Sitting of 20 May 1884

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
— Committee — Representation of the People [119] [Third Night]—R. P.
Standing Committee on Law, &c.—Report—Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases* [No. 184].

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—REVISION IN BANTRY UNION.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it the fact that the Revisor of Bantry Union refused to revise and put a valuation on a number of houses in the district after the notices required to be lodged with the clerk by 15th November
  838
  had been duly served; is it the case that he actually made revisions for other persons in the same Union the previous year; what is the explanation of his conduct; and, has the result been to deprive any persons of votes for the election of guardians?
  MR. COURTNEY (for Mr. TREVELYAN): Directions have been given that the revision of the houses in question should be undertaken, and this will be done before the present Session closes.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having answered the Question; but was he aware of the refusal of the revisor referred to in the Question?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was not cognizant of it. He was informed that nothing had been done with the property which was the subject of the Question.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — MR. THOMAS WALSH, J. P.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it the fact that Mr. Thomas Walsh, J. P. was, on 27th March at the Ballyglass Petty Sessions, convicted and fined for assaulting his herd and decreed for the wages he had refused to pay him; and, if it is true, will his conduct be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the fact that Mr. Walsh was fined Is. for an assault on his herd, Thomas Reilly, and that he was decreed for wages. The assault complained of was of a very trivial character, as Mr. Walsh merely tipped Reilly with a stick to induce him to get out of a doorway he wished to pass through, and the penalty imposed was nominal. The case is considered too trivial for reference to the Lord Chancellor.

  COURT OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND)—UNCLAIMED DIVIDENDS.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, under the 20 and 21 Vic. c. 60, the Bankruptcy. Court in Ireland are directed to invest all unclaimed dividends in the Public Funds; and, if so, why they have not invested the forty thousand pounds now lying derelict in that Court?
  MR. COURTNEY: This fund, at the present time, stands at less than £10,000, and seems never to have been much in excess of that amount. The Act referred to does not direct investment of the fund, but only gives the Court power to invest.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — MR. THOMAS DOWLING, J. P.
  MR. MAYNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a case against Mr. Thomas Dowling, J. P., Inch Home, at the Cappawhite Petty (Sessions, and reported in The Freeman's Journal of the 10th May, for threatening to be revenged on Mr. Meldon, R. M., the magistrate before whom he was convicted and fined for drunkenness; and, whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has been called to this further charge against Mr. Dowling; and, if so, whether he has come to any decision in the case?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Before this further charge against Mr. Dowling was brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor, his Lordship had decided that on the original case—namely, the conviction for drunkenness, there was no ground for doubting the correctness of the magistrate's decision against Mr. Dowling; and it, therefore, became the painful duty of the Lord Chancellor to supersede Mr. Dowling from further acting in the Commission, of the Peace.

  PUBLIC OFFICES — THE NEW ADMI RALTY AND WAR OFFICE.
  MR. BROGDENasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the competitive plans for the new Admiralty and War Office buildings were submitted to and reported upon by any experts or authorities; whether such reports were sent to the persons appointed to decide upon them; and, whether he will furnish the House with Copies of any such reports?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Two of the judges in that competition were architects, and it was in consultation with them that the judges unanimously arrived at their recent decisions; but no reports were made independently by them. The plans were further examined with respect to the minor conditions of the competition as regards the required accommodation by the profes-
  840
  sional officers of the Office of Works; but this did not affect the responsibility of the judges or their decisions.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDU CATION (IRELAND)—SALARIES OF NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS— DEDUCTION FOR ATTENDING UNI VERSITY EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any deduction was made from salary of national school teachers who attended the examinations of the Royal University, Ireland, in 1883, as at previous examinations of the same University; whether any rule has been framed on the subject, by the Board, for the guidance of teachers and managers of national schools; and, whether any, and, if any, what steps have been taken by the Commissioners to bring it under the notice of the persons who are interested in its provisions?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No deduction was made on the ground stated, in 1883. In 1882 the Commissioners of National Education made a Rule permitting occasional absence, without loss of salary, for reasonable cause shown; and since November, 1882, they have interpreted this Rule as covering absences for the reason mentioned in the Question. A Copy of the Rules containing this new provision was sent to all managers of National Schools.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — MR. JOSEPH LOWRY, SUB-SHERIFF OF MEATH.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to 3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 68, s. 13, Whether Mr. Joseph Lowry, of Kells, who holds, and has held for a number of consecutive years, the office of sub-sheriff of the county of Meath, also holds and has held, during the whole of the fame period, a licence "to sell beer, cider, or spirits by retail to be consumed on the premises?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that Mr. Joseph Lowry does not hold such a licence, and that he has not held one since his appointment as Sub-Sheriff.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask if some considerable time before he was appointed he transferred his licence to his wife's sister?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, my information is that since he held the appointment of Sub-Sheriff he has held no such licence. A transfer of the licence which took place was, I am informed, perfectly bonâ fide.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—AR REST FOR ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVES—CASE OF—M'GINN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a case in which a Dublin Police Magistrate, Mr. Byrne, has sentenced a man named M'Ginn to three months' imprisonment for being found in possession of blasting powder and fuse without a licence; whether it was proved on the hearing that M'Ginn had purchased the powder and fuse that day in a warehouse in Dublin, and had given correctly his name and address to the person who had sold the powder and fuse to him; whether the magistrate, without remanding or adjourning the case for inquiry, at once passed sentence on the prisoner, although the prisoner gave the name and address of his employer, on whose behalf he had made the purchase; whether, subsequently, the employer attended Court to prove that M'Ginn had bought the powder for his quarrying work, but the magistrate refused to hear him; and, whether M'Ginn will be released?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A man named M'Ginn was arrested within the gates leading to the Castle Yard in Dublin, having in his possession, without licence, 2 Ibs. of blasting powder and several yards of fuze. He represented that he was going between two places in the city, the line of route between which would not take him by the Castle. His excuse being untrue, and the magistrate having before his mind the recent attempt to fire explosives into the barracks adjoining the Castle, believed that the labourer, having no business at the Castle, entering it with blasting powder and a fuze on his person, and giving a false excuse for his presence, was there with a mischievous intent, and he sentenced him to three months' imprisonment for having the ammunition on his person without a licence. On full investigation and consideration of all the circumstances of the case, the Lords Justices, acting in the absence of the Lord Lieutenant, have since commuted
  842
  the sentence, and the prisoner was discharged yesterday.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRE LAND)—THE RATE COLLECTOR FOR THE CROGHAN DIVISION, BOYLE UNION.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland What decision the Local Government Board have come to with respect to the Resolution of the Boyle Board of Guardians calling for the recision of the appointment of John M'Williams, as rate collector of the Croghan Division; whether their attention has been drawn to the omission of the clerk of the Union to explain his admission that he had inserted 8d. in the advertisement as the poundage rate without the authority of the Board; and, whether they have also taken cognizance of the fact that M'Williams had been acting gratuitously as the deputy of the previous rate collector, Corry, and that Corry's resignation was in M'Williams's handwriting?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board have not yet come to a final decision in regard to the appointment of Mr. M'Williams. An explanation has been received from the Clerk of the Union as to the rate of poundage which he advertised. He states that he advertised for a Collector at the rate previously paid in the district, as he had not received any instructions to reduce it; and he denies that he admitted having fixed the amount without authority.
  MR. O'BRIEN: In reference to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask if the Clerk draws a distinction between "authority" and "instructions?" He admits that he had no instructions from the Board, and the only order made by the Board was accepted, and he, after that order, took upon himself to insert the rate of 8d. in the pound.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I gather from the answer I have received that he advertised for a Collector at the rate which had been previously paid. If the hon. Member wishes to put another Question on the subject on the Paper I will answer it.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—ILLEGAL SALMON FISHING.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  843
  If a gunboat has been sent to the coast of Sligo and Donegal for the protection of the Salmon Fisheries; and, if so, on what grounds and on whose application this has been done; whether the Irish Inspectors of Fisheries have made any report on this subject, and if any official Correspondence thereon will be laid on the Table; whether the Inspectors of Fisheries in their Reports to Parliament have described the population of the coast in question as peaceable, well conducted, and orderly; whether the Government deem it their duty to send a gunboat to this coast to guard the Salmon Fisheries, instead of leaving this function, as in England and Scotland, to the local conservators and owners of Salmon Fisheries; what instructions have been given to the Commander of the gunboat with respect to his special duty; from what fund the cost of using the gunboat for this purpose will be defrayed; and, whether the gunboat will be withdrawn?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Conservators of the district have represented that under the pretence of fishing for white fish illegal salmon fishing is carried on off the coast of Sligo and Donegal. The Coastguard are empowered, under the Regulations of the Commissioners of Customs, to enforce the provisions of the Fisheries Act (5 & 6 Vict., c. 106, s. 86) to act as constables, &c. They confine themselves to the enforcement of the law in the sea, sea-coast, and tidal waters of rivers, examine boats, seize illegal nets, &c. It is a Coastguard cruiser that is employed on this duty; and, as it is a duty properly devolving upon the Coastguard, the Government consider it only reasonable that the law should be so enforced. The Coastguard will not interfere with the functions of the local Conservators. It is the fact that the Inspectors of Fisheries, in their Report presented last year, described the people as peaceable and orderly.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—SORTERS IN TRAVELLING POST OFFICES.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, Whether any steps have yet been taken to carry out his promise, made on the 11th of March last, that sorters employed in the travelling Post Offices in Ireland should be placed on an equal footing with those employed in
  844
  England with regard to excess payments for duty done on Sundays?
  MR. FAWCETT: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that steps have been taken in the direction indicated; but the matter is one which it is a little difficult to adjust to the varying circumstances. I can assure him, however, that there shall be no delay that can possibly be avoided.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CASE OF MURPHY AND O'CONNELL, COSTLEA, CO. LIMERICK.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the two tenants (Murphy and O'Connell) who were evicted off the property of Mr. C. John Coote, in the barony of Costlea, and county of Limerick, have proposed to Mr. Coote to pay for the farms they lately held whatever rent the Land Commissioners would fix on same, and to settle the arrears due on same terms; and, if so, why it is, under these circumstances, that six police are allowed to continue in charge of those farms, at the expense of the Country?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I understand that O'Connell made no such proposition, and that Murphy's offer was to pay one year's rent—not all arrears—and that his landlord has not replied to him. The District Inspector is satisfied that the presence of the police is necessary for the protection of the caretakers on the evicted farms.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary, if the only evicted tenants were three on the property of Mr. Coote; and if such a force of police was, under these circumstances, necessary?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I do not know, except that the hon. Member has informed me so. From what I have learned of this case, the size of the farms would appear to render this number necessary.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND) — DIS QUALIFICATION OF PUBLICANS— MR. CHARLES O'NEILL, LONDON DERRY.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in The Times of May 17th, that

