sense of that term understood in this House, which induced the House to refuse to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to make the Affirmation of Allegiance; and the counsel, to whom I applied in the Police Court, informed me that the magistrate refused to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to affirm, and insisted upon his proceeding to make a declaration under the Act of 1869, framed for persons who do not believe in God. Therefore, I submit to the House that there is a clear distinction drawn by Statute between the declaration which Mr. Bradlaugh made at the Bow Street Police Court, as an unbeliever, and the Oath or the Affirmation required to qualify a Member of this House. If, therefore, this House should permit Mr. Bradlaugh to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath in lieu of the declaration for unbelievers, the House itself will violate the law. I hope the House will pardon me; but this is a matter of personal cognizance with me, and I am not sure that any other Member present in the House has the information which I have endeavoured to convey. I cannot but feel, Sir, that the House is proceeding abruptly and without due notice, by accident perhaps, in a very grave matter, I should be very much surprised if one tithe of the Members of this House were prepared for the state-

63
ment which I have ventured to make. I was glad to see an hon. Member enter the House just now who was a counsel in the case, and I conclude that he heard what occurred on the occasion to which I have referred. If this be so, I venture to think that I shall have his support. It is clear that the House is taken by surprise in reference to one of the gravest Constitutional questions that could possibly arise. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has at last, I rejoice to say, attended to the repeated solicitations addressed to him, by announcing his intention to move the Amendment of the Forms of proceeding which regulate the debates and Business of the House. I have long felt the necessity for some such action, and I rejoice that the right hon. Gentleman has at length attended to the earnestly-expressed public opinion on this subject. But let the House remember that in dealing with the question now before it, unprepared as is the House for dealing with it in its present form—for we none of us were aware, until a quarter of an hour ago, what form it would assume—I say, let the House remember that in dealing with this question, now so abruptly thrust upon our attention, that we are dealing with the fundamental Order of the House. Every question, of whatever nature, is open to discussion in this House but those which the House is precluded from discussing by the Statute 5 Elizabeth, and the Statutes amending that Act. The effect of these enactments is, that any questions can be debated and decided in this House except such as are inconsistent with the purport of the Oaths of Members. In consequence, no Member can propose to discuss the existence of God, because the whole sanction of the Oath is contained in the words "So help me God," which the Courts have decided to be of the essence of the Oath. The Courts have now gone further by deciding that the making of the "solemn" Affirmation, which is made in liew of the Parliamentary Oath of Allegiance, is a religious declaration, and in this respect is like the Oath, and precludes discussion in this House as to the existence of God. There is yet another subject which the House is precluded from discussing, and that is the right of Her Majesty to the Throne of these Realms. From the discussion of that subject the House is precluded, be-
64
cause to negative that right would be contrary to the Oaths of Members. Again, the House is also precluded, under the Act of 1866, from discussing the question of the succession to the Throne, because any division of the House, or any opinion of the House, the purport of which might be contrary to the limitation of the succession to the House of Brunswick, would be contrary to the Oaths of Members. These three are fundamental limitations under the Statute 5 Elizabeth, and the subsequent Statutes to the same effect, within which the proceedings and debates of this House are, and have for centuries been, confined. But these proceedings and debates, under our ancient Rules, have avowedly attained an undue latitude; and at the very time that the Prime Minister now proposes to render more stringent the subsidiary Rules and Orders for the purpose of restraining this modern excess, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would admit to a seat in the House, if I am to conclude anything from his action, a person who has declared that the words "So help me God" are meaningless to him; while this Mr. Bradlaugh, it is well known throughout the country, has attacked the succession to the Throne. [Dissent.] But I have his publications by me; and I say that the right hon. Gentleman is about to admit to a seat in this House a person who will not be bound by the fundamental limitations on the action of all others in this House. If one Member be permitted to violate these fundamental axioms by the rule of the equality which prevails in the House, it will be open to the whole House to dispute these fundamental maxims, which constitute a Parliament, as distinct from a Convention. I little thought, Sir, that it would rest with me, feebly and almost unprepared, to state these great truths to the House; but I do pray the House to pause before allowing this question to go by default, or to lapse to the Courts of Law, for it is a question upon which the Courts of Law cannot decide, unless expressly commissioned by this House so to deal or decide. There are Statutes in existence which govern the matter; but there is no Statute which permits a mere declaration to be made as a substitute, or an equivalent for the taking of the Oath of Allegiance—I trust, then,

65
the House will pause. I would pray the House to consider the grave political and religious questions involved in this matter. Let me ask hon. Members to look across the Channel. France is now a Republic, and since the great Revolution of 1789 no direct Heir to the Throne of France has succeeded in peace. I have seen France under a limited Monarchy. Then I have seen it under a temporary Republic. Next I have seen France under an Empire, and now France, twice conquered within the century, is again a Republic You are about to tunnel under the Channel between the two countries—are you not now so tunnelling as to destroy the distinction between the bases of government in the two countries? In England Christianity is part and parcel of the Constitutional Law; whilst in France it has never been so permanently since the first great Revolution which rent that country—that is, for nearly a century. Compare the respective condition of the two countries. The wealth and population of France are stationary, and the prestige of the arms of France is gone; but look at England! Her wealth and population have increased, and her Kingdom has expanded into an Empire. The fundamental difference between the Constitutions of the two countries is this—That the Constitution of England is fundamentally Christian, while the foundation of the Constitution of France is not. France has no Coronation Oath to be taken by whoever might be her Sovereign. No Oath taken by the Members of the Legislature is equivalent to the Oath taken by the Members of both Houses of Parliament, by which, as by the Coronation Oath, the Deity is recognized, and the people are led to venerate the obligation of the law thus made by believers. It is that sense of religion and veneration, based upon a belief in God, that sustains your credit and your country's greatness. I repeat, look across the Channel. There is but one other country in the world besides England which has not for centuries suffered from revolution, and has not been conquered—that country is Russia. For years never conquered, never revolutionized. There are differences between the institutions of Russia and those of England—differences between their Churches, their laws, and the terms of Sovereignty. I rejoice that the insti-
66
tutions of this country are in many respects different from those of Russia. Yet there is this one great fundamental point of identity between them—the institutions of Great Britain and those of Russia base their claims to the respect of their subjects for the law and for the Sovereign power upon the fact that that Sovereign power rests upon the Word of God, as written. Then look across the ocean to the United States of America. They have not adopted this system; they have had a great Civil War, which nearly rent them in twain; two Presidents of the United States have been murdered within the memory of us all. Sir, these are not times in. which this House should neglect or reject the important lessons which such great and historical and Constitutional facts as I have ventured, however imperfectly, to bring under the attention of the House, teach.
Mr. SPEAKER, having taken the pleasure of the House, that the hon. Member for Northampton be now heard:—
MR. BRADLAUGH(who spoke from the Bar) said: Sir, in addressing the House for the third time from this position, I feel the exceeding difficulty of dealing fairly with myself without dealing unfairly with the House. If I were to follow the hon. Member who has just sat down into his errors of law, of history, and of memory, into his reckless misconceptions as to what are the views I hold and write about, I should only be giving pain to numbers of Members here, and departing from that mandate with which my constituents have trusted me. It is—I say it with all respect—not true that I have done anything more with reference to the succession than maintain the right of Parliament, meaning by Parliament both Houses, to control it; and any Member who pretends that I have done anything else either does it, not having read what I have written, or heard what I have said, or having forgotten entirely what I have written or said, and being extremely careless in representing my views to the House. I regret that the hon. Member should have imported into the discussion some fact supposed to have occurred in a Police Court since I stood here before. I can only give the House my positive assurance that the hon. Member is perfectly inaccurate in his representation of what took place. It is ex-

67
ceedingly painful to bandy words in this way. The hon. Member was good enough to say he did not hear—he could not well have heard, for the magistrate did not refuse my affirmation at all. I happened to have been before Mr. Vaughan before, and he knew me, and knew the particular form of affirmation, and when the clerk read it to me no discussion took place on the subject. I hope the House will forgive me for contradicting such a small thing; but small things are sometimes much used. They have been used to work my ruin since I stood here before, and I regret that the shame of reticence did not at least keep it from this House, that the hon. Member thought it his duty, by a common informer, to attempt to drive me into the Bankruptcy Court, and outside this House has boasted that the question would be solved in that way. It may be a brave boast, it may be consonant with piety from the hon. Member's point of view; but I believe that every other hon. Gentleman's sense of piety would revolt against the notion of driving a single man into bankruptcy, and then canvassing for subscriptions for the "bold and vigorous, and patriotic and noble conduct," as the advertisement said, which consisted in hurrying in a cab to find the common informer to issue a writ against me. I dismiss that, however. I ask the House to pardon me for having wasted its time on this poor thing. I do not hope, I dare not think, that any word I may say here will win one vote; and I would have let this go silently against me, were it not that I owe a duty to the constituency that has twice intrusted me with its suffrages, a duty to every constituency right through the land in time to come, whose Representative may be challenged as Northampton's has been. ["No!"] Some hon. Gentlemen say "No!" but where is the challenge to stop? It is not simply theology, it is politics too. It is not simply theology that is brought before the House, but the wild imaginings of some Member who, with the nightmare of panic upon him, and a wild imagining of the French Revolution clothed in terrors of which I know nothing, comes here to tell you of mighty Russia successful, and of the unfortunate United States with its Presidents assassinated because of religious and political opinions. Panic of that kind is not evidence as to my opinions. If this House intends to try me for my opinions,
68
let it do it reasonably, and at least have the evidence before it. I would show you how unfair it is to trust to memory of words. The hon. Member was good enough to tell the House that I had declared to a Committee of the House that certain words were meaningless. I hold in my hand the Report of the Committee and the Minutes of Evidence, and no such word exists in any declaration of mine. [Mr. NEWDEGATE dissented.] The hon. Member does not believe me. I cannot make more than facts. I cannot make the comprehension which should distinguish when prejudice has determined that nothing shall be right that is put. The only way in which it can be pretended that anything of the kind in reference to the Oath can be brought in is by taking my letter of the 20th of May, written outside the House, which does not contain a specific declaration the hon. Member has put into it, which letter I protested ought not to be brought before the Committee at all, which I never volunteered to the Committee, which I objected to the Committee having before them. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen who laugh, laugh because the laugh is the only answer that could be given. No reason can be given in reply, no facts can be quoted; and I ask hon. Members who laugh to remember that I am pleading as though a quasi-criminal at this Bar, and that I have a right to an audience from them, and I appeal to the House at least to give me a silent hearing. Judges do that. If you are unfit to be judges, then do not judge. It shows, at least, the difficulty of dealing with a question like this, when those who are to judge have come to a judgment already, not upon any facts, but upon what they think ought to be the facts. I ask the House to deal legally and fairly with me. Legally, you are bound to deal; fairly, as an Assembly of English Gentlemen, you ought to deal with me, even if you have differences with me, even if you think my opinions so obnoxious, even if you think that the politics with which you identify me in your minds are dangerous to you. ["Oh, oh!"] If I am not dangerous, why not let me speak there? (pointing to the seat he occupied last Session). If there is no danger, why strain the law? If there is no danger, why disobey the law? It is put by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last that there are certain words of the

69
Oath which the Courts of Law have declared essential. The Courts of Law have declared the exact opposite. So far as a decision has been given, the very Report of the Committee shows that the highest Court of Judicature in this Realm has decided the words are not essential to the Oath at all. I ask the House to deal with me with some semblance and show of legality and fairness; and first I say that they ought not to go behind my election of the 9th of April, 1881, and that the House ought to reject the Resolution moved by the right hon. Gentleman, because it deals with matters which antedate my election, and because the House has nothing to do with me before the 9th of April, 1881. That is the return of which the Clerk at the Table has the certificate. That is my only authority for being here. If I did aught before that rendered me unworthy to sit here, why did the House let me sit here from the 2nd of July to the 29th of March? If what I did entitles the House not to receive me, why has not the House had the courage of its opinions and vacated the seat? Either the seat is mine in law, and in law I claim it from you, or I am unworthy to own it, and then why not vacate the seat and let the constituency express its opinion again? But my return is un-impeached, it is unimpeachable, and there has been no Petition against me. The hon. Member who went into back alleys for common informers could not find a petitioner to present a Petition against it. If I speak with temper the House, I trust, will pardon me. I have read within the last few days words spoken, not by Members of no consequence, but by Members occupying high position in this House, which makes me wonder if this is the House of Commons to which I aspired so much. I have read that one right hon. Member, the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), was prompted to say to his constituents that I was kicked downstairs last Session, and that he hoped I should be again. If it were true that I was kicked downstairs, I would ask Members of the House of Commons on whom the shame, on whom the disgrace, on whom the stigma? I dare not apply this, but history will when I have mouldered, and you, too, and our passions are quite gone. But it is not quite true that I was kicked downstairs, and it is a dangerous thing
70
to say that I was, for it means that hon. Members, who should rely on law, rely on force. It is a dangerous provocation to conflict to throw to the people. If I had been as wicked in my thought as some Members are reported to have been in their speech, this quarrel, not of my provoking, would assume a future to make us all ashamed. I beg this House to believe, and I trust, Sir, that you at least will believe me, that I have tried as much as man might to keep the dignity of this House. I submitted last Session, and the Session before, to have had things said against me without one word of reply, because, having had your good counsel, I felt it might provoke discussion upon matters which this House would willingly not have speech upon, and that I had far better rest under some slight stigma than occupy the House with my personality. I appeal to the recollection of every Member of the House whether from the moment of my entering into it I did not utterly disregard everything that took place prior to my coming into it, and direct myself to the business for which my constituents sent me here. The most extraordinary statements are made as to my views statements as inaccurate as those which have fallen, no doubt unconsciously, from the hon. Member who has last addressed the House. One noble Lord in a great London gathering convoked against me—a gathering which was not as successful as some that have taken place in my favour—denounced me as a Socialist. I do not happen to be one. I happen to think that Socialists are the most unwise and illogical people you can happen to meet. But the noble Lord knew that I ought to be something. I am a red rag to a wild Conservative bull, and it must rush at me and call me Socialist. I ask this House to be more fair and just. If I am to be tried, at least let me be tried for the opinions I hold and the views I express. Why, there are Members who have soiled their tongues with words about social relations and marriage for which I have no proper reply in this House, as unfortunately the Forms of the House do not permit me to use the only fitting answer, and perhaps it is as well. But I ask the House, Do not let this be the kind of weapon, with which a return is met. Deal with me as the law directs, and in no other way. It is said—"You have brought

71
this upon yourself." One Baronet, who has spoken of me with a kindness more than I deserve, in the very borough which I represent, said I had brought it upon myself, because when I originally came to the House I flaunted and most ostentatiously put my opinion upon the House. Well, not one word of that is true. Not a shadow of it is true. I hold in my hand the sworn evidence of Sir Erskine May. I do not ask Gentlemen to take my word, for it is clear they will not, but that of their own officer. And when the right hon. Baronet said I claimed under the Statute, and drew an inference from it, he knows that my claim contained no such words until the Clerk at the Table of the House challenged me as to the law under which I claimed. I do not quarrel with him; but I submit that the Clerk of the House had no right to put that question to me. I submit that the House had nothing whatever to do with it—that it certainly is no ostentatious flaunting by me. I submit, at any rate, that it is prior to the 9th of April, 1881, and the House has no right to revive it against me. I ask the House to try and deal with me with some show of fairness. They will find when I was before the Committee, instead of obtruding my opinions, I said I had never, directly or indirectly, obtruded upon the House any of my utterances or publications upon any subject whatever; and when pressed by one of the Members sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House as to certain opinions I was supposed to hold, by asking me particular words I was supposed to have used in a judicial proceeding, I said that if the Committee wished I would answer, but that I objected to answer, because I had carefully refrained from saying any word which would bring my opinions before the House. I ask, therefore, the House whether it is not monstrously unfair to say that I have obtruded any opinions here, when I have expressly, carefully, and thoroughly kept them from the House? But it is said by the right hon. Baronet that it would be a profanation to allow me to take the Oath, and that the House would be no party to such a profanation. Does the House mean that it is a party to each Oath taken? There was a time when most clearly it was not so a party. There was a time when the Oath was not even taken in the presence of Members
72
at all. But does the House mean it is a party now? Was it a party the Session before last? Was it a party when Mr. Hall walked up to that Table, cheered by Members on the other side, who knew his seat was won by deliberate bribery? [Cries of "Order!"] Bribery sought to be concealed by the most corrupt perjury. Did the House join in it? If the House did not join in it, why did you cheer so that the words of the Oath were drowned? But was the House a party when John Stuart Mill sat in this House? ["No!"] A Member who is, I think, now within the walls of the House—the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Boord)—in addressing his constituents, said that Mr. Brad-laugh's opinions were hardly more objectionable than those of some other Members of the House. If the hon. Member knew that, then he was a party to the profanation of the Oath; but perhaps they were on his own side, and he did not feel the profanation so acutely. But it is said—"Our real objection is that you have declared that the Oath is not binding upon you." [Mr. R. N. FOWLER: Hear, hear!] That is exactly the opposite of what I did declare. The hon. Member whose voice I hear now, I unfortunately heard on the 3rd of August; and heard so that I shall never forget it. The hon. Member admits that is the point—that I have declared the Oath is not binding upon my conscience; but, unfortunately, all the print goes the other way. I am asked by the Committee who sat as to whether the Oath is binding, and on page 15 I reply—
"Any form that I went through, any Oath that I took, I shall regard as binding upon my conscience in the fullest degree, and I would go through no form and take no Oath unless I meant it to he so binding."
Again, I am asked as to the word "swear." I say—
"I consider when I take an Oath it is binding upon my honour and upon my conscience; "
and, with reference to the words of asseveration to which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire referred, he would, at least, have been more generous towards myself, if generosity be possible with him, if he had said—"I desire to add—and I do this most solemnly and unreservedly—that the taking, and subscribing, and repeating these words of asseveration will in no degree weaken the binding effect of the Oath upon my

73
conscience." I say here, Sir, before you, with all the solemnity man can command, that I know the words of the Oath the Statute requires me to take, and I am ready to take that Oath according to law, and that I will not take an Oath without intending it to be binding upon me, and that if I do take the Oath it will be binding upon my honour and conscience. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Members of the House who are ignorant of what is honour and conscience—[Loud cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"] If Members will allow me to finish my sentence—["Withdraw!"] Members of this House who are ignorant of what is—[Renewed cries of "Withdraw!"] These are my judges. Members of this House who are ignorant of what is the honour and conscience of the man who stands before them, have a right to shout "Withdraw!" but they must beware lest a greater voice outside at the ballot-box, where it has a right to express it, may not only say "withdraw;" but make withdraw all those who infringe the Constitutional rights of the nation, as they seek to infringe them now. If I knew any kind of word which might convince Members whom I desire to convince that I would take no pledge that I did not mean to be binding, I would use that form of word. But I have found myself so harshly judged, so unfairly dealt with, that one feels a difficulty in understanding whether any form of words, however often repeated, would convey any kind of conviction to some minds. I presume that this House will repeat its vote of April 26. What then? Will it have the courage of its opinions, and vacate my seat? If it does not, this House leaves me in an unfair position before the law. I am bound to come to this Table, and will come to this Table, as long as the mandate of my constituents sends me here, unless the House vacates the seat. If my seat be vacated it is my duty to bow to the House, and appeal to my constituents again; and then the verdict rests with them. But to take away part of the right, and deal with it in this fashion, leaving me with the full legal responsibility and no kind of legal authority, I submit is not generous. Well, will this House repeat its vote of 9th May? Will it substitute force for law? At present the law is on my side. ["No, no!"] If not, let me sit and sue
74
me. If not, try by petition. If not, bring an action. But shouting "No!" will not decide the law, even with the united wisdom of the Members of this House who shout it. I know that no man is a good advocate for a great principle unless he himself be worthy of the principle he advocates, and I have felt acutely the judgment properly passed upon me by many Members of this House, who, knowing their superiority to me, say how unworthy I am that this question should be fought in my person. I admit I am unworthy; but it is not my fault that I have this fight to make. I remind you of the words of one of the greatest statesmen who sat in this House more than 100 years ago, that whenever an infringement of the Constitutional right was attempted it was always attempted in the person of some obnoxious man. I ask the House for a moment to carry its mind to the 3rd of August last. I do that because either I do not understand what took place then, or my memory has failed mo, as the memory of other hon. Members sometimes do, or things happened without my consciousness. I thought that I had stood aside until Parliament had dealt with the pressing business of the nation. I thought that had been recognized by this House. I thought I only came saying at the very door of the House that I was ready to obey its lawful orders, and I thought I was then seized by force while saying it. My memory may not serve me well on that, but I think it does. There were plenty of witnesses to the scene. I saw one hon. Member climb on to a pedestal to see how 14 men could struggle with one. It was hardly generous, hardly brave, hardly worthy of the great House of Commons, that those sending out to the whole world lessons of freedom, liberty, and law, should so infringe and so stamp them under foot. I had no remedy in any Court, or I would have taken it. With all respect to you, Sir, and the officers of this House, if there had been any possibility of trying at law against the mighty privilege of this House, I would have appealed to that possibility. Let me now, before I finish, ask the ear of the House for one moment. It is said it is the Oath and not the man; but others, more frank, say it is the man. and not the Oath. Is it the Oath and not the man? I am ready to stand aside, say for four or five weeks, with-

75
out coming to that Table, if the House within that time, or within such time as its great needs might demand, would discuss whether an Affirmation Bill should pass or not. I want to obey the law, and I tell you how I might meet the House still further, if the House will pardon me for seeming to advise it. Hon. Members have said that would be a Bradlaugh Relief Bill. Bradlaugh is more proud than you are. Let the Bill pass without applying to elections that have taken place previously, and I will undertake not to claim my seat, and when the Bill has passed I will apply for the Chiltern Hundreds. I have no fear. If I am not fit for my constituents, they shall dismiss me; but you never shall. The grave alone shall make me yield.
[Mr. BRADLAUGH then withdrew.]
EARL PERCYsaid, that Mr. Bradlaugh had referred to a meeting at which he (Earl Percy) had had the honour of presiding, and which Mr. Bradlaugh characterized as not a success. He (Earl Percy) thought it right to state that so far as it was not a success, although it was by no means wholly unsuccessful, it was due to the fact that being a ticket meeting, and announced as such, the supporters and sympathizers of Mr. Bradlaugh fabricated tickets for the purpose of attending, took possession of the platform, and endeavoured forcibly to eject those who had assembled.
MR. LABOUCHEREwished to state one fact it was important all Members should know—namely, that there had been a great many Petitions sent to hon. Members in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take his seat; and no doubt there had been Petitions sent to hon. Members on the opposite side against Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to take his seat. He had himself received 750 odd Petitions, signed by about 170,000 persons; and other hon. Gentlemen on the same side had received other Petitions, signed by about 100,000 persons. This debate was taking place without those Petitions being presented to the House, and he wished to state why that was the case. He had consulted the authorities of the House, and had been informed by them that it was not permissible to present those Petitions on the first day of the Session. Under those circumstances, and however
76
remarkable that Rule might be, and however much it might tell in a debate such as this, all who were interested on either side who were intrusted with Petitions had to present them after the debate had taken place. He wished also to say a word with regard to the proposal made by his hon. Colleague; and he hoped they would have some reply from some hon. Gentleman of authority on the opposite side of the House. He thought hon. Members would deem that a fair and loyal proposal had been made, as Mr. Bradlaugh proposed to entirely sacrifice himself. If the right hon. Member for North Devon would withdraw his Resolution to-day, Mr. Bradlaugh would withdraw himself from the Table, and remain away a month or six weeks, or any determined period, only asking that during that time a Bill should be brought in to enable any Member either to affirm or take the Oath at his pleasure. Mr. Bradlaugh did not for a moment ask hon. Members to vote in opposition to their views, or in favour of such a Bill; all he asked was there should not be such obstruction as to render it impossible for the opinion of the House to be taken on that Bill. He thought Mr. Bradlaugh had a fair claim to ask that that obstruction should not take place, because hon. Members would admit that when such a Bill was brought in before there was opposition on the opposite side. ["No, no!"] Well, two years ago he gave Notice of a Bill, which was read a first time; but he was not allowed to read it a second time. His Bill was "blocked"—they all knew what that meant—and he did not obtain an opportunity of having it discussed. Again, last year, in one of the debates about Mr. Bradlaugh, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) got up and said he thought the best way of meeting the question was by legislating in that sense upon it; but that the question was one so important that the Government should accept the responsibility of legislating upon it. The Government accepted the challenge at once, and, of course, he gave way for the Government to bring in their Bill. But what followed? The Government were not even allowed to let the House know what it was. They asked for a day on which to bring it in—a Saturday, he believed. [An hon. MEMBER: A Morning Sitting.] Yes, a

77
Morning Sitting; but they were not allowed to bring it in; and he would appeal to the fairness of hon. Members to say whether there was not obstruction on the part of hon. Members on the opposite side of the House? It seemed to him that in a month the whole matter might be settled. He was going to give Notice of a Bill; but if the Government wished to bring in one he would yield to them. How long would it take to discuss it? On the second reading a fair discussion would be one evening. The Bill would consist of but one clause, and another evening could be devoted to that in Committee, and the third reading ought not to take more than one hour; and if hon. Members on the opposite side would consent to that, the whole matter might be settled very quickly. In some sense he sympathized with hon. Members upon this subject. They knew that Mr. Bradlaugh had atheistical opinions some time ago, and they assumed that he had them now. He perfectly understood that hon. Gentlemen opposite said there was a strong objection to any Gentleman with such opinions coming to the Table of the House and repeating the words of an Oath which they held sacred, but to which Mr. Bradlaugh did not attach the same sanctity. Where they parted company with hon. Gentlemen was here. They said the law allowed Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath, and, having been elected, he was bound to perform his duties as a Member; and he put it to hon. Gentlemen whether it would not be more desirable to settle the matter at once, in order that henceforth no person entertaining atheistical opinions should have an excuse for using those words which, by the merest accident, they were able to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from using? If this Parliament were to be dissolved, and Mr. Bradlaugh, or anyone entertaining his opinions, were to be elected to the next Parliament, it would be perfectly competent for them to come to the Table and take the Oath, and it would be impossible for any hon. Gentleman to object; therefore, he said, with all respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and their feelings on the subject of religion, it was in the interests of religion that this matter should be settled, and settled promptly, by legislation. If such a Bill were passed, Mr. Bradlaugh promised it should not affect him as
78
Member for Northampton, but only those who were elected after its passing; therefore, it was desirable the matter should be settled in that way.
SIB STAFFOED NOETHCOTE: Sir, I find it necessary to rise after the hon. Member for Northampton, in the first place to confirm one statement that he has made, and next to raise a question as to another of his statements. It is perfectly well known to all Members of the House, but it may probably not be known to gentlemen out-of-doors, that a difficulty has arisen with regard to the presentation of Petitions in this matter. Considering the very great interest felt in this question out-of-doors, and the enormous number of letters, Resolutions, and Petitions which have been forwarded certainly to Gentlemen on this side of the House—and I have no doubt to Gentlemen on the other side—it may appear strange to the public that no Petitions have been presented on the present occasion. I myself have received a considerable number, which I should be glad to lay before the House, and amongst them one signed by 10,300 persons, a large proportion of whom give their occupations and addresses, in the borough of Northampton. I mention that because, though they are anxious that their Petition should be presented, it was not within our competency to break the Rules of the House, and, therefore, they and all these Petitions must stand over. With regard to another point, I wish it to be clearly understood how we stand with respect to the Motion I have made and the Amendment, the Previous Question, moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) on behalf of the Government. As I understand it, Mr. Bradlaugh, presenting himself here and offering to take the Oath, would have taken the Oath unless I had interposed with the Motion which I have submitted. Upon that Motion I invited the House to express an opinion; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has moved the Previous Question, and should he be successful in carrying his majority with him he will stop the putting of my objection; and the result will be that Mr. Bradlaugh, as a matter of course, will be permitted to take the Oath, There is no question, as some have suggested, of any intermediate course in this matter. The Previous

