Sitting of 15 February 1883

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

PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
MR. SPEAKER: Before I call to the Table any Members who may be waiting to take the Oath required by law, I think it will be convenient that I should read a letter which I have received from Mr. Bradlaugh, one of the Members for Northampton. It is as follows:—
To the Right Honorable
The Speaker of the House of Commons.
Sir,
On the 2nd March last I was, for the third time, duly elected one of the burgesses for the borough of Northampton to serve in the present Parliament, and have ever since been ready and willing to do all things by law required to entitle me to sit and vote. The House on the 6th March last, without hearing me, thought fit to prohibit me from fulfilling the obligations imposed by statute. My constituents petitioned to be heard at the Bar of the Rouse in support of their right to my vote and speech as one of their lawful representatives, and I, through you, Sir, applied for leave to state to the House the grounds of law upon which I claimed to be entitled to obey the laic and take my seat. The House did not express its pleasure, either on the petition of my constituents or on my application.
In two suits I have endeavoured to obtain a judgment of the High Court of Justice; 1st, on the legality of the administering of the Oath by me on February 21 st last; and, 2nd, on the laufulncss of the act of the House in preventing me from complying with the statute. On the first point the Court refused to give judgment on demurrer on the ground that the pleadings [which followed precisely the recitals in the Journals of the House) were so drawn as to necessitate judgment in my favour; and also refused to allow the issues of fact to be tried on the ground that such action was friendly, and therefore collusive. On the 2nd point the Court said that it refused to suppose that the House of Commons would do "an act which in itself was flagrantly wrong" and further the Court refused to permit the exact facts to be ascertained by a jury on the ground that the order of the House must be taken to imply an adjudication for contempt.
I beg, Sir, under these circumstances, to respectfully slate that, accompanied by my introducers, I shall according to statute, and to the law and custom of Parliament, present myself at the opening of the Session to be called by yon to the Table, in order that I may do all things which may be lawfully
66
required of me to enable me to sit and vote pursuant to the unimpeached return of my constituents.
I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,
CH. BRADLAUGH.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that as Mr. Bradlaugh had always been anxious to act in accordance with the wishes and feelings of the House, so far as was consistent with his duty to his constituents, he (Mr. Labouchere) would venture, with regard to the letter which had been read, to put a question to the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington). He wished to ask, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government during the present Session to bring in any Bill enabling Members to affirm or to take the Oath of Allegiance as they pleased? In the event of that being the intention of Her Majesty's Government, Mr. Bradlaugh had requested him to state that he would not present himself at the Table to take the Oath until the fate of that Bill had been decided.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that he was glad to be in a position very easily to give a satisfactory answer to the question put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He begged to state that it was the intention of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that night to give Notice of Motion for to-morrow to ask for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Oaths Act. The Bill would be introduced with the object of enabling Members who objected to take the Oath to make a solemn Affirmation in its stead.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I wish to give Notice, Sir, that when that Bill comes to a second reading I shall offer it the strongest opposition in my power.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—MEMBER IMPRISONED (MR. HEALY).

  QUESTION.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg most respectfully to ask you, Mr. Speaker, upon a question of Privilege, Whether you have yet received any letter from the Dublin Court of Queen's Bench, informing you of the arrest and imprison-

  67
  ment of Mr. Healy, a Member of this House?
  MR. SPEAKER,in reply, said, that he had received such a letter, which he would read to the House before the proceedings on the Address commenced.

NEW WRITS DURING THE RECESS.
MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House,—that he had issued Warrants for New Writs, for Chelsea Borough, v. Right honble Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, baronet, President of the Local Government Board; for Haddington County, Honble. Francis Charteris, commonly called Lord Elcho, called up to the House of Peers; for Mallow Borough, v. Right honble. William Moore Johnson, one of the Judges of the High Court of Justice in Ireland.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Right honble. Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, baronet, for Chelsea; Honble. Algernon Fulke Egerton, for Wigan; Samuel Smith, esquire, for Liverpool; Lord Elcho, for Haddington; William O'Brien, esquire, for Mallow.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—MEMBER IMPRISONED (MR. HEALY).
Mr. SPEAKER,acquainted the House that he had received a Letter from the Right honourable the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, which Mr. Speaker read to the House as followeth:—
Queen's Bench, Dublin,
February 9, 1883.
Mr, Speaker,
I have the honour of making known to you for the information of the House of Commons, that on the 24th day of January, 1883, an order was made by the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland, that Timothy Michael Healy, esquire, one of the Members of Parliament for the County of Wicklow, do enter into Recognisances himself in £1,000, with two or more Sureties in an aggregate sum of £1,000, to be of good behaviour towards Her Majesty the Queen and all Tier Majesty's Subjects for the space of twelve months, and in default of entering into such Recognisances with such Sureties, that he be imprisoned for the space of six calendar months unless in the meantime he shall have entered into such Recognisances.
And I have further to state that the said Timothy Michael Healy, having failed to comply with the said Order, a Warrant was issued from
68
the Court of Queen's Bench on the 7th day of the present month of February for the arrest and commitment to Prison of the said Timothy Michael Healy, and that he has been arrested and committed, to Prison accordingly, I have thought it right to make this Communication for the purpose of accounting for the probable absence of the honourable Member, and of testifying my profound respect for the Honourable House.
I have the honour to be,
Sir, Your most obedient Servant,
GEORGE A. C. MAY,
Chief Justice of Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, before formally moving that the letter which has been read by you be laid upon the Table, I think it may be convenient that I should mate one or two observations. The Motion would, under ordinary circumstances, be made as a matter of course, and need no explanation whatever; but, having regard to recent occurrences, and to what may be in the minds of lion. Members, the question may perhaps arise why, in the communication which has been made, the same course should not be taken as in the case of the announcement of the imprisonment of Mr. Gray, the Member for Carlow. I wish to state in a few words what is the invariable practice of the House in such cases. I will not enter into any defence of the course we now propose to adopt, neither will I deal with any recital of precedents, although I believe that what I am about to state can be abundantly supported by precedent. I believe the Privileges of Parliament are in no way affected by the committal to prison of Mr. Healy, or that, having regard to the matter, any question of Privilege now arises upon which the House is in any way called upon to interfere. Members of Parliament are protected from arrest, but only under certain circumstances. There may be imprisonment for three different causes. In the first place, there may be imprisonment on civil process; secondly, for contempt of Court; and, thirdly, for crime, or for matters within the category of crime. As to the first branch of offence, every Member of Parliament is protected from arrest in respect of civil process, and the House has always ordered, and would, no doubt, insist upon the discharge of a Member so

69
arrested, holding that the presence in the House of a Member of Parliament is of more importance than the discharge of a pecuniary obligation. As to the second class, that of imprisonment for contempt of Court, that offence may be divided into two classes. It may be of a grave character, partaking of the character of a criminal offence; or it may be of a minor character—for instance, a refusal to pay a certain sum of money which has been ordered to be paid by the Court. In order to decide under which category the offence is included, it has been the practice of the House, upon receiving notice that one of its Members has been imprisoned for contempt of Court, to refer the matter to a Committee appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the circumstances of the imprisonment, and to inquire under which category of offences the imprisonment has been ordered. I believe that, in all such cases, the House has, without question, appointed a Committee of Inquiry. But as to the third class of offences—that is, crime, or offences coming within the category of crime—the House has never taken any steps to interfere with imprisonment of offenders of that class, it having been repeatedly held that committal of a Member for refusal to give bail to keep the peace came within the category of those matters into which the House has not thought it necessary to inquire. I have thought it necessary to make this short statement in order to remove any apprehension that may exist in the mind of any hon. Member as to the reason why it is not proposed, as in the case of the hon. Member for Carlow, to move for a Committee of Inquiry. I believe the case which has been communicated to the House does not in any way infringe on the Privilege of the House, and that it is not the duty, neither is it open to the House to take any action upon it. Of course, in anything I have said I do not in the least intend it to be inferred that the policy which has led to the arrest of Mr. Healy, or the circumstances which led to that arrest, may not be a matter for the consideration of the House. All I wish to say is that this is not a case affecting Privilege, and that the House has no ground for taking action in the matter. I therefore simply move that the letter which has been read be laid upon the Table.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Letter of the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland do lie on the Table."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
MR. PARNELL,in rising to move an Amendment to the Motion, said: I think, Sir, it would have been very much more satisfactory if the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) had extended his remarks so as to put the House into possession of the precedents, which he said existed in support of his argument, that the arrest of a Member of this House, in default of finding bail, does not constitute a mutter for inquiry by this House with regard to a breach of its Privileges. I am sure that the House, in considering a question of this very grave and important character—namely, the arrest of a Member in default of finding bail on a warrant issued only four or five days before the meeting of the House, when the alleged offence, which had formed the subject of the inquiries of the tribunal in question, had taken place so long ago as two months, and when the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland had for that time the Member in question within their jurisdiction, and on several occasions actually present in Court, and desirous of having his case investigated, and when the Court had persistently refused from time to time to go into this matter, or to take any step whatever during that interval of two months until the time came for Parliament to re-assemble—I think, having regard to all these circumstances, the House, in considering this matter, should require to have before it full and adequate information as to the grounds and character of the arrest. What did the demand in the case mean? Did it mean that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), who has always been most punctual in his attendance at this House, and who we have every reason to suppose would be as punctual in future, and would have been in his place from day to day during this Session, did it mean that he was to give bail as regards an offence that he might be supposed to commit in this House, or which the Court of Queen's Bench supposed he was to commit in this House, or did the Court of Queen's Bench suppose that the lion. Member should give bail as regards an imaginary

71
offence, which he had never committed, and which in all probability owing to his attendance at this House, he could never commit? The case, I think, is materially altered when we come to consider the circumstances of the matter, and I would direct the attention of the House to the important fact that the letter of the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland is most meagre in its details. We are not informed, in accordance with precedents, as to the nature of the offence for which the hon. Member was required to find bail. We are not informed that the hon. Member had committed any offence at all. We are only told, in the most curt fashion, that the Court of Queen's Bench called upon the lion. Member to find bail; that the hon. Member refused to find bail, and that a warrant was issued by the Court of Queen's Bench for his arrest. That is all the information that has been vouchsafed by the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland to this High Court of Parliament, and I submit that this House has not been treated in accordance with the precedents observed by even higher legal functionaries than the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin. In the case of Mr. Charlton I find that the Lord Chancellor took the trouble to write to Mr. Speaker, and to inform him that he had issued his warrant—
"For the committal of P. L. Charlton, Esq., for contempt of the High Court of Chancery, by writing a certain letter to William Brougham, Esq., a Master of the said Court, which letter was followed by another addressed to myself. I have thought it right to mate this communication to the House for the purpose of accounting for the absence of the hon. Member, and to testify my profound respect for this honourable House."
There is a very great distinction between the method of procedure followed by the Lord Chancellor of the day in that case and the method of procedure adopted by the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of the hon. Member for Wexford. I regret exceedingly that the noble Marquess who now leads the House did not give his reasons as to why he thought this grave matter ought not to become the subject of an inquiry by a Committee of the House. We have seen, from time to time, that Committees have been appointed as a matter of course to investigate the committal of Members of the House sentenced in accordance with
72
the law. We know, from what we gathered from the newspapers, that the jurisdiction invoked by the Court of Queen's Bench in the case is of an obsolete character. We are entitled also to say, as far as we have been able to examine the precedents, that no Court in England has ever invoked this particular jurisdiction for the purpose of checking or preventing political offences. We are given to understand that this is the first time that the summary jurisdiction of the magistrates—for that is the jurisdiction claimed as inherent in the Court of Queen's Bench—for the purpose of committing to prison, in default of finding bail, rogues and vagrants upon the high road, has been used for the purpose of imprisoning a Member of this House, and I feel sure that the House will pay much more attention to this grave exercise of jurisdiction than that which the Leader of the Government invites them to pay. We have before us the fact that a Member of the House has been arrested almost on his way to perform the duties which the Constitution and the mandate of his constituents impose on him. We have also the tardy action of the Court of Queen's Bench, which refrained for two months from taking any action in the matter. We might reasonably suppose that had the Court of Queen's Bench proceeded at once, the whole of the imprisonment of my hon. Friend might have expired by this time, for, in these days, it is idle to suppose that a sentence of six months' imprisonment can be carried out upon a Member like my hon. Friend. If there was such urgency for the action of the Court, and if the alleged offence was one of such gravity, why did the Court delay so long before taking any step? Why was its action withheld until the evident necessity for it had long since disappeared, and until my hon. Friend was about to resume his Parliamentary duties? We cannot suppose—and I do not wish to impute it—that Her Majesty's Government desired in this way to get rid of a troublesome opponent in this House; but depend upon it that it will be imputed to the Government in Ireland. There are many people who look upon this peculiar action as another proof of the desire of the Ministry to get rid of troublesome Members of this House; and they will consider that it is because my hon. Friend has shown remarkable

73
ability in defending the rights of his country, that he has been marked out, and that his Parliamentary right has been taken from him at this moment by the extraordinary action of the Court of Queen's Bench. Sir, I trust that the House will, according to precedent, appoint a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring into the nature of this arrest, and into the letter which you, Sir, have read to the House. I beg to move an Amendment to the Resolution of the noble Marquess, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report whether this matter requires the further attention of this House.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out the words "do lie on the Table," in order to add the words "informing the House of the trial, arrest, and imprisonment of Mr. Healy, a Member of this House, be referred to a Select Committee, for the purpose of inquiring into all the matters connected with the proceedings referred to therein, and of reporting whether they demand the further attention of this House."—(Mr. Parnell.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that he had very little to add to what had fallen from his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington); but he would remind the House that as the question came before them entirely as a matter of Privilege, and took precedence as such, they could not now enter either into the policy of the course of those who had engaged in those prosecutions, nor into particular proceedings during the trial in the Court of Queen's Bench. If those proceedings were illegal, there was a right in the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), as in every other subject, to contest their legality; and the House must leave the persons affected by them to their remedy elsewhere. The House could only deal with the question of Privilege, and it was only in that way that action could be taken. In regard to that, his noble Friend's proposition was that there was no Privilege in regard to the arrest of a Member of Parliament upon criminal proceedings, or on proceedings of the nature of criminal proceedings. He (the Attorney General) would support the statement by precedents, one of which he thought was conclusive. It was de-
74
clared, by a Resolution of the House of Lords, passed in 1626, that the Privilege of that House was—
"That no Peer of Parliament sitting in Parliament was to be imprisoned or restrained without the sentence or Order of the House, unless it were for treason or felony, or for refusing to give surety of the peace;"
and in 1697 a similar Resolution was adopted by the House of Commons, asserting that there was no Privilege in the case of breach of the peace. The letter from the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland just read stated distinctly that Mr. Healy was called upon and ordered to give surety for the peace, and refused to do so. Of course, sureties for the peace could not be given except to prevent a breach of the peace. That Resolution, both of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, pointed to a proceeding of the character of a criminal proceeding, and therefore he did not think the House could interfere. The House had always acted on that rule, and in the cases of Lord George Gordon, Air. Smith O'Brien, and Mr. Feargus O'Connor, it had never inquired into the propriety of the arrest. If it did, it would come into conflict with the Courts of Justice and the administration of the criminal law; and he was sure they would not, in supporting their right to claim Privilege, question the way in which the Criminal Law was administered. All that his noble Friend and himself now said was not urged by way of objection to any Motion which might be made in order to challenge the policy of the Government, or to comment on proceedings elsewhere. He merely submitted that it would be contrary to all the precedents, if the House were now to call in question the administration of justice by the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland; and he would respectfully suggest to the House that it would be asserting an undue claim of Privilege if it were to interfere in the matter.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYthought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had given them very substantial reasons why the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) should be adopted. He had shown that the whole question was involved in such doubt and confusion, and that it was of so novel a character, that the House could not judge whether, in the present instance, it was maintaining its Pri-

75
vileges or not. Therefore, there ought to be some such inquiry as was proposed. The Lord Chief Justice, in the letter communicating this arrest, actually named a Member of the House who had no existence. He spoke of "Timothy Michael Healy, Esq., one of the Members for the County of Wicklow." No such person existed. Mr. Healy, as everyone but the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland knew, was Member for the Borough of Wexford. That was an illustration of the confusion in which the question was involved, and he must say also an illustration of the want of respect shown by the learned Judge to the House. The House was now dealing with a question of Privilege. If it were not so, they would not now be discussing it; and he contended that they ought carefully to ascertain whether or not Privilege had been struck at by the fact and the manner of that arrest. Precedent for the case there was none, and there could be none, because he believed this was the first time in the history of the House that a Member had been committed under an obsolete Statute, violently strained in its application; and therefore he thought they were entitled to ask the House to do what had been done in other doubtful cases—namely, to appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole circumstances. If they did not, they would, in his opinion, establish a very evil precedent for the future.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the fact was that his hon. Friend the Member for "Wexford (Mr. Healy) was imprisoned for declining to give bail under a certain Act, which, by its very terms, excluded the idea of its being applicable to Members of Parliament. The Act of Edward III., under which the proceedings were taken, was an Act directed against common strollers, vagrants, and similar persons, who were likely to create a breach of the peace in the most ordinary and vulgar acceptation of the term. During all the centuries it had been in operation there was not an instance of its having been strained to cover the case of a Member of Parliament, who, in the exercise of his constitutional duty in rendering an account to his constituents, had used words which might or might not be pleasing to the Government of the day. That Act empowered magistrates to demand securities for good
76
behaviour from vagrant and vagabond persons, and it was passed to help magistrates to deal summarily with highwaymen and peacebreakers throughout the rural district, and was never directed against Members of Parliament, criticizing the conduct of the Government. His hon. Friend was at present a sufferer by that interpretation of this Act; but the Privilege of every Member of the House was gravely attacked when a Court of Justice could order a Member of Parliament to find securities for any sum, no matter how enormous, under an Act intended to restrain highwaymen and vagrants from breaking the peace. If that jurisdiction was to be upheld, no Irish Member would be safe against the monstrous interpretation given to the Act by the Court of Queen's Bench. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had warned the House against attempting anything which would look like a criticism of the administration of justice. They could not forget that on a recent remarkable occasion, this very Lord Chief Justice, addressing the Court of Queen's Bench, excused himself from discharging his judicial functions in a certain case, on the ground that he had prejudged the case, and therefore could not discharge his duty with impartiality; and yet it was the proceedings of this self-condemned tribunal that the hon. and learned Gentleman endeavoured to screen from the legitimate inquiry of Parliament. For his own part, he (Mr. O'Donnell) was sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford was quite prepared to treat with indifference this infringement of his lawful liberties. His hon. Friend, he was sure, regarded this scandalous misinterpretation of an Act of Parliament, never intended to apply to such cases, as an additional reason why the masses of the Irish people should desire that the policy which the hon. Member advocated should be considered quite apart from the question of the Privilege of that House. He believed that the Government were actuated in this matter by the recollection that if the hon. Member for Wexford were allowed to appear in his place, he would be one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, witness to the breach of faith of the Government with regard to the promises which they solemnly gave last year to complete the legislation they had in

77
hand, by amending the Land Act. The Government also, he had no doubt, desired to screen themselves from the criticism, of a powerful opponent in the House. The Government, by their action in this matter, had done all in their power to provoke the people of Ireland to do something that might give a further excuse to renegade Liberals to show that they were well worthy of the atrocities of Turkey and Bulgaria. He would not intervene further between the House and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), who was evidently anxious to spring up to defend his Government in their most unjustifiable proceedings, and their small regard to the straining of an Act of Parliament, when they had to deal with the Representative of a popular Irish constituency. He had long since predicted the career that lay before the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he had no doubt that, on the present occasion, they were about to witness a further effort of the right hon. Gentleman to show how the admirer of Charles James Fox could defend coercion and lawlessness of the worst description for the consideration, forsooth, of the Chief Secretary's Office, and for a seat in the Ministerial Cabinet.
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I rise only for one moment to make a speech of extreme brevity, because I wish to keep absolutely within the lines laid down by yourself. I understand that this is not the occasion to defend the policy of the present application before the Queen's Bench, a course which I may say was stated publicly and completely by me on the 1st December last. So far from shrinking from any examination of this question, I can fairly say that I court it more eagerly than an examination of any single question relating to our conduct in Ireland, for I conceive it is one of the most important, as it is one which most carefully needs, and I think will bear, the consideration of the House. I gathered, Sir, by your silence during the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that it was within the bounds of this debate to refer to the delay that had occurred between the speaking of those words which brought about the proceedings and the final committal of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to prison. On that point it would not be
78
right to keep silence, because it would involve a misconception of the proceedings of the Court. The real fact is that the hon. Member for Wexford might have had his case brought before the Court and discussed and judged on the 5th December, the first day on which he appeared. [Mr. PARNELL: Yes; at a day's notice.] The interruption is needless, as the hon. Member will see as I go on. On that day Mr. Davitt applied for an adjournment of a week or 10 days, and I see that the hon. Member for Wexford was in Court at the time, and by his silence apparently gave consent to the application. The Attorney General for Ireland supported the application, and the Lord Chief Justice admitted the reasonableness of it; but, at the same time, he carefully explained both to Mr. Davitt and the hon. Member for Wexford that, owing to the arrangements of the Winter Assizes and the Christmas holidays, it would be extremely unlikely that the case would come on without very considerable delay. That was stated most clearly by the Lord Chief Justice; but, in spite of that, Mr. Davitt urged his application, and it was supported, as I say, by the tacit consent of the Member for Wexford. And when the Attorney General for Ireland asked that the same course should be adopted in all three cases, the hon. Member for Wexford did not object. The first occasion on which a full Court could be got together after that was the 17th January, because the Court of Queen's Bench very rightly thought it should not come before one or two Judges. The case was heard on the 17th, and very fully argued on both sides. Judgment was given on the 2oth that the defendants should give bail; and I think the longest time that could be given was given after the service of the order, to enable the Gentlemen concerned to find bail if they wished, and to make up their minds, with the very serious contingency of going to prison if they preferred that. After that space had elapsed, and not till then, the warrant was served. I need not use many words in repudiating the statement that the Government was anxious to rid themselves of the presence of the hon. Member for Wexford. For myself I most deeply regret the hon. Member chose the course he has, I would ask hon. Members to reserve

79
their judgment on the policy which the Government adopted on this matter, and to vote solely and entirely on the legal question as to whether this is a matter of Privilege, or whether it is not.
MR. GORSTsaid, he thought they were entitled to a little more information than the Government was inclined to give them in the matter. For himself, he thought they had not treated the question with the consideration which its importance deserved. He hardly thought that at so early a period of the Session they should have cause to regret the absence of the Leader of the House. Whatever their disagreements with him might be, he always treated the House with full information on, and full precedents for, the course he asked the House to take on occasions such as the present. What had been the conduct of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Harrington) on this occasion? He merely said there were precedents, without giving a single one. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who followed the noble Marquess, when challenged by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), referred them not to any precedent, but, as an authority for the Privileges of the House of Commons, he referred them to a Resolution passed by the House of Lords in the days of the Stuarts. That was the only precedent produced up to that time for the course the Government proposed to take in refusing a Committee of Inquiry to determine at once this important question of Privilege. They must treat this matter' of Privilege exactly as if it were the case of an English Member, and he protested against the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Attorney General, that the House had no jurisdiction to inquire into the legal proceedings which had taken place. The very fact that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given them that ex-parte information was sufficient cause for the appointment of a Committee to take evidence and inform the House what those proceedings had been. Contrary to all precedent, and contrary to what was necessary for the safety of the Members of the House, the learned Judge, in the information he had given to the Speaker, had not condescended to state the nature of the offence for which the hon. Member had been committed. That was contrary to all precedent. In support
80
of that statement he would refer the House to a Resolution of the Committee of Privileges which sat in 1831, and to the work of Sir Erskine May. That Committee, in summing up precedents, stated that it was established generally that Privilege was not claimable for an indictable offence. This was not an indictable offence at all. Then, in Sir Erskine May's book, it was stated that it was usual to state the cause of commitment. When Feargus O'Connor was committed to prison the police magistrate, Mr. Henry, subsequently Sir Thomas Henry, after he had committed him to prison, informed the Speaker that Feargus O'Connor had been committed to prison for seven days for assaulting a police-constable, and mentioned the Statute under which he was committed. In that case special information was given regarding the offence committed and the Statute under which the committal was made. He would ask hon. Members to contrast that with the information before the House in the present case, for the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland did not tell them that the hon. Member for Wexford had committed any crime. All the information contained in the letter presented to the House was that Mr. Healy had been held to bail for good behaviour. Before the House consented to pass over such a very grave act as the imprisonment of a Member, and before they consented to depart from precedent and from their ancient Privileges, they should require some further information from Her Majesty's Ministers than that which they had already received.
MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that the House had lately got rid of a good many of its Privileges; and he, therefore, thought it would be well if it took care of those that remained. He did not, however, think the House would be caring for the remnant of its Privileges, if it refused to grant the investigation into the circumstances of his hon. Friend's (Mr. Healy's) imprisonment. It had been pointed out that his hon. Friend had been put in prison just at the opening of the Session, and that that imprisonment would not be over until the Session had almost closed. If they did not look on that as an attack on the Privileges of Parliament he would be very much surprised. Under those circumstances, could they

81
doubt for a moment that the three Judges, who were well aware that Mr. Healy took an active part in the House in opposing the policy of the Government, had purposely framed his sentence so as to exclude him from Parliament? Why was it that Mr. Healy's imprisonment had been so long delayed? It was decided last Session that the cloture could only be applied by a certain majority of Members of that House; but it now appeared that so far, at least, as Irish Members were concerned, the cloture might now be applied by three Irish Judges. It should be remembered that in this case there was no trial, no jury, and that Mr. Healy's imprisonment was the act of three Judges; and if anyone would tell him that that was no interference with the Privileges of a Member of Parliament, he would be very much astonished, indeed, at his innocence. It might be said that Mr. Healy was at liberty to find bail; but the Judges in question very well knew that Mr. Healy would not give bail, because, by doing so, he would be making an admission of guilt, whereas he very properly regarded himself as innocent. The Judges knew very well that Mr. Healy would not give bail; and, therefore, he believed the object was to keep the hon. Member out of the House that Session. If that was not an attack on the Privileges of the House, he did not know what else it was; and he would be very much mistaken, indeed, if the House did not regard it in that light.
MR. P. MARTINsaid, he desired to confine himself simply to the question of Privilege. He had listened to the statement of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), when he asked that the letter do lie upon the Table of the House, with surprise, and did not understand why that course had been adopted. He submitted inquiry by a Committee was the usual political and natural mode of proceeding. In assenting to these Amendments there was no binding assertion on the part of the House of the extent of their authority to interfere. There were circumstances of as novel character in the present case. Last Session, notwithstanding the findings of previous Committees in respect to the somewhat analogous case of contempt of Court, the Prime Minister had moved for a Committee to inquire whether the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr.
82
Gray) was entitled to complain in their commitment. He might observe, as to the Resolutions cited by the Home Secretary, that they did not in themselves distinctly apply to the case of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He had, as he understood, been committed for refusal to give bail to be of good behaviour, and not for "surety of peace." The letter of the Chief Justice was of a vague and unsatisfactory character. It gave no definite and precise particulars of the nature of the offence alleged to have been committed, or the circumstances under which the warrant was issued, and their brother Member was detained in custody. On that ground alone, the House ought not now to adopt a Resolution, the effect of which was to justify the imprisonment complained of by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). It was not right to prejudge the case without full inquiry. That the House would not at the end of the investigation interfere with the committal by a Court of competent jurisdiction was answered by the precedent in Mr. Gray's case. A Committee would place before the House the full facts, and a decision could then be come to which would command confidence and respect in Ireland.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I only rise to make two or three observations with reference to what fell from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). He charged my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General with resting this case upon the precedents of the Stuart time. If that had been the case, in my opinion, precedents of the Stuart time would be the best of all precedents; because it was at that time that Parliament was asserting its Privileges against the Crown; and during the whole history of the Stuart time, questions of Privilege, and, I may say, the question of the liberties and Privileges of Parliament, were decided. But, passing by that singular misreading of the history of this country, I come to the point of the hon. and learned Member's argument. He said you cannot find any precedent, except one of 200 years ago; and another hon. Member said that this matter was so new that it ought to be inquired into by a Committee. Now, the point is not new, neither is it obscure; but it is exactly one of those points which the House is frequently called upon to decide. The matter does

83
not rest there, for you may go back for many centuries, to the time when the Reports were in Norman-French, and there you will find that the exemptions are treason-felony and refusing to give surety for breach of the peace. Century after century that has been acted upon. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham, with his usual courage, has cited an abstract from the work of Sir Erskine May, giving the Report of the Committee of 18 31; but if he had given the whole Report, it would have exactly contradicted the conclusion to which he has arrived. The Committee of 1831 goes back not only to the time of the Stuarts, but to the time of the Plantagenets; and I find that, referring back to the precedent of [675, the reference to the Privilege of Parliament is this—
"By law the Privilege of Parliament be-longs to every Member of the House of Commons in all cases except treason-felony and breach of the peace."
["Hear, hear!"] Yes; hut that is only one of the series of precedents; and though the hon. and learned Member for Chatham lays it down that the Privilege of Parliament only applied to indictable offences, if he had read the Report of the Committee of 1831 he would have found refusal to give surety for breach of the peace.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Where was the breach of the peace in this case?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It comes clearly within the interpretation of the precedent that the Privileges of Parliament do not extend to a Member in cases where he is bound to good behaviour for a breach of the peace that is apprehended. The case to which that Committee applied was not an indictable offence. Therefore, the contention that Privilege only applies to an indictable offence is clearly a misapprehension. The distinction had been clearly drawn by that Committee, and it has been to-night re-affirmed by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General; and I think the House will be very slow to endeavour, on this occasion, to extend the doctrine of Privilege to a degree never before anticipated.
MR. SEXTONsaid, that he wished to address a few words to the House on the subject. He was glad to find that an English Member had risen in his place to endeavour to procure the application of Constitutional law and practice to
84
this case, and to at least secure for the discussion of the case that attention which English Members seemed indisposed to give. He had listened with pain and disappointment to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and he would say that he regarded it as a pregnant example of that policy of evasion and make-believe which was the principal note of the new Administration in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to account for the delay in dealing with the hon. Member for Wexford's (Mr. Healy's) case by the adjournment for 10 days that had been asked for and granted; but he (Mr. Sexton) would like to know how an adjournment for 10 days could account for a consumption of three months. The Chief Secretary for Ireland told them that it was impossible to form a Court. There were a great many Judges in Ireland, however; but he (Mr. Sexton) supposed, on the principle that great bodies move slowly, it was impossible to get the Queen's Bench to form a Court during all that time. In that period, the Court of Queen's Bench might have called in a Judge and formed a Court; but the Executive in Ireland appeared to have so delayed the case that the imprisonment of the hon. Member for Wexford was made to begin, and would probably end with the Session. That was a grave ground for impeachment, on the principles of Privilege, both of the Executive and the Judges in Ireland, that they should imprison a Member of the House, so that the term of his imprisonment and of his withdrawal from that House should extend over a period when questions with which he was especially conversant should come before the House. Parliament had been always solicitous to inquire into the circumstances connected with questions touching the Privileges of its Members; and it would be of evil import, and have a most injurious effect on the public mind, at least in Ireland, did the House pass over, without due attention, the imprisonment of a man who had proved himself so active and useful in dealing with recent legislation of deep concern to such a large number of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had laid down a principle which appeared to strike the Treasury Bench