  845
  Charles O'Neill, public-house keeper, has been, admitted to the Commission of the Peace for Deny; and, if so, whether there is any precedent for a publican being made a magistrate?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Charles O'Neill has been appointed to the Commission of the Peace on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the county. He is a gentleman of considerable position in the City of Londonderry. The description of him as a public-house keeper is misleading. He is an extensive wholesale wine and spirit merchant; he has a retail licence also; but this licence he is to make a bonâ fide transfer of, ceasing to have any connection therewith, according to an understanding come to with him before his recommendation by the Lord Lieutenant of the county.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask, whether the fact of a man being a publican is a conclusive bar to his holding the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is practically a bar.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE-COPYISTS.
  COLONEL KING-HARMANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in any contemplated reorganization of the Lower Division of the Civil Service, it is intended to place on a more satisfactory basis the position, of the Civil Service Writers?
  MR. COURTNEY: We have no intention of making any alteration in the position of Civil Service Writers.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)—LORD ST. LEONARDS.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Attorney General, If Lord St. Leonards has claimed to be tried by his Peers; and, under what circumstances such a claim by a Peer is valid, according to Law or usage?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I have no information on the subject. It would not come before me in any way officially. I would point out, however, that there is great improbability of such an application being made, because I understand the charge is one of misdemeanour. That being so, there is no possible right of any Peer to claim trial by his Peers.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND, &c. (PERMA NENT CHARGES REDEMPTION) ACTS, 1873 AND 1883—COMMUTA TION OF THE MARLBOROUGH AND PENN PENSIONS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Under what Act of Parliament he has arranged for the commutation of the Marlborough and Penn pensions; and, whether Parliament will have an opportunity of discussing these commutations before they are finally agreed to?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the Government proposed to make any distinction between those who had only life interests and those who might succeed afterwards?
  MR. COURTNEY, in reply, said, this was a totally different Question from that on the Paper. Of course, in commuting those pensions care would be taken that the interest of all concerned in them would be maintained. In the case of sale by a life-tenant, that would be done probably under the direction of Chancery, and the money vested in Trustees. As to the Question of his hon. Friend, these pensions were charged on the Consolidated Fund, and were never voted by Parliament. Under the Acts 36 & 37 Vict. c. 57, and 46 Vict. c. 1, the Treasury was empowered to commute such perpetual charges, and to transform by arrangement -with the National Debt Commissioners the perpetual into a Terminable Annuity. The commuted annuities, like the original annuities, were charged on the Consolidated Fund, and did not, therefore, come before Parliament.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— DONGOLA.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is foundation for the report that the Governor of Dongola has, through terror at the abandonment of Berber, made terms with the Mahdi; and, if so, whether communications with General Gordon are now entirely cut off; and, whether Slaten Bey, the Governor of Darfour, has surrendered to the Mahdi?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No certain information as to the attitude of the Governor of Dongola has been received by Her Majesty's Government,

  847
  and I cannot make any further statement at present. Communication with General Gordon is cut off. As the hon. Member will see on reference to "Egypt," No. 13, page 12, General Gordon telegraphed on the 9th of April that Slaten Bey was not a prisoner. Her Majesty's Government have received no further information since that date.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the part of the Question referring to Slaten Bey was a piece of information which had just come to this country. He should like to ask the noble Lord, whether the Government had any information that the Governor of Dongola had seized by force a quantity of arms and ammunition from Korosko?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEasked that Notice should be given of the Question, as he was exceedingly averse to replying to interrogatories on matters of details without Notice.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTgave Notice of the Question.