79
Question, in point of form, may be called an intermediate course, but it is not so really; it is practically giving him the right to take the Oath. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman says you may give him that right, subject to an appeal to a Court of Law—to the action of a Court of Law—which shall subsequently decide whether the taking of the Oath in the way he proposes to take it is in accordance with, and within the meaning of, the Rules for the admittance of Members of this House. I have a great objection to that mode of dealing with the question. I think that is by no means the way in which you ought to settle a question of this sort. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says—"Do the same with regard to the Oath as you did with the Affirmation; you allowed Mr. Bradlaugh to make Affirmation, subject to the decision of a Court of Law." But what has been the result of allowing Mr. Bradlaugh to make Affirmation? We have had suits, cross-suits, and counter-suits before the Court, and there has been a great expenditure of money and a great deal of vexation and annoyance. I venture to think the result, although confirming the view of those with whom I sympathize and act, and also the view of the Committee which sat on this question, is yet an unsatisfactory way of having dealt with the question. But in regard to the Affirmation, we were, at least, free from one difficulty which now attends us. There was no question of profanation in that. Although it may be said we ought to be indifferent to such a matter, we are not indifferent, and the country is not indifferent. There is a large body of the people representing various shades of religious opinion who all feel strongly on that matter, and think with us that it is our duty, if possible, to unite to prevent the profanation of the name of God. We may be told we are wrong; we may be told we are bigoted. But it is our sincere feeling, and a feeling which ought to command respect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks us to get over that feeling, and to submit to the taking place of that to which we object. That is a very different case to the case of allowing Affirmation; and, in addition to the inconvenience of going to the Courts of Law, there will be the shock that will be given to the religious feeling, not only of the House, but of large
80
bodies in the country who are looking with the deepest interest at our proceedings. The other statement of the hon. Member for Northampton to which I would wish to allude is that in reference to what he calls the obstruction offered to the Oaths Bill last Session. It is perfectly true that facilities were not given to the Government to the full extent they desired to enable them to bring forward that Bill; but I beg to point out that the most important facility was given in that the matter was put entirely in their own hands. Hon. Members are aware that a Government or any other Bill can be blocked after half-past 12; and if in the case of the Oaths Bill any Member on this side of the House had adopted that course, there would, I admit, have been a real case of obstruction. But that was not done. What was done was to abstain from blocking the Government in commencing their debate on the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill, and an adjournment of that debate having taken place it was within the power of the Government, from that time up to the end of the Session, to make the adjourned debate the first Order of the Day on any Government night, when it would have been open to them to have taken the opinion of the House on the measure. That being the ease, the Government have no right to throw upon us the charge that we obstructed the Bill. Undoubtedly, many Members on this side of the House strongly objected to the passing of the measure. I have never concealed my opinion that it would be desirable that we should have seen the Bill; but if we are asked to do what we are now asked to do I say it would be utterly impossible to come to terms. We are asked actually to enter into a bargain by the Gentleman who comes here and wishes to take the Oath that he shall not claim to take his seat provided we will proceed with the discussion of the Bill for altering the law. Our position is one from which it is impossible for us in honour and in conscience to recede. We have nothing whatever to do with any legislation that may be proposed. I have no doubt that, in the event of Mr. Bradlaugh being excluded from taking the Oath now, some of his Friends or the Government—which, perhaps, would be the best course—will propose legislation on

81
the subject. We will deal with proposals when they arise, and when we know what they are. But we cannot on any subject, and more especially on such a subject as this, enter on a bargain in the dark, or recede from the position which we have now taken up. We simply affirm this, that we will not consent to the profanation of the Oath. I know perfectly well the view of the Government is that we are not parties to the taking of the Oath at all. That view relieves them from a difficulty they would otherwise have to face. We cannot share that view. We cannot dissociate ourselves from the notice which has been given to us, and which our Committee brought before us. We cannot dissociate ourselves from that knowledge. It is quite impossible for us to close our eyes to what is about to take place; and therefore I hope that the House will on this occasion affirm and re-affirm the vote at which we arrived last Session by re-affirming the Resolution which I have offered to the House.
MR. GLADSTONE: I am anxious, Mr. Speaker, in the first place, to make my apology to the House for not having been in my place when this debate commenced. Perhaps that apology may be deemed not insufficient when it is borne in mind that this is, I think, the first occasion within the memory of any of us here present on which a debate of a serious character has arisen on the first day of the Session before the hour of half-past 4. The time of the Government is part of public property which they are bound to dispose of for the best; and as it is their duty to be in the House when they are wanted, so, I may say, it is their duty not to be in this House when they have good reason to believe that they are not wanted. I cannot but express some regret that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton, who is now desirous to take his seat in this House, has not drawn forth a more liberal acknowledgment from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The history of the case, I think, is this—the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman on former occasions when difficulty was interposed in the way of Mr. Bradlaugh coming to the Table was, I think, in the main—I do not profess to quote the words from memory—that he was dis-
82
posed to view with favour legislation for the purpose of establishing the option between an Affirmation and the Oath; but the declaration was subjected by him, either at the moment or shortly afterwards, to this material qualification—that he thought it was very much to be deprecated that the subject should be discussed in immediate connection with the case of Mr. Bradlaugh. Well, that was a qualification which it was not unfair to make, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton has endeavoured to meet the demand of the right hon. Baronet, by offering, in a manner so public and formal that there can be no doubt whatever about the matter, that ho would resign his seat, and be perfectly content to submit his claim again to his constituents, for the purpose of learning whether they would again, after the passing of such an Act, be desirous of sending him to this House as their Representative. That completely disassociates the hon. Member for Northampton from the proposed alteration in the law. I perfectly understand the declaration that the right hon. Gentleman cannot enter into a bargain with Mr. Bradlaugh. There is no doubt at all that the declaration is perfectly warranted. It is perfectly open to him, on the other hand, to revert to the opinions which ho has previously expressed in favour of legislation for the purpose of establishing this option—to swear or to affirm—and to acknowledge that the special objection he has taken—an objection, if, perhaps, without substance, is certainly worthy of attention as coming from him—namely, that the question was associated with the personal case of Mr. Bradlaugh—had now been removed. The right hon. Gentleman, it appears, does not choose to meet the offer of the hon. Member for Northampton in any way, and he is aware of the difficulties which have been encountered in the attempt to obtain the judgment of the House upon the question of legislation. No charge has been made by the Government—he said the Government had no right to make a charge. No charge that I am aware of has been made by the Government with respect to obstruction; but, on the other hand, I must point out that it is all very well to say that the Government have had opportunities of laying down questions of legislation con-

83
cerning the Oath on any Government night they might please. Really the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is as if the Government had nothing to deal with except a perfect luxury of abundance as to the state of their time in comparison with the demands upon it. He knows perfectly well that there was not a single instance in which it was within the power of the Government last year to ask the House to devote a portion of the time given to the Government to any purposes except those connected with matters of the highest and most paramount public importance. It is no doubt very desirable that a question such as that now before us should be settled; but it is quite another matter—and it is our duty to give it very jealous consideration—whether, in the first place, that question is of paramount importance; and whether, in the second place, it is the duty of the Government to take it into its hands and to give it preference over all great subjects of public interest which demand its attention and its care. The question before us now is a simple one. We are both of us in a position to appeal to authority. On the last occasion on which this question was discussed by the House the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in carrying a Resolution, the effect of which was that the House took into its own hands the interpretation of the law, and for itself determined that Mr. Bradlaugh should not be admitted to take the Oath at this Table; and the right hon. Gentleman very naturally appeals to that precedent and calls upon the House to support it again. We, on the other hand, bear in mind that on another occasion the House, with respect to the same Gentleman, was pleased to decide that it would not interfere with his coming to the Table to affirm, but that his Affirmation should be understood to be liable to whatever judgment the Court of Law might pass upon it. It is, therefore, perfectly open to us to consider which of these two courses is the best; and we hold that the best course is to leave the matter to be decided by a Court of Law. It has been said by someone that a Court of Law could not touch the question. I apprehend that opinion to be totally unfounded. A Court of Law did touch the question in the case of the Affirmation. The penalty was sued for, and it became the province of the Court
84
of Law to determine whether the hon. Member for Northampton had been qualified to take the Affirmation or not, and whether he had fulfilled the conditions of sitting in Parliament or not. What we desire is that exactly the same course should again be followed. The right hon. Gentleman says there was a great deal of litigation and a great deal of money spent, and that all that was very sad and painful. Well, these are the conditions of judicial actions. They are conditions to which we must submit, and to which it is well we should submit; if by such conditions we get a perfectly fair administration of the law, apart from bias, and apart from prejudice and temper, and if that administration of the law is not to be had in any other way. Now, I must, for my own part, respectfully submit to the right hon. Gentleman that his appeal on the subject of profanation is an illegitimate appeal on this occasion. It is travelling into the province of conscience, and this House is not entitled to travel into the province of conscience. We have no right to look, in this matter, at anything except the simple question of legality. Besides, I must say I am greatly at a loss to reconcile the doctrine on the subject of profanation with declarations that I have heard over and over again made from that Bench during the course of this discussion—the declaration that there was no objection taken to the taking of this Oath by an Atheist—no objection taken to the taking of this Oath by a known Atheist; but only to its being taken by an Atheist who, as it was said, had obtruded his atheism into the proceedings of this House. Well, does not that touch the question of profanation? Atheism exists, and if it is known to exist, the profanation is as great, and our duty with respect to it is the same, as in cases where atheistical opinions have been obtruded. I must say it appears to me that as the right hon. Gentleman took upon himself to notice the speech delivered by Mr. Bradlaugh, it would have been, perhaps, well that he should have referred to the allegation of that Gentleman, that he had never obtruded his opinions upon this House—that his avowal of them was drawn from him by questions before a Committee of this House. I must say that if that statement cannot be challenged—and it was not challenged by the right hon. Baronet

85
—it is an ungenerous course to charge upon him the consequences of that which he has performed in obedience to the apparent intention or order of this House. What we have to do is to secure to every subject of Her Majesty justice according to the law of the land. Now, what is the best course to take on the question before us in order to secure justice, and no more than justice, to Mr. Bradlaugh? Is it that we should take into our own hands the settlement of this question? Have we the jurisdiction to do that? It is not a matter of Privilege. Privilege does not, I apprehend, affect the interpretation of the Statute Law of the land. The question is whether the Statute Law of the land has given us this jurisdiction, and, if it has, whether it is expedient to use that jurisdiction. I must confess I cannot find that this jurisdiction is given. It appears to me to be the evident intention of the Act of Parliament that the House should be witness to the formality and external regularity of the proceedings at this Table; but that from every question of interior examination it should refrain as beyond its power and its province. But, even if that be not so, I submit to this House that, on every ground, the lover of justice ought to desire that such a question as this should be determined, not in this House, but by a Court of Law. I will not find fault—I cannot fairly find fault—with the temper in which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed himself to this subject tonight. But he knows the feeling—the strong feeling—that prevails; he hears the exclamations, he hears the declarations that are made on the subject by others less responsible than himself. Does he believe, or does he not, that this House approaches this question of construing the law in an important matter of public right in the spirit in which Judges ought to approach it, and in which in a Court of Law Judges would approach it? I greatly doubt whether he thinks that a judicial temper does prevail among us. I cannot see evidence of it; nay, more, I think it is impossible that it should prevail. What we ought to keep in view is that the decision of this question depends upon strict principles of legal interpretation. We are not great masters of these subjects. We cannot, perhaps, always avoid them if they have been committed to us expressly by law, or if they belong expressly to our Con-
86
stitution; but we ought never to assume them when we can avoid the exercise of a power for which we are not well qualified. Least of all ought we to assume any power of the kind in a question where full discussion in the House has afforded such abundant evidence that feelings are aroused in the breasts of many that tend to influence their conduct and votes in a manner quite beside the strict interpretation of the law. Now, Sir, it is our duty to adhere to the path which leads to a strict interpretation of the law, and any departure from that path is a profanation. ["No, no!"] Yes; it is a profanation of our first duty—the duty of securing justice to every subject of Her Majesty. One word upon the form of the question that is now before us the "Previous Question" is a formula which is often adopted as a mere dilatory plea for getting rid of a subject for the time; and it may be perfectly legitimate to regard the "Previous Question" from that point of view on many occasions. But here it is not so. Here it is the Parliamentary, and perhaps the only strictly Parliamentary, method of proceeding. By the "Previous Question" on this occasion we mean to assert that this is a subject which is not fit for us to entertain. It is a subject which ought to pass from us to others more competent to deal with it. And here I must take exception to an expression, strangely as I think, used by my right hon. Friend who has just sat down. He said it was proposed by the "Previous Question" to give Mr. Bradlaugh the right to take the Oath at this Table. We give nothing to Mr. Bradlaugh. What did we give him when the opposition to his affirming was withdrawn? We simply did not interfere, and it is now proposed that we shall not interfere with what he proposes to do on his own responsibility. But that is not giving him a right. We give him nothing except the power of having this question raised in a Court of Law; and that, indeed, we only give him in the sense of not interfering with the action of the law, as we believe, in order to take it away from him. Sir, that is the purpose of the "Previous Question" upon this occasion. It means that, in our opinion, we are not suited to the action it is proposed to take—that we are going to do that which it is not our duty to do, because we have no right to do it.

87
And any man who believes in his own mind that Mr. Bradlaugh is not justified morally and before God in coming to this Table to take the Oath, notwithstanding, if he has a true view of his duty as a Member of Parliament and of the function which Parliament is called upon to perform, he ought to vote with my right hon. and learned Friend for the "Previous Question"—that is, for refusing to entertain before an incompetent tribunal—["Oh, oh!"]—a subject of this nature, and for permitting it to be submitted to a tribunal thoroughly competent. I thank the Gentlemen who gave utterance to those ejaculations just now upon my using an expression which does not appear to be one of extraordinary violence or prejudice—namely, "an incompetent tribunal." I thank them for the additional evidence which they have afforded, and which they must afford upon every renewal of this debate, that this House is ill suited for the office that it is now invited by the right hon. Gentleman to undertake; and that there is another tribunal much better suited to do justice in the case—a tribunal to which, as I venture to suggest, we should do well to submit it.
MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, before the House went to a division he wished to call attention to a strange misapprehension of the Prime Minister with respect to the similarity he imagined existed between the present and past action of the Government. The Prime Minister seemed to imagine that if Mr. Bradlaugh were allowed to take the Oath, then the question might go to the Courts, as had been the case when Mr. Bradlaugh was allowed to affirm. But when the Resolution as to affirming was submitted it was expressly reserved that Mr. Bradlaugh was liable to penalties if it should be decided that he was not a person who by law was entitled to affirm. He ventured to say, speaking as a lawyer—and he was certain no lawyer would contradict him—if they now carried the "Previous Question," and allowed Mr. Bradlaugh to come to the Table and there in due form to take the Oath administered to him, there was no legal tribunal in this country which would entertain the question, or had the means of determining whether that was or was not a valid taking of the Oath. There was a wide and extraordinary difference
88
between affirming, under the reservation, as to penalties, and taking the Oath under cover of the "Previous Question." He was sure the Prime Minister must see the difference. There was only one other point to which he wished to refer. The Prime Minister said that Mr. Bradlaugh's avowal of his opinions had been wrung from him by questions put by a Committee of that House. But this was in absolute contradiction to what Mr. Bradlaugh himself had that evening asserted. He had contended that the House had no right to judge or even to take cognizance of his opinions, because he had never avowed either to the House or to its Committees. The avowal was made in a letter addressed to the Press like a proclamation by Mr. Bradlaugh. That letter was published on the very day that the Committee reported, and was a final announcement to the public of the course he intended to take. In that letter Mr. Bradlaugh said that in the Oath an appeal was made to the Deity, and he declared it would be an act of hypocrisy on his part voluntarily to take this Oath. Mr. Bradlaugh declared that the Oath was of a meaningless character in his mouth—that, in fact, it would mean no appeal to the Deity at all. At the end of his speech the Prime Minister, anticipating what the action of the tribunal was likely to be, had attacked the competence of the tribunal itself, and had declared that the House was unfit to exercise judicial functions. The House had proved its judicial qualities on this very question by the strongest of all tests—it had broken away from Party bonds, and the Prime Minister had not been able to keep his own followers together. It was precisely because the House had dealt with this matter, not on Party principles, but as Members of a judicial tribunal, that the right hon. Gentleman had again and again to deplore what probably he anticipated that night—going into the minority Lobby.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, the fact that there was a reservation in the Resolution passed by the House of Commons made no difference. Any person could raise the question in a Court of Law whether any Member who came to the Table did take the Oath within the meaning of the Statute. That was the question raised in the case of the Affirmation, and the reservation in the

89
Resolution passed last Session made no difference whatever. The Court took cognizance of the question by virtue of the law, not because of the reservation, which conferred no legislative power.
MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, the House clearly objected to the threatened profanation; but the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government said—"Permit it to take place, and then ask in a Court of Law whether we are justified or not." That was a remarkable suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman had completely overlooked the fact that the particular case with which they wore dealing was purely exceptional. The hon. Member for Northampton came there as an apostle of unbelief; and it was his object, having made a profession of that unbelief, to enter the House and obtain a victory over the Christianity of this country. That was the real meaning of the whole matter. The right hon. Gentleman said the House had no right to question a man as to his belief or unbelief. That was perfectly true; but the rule did not apply here. It was Mr. Bradlaugh who came to the Table and first refused to take the Oath, and, when declared unable to affirm, offered to take the Oath, which he had declared to the whole House was meaningless. It was treating the House like children, not like men—not like Christians—to suppose that they could allow a person who had forced upon them the assurance that he did not believe in God to come to the Table of the House and make its Members accomplices in the profanity of taking God's name in vain.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he could not help remarking that the Prime Minister a short time since publicly expressed his regret at the want of moral support with regard to a portion of his administration. If the right hon. Gentleman were engaged in searching for proof of moral support upon this question, he could not congratulate him on the present occasion. Ho certainly considered that as between Mr. Bradlaugh and the Head of the Government, the Prime Minister of a great country which had maintained the reputation of Christianity through countless generations, the difference was undoubtedly in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh. The statement which had been made on behalf of Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw his claim to profane the Oath on condition that an Affirmation Bill was intro-
90
duced was ostensibly addressed to the Opposition, as if with them lay the responsibility of introducing fundamental changes in the Constitution; but the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) could be regarded as nothing but as an appeal to the responsible Head of Her Majesty's Government to avoid this proposed profanation of the Oath and to deal with the question in the only true and honest and manly manner that could be adopted—namely, upon their responsibility, if they thought the time had arrived to abolish these last vestiges of Christianity from the land. The Head of Her Majesty's Government, that lecturer on morality to the Irish people, ventured to excuse his evasion of the responsibility which rested on him by saying that this was a very simple question. Last year, no doubt, the House allowed the claimant in this case to make an Affirmation subject to an appeal to the Courts. In the mind of the right hon. Gentleman there was no difference between a mere engagement and standing at the Table of the House with the Testament of Protestant England and using the name of God, whom they all adored, but whom Mr. Bradlaugh denied. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government ventured to twit Members of the House with the statement that if Mr. Bradlaugh had not obtruded his atheism upon the House no Member of the House would have thought of questioning his claim to take the Oath. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government asked what was the difference between such an obtrusion of atheism on the House and the knowledge which a portion of the House might have of somebody or other coming to the Table and being an Atheist out of the House? The right hon. Gentleman was a master of distinctions. It was strange he had not drawn a distinction in this case. It was most strange, and not very creditable to his position, that he had not admitted that the case of a known Atheist, who had forced upon the House a knowledge of his atheism, was very different from the case of an Atheist whoso unbelief was known to half-a-dozen, or 50, or 100 Members of the House. No one knew that better than the right hon. Gentleman. In the first speech that he (Mr. O'Donnell) made on this subject

91
he objected to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government as being marked by every stamp of evasion. But the reproach of evasion was not new to Her Majesty's Government. They in the minds of many obtained the well-deserved reputation of trying to get round a question rather than answering it. The present occasion afforded a further illustration of their facility of evasion. They were prepared to ask the House to submit to an odious and scandalous profanation rather than on their responsibility to deal with the subject in the manner in which they had been challenged to deal with it by the hon. Member for Northampton. It had been attempted to be asserted that the Catholic Members of the House in dealing with this question were actuated by a spirit of mean sectarianism and narrow bigotry. He ventured to say that if the Catholic Members of the House were to deal with the question in a spirit of narrow sectarianism or in a spirit of Ultramontane bigotry nothing ought to be more pleasing than that the Protestant Parliament of England should allow the Scripture of the God of Christianity to be thus profaned and insulted. Upon the Table lay the authorized version of the Sacred Scriptures which they (the Catholic Members) respected, though they were not particularly bound by it as an authorized version. On both sides of the House sat the pillars and the founders of Missionary Societies, whose efforts were directed against the religion which the Catholic Members professed, and whatever profanation might be heaped upon the Scriptures, the Catholics were not responsible for it. If they chose to stand aside it was entirely out of their respect for religion, and for what they considered the common decencies of civilization that they took the part they intended to take on the present occasion. Though he was a Catholic, ho would sooner that Englishmen remained Protestants, that Catholicity made no inch of progress for another century, that Englishmen remained adherents of the faith of Luther and Calvin, than that they should enter the filthy abyss opened to thorn by the Head of Her Majesty's Government.
COLONEL MAKINSwished to know of those hon. Members who were prepared to support the "Previous
92
Question" whether they were aware of what would be the consequences of their vote? They would be giving their assent and consent to the profanation of the Oath, and would, each of them, be particeps criminis with Mr. Bradlaugh and accessories both before and after the fact. Were they prepared to pay such a price for their temporary union of the Liberal Party? Those on the Opposition side could not reconcile such a course either with their consciences or with their duty to their constituents.
Previous Question put, "That the Original Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes 286; Noes 228: Majority 58.

AYES.

Agar - Robartes, hon. T. C.

Christie, W. L.

Churchill, Lord R.

Alexander, Colonel

Clarke, E.

Amherst, W. A. T.

Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

Archdale, W. H.

Cobbold, T. C.

Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

Coddington, W.

Aylmer, J. E. F.

Cole, Viscount

Bailey, Sir J. R.

Collins, E.

Balfour, A. J.

Collins, T.

Baring, T. C.

Colthurst, Col. D. La T.

Barne, F. St. J. N.

Compton, F.

Barry, J.

Corbet, W. J.

Barttelot, Sir W. B.

Corbett, J.

Bateson, Sir T.

Corry, J. P.

Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.

Cotton, W. J. R.

Beach, W. W. B.

Courtauld, G.

Bellingham, A. H.

Cropper, J.

Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

Bentinck, G. W. P.

Cubitt, rt. hon. G.

Beresford, G. de la P.

Dalrymple, C.

Biddell, W.

Daly, J.

Biggar, J. G.

Davenport, H. T.

Birkbeck, E.

Davenport, W. B.

Blackburne, Col. J. I.

Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.

Boord, T. W.

Dawnay, hon. G. C.

Brise, Colonel R.

Dawson, C.

Broadley, W. H. H.

De Worms, Baron H.

Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

Dickson, Major A. G.

Dickson, J.

Brooke, Lord

Dickson, T. A.

Bruce, Sir H. H.

Digby, Col. hon. E.

Bruce, hon. T.

Dixon-Hartland, F.D.

Brymer, W. E.

Donaldson-Hudson, C.

Bulwer, J. R.

Douglas, A. Akers-

Burghley, Lord

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Burnaby, General E. S.

Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

Burrell, Sir W. W.

Eaton, H. W.

Buxton, Sir R. J.

Ecroyd, W. F.

Byrne, G. M.

Egerton, hon. W.

Callan, P.

Elcho, Lord

Cameron, D.

Elliot, G. W.

Campbell, J. A.

Emlyn, Viscount

Campbell, Lord C.

Ennis, Sir J.

Carden, Sir R. W.

Estcourt, G. S.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Ewart, W.

Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

Ewing, A. O.

Chaine, J.

Feilden, Maj.-Gen. R. J.

Chaplin, H.

Fellowes, W. H.

93

Fenwick-Bisset, M.

Lever, J. O.

Filmer, Sir E.

Levett, T. J.

Finch, G. H.

Lewis, C. E.

Findlater, W.

Lewisham, Viscount

Finigan, J. L.

Lindsay, Sir R. L.

Fitzpatrick, hn. B. E. B.

Loder, R.

Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J.

Long, W. H.

Fletcher, Sir H.

Lopes, Sir M.

Floyer, J.

Lowther, rt. hon. J.

Folkestone, Viscount

Lowther, hon. W.

Forester, C. T. W.

Lyons, R. D.

Foster, W. H.

Macartney, J. W. E.

Fowler, R. N.

Macfarlane, D. H.

Fremantle, hon. T. F.

Mackintosh, C. F.

Freshfield, C. K.

Macnaghten, E.

Gabbett, D. F.

M'Carthy, J.

Galway, Viscount

M'Coan, J. C.

Gardner, R. Richardson-

M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

Garnier, J. C.

Makins, Colonel W. T.

Gibson, rt. hon. E.

Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

Giffard, Sir H. S.

March, Earl of

Gill, H. J.

Martin, P.

Givan, J.

Marum, E. M.

Goldney, Sir G.

Master, T. W. C.

Gooch, Sir D.

Maxwell, Sir H. E.

Gore-Langton, W. S.

Metge, R. H.

Gorst, J. E.

Miles, Sir P. J. W.

Grantham, W.

Mills, Sir C. H.

Gray, E. D.

Molly, B. C.

Greene, E.

Monckton, F.

Greer, T.

Moore, A.

Gregory, G. B.

Morgan, hon. F.

Guest, M. J.

Morley, S.

Halsey, T. F.

Moss, R.

Hamilton, Lord C. J.

Mowbray, rt. hn. Sir J. R.

Hamilton, I. T.

Murray, C. J.

Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

Nowdegate, C. N.

Newport, Viscount

Harcourt, E. W.

Nicholson, W.

Harvey, Sir R. B.

Nicholson, W. N.

Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

Noel, rt. hon. G. J.

North, Colonel J. S.

Henry, M.

Northcote, H. S.

Herbert, hon. S.

Northcote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.

Hicks, E.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Norwood, C. M.

Hill, Lord A. W.

O'Connor, A.

Hill, A. S.

O'Donnell, F. H.

Hinchingbrook, Visc.

Onslow, D.

Holland, Sir H. T.

O'Shea, W. H.

Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

O'Sullivan, W. H.

Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.

Paget, R. H.

Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G.

Parker, C. S.

Jackson, W. L.

Patrick, R. W. C.

Jenkins, D. J.

Peek, Sir H.

Kennaway, Sir J. H.

Pell, A.