85
with horror, but which he (Mr. Sexton) would also urge. That hon. and learned Gentleman asked that this case should be treated as if it concerned an English Member. ["Hear, hear!"] Such a claim to the Treasury Bench seemed to be unparalleled—they would not for a moment acknowledge it, and they had abundant proof, as was apparent from the mocking cheer of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport. [Mr. HOPWOOD: I did not cheer or mock.] He would repeat they had abundant proof that this matter did not very much concern the House or Her Majesty's Government, as there was only an Irish Member in question. The noble Marquess the Leader of the House (the Marquess of Hartington) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General were astray, both on the fact and law of this case. Could they wonder that the Lord Chief Justice for Ireland should describe his (Mr. Sexton's) hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) as the Member for the County of Wicklow, when the hon. and learned Attorney General for England, who had sat with him in the House for three years, should call him the Member for the County of Wexford. The hon. and learned Attorney General for England endeavoured to excuse what had been done in this case by referring to a Resolution passed by the House of Lords in 1626; but he (Mr. Sexton) would wish to point out both to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that, whatever might have been the effect of that Resolution, that was completely neutralized, and, as the Prime Minister would say, pulverized by a Resolution which had been subsequently passed by the House of Commons. Before 1849 the Privilege claimed was that Members should not be imprisoned except for treason-felony.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The earliest definition of the Privilege of Parliament is to be found in "Larke's Case," Rol., Parl. 8, H. VI., in which in the old Norman-French, it is thus claimed by the Commons—
"La Privilege de votre Court de Parlement d'etre quieters de touts arresters durant votre dit courte forprise par treason felonie ou suerte do pais."
MR. SEXTONsaid, that the Resolution of the House of Lords was, that
86
during the sitting of Parliament no Member of that House should be imprisoned or restrained, unless for treason-felony or refusal to give surety ship of the peace. If that record stood it would, no doubt, be applicable to this case; but in 1675 the House of Commons passed a Resolution to the effect that the Privileges of the House of Commons should extend to Members in all cases, except in cases of treason-felony and breach of the peace. These were the exact words of the Resolution passed in 1675, and were evidently drawn in opposition to the Resolution which the House of Lords had passed previously. These words were not in the Norman-French quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. They were in the English language, and were specifically quoted by Sir Erskine May in his work. It was idle for the right hon. and learned Gentleman now to endeavour to confuse the issue before the House, and try to peruade them that a breach of the peace and an apprehension of a breach of the peace were one and the same thing. With regard to the offence charged against his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford, and the course proposed to be taken, it must be apparent to everyone that the offence alleged to be apprehended was not even stated in the letter read by the Speaker; and although this excuse might be offered for the learned Judge, that his Lordship could not possibly cite an offence when there was none on the record, he thought it was not too much to say that a Judge who had shown himself so ignorant of the facts of the case might not also be ignorant of the law connected with it. The offence was not even stated on the warrant on which his hon. Friend was arrested. He was in possession of a letter received by him that morning from the hon. Member for Wexford, and he was informed in that letter that in the warrant committing his hon. Friend to Kilmainham no offence was specified. It was merely an order from the Queen's Bench in Ireland directing its subordinate officers to take Mr. Healy into custody and lodge him in Kilmainham. He challenged the Government to show that any offence was specified on the warrant, and declared that it was not even alleged that the conduct of his hon. Friend was such

87
as to lead to a breach of the peace. Of the three cases which had been cited by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) in respect to breach of Privilege, the first two were out of the question in regard to the treatment of the hon. Member for Wexford, and, as to the third, no act was or could be alleged against the hon. Gentleman. How then could it be said by the noble Marquess that the matter for which his hon. Friend was committed could be regarded as crime, or as falling within the category of crime? What was alleged against his hon. Friend was not even proved. The evidence against him rested on the memory of a police constable as to the correctness of a report in a newspaper of a speech made by his lion. Friend, and an allegation that ha used language and took a course of conduct which, if persevered in and repeated still further, might possibly have the effect of leading to a breach of the peace in the future. He thought, under all these circumstances, it was clearly established that there was no offence whatever committed that would disentitle his hon. Friend to claim the Privileges of that House, if the House were in any mood to pay attention to such a claim put forward by an Irish Member. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham had appealed to the House to deal with that question as if it affected an English Member, and if that appeal went unanswered, if it were received indifferently by the Government, the result would be great dissatisfaction among the Irish people, and it would lead to a belief that an unfair distinction was made between English and Irish Members. The impression conveyed to the Irish people would be that if an English Member were imprisoned the question of Privilege would receive their very serious attention; but, in the case of an Irish Member, the House was disposed to pay no attention whatever to it, but was disposed rather to let the Courts in Ireland work their own sweet will with Members of Parliament and everybody else there, and allow also the claims and privileges of the House to sink into disuse and contempt.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that in this case the onus of proof clearly lay with the Government. No doubt the House had heard several speeches from the Treasury Bench; but up to that
88
moment a similar case to that of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), or to the course that had been adopted in reference to him, had not been brought before them. The Government, in this matter, were pursuing a course that no Government ever did before. They asked the House to allow this matter to pass unnoticed, and did not deign to bring forward any precedents to warrant that course. Now the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan), in his latest and not his most improved style, impressed on the House the advisability of not discussing the policy involved in the arrest of the hon. Member for Wexford; but what he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would contend was this—that the matter was a matter of policy, because the Government were taking a course with regard to the hon. Member that no Government ever took before. The Government were doing in this case only what was in accordance with its general policy in Ireland. The last speaker (Mr. Sexton) was justified in drawing, so clearly as he had, the attention of the House to the singular difference in the Resolutions passed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and was justified in contending that that difference was not accidental. The House of Lords, it was plain, endeavoured to confine the limits of Privilege; but the House of Commons restored them to their original proportions. He wished to draw the attention of the House to a leading case with regard to the Privileges of Parliament—that of Wilkes, for in that case the Lord Chief Justice (Paget) laid down that in all cases except for treason-felony and actual breach of the peace a Member was free from arrest. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had advanced the same view of the law, and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) strongly invited the attention of the Government to the point. At present the question involved the liberty of an Irish Member only; but to-morrow it might be that of an English Member; and, therefore, the matter was one of great importance to the whole House. A more dangerous doctrine could not be laid before the Irish people than that the treatment of the rights and Privileges of Members of that House depended on their nationality. It seemed, however, that that would probably occur.

89
It was also now laid down that a Member of that House might be taken up and lodged in custody as a rogue and a vagabond. There could, he thought, be no doubt that the Government were curtailing the Privileges of Members by the course they adopted; and, at the same time, they desired to limit discussion of political questions by Members on the ground that such discussion might cause discontent among' certain classes of Her Majesty's subjects. But, he need hardly say, not a Member of Parliament, of whatever Party, could make a speech without creating discontent among some of Her Majesty's subjects, and he urged that the House should not be led away by the Government in this matter. The House should take that course which their own independent judgment recommended. It ought not to refuse to extend its Privileges to a Member with whom the Government had dealt so arbitrarily, and in a manner for which there was no precedent.
MR. MARUMsaid, he wished to point out that this case was one of sureties for good behaviour brought under a Statute of Edward III., and that it was entirely different from cases in which persons are bound to give sureties of the peace for specified offences. They were essentially distinct proceedings, and grounded upon different jurisdictions. There had been no precedent cited where the Privilege of Parliament was held to be barred by arrest in default of giving sureties for good behaviour. Not only were the proceedings different, but the principles upon which they rested were totally diverse—in one case it was the vague, undefined discretion of the Judge to conclude Parliament, whilst in the other a sworn statement of offence and threat should be exhibited in the articles of "swearing the peace," as it was vulgarly styled.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 353; Noes 47: Majority 306.—(Div. List, No. 1.)
Main Question put.
Ordered, That the Letter of the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland do lie upon the Table.

NEW WRIT ISSUED.
For County of Dublin, v. the Right honble. Thomas Edward Taylor, deceased.
Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
OUTLAWRIES BILL.
Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read the first time; to be read a second time.
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. ACLAND: Sir, in rising to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Her most gracious Speech, I have first to ask the House to exercise towards me that generous indulgence which has uniformly been most kindly shown towards those who, under similar circumstances, have risen, Sir, to address you nearly for the first time. I also beg to be allowed to express, on the part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent, their thorough appreciation of the distinction conferred upon them. And in order to secure to myself, as far as I can, the indulgence I have asked for, I will do my best to avoid needlessly raising any such points as would be likely to arouse any great differences of opinion, on an occasion upon which the desire of all is that an unanimous expression should be given to the respectful gratitude to Her Majesty, which there is no one in this House who would be willing to disavow.
But before entering upon any of the various and important topics brought before us in the Speech from the Throne, there are two different feelings which I am convinced are prevalent in this House, to which I think, Sir, I shall not be deemed to be trespassing on the forbearance of the House, if I venture to endeavour to give expression. The first is that of regret that we do not see in his accustomed place one who, after half-a-century of strenuous activity in the service of his Queen and country, has gained an ascendancy in this House, and a hold on the affections of the people, which I shall hardly be criticized if I say it has not been equalled by any of

91
his Predecessors. And we have the more cause to regret his absence now that those Rules of Procedure, in the elaboration of which he took so earnest a part, are, for the first time, to come generally into operation. The other feeling is a pleasanter one to express; it is that of congratulation to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North cote) on his return to his post. His absence during the closing days of last Session was regretted on this side of the House as much as on the other, and he is now welcomed by all sections of the House with the hope that the labours of this Session, which are likely to be as arduous as that of the last, though not, we may hope, so protracted, and yet not less important in their legislative results, may not injuriously affect him.
Sir, the leading paragraphs of Her Majesty's most gracious Speech have reference to the occurrences in Egypt of last autumn, on the successful termination of which, so far as their immediate object was concerned, this House has already been congratulated. That object was the suppression of a revolt caused by military ambition, faction, and fanaticism. There are those who have estimated that movement as a patriotic effort, led by a national deliverer. But, although a natural jealousy of prosperous Europeans on the part of Natives may have contributed to the popularity of Arabi, there is no act of his which can be brought forward as conducive to the welfare of his country. There are those who believe, or who at any rate say, that prompter action on the part of Her Majesty's Government might have prevented disaster. To them it may be pleaded in reply that, at any rate, the results of the more deliberate course adopted have been to avoid giving offence to other European Powers, and to secure their appreciation of the rectitude and single-minded character of the purposes entertained by this country. Whatever may now be said of the past, it will, at any rate, be admitted by all that after the complete destruction of the Egyptian military organization, and the result on that country generally, England could not then, with any self-respect, leave the Egyptians to find their own way out of their confusion. She was bound to provide for the re-organization of a small, but adequate and effi-
92
cient defensive force. She was bound to endeavour to secure the stability of the Throne of the recognized Ruler of the country, in whose support she had, in conformity with her engagements, originally interfered; and in accordance with her own traditions, not to say in the furtherance of her own interests, she was bound to endeavour to create and to foster the growth of institutions of a popular kind, designed to secure representation of the wants and wishes of the people, and to show like the Pyramids, by their permanence and stability, the industry and ingenuity', as well as the patient power of that race. It must also be a source of satisfaction to the House to learn that Her Majesty's troops will not be detained in Egypt for any lengthened period, but will be withdrawn as soon as possible, consistently with the objects which Her Majesty's Government are bound to provide for. It will also be felt that the provision of effectual safeguards for the security of the Suez Canal will entitle Her Majesty to the gratitude of all those countries to which that waterway is of the greatest value; and that for the purpose of maintaining that security with the least possible risk to the peace of Europe, a settlement likely to give peace, prosperity, and contentment to the people of Egypt, is an indispensable requisite.
I think, Sir, that this country may be congratulated on the fact that of all that Greater Britain—the rapidity of the growth of which I think there are but few who completely realize—there is but one spot on which events have lately happened which call for remark in Her Majesty's Speech. I allude to the restoration of Cetewayo. That eminent but despotic Ruler, whose name will be inscribed on the history of this country, has returned to be restored to his Throne among his people, with a slight diminution, it is true, of his territory; but only such as is necessary to secure, as far as it lay in the power of England to secure, without annexation, peace in his dominions. It will be remembered that, by the arrangement made by the present Lord Wolseley, 13 co-ordinate Chiefs were appointed to rule without a supreme head over Zulu territory; and it is hoped, and there is indeed good reason to believe, that the modifications of the previous arrangement, the conditions imposed on Cetewayo, and

93
the present re-settlement will prove in the end thoroughly satisfactory, not only to the Zulus, but to their neighbours in Natal and in the Transvaal.
But, Sir, if the rate of the development, and if the surrounding circumstances of the more distant of Her Majesty's Dominions from time to time give us cause for anxiety or congratulation, there is a part of her Dominions which we call our Sister Island, of which recently it has been more rarely true that she has not occupied our thoughts, not to say filled us with deep sorrow, sympathy and anxiety. Sir, the affairs of Ireland have occupied the time of this House too long of late to make it necessary for me to say much on that subject; but I am happy to have some matters of congratulation to bring before the notice of the House. There is no need to remind the House of the tales of woe, of the cowardly assassinations, not only of men eminent and beloved, holding high position, but of innocent men who were the bread-winners of poor families, and even of women and children. Nor can we leave unnoticed the efforts made by Her Majesty's Government and by this House to prove to Ireland that the English people wish to do justice to the Irish people, wish to convince them that as England is their nearest, strongest, and most natural protector, so she will be, if only she may, her best and truest friend, and that we wish to help Ireland to make efforts in her own behalf. Nor have we forgotten the strenuous and persistent efforts made to prevent the Irish people from perceiving that this is the truth, and that their truest wisdom is to act upon it. Sir, I do not dare to ask the House to say now whether it is on account of, or notwithstanding the efforts made by Her Majesty's Government or by Parliament, or, more than all, the splendid vigour, decision, judgment, firmness, tact, and courtesy of Lord Spencer and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that I am able to make the request I do make; but I do dare to ask every section of the House to join with me in congratulating Her Majesty that in that part of her Dominions the honest man can now pay his just debts without fear—witnesses of crime dare now to speak the truth—the cowardly murderer is no longer now regarded as a hero or a patriot, and the recent general sympathy with crime has notably diminished, and has given way to a desire
94
for law and order. For these things, at least, Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Irishmen alike may be grateful. If there be one inference more than any other which it would gratify the people of this country to be able to draw from the apparent improvement in the social condition of Ireland it would be this—that the time was drawing near when we might, with due regard to the safety of life—to say nothing of property—in Ireland, with the same regard for full personal liberty, the same desire to develop local energy and local independence which has been the mainspring of our English legislation, in trust to Irishmen the same measures of local self-government in local matters as we hope soon may be extended to rural districts in England. But, alas! it sometimes seems as though Irish loyalty and English liberty were moving on those lines we hear of in higher mathematics, which are ever approaching each other, but which never meet.
I come now, Sir, to the paragraphs of Her Majesty's Speech which present to us the Bills which the Government propose to lay before the House, and I feel confident the House will forgive me if, in order to avoid loss of time and waste of words, I confine myself to those measures which either are chiefly of interest to rural constituencies, or are of such general interest as to call for remark from myself, as well as from the hon. Member who will follow me. In the first group of Bills it will be observed that there is one which is, I fear, of very wide interest—that one, namely, which will deal with the Law of Bankruptcy. No words are needed from me, Sir, to convince Members of each Party in this House that the present unsatisfactory state of the law on this subject should divest this Bill of any Party character, and render it easy, without serious delay, to pass a measure to provide for public inquiry into all failures, publicity in the manner of disposing of the bankrupt's estates, the employment of responsible persons as public officers for those purposes, and the protection of those whose failure is due not to culpable recklessness, but to inevitable misfortune. In the same group there is another Bill mentioned, which will, I believe, have, when it becomes law, a very wide scope, which will, I may almost say, affect every Member of this

95
House, and every constituency. Not that I would be taken to imply that all or any of the Members of this House have been guilty of corrupt practices; but all Members are more or less at the mercy of their more ardent and reckless supporters in this respect, and I can only hope that the universal feeling of condemnation and disgust for the disgraceful disclosures which have recently been made may steel the hearts and brace the nerves of the most tenderhearted Members of the House, so that, without Party acrimony, this much-needed measure may speedily become law.
With regard to the subjects which are next alluded to in Her Majesty Speech—those affecting local government—I have already expressed a hope that when England and Scotland come to be dealt with in this matter, it may be possible also to deal with Ireland on similar principles and without delay. It will be observed that this year the proposal to deal with Metropolitan local government precedes those which will touch other districts; and if this should cause any temporary disappointment among those who are mainly affected by the administration of rates, and who have to wait one year more for representation, I trust that when it is remembered that for 35 years this great subject has been from time to time before the House, and at no long intervals, there may be some satisfaction in the reflection that now that its solution appears to be approaching, the discussion of the measures as affecting the Metropolis may bring to the surface suggestions and ideas which may throw additional light on the best method of solving the vast and important questions involved, when the whole of the unreformed districts come before us. I will only ask those who may be inclined to think with regret that the ancient glory of the City of London will have departed to remember that it is not until the real vigour and life of a tree have begun to abate that the ivy clinging round it is regarded as adorning it, and that when this is the case the best way of saving the tree is to attack the ivy.
I may, perhaps, be permitted to express the regret which will be felt by some, that there is but a poor prospect of reaching the great subject of County Government this Session; not even of
96
advancing far enough to touch what lies at the fringe of the question—the simplification of areas. But, considering the enormous complexity of the subject, considering its indissoluble connection with the assimilation of the county and borough franchise, I think the House will agree that the Government do wisely in deferring it until it can be treated as a whole, and each division can be considered in the relation it bears to the others and to the whole.
Sir, in approaching the next subject, I know that I can speak with certainty when I say that in the sight of a very important class of Her Majesty's English subjects, this Bill will, in its importance, outshine all others, and throw everything else in Her Majesty's Speech into the shade. The subject of agricultural compensation has been before Parliament for one whole generation; but there is no doubt whatever that the long and rapid and unbroken succession of bad seasons have inflicted on the agricultural community very severe losses, and to this only too efficient cause we may attribute the fact that the points at which the shoe pinches the tenant farmer are much more keenly painful than heretofore. And undoubtedly, also, it is true that the insecurity of capital invested in the cultivation of the land has been hitherto, oven in spite of recent legislation, much greater than it need be. Absolutely secure, it can no more be made than any capital invested in any other profitable way; but, at least, this much may be achieved. If the landlord and tenant fail to come to terms more suited to their special circumstances than any general legislation can lay down for them, a minimum may be laid down which may at once encourage tenants to invest their capital in the highest cultivation of which their farms will profitably admit, and also induce the landlord to afford them further encouragement, by investing his capital in permanent improvements, or arranging with the tenants that they shall do so, by giving to them the utmost freedom of cultivation consistent with the good of the soil, and the interests of the succeeding occupier. There are other details which I will not refer to; but I will merely express an earnest hope that every section of each Party in this House will remember that there

97
are small as well as large owners and occupiers in this country, and that legislation is more necessary for protecting the smaller ones than for the sake of the larger; further, that any measure that presses hardly on the larger class will press ruinously on the smaller, whether the interest be permanent or transitory.
Another very important Bill which should have wide effect throughout the Kingdom is that of Rivers Conservancy and Prevention of Floods. The interests which will be affected will be numerous and important, and I fear that the much vexed question as to whether and in what proportion those whose uplands benefit by drainage should assist those whose lowlands are injured by floods may give rise to animated discussions; but, this being in no sense a Party measure, I trust that the necessity for it, which must have been evident to hon. Members as they assembled from their distant homes, will enable them to come to a speedy and beneficial conclusion.
Those hon. Members in this House who are specially interested in the Principality of Wales will, I believe, see with pleasure a proposal to complete, as far as possible, the much needed provision for higher education which has, to some extent, been promised to that country. The circumstances of that country, where endowments are scarce, and where the religious requirements of the people have been chiefly supplied by themselves, have rendered it necessary to devise some means by which, out of public funds, some provision shall be made to enable the poorer classes to obtain for themselves an education higher than elementary. In a Committee presided over by Lord Aberdare in 1881, various recommendations were made with this object, and I will not detain the House further than to say that I gather that the Bill to be submitted to us embodies, to some extent, their recommendations.
It will be observed that the concluding paragraph of Her Majesty's most gracious Speech contains a reference to the claims of general legislation as compared with the claims of further legislation for the Sister Island. May I venture to appeal to the generosity of those who represent the smallest of the Three Kingdoms, but who have had generous measure of our time given to them for some years, and to ask them not to think
98
this House inconsiderate of the claims of Ireland, or selfishly confining itself to its own interests, if precedence, at least, be given to subjects affecting the whole of Great Britain? May I venture, with all humility, to suggest to them that if Ireland were left free for a few months from agitation there might at length be no crime to prevent? May I ask them to take as an earnest of the intentions of this people the very large and far-reaching measures already passed? If they are waiting for local self-government, so are we; and not only for local self-government, but for an extension of the county franchise, and for many other things to which to-day I have not had occasion to refer.
In conclusion, Sir, I venture to ask the House to join with me in saying that whatever be the form which may be ultimately given to the Address when presented to Her Majesty, we trust that she will accept it as that which it will be intended to be—the expression, through this House, to a beloved Sovereign of the heartfelt gratitude of a faithful, united, and devoted people. I have the honour, Sir, to move—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to thank Her Majesty for the Most Gracious Speech which Her Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty has the satisfaction of maintaining with all Foreign Powers relations of friendship and good-will:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that, since the close of the last Session, tranquillity has been restored to Egypt, clemency has been shown by its Ruler to the leaders of the Rebel-lion, and that the withdrawal of the British Troops is proceeding as expeditiously as a prudent consideration of the circumstances will admit:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the reconstitution of the Government of Egypt and the reorganisation of its affairs under the authority of the Khedive have in part been accomplished, and will continue to receive Her Majesty's earnest attention; and that it will be Her Majesty's endeavour to secure that full provision shall be made for the exigencies of order, for a just representation of the wants and wishes of the population, and for the observance of international obligations:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty has already been able to

99
fulfil the promise made to the Sultan and to the Great Powers of Europe to submit to their friendly consideration the arrangements which appeared to Her Majesty to be the best fitted to insure the stability of the Khedive's Government, the prosperity and happiness of the Egyptian people, the security of the Suez Canal, and the peace of Europe in the East; that to those objects Her Majesty's policy has been directed in the past and will be addressed in the future; and that Her Majesty continues to rely with confidence on its just appreciation by other Countries:
"To assure Her Majesty that we learn with satisfaction that a Conference of the Great Powers has assembled in London to consider measures for better securing the freedom of Navigation on the Danube:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that with a view to the preservation of peace and order in Zululand, Her Majesty has caused the former Ruler of that Country to be replaced in possession of the greater part of the Territories held by him before the War; and that we join with Her Majesty in earnestly hoping that this step may lead to the establishment of a more stable Government, and to the maintenance of good Relations between the Zulu Nation and the adjoining Colony of Natal:
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that Papers on these subjects will be presented to us:
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the Estimates for the Services of the coming year are in a forward state of preparation, and that they will be speedily laid before us:
"To assure Her Majesty that we rejoice to learn that the improvement in the social condition of Ireland, to which Her Majesty referred in December, continues; that agrarian crime has sensibly diminished; and that the Law has been everywhere upheld, although the existence of dangerous Secret Societies in Dublin and other parts of the Country calls for unremitting energy and vigilance on the part of the Executive:
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the Measures which may be submitted to us; and that we earnestly trust that the blessing of Almighty God may attend our labours."
MR. BUCHANAN,in rising to second the Motion, said: Mr. Speaker, I would join my hon. Friend (Mr. Acland) in his felicitations on the return to this House,
100
in renewed health and vigour, of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, whom we all esteem; and I would join him, too, in his regrets of the absence, the conspicuous absence, of the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister. I would look upon it as a recognition by Mr. Gladstone of the necessity of his sparing himself for the sake of the future service of the State, in which we hope he has many years yet before him. And we shall welcome him back all the more cordially because we have been made conscious of the blank that his absence causes.
I heartily endorse the words of satisfaction already used at the restoration of peace. We are all proud of the brilliant success of Her Majesty's Forces by sea and land in the Egyptian Campaign. And I may be permitted, as a Scotch Member, to allude with particular interest to the distinguished part played by the Highland Brigade. But, convinced though we were of the necessity of warlike operations, we are glad that they are over, and that they have been got quickly over. The generous but unfounded dread which was felt in some quarters, lest, when repressing military violence, we might be extinguishing the germs of national life, will best be shown to have been unfounded by a political reconstruction of that country, such as is indicated in Her Majesty's Speech, which will secure to its inhabitants a Government that will be strong and stable, that will protect life and property, that will fearlessly administer justice, and withal will be a national and independent Government, affording scope for the development of free institutions emancipated from the Suzerainty, the Protectorate, or the annexation of any Foreign Power. We are all anxious that the efforts we have made, the lives we have lost, should not be in vain. But I feel confident that, with the highway to India secured, not for ourselves only, but for all the world, and with, as its best security, an independent and prosperous Egypt, we shall all un-feignedly rejoice when we are enabled to withdraw our troops from the Valley of the Nile, and so escape at once from all temptation to annexation, as well as from the danger of disagreement with the other Powers of Europe. That danger cannot but be an ever-present probability, so long as our military

101
occupation continues. We rejoice at the harmony that has been maintained with the Great Powers all through these difficult negotiations; we cheerfully acknowledge the diplomatic skill of our Ministers and Representatives, and we feel that it has been due to the directness and the straightforward nature of our action that our policy has been, and will continue to be, appreciated by the European Powers.
The conspicuous diminution of agrarian crime in Ireland affords gratifying evidence of the beneficial effects of the agrarian legislation of last Session. Crime—not agrarian—has also diminished with the better enforcement of the law, at which we all rejoice. But we are still face to face with a fell conspiracy, which aims equally at all who help in the enforcement of law and order; at the highest official in the capital, and at the lowliest peasant in his squalid cabin. I feel sure that the House will cordially testify its regard for the devotion of those who, in whatever sphere of life, from the Lord Lieutenant and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) to the juryman and the policeman, in spite of the ever-present terror of the assassin, fearlessly perform their often thankless duty. There is no mention of exceptional legislation for Ireland of any magnitude during the ensuing Session, and we must be glad of it. At the same time, she will enjoy the benefits of such measures as embrace the whole country in their scope, and she will herself be able to further, by her own Representatives, many useful reforms.
Turning to home affairs, we must all rejoice that Her Majesty's Government affords us the prospect of much useful legislation during the coming Session. Speaking as the Representative, not only of a large urban constituency, but of the ancient and historic capital of the Sister Kingdom, I gladly welcome the proposal of the Government to give free municipal institutions to united London. London now is little more than a geographical expression. The London of the future will be not only a marvel for its vast extent, its wealth, and its population, but united under Mayor and Council, freely elected by its million inhabitants, it will be the most signal monument of the age of the triumph of
102
the representative principle. London municipal reform has been a question before Parliament for half-a-century. Commissions many have inquired into it, and Bills many have been introduced upon the subject. There is a general consensus of opinion that it is of such vast dimensions that Government alone can adequately deal with it. Government attempted it under Sir George Grey 25 years ago, and again under Sir Cornewall Lewis. Opinion has ripened, and the demand has strengthened since then. Without pretending to forecast the nature of the Bill, I sincerely trust that it will be one that will really be for the unity of London, and not for disintegration; that, taking advantage of the ancient Corporation, with its venerable dignity and its great traditions, it will expand that Corporation to be conterminous with the Metropolitan area, and the Council of London will be directly elected by, and directly representative of, the people of London. A federation of municipalities, a carving out of new areas that have no unity except on the map, and that can only be galvanized into a corporate life, would be a retrograde step. If hon. Gentlemen wish to realize the difficulty that would be entailed by such a course, they have only to consult my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, as to the consequences of one city being made up of half-a-dozen municipalities. Primarily, London government interests London, and it may be described as in a sense a local Bill. But we have been legislating for the past two years for the locality of Ireland, with its 5,000,000 inhabitants. London with its 4,000,000, Scotland with an equal amount, also deserve some legislative attention. Local it is, however, in another sense; but we shall hope it will be the last of the local London Bills that occupy the public time of the Imperial Parliament; and as a measure for economizing public time, and so facilitating Public Business, the whole community have an immediate interest in it. The other cities and boroughs throughout the country will fitly celebrate the jubilee of the Municipal Corporations Act, from which they have derived such unmixed benefits, by rejoicing that its 50th anniversary will have seen the conferring of a like boon of liberty upon our fellow-countrymen the citizens of the capital.