  CENTRAL ASIA—ADVANCES OF THE RUSSIANS.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state how many miles the Russian Forces have advanced from the Caspian towards India since Her Majesty's present Ministers cams into Office?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the hon. Member would see that the Question as it stood was of rather a vague character; but he would be glad to give all the information he could if the hon. Member would put the Question in a little clearer form on Thursday.
  MR. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT, although he did not admit that the Question was not a perfectly plain one, gave Notice that he would on Thursday ask the noble Lord whether he could inform the House how many miles the Russian Forces had advanced from the Caspian towards the Frontier of India during the period that the present Government had been in power?
  MR. MACFARLANEgave Notice that when the hon. Member put his Question he would ask the noble Lord whether, at the same time, he could inform the House of the number of miles advanced by Russia during the period of Office of the late Government?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Not one single mile.

  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—THE RAJAH OF TENOM—CREW OF THE "NISERO."
  MR. STOREYasked the First Lord of the Treasury. Whether he is aware that about twenty hard-working British subjects have been in captivity within the territory of a friendly Power for six months; that, from climatic considerations and for other reasons, they are in daily jeopardy of their lives; that recently they had been in absolute destitution from want of provisions; that the families of some of them were compelled to ask for public charity; and, whether, in view of the ineffectual steps taken by the Foreign Office, and of the refusal of the Government to relieve the necessities of the women and children, he will be prepared, other means having failed, to detach a portion of Her Majesty's Naval Force in order to secure the release of these British subjects?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have supplied myself with all the best information at my command; but since I came into the House I have learnt from my noble Friend that he has a telegram which has recently arrived, and which brings down the matter to a later point than the information I have. I think it would be better and more satisfactory to my hon. Friend that he should hear the telegram read by my noble Friend.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the following telegram was received at the Admiralty to-day, and sent to him just before he came to the House, from Commander Bickford, of H. M. S. Pegasus, dated Penang, May 20—
  "Provisions supplied to the crew of the Nisero. Receipts from Rajah. All well. Rajah will not allow letters to pass from the crew to the shore."
  The telegram so far was satisfactory.
  MR. STOREYpointed out that on a former occasion the noble Lord had taken care to insist that the crew themselves had sent a letter as to their condition. He should like to know if the present report came from the Rajah?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he had given the exact words. It was a matter of opinion; but he did not take these words to mean that the report depended on the statement of the

  849
  Rajah, because the provisions were sent up in charge of the crew of the Pegasus, and he imagined that the report would depend on them.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he must really apologize to the House; but he felt bound to press his Question. He, therefore, must ask the Prime Minister, whether he was aware that these men had been in captivity for a period of six or seven months in a territory under the control of a friendly Government, and that at the present time they were in jeopardy of their lives, and that while they were there their wives and families were suffering here and dependent upon public charity; and whether he did not think it was a ease for strenuous efforts to be made?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would not now discuss the position of the Dutch Government, because he was not fully aware of what they had to say. What he understood to be the case was, that certain persons not under the control of the Dutch Government had, unfortunately, got these unhappy persons into their hands, and that a Dutch military expedition was sent out in January, 1884; that the Rajah who possessed himself of these persons decamped into the interior with his captives, and that there was very great apprehension, he was given to understand, prevailing that any measures taken in a summary manner for the liberation of those people might result in their being put to death. It became a very nice question, indeed; but he assured the hon. Gentleman that the Government recognized their obligation to give the matter their best consideration, and to take every step they could to effect the release of these men.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked if any ransom had been offered?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the demands of the Rajah were far beyond a mere ransom. He had undertaken to lay Papers on the Table showing what had been done, and they would be in the hands of hon. Members on Saturday.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORinquired whether any provision would be made for the wives and children of these men?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEreplied that no funds were at the disposal of the Foreign Office which would enable
  850
  it to make any allowance to the relatives of these men in England; but he had been in communication with several Members of that House upon the subject of the condition of these unfortunate persons, for whom the deepest sympathy had been expressed; and he believed that some steps were being taken, or were likely to be taken, which would tend to the immediate relief of the families.
  MR. STOREYgave Notice that on going into Committee of Supply he would take the opportunity of drawing attention to this matter.

  EGYPT—THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the proposed Conference was convened on the suggestion of the Russian Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. It is quite evident that the hon. Member's ingenuousness has been the victim of some gross fabrication.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, however much his ingenuousness might have been imposed upon, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether his attention had been called to a Report in the Blue Book of an interview between Lord Granville and Baron Mohrenheim, the Russian Ambassador, on February 28, in which Baron Mohrenheim said—
  "It cannot be denied that up till now the reestablishing of order in Egypt by Her Majesty's Government seems to retreat rather than to advance. Difficulties are increasing and extending every day. The Russian Cabinet have looked upon it from the outset as essentially a European question. The Russian Government are of opinion, in view of the increase of the present difficulties, that the moment has arrived when the question may again become the subject of a general understanding. The Russian Government are of opinion that the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the re-organization of Egypt should be submitted to a collective examination of the Powers."
  At this awkward stage in the Russian Ambassador's communication Lord Granville said—
  "The hour of meeting of the House of Lords obliged me to interrupt the interview."
  He wished to ask whether this was not a distinct invitation on the part of the Russian Government for the approaching Conference?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My attention was, of course, called to this statement at the time it was made; and I beg to say that it has nothing whatever to do with the Question of the hon. Member which is on the Paper, or with the Conference which is about to meet.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the debate on the Merchant Shipping Bill having occupied the whole of Monday's Sitting of the House, he will name an early day after the Whitsuntide holidays for the second reading of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, and give it such a position on the Orders as shall insure its discussion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have done what we could to secure an opportunity for discussing the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, and when there is an opening we shall be desirous of taking further steps in the same direction; but, in the present state of Business, the importance of making progress with the Representation of the People Bill is such that I could not possibly think of putting it aside. Nor would the hon. Member, I am sure, recommend that. Of course, there may be considerations of Supply that would not yield to the Representation of the People Bill or to anything else. But, so far as the discretion of the Government is concerned, we will give first place to the Representation of the People Bill.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)— ADMIRAL SIR WILLIAM HEWETT.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I should like to ask the Government, Whether it is in their power to give any information to the House as to the position of Admiral Sir William Hewett, as there is considerable anxiety as to his position?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The right hon. Gentleman has given me no Notice of this Question; but I can state that there is no cause for any feeling of anxiety as to the position of Admiral Sir William Hewett. News of him has been received at the Admiralty; and if the right hon. Gentleman will put
  852
  a Question down I dare say I shall be able to answer it to-morrow.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.
  MR. GIBSONremarked that the Chief Secretary had promised to introduce the Government measure for the amendment of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act before Whitsuntide. Could the right hon. Gentleman state on what night, and what hour, he would be in a position to introduce it?
  MR. TREVELYANreplied, that on Thursday he should be in a position to state when he proposed to introduce the measure, which was complicated, and of a large nature. He was fully in mind of the pledge that had been given.