Knight, F. W.

Pemberton, E. L.

Knightley, Sir R.

Percy, Earl

Knowles, T.

Phipps, C. N. P.

Lacon, Sir E. H. K.

Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

Lalor, R.

Power, R.

Lawrence, Sir T.

Price, Captain G. E.

Lea, T.

Puleston, J. H.

Leahy, J.

Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

Leamy, E.

Rankin, J.

Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

Redmond, J. E.

Lee, Major V.

Rendlesham, Lord

Legh, W. J.

Repton, G. W.

Leigh, hon. G. H. C.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Leighton, Sir B.

Ritchie, C. T.

Leighton, S.

Rolls, J. A.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Ross, A. H.

94

Ross, C. C.

Thynne, Lord H. F.

Round, J.

Tollemache, H. J.

St. Aubyn, W. M.

Tollemache, hn. W. F.

Salt, T.

Tottenham, A. L.

Sandon, Viscount

Tyler, Sir H. W.

Schreiber, C.

Wallace, Sir R.

Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

Walrond, Col. W. H.

Scott, Lord H.

Walter, J.

Scott, M. D.

Warburton, P. E.

Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

Warton, C. N.

Watkin, Sir E. W.

Severne, J. E.

Watney, J.

Sexton, T.

Welby-Gregory, Sir W.

Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

Whitley, E.

Smith, A.

Whitworth, B.

Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

Wilmot, Sir H.

Smithwick, J. F.

Wilson, C. H.

Stanhope, hon. E.

Wolff, Sir H. D.

Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

Stewart, J.

Wroughton, P.

Storer, G.

Wyndham, hon. P.

Sullivan, T. D.

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Sykes, C.

Yorke, J. R.

Synan, E. J.

Talbot, J. G.

TELLERS.

Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T. E.

Crichton, Viscount

Thomson, H.

Winn, R.

Thornhill, T.

NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Campbell-Bannerman, H.

Agnew, W.

Ainsworth, D.

Carington, hon. Col. W. H. P.

Amory, Sir J. H.

Armitage, B.

Cartwright, W. C.

Armitstead, G.

Causton, R. K.

Arnold, A.

Cavendish, Lord E.

Asher, A.

Cavendish, Lord F. C.

Ashley, hon. E. M.

Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

Baldwin, E.

Cheetham, J. F.

Balfour, Sir G.

Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.

Balfour, J. B.

Clarke, J. C.

Balfour, J. S.

Clifford, C. C.

Barclay, J. W.

Cohen, A.

Baring, Viscount

Collings, J.

Barran, J.

Colman, J. J.

Bass, A.

Cotes, C. C.

Bass, H.

Courtney, L. H.

Beaumont, W. B.

Cowan, J.

Biddulph, M.

Cowen, J.

Blennerhassett, R. P.

Cowper, hon. H. F.

Bolton, J. C.

Craig, W. Y.

Brand, H. R.

Creyke, R.

Brassey, Sir T.

Cross, J. K.

Brett, R. B.

Cunliffe, Sir R. A.

Briggs, W. E.

Davey, H.

Bright, J. (Manchester)

Davies, D.

Bright, rt. hon. J.

Davies, R.

Brinton, J.

Davies, W.

Broadhurst, H.

Dilke, A. W.

Brown, A. H.

Dilke, Sir C. W.

Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

Dillwyn, L. L.

Bruce, hon. R. P.

Dodds, J.

Bryce, J.

Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

Buchanan, T. R.

Duckham, T.

Burt, T.

Duff, R. W.

Butt, C. P.

Earp, T.

Caine, W. S.

Edwards, P.

Cameron, C.

Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

Campbell, Sir G.

Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

Campbell, R. F. F.

Evans, T. W.

95

Farquharson, Dr. R.

Mason, H.

Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

Maxwell-Heron, J.

Ferguson, R.

Milbank, F. A.

Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

Monk, C. J.

Firth, J. F. B.

Moreton, Lord

Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

Foljambe, C. G. S.

Morley, A.

Foljambe, F. J. S.

Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

Forster, Sir C.

Nolan, Major J. P.

Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

Paget, T. T.

Fort, R.

Palmer, C. M.

Fowler, H. H.

Palmer, G.

Fowler, W.

Palmer, J. H.

Fry, L.

Pease, A.

Fry, T.

Peddie, J. D.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Peel, A. W.

Gladstone, H. J.

Pender, J.

Gladstone, W. H.

Pennington, F.

Gordon, Lord D.

Philips, R. N.

Gourley, E. T.

Playfair, rt. hon. L.

Gower, hon. E. F. L.

Portman, hn. W. H. B.

Grant, A.

Potter, T. B.

Grant, D.

Powell, W. R. H.

Grenfell, W. H.

Pulley, J.

Grey, A. H. G.

Ralli, P.

Gurdon, R. T.

Ramsden, Sir J.

Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

Rathbone, W.

Reid, R. T.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Rendel, S.

Hartington, Marq. of

Richard, H.

Hastings, G. W.

Richardson, T.

Hayter, Sir A. D.

Roberts, J.

Henderson, F.

Robertson, H.

Heneage, E.

Rogers, J. E. T.

Herschell, Sir F.

Roundell, C. S.

Hibbert, J. T.

Russell, G. W. E.

Hill, T. R.

Russell, Lord A.

Hollond, J. R.

Rylands, P.

Holms, J.

Samuelson, B.

Hopwood, C. H.

Samuelson, H.

Howard, G. J.

Seely, C. (Lincoln)

Howard, J.

Seely, C. (Nottingham)

Hutchinson, J. D.

Sheridan, H. B.

Illingworth, A.

Shield, H.

Inderwick, F. A.

Simon, Serjeant J.

James, C.

Slagg, J.

James, Sir H.

Smith, E.

James, W. H.

Spencer, hon. C. R.

Jardine, R.

Stanley, hon. E. L.

Jenkins, J. J.

Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

Johnson, W. M.

Stanton, W. J.

Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

Stevenson, J. C.

Labouchere, H.

Story-Maskelyne, M. H.

Laing, S.

Summers, W.

Lawrence, Sir J. C.

Tavistock, Marquess of

Lawson, Sir W.

Taylor, P. A.

Leake, R.

Tennant, C.

Leatham, E. A.

Thomasson, J. P.

Leatham, W. H.

Thompson, T. C.

Lee, H.

Tillett, J. H.

Lefevre, right hon. G. J. S.

Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury-

Mackie, R. B.

Trevelyan, G. O.

Macliver, P. S.

Waterlow, Sir S. H.

M'Arthur, A.

Waugh, E.

M'Arthur, W.

Webster, Dr. J.

M'Laren, C. B. B.

Whalley, C H.

M'Minnies, J. G.

Whitbread, S.

Magniac, C.

Wiggin, H.

Maitland, W. F.

Williams, S. C. E.

Mappin, F. T.

Willis, W.

Marjoribanks, E.

Wills, W. H.

Martin, R. B.

Willyams, E. W. B.

96

Wilson, I.

TELLERS.

Wilson, Sir M.

Grosvenor, Lord E.

Wodehouse, E. R.

Kensington, Lord

Woodall, W.

Woolf, S.

Original Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880 and of the 26th April 1881, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statute 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72.
Mr. BRADLAUGH again came to the Table to take and. subscribe the Oath, when—
MR. SPEAKER: I have to inform the hon. Member that the House has come to the following Resolution (reading the same). In pursuance of that Resolution I have to direct the hon. Member to withdraw.
Whereupon Mr. BRADLAUGH declined to follow the direction of Mr. Speaker, and stated that he refused to do so because, as he alleged, the Resolution of the House was contrary to Law.
MR. SPEAKER: I must now call upon the House for instructions in this matter. I have no power except through the House to insist upon the withdrawal of the hon. Member. Therefore, I must leave it to the judgment of the House. [Calls of "Government!"]
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I presume that the same course will be adopted on this occasion as was taken last year. I see no sign of the Leader of the House rising; and therefore I will take the same step as I have done before. I move that Mr. Bradlaugh be now ordered to withdraw.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Bradlaugh do now withdraw."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
MR. GLADSTONE: I regard this Motion as one purely consequential on that the House has already arrived at. I certainly did not consider it any part of my duty to make such a Motion-far from it, indeed. At the same time, the House has declared its sense by a considerable majority, and the sense of the House having been declared, I certainly cannot offer any opposition to the consequential Motion.
Question put, and agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER: I must now direct Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw.
MR. BRADLAUGH: It would be undignified in me to engage in any kind of contest with the House other than that of the law, and I therefore respectfully withdraw below the Bar.
[The hon. Member withdrew accordingly.]

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  NOTICE OF RESOLUTIONS.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to give Notice that on Monday next I shall move certain Resolutions relating to the procedure of the House, and the appointment of Standing Committees to deal with Bills of a certain class in lieu of Committees of the Whole House. I will not attempt to read the Resolutions, which run into some details, but will place them at once upon the Table, and I have no doubt they will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning.
Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
OUTLAWRIES BILL.
Bill "for the more effectual preventing of Clandestine Outlawries," read the first time; to be read a second time.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO-PERTY (IRELAND) ACT—ARREST AND DETENTION OF MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE.
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received the following Letters from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland:—
15th October, 1881.
Sir,
I am directed by the Lords Justices to inform you that Mr. Parnell, a Member of the Souse of Commons, was arrested in Dublin on Thursday the 13th instant, that Mr. Sexton, a Member of the House of Commons, was arrested on Friday the 14th instant, and that Mr. O'Kelly and Mr. Dillon, also Members of the Souse of Commons, were arrested this day, on Warrants of
98
the Lords Justices issued under the Act for the better Protection of Person and Property in Ireland, and signed by me, and that they are now in the Prison at Kilmainham, in the County of Dublin.
I hare the honor to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
W. E. FORSTER.
The Sight Honourable
The Speaker,
House of Commons.
Irish Office,
7th February, 1882.
Sir,
I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acquaint you that Mr. Sexton, a Member of the Souse of Commons, of whose arrest in Dublin on the 14th of October last I informed you in my letter of the lath October, was discharged from custody by order of Sis Excellency on the 1st of November.
I hare the honor to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
W. E. FORSTER.
The Right Honble.
Sir Henry Brand, M.P., G.C.B.,
Speaker of the Souse of Commons,
&c. &c. &c.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. GRAY, in rising to move—
  "That the Letter of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, informing the House of the arrest of Messieurs Parnell, Dillon, O'Kelly, and Sexton, Members of this House, he referred to a Select Committee, for the purpose of considering and reporting whether any of the matters referred to therein demand the further attention of the House,"
  said, he was sorry that a Motion so important as this had not been intrusted to a Member of more experience than he had on the precedents which should guide the House in a matter of this kind; but it appeared to him that the course which the House had invariably taken under circumstances somewhat similar was so plain, that he hoped they would have no difficulty in agreeing to the Resolution which he had read. In one respect the case was almost unprecedented. The only precedent which he could discover was the first arrest of the hon. Member for Tipperary

  99
  last year. He was not aware that up to that period any Member of the House had been arrested by Her Majesty's Executive under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Up to a comparatively recent period all suspensions of the Habeas Corpus Act contained a provision exempting Members of the House from its operation; and he believed the Act which was passed in 1848 was the first which did not contain a provision of that kind. But although no such exempting provision had been included, he believed that since 1848 no Member of the House had been arrested under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus until last year in the case of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). Therefore, in searching for precedents he was driven to seek the cases which were most analogous to the present one. He found that very frequently Members of the House had been arrested on criminal charges of various kinds, and that, up to a comparatively recent period, the practice had been to refer the question of the arrest to the Committee of Privileges. The most recent precedent was the case of Mr. Whalley, a Member of the House, who was committed in 1874 by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn for contempt of Court. It had been the custom to refer all such cases to the Committee of Privileges. Mr. Whalley himself proposed that course; but the Prime Minister of the day (Mr. Disraeli) pointed out what was undoubtedly the fact, that the Committee of Privileges was not a convenient body to refer the question to, and that a Select Committee was preferable—a view which the House unanimously adopted. Numerous cases of the same kind as Mr. Whalley's were to be found in the Journals of the House; but into these he did not think it worth while to enter. Up to the present time the House had been very jealous of the liberties of its Members, and exceedingly careful to guard them; and although it had invariably happened of late years that the Report of the Committee supported the imprisonment of the Member whose case was brought under the notice of the House, yet he was not aware of any precedent for the refusal of the House to take cognizance of the arrest of one of its own Members, and carefully to investigate all the facts in order to preserve their ancient privileges and legal rights. All the more, there-
  100
  fore, did he expect that the House would take cognizance of so serious a matter as the arrest of four of its Members; and it was well known that the number would have been considerably larger but for circumstances over which the Executive had no control. The limits of the discussion of this question being very narrow, he was well aware that he could not debate the general policy of the Government with regard to its administration of Ireland, or even the general policy of the Act under which the arrests now in question had been made. He should endeavour, therefore, to confine himself to the question at issue, and make out a primâ facie case for the referring of the question to a Committee to inquire whether the Government were justified in arresting a considerable number of their political opponents in that House. In doing that he thought he would be justified in quoting from the speeches of Ministers, who were responsible to the House for the passing of the Act under which the arrests were made, in order to show the pledges which they gave to the House, and the manner in which those pledges had been violated. He should also quote from some of the speeches made immediately prior to and since the arrests, in order to show the justification which responsible Members had endeavoured to make out for the action they had taken; and he should also show from quotations that the construction which they put upon the speeches and acts of the Members who were imprisoned was not the natural and proper construction. The subject was one on which the true light could be thrown by recalling the statements of Ministers rather than by mere vague declamation. His contention was that the Protection of Person and Property Act had not been used, with reference to the arrest of the four Members of Parliament in question, in the manner in which the Government undertook that it would be used, when they induced the House to pass a measure placing the liberty of every Irish Member of Parliament at their disposal, the moment he reached Irish soil. It would be remembered that the Chief Secretary for Ireland declared that the Act was aimed against "village tyrants and dissolute ruffians, who were few in number and known to the police." The right hon. Gentleman also said—

  101
  "If this Bill is passed we shall be bound upon our honour to satisfy ourselves that in the case of all arrests there is reasonable suspicion. We shall act in the full, and clear light of public opinion, on and under the eyes of a Parliament of a free and Constitutional country—a Parliament not slow to criticize and punish the conduct of those of its servants who transgress their powers."—[3 Hansard, cclvii. 1228.]
  Again, he said that—
  "Holding the harvest and not paying rent is not one of the offences against which this Bill is directed."
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now reviewing certain debates which took place on a Bill last Session. The Question before the House is one of Privilege, raised on a communication made to the House by me; and the hon. Member is wandering from the Question.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that, of course, he would at once bow to the ruling of the Speaker; but he thought what he was endeavouring to show was relevant to the position that he had taken—namely, that Her Majesty's responsible Ministers had given the House, during the passage of the Act, certain specific pledges, upon the honour and faith of which the House placed the liberty of the Irish Members at their disposal. They had, in the carrying out of those powers, violated the spirit of the Act, and violated the pledges on which they obtained it. He was endeavouring to show, by reading the extracts, that a breach of faith with the House had been committed, and that the privileges of Members who were arrested on account of that breach of faith had been violated. He therefore regretted he was not allowed to read them. He might be permitted, however, to quote a very remarkable extract from a speech made by the Head of the Government. First, however, he would read the Warrant under which the four Irish Members had been arrested. The Warrant stated that they were arrested—
  "On reasonable suspicion of being guilty of a crime punishable by law—wrongly intimidating divers persons to abstain from doing what they have a legal right to do—namely, to apply to the Land Court to have a fair rent fixed."
  Now, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government stated that the Land League could not be touched by the Coercion Bill, except as far as they
  102
  fell within the very stringent definitions in the Bill, according to which no one could be arrested but upon reasonable suspicion, "and the reasonableness of that suspicion might be challenged on the floor of the House." That was what ho now challenged. Those who were to be arrested were defined to be principals or accessories to a crime punishable by law, being an act of violence or intimidation, or exciting to an act of violence or intimidation.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon of the hon. Member and of the House; but I think, as a matter of convenience to the House, it is well at once to raise a question of Order. As I have understood, it is not competent for the hon. Member to discuss the policy of the arrests, or the propriety of the proceedings with regard to them. He has just told us that he proposes to bring under consideration the question as to the reasonableness of the suspicion under which these arrests were made. I think it would be greatly for our convenience if it were understood, not whether the hon. Member is justified in bringing that subject under the consideration of the House—for I should be the last person to deny he has a right to do so—but whether this is the occasion on which to raise it.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was sorry the Leader of the House did not explain what he meant. There was a claim that the Privileges of the House had been violated by the arrest of the Representatives of four constituencies—by the misuse of an Act of Parliament—a misuse which, in their opinion, had been prompted by a desire to get rid of political opponents. Did the Leader of the House venture to suggest that evidence of that fact was to be kept from the House? How, then, could breach of Privilege be shown unless they could show that the Government had falsely and fraudulently arrested Representatives of Imperial constituencies, in order to prevent formidable political opponents appearing in that House?
  MR. DAWSONsubmitted that, of all questions of Privilege recorded in Constitutional history, this had scarcely a precedent. Was it to be contended that important evidence bearing upon the violation of Privilege complained of should be withheld? What his hon.

  103
  Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) wished to show was that, in carrying out the Statute, the Statute was not only strained, but broken.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he understood that the Leader of the House had raised a point of Order, which, if confirmed, would prevent the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray] from going into the merits of the case. As one of those who suffered imprisonment under the Coercion Act, he desired to protest against the point of Order raised by the right hon. Gentleman; and he called upon him, and the Government of which he was a Member, to allow his hon. Friend to fully and fairly open the case, and to state in return upon what evidence, in virtue of what acts and speeches, they were accused not only of inciting persons not to pay rent, but also of treasonable practices. The accusations were too serious, the consequences had been too painful, for the public opinion of Ireland, or, he ventured to hope, for the public opinion of Great Britain, to permit a question like this to be shelved in the evasive and cowardly manner suggested by the Prime Minister.
  MR. SPEAKER: The point of Order I understand to be this. The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) was good enough to wait upon me on this matter to-day, and I informed him that if it was desired to raise the question of Irish Administration, or of the manner in which the Land Act was carried out, he would not be entitled to do so under a Motion of Privilege; that I considered he was bound to confine himself to the Question of Privilege solely. Of course, it is open to the hon. Member, as I informed him, to raise all these points at the proper time, but not under a Motion of Privilege. He may move an Amendment to the Address to the Crown, or he may select an opportunity hereafter, when he thinks proper. But he is bound, on a Question of Privilege, to keep very closely to the Question.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he understood the ruling to be that it would be outside the Question of Privilege to show that in the arrest of four Members of that House the Privileges of that House had been violated by the fraudulent application of the Coercion Act. He asked, could they not show that in the case of these four Members the law had been violated, public faith broken,
  104
  and the Privileges of the House destroyed?
  MR. GRAY, resuming, said, he hoped he need not say that he really and sincerely desired to keep strictly within the proper bounds. He could well understand the desire of the Premier not to allow him to make that particular quotation. The effect of the Speaker's ruling was that he would not be permitted to quote the solemn pledges which the right hon. Gentleman had given, and which he reiterated on subsequent occasions. He left him his triumph of having suppressed it. He left the House to judge of his appreciation of the promises under which he obtained the Act, and his very manifest desire that his words quoted from Hansard should not be laid before the House. He might say that the right hon. Gentleman stated distinctly—and the words he uttered could have no other meaning—that the Act which he succeeded in inducing the House to pass would not apply to the particular crime—if, indeed, it were a crime—-which was charged against the hon. Member for the City of Cork and the others in the Warrants, and for which they had been put in prison. Within three or four days after the arrest of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and the other Members, the Government themselves recognized in what a false position they had placed themselves by that Warrant. They saw that on the face of it the Warrant was a sham, if not illegal, as he (Mr. Gray) believed it was, and they supplemented it by another Warrant handed to the prisoners in gaol, charging them with treasonable practices, of which there was not a tittle of evidence. They were told by the Government that no Members of Parliament were included in the number of those persons who were to be arrested under the Act. No speech had been made by these Members after the passing of the Act different in character or stronger than those which they had made before the passing of the Act, and while the Premier was giving those pledges; and yet he put them in prison, contrary to the pledges under which he obtained the passing of the Act. He would not quote anything further from the speeches of the Prime Minister, neither would he quote from the statements of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor

  105
  of the Duchy of Lancaster, in which he said that a law of this kind became a tyranny in the hands of tyrants, but that, administered by men such as now sat on the Treasury Bench, it would come as a been and a blessing to men; but when some Members on the Irish Benches ventured to challenge the generosity which proposed to take powers to imprison any man in Ireland upon suspicion, the right hon. Gentleman rose and said—''Who dare to question this statement of mine?" How dare they question the bona fides of their intention to administer this Act in accordance to the pledges they gave? The result, so far as these Members were concerned, was that four of them had been put in prison, and Warrants issued against a large number of others. They also knew that the votes of three Irish Members ejected from Office some eight years ago the Government which now sat upon the Treasury Bench, and ho could well understand that a nice calculation might have been made that possibly three absent votes might be very desirable upon a division—the votes of three absent men who would vote against the Government. Ho could, therefore, well understand why the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster might ask him how dare he venture to make such a statement as that—how dare he challenge the administration of the law in Ireland or the treatment of his brother imprisoned Members? But there were a number of men who ventured to challenge the administration of the law, and state that the Act had not been administered in accordance with its own terms, not to say its own spirit. He did not know whether the Prime Minister would object to his quoting from some of the speeches which he made during the Recess, and in which he justified the arrests now in question. He was very anxious, if he was within the limits of Order in doing so, to show that the pledges under which the Act was obtained had not been kept; that the right hon. Gentleman made charges against these Members of the House now in prison which were capable of being refuted by quotations from the speeches of these men themselves. In that celebrated oration which the Prime Minister made at Leeds on the 7th of October, he said that the hon. Member for the City of Cork—
  106
  this was a specific charge against an individual—and a small band of his friends were preaching the doctrines of public plunder, and he stated that he could sustain that on demonstrative evidence—that was to say——
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is reviewing at large the conduct of the Government, and is, therefore, exceeding his rights.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he was not at all pretending to review the general conduct of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had made charges against individual Members as a justification for the individual arrests. He did not at all desire to review the conduct of the Government in arresting 500 men in Ireland; but what he did desire to review was the conduct of the Government in arresting four Members of the House, and the justification which the right hon. Gentleman gave for his action in arresting the four Members. The right hon. Gentleman stated at Leeds that their immediate object was rapine. The hon. Member for the City of Cork had, he said, opened up and preached a new and enlarged doctrine of public plunder; and subsequently, in his speech at Liverpool, on October 27, after the arrest, he said that the policy of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was that the rental of Ireland of £17,000,000 should be reduced to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000. How were these results to be carried into effect, ho asked? By intimidation. Those were the doctrines which he attributed to the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and which he set forth as a justification for arresting him. He (Mr. Gray) was desirous to quote the real doctrines of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, as set forth in his speeches, to show that, so far from advocating any doctrine of that kind, he advocated a totally different doctrine.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say that the course the hon. Member is new taking is irregular. He is really wandering very wide of the Question before the House. The Question before the House is one of Privilege; and the House expects, upon a Motion of Privilege, that hon. Members should adhere very closely to that Question, and not wander from it. What happened is simply this—a communication had been made by the Irish Government reporting to the Speaker the imprisonment of certain

  107
  Members of this House; and upon that communication the hon. Member is undoubtedly within his right in raising a question of Privilege. But in travelling beyond that Question the hon. Member is abusing his right.
  MR. GRAYwas quite willing to bow to the Speaker's ruling; but he regretted that, by closing his mouth at the present moment, it might have the effect of postponing for a long time the consideration of the questions which he desired to bring before the House—a postponement during which the imprisoned Members would still remain incarcerated. He regretted that the decision of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair precluded him from showing, by speeches made by the arrested Members, that the Prime Minister was mistaken with regard to their utterances, and that, instead of having advocated a violation of the law, they advocated the reverse of that. The Prime Minister stated in a speech at Liverpool that the various points he made at Leeds against the arrested Members had not been answered, and that, not having been answered, he appealed to all persons to assist him in maintaining law and order. But the speech in which the Prime Minister made his points on the 7th of October was completely answered in a speech delivered at Wexford on the 9th of October. The words of the Act under which the arrests were made were peculiar. To justify an arrest there must have been an inciting to an act of violence or intimidation, an interference with law and order being a crime punishable by law. Now, suppose those charges were proved against these Members in a Court of Law, of what crime would they be guilty? He found that by an Act passed in 1875 relating to trades unions, with a view of making the penalties against them less severe, every person who compelled any other person to abstain from doing an act which he had a legal right to do, or who used violence or intimidation against such other person, was liable to a penalty not exceeding £20, and to be imprisoned for a period not exceeding three months. If the four Members who had been arrested on suspicion had been tried before a jury and found guilty the utmost punishment that could have been awarded against them was an imprisonment for three months. But they had
  108
  already been four months in prison for being suspected of being guilty. Would the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—whose services to Ireland in the past could never be forgotten notwithstanding his recent actions—continue in the face of that fact to cry out in virtuous indignation—"Who dares to think this Act will be administered in a tyrannical manner?" Would he state it was not a tyrannical administration of the law for the Government to give a man longer imprisonment for the mere suspicion of a crime than he could receive if found guilty of that crime? In consequence of the ruling of the Speaker, he could only say, in conclusion, that he believed if the House consented to refer this question to a Select Committee the Irish Party could place on record the incontrovertible evidence which he was now prevented giving. If the House should refuse to take cognizance of the arrests of Members of that House, and should refuse to refer this subject to a Select Committee, it would be departing from immemorial precedent. He was aware that the hon. Gentlemen who had been imprisoned were Irish Members, and perhaps the precedents of English Members might not be considered applicable; but he hoped the House was still jealous of its dignity, and that it would not allow several of its Members to be arrested without, at least, taking some steps to ascertain whether those arrests were legal according to the terms of the Coercion Act, and whether they came within the spirit of the Act, because he contended that if the arrests were carried out in opposition to the pledges on which that Act was obtained an unequivocal breach of Privilege had been committed. It was all the more important that the inquiry sought for should be granted, because the hon. Member for the City of Cork was not merely a Leader of a considerable Party in that House, but he represented the popular opinion of a great portion of Her Majesty's Dominions. He appealed to the House, therefore, not lightly to reject his Motion, which was intended to guard the rights of individual Members. They should guard those rights all the more carefully, because they belonged to a Party in the House which was in a minority, and was accordingly defenceless. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY, in rising to second the Motion, said, that, in his opinion, his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow had made out a strong and reasonable case in its favour. His hon. Friend did not ask the House to declare at once that a breach of Privilege had been committed. They desired to institute an inquiry into the circumstances. All these circumstances justified the course taken by his hon. Friend, and would justify the House in yielding to the Motion. He would ask the House to remember that this was a case which might strictly be called absolutely without precedent. The only precedents that came at all near to it would justify the House in following the course it was now asked to take. But no absolute precedent existed in the history of this country of a great Prime Minister arresting and imprisoning without trial some of his most obnoxious political opponents. They were about to make a precedent in the course they would take that evening. If the Motion were refused they would establish this precedent—that a Ministry might at any time, under the powers of a special Act of Parliament, arrest four or five, or even 20 or 25 Members of Parliament, and imprison them without trial, or without any intention of bringing them to trial, and that that was not only not a breach of Privilege, but could not even be argued to be such a breach of Privilege as would make it right that the House should inquire into it. Did either Conservative or Liberal Members of the House consider that a condition of things which should be established? If so, then he certainly misunderstood the ideas of Constitutional liberty which hitherto existed in the minds of English Members. That the Government might have suspected the imprisoned Members of the House to be men likely to disturb the country did not touch the question before the House. The sole question was whether the Privileges, not of Members only, but also of the constituencies, had been invaded by the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, without trial, of Members of the House, They had been told by the Prime Minister that night, speaking on another topic, that the House was not likely to be a qualified tribunal for deciding a question then before it, giving as his reason that whenever the question arose the Members exhibited extreme
  110
  impatience and emotion. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) feared that on this Irish question the House exhibited, instead of extreme emotion, too great an amount of indifference to be a satisfactory court of appeal. It was a question of constituencies that was now under consideration. Many times had they heard from the Treasury Benches indignant complaints that the constituency of Northampton should be deprived of half its representation without sufficient reason. How differently the Ministry spoke when the question became an Irish one. Unless they held that fortunate and favoured Northampton had rights belonging to an order totally different from the rights of Cork, Tipperary, and Roscommon, they must admit that the policy which deprived those three Irish counties of half their representation might, at least, be an invasion of the Privileges of the House, and might form grounds for inquiry before a Select Committee. He should have thought that the mere fact that three or four Irish Members of Parliament had been arrested and put in prison without trial would inspire the House to make instant inquiry as to whether their Privileges had or had not been invaded. The conduct of the Prime Minister, in objecting to allow the citation of his speeches in disproof of the justification which he claimed for the arrests, was enough to add one other element to the reasons given by his hon. Friend (Mr. Gray) in support of the Motion for a Select Committee. He would, however, ask the House to accede to the Motion, if only on the ground that a very serious question had been raised as to whether a breach of Privilege had been committed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Letter of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, informing the House of the arrest of Messieurs Parnell, Dillon, 0'Kelly, and Sexton, Members of this House, be referred to a Select Committee, for the purpose of considering and reporting whether any of the matters referred to therein demand the further attention of the House."—(Mr. Gray.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen have undoubtedly abounded with charges of great severity against Her Majesty's Government; and there is, at least, one proposition of which I can take notice, and with which I can express my agreement. I agree with them that the