103
As regards the Corrupt Practices and Ballot Bills I would only add to what has been said by my hon. Friend the expression of a hope that the whole system of Parliamentary Election procedure will be dealt with; and, above all, that the present cumbersome system of registration will be made as simple as electoral registration is for purposes other than Parliamentary.
I would cordially join with him in his regrets that franchise reform does not occupy a place in Her Majesty's Speech, but would fain trust that, as London municipal reform is but an instalment of the general re-organization of local government throughout the country, so these proposals for a thorough overhauling of our modes of election are but a prelude to that extension of the franchise and that amendment in the representation which this Parliament is bound in honour to carry out.
The Bankruptcy Bill, the codification of the Criminal Law, and the reform of the Patent Laws are Bills of great practical value, and they are of a non-contentious character, and of great interest, especially to the commercial and artizan classes. These subjects have been often discussed in this House, and the lines upon which new legislation will proceed are sufficiently well known to excuse my referring in detail to them. They will have a special interest, as they are to be referred to those Grand Committees, the institution of which was one of the most important results of the reform of Parliamentary Procedure on which we were engaged during the Autumn Session.
The only other measures which I should care to speak upon are those which affect my own country of Scotland; and the first measure noticed in Her Majesty's Speech is forgiving compensation for improvements effected by agricultural tenants. That measure, I am sure, will be most warmly welcomed by the enterprizing agricultural tenants of Scotland. Security is to be given them—absolute security, I hope—for the capital they invest in the soil. With this security granted, and with the unfortunate ambiguity removed from the Ground Game Act of 1880, I feel sure most of their grievances will be removed as far as they are removable by legislation. Though this boon has been long deferred, I am sure it will be none the less welcome, and it will be nonetheless
104
welcome as coming from Her Majesty's Ministers, who have shown themselves to be in reality, and not merely in profession, farmers' friends. The Police Bill for Scotland will be a valuable reform. Edinburgh and Glasgow, and other Scottish municipalities, have ever been in the van with regard to police and sanitary organization, and I hope advantage will be taken of the lessons which have been derived from those experimental local Acts to make them available in a general Statute for the whole country. I hope it will also confer the further advantage of introducing greater uniformity into the police and sanitary organization of the burghs of Scotland. The other Scottish measure—the issuing of an Executive University Commission for the Scottish Universities—is a measure which has been annually expected, and more than once promised, ever since the Inquiry Commission reported a few years ago. We are all satisfied, I think, that many of the recommendations of that Inquiry Commission would tend to increase the usefulness of our Universities in Scotland; and I am sure that, with a good and carefully-chosen Commission, that measure would be of great importance to Scotland. I hope it may be taken up at an early date, and the Commission shortly appointed; and I would venture, if I might do so, to express the hope that not only that, but other measures relating to Scotland, will be taken up at a somewhat earlier date than Scottish Governmental measures are in the habit of being taken up, and not deferred until the Saturdays in July, which are perilously near the Greek Kalends. There is another matter referring to Scotland in regard to which I would express the hope that, before the Session closes, the Government may be able to give us some intimation of their intention to put Scottish Parliamentary Business and Scottish Departmental administration on a permanent and satisfactory footing, with a responsible Minister at its head—a reform that has been demanded with considerable unanimity throughout the country.
In conclusion, Sir, I wish to express my deep sense of the honour conferred upon me by Her Majesty's Government in asking me to discharge to-day, however imperfectly, this honourable duty. The compliment, I am well aware, is meant, not for myself, but for the re-

105
nowned constituency which I represent—the City of Edinburgh—and, I would fain think, for the electors, too, of the county of Edinburgh, and for the Prime Minister's most faithful followers, the Liberals of Scotland. I beg, Sir, to second the Motion of my hon. Friend.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, &c."—[See page 98.]
MR. E. N. FOWLERsaid, with reference to the measure dealing with the Corporation of London, that though the Government would, no doubt, succeed in forcing it through the House, yet they would do so in opposition, as he believed, to the feelings of the vast mass of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. He believed the agitation was promoted by a single hon. Member and two or three outside people connected with him. He (Mr. B. N. Fowler) wished, however, to refer more particularly to the paragraph in Her Majesty's gracious Speech which had reference to South Africa. He had been in favour of the policy of restoring Cetewayo to his Kingdom, believing that it was in accord with the feelings of the Zulu people, and that the settlement brought about by Lord Wolseley was a mistake; but the policy of restoration which he had favoured had not been carried out to its full extent, the King getting back only a portion, and that the poorest portion, of his dominions. He (Mr. B. N. Fowler) would be glad of any information which his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies could give as to the affairs of Zululand, though he apprehended the time had not yet arrived when the subject would be ripe for discussion. At any rate, the House was not in possession of full enough information on the subject. He regretted that nothing was said in the Queen's Speech about the Transvaal State, which, he believed, was violating the Treaty entered into with Her Majesty's Government in regard to its dealings with the Border Chiefs. As regarded the state of affairs in the Transvaal, he hoped the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would afford the House some explanation. Reports had reached this country of horrible cruelties practised by the Boers upon those Natives who had assisted the British in the late War. He wished to point out that the Imperial Government were the authors of the Convention of Pretoria; and that
106
the policy of the Government in treating with the Boers imposed on this country the heavy responsibility of enforcing the rights and safety of the Natives. It was a disgrace that those who had stood by us in our trouble should be subjected to the atrocities to which he had referred. The Government should use their utmost endeavours to put a stop to these atrocities, and to persuade the Boers to govern the country properly. Government had trusted these people implicitly, and he would urge upon Ministers the propriety and necessity of protecting the Natives who were placed at their mercy. He had always maintained that no dependence could be placed upon either the good faith, justice, or humanity of the Boers.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he deprecated the House's entering at this moment into a discussion of the two topics introduced by the last speaker. With regard to the settlement of Zulu-land, it was entirely impossible for the House intelligently to discuss that question until they were in possession of the Papers which he had laid on the Table that evening, and which contained everything that was necessary for the proper understanding of the subject. A discussion on imperfect information might have a very bad effect in Zululand. He wished, however, to say that John Dunn had not been left in the position of an appointed Chief. Like the other 12 persons, he was removed from that position; he was simply an inhabitant of the Native reserve; he was not left in the possession of any official position or of any of the official property that was conferred on him as an appointed Chief.
MR. B. N. FOWLERsaid, he was certainly left in possession of considerable property.
MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, no doubt that was so; he had a great deal of private property, but he was not in the position of an independent Chief. He might also say that the settlement of Zululand, including the reservation of the territory, was deliberately come to by Her Majesty's Government, and it was communicated to Cetewayo before he left this country, that certain territory would be reserved, and he acquiesced in that reservation. He would also warn hon. Gentlemen not to be taken in by the telegrams they saw constantly coming from that part of the world, but to wait

107
until they had the Papers before them, which would enable them to judge of the action of the Government. "With regard to the Transvaal, it was even more important that they should not have a partial discussion on that subject. The right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had given Notice of his intention to bring before the House the whole question of the Convention entered into with the Boers by Her Majesty's Government. The question was one that might well be discussed, but it would be a great evil to have a half discussion upon it before the House was in possession of the Papers. He regretted, however, that it was not in his power to contradict the general statement of his hon. Friend opposite as to the violation by the Boers of parts of the Convention. As to the atrocities alleged, he could not even say that the hon. Member's statements were exaggerated. The general effect produced on anybody's mind by the information received in this country was that atrocities which were a scandal to humanity were going on; but in the absence of the necessary Papers he hoped there might be no discussion on a subject of so much importance.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, there is always something interesting, and occasionally there is a good deal of profit, in the discussions which take place on the first night of the Session and on the reading of the Queen's Speech and the Address which is moved in answer to it. We always have the advantage of a kind of overture to the Business of the Session in such terms as the Government may think it wise and prudent to communicate their intentions to us; and we are almost always sure of having the Address moved by Gentlemen who interest the House, and who frequently give us great promise of the part they may hereafter take in our proceedings. I am quite sure I take with me the sense of the House when I say we have every reason to speak highly of the manner in which the Mover and Seconder of the Address discharged their functions. Nothing could, I venture to say, have been in better taste or could have been more able than the manner in which the Address was moved by the hon. Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Acland), and seconded by the hon.
108
Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan); and I should certainly be wanting in the expression of my own feelings if I did not take this opportunity of returning to them and to other Members of this House my thanks for their kind words of courtesy towards myself. And I wish also to take this opportunity of echoing the words of extreme regret at the enforced absence of the Prime Minister on this occasion. All of us who know the enormous amount of labour east upon him during the last two years, and especially in the Autumn Session, must feel that there is nothing to be surprised at that he should be obliged to take a holiday}. We all hope that he may be able to return before long, re-invigorated and able to resume the place which he so signally fills in the councils of this House. I said there was always something interesting in the discussion of the Queen's Speech, because you first have what the Ministry choose to give as the programme of the Session and also the views of the Mover and Seconder of the Address, who are not entirely in the secrets of the Government, and who generally approach the question from a peculiar point of view. There is a certain freshness and simplicity about the speeches of the Mover and Seconder which must have struck the House. They appear to think that all the evils of the time are to be met by legislation, and that all the legislation that is necessary to meet them is sure to be contained in embryo in the Speech from the Throne. And although the Speech may to others be deficient in some respects, and vague where we should much like to have precision, to them it appears differently, and they are able to give us a reading of it which is truly delightful. But what is practical comes afterwards, when we have to ask the responsible Ministers of the Crown to give their reading of the points to which they have thought it right to call attention, and I am sure we shall listen with great interest and profit to the noble Lord, who, I hope, will soon give us a full and clear explanation on those matters on which our curiosity is raised by the Speech, and some of which have not been alluded to by the Mover and Seconder of the Address. There are several things in the Speech which call for notice; and there are also some other matters not in the Speech as to

109
which we should like to know what the Government have to say. And I must say there is one remark which almost forces itself on anybody on the present occasion, and that is the very peculiar way in which the House was brought together this evening, with great preparations, constabulary lining the approaches, great crowds in the streets, great excitement, great agitation, many Members coming up who would hardly have thought it necessary otherwise to do so, from the belief that a great struggle was intended. Then, at the last moment, an apparently pre-arranged Question passed between the Bench below the Gangway and the Front Bench opposite; and, lo and behold, everything goes off in the smoothest possible way. I want to know what all this means—whether there was really an intention that the House should be left in the dark as to what was to be done, and whether there was to be a Question put by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and answered by the noble Marquess, which was to smooth all the anticipated struggle? I must say I do not think that such methods of proceeding conduce to the dignity of this House. I cannot but think that this great question—for it is a great question—of the Oath or Affirmation which Members are to take—I cannot but think that it is neither consistent with the dignity of this House, nor with the feelings of the great body of the people of this country, that such a question should be treated in so loose and uncertain a manner. We have had enough in the last three or four years, since this Parliament met—we have had scene after scene—none of which reflected any great credit on those to whom the conduct and management of this House was in trusted, and who ought to be responsible for the conduct of affairs. And now they have culminated this evening in a transaction which, to my mind, does not enhance, in any degree, our confidence in Her Majesty's Government. If such a measure as this, which is to change the principle on which Gentlemen are to be admitted to this House, was really contemplated by the Government, they ought to have let us know beforehand; for it was a matter which might have been very well embodied either in the Gracious Speech from the Throne, or
110
announced in some other way short of that adopted by the actual rising of the hon. Member for Northampton after the letter addressed to you, Sir, by his hon. Colleague was read. I will pass from that subject by saying that when the Bill comes forward it will demand the most careful consideration; but its principles are such as I and many sitting on this side shall feel it our duty strongly and strictly to criticize and probably oppose. And now, coming to the Speech itself, I will first allude to the usual sentences with regard to our relations with all Foreign Powers, in which there is a special reference to the condition and circumstances of Egypt. Really with regard to these paragraphs I think the House ought now to ask for some distinct statement and full explanation on the part of the Government as to what their policy with regard to Egypt is. We were stopped, and necessarily stopped, no doubt, in taking this course last Session by first of all being told that it was better not to interpose in a matter in which the English and French Governments were in perfect accord. We were lulled with the hope that the relations between those Governments in regard to that matter were of the most satisfactory character. And it seems that it even swayed some Members of the Cabinet itself—for instance, the great and intelligent mind of the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He believed, no doubt, that everything was going smoothly and peacefully, and that there would be no warlike proceedings, until we were suddenly aroused by the tiring of cannon and other warlike actions. Under those circumstances we felt it difficult to criticize or interpose, because we did not wish to weaken or embarrass any action which the Government might be taking. But now really we have come to a time when a settlement is in progress, in regard to which foreign nations have apparently been communicated with and received, a great deal of information. That being so, I think we have a right to claim, nay, we are bound to claim, on behalf of the British Parliament, as full an explanation and understanding as have been vouchsafed to foreign nations. In the gracious Speech delivered from the Throne there are also other expressions on which we should like some further information; for instance, in the

111
third paragraph where Her Majesty says that at the close of last Session—
"She had to express her gratitude to her forces for suppressing with rapidity and completeness a formidable rebellion in Egypt."
We never clearly understood what those forces were employed for. But we now understand that it was to suppress this formidable rebellion. We should like to know whether, whenever there is a I formidable rebellion there, Her Majesty's Forces are to be used to suppress I it? According to the newspapers at the present moment there seems to be something like one now in Egypt, and it may easily assume proportions which would endanger and shake the governing body of that country and the Throne of the Khedive. I do not know whether we should regard that as a case in which our land and sea forces ought to be employed. We should like some information as to the nature and extent of the obligations which we consider we have assumed towards the people and Government of Egypt. We have to consider the matter as affecting the Government of Egypt, our relations with foreign Powers, and also this country, for if we have assumed such relations as involve us in dealing with her rebellious subjects whenever they become formidable, I am bound to say that the prospect is one not likely to be of a very satisfactory character to the people of this country. I should therefore like to know what is the exact anticipation in which these paragraphs are written. As to that one in which the House is informed that—
"The withdrawal of the British Troops is proceeding as expeditiously as a prudent consideration of the circumstances will admit,"
we were told that as soon as we had shown our face and fired a few cannon shots the military adventurer who was causing all the difficulty and trouble in Egypt would collapse, that the military revolt would be at an end, and that we should have nothing then to do but to make our bow, and leave the country as rapidly as possible in the hands of a friendly Sovereign, who would then, no doubt, administer the affairs in a proper spirit, and with due reference to international relations. But when we hear such words as these, we should like to know what kind of circumstances, what amount of prudence, is involved in those expressions. Do they hold
112
forth the prospect of withdrawing the forces in six months or in half-a-century?—for really the words would cover one quite as well as the other. I hope when the noble Lord addresses us that he will give us some information on that and also with regard to the reconstruction and reconstitution of the Government, of Egypt and the re-organization of its affairs under the authority of the Khedive. We hope that the affairs of Egypt may take such a course as may be both beneficial to the people of that country and consistent with the great interests we have there. We know quite well that the interests which we have in the peace, prosperity, and independence of Egypt from the control of any Foreign Power are of great importance, and that we attach great value to them—and we are glad to see that Her Majesty's Government attach value to them—but in all these matters we want to know what the view of the Government really is, and how far we may consider ourselves to be committed, and we do not desire to be put off with vague sentences such as we had in the course of last year. As to the paragraph which follows those relating to Egypt, the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. N. Fowler) made some observations which have been noticed by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies; but we had better wait until the discussion takes place which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) proposes to raise. The matter is one of the highest importance, and affects not only the conditions of the particular Colony of Natal, but I venture to say that it affects largely the whole of our Colonial system. The questions which are raised by the proceedings in South Africa and with reference to our relations with the Natives are questions which must be solved upon some principle which will affect very largely the interests of a great class of British Colonists. I observed with some amusement that the old ground which was taken by many of the supporters of the Government, and I think by the Government themselves, with regard to the relations of King Cetewayo with his former dominions has been in a great measure abandoned, and that their view appears to be changed. What we formerly heard was that it was an act of justice; that he had been unjustly

113
turned out of his dominions, and that we had nothing to do but to restore him. But now it appears that it is not upon this high ground of justice and right that he is restored, but upon the ground that this is the best way to promote peace and order, and that it is a matter of policy and expediency. We shall be glad to know the grounds upon which the Government proceeded, and the relations which they hope to establish between the Native Powers and the British Colonies in that part of the world. We shall be also extremely glad to have some information as to the condition of the Transvaal, which is omitted altogether from the Speech. My hon. Friend the Mover of the Address seemed to think that one might take it for granted that everything was satisfactory that was not mentioned. I hope we may be able to do so; but I am afraid that my hon. Friend is a little sanguine. There is also no reference to India. I am sure that every man in this House and country hopes that the condition of India is prosperous; but it would have been satisfactory had we had some reference to the great changes which we are told are in progress or in contemplation in that country. I hope the noble Lord, when he addresses us, will refer to that subject, for it is one which will largely affect the condition of that great Dependency. There was also no reference to revenue, trade, or agriculture. I hope that is so because the condition of things is satisfactory. But, at the same time, we should like to know whether the Government think that that is the case, because some of us, speaking from our limited experience, are inclined to think that there is a good deal of distress at present, and that trade and agriculture are not quite in a satisfactory condition. We feel that, under the circumstances, something at least might have been said on these subjects. There is a great deal which many of the industrial classes of this country are now going through on which a word of sympathy might properly have been said, and with regard to which I am not at all sure some satisfactory promise of measures might not have been appreciated. As regards the question of Irish distress, I do not intend to enter upon it. I have no doubt that Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on this side will, before the debate closes, have something to say on that
114
subject. For my own part, I am very unwilling to urge any exaggerated view or adopt any exceptional measure with regard to questions of temporary distress; but, at the same time, the Government should show us they have not overlooked the matter, that whatever is necessary is being done; and they should give us to understand on what ground it is they do not think it requisite to make any further proposal. I am quite sure that whatever they might have told us would have been received both with interest and attention. Now, I think that the paragraph which the Government have put into the mouth of Her Majesty is rather beyond what the actual facts justify. Her Majesty states that—
"The improvement in the social condition of Ireland, to which I referred in December, continues. Agrarian crime has sensibly diminished, and the Law has been every where upheld. At the same time, the existence of dangerous Secret Societies in Dublin and other parts of the Country calls for unremitting energy and vigilance on the part of the Executive."
I scarcely think that such a state of things ought to be described as an improvement. We are very glad that a certain class of agrarian crime and certain particular acts of violence have diminished, and we are quite ready to give every credit for this to the Irish Government for their firmness and energy. But, at the same time, so long as organized conspiracy and organized assassination exist in a largo part of the country, and in the very Metropolis of the country, I cannot but think we should rather avoid any expressions of congratulation. But, while we thoroughly appreciate the conduct of Lord Spencer and the Irish Government for the energy with which they have dealt with crime of late, and while we rejoice to think that Parliament has given them the means of breaking down so much of these secret societies as to enable them to get access to information which discloses the persons principally concerned in these atrocious crimes, we cannot but feel that the root of the matter has not been reached, that there is much yet behind which we are anxious should be thoroughly probed. We shall not be satisfied with, merely striking at active perpetrators in crime; we shall not be satisfied until the Government have directed their attention to the organization which supports them and the power which is

115
behind them; and I trust the Government will not rest until they have got to the bottom of the evil, and it will be the duty of the House to do all in their power to strengthen the hands of the Government. I do not now enter into the question of how far this might have been avoided or remedied by more energetic measures some time ago, although I wish it to be understood that I retain the opinions which I have always expressed—that there was a great want of energy and foresight, and great error in principle in the early dealings of the Government, I now merely urge them to act with vigour and wisdom, and endeavour to seek out and crush the formidable conspiracy with which they have to deal. I would wish to point out that it is not only necessary that there should be a firm and vigorous administration of justice; but it is also desirable that the Government should not, at the same moment, be exciting false hopes in the Irish people of something more to come. There is one paragraph in this Speech which I have read with the very greatest regret, and it is that in which reference is made to some probable dealing with the further legislative wants of Ireland. If there is anything else, for Heaven's sake let the Government tell us what it is. Do not let them be using language which is so vague and misleading as that which stands in this paragraph, and which is all the more misleading because of the comments that are made outside, either by Members of the Government, or supporters of the Government, inducing a belief that the Government has some further measures of a subversive or revolutionary character in store which are to be the panacea for the ills of Ireland. If the Government are of opinion that the condition of Ireland is such that they may safely leave it now for a year or more without any further legislation, by all means let them arrange their business accordingly, and let them quietly proceed to the consideration of measures affecting the interests of other parts of the Kingdom. Why should they consider it necessary, in the first place, to taunt Ireland with having taken up a considerable portion of time, and to tell Ireland that the claims of the rest of the Kingdom are paramount, and then later on to put in these words, which are calculated to scatter the whole
116
of their schemes to the winds? I earnestly hope that the language which the noble Marquess will use will be of a character to avert the danger to which I have alluded. It is not my wish to detain the House at the present time; but there is one other subject on which I must say a few words. I must say a few words on the paragraphs that relate to the reform of local government in the different parts of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend told us that the discussion on the proposals with regard to the Metropolis might bring to light some ideas and suggestions with regard to the rest of the country. I dare say it may; but if a Bill dealing with the Metropolis is to be made a kind of fishing Bill for the rest of the country, I am afraid we are yet a good way from the solution of this question of the reform of local government. If the Government are going to make any proposals on this subject, it would be well that they should bring them forward upon some well-considered basis, applicable to the parts of the Kingdom to which they are to be applied, and not that they should take up the question of the administration of the Metropolis, and then to adapt a few ideas from that to the Local Government of England Bill. If you are going to change the Government of England, you should make it rest upon two things—First, whether the existing system is deficient; and, secondly, what is necessary to supply those deficiencies. The local government of this country is of ancient growth. It contains, no doubt, somewhat anomalous elements—many things which are hard to justify in logic, but which work admirably in practice; and before you alter those things you ought to be prepared to say what the defects are, and to assure yourselves that your measures of reform will make things better. I doubt very much whether any scheme will entirely fulfil those conditions; but I am quite sure that a Bill founded upon a sort of refuse of a Government of London Bill will be one of the greatest failures ever proposed to Parliament. It is important that the question should be faced by the Government. There is much that is against British agriculture, and many difficulties against which it has to struggle; and there is, no doubt, a disposition in one direction or another to seek for remedies which are rather

117
plausible than likely to be effective; and, certainly, one of the questions which we should have to deal with, for endeavouring to afford relief to those engaged in the cultivation of the land, is that of local burdens and local taxation. That is a question which has been repeatedly brought forward and pressed upon the notice of successive Governments and successive Parliaments. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that it is of no use to attempt to deal with local burdens until you have a good system of local government. If that is the doctrine which we are going to act upon, I am bound to say that the prospect which is held out to those who are interested in the cultivation of the land is by no moans a cheerful one; because these reforms are to arise out of suggestions and ideas which are to be brought forward in the course of discussion upon a Bill relating to the Government of the Metropolis, which Bill has not yet had a day fixed for bringing it forward. That is cold comfort to give to the unfortunate persons who have been suffering from the inclemency of the seasons to which our agriculture has been exposed. I hope that upon this and other matters the performances of the Government will be better than their promises. We are not altogether in the happy position in which we despise the help which legislation might give. If the legislation is wrongly directed, it is likely to increase our troubles, and not diminish them. We are anxious that legislation should not be of an ill-considered character. The present Government have always appeared to me to be too anxious to put forward fine and well-sounding phrases, and to endeavour to maintain a character for consistency in their professions, even when their acts are inconsistent. We have seen a great many changes, both in their personnel and in their policy since their advent to Office. Notwithstanding this, we are told by their supporters that they are stronger than they ever were—that is to say, that, after getting rid of something like a fourth, of their number, and a good deal more than a fourth of their principles, they are in a better position. If that is so, I will leave hon. Gentlemen to the enjoyment of what satisfaction it may afford them. For my own part, I think it would be better that the Government should not be too anxious to endeavour
118
to show that they have been consistent from first to last. They have attained in some respect to a position which is better than that in which they were; but they have attained to it at a great price. Do not let them jeopardize it. Do not let them ignore altogether the value of the unexhausted improvements which they inherited from their Predecessors, but for which they give us no compensation. If I might, I would venture to conclude by reminding them of a saying which was celebrated for some time in this House, when the late Sir James Graham was taunted with an alteration of his views and the inconsistency of the line which he was taking from that which he had previously adopted. He did not attempt to deny that he had been inconsistent. He simply said—"I changed my mind; and there is an end of it." Let the Government make the same admission with regard to some of the questions which have been in controversy between us.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, before I attempt to make any observations upon the speech which has just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I must be allowed to add the expression of my own satisfaction to that of my hon. Friend the Mover of the Address at seeing the right hon. Gentleman again occupying that position the duties of which he has now for so many years so admirably discharged, in apparently the possession of fully-restored health; and I think, if we may judge from the speech which he has just delivered, also in the possession of excellent spirits. And, Sir, I should like also to take this opportunity of thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the expression which, I am informed, fell from him before I was in my place, as to his feeling of regret and that of the hon. Gentlemen who act with him at the enforced absence from our deliberations of the Prime Minister. I desire to offer to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of those who sit on this side of the House our most cordial thanks, and I am sure it will give satisfaction to the whole House to know that the absence of my right hon. Friend is, although highly desirable in the interests of his health and strength, one which is not absolutely at the present moment enforced, and that if occasion should arise when his presence here should be also-

119
lutely necessary, there is nothing in the state of the health of my right hon. Friend which would prevent his being among us. It is only at the urgent request of his friends and Colleagues that he has consented to prolong for even a short time that rest which the arduous labours of the Autumn Session rendered necessary; and I believe that although his absence on the first night of the Session, when the general policy of the Government is being discussed, is, of course, inconvenient, still, if we can got through the first few days, the Business which the House will have to do up to Easter is not such as to imperatively require the presence of the Prime Minister, and that he may be permitted to enjoy some greater amount of rest abroad. I wish to discharge one more agreeable duty, which is to express my thanks, and I am sure those of my Colleagues, to my hon. Friends the Members for East Cornwall and the City of Edinburgh for the very able manner in which they discharged the duties intrusted to them. I listened to both those speeches with great interest and great satisfaction; and I think that the only regret that any of us could have felt with regard to either of them, and especially with regard to the Seconder, was that he condensed his remarks somewhat more than the House would have been disposed to desire. I come now to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The complaint which he has made was upon the omission of one topic from the Speech from the Throne. He said that he and his Friends had some reason to complain of the course which had been taken with regard to the seat of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and with regard to the Bill which was going to be introduced by the Government. I cannot say that I entirely gathered from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the exact ground of his complaint. I recollect that during the extremely painful discussion upon this subject, some two or three years ago, the right hon. Gentleman recommended the Government to proceed by way of legislation, and said that this matter could only be settled by legislation. We are going to legislate; yet the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends are not satisfied. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West
120
Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) rose and said that on the second reading of the Bill he would give it his most strenuous opposition; and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford North cote) has informed us that he, on his part, will meet it with criticism, and he thinks opposition. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Oh, no; I said "and opposition."] But the right hon. Gentleman does not object to the decision at which we have arrived to legislate. He says that we ought to have let him and his Friends know our intention beforehand, or that the announcement ought to have been placed in the Queen's Speech; but it is always a matter of discretion with the Government what measures ought to be named in the Speech from the Throne. It is not usual to include measures which are not considered to be of general or great importance; and this Bill is certainly one which we do not consider to be of great importance, or worthy to find a place among the measures usually enumerated in the Queen's Speech. As to letting the House know beforehand our intentions, I do not exactly understand what course the right hon. Gentleman expected us to take. Letting the public know our intentions beforehand would have exposed us to the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman. If some means had been taken to announce beforehand that we contemplated proposing legislation, I can imagine the imputation being made that we had taken unusual means to make that announcement in order to prevent the steps being taken which Mr. Bradlaugh and his friends had announced their intention of taking. What we did was to announce on the first opportunity what way we intended to proceed upon a question which has given the House so much trouble during the last few Sessions. The Cabinet came to the conclusion that the best way would be to legislate, and they did not consider it necessary to take in this case any means of making those intentions known which are not usually adopted with regard to other measures. The right hon. Gentleman also made some observations regarding the condition of Egypt. I have listened to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman upon that subject with a great deal of interest, not only on account of their intrinsic importance, but also because I endeavoured during his speech to obtain an answer to a ques-

121
tion of great interest to the Government, and likewise, I think, to the House, in relation to the progress of its Business. I was extremely anxious to gather from the right hon. Gentleman's observations some idea as to whether it is now intended to reduce to any definite form the continued criticism which was initiated in the early part of the late Session, and which has been continued without intermission during the Recess. I am extremely anxious to know whether the policy of the Government, which it has been sometimes said led to unnecessary war, is now to be formally challenged or not, or whether these "necessary criticisms" are to be renewed without any definite Resolutions being presented to us? I have not the slightest complaint to make of the course hitherto taken by the Opposition. I am not prepared to say that the constant fire of Questions and of desultory criticisms which continued during almost the whole of the critical negotiations with regard to Egypt was not sometimes productive of embarrassment to the Government, and sometimes prejudicial to the Public Service. I can perfectly well understand that an Opposition does not like to take the responsibility of what might appear to be an unpatriotic line of conduct by moving a Vote of Censure upon, or Want of Confidence in, a Government which may be either at war or on the brink of war; but, nevertheless, it does not choose to divest itself of the functions of inquiry and criticism, and I have no doubt that in any debate raised by the Opposition during the most critical period of the transactions of last year they were not actuated consciously by a desire to embarrass the Government, certainly not to the prejudice of the Public Service, but with a desire to discharge what they considered to be their duty. If also on public platforms they thought they could damage their political opponents, or weaken the confidence of the country in the Government, by references to our Egyptian policy, by assertions that the war was unnecessary and might have been avoided; and if they think they can obtain any political advantage from discussion, however desultory, of the whole of that policy, I have not the slightest objection to their taking that course, and I should not complain of any advantage they might
122
reap from it. But what I desire to point out now is, that when the House has reassembled for the transaction of Public Business, when the information which is available on the subject is fully before them, and when all the proceedings and all the Correspondence, describing every phase of the events and circumstances that led to the war, are before it, then I say that the time has come when the Opposition at large ought to be able to make up its mind, and either bring this criticism into the form of some definite Motion, challenging the opinion of the House and the country, or else make use of all the influence they possess to prevent the time of the House from being wasted in a continuation of desultory discussion, which can prove and settle nothing, because there is no definite issue placed before us. Well, I put that question; but the right hon. Gentleman evaded almost any criticism of the policy of the Government so far as regarded Egypt; and I may, therefore, assume that he and his Friends have now come to the conclusion that it is not desirable to make good the assertions he made in a speech in the country, to the effect that the war was unnecessary, and therefore unjustifiable; and I must condole with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) that he has not been able to get his allies on this subject to come up to the mark. The right hon. Gentleman has asked for full information respecting what is going on in regard to the re-organization of the Forces of Egypt. He also states that he thinks the House is entitled to have as much information given to it as to Foreign Powers. Certainly, I fully agree in that proposition, and I go beyond it, and may say that the desire of the right hon. Gentleman has been anticipated by the Government. Every word of the information which has been communicated to Foreign Powers, and a great deal more, has been to-night laid upon the Table of the House in the form of Papers, and everything which can possibly up to the present time be produced has been given. That will place the House in the full possession of all the steps which have been taken, and are being taken, and in which considerable progress has been made, as to the re-organization of the Government, of the Army, and of the Police Force of