  STATE - AIDED EMIGRATION (IRE LAND).
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has yet received the Report as to the present condition of State-aided Emigrants from Ireland to Canada who were in a state of distress in Toronto in February last?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A telegram has been received from the Governor General, stating that the agent at Toronto reports the departure of all the immigrants who arrived there this year, all having found places. The telegram goes on to say that agricultural labour to any extent is in demand, and also that there is a large demand for navvies on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that the prospects generally are satisfactory.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  In reply to Mr. NEWDEGATE,
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was undoubtedly desirable that each important Order, such as the Representation of the People Bill, should, in the weekly Orders, be set down for the day on which it was intended to next take it; but it was sometimes necessary to put it down for an intermediate day, in the hope that it might then possibly be taken. Thus it was that in the weekly Orders issued on Saturday the Representation of the People Bill was set down for yesterday.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 119.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate.)
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 119.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 16th May.] [THIRD NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Extension of the Household and lodger Franchise.
    Clause 2 (Uniform household and lodger franchise).
    Amendment again proposed, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the words "the United Kingdom," and insert the words "Great Britain,"—(Mr. Brodrick,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'the United Kingdom' stand part of the Clause."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Sir Arthur Otway, it was not my intention to offer any further remarks upon this Bill during its passage through the House in addition to those which I made upon the first reading. I thought it a very little Bill; perhaps I might call it a trumpery little Bill, and certainly one that was not worthy of the designation of a great Reform Bill. I therefore imagined it might be allowed to take its passage, not without rapidity through the House of Commons, and go up to the House of Lords, where, no doubt, it will receive all the consideration to which its merits entitle it. But I must own, with some regret, that the question of the inclusion of Ireland in, or its exclusion from, the Bill has been brought again before the House; because I think that matter was fully gone into by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) on the first reading, and again upon the second reading; and it was also debated by itself on a separate Motion before going into Committee upon the measure. I regret that it has been brought up again; and all the more, because I am obliged to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brod-
    854
    rick) on the Amendment which he has moved. I differ from him so strongly on the matter that if he presses his Amendment I shall be obliged to vote against him. I wish to assure him that I have arrived at this decision with the deepest possible regret and concern. I have given much anxious thought to this question of including Ireland in the Reform Bill; and I frankly admit that my mind has undergone a change—a change, I venture to say, coming from the most legitimate source whence such a change can arise—namely, from the progress of the debates in this House. ["Oh!"] Surely, the debates in the House of Commons are supposed occasionally to bring about a change in the minds of hon. Members. If it were otherwise, the sooner we adopt the Radical programme, and abolish debates altogether, the better. Like everyone else, I was startled when it was mooted in the Autumn that a Reform Bill was to be brought in for Ireland on the same basis as the Reform Bill for Great Britain; and I imagine that even the Government themselves felt great hesitation on the point, and did not arrive at the conclusion without much consideration. But, no doubt, so far as being startled at this proposal was concerned, I was in good company, because the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War informed the country that he himself had been startled at the proposal to include Ireland in the Reform Bill; and, therefore, I think I was startled in good company. But, as the debates have proceeded, I have genuinely come to the conclusion, after balancing all the arguments for and against—and there are many on both sides—in regard to this question of Ireland whether it should be included or excluded, quite apart from the merits of the Bill in its present form, that the position which Her Majesty's Government have taken up on this particular question is, on the whole, a wise and statesmanlike position. I should be sorry, therefore, to see any strong Party opposition to their proposals on the matter. I cannot forget that the state of Ireland has very much altered within the last two years. A very remarkable decrease of disorder has taken place—a decrease which appears to be still going on—and we could not be in a better position to settle this

    855
    question. More than that, I think that on this side of the House we should recognize with great satisfaction that a great change has come over the mind of Her Majesty's Government with respect to Ireland, and we may feel some confidence that the Government have learnt a great lesson from the events of 1880, 1881, and 1882, and that they have recognized more fully and completely than they had done before what the duties of the Irish Government are towards the Irish people. I think it may be said that the laud agitation is dying out, and that the principal features of that agitation have disappeared as far as we can judge. Just as, in physical life, men do not take vigorous exercise on a full stomach, so in the same way the Irish farmers, who may be described as replete with gain, are disposed to settle down in the enjoyment of that gain, and, at any rate for a time, to abandon those methods of violent agitation with which the House is only too familiar. In these circumstances it appears to me that the era of crime—or, at any rate, of abnormal crime—being at an end, and violent land agitation having also disappeared, the time has come for England to hold out to Ireland the generous hand of fellowship, and to sow the seeds of conciliation. I do not know that there is any better method of sowing the seeds of conciliation than by sowing the seeds of complete political equality. I should like to be allowed to look at this matter more in detail. What is it that this Bill proposes to do? What is the chief feature of it as regards Ireland? It proposes to confer the Parliamentary franchise on the Irish peasantry. To a certain extent, no doubt, it enlarges the constituencies in the towns, and that is a feature which I must frankly confess I do not like in the Bill. So long as the extension of the franchise was confined to the Bill for the assimilation of the borough suffrage in Ireland and England, which has come so often before the House, I invariably, except on one occasion, opposed it; but the chief feature of this Bill is undoubtedly to enfranchise the Irish agricultural labourer. On the whole, therefore, I do not, from what knowledge of the people which I have been enabled to gain, fear the effect of that enfranchisement. I hold that the sympathizers with Fenianism and conspiracies are to be
    856
    found in the towns, and that they are chiefly confined to the lower classes of the town population. I do not think these ideas have taken much root in the country population, and as a general proposition the incidents of agricultural life are not at all favourable to revolutionary movements. The agricultural peasant is ninth more under the proper and legitimate influence of the Roman Catholic priesthood than the lower classes in the Irish towns; and, at any rate on the subject of these Fenian and treasonable societies, for a long time past the attitude of the Roman Catholic priesthood has been one that must be most satisfactory to the Home Government. Nobody can have set his face more strongly against these movements than did the late Cardinal Cullen, and as long as Cardinal Cullen was alive he repressed to the utmost this movement with a strong hand. The course which he adopted appears to have been followed with great success and determination by Cardinal MacCabe. That being so, the strong influx of the country element—which I hold is not given to those treasonable aspirations—the sounder influences of the country element will altogether counterbalance the town feeling, which is more or less given to these enterprizes, and will be a guarantee, to some extent, against any danger the House might reasonably expect from the extension of the franchise. On the question of the land agitation I think it would not be uninteresting to the Committee to consider what would be the effect of the extension of the franchise to the peasantry of Ireland. I think, on the whole, it would not be unfavourable to the landlord interest. The Committee will recollect that during the time of the land agitation there was a great diversity of opinion between the labourers and the farmers, which gave great anxiety to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and great satisfaction to those who represented the landlord interest in this House. It therefore does occur to me that if at that time the Irish labourer, whose interest was so totally neglected during the land agitation, had been armed, with electoral power, and had been able to influence the Parliamentary representation of Ireland—it does appear to me that it was eminently within the bounds of possi-