  111
  arrest of four Members of this House under the Act for the Protection of Person and Property in Ireland is a matter of the utmost gravity, and one which hon. Members of this House are perfectly justified, and may feel it from their points of view an imperative duty, to bring under the notice of the House and make it the subject of Motions, either for inquiry or of direct accusation. These concessions I freely make; but, having made those concessions, I am bound to say I cannot consent to reply on this occasion to any one of the accusations made against us. They certainly are very strong accusations, and they descend to imputing the utmost meanness. They answer a double purpose, because the hon. Member who made the Motion contrived, while imputing to me the most disgraceful meanness, to pay a very considerable compliment to himself at the same time. He had prepared so formidable a weapon by dint of his great ingenuity and power, that I, when I got an inkling that this weapon was about to be discharged against me, pretended to have in view the Order of the House—hypocritically had in view the Order of the House—when my real object was to avert the tremendous and crushing effect which was to result from the charge brought against me. Now, Sir, in my opinion, the whole speech of the hon. Member, with very slight exceptions, and the entire speech of the Seconder—though they consisted of matter of the gravest importance—consisted of matter wholly beyond the legitimate scope of the present debate. They were entirely upon the merits of the present administration of Ireland, so far as the administration of Ireland had to do with the arrest of the four hon. Members. This is exactly the matter which I understood you, Sir, I think, five times, by very distinct declarations from the Chair, to exclude from the purview of the present debate. I wish it, therefore, to be clearly understood that I do not in the slightest degree dispute the importance of the subject-matter raised; but I entirely decline to go into the charges made on the present occasion, because I believe if I did enter into them I should be violating the Rules and Orders of the House, and the distinct rulings which you, Sir, have given from the Chair. I will just notice this Motion within the limits of what I con-
  112
  sider to be legitimate discussion. The Act of Parliament intrusts Her Majesty's Government with large and exceptional powers, entirely beyond the usual operation and spirit of the Constitution. An exceptional power to put in prison for a limited time without bringing to trial, but for a period according to the discretion of the Government within the statutory limits, of persons whom they judge and shall declare to be reasonably suspected of having done certain things, has been granted to the Government, and it appears to me a most judicious and proper thing that the Act should require that notice of the imprisonment of any of its Members should be given to the House. The Members of this House are the servants of this House. They are to be protected in the discharge of their duties, and are to be at the disposal of this House for whatever services the House may think fit to require. It is, therefore, obviously necessary that when imprisonment of this kind takes place, it should be brought to the notice of the House. But, as I understand the hon. Gentleman, though he was entitled to follow precedent as far as he could, he was not able to adduce one. He had not adduced a single precedent applicable to the case as an authority for raising, in any form, the question as to the merits of the proceedings under which the Members of this House have been imprisoned. In former instances, the question had been directed entirely to the form of proceeding; and if the hon. Member had moved to refer it to a Committee to consider whether the proceeding in the present case was within the power and provisions of the Act of last Session—as, for instance, whether the Warrant was in due form, or whether the proceedings were in due form. [Ironical cheers.] Very good; I am much obliged to that description of assistance which is rendered by the jeers of hon. Gentlemen; but I will, with their permission, endeavour to continue my explanations. They would have been acting in conformity, if they had taken a course of that kind, to ascertain clearly whether the proceeding was within the powers of the Act, and conformable to its provisions—they would have been taking a perfectly regular course, and I should have made no objection to the appointment of such a

  113
  Committee, because I conceive, on the contrary, that perhaps it may be not without advantage that when an act of this kind takes place the House should make an investigation of that sort. So it appears it was done in the case of Mr. Whalley. The House determined to satisfy itself whether Mr. Whalley had been committed for contempt of Court by the Lord Chief Justice, and whether the Lord Chief Justice was doing an act which, by the law of the land, he was entitled and empowered to do. All the precedents appear very much to support this view, and they have been of a purely formal character, because the references were made to a Committee of Privileges—not to a Committee of Inquiry. Hon. Members have spoken of privileges on this occasion; but there is not a word of their speeches which would enable anyone listening to them to gather in what way it was that the privileges of the Members of this House had been invaded. They say that the pledges of the Government, given in speeches during the time when the Act was under the consideration of the House, had been violated. Sir, of course we deny that, and I hope we shall confute that charge when it is made at the proper time and place. If it were perfectly true, that would be no breach of Privilege. There can be no breach of Privilege in applying to a Member of this House the provisions of a law which is applicable to his case, and the whole question touching Privilege on this occasion cannot by possibility go beyond that point which was jeered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), to ascertain whether the provisions of the Statute have been complied with. Now, the very proof of what I have said is this—that I find in the proceedings in these cases, usually when a Committee has been appointed—for example, in the ease of Mr. Long Wellesley—the Committee is instructed to deal with the case, and to deal with it on the very next day, in the nature of a purely formal and technical inquiry. The cases that are before us are the cases of Lord Cochrane in 1815, and Long Wellesley in 1831, both of which were before the Committee of Privileges. The hon. Gentleman has quite omitted—he has been as defective in this part of the case as he has been superabundant in
  114
  what I shall call the disorderly part of his statement—to mention that in two of the five cases no Motion whatever was made for a reference to a Committee. There was no Motion in the case of Mr. Dillon last year, and there was no Motion made in the more important case of Mr. Smith O'Brien in 1848.
  MR. GRAY: A Motion was made, but the Government refused it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not charging the hon. Member with stating what was incorrect. I am merely noticing that he omitted an important part of the facts of the case. Now, the hon. Gentleman professes to follow the Motion in the case of Mr. Whalley; but even in that case the Motion was made purely for a formal purpose. It was a Motion to examine whether Lord Chief Justice Cockburn had been justified in his action; whether ho was acting within the exorcise of his legal powers; and in not one single sentence is there a scintilla of evidence to show that the House has ever dreamt that the application of an Act of Parliament to a Member of Parliament, or the known law of the land to a Member of Parliament, could by possibility be made the subject of inquiry as a broach of Privilege. It is a new doctrine, and, indeed, if Privilege is to be set up as a reason why Members of this House are, as a body, to be exempted from the general obligation of obedience to the law incumbent upon Her Majesty's subjects—an obligation in which they, beyond all others, are bound to set an example and fulfil—I make this concession in the case of Mr. Whalley, that the terms of the Motion acceded to by the House did not distinctly and clearly explain the extremely limited nature of the object in view, because the question was referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of considering and reporting whether any of the matters contained therein demand the further attention of the House. It is quite evident, I presume, that under those words the hon. Gentleman would be justified, and would be enabled, if the House granted a Committee, to bring before the Committee the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government, and the propriety of their action in this case. Now, that is what we contend cannot possibly be raised on the matter of Privilege. The question of Privilege

  115
  must be confined to our obedience to the provisions of the law. When the hon. Gentleman chooses to make any Motion for inquiring upon a proper occasion and opportunity, we shall be ready to meet him in argument, and in considering with him in what way the House is to be put in possession of the merits and the whole proceedings of Her Majesty's Government. But not now. This is not the proper occasion for entering into that matter. It would only tend to throw Public Business into confusion were we to allow to be dealt with as matters of Privilege those which are, in fact, matters of policy. I should be most willing to accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman if he had confined himself to the objects which he formally had in view—namely, the ascertaining the strict regularity—and I care not how strict he is in that investigation—of the proceedings of the Government. I must oppose the Motion made by him in terms which undoubtedly go very much beyond that object, and supported by a speech which goes beyond it altogether, and introduces matter which he will have ample opportunities of dealing with on other occasions, but which, on the present occasion, is wholly irrelevant and inappropriate. On these grounds, I am compelled to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was sorry that the Business of the House should be taken while everybody was otherwise engaged. He thought the answer of the First Lord of the Treasury itself almost a breach of the Privileges of the House. He understood the Prime Minister to state that when the Government had the formal power to imprison Members of the House, that power could not be called in question. If this were so, the Prime Minister would be empowered to arrest the whole of the Irish Representatives, though it was absolutely notorious that he was keeping them in prison in order that he might prevent them from entering the Voting Lobby. In addition to the Coercion Acts, there were other Acts under which Members might be imprisoned. One Statute enabled magistrates to arrest
  116
  those whom they suspected merely, and under that Act, if the Government had a number of magistrates subservient enough, they could arrest the whole Irish Representation and keep them in prison for a year without bail; with a docile magistracy, and a docile majority, the Government could throw into prison as many Members as they pleased. According to that contention of the right hon. Gentleman, the House would not be allowed to go into the merits of the case. If that contention were true, all he could say was that the whole Constitution of both countries in its most essential parts was absolutely at the mercy of any Minister with a docile majority. The right hon. Gentleman could throw any political opponents into prison without touching the Privileges of the House. Of course, there were differences in the various cases. The arrest of the four Irish Members was different from the arrest of the five English Members by a Royal personage, whom the right hon. Gentleman resembled. It was true that the Irish Members had waived their right of raising the point of Privilege upon the arrest of Mr. Dillon; but then the Government had promised to give them an early day for the discussion of the question. The Prime Minister's plan was this. As soon as the Irish Members attempted to raise a discussion on this matter, he would bring in his gagging Resolutions. He would wish the Government to understand that they did not, in the slightest degree, consider the exposure of coercion in Ireland essential. The Government might gag them if they pleased, and so attempt to evade responsibility; but he thanked God that the Irish were no longer dependent upon the goodwill of the people of England. There were 23,000,000 Irishmen throughout the world, and they meant to make use of the international power they had thereby acquired.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the Prime Minister had met the Motion of his hon. Friend in a very quibbling and unworthy manner. The right hon. Gentleman's argument amounted to this—that if the Warrant under which a person was arrested was made out in proper type and on proper paper, then no inquiry could be made into the merits of the case, though the Act might have been put into operation from corrupt

  117
  motives. It was notorious in England and Ireland that the real reason for the arrest of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was not the offence imputed to him, but a speech delivered at Wexford, in which he tore the statements of the Prime Minister to tatters. The fact of it was the Prime Minister was a very vain old Gentleman, who did not care to meet on the floor of the House a political opponent of the calibre of the hon. Member for the City of Cork for fear he would expose his sophistries and explode his windy orations. It might be very convenient for the Government to use the Coercion Act for the purpose of putting political opponents out of sight; but, in his opinion, they had put themselves in a very awkward position by not answering specifically the charges of corrupt motives brought against them.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is charging the Government with corrupt motives. The Question before the House is the narrow one of Privilege. If the hon. Member desires to raise the whole question of the conduct of the Government, he should do so on the Address, or on another occasion.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not intend to bring any further charges against the Government; but, at the same time, he held it was contrary to the Privileges of the House that political opponents of the Government should be arrested under cover of an Act of Parliament which did not really apply to them. That was notoriously the case with the hon. Member for Tipperary, whose offence was that he would not allow himself to be made the catspaw of the Prime Minister. He did not think the Government deserved much credit for the manner in which they had met the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that, according to the Prime Minister, the arrest of Members of Parliament was not to be distinguished in injury from that of other subjects of Her Majesty. With regard to the Warrants under which the Members in question were arrested, he said in some cases these were double-barrelled, charging those accused not only with inciting the people not to pay rent, but also with treasonable practices. It was clear from this that the hateful and morally murderous policy of suspicion which was launched upon
  118
  the country by the Coercion Act was the policy of the Government at the present moment. The Prime Minister would tolerate no inquiry into the administration of the Coercion Act whatever. But oven on the restricted ground as to whether the law was applicable to the case of the Members of Parliament who had been arrested he ventured to challenge the conduct of the Government. What became of their declarations that the Coercion Act was designed to strike at the "dissolute ruffian" and the "midnight marauder," and to operate against the difficulty of obtaining testimony? As one of those who spoke in the light of noonday in the presence of the Government and the presence of the public, had he not the right to say that such an Act was not applicable to their case in respect to deeds and speeches? It was again and again repeated in the debates on the Coercion Act that it was an Act against secret crime; and he contended that it was not in any moral and ordinary sense applicable to acts of which ho and his hon. Friends had been accused. As to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Carlow, he ventured to say that it was framed in a manner which ought to have commended itself to the considerate attention of the Government. The Irish Members had been recklessly charged with Obstruction. Had they chosen they might have brought forward this Motion in a form which would inevitably have led to a long debate—namely, as an Amendment to the Address; but they had given the Government the option of at once granting the Select Committee, and so saving the time of the House The right hon. Gentleman declined to take that course. It was evident the Irish Members were to have no satisfaction upon the present occasion; it was evident that the conciliatory spirit displayed by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) had been thrown away upon the Government; it was evident that it would be farcical to attempt to approach in any degree to-night the minds of the Government on this great national question. He should not put himself in the position of earning the rebuke of the Chair, and it only remained for them to take the course indicated by the Prime Minister, and that was to bring forward their Motion on the Address to the Crown, and to

  119
  insert in it a full statement of the reasons why they had been charged not only with agrarian offences, but with treasonable practices. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Hear, hear!] From the somewhat grim assent given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it was evident that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared, in the event of an Amendment being proposed to the Address, to attempt to vindicate the cruel, evasive, cowardly, and unconstitutional policy which he had pursued in Ireland. If so, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would tell the House why, in the case of the hon. Member for Cork City and his associates, he had resorted to the powerfully brutal but contemptible instrument of the Coercion Act instead of the Constitutional remedies which were at his command—remedies most suited to the men whose speeches had been delivered in the hearing of the Government, and whose actions had never been hidden from the light of day—and that he would repel, if he could, the statement universally made in Ireland that the arrest of the Irish Members had been dictated by the cowardice of the Government collectively, and by the vanity and rancour of the Prime Minister personally. He would expect the right hon. Gentleman in words to carry out the intentions he had avowed this evening by pantomime.
  MR. P. J. SMYTHobserved, that the "suspects" might be divided into two classes—the authors of the "no rent" manifesto and the instruments of it. If all were to be liberated well and good; but he could not admit that the mere fact of men being Members of that House established their claim to exceptional treatment. He should like to hear some explanation of the "no rent" manifesto. Was it issued in consequence of the threat from America of the stoppage of supplies? [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is travelling beyond the Question, which is that of Privilege. I must call upon him to confine himself strictly to that Question.
  MR. P. J. SMYTHsaid, he merely wished to have some explanation of the "no rent" manifesto. The "suspects" now consisted of two classes—the persons who were the authors of that manifesto and the instruments of it; and he
  120
  was endeavouring to elicit from hon. Gentlemen opposite an explanation of that document. The fact of a man being a Member of Parliament only increased his responsibility, and the humblest subject of the Crown had the same right to his liberty as the highest Member of that House.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, no one who supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Carlow desired to draw a distinction between the "suspects." They believed that not a single man who was detained in gaol on suspicion ought to be kept there. Some of them, he might remind the House, were arrested before the "no rent" manifesto was issued. It would be as well if the House bore this in mind, as even the Members of the Cabinet did not appear to be aware of the fact. He was willing to admit that the Coercion Act was applicable to Members of Parliament as well as to anybody else; but he believed that if a Committee were granted, it could be shown that there had been a gross misuse of power on the part of the Government; but he supposed that, as this was the case of Irish Members, the Liberal battalions would be much more faithful to their Leader than they had been when the case was an English Member. At all events, he hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would inform the House what the offences were for which these hon. Members were imprisoned. His contention was that the Warrants for their arrests did not disclose any offence which was punishable by law.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, the present state of the House showed in how different a manner questions affecting Irish and English Members were treated. They appeared to view with complacency the incarceration of four Irish Members; but if an English Member was deprived of his right of sitting there the whole country was up and demanding explanations. Nothing indicated more emphatically the difference between the two countries, and the interest which was felt in them. He regretted very much that a Liberal House of Commons in the nineteenth century should be found to pass laws which were a disgrace to the person proposing them and the Parliament passing them. As to the question of Privilege, he would observe that in the case of Mr. Whalley, the right hon.

  121
  Gentleman said it was within the privilege and the duty of the House to inquire whether the Lord Chief Justice had not overstepped the statute law. The House of Commons lowered its prestige by allowing Members to be apprehended on suspicion, incarcerated in places like horse-boxes, and gazed at by visitors through the bars of a cage as if they were wild animals in a menagerie. Surely some explanation was due to the House for all this. In order to illustrate the slight grounds on which suspicion could be built up, he might state that when he went to Carlow to address a meeting of his constituents, the Inspector of Police waited on him and asked him whether he intended to hold a Land League meeting. He sought in vain to obtain from the Inspector and the Sub-Inspector an explanation of this impertinent and supercilious inquiry; but a constable afterwards came to him and said he might speak to him if he would say nothing against the Prime Minister and the Land Act. That constable only acted in the spirit of the Government that inspired him. But was not the right hon. Gentleman as open to criticism as any other man? No doubt, if he had ventured to criticize the acts of the right hon. Gentleman he would have been placed in the position which other hon. Members now occupied. The House had given the Government exceptional powers of a wide, indefinite character; but, nevertheless, there must be reasonable suspicion of breaking one of the known laws of the land. The great privilege not only of a Member of Parliament, but a common citizen, was that he should not be illegally imprisoned; but, he asked, where was the reasonable suspicion on which the "suspects" had been incarcerated? He could not but admire the British Constitution, but he and his Party certainly did not share its advantages. The right hon. Gentleman was constantly invoking precedent, and they had gone from precedent to precedent, and were narrowing down until their very liberties were imperilled. If a law such as this was passed for England, it would not be tolerated. This ought not to be a question of Party or nationality—it was a question affecting the prestige and liberty of the great House. If they were to allow the Cabinet to do us they liked, or if they were
  122
  to allow the Prime Minister to exercise the personal government which he now wielded, and which had not been exercised in any country, or by any autocrat—if they were to allow the Bench of Ministers to exercise a power which no Stuart or dynasty that had been abolished had ever exercised, then the privileges and liberties of every individual Member of the House were seriously threatened. If four English Members had been imprisoned by methods which wore worthy of the Star Chamber, there would have been an outcry throughout the whole country. A Liberal Ministry wore not only destroying the liberties of Ireland, but were sapping the foundations of the boasted liberty of England.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that he is going beyond the Question before the House. If he desires to raise the larger question he must do so at the proper time.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he would only add that it was not legal that four Members of the House should be held in prison merely upon the caprice of the Members of the Government. It was the Irish Members to-day, but the case of the Irish Members might be that of the English Members to-morrow. He hoped that the Committee would be granted, so as to allow the Government, if it could, to clear itself in the face of Ireland from the charges brought against them; and if not to brand it, so that it might descend from the high position it had once occupied into one which was never surpassed by the most autocratic Government that had ever existed.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the Irish Members were much restricted in speaking on this question, as it was to be discussed merely as a question of Privilege; and he and some others were beginning to doubt whether there were any privileges at all. It used to be thought a privilege of Members of Parliament to be tried before being imprisoned; but this privilege had now been lost by Irish Members of Parliament as well as other people. Without any trial three Members of the House were at present detained in gaol from the service of their constituents, and the number would be six if the opportunity had been given to the Chief Secretary of arresting certain others who were, however, better employed elsewhere. There was not a Member of the Irish Party whose liberty

  123
  was not in the hollow of the right hon. Gentleman's hand; and, therefore, he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) would like to know what privileges they had left? The privileges of Irish Members had hitherto been attacked; but now the privileges of all Parties were alike in danger, whether Conservatives, Whigs, or Radicals, from the present Government, and therefore the question ought not to be regarded too much from a Party point of view, for they would each find their own turn coming if they did not oppose to the utmost the tyrannical measures of the accomplished political seducer at the head of the Government. He hoped the House would consent to the matter being referred to a Select Committee.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 174: Majority 129.—(Div. List, No. 2.)

  THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
  MR. SPEAKER reported Her Majesty's Speech, made by Her Chancellor, and read it to the House.

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: Sir, I cannot but feel that the somewhat exciting prologue to the Session of 1882 we have teen lately witnessing makes my task in speaking the opening words of the first act a somewhat more than usually difficult one. I must ask, therefore, a double allowance of that indulgence I have heretofore so often seen generously extended to those who are passing through their political novitiate; and on the present occasion especially do I ask the indulgence of hon. Members opposite, for if one-half of the denunciations that have been launched at Her Majesty's Ministers are well deserved, I, indeed, must be a rash and misguided young man to undertake my present duty, and thereby signify my entire acquiescence in their policy of the past, and my unwavering determination to support its development in the future. Since the 27th of August last year hon. and right hon. Members opposite, in a manner that reminds me of the ancient Ephesians, have never wearied of crying out—''Great is the iniquity of the Radicals! Confusion to their incomprehensible and
  124
  unprecedented policy!" and have never ceased proclaiming the consequent critical state of the affairs of the nation. I have no desire to deny the existence of a crisis; but I believe its gravity may be measured by the amount of fair play and free scope that can be secured for the working of the Land Act of last Session, to the ultimate benefit of all classes in Ireland; and, secondly, by the amount of real hearty desire to do right because it is right, and of honest determination not to sacrifice the right to what may seem the Party expediency of the moment, which is bought by men of all Parties to assist the elaboration of those New Rules by which the procedure of this House is henceforward to be governed.
  The first subject to which I have to refer is free from all elements of Party controversy—Her Majesty's gracious announcement of the marriage of her youngest and last unmarried son, His Royal Highness the Duke of Albany. That Prince has not chosen his occupations amongst the exciting and stormy pursuits of military or naval life, but among the quieter ways of letters and science, and in the advancement of the moral, social, and educational welfare of the people. He has already given signal proof that he intends worthily to follow in the footsteps of his illustrious Father. That he should have chosen as his partner and helpmate in these objects a Princess of such accomplishments and such firm and high character as the lady with whom he is about to be united must be the cause of the most hearty congratulation by every loyal subject of the Queen. I am sure I speak the universal feeling of the House when I wish him all happiness and prosperity. Our Royal Family, in all its Members, shows itself ever ready to meet and fall in with the Constitutional changes and requirements of the country over which it presides, and ever ready to use its influence, connections, and opportunities to further the true interests of the nation. But lately Her Majesty's touching Message to Mrs. Garfield, when, after long weeks of lingering pain, death at last crowned the work of the murderous bullet of the assassin, and the respect paid by the British Court to the memory of the President so cruelly snatched away, have served to knit closer and closer

  125
  those bonds of sympathy and good understanding which exist, and I trust may ever exist, between this country and that great nation our kinsfolk across the Atlantic. We are always extolling the pre-eminent excellence of our British form of government, and boasting of our Constitutional and Limited Monarchy, surely it is at once ill-considered and unworthy to grudge the Members of our Royal Family the means to support them and our dignity in a fitting manner amongst their compeers. I hope that, should a Vote be proposed at some future time in connection with this auspicious announcement, hon. Members who usually raise opposition to such Votes may be induced—though they may feel bound to express their opinions—not to press their opposition to a division.
  Most happily Her Majesty is able to announce that the most perfect peace and cordiality continue to prevail in her relations with all foreign Powers. In Greece, the cession of Thessaly by the Porte has been carried out peaceably and in good faith. It cannot, I think, admit of doubt that the firm attitude displayed by this country in the matter of Montenegro had a most cogent influence in bringing about this satisfactory result. I know the objection is frequently urged that Greece has not obtained as much as was given by the Treaty of Berlin. The only validity that this objection has proceeds from a misconception of the Berlin Treaty. That Treaty gave nothing whatever, but merely invited the Porte to make certain concessions to Greece; and for long it seemed as if this invitation would remain unheeded—thanks, however, in no small measure to the good offices and exertions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), effect has now, to a great extent, been given to that invitation. Greece has had her territory increased by one-third; she has thus acquired a larger area than that won by Germany from France after a terrible and bloody war, and finds her boundaries now extended to their ancient limits in her most glorious days of old.
  It would be affectation to deny that the state of Egypt gives cause for anxiety, and I cannot but feel that the greatest caution and reserve should be used by all Parties in referring to the
  126
  affairs of that country at the present time. I must, however, remind the House that the Anglo-Franco control was not established by the present Government, but by Lord Salisbury in 1879, who, at the same time, refused to admit Germany, Austria, and Italy to any voice in Egyptian affairs. I note, however, in passing, that those Powers, in conjunction with Russia, have within the last few days made an identical representation to the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs on the subject of Egypt. I do not for a moment wish to cast any doubt on the expediency of the dual control established in 1879, or on the benefits which have accrued from it to the Egyptian people; and this is not the time to discuss whether any other arrangements would have been preferable and more beneficial; but I do wish to lay the greatest stress on the fact that the dual control was distinctly a part of the policy of the late Ministry, and that they must be prepared to take their share of the responsibility of its maintenance at the present crisis. In my opinion, our interests in Egypt are few and simple, and may be included under two heads—first, security for a permament free passage of our ships of war and marine through the Canal; and, secondly, the growth in freedom and prosperity of the Egyptian people. It seems to me, at least, that any policy that could possibly tend to a permanent occupation of Egypt, or part of it, by this country, must at once be scouted as involving infinite and impossible responsibilities, and at the same time weakening, in the most alarming manner, the strength of our position in India. At present, we occupy that great triangular country, girt on either side with the ocean, on which, at least, we are and ought to be supreme, and on its base defended by the practically insuperable natural barriers of the mighty Himalayas. Once established in Egypt, the insular character of our position in India would be gone for ever, and we should offer to any enemy at any time an easy and almost indefensible point of attack.
  The evacuation of Afghanistan has been completed with the exception of the small corner of Pishin, I believe to the great and general satisfaction of the people of India. The Ameer, Abdurrahman, has succeeded in consolidating his turbulent Kingdom, and has shown