123
Egypt. I do not think, Sir, it would be convenient for me to give a verbal description of the measures being taken by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman knows the lines on which we are proceeding; and I do not think that I should anticipate now the information which will be shortly given fully to the House in the Papers to be presented. The right hon. Gentleman asks what is the moaning of the phrase in the Queen's Speech that the withdrawal of British troops is proceeding as expeditiously as a prudent consideration of the circumstances will permit, and whether that time pointed to a period of half-a-year or half-a-century? I would say, without venturing to speak with absolute assurance, that the right hon. Gentleman in the first period of time he suggested has stated with probable accuracy the length of time that it may be necessary to keep our troops in Egypt. I do not think it very extraordinary that, after the whole of the Egyptian Forces have been disbanded and scattered to the wind, it should be considered necessary that a British force should be maintained there for a time during the re-organization of a military force, new gendarmerie, and a police force. That organization is proceeding with great expedition under the guidance of Sir Evelyn Wood, Baker Pasha, and other British officers. The Army is, to a certain extent, already organized, and in a short time there will be a force in Egypt which will be amply sufficient for the protection of the country and for the preservation of order. It will then be possible for us to relieve ourselves of a burden, and also the Egyptian Government of considerable expense, caused by the maintenance of our troops in the country. The British occupation is simply for the purpose of assuring the tranquillity of the country during a time, which we trust will not be prolonged, when there is absolutely no organized force in the country itself. The right hon. Gentleman also asks whether there is not rebellion of a serious kind still going on in Egypt? It is true that from, time to time information of an alarming character does arrive from the Province of Soudan; and it is not impossible that the troubles there may cause difficulties in Lower Egypt. But we should bear in mind that that Province is almost totally detached from
124
Egypt. It is a recent acquisition by the Government of Egypt, and has almost always been administered as entirely separate. Troubles may arise from time to time in the Soudan, but it is not certain that they will cause disturbances in the Provinces of Lower Egypt; still, circumstances may arise to cause anxiety, and, at all events, to call for the attention of the Government and of the House; and as soon as the Government is put in possession of accurate information on the subject it will be conveyed to the House. But it would be utterly impossible and useless for mo to attempt to give to the House any accurate account of what is the condition of affairs in the Soudan. The right hon. Gentleman has prudently delayed criticism on the steps taken by the Government in the re-organization of the affairs of Egypt until the whole of the Papers are before him. I will only now say that, though, no doubt, there may be considerable difficulties attending that policy, there is no ground whatever for the hopeless despair with which some writers regard the prospects of the government of Egypt. The recent history of Egypt certainly does not justify the gloomy anticipations which seem to be popular in some quarters. The Khedive and his Ministers have shown many of the qualities of Constitutional Rulers and Constitutional statesmen; and the Chamber of Notables, until it fell under the domination of an unscrupulous military tyranny, has shown that it is not incapable of representing the wants, wishes, and needs of the population. As to what has been said in respect to the influence which the Financial Adviser will exercise over the government of Egypt, all the experience we have at present shows that the Rulers of Egypt are ready and willing to receive and to be influenced by European advice; and that the weakness and failure of the Dual Control, so far as it was a failure, was due, not to the unwillingness or to the incapacity of the Egyptian Rulers to accept such advice, but to the unavoidable inconveniences attaching to the dual nature of the Control, and to the fact that an Army was kept on foot which was too large for its purpose and was disorganized, and which was, therefore, a prey to ambition and to fanatical influences. Of course, it is impossible to say that there may

125
not be difficulties in the way of the course which the Government are recommending shall be taken with regard to Egyptian affairs; but we do say that there is no reason to fear for the result, but, on the contrary, we believe—and that belief is fortified by the assent and approval of every Power in Europe—that the experiments we are now trying will be tried with every chance of success. When I refer to the opinion of the Powers, perhaps I used a somewhat too strong term. The right hon. Gentleman has asked what is the position of Great Britain with regard to Foreign Powers with reference to the Circular which was issued at the beginning of last month? I may state, in reply, that with regard to that Circular, we have received favourable assurances from Turkey. The Turkish Government has not yet expressed an opinion upon the whole of the proposals which the Circular contains; but favourable assurances have been given to our Ambassador at Constantinople, to the effect that the Turkish Government approve of the abolition of the Dual Control.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Has a formal intimation yet been received from any Government in reference to that Circular?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No formal intimation has yet been received from any of the Powers; but verbal assurances have been received from the Governments of Germany, Austria, and Italy, to the effect that they are all favourable to our proposals. In fact, the French Government is almost the only one from which we have not received any opinion upon the Circular.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Has any reply been received from Russia?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Russia is also stated not to be unfavourable to the general plan proposed by Her Majesty's Government, although there may be one or two points in it to which it is possible that the Russian Government may take exception. The communications on this subject are not included in the Papers which have as yet been laid upon the Table of the House. The right hon. Gentleman made a few observations upon the Government Bill for the better government of the Metropolis, the introduction of which is announced in Her Majesty's Speech. I
126
think that the right hon. Gentleman must have somewhat misunderstood the remarks, in reference to that measure, which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Cornwall (Mr. Acland), who asserted, with great truth, that the principles that must come under discussion in the consideration of the Government of London Bill would probably be of general application, and that those principles would be of considerable importance when we came to consider the question of county and local government in the Provinces generally. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to have drawn the conclusion from that observation that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to determine certain principles which shall be applicable to local government throughout the country in the course of the discussion on the Metropolitan Government Bill, and that, in fact, the latter measure will be of a fishing nature. I, however, have some reason to believe that the scheme which will be presented to the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will be of an extremely definite character, and will not partake in any way of a fishing nature.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I said that the Local Government Bill would depend upon the discussion of the Bill for the Government of the Metropolis.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: That does not seem to be altogether a misfortune. If principles of this nature are very fully discussed in the London Bill, and the opinion of Parliament pronounced upon them, I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should object to the country generally having the benefit of those discussions. It does not follow, of course, that everything that may be inserted in the Government of London Bill can be applied precisely to the local government of all other communities throughout the country, which may be very differently situated in every respect. Primâ facie, however, one would suppose that what is good in one case would be good in another. In the course of the discussion on the one measure, however, some progress must necessarily be made towards arriving at a conclusion in reference to the other. There is, at all events, this advantage in the course which the Government

127
propose to take in reference to this subject. We believe that it is possible and desirable to attempt to deal with the whole question of the government of the Metropolis in one measure, while the whole question of county and local government is too large and too complicated a subject to be dealt with in one measure. We shall, however, in this case be able to deal with almost every principle which can arise in the consideration of the question of local government anywhere. We think it is desirable to attempt to deal with the local government of London, as it will raise the whole question of those points before attempting to proceed with the reform of local government and taxation in the country at large. The right hon. Gentleman put in a claim for the relief of local taxation before any attempt was made to deal with the question of the reform of the local government of counties. I think that everyone who has looked into this subject will be inclined to think that while the reform of local government is desirable—as it is admitted by hon. Members on both sides of the House it is—the mere remission of local taxation would be of very little advantage. The right hon. Gentleman has, I regret to say, given a very unfavourable account of the position, hopes, and prospects of those engaged in agriculture, and I should be glad if I were able to say that the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman was too gloomy; but this condition of things has come to pass in the face of the very considerable remission of local taxation which was made by the late Government. I should think, on the whole, that it would be a very difficult thing for the farmer to say how much benefit he had derived from that remission of local taxation. The fact is that it is now generally admitted that until greater simplicity, greater directness, and better organization are introduced into the whole of our local government—I do not refer to the question of county rates only, but also to the expenditure of our minor local bodies—whatever we may give from public sources in relief of local taxation will be absorbed in the vortex of bad administration, and that the ratepayers will not benefit permanently by it. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the paragraph in the Queen's Speech which related to Ireland, and spoke in terms of
128
approbation of the present policy which is being pursued by Lord Spencer and the Irish Government. I am entirely prepared to endorse the observation of the right hon. Gentleman, and also to go beyond everything which he said in praise of Lord Spencer and of the Irish Government. It is not necessary nor desirable for me to enter into a panegyric of the Irish Administration; but, the Irish Government being, to a certain extent, carried on independently and apart from that which is conducted, here, I think that I am justified in saying that we are prepared to defend every act of that Administration. We have approved every part of the policy of the Irish Government and of their administration of Ireland under the Prevention of Crimes Act. I understand that the administration of that Act is to form the subject of an Amendment to the Motion for an Address, and that the conduct of the Irish Government in relation to it is to be challenged in this House. I fully admit that some of the measures taken under it are fair subjects for discussion, and I can understand that the measures that have been taken for the prevention and the punishment of crime and for the repression of agitation in the country may very strictly be brought under the notice of Parliament, although, in the absence of our Colleagues in Ireland, we are perfectly prepared to defend their acts. As to the investigations that are now being conducted in Dublin, with the object, if possible, of unveiling and unmasking the perpetrators of a series of most atrocious crimes, I do not wish to say one word that may prejudice the case of those who are now accused in Dublin; but I am satisfied that there is only one hope in the minds of every section in this House and throughout the country, and that is that this investigation may lead to the discovery and the conviction, not only of the actual perpetrators, but of the instigators, of these crimes which have brought such sorrow and such disgrace upon Ireland, and which every Member of the House must feel are well calculated to bring disgrace upon even the noblest of the land. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is some inconsistency between the congratulations which we have inserted in the Queen's Speech upon the general condition of Ireland and the reference to the con-

129
tinued existence of a dangerous conspiracy. I maintain, however, that there is no inconsistency between the two paragraphs. The general condition which was referred to in a Speech in December certainly continues, and agrarian outrages, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in addressing the House, said, have enormously decreased; and it is also a fact, speaking generally, that throughout the country the process of law is now submitted to and the law is upheld. At the same time, we are perfectly aware that dangerous secret societies in Dublin and elsewhere still exist; but the feature of the case which the right hon. Gentleman seems to have omitted from his consideration, and which we say is a subject of congratulation, is that, although those secret societies do still continue to exist, the law of the land, the power of the Government, is at last able to hold its own to some extent against them, and that there is a hope and prospect of tracing them to their sources and breaking up these nefarious combinations. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that no reference is made in Her Majesty's Speech to the existence of considerable distress in Ireland. But a very short time ago, in the Speech delivered from the Throne at the close of last Session, special reference was made to the distress which was said to prevail, and the opinion of the Irish Government was expressed that by moans of the ordinary law, and by the application of the local resources at the disposal of the Guardians, the distress could be adequately coped with. The Irish Government have hitherto continued to act on that principle, and they believe that, however severe distress has been in some districts, the policy they are pursuing is the soundest, and sufficient for the emergency that exists at the present moment. It would therefore have been impossible to insert any paragraph on this subject at the opening of the present Session which would not have been a simple repetition of the paragraph read to the House two months ago. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that he had read with considerable regret and suspicion the concluding paragraph of the Speech, in which reference is made to the possibility of further Irish legislation. He seems to think that that paragraph contains some
130
reference to measures which he describes as revolutionary and subversive. Now, I think I can re-assure the right hon. Gentleman. I do not admit that any of the measures of the Government, even in relation to Ireland, can properly be described as revolutionary; at all events, I suppose he only applied this term to the Land Act, the Arrears Act, or other measures of considerable importance of that character. The legislative intentions of the Government, so far as they can be formed at the present time, and so far as we have been able to make an estimate of the time of the House available, are mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech, and we do not think it at all probable that any measure that we should describe as of considerable importance, of first-rate importance, or, as the right hon. Gentleman says, of a revolutionary or subversive character, will be presented to Parliament at the present stage. But while there are no measures of importance we contemplate with relation to Ireland, there are several measures which are of such a character that they might not occupy a great deal of time, but still are measures of great importance, and which we hope we may be able to find time to consider. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will probably have to address the House himself before the close of this debate, and I will leave to him the explanation of the measures with regard to which we indulge in that hope. I believe I have now referred to the principal points dwelt upon by the right hon. Gentleman. I have no desire to prolong the observations I have been permitted to make. I have no doubt that the legislation which we desire to further will fail to satisfy many of our friends, and will disappoint some of our most strenuous opponents, who would doubtless have preferred to see "revolutionary and subversive" measures on which they might have expended their patriotic indignation. But, while our measures are not of a very exciting character, they represent a good deal of work left over from past Sessions, work which has been left undone from various causes, some springing within this House, and some outside it. There is a considerable amount that is needful, useful, and necessary. I trust the House will be able—strengthened, as I believe it to have been, by the adoption of those re-

131
forms to which we devoted so much time a few months ago, and in no degree hampered and restricted in its freedom by them—to devote itself to the consideration of those measures in a practical, business-like, and patriotic spirit.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he gathered from the speech of the noble Marquess that he was very much annoyed and vexed, and generally put out and upset, because no Vote of Censure had been proposed. To tell the real truth, so was he; for he was of opinion that a healthy and not exaggerated recurrence to Votes of Censure stimulated the circulation of political life. But, while he agreed with the noble Lord that they had not had enough of that kind of discussion lately, he could not join in the taunts with which he had assailed the Leader of the Opposition in connection with this question. On the contrary, he must condole with the noble Lord on the unfortunate shortness of his political memory. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not think he should be contradicted when he reminded the noble Marquess that no less than two abortive attempts were made last Session, with the approval of the Leader of the Opposition, to bring forward a Vote of Censure on the Egyptian policy of the Government, and that the Prime Minister resorted to all the arts of Parliamentary strategy in order to prevent the discussion of any such Vote. That was nothing more nor less than historical fact, and he would leave that part of the subject with the expression of a hope that if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition should think it wise and prudent and desirable in the course of the Session to bring the foreign policy of the Government under a hostile Resolution, the noble Marquess would, instead of resorting to the dilatory arts which signalized the conduct of the Government last Session, advance to the Table and without any loss of time fix a day for its discussion. He did not suppose that this Speech from the Throne would give rise to any protracted debate. He would not say that it was uninteresting, because that would be a disrespectful way of alluding to it; but he would say that it was unemotional. Again, he would not describe it as delusive, because that epithet might also he objected to; but he would say that it was singularly in-
132
complete. He did not wish to refer at any length to the measures of domestic legislation shadowed forth in the Speech. They were nearly all old friends, and were not such as could excite any great Party animosity. The only Bill which appeared to him to call for any criticism was that relating to the reform of the government of London. He had gathered from the observations of the noble Lord that the value of that measure did not lie so much in the benefit which it would confer upon the Metropolis as in the fact that it would elicit the opinions of the House of Commons on the question of local government. Her Majesty's Ministers evidently acted with reference to the Corporation of the great City of London on the principle—fiat experimentum in corpore vili. As this Bill, according to the noble Marquess, was to settle for a long time hence, and "everywhere," the principles which were to guide the House in legislating on the subject of local government, he should like to ask whether the police in London were to be governed on the same principle as that which regulated the government of the police in the country, and whether the police in Dublin, Cork, and Belfast were to be governed as the police were governed in London, or as they were governed in the country? He hoped that as some time must elapse before the Bill was introduced public curiosity would be set at rest by some statement on the point. He had alluded to the Queen's Speech as being, though not what might be called delusive, yet incomplete, for this reason—that there was no allusion in it to four questions of the greatest national importance. There was the omission of any reference to the failure of the Revenue, which was now no longer a controversial point; and whilst he congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers) upon his reappearance in the House, he must offer his condolences upon the very mournful and melancholy prospect which the right hon. Gentleman had before him. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not in the Queen's Speech prepared the House for the revelations he would have to make on the introduction of the Budget. Another subject closely connected with that to which the Queen's Speech did not draw their attention was the marked, continued, and apparently hopeless depres-

133
sion of the trade of the country as manifested, in spite of the President of the Board of Trade, by the recent Board of Trade Returns. There was also another more extraordinary omission—the absolute ignoring by the Advisers of the Crown of the great and widespread ruin now impending over the agricultural interest, Not a word of any sort or kind was said in this unemotional document which could give the House the faintest idea that the agricultural interest was in anything but the most extraordinarily prosperous condition. In addition to the omissions he had mentioned, the failure of the Revenue, the depression of trade, and the ruin of agriculture, there was another most important point upon which the Queen's Speech was silent—namely, the impossibility of effecting any economy in the enormous annual expenditure incurred by reason of the unheard-of liability which we had taken upon ourselves by the annexation of Egypt. He could not understand this subject not having been considered of sufficient importance to be mentioned to the House; he could not suppose that the Government were ignorant of these questions; he could only think that they were so unwise as to think it prudent, or so infatuated as to suppose it possible, to conceal them from public notice. In the Royal Speech he observed another of those allusions to the military glories of the present Government, which he always thought, coming from the present Government, were so unfortunate, not to say indecent. There could be no doubt whatever that fate had been very cruel to Her Majesty's Government. The Ministry had had it all their own way for two or three years. They had had to encounter a more or less apathetic Opposition and a subservient House of Lords. Yet in spite of those two advantages, which no Tory Government he was aware of had ever enjoyed, the Government had contrived somehow to tread under foot all their promises, and to violate their most cherished principles, and in no respect more decidedly than with regard to these military glories. In hearing the Prime Minister, last Session, move the Vote of Thanks to the Army and Navy, the thought occurred to him that the fact illustrated, in a remarkable manner, the vanity of human expectations and the shortsightedness of mortal minds. Who
134
would have thought, two years ago, that the present Prime Minister—whose absence from the House on the present occasion they all regretted—would, in so short a time, have been transformed into the panegyrist of Admirals and Generals, of bloody battles and adventurous campaigns? Who would have thought to have witnessed this peace-loving, almost Apostolic Government, experience, in the short space of three years, all the sorrows and all the joys of every species of military vicissitude? He passed from those general reflections with this one observation—that he gathered from the Royal Speech that the Advisers of the Crown were endeavouring to effect that which no other Government before them had ever yet been able to effect, in Ireland and Egypt, two important portions of the British Empire at the present moment—to sit down upon bayonets. So far as he could make out with regard to Ireland, the only feather in the cap of the Government, and their only title to the confidence of the country, was that they had at last been able, in various parts of the country, to hang up on the gallows six or seven miserable wretches; and they euphoniously expressed the result by congratulating the House that the law had been everywhere "upheld." There were two special remarks which he should like to make. The first referred to Egypt, and he wished to call the attention of the Government to this matter. He had said that the Royal Speech was incomplete, and it was so with regard to Egypt, for it gave no information whatever as to the appointment of Sir Auckland Colvin. The appointment of Sir Auckland Colvin by the Egyptian Government, on the recommendation of the English Government, was the one cardinal feature of the last few months with regard to the affairs of Egypt. He turned with interest to the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War, at some place in Lancashire, with which the public were not generally acquainted, on the 22nd or 23rd of January last. Speaking at Over Darwen, the noble Lord said—
"For political influence in Egypt—the political influence we ought to exercise—we intend to rely upon the position we have acquired there, and upon the policy and authority of our Diplomatic Representative, the Financial

135
Adviser whom we intend to recommend the Egyptian Government to appoint."
That was the authoritative statement of the present policy of the Government by the noble Lord. With that statement before him, he turned back to the despatch of Lord Granville on November 4, 1881—the Magna Charta of the Government policy in Egypt. In that despatch Lord Granville said—
"It cannot be too clearly understood that England desires no partizan Ministry in Egypt. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, a partizan Ministry, founded on the support of a Foreign Power, or upon the personal influence of a foreign Diplomatic Agent, is neither calculated to be of service to the country it administers, nor to that in whose interest it is supposed to be maintained. It can only tend to alienate the population from their true allegiance to their Sovereign, and to give rise to counter intrigues which are detrimental to the welfare of the State."
In the whole history of the foreign policy of this country he did not think that they could find another instance of a Foreign Secretary laying down principles so decided and so defined as those laid down by Lord Granville; and yet within the year they found those principles absolutely denied by the policy of the same Government that enunciated them. He invited the noble Marquess to afford some explanation of those contradictory statements, as he would probably have an opportunity of doing if an Amendment were moved, as he believed it would be, with regard to the affairs of Egypt. The Foreign Secretary, after having stated that he would not rely on a foreign Diplomatic Agent, had announced that the Government had appointed a foreign Diplomatic Agent on whom they could rely. Passing from Egypt, he would now make one more remark on Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, after a most successful time in Ireland, had the imprudence to visit his constituents the other day, and make a speech. Now, had he (Lord Randolph Churchill) been consulted on the subject, he would have told the right hon. Gentleman he could not have done anything more suicidal than to make a speech to his constituents just before the meeting of Parliament. Certainly, that speech had proved the opportunity of the Opposition, because in that speech the right hon. Gentleman was so extremely anxious to glorify himself that
136
he politically assassinated his Colleagues. He would read two remarkable passages from that speech. It was a most excellent speech from beginning to end, and he had nothing to say against it; but he would ask for an explanation of certain passages in it. In one of these passages the right hon. Gentleman said this—
"My answer to the critics of the Irish Government is that I do not read like them the duties of Liberal Ministers in Ireland. That duty consists, first, in showing that life is safe and order secure under a Liberal Government."
He would then read another passage—
"When we went to Ireland in May last we found society profoundly disorganized; we found the best elements in it depressed, and the worst elements triumphant: and how should it be otherwise when, instead of the law being a terror to evil-doers, evil-doers were a terror to the law-abiding and the industrious?"
The right hon. Gentleman forgot to add that—"When we went to Ireland in May last" Her Majesty's Liberal Government had been two years in Office, and that Lord Spencer, who was included in the "we," was one of those Ministers who not only advised Parliament not to revive the Peace Preservation Act, but refused to give the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) the powers he so persistently asked for, to enable him to deal with disorder and crime, and who, for all they knew, carried on the intrigue that ejected the right hon. Gentleman from Office. He thought the Chief Secretary had given himself a wide latitude when he thus glorified himself at the expense of his Colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the duty of the Government "consisted, first, in showing that life was safe, and order secure;" he should prefer to put it into plainer language, and to say that the first duty of a Government was to govern, and that duty the Government had for two years shamefully neglected. Would society have been "profoundly disorganized" if that first duty of a Government had been carried out even in the most elementary manner? He would invite the attention of the Chief Secretary, and of the noble Lord who had resumed his able Leadership of the House, to the serious charge that had been brought by the Chief Secretary against the Government. He had heard

137
accusations against Lord Salisbury, Lord Cranbrook, and other Members of the Conservative Party, of having made violent speeches against the Government; but there was not a Member of the Conservative Party, high or low, that ever approached the violence of the denunciation of the Chief Secretary, which he had just quoted—"When we went to Ireland in May last we found society profoundly disorganized." Let it be recollected that Earl Spencer, in 1880, directly contradicted the statement of the late Lord Lieutenant as to the condition of Ireland, and that the Prime Minister had declared about the same time that Ireland had never been in a state of such tranquillity and contentment. It was quite unnecessary, after that statement of the Chief Secretary, for the Opposition to make the slightest attack on the Government from their own original resources. They had only to rely on his speech for the condemnation of his own Colleagues. What had been going on "when we went to Ireland in May last?" Why, the Prime Minister had let out of prison on this disorganized society, in order that he might further depress the best elements in it and elevate the worst of it, a man whom he thus described in his speech at Leeds—
"A man who had gone forth upon a mission to demoralize a people by teaching them to make the property of their neighbours the object of their covetous desires."
And in his speech at the Guildhall as—
"A man who has made himself, beyond all others, prominent in the attempt to destroy the authority of the law, and to substitute anarchical oppression exercised upon the people of Ireland."
And that was what was going on over there "when we went to Ireland in May last." He did not quarrel with the statement as a statement of the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman took to the examination of Irish matters the wisdom of the philosopher and the learning of the historian. He allowed some months to go by before he made his report on what he saw there; and now that he had made his report they might depend upon it his words would sink deep in the minds of those who heard it and those who read it. The judge that went to Ireland to report had pronounced his verdict on his own Colleagues in terms unmistakably severe; and they might rest perfectly
138
convinced that the people of England, as a supreme tribunal, would, at the proper time, award the proper penalty.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he did not propose to follow the discursive example of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), for he should touch only on one point. He had had no intention on coming down to the House to take any part in the debate; but he could not sit quiet under the remarks of the noble Marquess the present Leader of the House on the question of the Egyptian policy of the Government. The House would remember that he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had done his best during the Autumn Session to get a fair, straightforward debate upon the conduct of the Government. He had been unable to do so because the Government, having control of the time of the House, had taken good care such discussion should not take place. The reason he brought it on now at the first opportunity was that otherwise he would not again have a chance during the Session. The more he thought of that policy, and the more he read about it, the more convinced he was that we had made a great and fatal mistake in invading that country; and what the noble Marquess had stated that night made the prospect still more alarming. It was bad enough to invade Egypt to put down a rebellion, but there was justification for the question of the Leader of the Opposition when he asked whether we were not bound now to put down the rebellion in the Soudan. If course, if the principle was right to put down the first rebellion, the Government was bound to employ the men and treasure of this country to put down the other, and we should yet hear of battles with the False Prophet, of victories over him, and of officers being made Lords in consequence. He objected to this interference in toto. The policy of the Government had been summed up by Lord Derby, who said their policy in Egypt was to keep the Khedive on his legs. Imagine the policy of this country being to keep an Oriental despot on his legs against the wishes of the people The noble Lord said the Government went to war to put down an unscrupulous military tyranny, but he did not advance a single particle of proof that this tyranny had not the support of the great body of the people. What was to be done with regard to this war

139
policy? When anyone asked a Question on the subject in the House he was told he must not do that because he would be interfering with negotiations that were going on. When the battles were fought, Lords were made, and their pensions voted—["No!"]—well, the pensions would very soon be voted. It was then said—"It is too late to bring the matter before the House; it is all over; you are only pouring water on a drowned rat." They were all very glad to see the Leader of the Opposition back again; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would now do better than he did before he went away. Last summer the right hon. Gentleman and his leading friends attended a grand meeting held at Willis's Rooms, and presided over by the Chairman of the Council of Bondholders, and there, from all he knew, Jingo songs were sung. Certainly a warlike policy was urged upon the Government at that meeting. The Government then went into that war. Lord Beaconsfield once said that a Government should never take the advice of its enemies; but the present Government had done that, otherwise they would not have got into that misfortune. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had told the people of Glasgow that that war was unnecessary and, therefore, unjustifiable. He had, therefore, hoped that the matter would be brought to a fair issue in the House of Commons, and that the Tory Leader would be true to his principles, and attack the Government for going into that unjustifiable war. Nothing, however, was done; and it only remained for an unfortunate wretch like himself to impeach that evil policy. The noble Marquess had told them that the House had all the Papers and all the information on the subject which the Government could give; and that made it absolutely necessary for him to move an Amendment in reference to that war. The Amendment he wished to move was to this effect—
"But this House humbly expresses its opinion that no sufficient reason has been shown for the employment of British Forces in reconstituting the Government of Egypt and reorganizing its affairs under the authority of the Khedive."
That embodied sound principles—or, at any rate, sound Liberal principles—for it could not be a Liberal policy to force
140
any sort of government on a nation which objected to have that government. He should be told that the people of Egypt were in favour of the Khedive; but The Standard's correspondent—who ought to have weight, at least, with hon. Gentlemen opposite—said that Arabi's supporters were thousands and the supporters of the Khedive were merely units. The Khedive's party consisted of the six footmen at the Palace. They had accounts showing that the Government of Egypt was now more cruel and oppressive than it was before. True, they had got a Financial Adviser; but did that make any difference? The President of the Local Government Board, in 1877, said that the unfortunate Fellaheen were beaten by the Khedive's officers to enforce illegal exactions, and that afterwards they were beaten for the same purpose by the same officers in the name of Mr. Goschen. They were now beaten in the name of that great Financial Adviser, who, as the noble Lord had explained, was entirely under the Khedive's Government. Why were we to be the supporters of that vile system of oppression in Egypt which had gone on from generation to generation? For no other reason, apparently, except because they had begun to do so. They had done wrong last year, and now they must go on with it to the bitter end. He was quite sure that there were many Gentlemen sitting behind him who did not like that war at all in their hearts. He had studied the speeches they had made in the Recess, and what was the gist of them? Why, first, that the Government knew about it much better than they did, which was, perhaps, true in some cases; and their second and greater argument was that they had had a glorious success, having killed more people in a shorter time, and done it cheaper than the Tories would have done. Indeed, the Vice President of the Council had told the Liberals of Sheffield he was sorry it had been done so cheaply; and he rather agreed with him, because when people went in for such things it was only right that they should pay well for them. Therefore, he now protested against that atrocious: policy, and must divide against it. He supposed they had all read the recent speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). [An hon. MEMBER: No.] Then they ought to have read it; for he could not have made a better