    857
    bility that the position of the landlords might have been considerably improved. It is quite clear that in the condition of Ireland now the interests of the farmers and of the labourers are essentially diverse, and from that diversity will arise strong class differences, which we may fairly look upon as a guarantee for the safety of the State at large. We have heard a great deal of the mud-cabin argument. For the mud-cabin argument we are indebted to the brilliant, ingenious, and fertile mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith). I suppose that in the minds of the lords of suburban villas, or in the minds of the owners of pineries and vineries, a mud-cabin represents the climax of physical and mental degradation. But I must observe that the franchise, as far as I know, in England has never been determined by Parliament with respect to the character of the dwelling-house. After all, the difference between the mud-cabin of the Irish peasant and the cottage of the English agricultural labourer is not nearly so great as is the difference between the palaces which are the abode of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) and the modest dwelling which shelters from the storm and the tempest the humble individual who is now addressing the Committee. I can truly say—
    "Non ebur, neque aurenne,
    Meâ reuidet in domo lacunar:
    Non trabes Hymettiae,
    Premunt columnas ultimoâ recisas
    Africâ."
    But if, upon a distinction such as that—a distinction so arrogant, so plutocratic—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster were to propose to the Committee that he himself should have a vote at Parliamentary elections and that I should have none, I feel sure the House of Commons would repudiate the idea with indignation and disgust. On these general grounds I dispose of the mud-cabin argument. But it should also be recollected by the Committee that the fact of a man living in a mud-cabin, in Ireland is not the slightest proof that he is an incapable citizen. Very often the man who lives in a mud-cabin has a very decent small holding, and has money in the savings' bank besides. Intellectu-
    858
    ally, I am prepared to contend that the Irish peasant, though living in a mud-cabin, is often more suited to take an interest in and a sound view of political questions than the English agricultural labourer. And, further, the sort of mud-cabins which fills the right hon. Member for Westminster with so much alarm are chiefly confined, I imagine, to the West Coast of Ireland, where, undoubtedly, the class of dwellings appear to the English mind to be very miserable. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster has been misinformed when he is led to believe that the population of the West Coast of Ireland, which live in these dwellings, represents the whole population of the country; and even if it did I may further point out that the population all round the coast from Kerry to Donegal form, perhaps, the most peaceful and law-abiding part of the whole population in that country. Then we are told of the ignorance of the Irish people, and I think it was in a statement of the Vice President of the Council that we were informed that 40 per cent of the Irish population are ignorant and illiterate. I do not know whether that is an accurate statement or not. I think the right hon. Gentleman put it forward in a guarded manner; but even if it were accurate the evil is eminently curable. The Irish people, it should be remembered, have never yet had a complete system of compulsory education such as exists in England. Moreover, that 40 per cent is made up, to a great extent, of a generation that has very nearly passed away, and in the course of a few years it will not be surprising to learn that it has diminished by one-half or two-thirds, or even more. Again, that percentage is composed, to a large extent, of the population on the West Coast, where, until very recently, nothing but Gaelic was spoken—where Gaelic is the popular tongue, and where, in many places at the present moment, the English tongue is almost unknown to the people. Then we are told that the Protestant minority in Ireland will be overwhelmed by the Bill. If that argument were well founded it would deserve the serious attention of the House; but I do not see why the Protestant minority should be placed in a worse position by this Bill than they occupy at the present moment. Outside of Ulster there is a Protestant

    859
    minority which has no political power at present, except in so far as they are represented in the House of Peers. Generally speaking-, the representation of Ireland in this House, with the exception of Ulster, the University of Dublin, the county of Dublin, Portarlington, and the happy accident of Leitrim, is almost wholly in the hands of the Catholic Party. But inside Ulster, undoubtedly, the Catholics are not over-represented, and the Protestants are in the majority, and are represented. I do not see why they should be put in a worse position after this Bill passes than they are in now; because the Protestant population in Ulster, which has political power now, and the Catholic population, 95 per cent of which has no political power, are almost exactly equal. Roughly speaking, 800,000 represents the numbers of each Party. And where there is an equality of numbers, I do not see why the Protestant Party, with superior wealth, superior enterprise, superior learning, and superior intelligence to the Catholics, should not, with all those great advantages, obtain their full share of the representation which belongs to them. Balancing, then, all the arguments for and against the extension of the Bill to Ireland, I have arrived at the conclusion that we may with safety agree with the Government in this extension. After all, I think hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Tory Party may recollect that equality of political rights between Ireland and England has been, for the last 100 years, the principle of our legislation. It was undoubtedly the principle of Mr. Pitt at the time of the Union, and Mr. Pitt would have established complete equality of rights between Ireland and England if it had not been for the prejudices of the Court and the baneful influence of a too powerful Monarch. It was the principle of the Reform. Act of 1832, the great feature of which was the £10 borough franchise. Again, it was the principle of the Reform Bill of 1867; and Mr. Disraeli, in proposing the £4 rating franchise for Ireland, did so on the ground that that exactly represented the same class as were then enfranchised in England. Therefore, in 1832 and 1867, Parliament recognized the principle of equality of treatment between Ireland and England; and it was always the argument of hon. Gentlemen
    860
    on this side of the House that, as regarded the lowering of the borough franchise, a £4 franchise represented the same kind of persons as those enfranchised in England under a £10 franchise. Therefore, at the time of the Union, and also in 1832 and in 1867, Parliament did recognize the principle of equality of treatment. Now comes the question of the state of Ireland, and that bears out the view I am endeavouring to put before the Committee. At the time of the Union Ireland had just emerged, by a little more than a year, from a fearful rebellion; and it would have been in the power of the Parliament then to have disfranchised that country altogether, and governed it as a Crown Colony. But Parliament adopted the principle of Parliamentary and Constitutional Government for Ireland. In 1832, again, when you extended the £10 franchise to Ireland, the state of Ireland was frightful—far different from anything ever known before or since. Disorder, outrage, and crime in the country rose to a height that was unparalleled; so much so, that in the year after that large concession Lord Grey brought in. the severest Coercion Bill ever known, by which the whole of the civil tribunals were entirely superseded, and drumhead courts martial took their place. Yet that did not deter Parliament from extending the £10 franchise to Ireland. In 1867, again, Ireland had just emerged from a Fenian movement of certainly little less dangerous a nature than the Rebellion, of 1798; and it was only just put down when the Reform Bill was introduced by Mr. Disraeli in this House, on the distinct understanding that it was to be extended to Ireland. Parliament was not then deterred from extending equal rights to Ireland. Under all these circumstances, I may appeal to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House not to identify themselves as a Party with the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved. My hon. Friends on this side have constituted themselves the defenders of a great cause—a far spreading and wide-reaching cause—the preservation of our institutions at home, the maintenance of a vigorous foreign policy abroad, and the promotion of Imperial rule and Imperial union in our Colonies and Dependencies. Well, if that is so—if the cause, of which Members on this side are the defenders, is so