  127
  himself to be possessed of marked ability, though it may be early days to form a final opinion of his capacity as a Ruler. It is impossible to award too high praise or give sufficient thanks to Lord Ripon for his exertions and success in carrying out his difficult task, both with regard to this evacuation, and to the repeal of the Vernacular Press Act. I trust that this last proceeding may please also many hon. Members opposite, when I call to mind the indignant and powerful protest made by the Duke of Buckingham, when Governor of Madras, against the first enactment of this impolitic law. The financial pressure caused by the heavy and unforeseen charges of the Afghan War compelled the Government of India to cut down its expenditure with the most unsparing hand. The £1,500,000 intended for allocation to famine insurance were absorbed. The progress of all Public Works were arrested, not only of extraordinary, the productive ones—that is, railways and irrigation—but even of works of the most ordinary necessity, as roads and sanitary improvements. The surpluses of Provincial Governments were called for, and all progress material and moral received a rude check. Under the present peaceful state of the country these restrictions have been removed—a succession of good harvests has done much to repair the losses and sufferings of those terrible famine years from 1876 to 1879. The Revenue is steadily increasing, and, favoured by the high credit of the country, the Indian Government have raised loans within the limits of Parliamentary sanction for the completion of Public Works in progress, and the commencement of new ones likely to prove remunerative. Works recommended by the Famine Commissioners, and likely to largely avert the evils of future deficient harvests, have also been initiated. In a word, the condition of our Indian Empire can be spoken of without a drawback as being in a state of high and increasing prosperity.
  In South Africa the Transvaal has been thoroughly pacified. Some difficulties arose about the ratification of the Convention, which it was sought by the Boer Leaders to make conditional; these pretensions were of course inadmissible. Such a ratification must be all in all or not at all. The Convention was, however, at length duly ratified by the Re-
  128
  presentatives of the people, and I trust for long years to come our Colonists in South Africa may have peaceable, friendly, and prosperous neighbours in the Boer Republic of the Transvaal. In Basutoland, a most careful and just award of that experienced, efficient, and trustworthy public servant, Sir Hercules Robinson, and accepted as such by the Natives, has been repudiated by a small section of them. Hostilities have not broken out as yet; but the condition of affairs cannot be described as satisfactory. The deposed King of the Zulus, Cetywayo, is to visit this country during the year; and I sincerely trust it may be found possible to materially ameliorate his condition. His punishment has been altogether incommensurate with any faults he may have committed. It was surely natural that he should struggle to defend his country against the attacks of the foreigner to the best of his ability. I will appeal to my hon. Friend the newly-elected Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Dawnay) as to his character as a man. I am sure that his verdict, based on intimate personal acquaintance, will be a very favourable one.
  While in the Estimates some reduction will be found in the Votes for the Naval and Military Services, I fear any great reduction in the total expenditure must not be expected, and this, in a great measure, on account of the great expenses connected with the administration of the law in Ireland, and with the endeavour to restore that country to quiet and peace.
  The negotiations for a New Commercial Treaty with France have been long protracted; and though, no doubt, still further delayed by the Ministerial crisis in that country, the House may, I think, rest assured that no Treaty will be concluded which is not at least as advantageous to this country as the old one, and that indisputably so. I mean so distinctly of equal advantage that the question shall not be capable of debate in that particular.
  Undue expectations have been formed as to the increase of Revenue. I believe I am correct in stating that, according to the most recent calculations of the best authorities, the Revenue is likely to do little more than just meet the estimated expenditure. It is, however, indisputable that the trade of the country is making rapid strides in improvement;

  129
  and the explanation must be sought in the fact that depression and improvement in trade are not accompanied pari passu by fall and rise of the Revenue, but that the changes in the Revenue follow at some interval the changes in the state of trade.
  On the whole, considerable improvement may be stated to have taken place in the condition of Ireland. The evil there is too grave and too deep-seated to be healed, as it were, by the mere touch of the magician's wand; it was not to be desired that its surface alone should be skimmed over, and it was to be expected that the first symptoms of healthy action at the bottom of the wound should be attended with more active inflammation at the surface. Rents are, to a great extent, being paid when determinedly pressed for; juries are being found willing to convict, and evidence is being obtained against the perpetrators of agrarian crime. The Return of outrages for the month of January, eliminating threatening letters as of small account, is somewhat lower than that of the corresponding month of 1881, and this must be regarded as distinctly satisfactory when the circumstances of the two periods are considered and compared. In January, 1881, the cessation of the payment of rent was almost general, and attempts to enforce its payment were almost as generally abandoned; the country was in high state of expectation of relief to be obtained from Parliament, and so, altogether, the inducements to outrage were few. In January of this year, on the other hand, the most strenuous efforts were made to enforce the payment of rent, in most cases attended with success, and the Government has aided and supported these efforts with all and every means in its power; and, again, everything that can be conceded has been already given. The inducements to outrage were, therefore, far greater.
  The Land Act has worked well, though it must be admitted the reductions of rent are greater than was anticipated by many, though I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was not amongst these sanguine persons. My belief is that the attacks so lavishly made on the Sub-Commissioners will be found impossible to sustain, and the justice of their decisions in the vast majority of cases will
  130
  be most decisively established. The passing of the Land Act naturally incited the more extreme Land Leaguers to renewed efforts to strengthen their tottering organization. They made a determined effort to secure the adoption of a national "no rent "programme, the danger of which, and difficulty of overcoming if effectually carried into operation, both the Duke of Wellington and Lord Beaconsfield long ago foresaw. In that effort they have signally failed. The tenant farmers were not to be tempted by problematical advantages held out to them, but preferred to make sure of the bird they held in their hand. The fact of the Land Act becoming law, so to speak, cleared the decks for action; and the Government found themselves justified, when the necessity arose, of making vigorous use of the extraordinary powers granted them by Parliament in the commencement of last Session. It is most deplorable that so many Irishmen and Members of this House should be suffering confinement; but I think, in their soberer moods, they must recognize they have but themselves to thank for their position. When men are convinced it has become their duty to rebel against the constituted Government of the country, they must be prepared to endure with patience the consequences of non-success. I hope my words have given no offence to any hon. Member from Ireland. I wish to pay every respect to the honesty of their intentions; but I cannot refrain from putting it to them, as able and sensible men, whether it really is the best way of proving Ireland would be better governed by a Parliament of her own, in which they would take a leading part, to bring, seemingly in sheer wantonness, disgrace, discredit, and paralysis on this Parliament, of which they are already Members. Nor can I refrain from suggesting to members of the Irish Land League that our sympathy and fellow-feeling for the cause they represent would be infinitely increased if, instead of being satisfied with a mere repudiation of these abominable murders, outrages, and mutilations of men, women, and poor dumb animals, we found some of the power of their organization—some of its considerable funds—employed in the determined suppression of these dastardly crimes, and in aid of the production of the necessary evidence to convict their cowardly

  131
  perpetrators. It is said hon. Members in yonder quarter of the House intend to move a long series of Amendments to the Motion I am about to make. I appeal to them to act on this occasion with some moderation, and to spare us and themselves the pain of seeing in the commencing weeks of the present Session a repetition of the similar weeks of last.
  A Bill for the creation of elective quinquennial County Councils to relieve Quarter Sessions of much of their non-judicial work, and a Bill dealing with the Municipal Government of London, are to form the piece de résistance of the Ministerial programme; but the more detailed consideration of these I cannot do better than leave to my hon. Friend beside me (Mr. Firth), who has devoted so much of his time and talents to the subject of local government. This I am the more induced to do, because, while Scotland will share the benefit of any financial relief, it will not be possible to extend to us any change in the form of county government during the present Session. In the Bankruptcy, Corrupt Practices, and Rivers Conservancy and Pollution Bills we meet old friends crushed out by the stagnation of Business in former Sessions. I trust that the Resolutions now to be brought forward with a view of facilitating the progress of Business will save them from again meeting a similar fate. It is regrettable that some noble Lords and right hon. and hon. Members should have already adopted as their motto—
  "Let Hercules himself do what he may,
  The cat shall mew, the dog shall have his day."
  I hope this attitude is in no small measure due to the exciting effects of country air, and that the atmosphere of this House, loaded as it is with the sobering influences of the traditions of centuries, will be so far calming as to induce them to give a fair and honourable consideration to the proposals of the Government. No attempt is intended to deprive minorities of their legitimate rights; and, should any proposal of the Government be fairly proved in debate to have any such effect, I believe I am fully warranted in saying any Amendments to remedy so undesirable a result would be received in the most conciliatory and friendly spirit.
  132
  The announcement that the Criminal Code will be proceeded with must be received with universal satisfaction. It would be regrettable, indeed, that the labours of those learned and distinguished men who originated and framed that Code should be lost. The Government have, I think, by their acts shown that the public is not likely to be deprived of a good measure, because suggested by political opponents. In this House the Criminal Code will be closely and honourably associated with the name of Sir John Holker. We must on all sides regret the absence from amongst us of one who had gained our warmest confidence by the manly and straightforward manner in which he always expressed his views, still every Member of this House will share with the public and the Legal Profession the feeling of gratification so generally and justly entertained that the Prime Minister, taking no heed of former practice, has, on behalf of the public, endeavoured to obtain from amongst the ranks of distinguished political opponents the presence on the Judicial Bench of one so able and so competent as the late learned Member for Preston. The important question of the Patent Laws is also to be dealt with. Scotland is to have an Entail Bill which must not be taken as denoting finality of legislation in regard to this subject; but only a temporary measure conceded at the desire of all parties in Scotland to tide them over till the time when the whole matter may be thoroughly dealt with on equal terms for the Three Kingdoms. Scotland also receives her much-needed Educational Endowments Bill, and Wales a Higher Education Bill.
  Even at the risk of trespassing too long on the time of the House I must enter one final and very warm protest against either the question of Ireland or the question of the Rules of Procedure for this House being treated as matters of pure Party politics, over which Party advantages are to be lost or won. They are questions of far too grave a nature for such treatment. In the one may be heard the voice of a nation crying for relief—it may be she knows not what she wants or how the relief may best be given; but the cry proceeds from her agony, and our duty as a nation, and the dominant nation too, is to find the satisfactory and efficient means of relief and

  133
  apply it without delay. In the other, the whole power and honour and dignity of this House is concerned—the question is whether it is to perform those vast consultative, legislative, and executive duties of which it has become year by year more and more the focus, or whether it is to show itself unworthy of itself, and unworthy of the confidence of the electors who chose its Members and intrusted to them the care of the national interests. These are no questions to form the basis of struggles between inns and outs. The nation will weary, aye, is wearying, of being the sport and plaything of contending Parties. The time has come for united action on the part of those, whatever be their Party—and they are confined to no Party—who dearly love the ancient name and honour and traditions of this Assembly. Let them arouse themselves and try to come to an agreement, and there is no fear but success will crown their efforts. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to convey the thanks of this House for the Most Gracious Speech delivered by Her Command to both Houses of Parliament:
  "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty has given Her approval to a marriage between Her Son Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, and Her Serene Highness Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont; and that Her Majesty has every reason to believe that this will be a happy union:
  "Humbly to assure Her Majesty that we rejoice to hear that Her Majesty continues in relations of cordial harmony with all Foreign Powers:
  "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the Treaty for the cession of Thessaly to the Greek Kingdom has now been executed in its main provisions; and that the transfer of sovereignty and of occupation was effected in a manner honourable to all concerned:
  "To thank Her Majesty for informing us that, in concert with the President of the French Republic, Her Majesty has given careful attention to the affairs of Egypt; and that Her Majesty will use Her influence to maintain the rights already established, whether by the Firmans of the Sultan, or by various international engagements, in a spirit favourable to the good government of the Country, and the prudent development of its institutions:
  134
  "Humbly to assure Her Majesty that we learn with pleasure that the restoration of peace beyond the North-Western Frontier, together with continued internal tranquillity, plentiful seasons, and increase of the Revenue, have enabled Her Majesty's Government in India to resume works of public utility which had been suspended, and to devote its attention to measures for the further improvement of the condition of the people:
  "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the Convention with the Transvaal has been ratified by the Representative Assembly, and that Her Majesty has seen no reason to qualify Her anticipations of its advantageous working:
  "Humbly to assure Her Majesty that we share Her Majesty's regret that, although hostilities have not been renewed in Basutoland, the Country still remains in an unsettled condition:
  "To thank Her Majesty for informing us that the Estimates for the Service of the year are in an advanced stage of preparation, and will be promptly submitted to us:
  "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty's communications with France on the subject of a new Commercial Treaty have not been closed; and that they will be prosecuted by Her Majesty with a desire to conclude a Treaty favourable to extended intercourse between the two Nations:
  "Humbly to assure Her Majesty that we rejoice to learn that the trade of the Country, both domestic and foreign, has for some time been improving, and that better prospects are opened for the classes immediately concerned in agriculture, although the public Revenue has not yet exhibited an upward movement in proportion to the increased activity of industry and commerce:
  "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the condition of Ireland exhibits signs of improvement; that justice has been administered with greater efficacy; and that the intimidation which has been employed to deter occupiers of land from fulfilling their obligations, and from availing themselves of the Act of last Session shows upon the whole a diminished force:
  "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that we shall be invited to deal with proposals for the establishment in the English and Welsh Counties of local self-government, together with financial changes applying to the whole of Great Britain; that a measure will be

  135
  submitted to us for the reform of the ancient and distinguished Corporation of London, and the extension of Municipal Government to the Metropolis at large; and that measures will again he laid before us concerning Bankruptcy, the repression of Corrupt Practices at Elections, and the Conservancy of Rivers and Prevention of Floods:
  "Humbly to assure Her Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to these measures and others which may be proposed to us.
  "And we earnestly trust that the blessing of God will attend and guide our deliberations."
  MR. FIRTH: Sir, I have the honour to second the Address which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend (Mr. Marjoribanks). In doing so, I do not propose to trespass very long upon the kind indulgence of the House; but I may unite with my hon. Friend, and with other hon. Members of this House, in the expression of our interest at the announcement contained in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, that it is the intention of the Duke of Albany to ally himself with a Princess of the ancient House of Waldeck. Sir, I am sure that I shall be only echoing the universal intention of this House and of the people outside, if I say that we shall give to the noble Princess a cordial English welcome; and, further, that we regard with the utmost satisfaction the prospect that through this august union there will be transferred to the English Court the many fragrant personal and domestic virtues by which she has already endeared herself to every member of her distant home. Sir, it cannot be doubted that where, as in this matter, there is so apt a conjunction of excellent qualities, we shall have another illustration added to those already repeatedly given by the English Court, of the union of high public position with unstained domestic felicity.
  Sir, the House will also receive with satisfaction the announcement that cordial relations continue to exist between Her Majesty's Administration and the various Powers on the Continent of Europe. The maintenance of such an entente cordiale intimately affects the welfare of all these Powers, as, with the development of commerce, national prosperity is becoming increasingly dependent on the preservation of international confidence.
  136
  In South-Eastern Europe the ratification of the Treaty for the cession of Thessaly to Greece, following the closure of the Montenegrin Question, removes a danger to European peace, the magnitude of which could only be measured by the conflicting interests of three Great Powers. The effect of the Treaty will be to increase the Hellenic territory by one-third, and to approximate the boundaries of modern Greece to those of that ancient Greece, the institutions, the arts, and the literature of which have had so profound an influence in moulding the history of mankind.
  Crossing the Mediterranean, the House will be glad to note that the influence of this country in Egypt will be directed to the maintenance of existing rights, so far as such rights are consistent with the welfare of the Egyptian people. Where so many and such varied national interests are involved, it may be hoped that, however else they may conflict, they may be able to unite in procuring for that unhappy country a prudent development of such of its institutions as are for the public advantage, and a strengthening of those securities for good government and for public order which have so long been notably wanting to the Egyptian people.
  It is specially satisfactory to notice the hopeful tone in which Her Majesty is able to speak of the present aspect of affairs in her Indian Empire. With the removal of anxiety as to its North-Western Frontier, and with the improvement of its Revenue, it may be hoped that that distant part of Her Majesty's Dominions has taken a new departure on the path of prosperity and of progress.
  Sir, I think that the repeal of the Vernacular Press Act is cause for much public congratulation. The alleged necessity for such a measure constituted a grave and, as I think, an unjustifiable reflection upon the loyalty of the Indian people. Even if such loyalty were open in some places to suspicion, it were better—as was pointed out in 1878 by the Duke of Buckingham, then Governor of Madras—that there should be free outlets for the expression of Native opinion, and full opportunity through the Press of testing its under-currents, than that it should be, by a measure of this kind, thrown back upon sullen submission or secret conspiracy. In addition to these

  137
  practical disadvantages the Act was a grave infringement of Constitutional rights previously granted to the Indian people, in that it placed the control of their Press in the hands of an unfettered Executive alone, and thus, as was forcibly indicated by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) when the Act was under discussion in this House, it swept away the securities against tyranny which were provided by the ordinary judicial tribunals of the country.
  Of our Colonies Her Majesty has not said very much. Perhaps that may be taken as an indication that they are in that condition of prosperity and peace which is most conducive to their welfare. As to the ratification of the Convention with the Boors of the Transvaal, whatever difficulties there may be in other matters respecting it, all Englishmen will unite in satisfaction at the knowledge that we have now greater security for the good treatment of the Native races than we have ever before possessed.
  Although the French Treaty is, at the present moment, unsettled, at any rate we have the assurance—which Freetraders will greatly value—that under no circumstances will Her Majesty's Government set its hand to a retrograde Treaty.
  Sir, the condition of Ireland is still such as to cause the greatest anxiety to all who are responsible for the government of that country. It is satisfactory to note that Her Majesty is able in Her Most Gracious Speech to say that she finds ground for hope in the present aspect of affairs. It would, indeed, be cause for dismay if the work of the last Session of this Parliament in the passing of the Irish Land Act had been productive of no useful fruit. That Act may be regarded as a heroic effort to bring the Irish Land Law into closer accord with that welfare of the people, which, after all, is the true end of all justifiable government. It is a matter of happy augury that nearly 70,000 Irish tenants are anxious to take advantage of its provisions; and we may not unreasonably hope that when, through the action of the Courts or by private arrangement, those tenants attain an easier and an assured position, they will become centres of security for the maintenance of order and for the well-being of society such as have never before been known in the
  138
  history of that country. Whatever may be the difficulties of the present situation, it is not to be forgotten that they have largely resulted from inequitable laws; and in dealing with such difficulties we cannot wisely forget that whatever fortune may come to England through the future, the destinies of Ireland are also hers; and that, joined together by a natural position which cannot be changed, it would be not merely good statesmanship, but practical wisdom, to settle, as soon as may be, some comfortable conditions for our joint existence. If we of each nation, in regarding the other, remembered the words of the poet—
  "Be to her virtues very kind,
  Be to her faults a little blind; "
  the attainment of such a modus vivendi ought not to be difficult.
  Some of the measures of which we are promised the introduction are of the first importance. The Criminal Code Bill, on its former introduction in 1879, secured a large share of public approval both within and outside the walls of the House of Commons. It constituted the first and only serious attempt hitherto made towards codifying any branch of English law, and, having been submitted to the critical examination of a Commission upon which sat the ablest and most experienced of modern jurists, it was presented to the House in the most authentic and complete form. The passing of such a measure would result in the removal of a cumbrous and technical procedure, and in placing in the hands of the people that accurate knowledge of the law which they are supposed to possess, but which is now in some matters so difficult to attain. The law itself, too, may receive useful modification. At present it is full of needless distinctions and bristling with inconsistencies; whilst as regards even the highest of crimes it is so unsatisfactory, and sometimes so unjust, that it is only enforced in a small percentage of cases, and so the deterrent object of punishment is defeated. When, in addition to these reforms, we have enacted provisions giving greater security for the proof of innocence, and have extended to persons accused of crime the right of appeal possessed in civil cases, the Legislature may turn its attention to the codification of the rest of our law—at once the most difficult and the most necessary of all legal reforms.

  139
  The Prevention of Floods Bill is anxiously awaited by many thousands of persons who suffer from the present state of things; and the necessity for a reform in our Patent Laws is universally admitted. At present we are levying a tax of more than £100,000 a-year upon the brains of our people. The classes who work our machinery, and to whom opportunities of invention are most frequent, find their stimulus gone where the tax is prohibitive; and even where invention is made, the advantages are oftener with the capitalist than the inventor to whose skill it is due. When the cost is largely reduced, and when before the grant of a patent some competent authority has guaranteed its novelty and its utility, we may expect to find an impetus given to English invention which is now so especially necessary in order to maintain our manufacturing predominance in the face of severe competition.
  The commercial community is awaiting with anxiety the introduction and discussion of the Bankruptcy Bill with which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is so closely associated. Where the agency of the law is invoked to enable a man to modify or escape from his contract obligations, there ought to be satisfactory guarantees that such release will not be granted except upon such well-defined conditions as shall secure the creditor's interests, and, whilst just to the unfortunate, shall be severe to the fraudulent debtor. It was supposed that these ends would be secured by the provisions of the Act of 1869, whereby full control was given to creditors; but the result has shown this confidence to be misplaced, and the liquidation and composition clauses of the Act have been turned into gigantic engines of fraud, as the Reports of the Comptroller in Bankruptcy show the number of English insolvents is no longer controlled by the state of trade; and there is a rapidly-spreading opinion amongst some classes that with such easy methods of escape as the Bankruptcy Laws now afford, it is foolish to pay debts in full. A new system, to be satisfactory, will retain as as far as possible the absolute control of the creditor, but will provide such official oversight as shall be an adequate guarantee against fraud either in bankrupt or trustee.
  140
  There remain two important measures of Local Government, to which I may be permitted briefly to allude. The first is a scheme of county government for England and Wales, which, if carried, will probably illustrate in a new department of our national life the advantages of representative self-government. If the working of such a scheme prove successful, we may hope that it will be extended to the rest of the Three Kingdoms, so that all may be equally brought within the sphere of advantageous law.
  The other measure to which I would ask leave to allude is, in the opinion of many Londoners, the most important of them all. For 45 years English Governments have uniformly hesitated to confer on the Metropolitan area those elementary rights of self-government which were, in 1835, conceded to the smallest towns in the Kingdom. The grounds of such hesitation may be found in the strength of some of the interests affected, and in the complexity and magnitude of the problem to be solved. At last, a powerful Administration has given us ground for hope that reform is coming; and, whatever shape such reform may take in detail, it can scarcely be doubted that in its general principle it will be in accord with the wishes of the inhabitants of the Capital. Speaking with a somewhat wide experience of every part of London, I may be excused if I say that I do not know any public question upon which there exists such practical unanimity as upon this; and whether the measure proposed should take the form of the constitution of a new, or the extension of an old authority, is immaterial, if only it contain the necessary principle of the direct control, by representative authority, of all matters of administration and all matters of expenditure. During long centuries of the past, the ancient Corporation of the City was distinguished by the skill with which it preserved and strengthened its own municipal institutions. The framework of those institutions has survived to our day; and if, by extension over the surrounding area, there were to be infused into it a new, and pure, and vigorous municipal life, we might have a result satisfactory in itself, and satisfactory also in that it preserved the continuity of the historic life of the Capital. In advancing such

  141
  a measure the Administration would, I think, have the scarcely divided support of the millions of London, irrespective of Party, and irrespective of class, and would earn for themselves the lasting gratitude of the Metropolis of the world. Sir, I beg to second the Motion of my hon. Friend.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, &c."—[See page 133.]
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEbegged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  MR. GLADSTONEobserved, that an admirable speech had been brought to a close sooner than most Members of the House expected, and certainly earlier than most of them could have wished; but, at that hour, of the night it would be unfair to ask the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with the discussion.