141
speech himself. That speech was the best condemnation of the Government policy he had read. The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped there were a few left who were still in favour of the old Liberal policy of non-intervention. He hoped that there were, and that they would vote for his Amendment that night. He felt sure that unless some check were put on that meddling, muddling, and interfering with peoples with whom we had no concern a great injury would be done in the future both to the peace and prosperity of this country. That being so, he begged to move the Amendment he had read.
MR. LABOUCHERE,in seconding the Amendment, said, he was glad that those who did not entirely agree with the Government as to what was going on in Egypt would have an opportunity of registering their opinion by their votes. Although the noble Marquess now leading the House said we went to Egypt to put down an unscrupulous military tyranny, it was certain that Arabi Pasha was supported by the entire Egyptian nation. The noble Marquess seemed to be under the impression that the Government policy must be a good one if the official Opposition did not ask the House to vote against it; but that seemed to him one of the main reasons why the policy of the Liberal Leaders was erroneous. He could quite understand why the Opposition did not challenge the policy of the Government. The Government were practically dragged into the war by the acts of the Opposition when they were in power. ["Oh!"] Anyone who read the Blue Books must see that. A great many Liberals and all the Radicals in the country regretted the Government plunging into the war. There could be no doubt that it was entered into for the sake of the bondholders and for that reason only. But the war had been entered upon and carried through, and the question now was, What was to be done in the present position? He was sorry to hear the speech of the Secretary of State for War, because he did not think that the scheme proposed to be adopted by the Government was likely to mend matters. We were going to place the Egyptian Army under an English General, and a financier by the side of the Khedive, and then tell Europe that the Khedive was an independent Ruler, and that we had
142
nothing to do with the government of Egypt. Why were we there? For the single object of collecting the debts of the bondholders. In the Speech from the Throne reference was made to international obligations, but he absolutely denied that there were any international obligations involved in the matter. The debt was in reality the debt of Ismail, and not that of the people at all; indeed, their own loan of £17,000,C00 had not even been treated in the same manner as the rest of the debt. The noble Marquess had stated that the object in view was the establishment of good government in Egypt; but if we really wished to establish any sound government in that country, we must recognize the two great principles which, in the opinion of most Englishmen, were at the bottom of all sound government—namely, Ministerial responsibility and control of the people over the purse. The plan of Lord Dufferin, so far as it had yet been explained, was a perfect sham. It did not give the Egyptians any species of Constitutional or representative Government. The only plan was to advocate a policy of non-intervention, and the best way to do that was not by precept but by example; and, therefore, he supported the suggestion that we should withdraw from Egypt as speedily as possible. The House had been told that Russia, Germany, and Austria were satisfied with the Egyptian policy of Her Majesty's Government; but the majority of the English people were not satisfied, and they at least ought to have a voice in the matter. They could not suppose that they had gained many Conservative votes, they had spent £4,500,000, and unless a Government on really Constitutional principles was established in the country, leaving to the Egyptians themselves to decide whether they would pay their debts to the bondholders—and he would certainly advise them not to pay—they would find they had lost the confidence of many of their own supporters.
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the third paragraph, to insert the words "but this House humbly expresses its opinion that no sufficient reason has been shown for the employment of British Forces in reconstituting the Government of Egypt and reorganising its affairs under the authority of the Khedive."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: There will, no doubt, be many further opportunities, if it is desired by any hon. Member, in the course of the next few days, or at any time during the Session, to discuss Egyptian affairs; but, nevertheless, I feel that Her Majesty's Govornment—and especially those Members of Her Majesty's Government who more particularly represent the Department connected with Foreign Affairs—have no right to complain if, on the very first day of the Session, some notice is taken of this most important subject. Indeed, Sir, if the House had insisted upon a long and a large discussion, it would have been, no doubt, the duty of Her Majesty's Government to have accepted such a discussion at once and without demur. Nor, if it is necessary, will Her Majesty's Government shrink from a discussion as full as the House may desire. But I am bound to say this—that, after listening to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the noble Lord the Leader of what is called "the Fourth Party" (Lord Randolph Churchill), and also of my two hon. Friends who have just sat down (Sir Wilfrid Lawson and Mr. Labouchere), it did not appear to me as if there is any great or burning desire on the part of the House to have a very long or full discussion; and, that being so, I have ventured to trespass thus early in the debate upon the attention of the House, in order that I may, as briefly as I can, respond to some of those more or less modified challenges which have been addressed to us from one part of the House or the other. I will not attempt to take up time by considering what might happen if, at some future date, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) became the Representative of an Egyptian constituency, a subject to which he has himself alluded. No doubt, the Members for Northampton have strange political fortunes at times; but, nevertheless, I hope it may be our good fortune to maintain the sitting Member as Representative for Northampton rather than as Member for an Egyptian constituency on the banks of the Nile. My hon. Friend showed his usual appreciation of the facts of the case when he said that a great deal of this Egyptian matter, as far as the events of last year are concerned, is already becoming almost
144
ancient history; and I had rather hoped, if that were his opinion, that he might have spared the House the retrospect into which he immediately plunged. My hon. Friend asserted, what we have hoard before, that this has been a bondholders' war, and that the view which has been so often put forward by the Prime Minister and others in regard to the character and position of Arabi Pasha is a mistaken view. But I am bound to say that he confined himself to assertions. He said—"All these things are in the Papers." Now, what Papers does he allude to? There are a certain number of Papers already in the hands of hon. Members, and I say most distinctly that the proof of that assertion is not in those Papers, nor did my hon. Friend attempt to produce his proof to the House. I will go further, and say that when hon. Members have road the Papers which I have had the honour to lay upon the Table this evening, they will also find in them no proof of these assertions. At the same time, I think it would be better, speaking with fall respect for the opinions of my hon. Friend, if he had in any case waited until he had read the Papers before anticipating the discussion upon the question, because it is almost impossible to form an opinion upon many of the points on which he has touched until these Papers were in his hands, and in the hands of the House, and of the public. Nevertheless, there are certain points which it is not and cannot be premature to touch upon; and that is, what is the general view and policy of Her Majesty's Government? Now, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), and some one or two of his immediate Friends who cheer his observations, and who cheered the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton, declared that this was a bondholders' war, and that it was solely for that reason that we went to war. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister said so.] Well, I do not quite agree with the noble Lord; but he will have full opportunity of proving his assertion that the Prime Minister said this was a bondholders' war. He will, no doubt, take some opportunity of proving that. I find a particularly fair description of what were the reasons which led Her Majesty's Go-

145
vernment most unwillingly, and wholly under the stress of dire necessity, to depart from that which was the just and cherished tradition and principle of the Liberal Party—namely, the great principle of non-intervention. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh; but I think they will find we have been unanimous in asserting that the great principle of non-intervention is the principle of the Liberal Party. What was it that on the 4th of November, 1881, Lord Granville said, in a despatch to Sir Edward Malet? He described, in that despatch, the general policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt, and he said—
"The Government of England would run counter to the most cherished traditions of national history were it to entertain a desire to diminish that liberty, or to tamper with the institutions to which it has given birth."
And then he goes on to use these words—and these words are the charter of the policy of the Liberal Government throughout all these events—
"The only circumstance which could force us to depart from the course of conduct which I have above indicated would be the occurrence in Egypt of a state of anarchy. We look to the Khedive, and to Cherif Pasha, and to the good sense of the Egyptian people, to prevent such a catastrophe; and they on their part may rest assured that, so long as Egypt continues in the path of tranquil and legitimate progress, it will be the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government to contribute to so happy a result."
Now, Sir, I venture to assert that neither the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), nor any other hon. Member of this House, has shown that Her Majesty's Government have deviated from these principles. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Oh!] That may not be the opinion of the noble Lord; but, without any necessity for these somewhat frequent interruptions, the noble Lord will have full opportunity of proving by-and-bye the accuracy of his views. If it is the opinion of the noble Lord, or of anybody else, that Her Majesty's Government have departed from the position they have laid down, let him or them prove it. It was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, at a date subsequent to this despatch, that the condition of things which the despatch contemplated as possible, but hoped would not arise, did actually arise—that a condition of
146
anarchy did exist in Egypt; that that condition of anarchy was dangerous to important and cherished English interests; and that it became their duty to intervene, acting, if possible, in concert with the other Powers of Europe, and more especially with those who, like themselves, were principally interested in the matter; but on the failure or refusal of those Powers to co-operate with them, they felt it was their duty not to shrink from acting alone. And act alone Her Majesty's Government did, and with results which it is notorious were universally recognized throughout the country—[Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No!]—as reflecting the highest honour on the skill of those to whom the operations were referred. But, Sir, what strikes me as a matter of importance is this—on what line are we really to be attacked? I notice that there is one line of attack opposite, and another on this side of the House; and the only agreement is this—that although the two lines of attack are almost entirely opposite, nevertheless, hon. Members opposite, and those who act with the hon. Member for Northampton, at least agree in cheering one another, and in criticizing Her Majesty's Government. I might almost be satisfied with leaving the case there, because nearly every argument adduced against Her Majesty's Government from Conservative sources is perfectly inconsistent with those adduced by the hon. Member for Northampton and his immediate Friends. I have no wish, on this occasion, to enter into any long discussion upon these various points. As I have indicated to the House, the case of Her Majesty's Government from the beginning has been that a condition of anarchy existed that was dangerous to Egyptian interests, and more especially to the great commercial interests of England, bound up with the maintenance of the Suez Canal. We may be told that Arabi and the Military Party did not actually interfere with the Suez Canal. My answer to that is a plain and simple one. When a house is on fire next door, it would not be wise for you to wait until the fire got hold of your house. When, therefore, at the end of May and beginning of June we saw the whole of Egypt getting into a condition of anarchy, it became the duty of Her Majesty's Government to recognize the fact that that condition of anarchy was not

147
one under which we could feel sure that both the great military and commercial and political interests of England, bound up with the interests of our Indian Empire, could be safely left at the mercy of a military dictator. From that point of view we have never shrunk; and I shall be obliged, in any debate on the Egyptian War that may take place this Session, to decline to follow the hon. Member for Northampton or any other hon. Member into a discussion upon the various and complicated interests of the bondholders. I would thereby be pleading guilty to every charge which the hon. Member wishes to bring against Her Majesty's Government, and would consent to acknowledge that this was a bondholders' war. I am not here to defend the interests of the Egyptian bondholders; I am in no way charged on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to enter into every complicated question of finance that may be raised. On the contrary, I wish to point out that the Financial Advisers' of Egypt are not appointed by Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock complains that the appointment of these Financial Advisers is not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Why should Her Majesty's Speech mention the appointment of Financial Advisers? It is not at all a matter which calls for mention in the Queen's Speech. If it had been mentioned in the Speech, we know perfectly well what would have happened. The noble Lord would have sprung to his feet at once and have said—"Here you are, establishing a financial Protectorship and Control." If we had allowed ourselves thus to be tempted upon the rocks at the moment the ship was going down, we should have been greeted with immoderate laughter by the noble Lord and his Friends. The noble Lord says that my noble Friend who is at present leading this House, in the absence of the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs have already contradicted their former declarations, because they had said, at one time, that Her Majesty's Government would, under no circumstances, be parties to appointing in Egypt a partizan Minister or a foreign political Agent to guide and direct the country, and yet that they have now done these very things. Here, again, my answer is the same, and it is a plain and simple
148
one. Sir Auckland Colvin is not appointed by Her Majesty's Government, and it is not upon the appointment of Sir Auckland Colvin that I desire to dwell as being the main safeguard for that English influence which I, for one, am quite willing to grant is the natural result of recent events—not merely the events of last year, but the action of many preceding Governments—and an influence which I, for one, am wholly prepared to defend and support. I wish to ask hon. Members opposite, who cheered the sentiments of the hon. Member for Northampton, when he said we ought to leave the country at once, and that we ought to have no influence there at all, whether the House is to accept that as their opinion? [Cries of"No!"] Then on which leg are they standing? What are really their opinions? Is it their desire simply to criticize and simply to attack? If only to criticize, let them come forward boldly and make their criticisms. Let them not indulge, as on other occasions, in small and petty attacks, but let them follow the example of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who has the courage of his convictions, and challenges us to a distinct issue. It is my misfortune occasionally to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, but I am bound at least to recognize that he never shrinks from giving full expression to his opinions. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, with that accuracy which always distinguishes him, during the short Session of Parliament which took place in the autumn, in answer to my noble Friend, said that the Opposition—he was claiming to speak for the Opposition—had repeatedly asked for a day on which to challenge the whole conduct and policy of the Government—[Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!]—and that Her Majesty's Government had done everything in their power to avoid and shirk that discussion. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] I can only regret that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has not brought back from the shores of the Mediterranean, from which I, for one, am glad to seek him back in full health and vigour, a greater amount and store of accuracy, for he is quite wrong and inaccurate in the view he has put forward. There were two attempts made, in the short Session of

149
Parliament to which the noble Lord alluded, to challenge the policy and conduct of the Government by what may be called criticism, but not at all in the manner to which the noble Lord has alluded. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What was asked for was a clear issue.] On the 6th of November, 1882, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) rose in his place, and said—
"I beg to give Notice that, on as early a day as I can obtain, I shall call attention to the present employment of a portion of Her Majesty's Forces in Egypt, and move 'That this House is entitled to a fuller explanation of the nature and duration of the employment of Her Majesty's Forces in Egypt, and of the estimated cost thereof, than it has yet received.' I shall also take an early opportunity of asking the Prime Minister whether he can afford a day for the discussion of that Motion."—[3 Hansard, [274] 842.]
I do not think that anybody conversant with the forms of Votes of Censure in this House will call that very mild and innocuous Notice a Vote of Censure. I find that a few days afterwards the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle, who does deal with Amendments and Votes of Censure, and who has the courage of his convictions, was evidently under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was not going to lay bare the sore, and he therefore asked the Leader of the Opposition—
"Whether he propose" to bring forward any Motion condemning the military position in Egypt, which in the country he declared to be unjustifiable and unnecessary? "—[Ibid. 866.]
The right hon. Gentleman opposite replied as follows:—
"I do not know whether I may be allowed to ask, as a matter of courtesy, whether the hon. Member received a note from me last week, in which I stated that I presumed I would not be allowed to answer the Question, but telling him what my answer would be, and that I would do nothing to compromise my freedom in the matter. I hare already to-night given a Notice in reference to this question."
And then the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) said—
"I should not have asked the Question if the right hon. Gentleman had given any Notice concerning the war; but the Motion of which he has given Notice concerns the future policy of the Government."—[Ibid. 867.]
It is, therefore, quite clear that the hon. Member for Carlisle perfectly understood the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and that the Motion of which
150
he had given Notice was not a condemnation of the Government for what they had done in the past, but rather a Motion intended to elicit from them a declaration as to their policy in the future. So much for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I come now to the only other Motion I can find, and it is one given by the former Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Government of Lord Beaconsfield (Mr. Bourke). I find that my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn wished to bring forward a Motion in regard to certain points connected with the trial of Arabi Pasha. [Mr. BOURKE: No!] I should be sorry if I were to misunderstand my right hon. Friend; but he asked if the Government would give a day for a Motion condemning the Government for the surrender of Arabi. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] That is exactly what I said. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No!] And the right hon. Gentleman further asked—"Whether the First Lord of the Treasury had any statement to make with respect to the trial of Arabi? "What I wish to point out is this—it is not my desire to dwell on any distinction between the surrender and trial of Arabi Pasha, but to show that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock was perfectly inaccurate when he said that the right hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke), who was Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Government of Lord Beaconsfield, had wished to bring forward any Motion censuring the Government in regard to their Egyptian policy, but that, on the contrary, my right hon. Friend simply desired to bring forward a certain point in regard to the surrender and trial of Arabi Pasha, and the Prime Minister refused, on account of the state of Public Business, to give him a day merely for the discussion of a small fragment of the question. There was no question of bringing forward anything which could be described as a Vote of Censure; and it was perfectly clear, as I pointed out just now, from the observations which fell from the hon. Member for Carlisle, that he felt that the right hon. Gentleman opposite, having used strong language in the country on the subject of the war, when it came to a question of justifying it in the House, shrank from justifying it. That is the

151
Parliamentary history of what happened during the short Session of last year. There are, no doubt, other points on which I might dwell; but, at this late hour of the night, it is my wish only to answer those points which have been raised by those who immediately preceded me in the debate. When the House is in possession of all the Papers I have placed on the Table to-night, and when hon. Members will have read also some further Papers which I hope it will soon be in my power to produce—among them a despatch of great importance from Lord Dufferin—I believe the House will then be able to appreciate the policy of Her Majesty's Government in a fuller manner than is possible from the Papers already published. They will be able to recognize the great pains, the skill, and the indomitable industry of Lord Dufferin, and to agree with Her Majesty's Government that in that land, where English interests are most undoubtedly, in the opinion, I believe, of the vast majority of the inhabitants of the country, bound up in a manner far beyond the mere interests of commercial or financial matters—that in that land Her Majesty's Government have succeeded, through Lord Dufferin, in showing the same administrative and diplomatic skill which, through their Admirals and Generals, they have succeeded in showing in their naval and military operations. The House will also find that the institutions which we have succeeded in giving to the Egyptian people will be institutions of a strong and durable character, which may not merely secure them from anarchy, which, as I have pointed out, is the great object of Her Majesty's Government, but may also give to them no small share, not only of commercial and industrial prosperity, but also of freedom, practical liberty, and political advancement.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that as a rather important debate had been initiated by the hon. Member opposite (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and as that was the first night of the Session, he presumed the Government would have no objection to the adjournment of the debate. He therefore begged to make that Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
THE MAHQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the Motion for the adjournment of the debate had been moved at a somewhat earlier hour than usual. If, however, the debate on the Amendment to the Address was likely to be protracted, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to take part in it, he did not think it would be worth while to offer any opposition to the Motion. At the same time, he thought, before the House agreed to it, they should have some information as to the number of hon. Gentlemen who desired to take part in that debate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) had not challenged the policy of the Government so far as it had succeeded—the military operations—and he (the Marquess of Hartington) did not know yet whether the right hon. Gentleman wished to take part in the debate upon a Motion which had been made in another part of the House. Of course, if hon. Gentlemen opposite intended to avail themselves of the opportunity of entering into a discussion upon the events of the war, it would take a longer time than they had at their disposal that evening, and he would offer no objection to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. But if it was only the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) who intended to address the House on the subject, he thought they might ask the hon. Member, even at that late hour, to continue his observations.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the matter was one of very great importance. He should not himself—as, in fact, was obvious from the time he had taken in the observations he had made—have selected this as the occasion for raising any question as to the policy of the Government in regard to Egypt; but, as the question had been raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), it was absolutely necessary for himself and others sitting near him that they should express their views upon the matter, which it was impossible to do conveniently at that hour of the night. He therefore hoped that the debate might be adjourned. He confessed he should have preferred that the discussion should not have come on at a time when they had not the whole of the Papers before them; but, inconvenient as it

153
might be, he thought the inconvenience would be less than that of coming to a hurried vote upon so important a question.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was sorry he could not afford information as to the number of persons likely to take part in the debate. Perhaps, under the New Rules, it would be competent to ask them to stand up in their places. Personally, he had made no arrangement with anyone for carrying on the debate, and he only desired to make one remark in regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) in reference to waiting for further Papers. The reason he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had risen to move the Amendment was because the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had stated distinctly that the House had all the information and Papers in the possession of the Government before them, and that they would enable them to judge of the action of the Government. Therefore, it was unfair to charge him with having acted prematurely or precipitately.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought that sufficient attention had not been given to an observation which had fallen from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington). The noble Marquess began by asking if a number of hon. Members proposed to take part in the debate, and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) understood that the noble Marquess's agreement to the adjournment of the debate was to depend upon the number of persons who desired to take part in it. He gathered from that remark that the noble Marquess, in a certain state of circumstances, seriously proposed to put into effect the New Rules for closing a debate. He thought the proper answer to the noble Marquess would be that as many Members would take part in the debate as had such a course commended to them by their own judgment.
MR. CHAPLINsaid, it was important to know when the despatch recently received from Lord Dufferin would be in the hands of hon. Members. Could the noble Marquess, or the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, give the House any information as to when the despatch would be laid on the Table?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE,in reply, said, that all the Papers would be produced as soon as possible. He could not state exactly the day; but the Papers already produced gave very full information, and the rest might be issued to-morrow.
MR. O'DONNELLsaid, it was to be regretted that the noble Marquess the provisional Leader of the House (the Marquess of Hartington) was not in possession of the information which had just been communicated to the House by his Colleague the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, because he (Mr. O'Donnell) was sure that if the noble Marquess had had the slightest idea that complete information was so near at hand as to-morrow morning, he would not have proposed to have a vote taken just now. He could not possibly suppose that the noble Marquess was anxious to take a vote before the Papers were communicated.
MR. BOURKEasked whether, among the Papers to be communicated tomorrow, there would be any in regard to the trial of Arabi Pasha? because he believed that the whole point of the case was that it was perfectly impossible for the House to come to a decision with regard to the causes of the war without being put in possession of information as to what had taken place at the trial of Arabi. He wished, therefore, to know if they were to have any record of that trial, or any information from Sir Charles Rivers Wilson or Lord Dufferin as to finance?
LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE,in reply, said, that among the Papers which would be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow, or the day after, there were documents which would give very full information in regard to the trial.
Question put, and agreed to.
Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
House adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
THE PARLIAMENT,which had been Prorogued from the 2nd December, 1882, to the 15th February, 1883, met this day for the despatch of Business, according to Proclamation, as follows:—
"BY THE QUEEN—A PROCLAMATION.
"Victoria R.
"Whereas Our Parliament stands prorogued to Thursday the Fifteenth Day of February One thousand eight hundred and eighty-three: We by and with the Advice of Our Privy Council, hereby issue Our Royal Proclamation, and publish and declare Our Royal Will and Pleasure that the said Parliament shall, on the said Thursday the Fifteenth Day of February One thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, assemble and be holden for the Despatch of divers urgent and important Affairs; And the Lords
2
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 Thursday the Fifteenth Day of February One thousand eight hundred and eighty-three.
"Given at Our Court at Osborne House, Isle of Wight, this Twenty-eighth Day of December, in the Year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, and in the Forty-sixth Year of Our Reign.
"God save the Queen."
The Session was opened by Commission.
THE HOUSE or PEERS being met;
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House,
"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."

3
Then Five of the LORDS COMMISSIONERS—namely, The LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR, The LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Lord Carlingford); The LORD HIGH STEWARD (The Earl Sydney); 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 delivered HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"I HAVE summoned you at a date somewhat later than is usual, on account of the advanced period to which the labours of the last Session were protracted.
"I have the satisfaction of maintaining with all foreign Powers relations of friendship and good-will.
"At the close of the last Session I had the pleasure of recording my gratitude to my sea and land forces for suppressing with rapidity and completeness a formidable rebellion in Egypt. Since then tranquillity has been restored to that country, clemency has been shown by its Ruler to the leaders of the rebellion, and the withdrawal of the British troops is proceeding as expeditiously as a prudent consideration of the circumstances will admit.
"The reconstitution of the Government of Egypt and the reorganization of its affairs under the authority of the Khedive have in part been accomplished, and will continue to receive my earnest attention. It will be my
4
endeavour to secure that full provision shall be made for the exigencies of order, for a just representation of the wants and wishes of the population, and for the observance of international obligations.
"I have already been able to fulfil the promise made by me to the Sultan and to the Great Powers of Europe, that I would submit to their friendly consideration the arrangements which appeared to me to be the best fitted to insure the stability of the Khedive's Government, the prosperity and happiness of the Egyptian people, the security of the Suez Canal, and the peace of Europe in the East.
"To those objects my policy has been directed in the past and will be addressed in the future; and I continue to rely with confidence on its just appreciation by other countries.
"A Conference of the Great Powers has assembled in London to consider measures for better securing the freedom of navigation on the Danube, which is placed under their guarantee, and forms part of the public law of Europe.
"The condition of Zululand, and the possibility of renewed disturbances there, have engaged my most serious attention. With a view to the preservation of peace and order, I have caused the former Ruler of that country to be replaced in possession of the greater part of the territories held by him before the war. I earnestly hope that this step may lead to the establishment of a more stable government, and to the maintenance of good relations between the Zulu nation and the adjoining Colony of Natal.
"Papers on these subjects will be presented to you.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"The Estimates for the services of the coming year are in a forward state of preparation, and will be speedily laid before you.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"I am happy to state that the improvement in the social condition of Ireland, to which I referred in December, continues. Agrarian crime has sensibly diminished, and the law has been everywhere upheld.
"At the same time, the existence of dangerous Secret Societies in Dublin and other parts of the country calls for unremitting energy and vigilance on the part of the Executive.
"Measures will be promptly submitted to you for the codification of Criminal Law; for the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal; and for the amendment and consolidation of the laws relating to Bankruptcy and Patents. There will also be brought to your early notice Bills for preventing Corrupt Practices at Elections, and for perpetuating and amending the Ballot Act.
"I have on previous occasions referred to the importance of effecting reforms in the Local Government of the different parts of the United Kingdom. Proposals for the better government of the Metropolis will, in the first place, be submitted to you, and, if time should permit, will be followed by other measures relating to reform of Local Government.
"Your attention will be called to Bills dealing with the Conservancy of Rivers and the Prevention of Floods; with the Police in Scotland; with the Universities in that part of the United
6
Kingdom; and with Education in Wales.
"You will also be invited to consider a proposal which will more effectually secure to tenants in England and Scotland compensation for agricultural improvements.
"You have provided in recent years by a liberal devotion of your time for the most urgent among the needs of Ireland. The claims both of general legislation and of other portions of the United Kingdom will now demand from you a just regard. I trust, however, that you will be able to deal during the present year with some of the legislative wants of Ireland for which provision has not yet been made.
"I rely upon your proceeding with energy and prudence; and I beseech Almighty God now, as heretofore, to bless your labours.
Then the Commons withdrew.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
PRAYERS.
ROLL OF THE LORDS—Garter King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Fourth Session of the Twenty-second Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
The Earl Granville, one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, acquainted the House that Her Majesty had been pleased to create Roundell, Lord Selborne, Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, a Viscount and Earl of the United Kingdom, by the style and title of Viscount Wolmer of Blackmoor, in the county of Southampton, and Earl of Selborne in the said county; and his Lordship, having retired to robe, was introduced in the usual manner.
NEW PEER.
Sir Garnet Joseph Wolseley, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., General and Adjutant-General of Her Majesty's Forces, and late General Commanding-in-Chief the Expeditionary Force in Egypt, having been created Baron Wolseley of Cairo, and of Wolseley in the county of Stafford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SAT FIRST.
The Lord Keane, after the death of his brother.
SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro forma, read 1a
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 DURHAM: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of moving a humble Address to Her Majesty in answer to the gracious Speech from the Throne to which your Lordships have lately listened. That Speech, my Lords, whether we look to that portion of it which relates to foreign affairs, or whether we consider those passages in which Her Majesty treats of the condition of these Islands, contains much on the whole that is calculated to inspire Parliament and the people of this country with feelings of thankfulness and satisfaction. Her Majesty has been able to inform us that her relations with Foreign Powers are of a friendly character. This announcement, my Lords, is fortunately one which, for many years past, Her Majesty has been justified in making. The circumstances of the present moment give it peculiar significance. That Her Majesty should find it possible to make this announcement immediately after the intervention of this country in Egypt—an intervention in which this country found itself engaged alone—without any formal mandate from any of the Great Powers of Europe—is a conspicuous proof of the confidence of those Powers in the disinterestedness of our policy and the sincerity of our professions. Our policy, my Lords, has been that which has been from the first laid down by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his despatches to
  8
  our Representatives in Egypt and at the Courts of the great European Powers. It may, I think, be summed up under four heads—the prevention of anarchy in Egypt, the promotion of the well-being and prosperity of the Egyptian people, the fulfilment of our obligations to the Ruler of that country, and the protection of the great military and commercial highway to the East, in which this country is interested far beyond any other maritime Power. Our professions have been professions of disinterestedness, of our intention under no circumstances to make use of our successes in Egypt for the purpose of annexation or aggrandizement. My Lords, I think I may say with confidence that the Papers which have been presented to us establish conclusively both the necessity of our intervention in Egypt, and the fact that we did not engage in it single-handed until every effort had been made to secure the approbation of the European Powers, and especially that of our old ally France, whose interests in Egypt are second only to our own. The revolution brought about, and the lawless demands and interference of the Military Party, under Arabi Pasha, with the Egyptian Government, rendered it incumbent on this country to prevent anarchy, and to fulfil our obligations to the Khedive. It was not until every peaceful expedient and endeavour had been made to induce the rebels to return to their allegiance that recourse was had to force. We must deplore the loss of life and property which occurred in Alexandria and elsewhere through the fanaticism of the rebels; but, with respect to the burning of Alexandria, it may be attributed solely to the hoisting of the false flag of truce, under the protection of which the withdrawal of the troops was effected, and at nightfall the town was handed over to pillage and incendiarism. The British Admiral was bound by all the usages of civilized warfare to respect that flag of truce, and had he not been thus delayed he would have occupied the town in time to prevent the deplorable results which followed its evacuation by the rebels. He wisely declined to attempt the landing of the small force at his command at night, with 12,000 rebels in the vicinity of the city. The campaign which ensued showed the valour and discipline of our Army and Navy, and the skill of our Commanders.