    861
    great—why should we, on a mere question of detail — [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Oh!] — on what, as compared with much wider questions, is a matter of detail—why, I say, should we alienate inevitably and irretrievably an immense number of the Queen's subjects both in Ireland and in Great Britain, whom, by a wiser policy and by happier methods, we may allure to our standard and our ranks? I would appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick), who, from the high intelligence and ability which he so constantly displays in the House, belongs, I imagine, to that more generous and advanced school of political thought which, having emancipated itself from the traditions of an antiquated past, desires to base the strength of the Tory Party upon the genuine and spontaneous affection of the people at large. I would appeal to my hon. Friend whether he will not now decline to press his Amendment to a Division, because it is, I think, a reactionary Amendment; it is an Amendment which is calculated to throw a slur and a stigma on the country with which my hon. Friend is closely and honourably connected; it is an Amendment which may have the effect of unnecessarily placing the Tory Party in pronounced opposition to the legitimate desires of an overwhelming majority of the Irish people; and it is an Amendment which would have the invidious effect of causing many who admire the position which my hon. Friend has gained, and who agree with him on almost all political points, to put themselves under the painful and disagreeable necessity of cither leaving the House or being found in the Lobby opposed to that of my hon. Friend. I therefore hope that, under all the circumstances, my hon. Friend will reconsider his position, and save the Committee the inconvenience of dividing.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: Sir, it is always a great pleasure to listen to what falls from the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), although I am bound to say that on many occasions a great number of those who sit on these Benches are unable to follow him, or, indeed, to agree with the conclusions to which he has arrived. At the present moment, after listening moot carefully to all that
    862
    has fallen from the noble Lord, what has been passing through my mind is this—what is the noble Lord really driving at? If the noble Lord is giving us a specimen of the Democratic Toryism of the future, I, for one, respectfully decline to follow any such doctrine, or any such Leader. I believe, myself, in the principles of honesty and straightforwardness, although, perhaps, they may be somewhat old-fashioned to certain Members of this House. At the same time, on a question of this sort, on which so many of us, from a close and intimate knowledge of Ireland, have formed strong and lasting convictions, I think we should, indeed, deserve the repudiation of those who have placed confidence in us, if, after having pledged ourselves to adopt a definite course in regard to this Amendment, we were to follow the noble Lord in endeavouring, at the expense of our principles, to catch a few stray votes at the General Election. Now, Sir, I will not follow the noble Lord in all his remarks in regard to Ireland, because I think, with all respect to him, that in his remarks he has shown a most complete want of knowledge of that country. I gather from his speech that he is of opinion that Cardinal Cullen is still alive.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No; I said the "late" Cardinal Cullen.
    LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: The noble Lord has referred to the endeavours of the leaders of the Roman Catholic priesthood to preserve order and to prevent anarchy in Ireland. We all know—or, at any rate, all who have any knowledge of Ireland know—that one man to whom the greatest praise is due in regard to this question is Cardinal MacCabe. ["Oh!"] I am aware that that is a name which is not popular with some hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway; but, at the same time, the ecclesiastical conduct of Cardinal MacCabe during the last three years has earned for him the approval of every right-minded man in the Three Kingdoms. I think that what we should do upon this question is to leave those sophistries and those abstract principles with which the Prime Minister dealt, and also the Chief Secretary, the other evening, and look the question straight in the face, dealing with facts as we find thorn in Ireland at the present moment; and having carefully viewed those facts, then let us consider whether, by extend-

    863
    ing the franchise in Ireland, we should include in the electorate a large number of capable citizens, and also add to the strength of the State. In the opening speech of the Prime Minister the one principle which ran through it was that the object of this reform is to enfranchise nil capable citizens, and by that enfranchisement to add strength to the State; but neither in that speech nor in a single word which has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman since the introduction of the Bill has he advanced a single argument or tittle of evidence whatever to show that the people of Ireland whom he proposes to enfranchise are in any respect capable citizens. Now, Sir, the noble Lord has said that the state of Ireland has shown great improvement during the last two years. I gladly admit it, and we all rejoice at it; but we and the people of Ireland are all aware of the fact that that improvement is due to the stringent powers which the Government of the present time have at their command, and to the, on the whole, efficient manner in which those stringent powers have been enforced by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, We know perfectly well that if the present restrictions were for a moment to relax Ireland would sink back to the state in which she was a year and a-half ago, for the improvement of Ireland is due in the main to the provisions of that Act. Yet this is the moment which the Government choose for introducing this Bill for Ireland. It is said that an improvement is visible in Ireland. Quite true; but land at this moment is unsaleable, and everything of capital that can be realized is being taken out of the country. Trade in many portions of Ireland is at a standstill; and what all the Irish people are anxious for, and asking for, is peace and quiet, and a firm administration of the law, in order that the farmers may have the full benefit of the measures which were passed three years ago. I am bound to say that, although on this side of the House we objected to those measures at the time of their passing, they are now being carried out in a loyal and impartial spirit by all for the common good of all. [Cries of "Oh!"] Of course, that is a proposition which hon. Members below the Gangway have a perfect right to dispute, if they can give evidence in support of their contention; but I main-
    864
    tain that the great bulk of the landlords, although they thought they were right in objecting to the Act of 1881, are now endeavouring to carry out the provisions of that Act in a cordial and liberal spirit, feeling that the time has come when both farmers and landlords should work together for the common good of the nation. On every side there is a wish to see prosperity restored to their common country. Yet this is the moment which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seizes for opening the floodgates of agitation in Ireland, and for bringing about such a state of things as will produce such a revolution in Ireland as we have never seen in our time. What are the grounds upon which the right hon. Gentleman does this? Have the Irish people asked for a reduction of the franchise? Can the right hon. Gentleman point to a single address or speech in which such a proposal was made at the last General Election? Can he show that any demand was made for the Bill? I watched carefully all that occurred in Ireland during the General Election; and as far as I a in aware there was no declaration, or even allusion, made upon that subject, nor, as far as I know, has there been the slightest expression of opinion on the part of the Irish people since the introduction of the Bill, in any degree, in favour of the enfranchisement which the right hon. Gentleman appears to wish so much to force down their throats. The proposal is entirely due to the exigencies of Party. The Bill is only introduced at the present moment to repair the fortunes of the Liberal Party; and no body of people could have been more astonished than the Irish people themselves, and especially hon. Members below the Gangway, when they were informed, shortly before Christmas, that Ireland was to be included in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman's enfranchisement. I should like to know what the opinion of the Irish farmers is in regard to the matter. The Irish farmers have just emerged from a period of great social revolution in Ireland, and they are just beginning to settle down and work cordially with the landlords and those who have relations with the soil. I wonder what the farmers of Ireland will think when they find out what this Bill really is. I was over in Ireland during the Easter Recess,