  THE VATICAN—DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE—MR. ERRINGTON.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that before the Motion was put he should like to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could lay on the Table any Papers relative to Mr. Errington's mission to the Vatican?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not produce any Papers, because there were none. Mr. Errington had not been sent out by the Government, but had gone to the Vatican on his own responsibility, without appointment and without salary. He believed that Mr. Errington had been the means of communicating information to the Vatican; but there had not been in any sense a mission sent out by the Government.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
THE PARLIAMENT, which had been Prorogued from the 27th August to the 12th November, thence to the 17th December, was again further Prorogued by Proclamation, as follows:—
"BY THE QUEEN—A PROCLAMATION.
"Victoria R.
"Whereas Our Parliament stands prorogued to Saturday the Seventeenth Day of December next: We, by and with the Advice of Our Privy Council, hereby issue Our Royal Proclamation, and publish and declare, that the said Parliament be further prorogued to Tuesday the Seventh Day of February One thousand eight hundred and eighty-two; and We do hereby further, with the Advice aforesaid, declare Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the said Parliament shall, on the said Tuesday the
2
Seventh Day of February One thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, assemble and be holden for the Despatch of divers urgent and important Affairs; And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, and the Commissioners for Shires and Burghs, of the House of Commons, are hereby required and commanded to give their Attendance accordingly, at Westminster, on the said Tuesday the Seventh Day of February One thousand eight hundred and eighty-two.
"Given at Our Court at Windsor, this Twenty-ninth Day of November, in the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, and in the Forty-fifth Year of Our Reign.
"God save the Queen."
And the PARLIAMENT having met accordingly, the Session was opened by Commission.
THE HOUSE OF PEERS being met;
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House,

3
"That it not being convenient for Her Majesty to be personally here present this day, She has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared, in order to the holding of this Parliament."
Then Five of the LORDS COMMISSIONERS—namely, The LORD CHANCELLOR, The LORD HIGH STEWARD (The Earl Sydney); The LORD CHAMBERLAIN (The Earl of Kenmare); The EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY (Master of the Buckhounds), and The LORD MONSON (Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard)—being in their Robes, and seated on a Form placed between the Throne and the Woolsack, commanded the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to let the COMMONS know "The Lords Commissioners desire their immediate Attendance in this House, to hear the Commission read."
Who being at the Bar, with their Speaker:—The Commission was read by the Clerk:—Then

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR delivered HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"IT is with much satisfaction that I again invite your advice and assistance in the conduct of public affairs.
"I have given my approval to a marriage between my son Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, and Her Serene Highness Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont. I have every reason to believe that this will be a happy union.
"I continue in relations of cordial harmony with all foreign Powers.
"The Treaty for the cession of Thessaly to the Greek Kingdom has now been executed in its main provisions. The transfer of sovereignty and of occupation was effected in a manner honourable to all concerned.
"In concert with the President of the French Republic, I have given careful attention to the affairs of
4
Egypt, where existing arrangements have imposed on me special obligations. I shall use my influence to maintain the rights already established, whether by the Firmans of the Sultan or by various international engagements, in a spirit favourable to the good government of the country and the prudent development of its institutions.
"I have pleasure in informing you that the restoration of peace beyond the North-Western Frontier, together with continued internal tranquillity, plentiful seasons, and increase of the revenue, has enabled my Government in India to resume works of public utility which had been suspended, and to devote its attention to measures for the further improvement of the condition of the people.
"The Convention with the Transvaal has been ratified by the Representative Assembly; and I have seen no reason to qualify my anticipations of its advantageous working.
"I have, however, to regret that, although hostilities have not been renewed in Basutoland, the country still remains in an unsettled condition.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"The Estimates for the service of the year are in an advanced stage of preparation, and will be promptly submitted to you.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"My communications with France on the subject of a new Commercial Treaty have not been closed. They will be prosecuted by me, as I have already acquainted you, with a desire to conclude a Treaty favourable to extended intercourse between the two

5
nations, to whose close amity I attach so great a value.
"The trade of the country, both domestic and foreign, has for some time been improving, and the mildness of the winter-season has been eminently suited to farming operations. Better prospects are, I trust, thus opened for the classes immediately concerned in agriculture.
"The public revenue, which is greatly, though not always at once, affected by the state of industry and commerce, has not yet exhibited an upward movement in proportion to their increased activity.
"The condition of Ireland at this time, as compared with that which I described at the beginning of last year, shows signs of improvement; and encourages the hope that perseverance in the course you have pursued will be rewarded with the happy results which are so much to be desired.
"Justice has been administered with greater efficacy; and the intimidation, which has been employed to deter occupiers of land from fulfilling their obligations, and from availing themselves of the Act of last Session, shows upon the whole a diminished force.
"My efforts, through the bounty of Providence, have been favoured by the abundance of the harvest in that portion of the United Kingdom.
"In addition to a vigorous exertion of the provisions of the ordinary law, I have not hesitated, under the painful necessity of the case, to employ largely the exceptional powers intrusted to me for the protection of life and property by two Acts of the last Session.
"You will be invited to deal with proposals for the establishment in the English and Welsh Counties of Local
6
Self-Government, which has so long been enjoyed by the towns; together with enlarged powers of administration, and with financial changes which will give you an opportunity of considering, both as to town and country, what may be the proper extent, and the most equitable and provident form, of contribution from Imperial taxes in relief of local charges.
"These proposals, in so far as they are financial, will apply to the whole of Great Britain. It will be necessary to reserve the case of Ireland for a separate consideration.
"In connection with the general subject of local administration, I have directed a measure to be prepared and submitted to you for the reform of the ancient and distinguished Corporation of London, and the extension of Municipal Government to the metropolis at large.
"Bills will again be laid before you with which, dining the last Session, notwithstanding the length of its duration and your unwearied labours, it was found impossible to proceed. I refer particularly to those concerning Bankruptcy, the repression of Corrupt Practices at Elections, and the Conservancy of Rivers and Prevention of Floods.
"Measures will also be proposed to you with respect to a Criminal Code and to the Consolidation and Amendment of the Laws affecting Patents.
"The interests of some portions of the United Kingdom have suffered peculiarly, of late years, from the extreme pressure of the public business on jour time and strength; but I trust that, during this Session, you may be able to consider Bills which will be presented to you in relation to

7
the Law of Entail and to Educational Endowments in Scotland, and to improved means of Education in Wales.
"I commend these and other subjects with confidence to your care; and it is my earnest prayer that your wisdom and energy may, under the blessing of God, prove equal to the varied and increasing needs of this extended Empire.
Then the Commons withdrew.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
PRAYERS.
ROLL OF THE LORDS—Chester Herald attending in the absence of Garter King of Arms, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Third Session of the Twenty-second Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Earl of Kilmorey a Representative Peer for Ireland in the room of the late Viscount Bangor, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on oath), and Certificate read.

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR SCOTLAND.
The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery delivered his Certificate that the Lord Polwarth had been elected a Representative Peer for Scotland in the room of the Earl of Airlie, deceased.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had received (by post) from the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland,
Minutes of the election of the Lord Polwarth as one of the sixteen Peers of Scotland, 11th January 1882, in room of David Graham Drummond Earl of Airlie, deceased; and
Separate Return by the Lord Clerk Register of certain Titles of Peerage called at said election, in right of which respectively no vote had been received
8
and counted at any election for fifty years then last past (pursuant to Act 14th and 15th Vict., chap. 87.):
Ordered that the said Minutes of Election, &c. be printed. (No. 1.)

NEW PEERS.
William Montagu Marquess of Tweed-dale in the Peerage of Scotland having been created Baron Tweeddale of Yester in the county of Haddington in the Peerage of the United Kingdom—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Donald James Baron Reay in the Peerage of Scotland, having been created Baron Reay of Durness in the county of Sutherland in the Peerage of the United Kingdom—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Sir Henry James Tufton, Baronet, having been created Baron Hothfield of Hothfield in the county of Kent—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Sir Dudley Coutts Marjoribanks, Baronet, having been created Baron Tweed-mouth of Edington in the county of Berwick—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Earl of Kilmorey—Took the Oath.

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Douglas (Earl of Home), after the death of his father.
SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro formâ, read la.
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  The QUEEN'S SPEECH reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
  THE EARL OF FINGALL: My Lords, in rising to move an humble Address in answer to the Speech of Her Most Gracious Majesty, I have to ask that indulgence which your Lordships never refuse to one so young and wholly inexperienced in Parliamentary life as I am.
  Your Lordships will have heard, with unqualified satisfaction, the announcement of the proposed marriage of His Royal Highness Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, with Her Serene Highness

  9
  Princess Helena of Waldeck and Pyrmont. A union which promises so much happiness cannot fail to win universal favour. And I feel certain that your Lordships will gladly avail yourselves of your privilege to be the first to present to Her Most Gracious Majesty and the Royal Family your respectful and most sincere congratulations on an event so pleasing to Her Majesty.
  I am sure that it will have given your Lordships much pleasure to have heard that the long and difficult negotiations respecting the boundary between Greece and Turkey have been successfully concluded, and I think that your Lordships will all unite in the hope that the fine territory recently ceded to Greece may prosper under the government of its new rulers.
  Owing to the great importance of British interests in Egypt, I think your Lordships will be all of opinion that the rights which England has in that country should be maintained.
  My Lords, we must all regret that the negotiations for a Commercial Treaty with France have not so far proved successful. But we all, without distinction of Party, I am sure, would see with pleasure a satisfactory settlement of the matters in controversy, so that there should be nothing to interrupt the intimate relations of trade which have now for many years subsisted between us and our nearest neighbours.
  Having now briefly touched upon a variety of topics, I feel less diffidence in referring to that country to which it is my lot to belong, and with whose affairs I am most concerned. Her Majesty's Speech deals with Ireland in a hopeful tone. My Lords, there is hope. Of course, throughout large districts Ireland is in a most unsettled state; but even in these districts there are signs of improvement. There is a decrease in crime, evidence is more freely given, and the verdicts of the juries show that the farmers, who are themselves the principal sufferers from the outrages that are committed, are growing weary of the intimidation which they have so long endured. Law is steadily, if slowly, perhaps, asserting itself over violence and disorder, confidence appears to be somewhat reviving, and rents are beginning to be more generally paid. Besides, we may hope much from the influence of the Land Act, an excep-
  10
  tional but, I believe, necessary measure, without which the country would now be in a much more turbulent state than it actually is. As yet the Act has only been a few months in operation; but, when it comes to be more fully understood, the increased value which it gives to the property of the tenant must tend to withdraw him from the ranks of the disaffected, as the result of further agitation would be to put in peril his newly acquired interest. But, my Lords, there are other districts which have been throughout, and still are, in a more fortunate condition. For instance, in the county of Meath, in which it is my good fortune to reside, matters have always been tolerably satisfactory. Landlords and tenants go about their business or their amusements as they did in former and happier times. In very many instances the old good relations between landlords and tenants have continued undisturbed. Of course, even here I must allow that there have been exceptions to this state of quiet which all must most sincerely regret. My Lords, my own belief is that a very large majority of the tenants of Ireland are peaceably and quietly disposed, and would be generally willing and ready to meet their obligations; but, unfortunately, many of them allow themselves to be carried away by a small but violent minority supported chiefly from abroad. But I trust, my Lords, that the day is not far distant when the well-disposed majority will prevail, when order will be restored, and precautionary measures will become unnecessary. My fervent hope is that Ireland, at length allowed to be at rest, may enjoy a long period of prosperity and contentment. I should ill deserve the indulgence which your Lordships have extended to me if I were to trespass further on your patience. I beg to move an humble Address in answer to the Speech of Her Most Gracious Majesty as follows:—
  "MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
  "WE, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has given your approval to a marriage between your son Prince

  11
  Leopold, Duke of Albany, and Her Serene Highness Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont, and that Your Majesty has every reason to believe that this will he a happy union.
  "We rejoice to hear that Your Majesty continues in relations of cordial harmony with all foreign Powers.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the Treaty for the cession of Thessaly to the Greek Kingdom has now been executed in its main provisions, and that the transfer of sovereignty and of occupation was effected in a manner honourable to all concerned.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing as that, in concert with the President of the French Republic, Your Majesty has given careful attention to the affairs of Egypt, and that Your Majesty will use your influence to maintain the rights already established, whether by the Firmans of the Sultan or by various international engagements, in a spirit favourable to the good government of the country and the prudent development of its institutions.
  "We learn with pleasure that the restoration of peace beyond the North-Western Frontier, together with continued internal tranquillity, plentiful seasons, and increase of the revenue, has enabled Your Majesty's Government in India to resume works of public utility which had been suspended, and to devote its attention to measures for the further improvement of the condition of the people.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the Convention with the Transvaal has been ratified by the Representative Assembly; and that Your Majesty has seen no reason to qualify your anticipations of its advantageous working.
  "We share Your Majesty's regret that, although hostilities have not been renewed in Basutoland, the country still remains in an unsettled condition.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty's communications with France on the subject of a new Commercial Treaty have not been closed, and that they will be prosecuted by Your Majesty with a desire to conclude a Treaty favourable to extended intercourse between the two nations.
  "We rejoice to learn that the trade of the country, both domestic and foreign, has for some time been improving, and that better prospects are opened for the classes immediately concerned in agriculture, although the public revenue has not yet exhibited an upward movement in proportion to the increased activity of industry and commerce.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the condition of Ireland exhibits signs of improvement; that justice has been administered with greater efficacy; and that the intimidation which has been employed to deter occupiers of land from fulfilling their obligations and from availing themselves of the Act of last Session shows upon the whole a diminished force.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that we shall be invited to deal with proposals for the establishment in the English and Welsh Counties of Local Self-Government, together with financial changes applying to the whole of Great Britain; that a measure will be submitted to us for the reform of the ancient and distinguished Corporation of London, and the extension of Municipal Government to the metropolis at large, and that measures will again be laid before us concerning Bankruptcy, the repression of Corrupt Practices at Elections, and the Conservancy of Rivers and Prevention of Floods.
  "We humbly assure Your Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to these measures and others which may be proposed to us, and we earnestly trust that the blessing of God will attend and guide our deliberations."
  LORD WENLOCKin rising to second the Motion for an Address, said: My Lords, I have to claim the same kind indulgence as my noble Friend who has so ably moved it (the Earl of Fingall), as it is the first time I have risen to address your Lordships.
  My noble Friend has alluded with great satisfaction to the first part of the Speech, and I cannot but echo the expression of respectful congratulations which has fallen from him as to Prince Leopold's marriage.
  I concur, also, with the hope expressed by my noble Friend that the complicated affairs of Egypt may be quietly settled by the maintenance of existing arrangements and the success of the delicate and difficult negotiations that are now pending.
  As regards our own Colonies and Dependencies, we are glad to hear nothing but tidings of peace from India, where troubles so lately prevailed. When Parliament separated, Afghanistan was the scene of civil war. Abdurrahman, whose authority had been recognized by the British Government, was face to face with his rival and foe, Ayoob Khan, who was in possession of Herat, had defeated

  13
  the forces of the Ameer at Candahar, and was threatening even Cabul. Since that time, Abdurrahman, who has displayed administrative and military capacity of a high order, has defeated and overthrown those hostile tribes who adhered to Ayoob Khan, has by a succession of defeats driven him into Persia, and has established his authority over the whole of Afghanistan. Throughout these transactions Abdurrahman has shown himself to be anxious to be on friendly relations with the British Government. He has intimated to the British authorities, by a special Envoy to Simla, that he desires to visit the Viceroy of India; there is no reason to doubt that his wish may be gratified; and, whatever Treaty or arrangements may be entered into, it is not likely that anything will occur to disturb our friendly relations. A great deal of these results is undoubtedly owing to the wise policy of withdrawing the British troops from the neighbourhood of Candahar. Physically, the presence of a large body of British troops divided the country of Afghanistan into two portions, so that it was hardly possible for one established authority to exercise control at the different points of Herat and Cabul. Whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the manner in which the policy was carried out, the end which all have in view has finally been acquired. On the North-West Frontier we have a friendly, a strong, and a united State. I believe that there is every prospect of peace and internal tranquillity reigning in Afghanistan, and statesmen of both Parties must hail with satisfaction the fact of this result being arrived at. Again, Her Majesty's Speech conveys to us the information that now the Government of India are able to devote their energies towards the development of the resources of that country. Since the termination of the Afghan War there have not been such heavy charges on their Exchequer, and they are now able to devote the money formerly applied to the expenses of the war to purposes for which they are really intended. They have also been able to attend most carefully to the Report of the Famine Commission appointed by the late Government, and they have established an Agricultural Department from which much good is expected. It is also satisfactory to know that the noble Marquess
  14
  who is at the head of the affairs of India (the Marquess of Ripon) has, with the unanimous consent of the Indian Council, been able to repeal the law which shackled the freedom of the Vernacular Press, and has restored to it that freedom of which it has been so long deprived. The Vernacular Press does more than any other agency in the country to show the Government what the aspirations, the hopes, and the feelings of the Indian population really are.
  The Speech from the Throne turns next to the question of the Transvaal; and it must be a matter of satisfaction to your Lordships that, without further bloodshed, peace has been restored in that part of the world. No doubt, in some parts of the country, especially on the Western Border, there is a certain amount of disturbance; but, on the whole, the Boers have thoroughly carried out the spirit of the Convention entered into between them and this country. At the meeting which they held to celebrate the formation of their own Government, the Suzerain's health was cordially drunk, and the British Resident, who was present on the occasion, was well received. As regards Basutoland, it is a matter of regret that the country is still in an unsettled condition. The Cape Government are carrying out the award made by Sir Hercules Robinson; and although some of the Basuto Chiefs have not fulfilled their engagements, and some districts are not yet under the authority of the Government, it is hoped that in time more peaceful arrangements will be come to between both parties.
  The Estimates to be presented to the House of Commons, to which Her Majesty next alludes in the Speech from the Throne, bring us away from foreign Powers and foreign Dependencies to the state of trade and agriculture in this country. It is a matter of congratulation that the trade of this country is reviving; but at the time when trade first began to revive it did not leave its signs immediately on the Revenue. There is every reason to hope, however, that in a short time the Revenue will exhibit symptoms of improvement.
  The agricultural depression has now lasted some years, and your Lordships will feel with me the deepest sympathy with those who have been engaged in agricultural occupations, and will entertain an earnest hope for the revival of

  15
  better seasons, which alone are able to bring about a better state of things in the agricultural districts.
  Then Her Majesty's Speech foreshadows the introduction of a measure for giving Local Self-Government to the counties; and there is no reason, as far as I am aware, why the counties should not have Local Self-Government as well as the towns. I infer it will be proposed that representative bodies shall be elected on the broad basis of giving proper representation to owners and occupiers. The Speech also points to some system by which the incidence of local taxation can be shifted and distributed more equally on personal and real property. Next, the question of the Municipal Reform of London is referred to, and I trust some measure will be introduced which will be acceptable to all parties. Great importance attaches to the re-introduction of various Bills which had been dropped last Session, particularly the Bill for the Prevention of Floods. This reminds me of a well-known passage by a Latin poet, beginning "Jamsatis;" but I hope your Lordships will not apply those words to myself for a few minutes longer. The poet, speaking of the heavy rainfall which swelled the rivers and alarmed the inhabitants of the towns, went on thus—
  "Terruit gentes, grave ne rediret
  Sæ;culum Pyrrhic nova monstra questræ;
  Omne cum Proteus pecus egit altos Visere montes."
  Now, my Lords, history repeats itself. It appears that the "grave sŒculum PyrrhŒ" has returned and visited us with a persistency and a constancy most deplorable in its results. Now, unfortunately, I live in a part of the country—and there are many others similarly situated—where there are no lofty mountains, to which, on the appearance of these devastating floods, Proteus can drive his flocks and herds for safety and protection. Therefore it is that I am most anxious for an immediate consideration of this measure.
  I am glad to hear the noble Earl who preceded me express his belief that, in regard to Ireland, the present time compares favourably with 12 months ago. I trust that the improvement will continue, and that in time peace and contentment will be restored to that distracted country. Meanwhile, Scotland has not had that share of attention
  16
  which, in other circumstances, she might have looked for; but the Speech from the Throne mentions that measures are to be introduced for the amendment of the Laws relating to Entail and Educational Endowments. A measure is also to be presented for improving the means of education in Wales. I hope some means will be devised for pressing forward all these measures, after mature deliberation in "another place;" and, in conclusion, I beg to thank your Lordships for the indulgent and patient manner in which you have listened to my remarks. I beg to second the Motion of my noble Friend. [See page 10.]
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord Wenlock), that, so far from being able to quote "Jam satis" against him on the plea of trying our patience, I could have listened to him a little longer, and I hope the ability he has shown on this occasion will continue to adorn our debates. Like the noble Earl who preceded him (the Earl of Fingall), he has shown much quickness of appreciation. I must, however, confess that I could not help being struck by the circumstance that while the gracious Speech from the Throne is remarkably long the speeches in support of it were unusually short; and there is no circumstance which more tends to convince me of the discernment and judgment of the noble Lords, and of their fitness for the posts for which they were selected, than their instinctive sense of the propriety of saying as little about the Speech from the Throne as possible. It is an obscure and wordy document, and even if I were inclined to take any hostile action upon it I should find it difficult to fasten upon any point sufficiently precise upon which an Amendment could be moved. I hope, therefore, I shall be pardoned for rising thus early in the debate to say that we have no intention of taking any measures hostile to the adoption of the Address moved by the noble Earl. We should do so, if we were to do so, with the more reluctance, as the Speech contains an announcement on which all Members of this House will join in congratulating themselves and the Sovereign. It was with great pleasure and satisfaction that we heard the announcement of the Duke of Albany's marriage. He has been distin-

  17
  guished by all the qualities which have made the Royal Family dear to the people of this country; he has shown on more than one occasion an earnest desire to use for the public service his great hereditary talents; and I am convinced that in this critical and momentous period of his life he will be followed by the sympathy and good wishes of Parliament and of the people of this country. My Lords, there is in the Royal Speech an allusion to one subject—I can hardly call it more than an allusion—which, at the present moment, is of pressing anxiety and interest. Yet, though it is of pressing interest, it is one on which your Lordships, although desiring some information, will not be inclined to express yourselves at great length or in much detail. I see that in France the First Minister of the Republic has expressed a desire that all discussions on the subject of Egyptian policy should be put off for a fortnight. No opportunity has occurred of expressing a similar wish in this country; but I think, on the whole, that it will be better not to enter closely into the matter when what we say may have a tendency to affect negotiations which are pending. I only wish, therefore, to notice some points in respect of which, on a future occasion, we shall feel disposed to ask for, and hope to receive, explanations from the Ministers of the Crown. The control which the late Government accepted from the Khedive, and to which only they gave their consent, was purely a financial control. But if I understand rightly the Joint Note, of which copies have appeared in the newspapers, something more than a plain financial control has been asserted and supported by intimations of a somewhat menacing character. Rumour asserts that such an interpretation has been disavowed and will be abandoned. At all events, we shall a wait with anxiety, whenever it seems to be expedient, for explanation of the reasons which induced the Government to give this expansion to the share which they already possessed in the guiding of the destinies of Egypt. There are other matters, too, about which rumours have been abroad, and in respect of which we shall in due time, no doubt, receive satisfactory assurances. When the late Government interfered in the affairs of Egypt it did so with the
  18
  concurrence and authority of the Porte; and I hold that in the present state of things no interference with Egyptian affairs which is not protected by a similar authority will be safe or likely to prosper. It is said that the authority of the Porte has been distinctly repudiated. I hope the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) will be in a position to tell us that rumour is incorrect, for I am sure no greater mistake could be committed by this country than to place in opposition to European influences the impulses—the unguided and uncontrolled impulses—of Mussulman fanaticism. But if difficulties have arisen in the working of a scheme which I believe to have been originally beneficial, and which the Government themselves admit to have been beneficial, I cannot but feel it is because attempts have been made to work it under conditions and in a spirit somewhat different from that in which it was originally commenced. In particular, cordial relations with the great German Powers and hearty cooperation with the Sultan were the conditions under which the interference of the late Government in the affairs of Egypt, so far as it went, took place. The unfortunate utterances of the Prime Minister some two years ago, and the more recent conduct of the Government in Turkish affairs, have tended to separate this country from the great German Powers, and still more have tended to weaken our influence in Constantinople, and thus added to the difficulties in satisfactorily solving the problem which Egypt has presented to us. I hope, however, that we may hear from the Government that they are prepared, whenever they think right—I do not ask the noble Earl to speak tonight, pending negotiations may make it difficult for him to do so—to co-operate with the Sultan, and to recognize fully the position which the Sultan occupies in respect of Egypt; that they are prepared to maintain our good relations with France; to walk side by side with France so long as the respective paths of policy are parallel; but that we reserve to ourselves entire liberty to diverge whenever the maintenance of the interests which England has in the East demand that we should adopt a policy required specially to protect those interests. There is one thing more which I would press upon the

  19
  Government. I have heard remarks about the application of the European Concert to the management of Egypt. In one sense there is no doubt that the Powers have an interest in Egypt, as guarantors under the Treaties of Paris and Berlin, and they have commercial interests in the question of the liquidation and of the judicial tribunals, which we have recognized. But it is possible to recognize their claims, to admit that other Powers have some interest in Egypt to too great an extent, for if you assemble a Congress to negotiate on the basis that they have the same interests in Egypt that we have at present, you will be exposed to the danger arising from that admission, and this demand will be made against you. It will be said that the Suez Canal is the property of Egypt, and ought to be declared incapable of being used by one of the Great Powers when it is at war with another. In other words, that the Suez Canal shall be neutralized. I need hardly tell your Lordships what will be the fatal results of that policy. It would land England in this position—that she would be cut off from the shortest way to India, whilst Russia was close to Herat—the very portals of our Indian Empire. I know not what dangers military men may anticipate. But I feel certain that to retain our position in India, and maintain our authority among the population, in such a condition of things would be a task of no ordinary peril. My Lords, passing from Egypt, there is not much on which I can usefully dwell. I admire the ingenuity of the noble Lord who seconded the Motion in making so large, so marked, and so very interesting a portion of his speech turn on the paragraph which refers to the North-Western Frontier. Considering the speech we all read the other day of General Skobeleff, and considering the steady advance of Russia in Central Asia, it required no little courage in the noble Lord to congratulate us on the condition of things outside the North-West Frontier. Then, my Lords, we come to the interesting information that communications with France have not been closed. I presume they will never be closed. But I imagine that these words must be taken as an indication that the expectations of the Government of coming to an agreement with France on commercial subjects are not of the most
  20
  sanguine kind. I will only say upon that matter that I hope the Government will adhere to their resolution not to make any Treaty worse than the Treaty at present in force, and that they will remember the great advantages which may result in the future from having the hands of this country absolutely free to deal with its Tariff as it pleases. Then, my Lords, we come to much interesting information to the effect that "the mildness of the winter-season has been eminently suited to farming operations." It is quite evident that the attention of the Prime Minister has been recently turned to agricultural questions; and, having on that subject made certain novel discoveries, he hastens to make them, with a generous mind, a present to your Lordships. I have no doubt your Lordships will be struck with their novelty and value. But if it is the desire of Ministers that useful information is to be conveyed in Queen's Speeches he might have gone on to furnish us with further remarks of the like nature. We might as well have been told that the London fogs are eminently detrimental to household furniture. Passing from that point and still harping on agriculture, the author of the Speech has produced a paragraph which seems to assert that the efforts which Her Majesty's Government have made have been attended with abundant harvests in Ireland; but they can hardly have arrived at that pitch of self-complacency. Whether it is meant that the abundant harvest was due to those efforts or not I do not know. At any rate, the English of the paragraph, so far as it goes, seems hardly to admit of any other interpretation. But I cannot help thinking that, with the exception of that striking piece of information as to the influence of the Government on the harvest, the paragraphs with respect to Ireland are singularly jejune. One would have imagined that the things which were going on in Ireland were matters of no serious interest—that there were no formidable difficulties presenting themselves to Her Majesty's Government, and that all was very much in an ordinary condition. The Government, in fact, seems scarcely to be aware that since this House last parted a great transformation scene has taken place. When we left we did so having passed a Bill with respect to

  21
  which we received the most earnest and the most confident assurances that it would have no detrimental effect on the property of the landlords in Ireland. The noble Lord (the Lord Privy Seal) told us it would not take any money from the landlords. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack (Lord Selborne) told us that the landlords would not be injured but benefited by the measure. Similar language was used in the other House, and, in fact, the whole of the debates upon the Bill were conducted upon this understanding—that no considerable or general reduction of rents would be the consequence of the Bill. If that assumption was not made the main argument used from the Treasury Bench and the House of Commons, the arguments were absolutely unmeaning; and it was on the faith of these assurances that your Lordships passed many provisions to which otherwise you would certainly have taken exception. I have no doubt of the sincerity of the noble Lords who used those arguments. They, no doubt, believed what they said; but they seem to me to have taken little, if any, trouble to acquaint themselves with the opinions of other Members of the Government, because I find that, while they were thus asserting that a general reduction of rents would not be the result of the Bill—or, at any rate, a few months afterwards—their own Law Officer the Solicitor General for Ireland, appearing as the Government candidate on the hustings, made diametrically opposite assertions. I find he said this—
  "Was the Land Act passed because rents were too low? No. It was passed because the fact had been forced on the attention of the Legislature of Great Britain that the vast bulk of land in this country was excessively overrented. If the present rents had been fair there would have been no need for the Act; it was simply because it was demonstrated that rents throughout the country were too large that it had become necessary to pass the Land Act at all."
  Now, if that statement is not diametrically opposite to the assurances upon which we passed the Bill there is no meaning in the English language. That is not the only point with regard to which we have a right to complain. We have to complain further that, in the execution of the Act, Her Majesty's Government paid no heed to the as-
  22
  surances which induced the House to pass the Bill. The Bill was notoriously one containing provisions for vesting large and despotic and uncontrolled powers in Commissioners, and on the appointment of suitable men to those offices the successful working of the Bill depended. If the Government had meant that the Bill should be an impartial one; if they believed that it would fulfil the assurances which were given as to its character in both Houses of Parliament, they would have appointed impartial men to administer it. Instead of that, they appointed men like Professor Baldwin, who had already deeply pledged himself on the side adverse to the landlords, and whose conduct had been the subject of animadversion in this House, and, moreover, not mainly on this side of the House. In some cases they appointed tenant farmers from the very districts where justice was to be administered, and in one case they actually appointed a man who stood by the side of the Solicitor General for Ireland when he was uttering the sentiments I have just read to your Lordships. It is impossible, under those circumstances, to contend that they made impartial appointments; and if the action of the Bill has been such as to falsify all that they undertook, and all they assured the House upon the subject, the result has flowed from the recklessness or the partisanship with which these appointments have been made. My Lords, if you could have been told in this House that one of the Chief Commissioners would commence the administration of his duties by announcing that it was the mission of the Commission to provide that existing tenants should live and thrive on their lands, and if it had been announced to you, as Professor Baldwin subsequently decided, that it was the capacity of the tenant, and not the capacity of the land, that was to be the measure of the rent, I apprehend that your decision would have been different from what it has been. You were kept in the dark as to the real nature and intention of the Bill, and the ruin of large numbers of the landlords of Ireland has been the result. My Lords, there is another disenchantment which this state of things has borne upon us—another disappointment of the promises and assurances by