  9
  It is satisfactory to know that the great changes in naval construction, and the vast improvements in gunnery, have not spoilt the good seamanship and the old fighting qualities of our sailors. We have had substantial proof also that the changes in the system of Army ser-vice have not led to any diminution of discipline or to any deterioration of the physical powers and endurance of our troops. As to the future of Egypt, it is not too much to hope that Lord Dufferin, whose personal qualities and intimate knowledge of Oriental politics so well fit him for his post, will be able to assist the Khedive in establishing the Government of Egypt on a more liberal and representative basis. The Khedive and his subjects no doubt derive great advantages from the assistance of the distinguished English and French officials who have hitherto held the position of Controllers. That system of Dual Control, however, which Her Majesty's Government found in existence when they succeeded to Office was inconsistent with the development of national institutions and offensive to the national susceptibilities. From the jealousies thus created the revolutionary movement may be said to have derived its strength. The appointment of an English official who will act as the Financial Counsellor of the Khedive, but who will hold his office and derive his authority directly from him, will not be open to these objections. Until the Egyptians have proved their capacity to govern themselves and to take their place among the free communities of the world, it would be unfair to deny them an opportunity of laying the foundation of national institutions. In the meantime, this country has incurred a responsibility for the establishment of order, and it is manifestly its duty to do so to the best of its ability before it can safely leave Egypt to its own resources. The Papers on the Table show that endeavours will be made to secure our interests in respect to the Suez Canal by stipulations advantageous to this country as a great maritime Power. The formation of a small and disciplined Egyptian force, under the direction of a distinguished English General officer, and the re-organization of the police in that country, will afford the best securities for the maintenance of order and the protection of the loyal population.
  10
  Owing to the disposition of the Natives, and the nature of the changes made by Sir Garnet Wolseley in Zulu-land in the establishment of 13 independent Rulers in the place of Cetewayo, that country had not assumed the tranquillity necessary to the well-being of South Africa. There was constant danger of civil war, which would probably have ended in the assumption of permanent authority by the most powerful of those Chiefs. Annexation, or the restoration of Cetewayo, its lawful King, was the only alternative to avert this danger. Her Majesty's Government wisely decided that it would be impolitic to add another Native territory to our already large responsibilities in South Africa. Cetewayo was therefore restored; but, in order to keep faith with those Chiefs who were unwilling to accept his rule, it has been deemed advisable to reserve a district between Natal and Cetewayo's territory, and in this district those Chiefs who desire to remain subject to British paramount authority can live under the protection of the British Resident. Another Chief, Usibebu, has been left in an independent position in the North-east corner of Zululand. These changes of territory will deprive Cetewayo of about one-third of his former Kingdom; but it was only by this alternative that there could be any reasonable hope that he would be able to govern the remainder. I believe that Cetewayo has been received cordially and with satisfaction by the majority of the Zulu Chiefs.
  My Lords, Her Majesty informs us that among the measures that will be submitted to us is one to secure compensation to tenants for agricultural improvements. The exceptional difficulties under which agriculture has been carried on during the last few years have directed attention to the legal conditions under which that industry is carried on. The subject is one of the greatest intricacy; but there is a remarkable unanimity in favour of giving further security to the tenant for the improvements effected by him which have added to the value of his holding in all cases where such security is not provided by lease, custom, or agreement. The Report of the Royal Commission, presided over by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon), and the complete agreement on this

  11
  point of all who have lately taken a prominent part in agricultural politics, have placed this almost beyond question. Under these circumstances, we may feel confident that legislation on these lines will be welcomed, irrespective of Party considerations. At the same time, it is to be hoped that the Government measure will be so framed as to avoid anything approaching to confusion between the interests of the owners and the occupiers of the land, or to the diminution of the good feeling which has hitherto subsisted between these two classes. The evidence taken by the Royal Commission shows beyond dispute that in England an enormous majority of the permanent improvements has been executed by the landlord, and that there is room for the further application of capital on an extensive scale in the draining and equipment of farms. The Report also shows that it is impossible to expect the tenant farmers, owing to the heavy losses which they have experienced through the recent depression, to provide this capital. We should, therefore, view with mistrust any measure calculated to deter the owners of land from applying their capital to those improvements, while we gladly welcome any measure that will increase and justify the confidence of the tenant, and induce him to maintain and develop the fertility of the soil.
  Passing to that part of Her Majesty's gracious Speech which has reference to the United Kingdom, and to the terms in which Her Majesty is able to speak of the condition of Ireland, it is impossible not to be struck by the great contrast in the condition of that country as compared with that to which her Majesty bore witness in January, 1881, when Her Majesty's gracious Speech stated, in reference to Ireland, that agrarian crimes in general had multiplied far beyond the experiences of recent years; that the administration of justice had been frustrated; and that, with respect to these offences, there was an impossibility of procuring evidence on account of the system of terrorism which paralyzed almost alike the exercise of private rights and the performance of civil duties. For some time after the delivery of that Speech the state of Ireland, far from showing any improvement, passed rapidly from bad to worse. The agrarian crimes, which
  12
  in 1879 had been 863, had risen in 1880 to 2,590, and in 1881 to 4,439. In contrast to this state of things, we now find ourselves face to face with a steady and progressive diminution in the number of agrarian crimes. The total for the month of January last, including threatening letters, is only 90, as compared with 479 in January, 1882. The administration of justice is no longer frustrated. There have been numerous convictions where none have ever been obtained before, and evidence has been forthcoming in many cases where it was feared terrorism would be successfully employed to shield the criminals. It is particularly noticeable that this evidence is forthcoming, not only from the lips of informers and approvers, but from witnesses who belong to the same class as the criminals. Recent disclosures have amply justified the Government for having applied last year to Parliament for exceptional measures for the repression of agrarian crime, and, above all, of secret societies. There is significant proof of the utility of this measure in the very marked diminution of crime which has shown itself from the time when the first conviction on a capital charge was obtained. I think your Lordships will agree with mo that great praise is due to the special juries who tried these cases. They have done their duty honestly and fearlessly, undeterred by abuse and threats, and even attempts at assassination. It is gratifying that, owing to the conduct of the special juries engaged in these critical cases, it has not been found necessary to have recourse to the alternative of trial before Judges only without juries. It is not too much to say in praise of the manner in which Lord Spencer and the Chief Secretary, assisted by the permanent staff, have administered the measure, that they have relieved the people of Ireland from an intolerable tyranny, and that this has been done without any material interference with the personal liberty and freedom of any loyal subject. But, my Lords, the Government have not relied on measures of repression alone. Concurrently with these measures for the maintenance of order they have passed remedial measures for the redress of grievances, the existence of which has in past years lent strength to disaffection and agitation in Ireland. The Land Act has secured the tenants of Ireland

  13
  in the occupation of their holdings at fair rents. However, owing to the exceptional pressure of bad seasons, many tenants were unable to avail themselves of that Act until the passing of the Arrears Act brought them within reach of its advantages. The fact that 90,000 of the tenants of Ireland have appealed under this Act is a satisfactory proof of its utility and necessity. It is, however, impossible to consider the case of Ireland without referring to the case of those occupiers whose circumstances place them beyond the reach of remedial measures, and whose chronic poverty leads to their chronic disaffection. It is to the relief of this class that the Emigration Clauses of the Arrears Act must be applied, in the words of the noble Earl below me who has lately joined Her Majesty's Government. That noble Earl expressed his belief that those clauses must be administered in a spirit of generosity; and I believe that all of your Lordships will be of the same opinion.
  With respect to Irish legislation, both Houses of Parliament will be glad to promote further reforms where the necessity for them has been shown, and it is to be hoped they will give to them that careful and temperate consideration which, under the improved circumstances of that country, there should be no difficulty in obtaining for them.
  There are many other measures of useful legislation which Her Majesty's Government will bring forward during the present Session—such as the municipal reform of London, the Bankruptcy Bill, the laws relating to patents, &c.—and altogether there is every prospect of the present being a fruitful Session. I will now conclude by thanking you for the indulgence you have shown me, and beg to move that the Address be now presented to Her Majesty.
  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 gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has the satisfaction of maintaining with all foreign Powers relations of friendship and good-will.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing us that since the close of the last Session tranquillity
  14
  has been restored to Egypt, clemency has been shown by its Ruler to the leaders of the rebellion, and that the withdrawal of the British troops is proceeding as expeditiously as a prudent consideration of the circumstances will admit.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that the reconstitution of the Government of Egypt and the re organisation of its affairs under the authority of the Khedive, have in part been accomplished, and will continue to receive Your Majesty's earnest attention; and that it will be Your Majesty's endeavour to secure that full provision shall be made for the exigencies of order for a just representation of the wants and wishes of the population, and for the observance of international obligations.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing us that Your Majesty has already been able to fulfil the promise made to the Sultan and to the Great Powers of Europe, to submit to their friendly consideration the arrangements which appeared to Your Majesty to be the best fitted to ensure the stability of the Khedive's Government, the prosperity and happiness of the Egyptian people, the security of the Suez Canal, and the peace of Europe in the East; that to those objects Your Majesty's policy has been directed in the past and will be addressed in the future; and that Your Majesty continues to rely with confidence on its just appreciation by other countries.
  "We learn with satisfaction that a Conference of the Great Powers has assembled in London to consider measures for better securing the freedom of navigation on the Danube.
  "We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us that with a view to the preservation of peace and order in Zululand, Your Majesty has caused the former Ruler of that country to be replaced in possession of the greater part of the territories held by him before the war. We join with Your Majesty in earnestly hoping that this step may lead to the establishment of a more stable government, and to the maintenance of good relations between the Zulu nation and the adjoining Colony of Natal.
  "We thank Your Majesty for informing us that papers on these subjects will be presented to us.
  "We rejoice to learn that the improvement in the social condition of Ireland, to which Your Majesty referred in December, continues, that agrarian crime has sensibly diminished, and that the law has been everywhere upheld, although the existence of dangerous Secret Societies in Dublin and other parts of the coun-

  15
  try calls for unremitting energy and vigilance on the part of the Executive.
  "We humbly assure Your Majesty that our careful consideration shall he given to the measures which may be submitted to us, and we earnestly trust that the blessing of Almighty God may attend our labours."
  LORD REAY,in rising to second the Motion, said: My Lords, I am sure the House will grant me a large amount of its usual indulgence, now that I rise to address it for the first time under the exceptional circumstances of my previous Parliamentary training in another country. Though I look back to that experience with mingled feelings of gratitude and pleasure, that training adds another and a formidable difficulty to those recognized by all who have to address this House for the first time.
  The feature in the Speech from the Throne which will be greeted with general satisfaction is, that we may look forward to a Session not wholly absorbed by Irish legislation, in which Great Britain may expect to have her due share of legislative attention. I will not add anything to what the noble Earl (the Earl of Durham) has said about Ireland. It would be presumptuous on my part, in the presence of so many of your Lordships who are acquainted with all the details of Irish difficulties, and, besides, I do not think the Irish Question can be dealt with in a more masterly way than it has been treated by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) in his speech to his constituents at Hawick, from which I gather that the Government will continue to apply force to the disloyal faction, and will endeavour to conciliate, by every means in their power, the patriotic Party of Order, putting aside minor Party differences. I shall only add that I noticed, with much satisfaction, that, for the relief of exceptional distress, the Government are not prepared to start an exceptional central machinery, but will leave the local authorities to deal with it. The distress is not general, but in 06rtain localities it is acute. We cannot forget the demoralization of 1847 through the centralized system of relief to 3,000,000 of people, which was only removed by the test of the workhouse; and it is now generally admitted that in 1879–80 extraneous aid, though granted
  16
  with the best of motives, was not attended with results which could warrant a repetition. One of the chief evils of Irish Government certainly has been that the people have looked to Dublin and to the Castle to aid and assist them. The important lesson they have to learn is to become self-reliant, and to work out for themselves their own happiness; making the most of the privileges which have been granted them in recent Acts of Parliament, by individual thrift, and industry. No further burdens can or ought to be thrown on the Central Government of Ireland. The way in which it is administered, at the peril of their lives, by the Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary for Ireland gives them a lasting claim on the gratitude of their countrymen, whose best wishes attend them in their efforts to preserve the unity of the Empire.
  Next to Ireland, my Lords, Egypt demands our attention. The achievements in the short and brilliant campaign of Her Majesty's Naval and Military Forces have already met with the recognition of your Lordships' House. Lord Wolseley made it his chief object to save Cairo, by making the forced Cavalry march the culmination of his plans; and with such nicety and precision were those plans drawn that the necessity never arose for deviating from them. Through the success which attended the elaborate preparations made by the two great spending Departments, and the incessant care and toil of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook) and the late Secretary of State for "War (Mr. Childers), we have restored peace and quiet in that distracted country. The industrious researches of the archaeologist, embracing even, as I believe, the mummy of the peerless Cleopatra, can be re-commenced. Did the Egyptian campaign require justification? There is hardly an instance of an intervention which excited so little jealousy. All the Great Powers approved of our action. I say all, because certainly France did not want anarchy to prevail in Egypt, though she judged it more prudent to abstain from restoring order. The neglect of the great interests which we have in Egypt would certainly not have been condoned by the bulk of the English nation. Would the exponents of

  17
  the non-intervention theory tell us whether they would have been prepared to face the alternatives of non-intervention by England? The question, fortunately, is sufficient to show that there can only be one answer to it. There never has been among sober-minded men any shadow of doubt what our own interests and Egyptian interests required. The Egyptian people have certainly a greater love for the plough than for the sword. All we did and all we are doing is to invite them to return to their fields, and to secure to them the fruits of their labour, with a minimum of taxation necessary to defray the expenses of good government. We are organizing Egypt with and for the Egyptians, and on that account the status quo ante cannot be restored. It is quite clear that the question of the time for our withdrawal can only be settled when the work of organization is complete. A peaceful and happy Egypt is as much an Egyptian as a British interest.
  Let us now see what view the French took of their interests in Egypt. For that we must look back for a few moments to some remarkable passages in French history of last summer. On the 10th of June, as we remember, Admiral Conrad and his Fleet left Alexandria. On the 18th of July there was a debate in the French Chamber on the Vote of Credit for Egypt. The Report of the Committee which had to consider this Vote was favourable; but all responsibility of action was left to M. de Freycinet. On the other hand, M. de Freycinet declined to use the grant of money directly for the protection of the Suez Canal and of the French inhabitants in Egypt, unless the Chamber took the initiative, because he did not wish to appear to have a pre-conceived plan of action. The Chamber adopted the Vote by a majority of 424 to 64. In the course of that debate, the statesman whose premature death has been so lately mourned in France (M. Gambetta) urged, in the most emphatic manner, that England and France should not part company. He said—
  "Mate any sacrifice rather than break the English alliance … The reason which induces me to maintain this alliance and the English co-operation in the Mediterranean and in Egypt is the fear—let me be well understood—that, in addition to the breach with England, which would be most unfortunate, you surrender to England now and for ever lands, rivers, canals,
  18
  where your rights to trade and settle are as good as hers."
  One reason, my Lords, why I call your attention to this passage is that it strikingly discloses the misconception too often entertained by foreign statesmen of the policy of England. Gambetta failed to see that the surrender of territory to England meant in this, as in all other cases, not a monopoly for Englishmen, but equal rights of settling and trading to the French, as well as to all other nations. The fear of Gambetta had no foundation in fact. To return to this very important French debate, and its bearings on English policy, we must note the views expressed by some of the chief French statesmen, which led up to non-intervention. Gambetta looked on the Vote of Credit as an instalment. The Government deprecated the notion that this Vote meant immediate action. M. Clémenceau, the Chief of the Radical Party, repudiated the idea that French and English interests were identical, and maintained that, through the Control, France had lost ground in Egypt. When the debate came on in the Senate, the Due de Broglie agreed in the main with M. Clémenceau's view and with M. de Freycinet's former opinion, that an Anglo-French intervention would lead to a policy of adventure. Gambotta's views were ably advocated by M. Waddington, supported by M. Scherer, editor of Le Temps, and by M. de St. Vallier, late French Ambassador at Berlin. The Senate carried the Vote of Credit on the 25th of July by a large majority. Meanwhile the Government had proposed to the Chamber an additional Vote of Credit. The Committee to which it was referred repudiated intervention, and, finally, the Vote itself. In the debate in the Chamber, M. de Freycinet pointed out the innumerable complications to which intervention, without a European mandate, would lead, but that protection of the Canal was a very simple affair. M. Clémenceau denied this, contending that it was impossible to draw a distinction between the Egyptian Question and the question of the Suez Canal, because the Canal must be protected at Cairo. The result of this debate was the rejection of the Vote by 417 to 75—a rejection under circumstances which made it as clear as sunlight that France would not intervene, because a Government with a policy of intervention could

  19
  not be formed. Non-intervention was the deliberate decision of the Representatives of the French people—the decision of an overwhelming majority, after exhaustive debates in both the Senate and the Chamber. England was prepared to co-operate with France; England always maintained the attitude assumed in the Joint Note of January, 1882; and France was left entirely free to do as she liked. The Vote of the French Chamber on the 29th of July put an end to dual intervention and to Dual Control. It did not put an end to the cordial relations which exist between the two countries; and the refusal to co-operate with us has certainly left no rancour on this side of the Channel. Our feelings towards France are those of cordial sympathy. We fully recognize the patriotic motives which led to the decision, as also the friendly tone of the debates towards ourselves. When the Due de Broglie, the foremost Representative of all the great traditions of French statesmanship, and M. Clémenceau, the Representative of the anti-traditional school, take the same view of French interests, I think we may consider them perfectly safe. In the great question of Mohammedanism we are certainly not less interested than the French. The difference between French and English interests in Egypt is this—that the French interests are those of individuals, and ours are national interests. This is the main reason why Europe showed more jealousy of an Anglo-French than of an English intervention alone. The Suez Canal is our main road to India, and we see, as M. Clémenceau saw, that the key of the situation is kept at Cairo. The Canal, we ought never to forgot, is due to French enterprize; its signal success is best proved by the fact that it is about to be enlarged by the owners of the Canal, whose chief and only interest lies in its freedom from obstruction. Whatever may be the other regulations in reference to the Canal, the main point is that our men-of-war shall be able at all times to pass through it. No Power can object to our claims in regard to the Canal, and our wishes are identical with those of other Powers who have an interest second only to ours as regards the importance of their shipping and of their Eastern Dependencies.
  The dangers of the Control were obvious. Nothing but praise is due to Mr.
  20
  Baring, to M. de Blignières, and to Sir Auckland Colvin. Anyone who looks carefully into the changes introduced in November, 1879, in the functions of the Controllers, as originally settled in November, 1876, will at once perceive how very delicate the machinery was which they had to set in motion, and how the absence of friction entirely depended on the harmony existing between the two Controllers. Let it not be forgotten that what is abolished was really a quadrilateral Control. The Dual Control in another and a much more effective form always continues—namely, the influence exercised by the political Agents of England and France. The danger of a divergence of opinion between the political and financial Agents of each country is now removed. You secure to the political Agents a stronger and a better position by giving them the entire control of British interests, both financial and political—in fact, in Egypt the two are so united as to become one. It is hardly possible to conceive a position of greater responsibility than that of Her Majesty's future Representative at Cairo. He must have a combination of all the rarest gifts. English influence in the East means the selection and employment of men like Lord Dufferin and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. It cannot be denied that if there was an element of danger in the defunct Dual Control, its abolition entails greater responsibility and watchfulness than ever; for a policy, like that of the ex-Khedive for instance, would at once revive the old dangers. The Dual Control, as had been foreseen by Count Kalnoky and by M. de Giers, could not survive.
  The Danube Conference will, we may hope, lead to a definite settlement of a difficult question. As the harbour dues between Galatz and Sulina are nearly all paid by us, it is obvious that we are largely interested in the solution of the question, and in the freedom of navigation, which has enormously increased. Fortunately, the principal points are settled, and only minor points remain to be dealt with.
  What are the results, my Lords, of the foreign policy of the noble Earl? The noble Earl has kept us out of alliances, too often the cause or the result of weakness. Instead of alliances, my Lords, the noble Earl has secured to us the friendly feeling of the

  21
  whole of Europe—not only of such an old friend as Austria, but of the whole of the smaller Powers as well as of the Great Powers. Through what means? Through a straightforward and consistent policy, in which there was, and there is, nothing to conceal. The noble Earl the Loader of this House may well feel satisfied in looking back, because he must be conscious that his successful management of foreign affairs in a period of considerable anxiety has materially increased the influence of England.
  One of the most important measures to which I may now call your Lordships' attention is that of the Municipal Government of London. The growing needs of the Metropolis, the multiplicity and the intricacy of the problems which this huge agglomeration of human beings gives us to solve, makes it absolutely necessary to establish a machinery which will be able to deal with them. It might have been done by creating a number of units—a number of municipalities. It seems, however, simpler and more rational to go on historic lines, and to create one Municipality for the whole of London, working, of course, through subordinate bodies in the various districts. We all know the difficulties thrown in the way of securing a good water supply, and what are the results of a snowstorm. If any further proof were needed, I should call your Lordships' attention to the Report of 1837, which contemplated the formation of a Municipality—to Sir George Lewis's Report of 1854, followed by the creation of the Metropolitan Board in 1855, for the purpose mainly of superintending London drainage, but gradually enlarging its useful sphere of action. Then we have had many attempts of private Members to deal with the subject—J. S. Mill, Charles Buxton, Lord Elcho, and Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth; but leading men on both sides have felt that the Government ought to undertake the work. The Mairie Centrale had terrors for the French Chamber, and on the same 19th of July that it adopted the Vote of Credit it rejected the Mairie Centrale by a majority of 100. But then what does the Mairie Centrale represent? Let me give an illustration of what it represents. Some officials who were going to proclaim a new Govern-
  22
  ment were ascending the stairs of the Hôtel de Ville. "Where are you going?" said an old messenger. "We are going to proclaim the Government." "I beg your pardon, gentlemen, but you are going the wrong way. This is the window from which new Governments are always proclaimed." Well, my Lords, our Mairie Centrale is certainly not connected with the proclamation of new Governments. Its memories are essentially genial, I might even add convivial. It is associated with every generous and charitable movement. Its honours are coveted by our best men. These traditions remain undisturbed. The Mansion House will still be the heart of London. It will be the same power for national improvement and for international courtesy which it is now. The Lord Mayor will preside over an assembly which will be representative, and which will, in some respects, be as important as the Chamber of an independent State. I need not give a catalogue of subjects, but I should like to mention one for the consideration of the new body—a University for London. Ours is the only great capital without a University, in the strict sense of the word; and there is no capital where you could have a better University by organizing the various existing Colleges and courses of lectures, especially as regards law and medicine.
  It is obvious why the question of County Government should be speedily settled. First, we have the absolute necessity of simplifying a system of which the complications are well known to us; then we have the difficulty of dealing with certain matters as long as the County Boards are not representative; and, lastly, the importance of strengthening the sense of citizenship in some sections of the rural community. The difficulty attending the re-adjustment of boundaries, where boundaries overlap, appears to be considerably exaggerated. By simplifying the machinery of county government, by having fewer areas, and by investing the authorities of each area with the whole of its administration, you reduce the expenditure, and you make the problem of local taxation a much easier one to solve. By the creation of County Boards you also make the work of the Local Government Board lighter. In the County Boards you will find a proper authority for con-

  23
  trolling Poor Law Guardians and School Boards, for granting licences, and you have in it the proper body for stimulating education in its higher grades. The County Boards will be invaluable to the English Universities in the great work they have undertaken of superintending education all over the country. The unselfish activity of the Universities in leading the intellectual life of the nation is beyond all praise. They are doing work which elsewhere is done by the State, only they are doing it with superior wisdom. The supreme danger of a Democracy is that it does not recognize its own ignorance. The dangerous success of false prophets will be minimized as long as the English Universities lead the rising Democracy. I do not speak of the Scotch Universities, for the simple reason that they have always been essentially Democratic bodies, and that to their influence is due so much that is characteristic of Scotland. But the County Boards have another function to perform. What is the present danger of our rural life? The loss of so many of our most useful men. The attraction to a young farmer of becoming a landowner in our Colonies, or in the United States of America, is great, and doubly so, since lack of capital renders the stocking of a new farm so difficult. On a County Board you can give him the same position he has now in the hunting field—a local interest and influence, and a sense of citizenship which may make him think twice before he leaves the old country for hard work in a new country. Unfortunately, we cannot increase the number of landowners, not because there is no land in the market, but because there are no agriculturists who will buy, and we cannot pass a Homestead Act. The greater the number of landowners, the greater is your safeguard against experimental or complicated agrarian legislation, for the numbers who would resist such legislation become a bulwark of stability. When the acreage is very small it is respected as a personalty. A Continental owner of 10 acres has much more absolute ideas of property than the owner of 10,000 acres in Great Britain; and I would much rather be the tenant of the latter than of the former, who looks upon his 10 acres as a pure investment. The same reasons which plead in favour of County Boards can be urged
  24
  in favour of those reforms which tenant farmers are justified in asking for. As long as none of the "three F's" of Irish Land Laws are to be discovered in them, I do not suppose they will meet with' much opposition in this House. They are certainly not hidden in the clauses of the Bill which the Government will introduce to secure compensation for unexhausted improvements. The greater the number of improving tenants there are, so much the better for the country. I expect, however, that, as a rule, the landlord will carry out the permanent improvements, leaving to the farmer his capital for other purposes. The best remedy for agricultural depression and agricultural wrongs—and I do not deny there are such in exceptional cases—lies in the willingness of landowners to meet their tenants halfway, which we see everywhere around us. When we note that the Bill has been demanded by very moderate land reformers, and recommended by the Royal Agricultural Commission, it cannot be called revolutionary. Moreover, it is a result of the power given to one party to contract himself out of the Agricultural Holdings Act instead of having made it a matter for joint agreement. The notion that agricultural depression can be cured by legislation, or is due to existing laws, or to the tenure of our land system, is totally fallacious. The same causes which have produced agricultural depression here have been working out the same results under a totally different system of land tenure in other parts of Europe. I speak from my own experience and observation.
  The influence of America on our rural economy is a factor which cannot be overlooked. It is a growing influence, and I do not believe that it will be confined to rural matters. The relations between the English-speaking communities on the face of the globe must necessarily become more and more intimate, and, I believe, more friendly. The fact of the financial surplus of the United States being their great political embarrassment is one of the most extraordinary events in history. That our people can so easily obtain a share in that prosperity is certainly most gratifying.
  Scotland, my Lords, does not expect so rich a harvest of legislation as last

  25
  year. Until Scotch administration is put on a more definite footing, Scotsmen know that they can only get their wants attended to by a series of happy coincidences. Scotland is, however, looking forward to the measures promised in the Speech from the Throne. All the Royal and Parliamentary burghs of Scotland have been consulted on the Police Bill, and there is no doubt that a codification of the police and municipal laws of Scotland would be attended with beneficial results. Scotland, my Lords, will be pleased to hear that the Universities are to have their wants, not investigated, but satisfied. When it is considered, in addition to what I have already said about the Scotch Universities, that Edinburgh is in numbers the most important University of the United Kingdom, that Glasgow is equally outgrowing its cradle, and that the Scotch Universities have to contend with a competition—of which I do not complain, but growing fiercer every day—of the English Universities, owing to the fact that the latter are more and more widening their sphere of influence, I trust that a measure ardently desired by the Scotch people will be allowed to pass this Session, and that it will be one of many. The privilege of increasing the conditions under which the people can attain prosperity is one which cannot be taken from us. It is the privilege we most care for.
  I hope, and I firmly believe, in conclusion, that England is destined to continue to give an example to the world of a strong and sober Democracy, all the stronger because it unites steady progress with unbroken loyalty to our ancient Monarchy. I beg to second the Motion of my noble Eriend.—[See page 13.]
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I believe that as far as my not very long experience in this House reaches, there exists no instance of an Amendment being moved to the Address, and I imagine that such a practice has been abandoned for a considerable time. In fact, I do not believe that since the displacement of Lord Melbourne's Administration in 1841 that course has been taken. I believe that this alteration in our practice is a wise one, because circumstances must be exceedingly exceptional which would
  26
  make any Motion of that kind desirable in this House. But even if the case were otherwise, I should find it difficult to frame a bill of indictment against so impalpable and formless a Queen's Speech as this. I think that some feeling of that kind must have pressed upon the two noble Lords who have so ably moved and seconded the Address, because they felt it necessary, in order to give some additional interest to their agreeable discourses, to fall back upon such matters as the proceedings of the French Assembly some 12 months ago, and the military merits of the noble Lord who sits upon the Cross Benches, and whose presence here we all welcome as a high honour to the House. One of the noble Lords said that the Speech was one which must give great satisfaction to the House to hear. However that may be, I doubt whether it is one that gave great satisfaction to its authors to compose. It gives me the impression of an ordeal by fire. A number of burning questions he about—matters of the deepest interest to the world—and the Speech moves about among the red-hot ploughshares with delicate steps, scarcely touching one of them, and certainly not allowing to remain upon its surface the slightest imprint of their contact. There are many subjects of interest just now. There is the question of the constitution of Egypt, of the future of Egypt, and of the policy of the Government in that country, and of the way in which that policy is to be received by Foreign Powers. We learn from the Speech that Her Majesty's Government had suppressed with rapidity and completeness a formidable rebellion in Egypt. Let me say in passing that the words used are those which are usually employed by those who have territorial possession of a country, and who are repressing a rebellion against their own authority. Then we are told that—
  "The withdrawal of the British troops is proceeding as expeditiously as a prudent consideration of the circumstances will admit."
  But the great anxiety of the world is to know whether the British troops are to be withdrawn altogether, and when; and upon neither of those questions does the Speech give us the slightest hint as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. The Government are able to say that they have submitted

  27
  to the friendly consideration of the Powers the mysterious arrangement by which the stability of the Khedive and the prosperity and happiness of the Egyptian people are to be secured. But we have not a hint that any one of those Powers has expressed its approval of the arrangements proposed. And when the noble Lord who has just sat down tells us that the result of the administration of the Government is that we remain on terms of as great friendship as before with all the Powers of Europe, he must have forgotten almost entirely the condition of our relations with France.
  "To those objects my policy has been directed in the past and will be addressed in the future; and I continue to rely with confidence on its just appreciation by other countries."
  But no intimation is given us as to whether any circumstances have arisen that should induce us to believe that that confidence will be justified. And so with respect to other questions. Matters of local government have excited a great deal of interest, but they are not put into the forefront of the Speech; they come as a sort of supplement to the measure for the government of the Metropolis—
  "And, if time should permit, Mill be followed by other measures relating to reform of Local Government"
  —apparently on the same model, and belonging to the same class, as the Metropolitan Government Bill. The question of tenant right has excited the liveliest interest in the country. The Government on this matter has adopted a form of language of which it is difficult to penetrate the meaning. On other questions we are to have measures; on this subject of compensation to tenants we are only to have a proposal. But what precise distinction Her Majesty's Government mean to draw between the treatment of those subjects it is difficult to ascertain. I suppose that, in using that language, the Government desire to depreciate the importance of their measure on that subject which they intend to introduce, and do not like to put it upon the level in point of definiteness and distinctness with such measures as those relating to the police of Scotland and to the reform of the Universities in that part of the United Kingdom. Then comes the most burning
  28
  question of all, the question of future legislation for Ireland. Do the Government say they intend to legislate for Ireland? They do not say so. Do they say they do not intend to legislate for Ireland? They do not say so. They say there may be legislative needs for Ireland, for which preparation has not yet been made, and with which it is possible time may be found for dealing. I suppose that is intended as a delicate hint to the Irish Members, that if they will only employ the usual means of influence which have so often succeeded with the Government, those means of influence may yet succeed again. But I hope that this mode of announcing measures, dealing with the most important and difficult part of the task confided to Her Majesty's Government, will not be made into a precedent. Hitherto we have spoken of the announcements of the Queen's Speech. If the present practice is followed, we shall have to drop the phrase, and speak hereafter of the innuendoes of the Queen's Speech. Those who have studied the Speech have adopted two different interpretations of the peculiar character appertaining to it. To some it seems that the difficulty arises from the fact that the head of the Government is now divided from the body of the Government by a distance of something like 1,000 miles, and that the headless trunk, under these circumstances, begins to feel, as might be expected, symptoms of paralysis. But others think that it is the result of the study of military art, to which, under the tutelage of my noble and gallant Friend (Lord Wolseley), the Government have been recently forced to devote their attention, and that this soft and unobtrusive language is merely a screen, that the whole thing is a masked battery, and that later on the mask will be withdrawn, and a formidable array of destructive legislation will, in due time, be displayed. I do not venture to decide that question or hazard any prophecies, for I know well that in Parliamentary matters, as in other matters, the only safe thing to prophesy is the unexpected. But, my Lords, I have no objection to this particular line of treatment when it deals with measures for extending the Lord Mayor's dinner, or for relieving the deadness of county life, which the noble Lord put forward as an object. I