    865
    and I had an opportunity of conversing with a large number of the farmers upon this subject; but I did not find one who was really aware of the extent to which the Bill went. When they discovered that it proposed to hand them over absolutely and bodily to the tender mercy of the cottiers who work under them, their astonishment and indignation knew no bounds, and there was but one opinion expressed—that the Bill should be resisted to the uttermost. Unfortunately, there is no valuable middle class in Ireland such as exists in England. There are only three classes in Ireland—the landlords, the occupiers, and the tillers of the soil. At the present moment a large majority of those who possess votes in Ireland are the occupiers; and although I do not agree with the views of many of thorn who during past years have enjoyed the franchise, still I feel that, on the whole, they are a body of men who have something to lose, and who have some regard to the just rights of property. But what will the condition of things be under this Bill? It will hand over the rights of the bankers, the landlords, the shopkeepers, and the farmers, and of every single man who has any property or wealth whatever in Ireland, bodily, absolutely, and entirely to another class, who at the present moment have nothing whatsoever. What guarantee have you at all that that class will use the enormous powers you propose to intrust to them with justice, or to the benefit of the country at large? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in his opening speech, talked of capable citizens; but he made no attempt whatever to prove that the Irish cottier is a capable citizen. He went on to say that in Ireland the peasantry whom we call cottiers were, in his opinion, skilled labourers. Now, I will tell the right hon. Gentleman that when he talks of the Irish peasantry as skilled labourers he is talking sheer nonsense. They are nothing of the kind. I myself know a large number of the labourers of Ireland, and I have a strong regard for them. They are hard-working, industrious, good-hearted, and always cheery and hospitable to the so who mix with them; but, through no fault of their own, and I do not blame them for it, on the whole they are a most ignorant class. They are a class of whom 40 per cent
    866
    can neither read nor write, and most of them are mere hewers of wood and carriers of water; in no sense are they educated or skilled. I may add that there are in certain parts of Ireland a proportion of labourers who are educated and highly intelligent, and who are, perhaps, more intelligent than a similar class either in England or Scotland; but, unfortunately, those to whom I allude are in a very small minority of the whole; and, therefore, I contend that those to whom it is now proposed to give votes are incapable and ignorant, and not likely to add strength to the State. Now, Sir, I wish to call attention to the fact that the Government have chosen a most unfortunate moment, on other grounds, for dealing with this question. Those who have looked below the surface in Ireland, which is a thing Her Majesty's Government do not seem inclined to do, will have seen that the power of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) is commencing to be on the wane, for several reasons, and that, like many other mock patriots, the hon. Member has had his day. That sum of £36,000 or £37,000 paid over to him has stuck fast in the throats of many Irish farmers, and many of those who were among the admirers of the hon. Gentleman are beginning to mistrust him. They cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that a man who signed the "No Rent" Manifesto can be found figuring in a Court of Law suing an unfortunate tenant for rent. Therefore, the people of Ireland, at this moment, are beginning to be in doubt as to the power and as to the honesty of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. But there is another agency at work which is a still more potent one. The Irish people, in regard to their Representatives, are beginning to ask themselves the question—"Who is to continue to pay the piper?" We know that war cannot be carried on without funds, and the Irish people are beginning to find that the support of the large number of Members who sit below the Gangway is an exceedingly expensive and burdensome duty. I heard the other day; from a town in the centre of Ireland, that when collections were being made at the chapel doors on behalf of the two Members who represent the county, great dissatisfaction was expressed by the congregation, and some of them absolutely de-

    867
    clined to subscribe the money for which they were asked. Now, that is a movement which will be on the increase in Ireland if Her Majesty's Government would only be firm in the administration of the law, and would not indulge in fresh legislation. Whenever the next General Election takes place, they would find that, from want of funds, what are called "Home Rule candidates" of ability and power would not be forthcoming, and the Irish people would once more return to Parliament those who have been brought up and lived amongst them, devoting their lives to the interests of their country; and they would see at last the power of the hon. Member for the City of Cork broken down and a better state of things arrived at. Yet this is the moment Her Majesty's Government choose for inaugurating the measure to which I have referred. What will be the result of this legislation in a financial sense? Everybody knows that if the franchise is extended in Ireland the days of Home Hide are not far distant, and Home Rule means picking and jobbery to any extent. Those who look forward to that would be ready to make temporary sacrifices for the present, in order to come forward and stand as candidates, in the hope of receiving their reward in the future for their present services. Therefore, I say that, on every ground, the moment selected for dealing with the franchise in Ireland is most inopportune. I heard an hon. Member sitting on the other side of the House say in private—"How can things be much worse than they are at the present time?" Hon. Members forget that Parties in this House are governed by numbers, and whenever we have a contested election we must remember the cheers which greet the successful candidate as he walks up to the Table. We well know how each Party watches with great eagerness the accession of even one vote to its side. It is, therefore, sheer nonsense to say that it does not matter whether the hon. Member for the City of Cork has 40 or 80 Members at his back. If the hon. Member and his Friends have, as they wish to have, some 80 votes in another Parliament, they will hold, as the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has said, the fate of Parties in the palm of their hands to such an extent as to render all legislation in this House an absolute impos-
    868
    sibility, unless the Government of the clay are prepared to concede whatever demand is made upon them. I say that all legislation under such circumstances would be impossible. I do not suppose that hon. Members sitting below the Gangway would feel much dissatisfaction at that, for I do not imagine that they have any particular affection for Party Government, or for the Forms which regulate the procedure of this House. One or two hon. Members who sit below the Gangway have expressed in public their contempt of our Institutions, and have declared that their only object in taking their seats in this House is to achieve their desire for a National Parliament and the independence of Ireland. What said the hon. Member for the City of Cork the other day? He said that if he could only have a following of 80 Members, the renewal of a Coercion Act would become an impossibility; and he said, further, that when once the Act is no longer in force the National League would then have a career before it as glorious as that of the late Land League. Those are words which, I think, should be well weighed by every Member of this House. "The glorious history of the late Laud League"—a history steeped in blood and crime to its very close; and that is what the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends wish to resuscitate when they get the powers which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government is so eager to force upon thorn. They will once more raise the standard of the National League in Ireland; once more will anarchy and crime become rampant, and once more will misery, wretchedness, and poverty prevail in Ireland. In reply to all this, the right hon. Gentleman says—"Are you not going to do justice to Ireland?" Many crimes have been committed in this world before now in the name of justice. The justice which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to mete out to Ireland on this occasion is nothing short of a national crime in regard to the loyal portion of the community of that country. What does the right hon. Gentleman say? He says he would never consent to divide the people of Ireland into two camps, with a loyal minority and a disloyal majority. The right hon. Gentleman has said a good many things which he declines to do in regard to Egypt. Unfortunately, he