  23
  which we were over-persuaded last July and August. We were told that the Bill was to bring peace to Ireland. We were told—the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, and there is no more sincere man in this House—that it was to be a compensation for the landlords, that they were to exercise the rights that were left to them without the hindrances which force and insurrection at one time opposed to them. But what is the actual state of Ireland as we see it now? The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Fingall) tells us he sees signs of improvement. That may be so in his district; but I hear from other noble Lords from other districts in Ireland that there are not only no signs of improvement, but that matters are worse. If matters have improved in one district, they have become worse in another. What is the condition of things at this moment? Rents are not paid. Attempts made to pay them are visited with outrages of the most formidable kind, and attempts to collect them are hindered by murder. Throughout large parts of the country the law of the Land League reigns undisputed, and all attempts to execute the law, unless sustained by armed force, are absolutely vain. It cannot be laid to the charge of Her Majesty's Government that they have not made efforts of a kind, however ill-judged or ill-directed, to restrain this evil. One of the Ministers of the Crown stated during the Recess that coercion was natural to the Tories. If it is not natural to the Liberals, I can only say that they acclimatize to it very readily. Since the Revolution, I imagine that Parliament has never met under such circumstances as are existing now. Has there been a time when the Representatives of the people have been detained in prison by the authority of a Minister of the Crown under a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act at the time when Parliament met? Has there ever been such a thing as 60,000 men being found necessary to keep up the faint vestiges of order now remaining in Ireland? Has there ever been a time when 500 men have been kept in prison simply on the authority of a Minister, without trial or proof of guilt? Has it ever been the case that the Government, without authority, without warrant of law, trusting, I suppose, to the passing
  24
  of a Bill of Indemnity by Parliament, which Parliament will, no doubt, most readily grant, has seized newspapers by its own authority, and not only in Ireland, but also in this country, and in such a manner that it could not have known before seizure what they contained? Yet, notwithstanding this state of coercion, a terribly grave state of things prevails, of which this coercion is a symptom; but I do not quote it for the purpose of saying that it is unnecessary. I must leave that to the responsible Ministers of the Crown; but I do put it for the purpose of showing to you that your message of peace has not succeeded—that you have not moved forward a single step in the policy of conciliation to which you have sacrificed the fortunes of the landlords of Ireland. I cannot help thinking that if your policy has not succeeded in Ireland, and if your coercion has failed to produce the effects which were hoped for, it is because you have mistaken the applicability and value of the remedy which you asked Parliament to place in your hands. It might be well to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act and imprison the Leaders at the commencement of the agitation, and before the poison which they disseminated had spread; but now there is no need for those whom you have placed in Kilmainham Gaol to teach the people of Ireland how the law maybe set at defiance, and how the rights of property may be disregarded with impunity—that is being taught them every day by the impotency of the Government themselves. The people of Ireland are learning that more surely and more rapidly from what takes place constantly in every district in Ireland, from the gradual ruin of the Irish landlords, and from the 18 months of anarchy which has prevailed in that country, than they would ever learn it from the most eloquent and most ingenious utterances of Mr. Dillon or of Mr. Parnell. I confess that in these circumstances I have seen with regret that Her Majesty's Speech promises no measures more effective than those indicated in the verbose sentences which we have heard read. I had hoped that, in view of the injury which the Land Act has undoubtedly inflicted upon the Irish landlords, an effort would have been made to provide a means of securing in one form or another, by purchase or otherwise,

  25
  pecuniary compensation to those who have been stripped of their property in order to forward some great Government aim of public policy. I had hoped that some effort would have been made at least to redeem the assurances on which Parliament had been induced to pass this measure, and that Her Majesty's Government would have condescended to look with pity upon the sufferings of the victims of their action. I had hoped that in the unexampled state of things in Ireland—a state of things which I believe is unexampled in the history of that country and in that of other civilized nations in the world, a state of things which would not have been allowed to exist for six months, I do not say under strong Monarchies like Austria and Germany, but in the free Republics of France and America—some steps would have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to prevent the utter ruin of the landlords. I, however, looked in vain in the Speech from the Throne for any promise that went beyond a declaration of an intention to persevere in the course which they have hitherto pursued, which is to let anarchy have its way, and to merely offer a feeble sop to those whom they hope to conciliate because they are unable to conquer them. Any further delay in an attempt to restore order in that country, even if it were pleaded for by the Government, would, I am satisfied, not be permitted by Parliament or by the country. We have had too much delay in this matter already. If vigorous measures had been taken 18 months ago this conflagration of lawlessness and anarchy would never have spread as it has done throughout the length and breadth of the land. Parliament feels, and the country feels, that the longer we wait the further the evil will go and the more unmanageable it will become unless it be grappled with at once—not by mere perseverance in the feeble course which has been pursued, but by means of vigorous measures suited to an abnormal and terrible situation, which, if permitted to exist much longer, will attain such proportions that no Government whatever will be able to grapple with it. Capital is more and more leaving the country, the seeds of just resentment are being sown in the breasts of those classes of Irishmen which have hitherto been loyal and steady to the Crown
  26
  of England, and a profound contempt is arising for the powers of the Government and for the majesty of the law which is taking the place of that hatred of the law which the Irish peasant used to feel; and if there is any more delay in re-asserting the power of the law these evils will have passed the point at which it is possible for them to be cured. I am convinced that, in spite of the feeble utterances of the Speech from the Throne, Parliament and the country will resolutely demand that the Government shall make due provision to meet the calamities of which the policy and the doctrines the Government preach have been the cause.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it is satisfactory to me to know that there is, at all events, one point on which the noble Marquess and myself are in accord. I can very heartily join the noble Marquess in concurring in the satisfaction which was expressed by the noble Earl who moved and by the noble Baron who seconded the Address with so much ability and judgment, and in a tone so acceptable to the House, with regard to the approaching marriage of Prince Leopold. I entirely concur in what the noble Marquess said in reference to the character and the capacity of the Prince, and I am happy to say that the concurrent evidence from all quarters gives us every reason to expect that the illustrious lady who is about to become his bride, for which position she is so well fitted, both by her education and by her personal qualities, will share the fate of those other foreign Princesses who have adopted this country as their own through their marriage with the Queen's sons, and who have been received by the people of this nation with great attachment and affection. I must, however, now turn to a different matter. Hume, when he published the second edition of his History of England, stated that he had omitted all superlatives in order to strengthen his style. I do not think the noble Marquess opposite thinks that a good way of strengthening his style, whether addressing your Lordships here or speaking to large assemblages in different parts of the country. We have had a very difficult task before us in Ireland, and the Prime Minister has appealed to the country to support the Government in the discharge of the difficult duties which they have under-

  27
  taken in governing that country; and, with but few exceptions, I believe that the country is willing to give them the support they ask for. I am bound to say that the Irish landlords, who naturally had some ground for feeling discontented with the operation of the Land Act, and who have criticized the action of the Government—I see some of them here now—have in a most manly manner adopted the law passed by Parliament, and have agreed to support the Government in the measures which were necessary for putting that Act into execution. I cannot, however, say as much for some of the Leaders of the Conservative Party in this country. They have certainly said that the Government ought to be supported in the matter; but their only mode of tendering that support was to heap every kind of vituperation upon the law of the land—a law which they themselves, from wise and statesmanlike motives, had agreed to pass, and to hold up to every sort of obloquy the Government which was pledged to carry into effect those measures of repression which were necessary to maintain the law of the land. The noble Marquess has, to my great surprise, repeated a statement which I have seen made by persons of less importance than himself, to the effect that since the Rebellion Ireland was never in such a state as she is now. I beg your Lordships to read a speech of the noble Lord's father behind me—when he was Lord Stanley, and another of Earl Grey—showing the state of that country during the agitation against tithes. His description of Ireland then was infinitely worse than anything can truly be said of it now. As to a comparison, it is almost impossible to compare the two. Moreover, I am happy to say that the condition now bears favourable comparison with what it was at this time last year. The noble Marquess says that he is differently informed, and that he believes that the condition of the country has not improved during the year. I can only look at the statistics which have been furnished to me, which show that, putting aside the item of threatening letters, in January of last year, when the outrages had fallen to a very small figure, concurrently with a cessation of evictions and of attempts to get them the number of outrages was about five more than it was this January. In
  28
  December, 1881, however, the outrages were 40 fewer than they were in December, 1880, when again they were infinitely less than they were in the December of the previous year. These figures show some improvement, at all events, although, perhaps, not such an improvement as we had looked and had hoped for. There can be no doubt, moreover, that there has been a great improvement in the administration of justice in Ireland, and that juries in the North and South of the country are doing their duty. Absolutely, at this moment, there is no open resistance to the force of the Government in Ireland. The noble Marquess, with that recklessness of assertion to which he sometimes gives way, says we have 60,000 troops in Ireland. There ought to be 60,000 if they wore wanted; but it happens there are only 30,000, with the addition of the police. We ought to welcome improvement when it comes, and avoid all exaggeration when the facts themselves are quite sufficient to excite the deepest anxiety. The noble Marquess went into a violent attack upon the Government for having obtained the passage of the Land Act by your Lordships under false pretences. It is true that certain Members of the Government stated their belief, gathered from a sort of general evidence given before the Duke of Marlborough's Commission, that the number of cases in Ireland in which rents are too high was small; but I did not understand the argument. He has talked of logic; but I do not see the logic of his argument. If the excessive rents of a few landlords were sufficient to justify the passing of the Act, how could that qualification he diminished by the fact that a larger number of excessive rents existed? The noble Marquess made a violent attack upon the Commissioners who are acting in administering the law. Now, I admit it is the duty of Members of either House of Parliament to take up any cases of gross miscarriage of justice; but they ought to be exceedingly sure of the facts and grounds upon which they proceed. The noble Marquess said that the Sub-Commissioners have been improperly appointed. My information is not to that effect. I am told by Mr. Forster that with regard to the legal members he acted on the best information he could get, and the grade of the lawyers

  29
  who undertook the duty is higher than could be expected. With regard to the practical men, my right hon. Friend also appointed the best he could get, and he took care to have personal interviews with everyone he appointed; the principles upon which he went being that they should be men of high character, that they should have a knowledge of the land, and that they should be known by persons competent to speak for them as men of sufficient courage to resist pressure on one side or the other. And it is to be observed that their conduct has been complained of not by the landlords only, but by the tenants of Ireland, which is very natural. Therefore, I think your Lordships in this House, representing, as you do, solely and exclusively one side of the question, should be very cautious in bringing charges against men who, we are bound to assume, to the best of their ability administer the law of the land. I do not think the noble Marquess should have brought such a charge as he did against Professor Baldwin, putting words into his mouth which have been distinctly and publicly repudiated by him. My Lords, there is one point on which we do not know what the construction will be—it is at this moment under appeal in the High Court of Appeal in Ireland. But there is another point of importance upon which I should like to say a word. On an average, rents have been reduced something like 25 per cent. I am perfectly certain that in parts of England landlords have been obliged to make a reduction to that extent. [A noble LORD: For 15 years.] Well, but Mr. Parnell and his friends, on the ground of American competition, object to having the rents fixed for so long a time. Your Lordships ought to remember that it is the worst cases of high rental that have crowded first into these Courts, showing that there is more hope of a good landlord coming to terms with his tenants. I own that in following tentatively the speech of the noble Marquess, I could not make out whether he was not occasionally complaining of the Government applying too much coercion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I made no complaint of the employment of coercion. I referred to coercion to show the utter failure of the ''message of peace and conciliation."
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Marquess says he did not complain of coercion. What, then, did he moan by his allusion to a Bill of Indemnity? The noble Marquess says that we did not begin soon enough. But in this country it is necessary to proceed according to legal rights. There is no doubt that the Land League at first did act illegally; but the illegality was that of advising the tenants, and could only be dealt with by the ordinary processes of law; but their position changed when they did that which clearly showed that they conspired not merely to advise the tenants not to pay rents, but to intimidate them from doing so. When we prosecuted the Leaders we failed, and it is quite clear that the same course of proceeding would have failed again. It was only when they changed their course that the Government were enabled to act. The Proclamation gave no new power. It only announced the intention of the Government—and they have not shrank from it—to resort to coercion. I do not know what are the increased measures of coercion which have been only faintly alluded to by the noble Marquess; but that we will exercise all the ordinary powers of the law and all the exceptional powers given them by Parliament as long as it is necessary to do so I can, on behalf of the Government, distinctly state. We continue to rely, however, on the beneficial effect which the Land Act will have—it has been, I think, only six months in operation, and it is impossible for the tenants as yet to be fully aware of its advantages. The noble Marquess found nothing satisfactory in Her Majesty's Speech. But there was one subject which I should have thought would have given him satisfaction, and that is the revival of trade in this country.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I expressed satisfaction with the mild weather.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Marquess seems to consider the mildness of the weather as entirely apart from the question of agriculture. I should have thought that the revival of trade would have been a subject of satisfaction to him, as it undoubtedly should be. Not only have the Returns of railway traffic and the official trade Returns increased, but there has been an increase in the production of iron and woollens, and

  31
  the revenue from stamps is increasing. I really should have thought that the noble Marquess would have seized with avidity that passage in order to give what he and Sir Stafford Northcote have said throughout the Recess on the subject of Free Trade, and that which is somewhat fancifully called Fair Trade. If Sir Stafford Northcote has not changed his opinions, I have not the slightest doubt as to what his opinions are; but I have the greatest possible doubts of what the noble Marquess may think upon the subject. Why, last year in this House he made a speech in which he appeared to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and myself to unfurl the standard of Protection and Reciprocity, and subsequently repudiated all sympathy with reciprocity or retaliation. But he no sooner goes into the country in the autumn than he avows his sympathy with a system of imposing duties on what he called luxuries in order to bring other countries to reduce their Tariffs. This seems to me to be a very good instance of that principle of Reciprocity which in the House of Lords he had entirely repudiated. There is one part of the speech of the noble Marquess with which I am happy to agree—I am happy when I can agree with him in anything—and that is with regard to the French Treaty. Your Lordships may remember that last year the House of Commons on two occasions gave expression to the opinion that a Treaty should be concluded; but that it should, be at least as favourable to the commercial relations of the two countries as that which now exists. I have read with great interest two able letters of Lord Grey, and have always been much of his opinion as to the disadvantage of negotiating Treaties of Commerce. Where I disagree with him is in his assertion that the exception to the rule in 1860 was bad, and that there have been no favourable results from that Treaty. The result has been an immensely increased trade between the two countries, the creation of vested Free Trade interests in France, and an increased friendly feeling between the two countries. It is not true that it has been followed by largely increased protective duties, the fact being the reverse. Nearly all the European Tariffs are lower than they were in
  32
  1860. I do not so much value the renewal of the Treaty on economical as on political grounds. If the French raise their duties against us, no Freetrader can doubt that while it is bad for both, it is infinitely worse for France than for us, and gives us a positive and increasing advantage in the neutral markets of the world. But I shall be glad if the Treaty is renewed on acceptable terms by us. The system exists, stability and continuity are important to the trades of both countries; and I am afraid that if trade is curtailed it will be difficult to avoid some recriminations and unreasonable irritation on one side or the other. I may add that I agree with Mr. W. H. Smith in what he said the other day, that if people thought it to their advantage to increase their protective duties, we have no right to complain of their doing that which they think right for themselves. What would be unfriendly to us, who open our arms to their commerce, would be to place us in a worse situation than those who have less favourable Tariffs as regards France. Now, the noble Marquess attacked us on the subject of foreign affairs. He made a great attack upon this Government for having eliminated the sympathy of all Europe from Turkey, and for our having lost the influence with Turkey which we ought to possess. All I can say is that the influence of the late Government in Turkey, as described in official documents, was absolutely nil. The noble Marquess, it is recorded, failed in every way to get anything done by the help of that Concert of Europe which he says we have eliminated, but by the aid of which we have obtained a settlement of two most important things. The noble Marquess again said that he did not wish to raise any unnecessary discussion, and immediately with regard to Egypt he proceeded to raise a number of invidious points based upon rumours in London from Paris, Cairo, and other quarters. These rumours were sometimes of a contradictory kind, and I cannot help thinking that the noble Marquess has been led away by them. I have now to make some remarks on the observations of the noble Marquess with respect to Egypt. We have been accused of wantonly breaking the continuity of foreign affairs. The contrary is the

  33
  fact. We have observed it faithfully, except in some cases, such as Afghanistan and South Africa, where we conceived it absolutely essential to reverse what had been done. A change was made by the noble Marquess in the policy which had been adopted by his own Government and by previous ones in the affairs of Egypt. It was after the announcement of our occupation of Cyprus. The French were profoundly irritated at the announcement of that secret Convention, and one of the most eminent public men of France declared that if the Chambers had been sitting war would have ensued. In the communications which passed on African questions, it may reasonably be presumed that the noble Marquess was in some degree influenced by the natural desire to soothe that irritation. After the late Khedive had been deposed, for dismissing the English and French Ministers, the Anglo-French Controllers were, for the first time, appointed by both of the respective Governments. This was the system which we found in force in 1880. We did not think it necessary to examine too closely the merits of the arrangement. It had, undoubtedly, worked admirably for the finances and administration of Egypt. It is very much to the honour of the English and French Governments that, notwithstanding a change of Government here, and several changes in France, by the straightforward conduct of the Home Governments and the local representatives, the work has been so smoothly done. Last autumn, however, a military pronunciamiento took place, and with some success. There was much uneasiness, and at last, I was informed, on the authority of our representatives, that there was so much misconception and misconstruction of our future policy in Egypt, that it was necessary that an authentic explanation of it should be given. I therefore addressed a despatch to Sir Edward Malet on the 4th of November—a despatch which was published by Cherif Pasha. Some time later a change of Ministry occurred in France. In the meantime the discipline of the Army in Egypt did not appear to be improved. There were rumours of all sorts of intrigues. It was said that the Notables, to whom we wished well, were tending to a course inconsistent with international engage-
  34
  ments. The Khedive made no request for assistance, but was stated to see the future with apprehension, and reports were again set about of dissensions between England and France. It was in these circumstances that M. Gambetta, recently arrived to power, proposed to us to join in a Note to the Khedive. That Koto ran as follows:—
  "You have already been instructed on several occasions to inform the Khedive and his Government of the determination of England and France to afford them support against the difficulties of various kinds which might interfere with the course of public affairs in Egypt.
  "The two Powers are entirely agreed on this subject, and recent circumstances, especially the meeting of the Chamber of Notables convoked by the Khedive, have given them the opportunity for a further exchange of views.
  "I have accordingly to instruct you to declare to Tewfik Pasha, after concerting with M. Sienkiewicz, who has been instructed to make simultaneously with you an identic declaration, that the English and French Governments consider the maintenance of His Highness on the Throne, on the terms laid down by the Sultan's Firmans, and officially recognized by the two Governments, as alone able to guarantee for the present and future the good order and general prosperity in Egypt in which England and France are equally interested.
  "The two Governments being closely associated in the resolve to guard by their united efforts against all cause of complication, internal or external, which might menace the order of things established in Egypt, do not doubt that the assurance publicly given of their formal intentions in this respect will tend to avert the dangers to which the Government of the Khedive might be exposed, and which would certainly find England and France united to oppose them. They are convinced that His Highness will draw from this assurance the confidence and strength which he requires to direct the destinies of Egypt and its people."
  This is the textual translation of the dual Note of which so much has been said. It may be good or it may be bad: it may convey to those who indulge in the very dangerous and misleading habit of reading between the lines all sorts of different ideas; but what I want to know is, how the facts justify the statements of the noble Marquess, or how they confirm the gloomy view of affairs which has been taken? There is no difference in substance between that Note and a despatch which I addressed in the mouth of November to Sir Edward Malet. That despatch contained other matteres; but as far as there was any enunciation of policy, it was to the following effect:—It states the desire of Her Majesty's Government for the prosperity of Egypt and its full enjoyment of that liberty

  35
  which it has obtained under successive Firmans of the Sultan. It speaks of the necessity of a reform of justice for Natives, and contains an assurance that England desires no partizan Ministry. The despatch further expresses the desire of Her Majesty's Government to maintain Egypt in the enjoyment of the administrative independence which has been secured by the Firmans, and, at the same time, their wish to preserve the tie which connects her with the Porte as a valuable safeguard against foreign intervention. The only circumstances, it continues, which would compel us to depart from the above policy would be the occurrence of a state of anarchy; but we looked to the Khedive, to Cherif Pasha, and to the Egyptian people to prevent such a catastrophe. It adds that, in our belief, the Government of France held the same view, and concurred with us in thinking that any self-aggrandizing designs on the part of either Government would prevent this useful co-operation. Now, that despatch had a singular success. The Khedive and the Ministers were much pleased with it, and it was stated to have had an excellent effect for a time in Egypt. The French Minister of Foreign Affairs approved it, and twice stated the general concurrence of France in its description of our joint policy. There was a chorus of approval in the English Press of all political opinions. The Turkish Ambassador has frequently expressed to me the satisfaction it gave at Constantinople; and it produced a good effect in Europe, of which the best proof is that I am informed that the basis of the answer which has recently been given by four of the Powers to the protest of the Porte was the policy indicated in that despatch; and that one of those Powers only consented to join in the answer on the understanding that that was the case. The form of the dual Note was different. It was addressed to the Khedive in pursuance of some precedents which were made by the noble Marquess opposite, and it was joint in its character. But though in different form and with different words, it was, with a slight modification, owing to altered circumstances, on perfectly similar lines with the despatch of the 4th of November. It cannot be said that there was any fresh departure. This being the case, and rumours of disunion be-
  36
  tween England and France being so prevalent, if we had refused the proposal of M. Gambetta to repeat jointly that which we had already said ourselves, would it not with justice have shaken the confidence of the French as to our intention of acting loyally with them? Stress has been laid upon the rebuff offered to England and France by the separate answers of the four other Powers to the Turkish protest. It does not appear to me that we have any reason to complain. When Germany, Austria, and Italy wished to interfere more minutely in the affairs of Egypt, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) declined to admit them. I presume he did so, not from a jealousy of the other Powers, but because of the immense practical inconvenience which would attend many Powers being mixed up with executive and administrative details. We have followed the same course. The other Powers have never denied the greater interest of the two countries in Egypt. It can hardly be said that they have voluntarily separated from us, when we have kept them in one sense aloof. On the other hand, when organic questions arose, they claimed a right to appear—a right which was fully conceded by the noble Marquess in 1879, and which cannot be considered to be in any way invalidated by the objection I have somewhere seen urged that the affairs of Egypt were, by pre-conceived arrangement and at the request of France, excluded from the deliberations of the Congress of Berlin. There are some who now say, speaking of the present movement in Egypt, that we ought to have nipped the flower in the bud, killed the calf before it became a bull, and so on. But I very much doubt whether the position of affairs would have been more satisfactory if Egypt had been occupied during the last four months, whether by English, by French, or by Turkish troops. We have been in active communication with M. Gambetta up to the day of his resignation. We have been in communication upon this matter almost from the very first day of the appointment of the present Government, and I have no reason to doubt of our continued and cordial cooperation with them. They have been in Office but a very short time, and have had, in reality, no time to consider officially this very difficult question. On

  37
  some points we know their concurrence; on others we have no reason to believe that we shall not he agreed. As regards Egypt itself, there does not seem at this moment any immediate danger of anarchy and disorder. The professed policy of the Assembly is the strict observance of the international engagements with France, with England, and with all the Powers. These assurances may very possibly not be trustworthy. On the other hand, the policy of England and France is the maintenance of the rights of the Sultan as Sovereign, of the position of the Khedive, and of the liberties of the Egyptian people under the Firmans of the Porte, the prudent development of their institutions, and the fulfilment of all international arrangements. I have shown that the same doctrine is held by the Powers and by Turkey. It appears to me that although the employment of force may ultimately be necessary, yet there is ground for believing that the same results may and ought to be obtained without its intervention, and to that result no effort will be wanting on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that when he read the account of what it was said they proposed to do in Egypt he did not know what to make of it. It was said now that they were going to maintain the status quo; but how were they going to maintain it? He understood they were preparing along with France to send a force to Egypt; and that was the conclusion deduced by the common sense of the whole country. He was startled especially when he remembered what had been said about the Jingo policy attributed to the Party on the other side of the House. Going to send troops to Egypt in connection with France! He thought that a very unwise step, and it was so contrary to the whole policy of the Government that ho could not believe it. He should be glad to hear any explanation the Government might have to give. With regard to Ireland, they had the self-congratulations of the Government. Now they had 40,000 troops in Ireland. Was that a subject for congratulation?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I did not say so.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, they were also told that there were fewer murders there now than last year, and the Government therefrom concluded that the country was quieter. Well, if
  38
  the Land League could have its own way entirely it might be supposed there would be no murders at all. Still, there were accounts of farmers being put on their own fires and roasted. [A noble LORD: Not true.] Well, there were a great many things that were true, he supposed; and the state of things was one on which they could not congratulate themselves. He wanted to know what they were going to do? The case stood thus. He recalled to mind the policy of the Government with regard to Ireland for the last 50 years, and during the whole of that time they had been informed that Ireland was improving. It was still improving, and apparently had improved to such a point as to be all but in a state of rebellion. They saw the great towns of Dublin and Cork voting their freedom to Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon. Those voters were not tenant farmers. It was to his mind not a question of rent, but of open and determined rebellion, and the Government knew it. It was no use disguising that fact—it would be idle to discuss it. The Government knew that it was the question of rebellion that had to be dealt with, and what a powerful instrument they had put into the hands of agitators. They could say—"Look how we, after agitation and turbulence, took a large portion of the landlords' property, in the year 1870, and then we had more agitation and more disturbance, find in 1881 we took another large portion;" and then they would say to the farmers and tenants—"Let us continue the agitation, and we shall take the whole of the land." It seemed to him that they would be able to state this with some truth. He maintained that the Government were thus offering the most efficient kind of bribery. What more effective bribe was there in Ireland than the offer of another man's property. To what were they coming? This agitation would go on, and they had made every concession except that of legislative independence. Upon this they had some remarks of a very eminent Cabinet Minister—one of the Members for Birmingham—who had stated that they were to have no more coercion, and that if they could not govern Ireland in quietness they must let them govern themselves. That was something very encouraging. He wanted to know