  29
  do not know that my noble Friends round me are prepared to say that country life is so absolutely dead; but any measures which may infuse into it any amount of resuscitation will be accepted with gratitude. The policy of dealing by innuendo with unimportant measures might be passed over without remark; but with respect to the burning questions of the day, I cannot help thinking that it is singularly misplaced. First take Egypt. With respect to that country, we have undoubtedly, since Parliament met last year, witnessed a great transformation scene. For the first six months of last year the policy of the Government was instinct with the doctrines connected with the name of that distinguished Gentleman, Mr. Bright, who has left the Government. For the last six months they have returned to an earlier and a sounder model; but their repentance does not entirely wash away their sin. It does not efface the effects of their temporary concession to the policy of weakness, vacillation, and self-effacement. The result of their action, or want of action, at the proper time, has been that the mechanism has been destroyed by which the results they now look for should be attained. Had they interfered in time, the Khedive's Government, or the traditions which supported it, and the religious and other influences which belong to them, under the sanction of the Ottoman Power, would have remained upright, and the future conduct of Egypt by their help might not have been difficult. But all the powers the Khedive's Government possessed of itself have been swept away, and for the future all the power of Egypt must be derived from the protective influence of the British Government. Now, how do you hope to exercise that influence? If you are about to leave a military force there, it is as if you left it at Gwalior or Secunderabad. It is not difficult to understand, whatever objections there might be to such a course, how such machinery would insure the objects you say you have in view—the internal peace and stability of the Khedive's Government and the future prosperity of Egypt. Even if you proposed to take any diplomatic facilities, in case of need, for returning with your Forces to Egypt, some species of security for those objects would still be preserved. But if we rightly understand the policy of
  30
  Her Majesty's Government—at present we have it only from non-official sources—they intend to rely for the future predominance of England in Egypt only on the prestige derived from the success of the arms of my noble and gallant Friend. I do not dispute the greatness of that prestige. I do not dispute that our Army has dealt a good lesson to Egypt and to the Eastern world—a very wholesome lesson—but the recollection of the power of it will speedily fade away. Remember this—that you failed before in your endeavour to maintain the Government of Egypt, whether by your own fault or not, though you had not only your own military prestige, proved in every quarter of the world, to sustain you, but the prestige of France as well. You will have that no longer; you will be by yourselves. Do you not imagine, when the troops are withdrawn and the Khedive is left to himself, when political changes sweep from time to time over the surface of English and European politics—do you not imagine that old ambitions will revive, and old intrigues will be renewed; and that the effect of the lesson given at Tel-el-Kebir will be entirely forgotten? But even if that were not the case, you must remember that you will have, not alone, to deal with the influences that may arise among the Egyptian people. You must calculate upon the future action and influence of France in this difficult question. The noble Lord opposite addressed himself with great ability to show that France was not injured by what we have done in Egypt. That may be the case; but I thought he fell into an error which is too common, and which, I fear, has misled the Government—that the interests of France in Egypt are only individual interests—the interests of the bondholder and merchant. Unfortunately, France is actuated by less substantial and far more formidable and powerful motives—namely, the result of their own action in Egypt, the exploits of their Army, the fame won there by the First Napoleon, and the engineering achievement accomplished there under the auspices of the Third. These are sentimental influences; but, unhappily, no one can read the expression of French opinion without feeling that France is deeply dissatisfied at being deprived of the authority which she formerly possessed. As time goes on, and as the

  31
  internal politics of France clear themselves, and she becomes more of a power in Europe than she is now, you must expect that your position in Egypt, unless very strongly secured, will be attacked, not only by the ambitions which may spring up among the Native population, but by the intrigues of Foreign Powers as well. There are other circumstances which ought not to be forgotten in dealing with the attitude of France towards this country in Egypt. The constant changes of Government in France have seemingly, and in reality, weakened that country, and have made the power of the Central Government over its distant agents far feebler than it was before. Now, what you have to fear, in your dealings in every part of the world, is, not so much the antagonism of the Central Government, which is enlightened and knows its own interests, but the action of distant agents, who are actuated by traditional feelings which they cannot shake off; and, in proportion as the Central Government is weak, you will find the difficulty of dealing with these matters in Egypt increase. I say this to illustrate what I have ventured to advance—namely, that at this moment the policy of dealing with this Egyptian Question by hints and innuendoes is singularly misplaced. The time is come when it would be of great diplomatic importance, and of great assistance to the conduct of England in the future, that her position with respect to Egypt should be fully and rigidly defined. We hear from one Member of the Government that the troops are not to stay in Egypt. We hear from another Member that they are to stay until certain objects are to be achieved, which we know cannot be achieved at an early period. We hear from Mr. Chamberlain that, considering the interests it has, it is impossible for England to look with apathy on anarchy in Egypt; and from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) we hear an inspired panegyric on anarchy, which he appears to regard as the highest blessing that can be bestowed upon a nation. That seems to show that you have no definite policy; and those who look forward to the time when your troops will leave the country, and when their own influence and power will be restored again, are encouraged to make their preparations for that period, and to keep alive every source of discontent
  32
  and disturbance which may be at their command. My Lords, the same may be said, with regard to Ireland. Her Majesty's Government have changed their policy in Ireland. We have had efforts to maintain the law which we cannot too highly applaud. I think that the greatest praise is due to Lord Spencer for his exertions; but we cannot but regret that all these efforts were not made 12 or 18 months ago. In this, as in the former case, your change of policy, of course, does not wipe out the evils you have done. The agency by which you eon-ducted, to a great extent, the government of Ireland, by your act, is gone. You formerly had the landowners of Ireland between you and the rest of the population. I am not speaking of the injury you have done them, and the resentments it may leave behind—that is another subject of discussion—but you have shattered their power, and they are now perfectly useless for the purpose of protecting the English Government, or of maintaining the connection between the two countries. Thus, the greater burden is thrown on the Central Government. On it now rests the whole exclusive responsibility of making head against what seems to be a rising popular feeling in that country. With these difficulties in front of you, of which nobody can underrate the magnitude, I would ask, have you a clear and settled policy? Do your Ministers know what they are going to do? Are they able to announce what they will grant and what they will refuse, so as to remove all the hopes of agitation? From the phrases of the Speech, one would imagine that Her Majesty's Government have never heard of the fierce conflict that has been going on between its Members on the subject of their Irish policy. Why, we have had a regular tournament all the winter between the various Members of Her Majesty's Government—a tournament in which Lord Hartington has challenged all comers. It was begun by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who avowed that his great nostrum for Irish evils was spending a million or two on emigration. Lord Hartington hastened to assure the world that that was a delusion, and was utterly opposed to the feelings and prejudices of the Irish people. Then there was the serious question, which is the burning question

  33
  of the hour—the extension of local government in that country. Mr. Healy, before he went to prison, elaborated a careful scheme in that direction, and the matter has been dealt with by Members of the Government both inside and outside the Cabinet. I think Mr. Herbert Gladstone said he was in favour of considering Home Rule; Mr. Ashley would not grant Home Rule, but would give every possible extension of the municipal and Parliamentary franchise; while Mr. Courtney, as I have said, pronounced a perfectly Pindaric eulogium on the advantages of anarchy. Mr. Chamberlain again—I should be sorry to misquote him, because it is so strange in a Member of the Government to give utterance to such words—said—
  "As long as Ireland is without any institution of local government worthy of the name, so long the seeds of discontent and disloyalty will remain, only to burst forth into luxurious growth at the first favourable season."
  Unfortunately, we have not had many utterances from Mr. Gladstone in this Recess. His constituents in Mid Lothian have, to their great grief, failed to receive a defence of his policy; but we progress rapidly in these times, and new ways of communication are constantly discovered by distinguished men. Mr. Gladstone, having abandoned the senate and the platform, has taken refuge behind the tea-table, and there he informs M. Clémenceau that the "curse of Ireland is centralization." He adds—
  "What I hope and desire, what I labour for and have at heart, is to decentralize authority there. We have disestablished the Church, and have relieved the tenant class of many grievances, and are now going to produce a state of things which will make the humblest Irishman realize that he is a governing agency, and that the government is to be carried on for him and by him."
  I do not like the idea of the humblest Irishman as a governing agency. Now, these are the opinions of Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Chamberlain; what does Lord Hartington say? He says—
  "It is supposed by some that by changes in the system of local self-government we can restore contentment to the country. It would be madness, in my opinion, to give Ireland more extended self-government, unless we can receive from the Irish people some assurance that this boon, would not be used for the purpose of agitation."
  34
  Now, it is not for mo to reconcile these divergent opinions; it is enough to say that Mr. Chamberlain's and Mr. Gladstone's views are regarded by Lord Hartington as madness. What I do wish to press upon the House and upon Her Majesty's Government is, that this is no mere question of inconsistency. It is not an ordinary Party device of comparing the present with the former opinions of an adversary. It is a question whether, in a crisis of singular importance in Irish history, the Government have presented to the Irish people a plain and distinct policy in which they are all agreed, or whether, by their expressed disagreement, they are not encouraging the Irish people to further efforts in agitation. Two or three years ago we used to hear a great deal of the Concert of Europe. That has entirely disappeared from the speeches of the advocates of the Government; we have ceased to hope for such great things, and only ask now for the concert of Downing Street. We ask only that Downing Street shall be at one with itself, because we cannot but feel that these strange divergencies of opinion are not the result of accident, but are a necessary part of Party strategy. If this difference of opinion had concerned merely Egypt, I might have thought that predominant diplomatic considerations had driven the Government to it; but in respect to Ireland it is impossible not to feel that the speeches on one side or another are addressed successively to the two wings of the Liberal Party. When the Radicals begin to think that the pledges of 1880 are not being fulfilled, Mr. Chamberlain is sent down to pacify them; and when the Whigs begin to think that those pledges are taken too seriously, Lord Hartington is commissioned to set the matter right. I can well imagine that in so divided a flock what is called, in American parlance, "sitting on the gate," may be a judicious art, and a necessary resource of Party tactics. But, however necessary it may be for Party cohesion and to secure the obedience of confiding Radicals, I venture to say that no course can be pursued more dangerous to the interests of the Empire.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I do not always agree with the noble Marquess, and, therefore, it is a great satisfaction to me to be in accord with him in at

  35
  least four of the statements he has made. In the first place, I acknowledge the justice of his remark, that there was nothing to criticize in Her Majesty's Speech; and if the noble Marquess cannot find something to criticize, I defy the rest of mankind to do so. I agree with him also in his welcome to the noble and gallant Lord whom we are all so glad to see amongst us, and I cordially agree with the compliment he paid to the Mover and Seconder of the Address. The remarks of the Seconder of the Address were statesmanlike, and not merely of a conventional character; and with regard to the noble Earl, your Lordships will have observed the excellent tone and substance of his speech. In an hereditary Chamber it is interesting to see what qualities descend from generation to generation; and, from what we have heard to-day, I cannot doubt that the blood of the Lambtons, the Greys, and the Russells will produce the results of which the promise has been given this evening. The noble Marquess complains of a want of vigour in the Speech, which he attributes to the absence of Mr. Gladstone; but the whole tradition of Lord John Russell's experience would be contrary to that contention. Then, again, I am bound to say that when the noble Marquess makes it his principal complaint against the Queen's Speech in that it deals in innuendoes, it appears to mo that the noble Marquess's speech just delivered consists entirely of innuendoes, with hardly any positive attack on Her Majesty's Government at all. Under these circumstances, it is not necessary for me to go into any details respecting the Bills announced in the Speech. The noble Marquess has spoken of Ireland, and I cannot help thinking that it is a very great tribute to the Government of Ireland at this moment that the noble Marquess has not found one single thing to complain of in the Government of that country during the last six months which have elapsed since Parliament first adjourned in the month of August. All his attacks have been founded upon speeches made by Gentlemen not in the Cabinet, and upon unwarranted gossip at dinner parties. I certainly do venture to take upon me to state, whatever shades of difference maybe detected in our views with regard to the condition of Ireland, I am quite certain that no Member of
  36
  Her Majesty's Government has, on the one hand, declared in favour of anything like Home Rule, any separation of the connection between the two countries, nor, on the other hand, has anyone denied that there may be measures for giving more interest in the government of Ireland to the Irish people, which it may be desirable to pass. Like my noble Friends the Mover and Seconder, the noble Marquess spoke with reference to Lord Spencer. It may be an invidious task to me to award any praise to a Colleague; but I cannot help saying on this occasion—and I do so entirely uninfluenced by personal or political feelings—that I believe what has been said by the three noble Lords who have preceded me does not, in the slightest degree, exceed the merits of the case. Within a short time, since Lord Spencer and Mr. Trevelyan have been associated in the Government of Ireland, they have both taken upon themselves these arduous duties, the undertaking and discharge of which require both physical and moral courage. One of the reasons for the great success of Lord Spencer in that capacity has been that, on the one hand, no one loves Ireland more, no one is more associated with the feeling of the best portion of the Irish people, no one is more desirous of reforming any grievances that exist, and no one, at the same time, combines with that the highest sense of duty in carrying on in a firm and determined manner the war upon the enemies, not only of this country, but of Ireland itself. My Lords, the noble Marquess complains in particular of the want of concert on the part of Her Majesty's Government. As I said before, I have not been reading all the productions of the day; but I certainly have seen some, and I certainly have been told of other speeches and articles, not of Liberals accusing Conservatives of being disunited, but of different Members of the great united Conservative Party complaining of their Leaders and followers, and making up what appears to me to be a quarrel in that great and historical Party; and while speaking on this subject the noble Marquess might have dispelled some illusions which have been created on this side of the House. Then the noble Marquess went on to speak with regard to Egypt, and, as usual, he

  37
  began by accusing the Government of vacillation and weakness in the first portion of their dealings with the Egyptian Question. The noble Marquess has not explained what he wished. Did he wish for more decisive language on our part, or for earlier decided action? I want to know what the thing is he complains of. Did not we speak loud enough? The great complaint last year was with regard to the Dual Note, in which we spoke very firmly, and which, I may say, we have adhered to, carrying out everything that was stated in that Note. That Note was complained of as being of too aggressive a character by the noble Marquess and some of his Friends. Then, is it want of action that is complained of? One Member of the late Government has twice stated that 100 policemen would have settled the whole thing. Once it was said on his own authority, and once on that of M. Gambetta. I do not know what force it was that M. Gambetta contemplated using on behalf of France; but I do not think it was his intention to send 100 sergents-de-ville to effect that purpose. Another Member of the late Cabinet only this week said that we ought to have landed 1,000 men at Alexandria. I believe that the landing of a force before the successful operations of the Fleet would have been madness. I remember at the time there was a discussion as to whether we should postpone any action on the part of the Fleet, and it was then stated that it would require a whole month to effect a combined land movement with France, whilst during that time the forts were being fortified, not to mention the immense moral effect that such a postponement would have against us. I believe, on the contrary, if we had not used every possible means before adopting measures of force—if we had not convinced the whole of Europe of our determination in this sense—I believe the danger of an early intervention on our part would have been immense, and I very much doubt whether it would have been effectual, while the result might have been a general European war. My Lords, the noble Marquess has treated this part of the question lightly; and, as he has preferred going into the speeches of Cabinet Ministers, and innumerable persons not in the Cabinet, I may make some reference to the speeches he made at Edinburgh. Those
  38
  speeches were announced as very important ones. They were to have the effect sometimes attributed to the Mid Lothian speeches of Mr. Gladstone, and of course they were carefully prepared before they were made. I confess I felt very nervous and embarrassed as to what might be the power of the noble Marquess, and what the noble Marquess might do in attacking the Government policy on that occasion; and I must say that I never was more relieved in my life than when I read those speeches, because it appeared to me that the arguments of the noble Marquess were based exclusively on historical statements of fact, which I knew, when the opportunity came, could be absolutely and entirely destroyed. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with details of the noble Marquess's speeches; but I will give you an instance of the sort of argument he adduced in holding up the Government to reprobation. He described us as having asked the permission of Europe to invade Egypt, and, after having received a refusal of that permission, as having proceeded to take Egypt. I must say that if the Government had been guilty of such conduct it would have been very hypocritical, very inconsistent, and very audacious; and my only reason for supposing that Europe is not indignant is that I think it just possible that Europe doubted every single assertion which the noble Marquess made. I am at a loss to know when and where we asked the permission of Europe to invade Egypt; and when he states that we have now taken Egypt, I can only state that we have not taken it, and that we do not intend to take it. That is the sort of representation which was made. I will take another instance. The noble Marquess attacked the bombardment, and asked what could be thought of a Government which had taken a vast Fleet to Alexandria, where it had no international right, and, being there, demanded things to be done on shore, and those demands being refused they proceeded to bombard a commercial port contrary to International Law.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not contrary to International Law, but in a place where they had no international right to be.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am right; contrary to International Law.
  EARL CAIRNS: It was Mr. Bright who said that it was against International Law.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I will admit it to be a perfectly legitimate argument on the part of Mr. Bright, but not in the mouth of the noble Marquess. With regard to the Fleet, what occurred first was, that in September Sir Edward Malet applied to the Government, stating that a panic existed; but he applied not so much on account of what might be done as because, if excitement occurred, it might be desirable there should be a place of refuge. We sent a ship, as did the French, and sent a telegram explaining why it was sent; and when that ship was removed, we had another despatch from Sir Edward Malet expressing a hope that his original request for a ship would not be disregarded. It has been stated that it was in consequence of our disregard of Sir Edward Malet's caution against sending a ship—exactly the reverse of what he did advise—that there was a massacre at Alexandria; that event having happened eight months later. I now come to another part of the question. I think it was on the 15th of May I stated in this House the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Egypt. The principal portion of that statement was that the French Government and ourselves had ordered squadrons to go to Alexandria. The noble Marquess spoke immediately afterwards, and said he had no objection to make to the statement I had just delivered. He said that we had inherited obligations from the late Government with regard to Tewfik, and that it was absolutely necessary that we should support those obligations, not only by despatches, but by force if necessary. Well, it would be perfectly consistent if Mr. Bright or Sir Wilfrid Lawson had used the noble Marquess's recent arguments, because they always objected to the despatch of the Fleet to Alexandria; but is it possible to conceive how the noble Marquess can lay down the principle that he entirely approves of our action, and then hold up the Government to execration at Edinburgh because we have taken a course which he entirely approved of at the time? I go further. He said, being there, we asked for things to be done on shore which we had no international right to do. Well; but on the
  40
  1st of June last, the noble Marquess stated in this House that if Her Majesty's Government were allowing the forts at Alexandria to be built, and were refusing to allow the Fleet to take the precautions which at once, and without any breach of International Law, would put a stop to these works, he thought they were running a great risk, and were taking a most imprudent course. However, I do not complain so much of the noble Marquess changing his opinions so greatly within six months, as that he should have said that we bombarded the commercial part of the town. It was said by Arabi Bey and by a small section of the hostile Press on the Continent that we bombarded the commercial part of the port of Alexandria; but all our official Reports, both civil and military, concur with the statements of the Admiral and the Naval officers—that the greatest care, humanity, and skill were exercised to concentrate the bombardment exclusively on the forts and the earthworks which, had been erected. My Lords, it has been said that the great business of an Opposition was to oppose. Well, I admit, my Lords, that it is a very important function of an Opposition to criticize the conduct of the Government; but that ought to be done fairly, in accordance with the ordinary principles of justice, and with duo regard to historical facts. I beg your Lordships' pardon for having dwelt so long on this subject; but I thought it necessary to put your Lordships on your guard. The noble Marquess stated in the summer of last year that there were two things which affected the honour of this country. One was the maintenance of Tewfik in his position as Khedive; the other was the removal of Arabi from the country. Now, both these things we have done. With regard to Tewfik, I have always been of opinion that our honour was deeply engaged in the maintenance of that Prince. The sudden deposition of Ismail greatly weakened the authority of the Khediviat. A deposition of Tewfik would have been fatal to it. I believe that was the opinion of the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Wolseley) on the Cross Benches. The removal of Arabi has been accomplished; and since that time I may fairly say that order, peace, and prosperity have been established in Egypt,

  41
  and we have been enabled to communicate that fact to the Powers, together with a general expression of our views. That communication was certainly made earlier than I had hoped to be able to make it. Some are of opinion that it is desirable to annex, or, what amounts to the same thing, to maintain a complete protectorate over Egypt. This is a policy which Her Majesty's present Government could not easily pursue, considering the statements they have invariably made to Parliament and to Foreign Powers. Besides, I believe it is entirely out of the question as a wise measure on the part of this country. Lord Palmerston was always strongly against it, and Lord Beacons-field once told a Foreign Ambassador that he would not take Egypt as a gift. India has been mentioned; but there is one great difference between India and Egypt. India is, comparatively speaking, isolated from European nations, other than ours; whereas Egypt has as neighbours many of the nations of Europe, and their inhabitants are swarming in Egypt. This, in itself, would constitute an immense difficulty if we were to take upon ourselves the whole government of the country. The other alternative proposed is that, having by means of our sailors and soldiers achieved that remarkable success, we ought to leave Egypt entirely to solve its own problems. In the first place, if we wished to wash our hands completely of Egypt, I am convinced that other Powers would intervene. In the second place, as we did enter into military operations, and as we did carry them to a successful issue, it appears to me that we should be absolutely without any justification for those operations if we were to leave Egypt in a state of anarchy, and without a reasonable prospect of having a stable and beneficent Government. The noble Marquess wishes me to state the exact date of the withdrawal of our troops from Egypt. My Lords, I cannot conceive that it would be prudent for me to make such a statement. We shall not keep our troops there any longer than is necessary; but it would be an act of treachery to ourselves, to Egypt, and to Europe, if we withdrew them without having a certainty, or, if not a certainty—because we cannot have certainty in the affairs of this life—until there is a reasonable expectation of a
  42
  stable, a permanent, and a beneficent Government being established in Egypt. The noble Marquess says that our influence in Egypt consists in our troops, and that when they are withdrawn the memory of their prowess will fade away. But before the Expedition, and under a system which gave the French an equal control with ourselves, there was no doubt that the influence of this country in Egypt was very strong. To what is that influence owing? As regards our influence in Egypt, I believe that it will be considerably increased and strengthened by what has occurred there during the past six months. It is all very well for the noble Marquess to twit me with respect to the abolition of the Dual Control. Does he say we ought to have maintained the Control or not? There was not even an innuendo that we ought to have maintained it. Last year he urged us very much not to rely on France, but to rely on ourselves; and now he makes it, in a sort of indirect manner, an accusation that we are not in agreement with France. I doubt whether anyone in this House, or the other House, is more desirous than I have been all my life to maintain the best possible relations with France I do not think it quite reasonable; but it is certainly natural that there should be some little irritation at this moment in France. But I believe that the real interests of both countries are identically the same in regard to the government of Egypt—that it should be orderly and stable, and such as best to conduce to the prosperity and peace of the country. I can most sincerely say that we shall hope for the good feeling of France. My noble Friend who seconded the Motion referred to the approval by the Powers of our action. There is no phrase in the Queen's Speech to that effect, because we have had no official communications on the subject. From the French Government we have had no communication whatever. That may be an unfavourable symptom. But the state of political affairs in that country may sufficiently account for the silence of the French Government. From Turkey we have had no communication, except that the Sultan approves of the abolition of the Control. With regard to Germany, Italy, and Austria, general expressions of approval have been received; and information has reached us

  43
  from St. Petersburg that the Russian answer will be of a somewhat similar character. My Lords, if anyone ever deserved the confidence of his country, Sir Edward Malet deserves it, in consideration of the way in which he conducted the affairs of Egypt in times of extraordinary difficulty; but we thought it would not be fair to centre in one man constructive as well as diplomatic duties; and, therefore, we looked out for a man who should be best fitted to assist him in the work of construction in Egypt. We found that person in my noble Friend Lord Dufferin, who had arranged in so permanent a fashion the affairs of the Lebanon, who had great experience of government on the other side of the Atlantic, and who had also been so successful in diplomacy. He was, we thought, of all men especially fitted to work with Sir Edward Malet in carrying out exactly the principles which the Government bad laid down. I trust and believe this policy of the Government will be that which is best calculated for the prosperity and peace of Egypt, which it is the interest of France and all the Powers, as it undoubtedly is of this country, to secure and maintain.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNsaid, Parliament was congratulated in the gracious Speech from the Throne upon the improved condition of Ireland; and much of that improvement was said by Members and supporters of the Government, out of Parliament, to be due to the remedial measures, as they were called, which had been introduced by the present Government. He was glad to say that there had been a considerable improvement in the state of the country; but that improvement was solely due to the vigour and courage with which his noble Friend (Lord Spencer) was carrying out the provisions of the Crimes Act, and it was an absolute delusion to suppose that remedial measures had in any degree contributed to that result. On the contrary, the remedial measures, which chiefly consisted in the confiscation of the landlord's property, had increased agitation and created dissatisfaction in the country population, because expectations were raised which could not be fulfilled. He had been resident in Ireland during the last five months, and he found that it was the opinion of everyone competent to form a judgment that the tenants were much more discontented
  44
  and unsettled than they were at the close of the Duke of Marlborough's Viceroyalty, before any remedial legislation was introduced or even talked of. The improved state of Ireland during the last four months was entirely due to the vigour with which Lord Spencer had carried out the law; and, in doing so, he had done precisely what the Conservative Party had been urging the Government for the last three years to do, and precisely what, up to last May, they refused to do. Had the Government acted with the same vigour in 1880, we should not have seen Ireland in the disastrous position it was now in; and in the course he had taken Lord Spencer had acted upon the lines laid down by the Conservative Party, and in direct opposition to those laid down and enunciated by Mr. Gladstone as his Irish policy. But let it not for a moment be supposed that that improvement was a solid or a permanent one, or that any relaxation of the vigorous measures now used would not be followed by a renewal of outrages equally numerous and atrocious as those which had disgraced the last three years, and which could only be kept in abeyance at the present time, and for some time to come, by the rigid enforcement of the law. But while a good deal had been said and admitted about the improvement which had taken place in Ireland during the last few months, he was sorry to be obliged to dispel the illusion of noble Lords opposite, by pointing out that that improvement was only a comparative improvement upon the frightful series of agrarian outrages that had marked both occasions of Mr. Gladstone's Governments and the development of his Irish policy. When Mr. Gladstone took Office in the last days of 1868, the official Returns of the agrarian outrages for that year were only 160. Under Mr. Gladstone's Government they rose at once in 1869 to 767, and in 1870 to 1,329, or 12 times the amount of agrarian outrages in the average years of the preceding Conservative Government, when he (the Duke of Abercorn) was Lord Lieutenant. Simultaneously, again, with Mr. Gladstone's second advent to power, in 1880, when he ridiculed Lord Beacons-field's warnings, when he announced that there was an absence of crime and outrage such as was unknown in the history of Ireland, and refused to renew the Peace Preservation Act, or to take any

  45
  precaution against seditious agitation, the agrarian outrages, coincident with his resumption of Office, rose in that year to 2,585, and in 1881 to the frightful amount of 4,439, or, again, to 12 times the amount of the average annual agrarian crimes during the six years of Lord Beaconsfield's Government which preceded him. The first eight months of 1882 showed no improvement, the Returns of outrages for those months being close upon 3,000; but the last four months, in consequence of the vigorous action of Lord Spencer at the latter end of the summer, showed a great improvement over those frightful amounts. Yet he wished to point out that each month, even then, still showed an average amount of agrarian crime four times the amount of the average monthly agrarian crimes during the six years of the preceding Conservative Government. Nor was it easy to exaggerate the present dangerous state of Ireland when we were too well aware, by recent trials, that any official engaged in the direct administration of the law, from the Lord Lieutenant down to the honest juror, lived in daily danger from the hand of the assassin, unless protected by armed police. Such were the fruits of a legislation of remedial policy in the fourth year of its trial. It would be seen from these facts and figures that on each occasion when Mr. Gladstone had attempted to initiate a special Irish policy, that that policy had been marked by an immediate and unexampled burst of sedition, outrage, and murder. But the Government seemed equally unable to learn experience from the past or caution for the future, for we had heard a fresh danger to Ireland shadowed out in the speeches of prominent Members and supporters of the Government—notably in those of the President of the Board of Trade—who appeared to have some hidden art of forcing his Colleagues, whatever might be their opinion, to come round to his own—speeches which pointed to the future establishment of local County Boards all over Ireland, and to a possible future reduction of the franchise in that country. But there was a good deal more than that, for, according to a daily paper, supposed to be an organ of the Government, the Prime Minister himself had expressed the most advanced views of decentralization in Ireland, and had declared that
  46
  the desire he had most at heart was—for these were his words as reported—
  "To make every Irishman realize that he is a governing agency, and that the Government is carried on for him and by him."
  Those words, stripped of Mr. Gladstone's Utopian and transcendental phrases, meant simply that the very Irishmen who were now, and who had been for the last three years, defying the Imperial Government—men of the type of Town Councillor Carey (now on his trial), who was a good example of what a local County Board man would be in the South and West of Ireland—were to be the very men into whose influences the Government was to be handed over. If at any time the great body of Irishmen should show themselves to be fit for such self-government, such utterances would not seem, as they did now, merely those of an almost morbid sentimentalism; but that such rash views should be enunciated now, in the present state of Ireland, showed an amount of delusion which even experience of Mr. Gladstone's policy had not prepared the country for. Such measures as local representative County Boards in Ireland and a reduction of the franchise in Ireland, now or at any time, we were now able to foresee would place the whole local and representative power of Ireland in the hands of the party of sedition, and would be a fatal and permanent blow to the whole loyal population. Nothing in the present state of the country could be more suicidal than such measures for the integrity of the Empire, for the Government itself, and even for the Liberal Party in Ireland. The scenes that took place in Ireland at some of the Local Boards at this time ought to be a sufficient warning to the Government that the representative bodies of a much lower type that they looked forward to instituting would be nothing in three-fourths of Ireland but hot-beds of sedition, and the strongest impetus that could be given to absolute Home Rule or separation from this country. But the lowering of the franchise in Ireland would be a still more serious and dangerous catastrophe. The fact that such measures should be contemplated as possible or probable by Members of the Government showed, in addition to our former experience of the results of their policy, how little Mr. Gladstone or his Colleagues understood