  39
  whether the Government had made up their minds on that subject? Were they really in earnest? He did not know but that pressure might be placed upon them to bring this state of things about, and that before very long they might say—"Legislative interference may involve us in blood-guiltiness, and we cannot incur blood-guiltiness, so let them have legislative independence" He was not at all sure that this was not coming. Look at the position they were in with Irish voters in England; look at the difficulties Members of Parliament had to encounter in meeting their constituents. They had to say—"We will think of Home Rule; we will have a Committee upon it;" they took qualified views of it; they said—"We might have some test of it." They were tampering with the question right and left; and unless the country made up its mind that they would hold Ireland, they might depend upon this, that it would drift into legislative independence. And what would follow? If he believed legislative independence would be for the good of Ireland, if he thought it would be for the permanent prosperity of Ireland, much as he thought it undesirable, he would vote for it. But he had no hope that that would be the result. He was convinced that what would happen was this—they would have Ireland filled with filibustering Americans and of all kinds of military adventurers from Europe; they would have commercial quarrels first, with political quarrels afterwards, ending before long in a terrible civil war. That, he believed, was what would inevitably follow any attempt to give legislative independence to Ireland. For those reasons, he hoped the Government were firmly determined to give no countenance to any agitation or attempts to sever the Union which had so long existed between the two countries.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORD: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Duke who has just spoken; but I believe we are nearer Home Rule in Ireland at the present moment than many people in this country are inclined to believe. I have listened with great attention to the gracious Speech from the Throne, and to the speeches made by the noble Lords who have moved and seconded the Address in your Lordships' House, in the hope that I might hear
  40
  something which would throw some light on the future proceedings of the Government with regard to the two great questions which are at present engrossing the attention of all classes in the United Kingdom; but I must own that the reference made to these subjects in Her Majesty's gracious Speech has caused me deep disappointment, because we are given hardly any information whatever as to the future proceedings of the Government in dealing with the frightful anarchy to which the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) has alluded as still existing in Ireland, or with the administration of an Act which was passed by your Lordships' House upon the distinct understanding that it should be administered with impartial justice to all parties, and, in the words of my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, "should cause the landlords of Ireland no money loss whatever." My Lords, it is not necessary for me to lay before you a statement of the disgraceful condition of Ireland at the present time. The newspaper reports published from day to day are sufficient to show that outrage and terrorism of every description still continue to be enacted with unabated vigour, and that the most feeble Executive which has ever attempted to govern Ireland, and which has up to a very recent date invariably made use of its enormous powers in such a way as to render them totally ineffective, is at present, through its previous weakness, entirely unable to contend with the Irish difficulty. These outrages will continue to be committed as long as a certain Member of the Cabinet tells the Irish people that the agitation out of which these outrages sprang was up to a certain time meritorious. The idea seems to be gaining ground that things are getting better in Ireland, and this is referred to in the Speech from the Throne; but I am afraid that idea is almost entirely erroneous, and that things are just as bad now as they were during any of the months previous. In some places there is, no doubt, an improvement; but in the larger number of places things are just as bad, if not worse, than they were before. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) has referred to the number of outrages committed in the five months ending in December, 1880. These amounted to 1,955; but in the same period in 1881 the number was

  41
  2,838; and the noble Earl has admitted that, although we have not yet had the Returns for January, the outrages were only five less than in the same month last year. He had compared the number of outrages in the last two months of the year with those in the same period of the previous year; but he had quite forgot that in 1880 the Coercion Act was not in force, and that the Government had not then, as they have now, a great many of the 711011 instrumental in committing these outrages in prison. The fact that the juries in Cork have been doing their duty better is not a proof of an improvement in the state of Ireland, but is owing to the fact that the juries in Cork are generally composed of a very different class to those juries who have before so signally failed in their duty. How can an uneducated people arrive at the fact whore an agitation ceases to be meritorious and becomes criminal when the Government themselves found the greatest difficulty in arriving at the same conclusion? I do not believe that oven now the Government would have pronounced the Land League illegal if it had not interfered with the working of the Land Act. But, my Lords, to pass from the question of the anarchy which reigns supreme in Ireland to the other question which must deeply affect your Lordships' House, as your Lordships are charged by the Attorney General with being responsible for the Land Bill—a measure which your Lordships looked upon with great suspicion, and only accepted after alterations had been made in the Bill which we were told were sufficient to prevent any further confiscation taking place than that which appeared on the face of it. We were all perfectly aware that the land of Ireland was to pass from its present owners, and to be held for the future jointly between the landlord and the tenant; and that, in fact, the rent remained to the landlord, and the land belonged to the tenant. We were also aware that the selling value of the properties would be enormously decreased; but your Lordships were led to believe that certain provisions in the Bill were quite sufficient guarantee that no further confiscation should take place, and that the incomes of those landlords who had not rack-rented their tenants should be secured; or, in the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord
  42
  Chancellor, that "the landlords' property would be enlarged and increased." I must own that I had hoped no further confiscation would take place, and I believe even now that if this Act were fairly and impartially administered upon the lines which have hitherto been recognized as the glorious, time-honoured principle of English justice further confiscation under it would be impossible. But, my Lords, how has this Act been administered, and what sort of gentlemen have been chosen by the Government to form the Courts to administer it? Who are the Sub-Commissioners? Are they drawn from a class without any bias one side or the other? Why, I doubt whether many of the Sub-Commissioners could be cited as not having, within a very recent period before they wore appointed, been looked upon as being strongly biassed in favour of the tenants' interests; and the votes of those Sub-Commissioners I have alluded to have been rendered useless by placing them individually upon a Sub-Commission where the majority would outvote them on every important point. We have not to go further than the Court of the Chief Commissioners to see that this is the case; for in their recent decision at Belfast two out of the three Commissioners—all strongly Liberal in opinion—outvoted the one in whom the landlords had confidence, and who read the Act in a manner which, I maintain, Parliament intended it to be read, and gave decisions which, if not reversed on appeal, must, of necessity, form a precedent for the general reduction of rents upon all properties, whether liberally managed or not, throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. The clause upon which they founded their decisions has been wrongly called Mr. Healy's clause—I say wrongly called, because if Mr. Healy's clause had been added to the Bill it would have been perfectly harmless, and could not have produced the frightful results that it is possible the present clause may bring about. As this clause is of such importance and fraught with such terrible ruin to the landlords of Ireland, I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I shortly give its history, although it has been so ably set forth in Mr. Kavanagh's letter which appeared in The Times of Monday. Mr. Healy's original clause proposed—

  43
  "That the judicial rent for any further statutory term shall not exceed the judicial rent for the preceding statutory term in respect of any improvements made by the tenant."
  The Government did not accept that clause, but proposed another in place of it—
  "No rent shall be made payable in any proceeding under the Act in respect of any improvement made by the tenant."
  When the Bill came up to your Lordships' House, they must have become aware of the danger which might arise under the wording of this clause; and the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Monck), who, I am quite sure, would not have placed an important Amendment upon the Paper without the consent of the Government, proposed an Amendment almost in Mr. Healy's words, which Amendment was accepted by the Government in your Lordships' House, but was rejected by the Government in "another place," and the words "paid or otherwise compensated" were added to the clause, which, it was stated by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Law, were quite sufficient to prevent any injustice taking place. And I believe now that, if the Act were properly and fairly administered, these words would be sufficient for that purpose. This, however, will soon be decided by the Court of Appeal. But a perfectly new theory is now started by the Commissioners—new in law and new in usage—that improvements made by a tenant or his predecessors in title, no matter how long he may have had the enjoyment of them, are to be deducted from the rent of the land, even in some cases where the improvements have been made since the original rent was fixed; as the Courts appear in all cases, whether the rent be high or low, to reduce the present rent by the interest on any improvement the tenant may have made; and it is quite possible to suppose that so-called improvements made may not have materially increased the letting value of the land; but, still, the interest on the expenditure for these improvements has been deducted from the rental. The Courts do not take into consideration how long it is since the present rent has been fixed, although both the Government and the Bess-borough Commission said that would be a fair guide. I hold in my hand a Return of rents which have been largely reduced, although they have
  44
  been punctually paid, since 1796, since 1802, since 1808, and since 1833; and I can produce many other Returns of the same description. I had the rent upon a farm of my own reduced from £54 to £44, although in 1837 the rent of identically the same farm was £65 9s. 2d., and although I had since laid out some money upon it. My lawyer writes to me to say that he cannot understand the decision, unless I am to be mulcted for the deterioration of land by the tenant or in respect of improvements upon which no rent has ever been charged. The Act of 1870 has been cited as a precedent for such procedure, because in that Act there was no limit for certain classes of improvements made by the tenant, and the onus of proof was cast upon the landlord. But this, in the Act of 1870, was not of very great importance, because it had merely to do with compensation for disturbance, and had nothing whatsoever to say to fixing the rental; but now, under the Act of 1881, enormous issues are raised upon it, and the rents of Ireland are cut down owing to a clause in a Bill passed for an entirely different purpose. This shows the danger that may arise from reading the two Acts together. It is often impossible for a landlord to produce proof of the improvements made by his ancestors, and, as every improvement not proved to be made by the landlord is taken as having been made by the tenant, his rental may be cut down for the very improvements made by his own ancestors. Can anything be more outrageous or more contrary to English justice? The Commissioners seem to ignore every safeguard placed in the Act for the protection of the landlord and to augment every provision made in favour of the tenant. They have disregarded taking into consideration the interest of the landlord, while they have construed the tenant's interest into meaning more than was ever intended. The words "otherwise compensated," which were thought to be of such great importance, they have passed over as if they had never been in the Act at all. At the time the Bill was passing through your Lordships' House certain Amendments were proposed upon this side of the House to clear up and make plain the meaning of different clauses in the Bill, because we had always grave doubts of the Court which would be

  45
  nominated to adjudicate upon the Act. But many of these Amendments were overruled by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who stated that they were entirely unnecessary. If the meaning of the Act had to be interpreted by the noble and learned Lord or by the Judges in either England or Ireland, I have no doubt the landlords of Ireland would have been perfectly safe; but what we wore afraid of was that the Courts constituted for the purpose of trying cases under this Act might not be so unbiassed as the noble and learned Lord would have been. It was impossible for us to argue on points of this sort with one so skilled as the noble and learned Lord; but I think the proceedings of the Courts have been quite sufficient to justify our fears and to prove that we were right in advocating those Amendments which had to be dropped and that the noble and learned Lord was wrong. I will cite one case to prove what I say; but there were several of the same description. My noble Friend (the Earl of Pembroke) moved an Amendment that—"Tenants who had run out their holdings should not be able to claim a reduction of rent on their own mismanagement;" but the noble and learned Lord said that was a ridiculous Amendment, because no Court of Justice could possibly give the tenant advantages from his own misconduct, as that would be unreasonable conduct on his part and would place him outside the advantages contained in the Act. But, my Lords, the Sub-Commissioners have decided that their duty is to fix a rent upon a farm in the state in which it is brought before the Court, whether the tenant may have run it out or not. And more than this, they have decided that, in addition to lowering the rents in consequence of the deterioration of the land, they may lower them still further if the tenant should be a bad farmer, should have a largo family, or should, from old age or other reasons, be incapable of getting the fair value out of the land. Is not this entirely at variance with the intentions of the Act, and does it not prove how necessary it was to introduce the Amendments I have referred to, which were declared unnecessary by the noble and learned Lord? The noble Earl who sits below the Gangway (the Earl of Derby), in a speech he delivered recently at
  46
  Liverpool, compared the Irish landlords to passengers upon a ship going to pieces on the rocks, and said that if men in that position were rescued by a lifeboat they must be prepared to lose some portion of their property. No doubt the landlords of Ireland are like shipwrecked passengers; but when the storm was at its height and the barque of the State—which carried as part of its cargo the rights of property in Ireland—was grinding upon the rocks of the Land League, utterly helpless to resist the fury of the waves, and having been brought there by the incapacity of its captain and its crew, the noble Earl seems to forget that the passengers agreed to resign a portion of their property and to take to the lifeboat—manned by the same captain and the same crew—being led to believe that the property which was left to them would then be perfectly secure. But, instead of finding the property that was left secured to them, they found that the storm still increased, and they were told they must give up another large slice of their properties to enable the captain to battle with the elements, or, in other words, to outbid the Land League; and still, even after this second confiscation has taken place, the storm continues with unabated fury. My Lords, the most extraordinary fact which has come to light yet with regard to this judicial tribunal is the publication of the pamphlet which was referred to in The Times of yesterday. I am fortunate enough to possess a copy of that pamphlet with the name of the Queen's printers upon it. I doubt whether the name of the Queen's printers was ever attached to such a document before. I am informed this pamphlet has been circulated among the tenants by the Registrars of the Courts of Sub-Commission, and I must suppose the Registrars would not circulate a pamphlet without orders from the Chief Commissioners. If your Lordships will allow me, I will read you a few paragraphs which will speak for themselves. They are with regard to a tenant becoming the proprietor of his holding. It says—
  "If he doubts it, then ho doubts the doctrine which Davitt unfolded at Irishtown, and for the teaching of which that far-seeing man founded the Irish National Land League—the most widespread, the most powerful, and, in

  47
  its effects, we believe, the most enduring organization of our time; if he doubts it, then have Parnell and Dillon and Davitt laboured and suffered in vain." Again, "It is impossible to suppose that men to whom the arguments of the Land League leaders are familiar as household words should have failed to grasp the principle which the Land League was founded to teach—the principle, namely, that Irish tenants should strive and strive until they were put in a position to purchase out and out their holdings, so that they should he owners and free men, instead of being tenants and slaves. The desirability of the change will be cordially admitted by every Irish tenant—the desirability, not alone from the point of view of his own comfort and prosperity and freedom, but also because, in effecting the change, he will give proof of his own loyalty to the principles of the organization by which the means of bringing about the change have been won."
  My Lords, I would ask you, if it be true that this extraordinary document has been published by the Land Commissioners or any of their subordinates, how it is possible for the landlords of Ireland to have any confidence in a tribunal which publishes and circulates through its Courts a pamphlet eulogizing an organization which has been declared to be illegal by the Government? But, my Lords, I do not for one moment believe that the Government approve of the pamphlet or indorse the decision of the Courts, which have been from the first a parody upon English justice, in which all classes up to this time have had perfect confidence. As far as I can see, the landlords who have let their properties high have come the best off, because almost the same reduction has been made upon them as upon those who have let their properties low. The system is to reduce all rents, and, therefore, I maintain that the decisions given are entirely against what Parliament was led to expect and entirely against all fairness and justice. My Lords, I was in hopes that the Government would have given us to understand in the gracious Speech from the Throne that they were prepared to examine into the administration of the Land Act, and to see that for the future it should be fairly and impartially administered in accordance with the promises given in both Houses of Parliament before it was passed; or else that, having found that the Act was being administered in an entirely different manner from what the Government, by their own statements, expected, and that large loss of income, amounting in many cases to absolute
  48
  ruin and penury, was being inflicted upon the landlords of Ireland, they were prepared to give compensation in. some form for what was being taken away. I still hope that either one or other may be done; out, if the Government take no stops in the matter, I shall certainly, at no distant date, move for a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to inquire into the antecedents, status, and qualifications of the Sub-Commissioners, and the administration of an Act which, in my opinion, is not being administered according to the intention of Parliament, and which will, if there is no change, utterly beggar and destroy at least half the landlords of Ireland and materially diminish the incomes of all.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, it would not be necessary for him to detain their Lordships long; but he wished to say a few words in answer to the speech of the noble Marquess, and to that of the noble Duke behind him. The noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) had laid it down that the question concerning Ireland was one, not of rent, but of rebellion. That statement, he considered, was a very misleading one. It reminded him of the statement made in a celebrated document published before the last General Election by Lord Beaconsfield, in which he sounded a note of warning in strong terms, and yet passed by the real danger in Ireland, and spoke of the question as one of rebellion only. There could be no doubt that in the minds of some of the leaders of the agitation rebellion and the thought of separation from this country existed and was the motive of their conduct. If that was what the noble Duke meant be was prepared to agree with him; but if he meant that rebellion represented the condition of the tenant farmers, then he must differ from him in that opinion. The fact was that what was called the national cause had but little success in Ireland until the question of rent was taken up; and although this agrarian agitation was fed by all the revolutionary elements in Ireland and across the Atlantic, yet what they had to deal with in the minds of the Irish farmers as a body was the question of landlord and tenant. For the first time in the history of Ireland, the Government of this country had to deal with the refusal, on the part of the

  49
  Irish tenants, to perform their obligations as regards the payment of rents. That form of agitation was never before known in the history of Ireland, and it was necessary to bear in mind that the difficulty which the Government had to meet and to grapple with was that of a huge agrarian combination directed not only against the payment of rent, but against the very existence of land-lords as a class. The noble Duke had said that, by passing the Land Act of 1881, they had provided an instrument for those rebellious agitators. It was impossible to make a more misleading statement than that. His firm conviction was, and the conviction of Mr. Parnell and the other agitators was, that by passing the Act the Government had created a most powerful instrument against that agitation. The best proof as to the opinion of the Land League Leaders on this point was the course they took at the end of the Session. They dreaded so much the quieting effect of the Act that they at once set to work to encounter it by violence and agitation far beyond anything they had attempted before. They no doubt thought that, because it was a great remedial measure, it was necessary to meet it in that way; and if they had been allowed to pursue that course, their efforts would probably have been attended with success. The noble Duke seemed to think that the question of separation was one likely to find favour with the Treasury Benches in that House and in the House of Commons. He hardly thought it necessary to contradict that statement. The noble Duke could hardly think seriously that the Government were inclined to lend themselves to a project for a separation between the two countries. The noble Marquess who had preceded him had spoken very strongly against the administration of the Laud Act of 1881. One would suppose that he had had the fullest means of judging of that administration, whereas the operation of the Act had only just begun. He was convinced that all this alarm was hasty and unreasonable. He would then refer to the pamphlet of which they had heard something said. He had never heard of it until a few hours ago. On inquiry he found that the Land Commission had no knowledge as to the objectionable passages it contained. It seemed that the Secre-
  50
  tary of the Land League—[Laughter]—he meant the Secretary of the Land Commission—had been informed that the pamphlet contained a good exposition of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act; and as it was likely to give useful information to tenants, he, unfortunately, authorized the purchase and circulation of the pamphlet without having read it.
  EARL CAIRNSsaid, that they were printed by the Queen's printer.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that, at any rate, it was assumed to be a useful publication, and, unfortunately, the contents were not examined; but the instant it became known to the Land Commissioners that the pamphlet contained very objectionable passages the circulation was stopped and the pamphlet suppressed. This course was taken by the Commissioners before any attention had been called to the subject in the newspapers. Of course, a gross blunder had been committed, and the Chief Secretary was now in communication with them as to whether any further steps should be taken in the matter. With regard to what the noble Marquess had said as to the Chief Secretary having given directions to the Sub-Commissioners, he could not but express his surprise at such a statement after the denial of the Chief Secretary, even in these days of Party warfare.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, all he did say was that the noble Earl the Leader of the House (Earl Granville) had mentioned the fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had taken each of those gentlemen into his private room in order to examine them as to their fitness.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he thought that explanation made the matter worse. He was certainly surprised that this bit of Dublin gossip should have been mentioned by Mr. Kavanagh on a public occasion, and that it should be renewed in that House passed his comprehension. The statement of his noble Friend (Earl Granville) was very plain, and had nothing in it to suggest the monstrous idea that these gentlemen had received instructions as to their judicial conduct. He (Lord Carlingford) had been charged with having been one of those who had deluded the House into passing the Land Act by representing that it would not lower rents in Ireland. The noble Mar-

  51
  quess, however, had merely picked one line out of his speech, and had founded his argument upon that line alone. What he had said, however, was that he believed that the measure would not lower rents except in cases where landlords had imposed an excessive rent. The effect of the Land Act in lowering rents generally in Ireland had not yet been ascertained. As yet the Land Court had only dealt with 1,300 eases out of a total of 600,000—a mere fraction, a handful of the whole; while the estates of the Peers, or of the other great Irish landowners, had been scarcely touched. The noble Marquess had talked as though these 1,300 cases, which had been dealt with by the Land Court, were fair samples of the mass of Irish holdings—test cases, as Mr. Parnell said. He did not believe that for a moment. On the contrary, he believed that they represented holdings which had been exorbitantly rented, and not average holdings, much less the good estates. They had no fair ground for supposing that the action of the Sub-Commissioners had been unduly harsh towards the landlords. In many cases which had been voluntarily settled out of Court the reduction of rents had been enormous, and even the agents of the estates admitted that many of the holdings had been far too highly rented. While admitting that Griffith's Valuation was too low as regarded property in Ireland generally, he believed that it fairly represented the value of the poorer tillage land. Various accusations had been brought against the Sub-Commissioners; but he supposed their Lordships would have an opportunity of discussing that subject another time. He must say, however, with regard to certain phrases attributed to Mr. Justice O'Hagan and Professor Baldwin, that they had been denied over and over again by both.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Did Mr. Justice O'Hagan say nothing about a "live and let live" rent?
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that Mr. Justice O'Hagan had merely used an ordinary Irish phrase—a "live and let live" rent—which was well understood by landlords and tenants in Ireland. Nobody who knew Mr. Justice O'Hagan would for a moment suppose that he intended to lay down anything unjust to either party. As for the unfortunate Professor Baldwin, he had never missed an opportunity of contra-
  52
  dicting the interpretation put upon his words; but, as was usual in the case of public speakers, the denial was not regarded.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMasked whether the noble Lord could inform the House in what papers the contradiction appeared?
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, he could not tell the number of The Freeman's Journal or Irish Times in which it had appeared; but the noble Earl could easily find it for himself—he had read the contradiction over and over again. He had lately read a speech by a distinguished Member of the Opposition (Mr. Gibson), a Gentleman who often said hard things of the Government and the Liberal Party; but also often said things with which he, as an Irishman, could sympathize. He would adopt the words of Mr. Gibson and say that in spite of the enormous difficulties with which they had to deal, he had the strongest hope for the future of Ireland, by the combined action—he would add for himself—of a great remedial measure, and of the strongest and most determined exercise of the powers of the law.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that the noble Lord and the noble Earl opposite had observed that the oases which had been decided in the Land Court did not in any way represent the generality of those which might arise in Ireland. They stated that they were exactly such cases as noble Lords in that House and right hon. Gentlemen in the other had said would actually arise. But the statistics proved that the cases which had been decided by the Sub-Commissioners were of every sort which could be decided under the Act. The Sub-Commissioners touched rents which had been fixed between 1840 and 1850, between 1850 and 1860, and between 1860 and 1870; and after which time the Prime Minister said all tenants were to be bound absolutely by the contracts they entered into. They touched the rents of estates purchased in the Encumbered Estates Court, and rents in which reductions had been made by the landlords. If the reduction was to go on in the same way two-thirds of the Irish landlords would be materially crippled and one-third of them entirely ruined. The case of Miss Knox had been referred to by Mr. Chamberlain in a provincial

  53
  speech. That was decidedly an instance in which the Sub-Commissioners were perfectly justified; but neighbouring landlords, whose case was altogether different, had their rents subjected to precisely the same reduction, and had been brought as low as Griffith's Valuation, while Miss Knox remained 20 or 25 per cent above it. Forty appeals had been decided. The Chief Commissioners had gone to Belfast, and they said that as they could not value the lands themselves like the Sub-Commissioners, they would appoint valuers, and they appointed three of high reputation. An argument arose whether the Reports of the valuers should be regarded as private or public documents; both landlords and tenants wished them to be public, and it was decided that they should, Mr. Vernon dissenting from the other two Commissioners. It then appeared that the new valuations varied in the most extraordinary way, one being actually higher than the old rent, and only one below it, the others showing the greatest possible variations, for in the depth of winter and in the midst of snow and rain it was impossible to value properly. In the result the Commissioners did not act upon the valuations at all, but gave a practical confirmation of the Sub-Commissioners' decisions. It was seldom that an Irish landlord had anything pleasant to say of the Government; but there was one passage in the Speech of which he approved. Last year the Irish people were behaving in a way which showed they were not fit for local self-government, and yet the Government intended to confer it on them. This year he was glad to see that the Government had taken a proper view of the state of things. He had it on extremely good authority that 2,000 copies of a certain pamphlet emanating from the office of the Land Commission had been sent into various parts of Ireland. Now, they had been told last Session that the effect of the Act would be not only to enhance the value of land, but increase the number of possible purchasers; whereas they had it on the semi-official authority of the pamphlet that a landlord, if he were wise, would find no purchaser except the existing tenant. He would only add that he heard with great satisfaction that the subject was to be more fully discussed on another occasion.
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that the pamphlet to which allusion had been made, so far from being published with the knowledge of the Government, was utterly condemned by them. He could only characterize it as an unfortunate and reprehensible document.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that at all events the pamphlet had been issued and circulated; and he would like to know by whose authority it had been done?
  LOUD CARLINGFORDsaid, the Land Commissioners were not aware of the existence of that document when it was issued, and not only were they ignorant of its contents, but the moment they discovered its existence it was suppressed.
  EARL CAIRNSasked whether it was true that 2,000 copies of the pamphlet had been printed and had been circulated throughout the country by the Sub-Commissioners? He should like to know, too, what inquiries had been made as to the practice of the Stationery Office in Dublin; and he put it to the noble Lord to say what they would think of the Stationery Office in London if it were found to have circulated, in the name of a public authority—with a note at the end, intimating that all communications were to be addressed to the Secretary of that public authority—a pamphlet containing from beginning to end little but rank sedition? What inquiries had been made as to the printing of the document, and as to the relation between the office and the newspaper in which it had appeared? Lastly, he might ask whether the Secretary of the Land Commission knew that the document was circulated?
  EARL SPENCERsaid, that, as he understood the matter, the Secretary of the Land Commission authorized, on the statement of one of the officials, the issue of this pamphlet without making himself acquainted with its contents. So much he admitted. The moment it was known what the contents of the pamphlet were the Commissioners immediately cancelled the order and commanded the withdrawal of the document from circulation.
  EARL CAIRNS: But it was circulated to the extent of 2,000 copies.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, he believed not. Very few copies were issued, and as soon as the character of the pamphlet

  55
  was known it was suppressed, and. the Commissioners expressed their strongest condemnation of it. With regard to the Stationery Office having issued it, an inquiry would be, and was being, made into the whole transaction. The Chief Secretary, he believed, only heard of the matter on Monday, and had received the explanation which he had just given to the House. Her Majesty's Government repudiated and condemned the transaction in the strongest possible terms, and they would take care that every possible inquiry was made into the cause of this very unfortunate proceeding.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he must complain that no proper valuation had been systematically made by the Commissioners; it was by estimate rather than by valuation; and there was not sufficient motive power in the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners to get through the enormous amount of work which they had before them. Unless a larger number of Sub-Commissioners were appointed, and of a position of itself to carry weight in the country, it would be a great misfortune, and militate very much against the success of the Land Act. There should also be Commissions of Appeal for each Province, as each Province differed in its agricultural features. The Healy Clause had produced unexpected results which required immediate attention. It must not be imagined that, because there was a cessation of outrage and juries were beginning to discharge their duties, the Government could dispense with the power of reasonable repression as a means of security. They were regenerating a people, but in doing it they were disturbing the relations of society, and their first duty was to hold society together, so that changes did not eventuate in violence, until time had smoothed down asperities and the rest of Ireland was as tranquil as the Province of Ulster.
  Address agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
  The Earl of REDESDALE appointed, nemine dissentiente, to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
  COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES—Appointed.
  SUB-COMMITTEE FOR THE JOURNALS—Appointed.
  APPEAL COMMITTEE—Appointed.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.