  47
  the nature of Irish difficulties or of the Irish character. He had had six years' experience of the government of Ireland, and at one period during the Fenian insurrection, in times that might have been as troublous as these if they had not been met with vigour, and he believed that the Irish were a people easily governed if governed with unvarying firmness and justice, but they would not be ruled, and never had been ruled, by unlimited concession, conciliation, and laxity at one moment, and by unlimited and spasmodic coercion at another. But we had, unfortunately, too sound an experience of the disastrous condition into which Ireland had been brought by this ignorance of the Irish character and by the wavering and shifty policy of the Government during their first two years of Office—a policy alternating from Kilmainham Treaties and the tampering with sedition for Party votes to fitful coercion and repression—a policy which the late Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary had the courage by resignation of Office to decline to participate in. The Government had never been able to realize that there were three distinct Parties in Ireland—first, as they were too well aware, a large body of seditious men, who, he believed, were in a minority, as those who forced on the first French Revolution were in a minority at first, but who were formidable from a combined power of mischief, who were irreconcilable and whom nothing would propitiate; they had then a large body of honest and loyal men, who alone were ready to support law and order and the union with this country at any sacrifice; and, lastly, they had still a larger body of men, who, having no strong views of their own, had been passive witnesses of the seditious outrages, and who were ready to throw in their lot with whichever should prove the stronger—the seditious agitator or the Imperial Government, but who would inevitably join that Party whom the Government, by the unconditional lowering of its flag to the claims of sedition, would have declared the strongest and made omnipotent in Ireland. While this was the hazardous position of the population of Ireland, to concede such measures as local representative boards of sedition all over Ireland and a reduction of the franchise there to a household, or rather
  48
  to a hovel franchise, at the sentimental cry of ignorant or interested doctrinaires of the Liberal school—interested because they hoped to propitiate by them the Irish vote in England—would be an act not only of folly, but of criminal folly. There was but one safe and statesmanlike course in Ireland at present—to show that the law was stronger than sedition, and to show that the Government was resolved to enforce that law. The time for sentimental theories and of attempts to propitiate those who were irreconcilable was gone by; and if the Government could learn wisdom they must already be fully aware of that. But, on the other hand, if the Government would pursue the course they had lately—but too late—adopted in resolutely combating the seditious and revolutionary element in Ireland, he could assure them of the hearty support of the whole loyal population of Ireland, whether they were Conservatives or whether they were Liberals; all would join heartily, regardless of all Party feeling, in support of a Government which, forgetting its former errors, showed itself earnestly bent on enforcing the law. It might be said that he was premature in referring to subjects which were not formally laid before the House in the gracious Speech from the Throne; but these subjects were sufficiently in the air, if not at this moment actually on the platform of practical politics, to make the speeches of prominent Members of the Government, as well as the allusions in the Speech from the Throne in reference to them, matters of the gravest alarm. He had had experience for 50 years in Irish affairs, both in public and private life, and he had felt it his duty to give a solemn warning that measures such as the establishment of local county representative boards all over Ireland and the reduction of the franchise to a household franchise could lead but to one of two alternatives—the disintegration of the Empire or civil war. The future aspect of Ireland with such possible changes was a most dark and gloomy one. The only ray of light that could be hoped for in its future horizon was that which would arise from a rule of unvarying firmness and justice—not one halting between sentimental concession and undecided coercion. But, whatever might be its future, in looking back to the policy of the last three years, history

  49
  would record the name of Mr. Gladstone as that of the statesman who, without evil intentions, but who, warped by prejudice and infatuated by Party spirit, had wrought greater ruin and desolation on Ireland, and greater degradation of its national character, than any Minister who for the last two centuries had governed that country.
  EARL COWPERsaid, that he had not intended to address their Lordships upon that occasion; but when the noble Duke who had just spoken (the Duke of Abercorn) had inveighed against the remedial measures for Ireland which had been promoted and carried into law by the present Government, he (Earl Cowper) could not sit silent; and he could not help saying that whether or not those measures had had any actual influence in restoring quiet and order in that country, it was, in his opinion, quite impossible, after the very stringent measures of repression and coercion had been passed, that remedial legislation should not be proposed. Personally, soon after he went to Ireland, he had acknowledged and had clearly seen the necessity, in the then state of things in Ireland, for exceptional coercive legislation for that country; and, indeed, the necessity for it had been generally acknowledged, and it might even have been wished that that legislation had been proposed by Her Majesty's Government at an earlier period. It was also pretty well known that the Grimes Act had been drafted before he and Mr. Forster left Office. Put he wished it to be clearly understood that he should never have lent his name to such measures if Her Majesty's Government had not introduced measures for redressing the grievances under which, most undoubtedly, the Irish tenantry were suffering at the time, and which were considered to be important. It must be remembered that the crimes which had been committed, and the agitation that had taken place, had been directed against the measures which the landlords had taken to enforce the payment of their rents, and that the Coercion Acts were passed to protect the landlords in enforcing the law against their tenants. In these circumstances, he was satisfied that the Liberal Party would never have assented to this exceptional and tremendous coercive legislation, which frequently, owing to the state of
  50
  things in Ireland, was made use of to carry out Acts which, in many instances, were unjust, unless it was to be followed by remedial measures. He did not desire to trouble their Lordships further on the point on that occasion; but he could not allow the noble Duke's observations to pass unnoticed. He was glad that remedial measures were passed, and he hoped that the improvement in the condition of Ireland would go on increasing.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that the noble Earl who had just sat down (Earl Cowper) had declared that, if it had not been for remedial legislation, the Crimes Act would not have been passed; but he (the Marquess of Waterford) desired to point out, on the contrary, that if it had not been for the remedial legislation indicated by the Government the Crimes Act would never have been necessary. The noble Earl was the first speaker in their Lordships' House that night who had taken credit on behalf of the Government for the remedial legislation for Ireland. The slight and few allusions which were made to Ireland in the gracious Speech from the Throne needed some comment, because they were told, at the time of the passage of what had been called the remedial legislation, that it only required to pass those measures into law to bring about a vast improvement in the social condition of the country; and the Ministers who had spoken on this subject during the winter had taken credit to themselves and their remedial legislation for the improvement which had taken place. But now, in Her Majesty's gracious Speech, the Government did not dare to state that their remedial legislation had had any effect whatever, because they knew well that it was the Crimes Act, and the Crimes Act alone, which had produced the improvement on the surface of society—because he was sorry to say it was only on the surface—that had taken place. As an Irish landlord, he endorsed every word the noble Duke below him (the Duke of Abercorn) had said with regard to the administration of Irish affairs by the noble Earl the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Spencer), and he thought too much credit could not be given him for the manly and courageous manner in which he had administered the Crimes Act, and the success which

  51
  had attended his efforts towards bringing to justice the authors of a hideous conspiracy. But Her Majesty's Ministers were well aware that if the Crimes Act were suspended for only one month, they would have all the horrors re-enacted despite their remedial legislation; and the Chief Secretary for Ireland evidently thought the same, because in a speech he delivered to his constituents last week at Hawick, he said, referring to the National League—
  "If the movement had been unchecked, in three months we should have had our worst difficulties all over again. The outrages would have been as numerous as ever, and the country would have been uninhabitable to any ordinary or civilized person."
  That statement was a proof that the Irish Executive believed that their remedial legislation had not had any of the results they anticipated. But what was most curious in regard to this paragraph in Mr. Trevelyan's speech was that, as far as he (the Marquess of Waterford) could make out, the National League had never been checked. It was not declared illegal. No doubt, two small Provincial meetings of farmers at Ballymena and Loughrea were prevented; but two days before the Chief Secretary for Ireland made his speech at Hawick, a very large meeting of the National League took place in Dublin, which was not interfered with; at which were present four Members of Parliament, and at which speeches were made of the most inflammatory character, daring the Irish Government to interfere with their meeting, although they might have the courage to suppress small meetings in the country. Mr. Sexton stated that the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself admitted that the National League was perfectly legal. Mr. Sullivan showed the identity of the National League with the Land League, by saying that the "same tree would produce the same fruit." Six columns of The Freeman were taken up with the report of this meeting; and yet Mr. Trevelyan led his constituents to suppose that this movement, which he said if unchecked would have such frightful effects, had been checked. They all knew that the National League was merely the Land League in disguise, and if it was unchecked would have the effects specified by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He (the Marquess of
  52
  Waterford) had taken part in several debates in their Lordships' House upon the administration of the Land Act. They had declared that that Act was being administered against all principles of justice, and had shown how the landlords could not expect any fair play from the manner in which the Act had been carried out, and the class of men who were chosen as Judges. They stated that these Courts were formed entirely in the interest of the tenants, and that the landlords were given no chance whatever. The statements were indignantly repudiated by noble Lords opposite; but they could hardly have expected that Mr. Trevelyan, in a speech which he delivered on October 3 to a deputation in Dublin, would admit in so many words every one of the charges which they had made. A deputation, which Mr. Trevelyan himself admitted was one-sided, waited upon him in Dublin to demand the dismissal of the valuers who had been appointed by the Land Commission, and not by the Government, after—as the Land Commission stated in a letter laid on the Table of the House of Commons—most careful consideration, for the purpose, not only of expedition in the decisions, but to get rid of appeals, by satisfying both parties that, through the assistance of an expert, the decisions were absolutely fair. The tenants, and those who acted for them, know well that if fair decisions were arrived at, with the help of competent Court valuers, the ridiculous reductions which had been taking place could not possibly go on; and therefore there was a storm of clamour raised against the appointment of the valuers. But how did Mr. Trevelyan meet that storm? Did he answer the deputation by saying that the Land Court was a judicial tribunal, and that the Government had no power to interfere with their appointments? No; but he took upon himself to terrorize the valuers, by stating that if the reductions did not continue on the same scale as heretofore, no matter whether they were fair or not, the valuers would be dismissed. He even laid down a scale upon which the valuers were to proceed, and said that—
  "If the tenants came to the conclusion that they have lost very decidedly by the change, I am quite certain that the Government has quite sympathy enough with the tenants to

  53
  feel that it hag taken a step which is injuring them."
  And, again—
  "The Government will recognize that it has made a mistake, and will undo the mistake."
  Was not that exactly what they on that (the Opposition) side of the House had held that the Government was doing with regard to the administration of this Act? They said that the landlords' property was being confiscated by packed Courts, under the control of the Government, for political purposes; and the Chief Secretary for Ireland came forward, in answer to political partizans, who threatened to withdraw their support, and said that he would interfere with a Court of Justice if one party to the suit was not satisfied with the decision. At the time the Land Act passed the Sub-Commissioners were not named. They had only the names of the Chief Commissioners before them, and immense stress was laid upon these appointments; but when the Chief Commissioners made arrangements for efficiently and fairly carrying out the law of the land, the Government stepped in and dismissed the valuers who, the Chief Commissioners declared, were necessary to assist the Sub-Commissioners to arrive at just decisions. Would such an interference be tolerated for one moment in any Court of Justice in England? And was it not a perfect parody on justice that a deputation of partizans, assisted by clamour, should be able to lay down how an Act of Parliament should be administered; or for the Government to stoop so low as to dismiss an official of a Court upon the application of a few tenants for political purposes? Such, however, had been the case with the Court valuers. By the removal of those officials the Government had practically taken away from the landlord the power to value his own estate, and had handed that power over to the tenant. The cases of Lord Talbot de Malahide finished the Court valuers; and yet those decisions were so fair that only one tenant appealed. That was the case of a holder of four farms; and, after most careful valuation by two of the chief valuers of the Court of Appeal, the Court was obliged to confirm every one of the decisions. A violent article appeared in The Freeman's Journal, and the Court valuers, not having accepted Mr. Trevelyan's
  54
  scale of reductions, were dismissed. Mr. Trevelyan, in his speech in "another place," stated that his answer to the deputation did not bear the interpretation now placed upon it. He said he had "often re-assured the landlords," although if he attempted to do so he was signally unsuccessful, and he now sought to re-assure the tenants. But Mr. Samuel Black, a member of the deputation, and his friends in the North of Ireland understood the speech exactly as he understood it. Mr. Boyd, of Limavady, a leading Liberal in the North, speaking at a meeting where Mr. Black was present, said—
  "Has not the Chief Secretary practically proclaimed to our friends, the Court valuers, 'You are on your trial for three months. If during that time your reductions of rent are too small to please the farmers, you will then be sent off, bag and baggage; but if you act discreetly and do not encourage this howl of discontent and give substantial reduction, for the next three months, you will then be firmly seated in your saddles, and your £1,000 a-year will be secured to you.'"
  And he was not contradicted. No wonder the Government did not take credit for having settled the Land Question when the Land Act had been denounced on all the platforms in the South-West and Midland Counties of Ireland. And in the North—at meetings where a large number of Liberal M.P.'s were present—resolutions had been passed that it was necessary to amend the Land Act without further delay, and laying down five provisions in which the Act needed amendment, notably among them the improvement in the Purchase Clauses. And there was no doubt that further pressure would be brought to bear on the Government, from the tenants' Representatives, to alter and amend an Act which the Government stated was to give so much satisfaction. In fact, as far as he (the Marquess of Waterford) could make out, nobody valued the Land Act, and even the Government seemed to have lost their love for it, and there was no mention of it in Her Majesty's gracious Speech. The landlords, on their side, did not much admire an Act administered as this had been, which carried ruin and destruction to their class throughout the land, and which had rendered their properties entirely unsaleable. He was reading in the paper the other day the account of two different classes of property put up for

  55
  sale on the same day—one was several landlords' properties in the Encumbered Estates Court in different counties, for which there was not one single bidder; the other was the tenant right of 12 acres 23 perches of land, at the annual rent of £13 5s. 8 d., for which the tenant right fetched £29 the statute acre—an increase of something like £12 an acre, compared with what the tenant right in the same county fetched, on an average, before the passing of the Land Act. He was sure their Lordships had read with satisfaction the letter written by the noble Earl the Lord Lieutenant to Sir Thomas M'Clure, stating the principles upon which the selections of the new Sub-Commissioners were made, though, at the same time, it seemed somewhat curious that he should apparently make excuses for what he had done respecting them. His Excellency, in writing to a rev. doctor upon the matter, said—
  "In making my selection, I have studiously searched for those whose practical knowledge and experience of farming would enable them to act skilfully in the difficult cases brought before them, and whose integrity of purpose, impartiality, and independence of position and character, would make their decisions respected by all parties coming before them."
  But some of the appointments could hardly come up to the description of the noble Earl. He (the Marquess of Waterford) took, as a sample of the new appointments, Mr. William Gray, of Maze, one of the Attorney General for Ireland's most ardent adherents. He found that on January 17, 1882, he made the following remark in a public speech:—
  "I may he asked, what standard would I propose for fixing rents? My reply would be, 'Take the valuation, deduct the taxes, and the half would be a fair rent.' For instance, if Griffith's valuation of a farm be 20 s. per acre, and the taxes, say, 3s., then 8s. 6d. per acre would be a fair rent."
  And, again—
  "Landlords would, at 8s.6d. per acre, have plenty to live on—indeed, as much as is good for them."
  Now, could this gentleman come up to the noble Earl's conditions as to integrity of purpose and impartiality to all parties, which the noble Earl required before making the appointment? If Mr. Gray might be taken as a sample of the Sub-Commissioners appointed to replace the valuers, he could perfectly understand
  56
  why the tenants were so jubilant at the latter's dismissal. He should also like to know whether Mr. Fitzpatrick, of Limerick, or Mr. Kiernan, of Monaghan, came up to the Lord Lieutenant's description, and whether any of those newly appointed had ever had any connection with the Land League? Those appointments demanded explanation, and further explanation was required of the Chief Secretary for Ireland's answer to the deputations and the dismissal of the Court valuers in answer to mere clamour from the worst section of the Irish people. There was no doubt, from the tone of Her Majesty's gracious Speech, that the Government had at last given up the false theory that their remedial legislation was a success. He was glad to hear that the Government would not give their support to Home Rule; but at the same time Mr. Gladstone and his family seemed to be dangerously playing with the question.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, he was not prepared at that moment to supply the information desired by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Waterford) as to certain Assistant Commissioners; but it would be forthcoming if the noble Marquess desired it. He (Lord Carling-ford) thought their Lordships had no desire to prolong this discussion. He had heard the speeches of the noble Marquess and of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Abercorn), who had formerly governed Ireland, with profound regret, because they were speeches too full of passion and prejudice to be of any practical value. Those speeches consisted almost exclusively of references to the history of the past, and protests against possible future legislation. As to the past, it would be scarcely profitable to debate a history which had been over and over again discussed in that House; while as to the measures of the future, they were not before their Lordships, and it would be time enough to deal with them when they arrived; but there was nothing in the Speech which the House was now discussing which need give cause for alarm, either to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) or to the noble Marquess who had just spoken. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) seemed to think that there was some mystery, something below the surface of

  57
  the words in that part of Her Majesty's Speech which referred to Irish measures. He talked of innuendoes. Neither on that subject, nor upon any other subject, had there been any innuendoes. The Speech simply said it would be impossible, and it would not be right, in consideration of the claims of the other parts of the United Kingdom, to give any considerable portion of the time of this Session to Irish measures of the first class; but it went on to say that that need not prevent some useful work in the way of legislation for Ireland being done—that was to say, the carrying of certain measures of a minor kind. With regard to the question of Court valuers, that was a question to which his noble Friend (the Marquess of Waterford), like a good many others, had attached a most exaggerated importance. He talked as if it was a case of interference on the part of the Government with the judicial functions of the Land Courts. It was nothing of the kind; it was merely a question of machinery—the question of deciding whether it was best to employ valuers, or to double the number of the non-legal Assistant Commissioners. The change was originally made, not because the Government or the Land Commission had any reason to believe that the Sub-Commissioners were acting unfairly in their decisions; it was done for two purposes—for the purpose of expediting the business and getting more rapidly through the work, and also with the hope that the number of appeals might be reduced, and that confidence in the Sub-Commissions might be increased. That hope proved to be absolutely unfounded, as no effect of that kind was produced by the appointment of the valuers. Suspicions had been aroused among the tenantry which could not be disregarded without the risk of destroying confidence in the Courts; and the change had, therefore, been introduced of which the noble Marquess now complained.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDpointed out that the change was not made by the Government, but by the Chief Commissioners.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)said, that the plan of employing valuers had been tried by the Irish Government on the suggestion of the Land Commission; but what he was saying was that confidence in the Commis-
  58
  sioners was in danger of being lost, and that was a very grave matter to be considered. However much the landlords of Ireland might dislike the operations of the Land Act, they surely could not wish, in their own interest, that it should be robbed of a great part of its benefits by absolutely losing the confidence of the tenants. That being the case, he wanted to know why the Government, when they found that the experiment had failed, should be blamed for doing what they had done? Why should they be expected to persist in what had turned out to be a mistake? He believed it was far better to adopt the alternative system of doubling the number of Assistant Commissioners. It was better that the same men should deal with the valuation of a farm, and should fix a fair rent for it. The two things, upon an Irish holding, were quite different; but it was very desirable that the two things should not be separated. Whatever fault might be found with any of the new Assistant Commissioners, he could only say at that moment that he knew that infinite pains had been taken by his noble Friend (Earl Spencer) to obtain competent and impartial men for the duty. He should be very much surprised if his noble Friend had failed in finding any but the right men. With regard to a certain answer made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he did not remember the exact expression to which reference had been made; but he knew it had been taken up "elsewhere," and that Mr. Trevelyan had made an ample vindication of himself. He said that he had endeavoured to remove the apprehensions of the tenants, and he asked why he should not do so? Over and over again endeavours had been made to relieve the apprehensions of the landlords. It was the desire of the Government, as far as they could, to remove the apprehensions, and, if possible, to gain the confidence of both landlords and tenants in the operation of the Land Act. He must protest against the extravagant statement that the Land Courts were under the control of the Executive Government; the statement was too baseless and extravagant to be argued against. He certainly must also express his astonishment at some of the expressions used by the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Abercorn). He was surprised to hear the noble Duke say that not only

  59
  had none of the good effects expected followed from the Land Act, but that he would have had no remedial measures at all, but would have trusted to coercion alone.
  THE DUKE OF ABERCORNwas understood to say he did not mean that. What he intended to convey was, that remedial measures, without the enforcement of the law against crime, would not be effectual in securing the peace of Ireland.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL)asked what the noble Duke did mean by his speech if he did not mean that? The noble Duke said the present improved condition of Ireland was in no degree due to the remedial measures of the Government, and that the Government ought to have had the courage to refuse to agree to any of these concessions. It was too soon to discuss the full effects of the remedial measures; the true name for them, however, was not concession, but reform—reform proved to be necessary and called for, as all other reforms of great magnitude both in this country and Ireland had been called for, and granted after careful inquiry and consideration. The Government refused to accept the view that remedial measures were of no avail, and that they must trust simply to coercion. They would pursue the course they had hitherto pursued; they would enforce the law with the powers which they now happily possessed, and would enforce it without relaxation. But while they continued to maintain order and punish crime with unceasing vigour and vigilance, they would never give up the hope of redressing, in due time, all proved grievances in Ireland.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that Mr. Justice O'Hagan, the Chief of the Land Commission, had stated in Court that the real object of the valuators was to inform the Court what the letting value of land was, so that the Court should be in a position to fix a fair rent. It was remarkable that, within the last few days, since the valuators had been done away with, one of the most prominent advocates of the tenants in the North, Mr. Todd, had stated that the Sub-Commissioners ought to be obliged to do the very same thing in open Court. This was what the valuators were to do; they had to inform the Court what was the full letting value of the land, sup-
  60
  posing it to be in the landlord's hands. From that full value the Court would make the deductions necessary to arrive at the fair rent. The impression of the tenants as to the partiality of the Sub-Commissioners was shown by resolutions passed at a meeting in Donegal, stating that they had had confidence in Her Majesty's Government; that that confidence had been destroyed by recent decisions of Sub-Commissioners, and calling upon their Members of Parliament to get satisfactory—or packed—Sub-Commissioners appointed, as had been done in Tyrone and Londonderry through the act of their Members. He contended that the general feeling with respect to the Land Courts was that those bodies, which should be thoroughly impartial, were very much biassed. He thought it was very cold comfort for the landowning classes of Ireland to be told that the Government had resolved not to depart from the policy they had hitherto pursued. He had always disliked the first part of the Act, but had strongly supported the Purchase Clauses. As regarded the Act of 1870, of which that of 1881 was confessedly the complement, brought in with the best intentions, it had, in many instances, done more harm than good to the tenants themselves, because it had led to the abuse of unlimited credit. He agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn) that the only way to govern Irishmen was by a combination of justice and firmness, and not by an attempt to combine conciliation with coercion. He hoped the noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford) would state what were the mysterious measures with regard to Ireland which Her Majesty's Government intended to propose this Session.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRIVY SEAL): It is not usual to enumerate measures in the Queen's Speech unless they are of the first class. I do not wish to bind the Irish Office absolutely to a list of measures; but the Chief Secretary for Ireland hopes to be able to bring in Bills relating to the Sea and Coast Fishery Fund, the Dublin Police and Constabulary, Loans to Distressed Unions, in cases where the Union is unable to pay its way in consequence of the present distress, a renewal, with extension, of the Sunday Closing Act, the Registration of Voters, and probably also a Bill for amending the system of

  61
  Lunatic Asylums, and a Bill, to which I myself attach great importance, for Union Rating in Ireland. There is no intention of introducing a Bill dealing with any part of the Land Act.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he felt bound to congratulate the Government on the success of the measures adopted by his noble Friend (Earl Spencer). He could bear testimony to the fact that, at a very large meeting in Ulster, composed of tenant farmers, they resolved, whatever countenance Home Rule might receive anywhere else, that, in the Imperial Province of Ulster, they would not endure such outrages and disturbances as were common in other parts of the country. If the laws were firmly administered the Government would succeed, after long perseverance and long strife, in making the other three Provinces as loyal as Ulster. In Dublin they had gathered together the threads of a great conspiracy; but much remained to be done. Let those who were content to obey the law know that they would be protected in it, and let those who had the disposition to violate the law be pursued to the very uttermost, and in the end the peace of Ireland would be secured.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, that, though they had been informed, in Her Majesty's Speech, that the re-organization of the affairs of Egypt under the authority of the Khedive had, in part, been accomplished, the country was left very much in the dark as to the origin of the war, if it was a war. The Prime Minister had designated the bombardment of Alexandria, which resulted in the destruction of a great commercial city, and the campaign which followed afterwards as a "military operation." But that so-called military operation was carried on in defiance of the protest of the Sultan, the Sovereign of Egypt. Now, although Her Majesty's Government had supplied the country with very meagre information with regard to events which ultimately led to the war, there was sufficient evidence to show that financial questions had had a very large share in producing the unhappy results which had ensued. When Mr. Goschen went to Egypt, in 1876, not as representing the British Government, but in the interest of the bondholders, financial matters were seriously disturbing the country; taxation was increasing, and
  62
  large loans had been advanced at high rates of interest, the first of these standing in the name of Goschen, in 1862, before the accession of Ismail Pasha. Thus, what was supposed to be in the cause of civilization had already begun to vex and harass the country so far back as 1862. This was continued by a series of loans, which reached, in one instance, the high rate of 28 per cent. The auri sacra fames of money-lenders became supreme in 1879, when the country found itself burdened with nearly £100,000,000 of debt; while out of that, deducting interest, expenses, and sinking fund, only about one-half was realized by the Government of Egypt. Therein lay the chief source of that discontent which had since prevailed in the country. Instead of European civilization, the Native population found European exaction and oppression, which at length produced great uneasiness and discontent. While matters were assuming this serious form in Egypt—when the country was becoming bankrupt, and the population oppressed by taxation for the payment of the interest of the Debt, which absorbed a large portion of the Revenue—a step was, unhappily, taken by this country and by other countries of Europe to intervene between the creditors and the Egyptian Government, and to throw a certain amount of protection over the bondholders, even so far as to require the payment of coupons before the claims of Native servants of the State. Serious results had followed upon that course. Now, it had been from the first the view put forward by Her Majesty's Government, that the movement in Egypt was only a military one; and it had been described by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) as a "military rebellion." It was, in some sense, a military rebellion; but if they looked to what took place in the year 1879, they would see that the cause of it, so far as it related to the Army, was not a political one, but rather to obtain redress for private wrongs. That was the account given by Mr. Vivian, who then represented the British Government at Cairo, in a despatch dated February, 1879, in which he attributed the rising to the reductions in the Army, which had recently been made on a large scale, by which about 2,500 officers were put on half-pay, without receiving the heavy arrears due to them. No doubt, the military came forward

  63
  on this occasion; but discontent was spreading through the whole population, while a heavy taxation was rigidly enforced for the payment of foreign creditors; and if proof were wanting that the movement was a national one, and not a military one only, so early as 1879 and 1880, large numbers of persons, civil as well as military, were exiled to the Soudan for taking part in it. He was much struck with the candour of a correspondent of one of the daily papers, who, writing from Cairo, had said that, before he went there, bethought Arabi's influence was entirely confined to the military, but afterwards discovered that his Party was actually the nation. He (Earl De La Warr) believed that to be a true statement of the case. He would ask, then, whether the policy of Her Majesty's Government was a straightforward one, and whether they had not been treading very closely in the steps of a neighbouring country which not very long ago, under the pretext of self-defence, invaded and practically annexed a friendly State, all the while themselves professing friendship and alliance? So fell Tunis into the hands of France, and so was Egypt falling into the hands of England. A great deal had been said of the danger to the interests of this country of rebellion and anarchy in Egypt. But what was the danger? "Was it to the Suez Canal? The Suez Canal was never menaced. And where was the anarchy and rebellion? He found in official Papers a story only of a people striving to free themselves from foreign interference and oppression, and that struggle crushed by a Government which called itself Liberal, under the pretext that the interests of this country were endangered. If Her Majesty's Government had guided and directed the national movement; if they had co-operated with the Sovereign of the country, instead of opposing and ignoring the legitimate authority of the Sultan, those results would have been avoided which had led to great loss of life and destruction of property, and had inflicted upon an unoffending peo2jle the miseries of war. It was difficult to discover what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were. First, the avowed object was to restore the status quo ante in Egypt; then it was something not quite the status quo ante;and now it was a Constitution with an elected Chamber,
  64
  which was as nearly as possible what was desired and asked for by the country and did exist before the outbreak of the war, but which Her Majesty's Government declined to sanction. Doubtless the interests of this country in Egypt were great; but they were best maintained not by a policy of interference and one which obstructed the Government and alienated the Native population, but by a friendly policy of justice to the people and of good faith with the Sovereign and Government of the country. If this course had been pursued our interests in Egypt and throughout the Ottoman Empire would have been best secured, and our legitimate influence in the East would have been more firmly established.
  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 a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.