    869
    cannot look things in the face and see them as other people see them; but he looks at them through a pair of spectacles only suited to his own mind, and he ignores that which is patent to every man, woman, and child of ordinary intelligence. What did the right hon. Gentleman say at Leeds? He always speaks according to what suits his own purpose. He declines to recognize a loyal and a disloyal Party in Ireland; but how did he characterize the hon. Member for the City of Cork? He spoke of him as the great Leader of the anti-British Party in Ireland. What does that mean? Does not "anti-British" mean that there is both a loyal and a disloyal Party, and that the hon. Member for the City of Cork belongs to that which is disloyal? Then, what did the right hon. Gentleman say at Knowsley? A short time afterwards, he turned round to a deputation at Liverpool—a few days after the Corporation had declined to confer its freedom on the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)—with an air which seemed to say—"What a clever man I am; all this is my doing;" and he said—
    "The Corporation of Dublin have been and are the focus of political life in Ireland, and the conduct of national political life in Ireland has been regulated by the condition of that Municipality."
    Sir, there never was a day since the Municipality of Dublin has been established that it was as disloyal or as anti-British as it is at the present moment. Then, again, we find the Chief Secretary for Ireland speaking at Galashiels. What did my right hon. Friend say when he went there, not from the toils of the right hon. Gentleman, nor from the purlieus of Downing Street, but fresh from Dublin Castle? What did he say? He said it was only the British Government which stood at that moment between Ireland and civil war. Surely, in a civil war there must be two Parties. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that, if all the people thought alike, there was likely to be civil war between one another? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what was then in the mind of the Chief Secretary was this—that if it had not been for the British Government, and the troops at their command, there would have been open civil war between those who were loyal to the British Constitution and
    870
    those who were disloyal to it. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman declines to admit the existence of these two rival Parties, he declines to acknowledge that which is patent to everybody. I do not believe that the majority of the Irish people are at heart disloyal to the connection with this country; but I believe that what has been passing in Ireland for the last three years has produced a tendency in the Irish people to be hostile to England in the connection with this country; but I also firmly believe that that feeling is only transitory, and that it is only by the action of Her Majesty's Government, by their administration of the law with firmness, by supporting those who are loyal, whatever may be their religious belief, and by encouraging those who are still on the side of order, instead of deluging Ireland with a new class of voters and creating all the excitement which will follow a large enfranchisement, that the people of Ireland are to be won over to the British connection. The right hon. Gentleman said he had no fear of this loyal minority in Ireland. He acknowledged, then, that there was a loyal minority. What is the use of allowing the people to express their wishes and then refusing to carry out those wishes? If by giving the franchise to the cottiers you enable them, as you would under the present state of affairs, to return 80 Members pledged to support the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the Government of the two Kingdoms, how can you venture to say that the English and Scotch Members can recognize any other opinion than that of those who represent the great majority of the Irish people; and how can you do otherwise than give effect to their wishes? If you do not give effect to their wishes, what is the use of giving them votes at all? How are you to give them votes and say at the same time—"If you ask for anything we do not like, we will take care of the interests of the loyal minority and decline to concede what you ask." That is all nonsense. We know what the exigencies of Party are. If the right hon. Gentleman is in power to-morrow, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had a following of 80 Members, the Prime Minister would lose no opportunity of angling for their votes. That has been his settled course ever since he came into power in 1880.

    871
    On the whole, the principle which has actuated his policy has been an endeavour to gain the support of hon. Members below the Gangway, and what he has done in the past we may he perfectly convinced he will continue to do in the future. Therefore, I say that when he speaks of a minority in Ireland having the support of the Scotch and English Members, he is speaking behind the question, and is indicating a policy that can never be carried out. Then the right hon. Gentleman talks of equality. You say you are going to put Ireland on perfectly equal terms with England and Scotland; and he commences to produce the equality by taking away a certain number of Members from England, to which England is entitled both by population and taxation, and to confer those Members on Ireland. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that England, Wales, and Scotland pay taxes from which Ireland is exempt? Are hon. Members aware that there is no Land Tax and no Inhabited House Duty in Ireland, and that there are other taxes which Irishmen do not pay, but which Englishmen and Scotchmen have to pay? If, therefore, you are going to curry into effect the strict equality about which you talk and boast so much, are you prepared to levy the taxes in Ireland which you now demand from the Scotch and English people? If yon are not prepared to do so, the equality yon desire to have will not, exist. I am bound to say that if any Minister were to attempt to raise fresh taxes in Ireland—taxes which were remitted on account of the peculiar circumstances of Ireland—he would be a bold man, and would defeat the very object he had in view. I protest, on the part both of English and Scotch Members, against this kind of equality. We gave a Land Bill to Ireland because the Irish farmer was supposed not to be able to protect his own interests. Everybody that knows the Irish farmer knows that he is a much sharper fellow than the English or Scotch farmer; but these were the grounds on which we passed these Land Bills—namely, that the Irish farmer, owing to circumstances, was unable to take care of himself. And yet what you propose to do is this—you propose to give those people, who you yourselves acknowledge are incapable of taking care of themselves, more Members than their taxation
    872
    and population deserve. You are going to give them a larger number of votes in order to return an increased number of Members to legislate on English and Scotch affairs, and all this time their country will be under terms of taxation more favourable than either England or Scotland. You cannot, by adding any large number of illiterate men to the electorate of a country, add strength to the Constitution. When I remember the promises and allegations of the Prime Minister in the past, I am almost tempted to ask how his legislation has borne fruit. In his speech on the Motion for leave to bring in the Land Bill of 1870 the Prime Minister said—
    "And my hope, at least, is high and ardent that we shall live to see our work prosper in our hand, and that in that Ireland which we desire to unite to England and Scotland by the only enduring ties, those of free will and free affection, peace, order, and a settled and cheerful industry, will diffuse their blessings from year to year, and from day to day, over a smiling land."—(3 Hansard, [199] 387.)
    And what did the right hon. Gentleman's Colleague (Mr. John Bright) say on the Motion for the second reading of the Irish Church Bill in 1869? These were his words—
    "I say when I look on this measure I look on it as tending to a more true and solid union between Ireland and Great Britain; I see it giving tranquillity to our people…. I say I see this measure giving tranquillity to our people, greater strength to the realm, and adding a new lustre and a new dignity to the Crown. I dare claim, then, for this Bill the support of all thoughtful and good people within the hounds of the British Empire, and I cannot doubt that in its early and great results it will have the blessing of the Supreme; for I believe it to be founded on those principles of justice and mercy which are the glorious attributes of his eternal reign."—(3 Hansard, [194] 1894.)
    That is very beautiful language; but when we come to measure it with the actual results of Irish legislation, what empty and frothy verbiage it becomes. Therefore, I say, that in this great question we should be careful how we allow the enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman to guide our steps. Now, what did the right hon. Gentleman say in Mid Lothian when he was warned in regard to the condition of Ireland? What did he say with regard to Lord Grey, when Lord Grey foretold exactly what has since happened? The right hon. Gentleman said—"The apprehensions of Lord Grey were the apprehensions of an old woman." I should like to ask this

    873
    question of the House, who is the old woman now? Certainly it is not Lord Grey. What did the right hon. Gentleman say in his Mid Lothian speeches in regard to the encroachments of Russia towards India? He said—
    "Those who indulge in predictions regarding the encroachments of Russia upon India are simply indulging in the fears of old women."
    Who were right? Those who indulged in the predictions of old women, or the right; hon. Gentleman? When we, in regard to these great and important matters, have been so wofully and grossly misled by the right hon. Gentleman in the past, I think we should, indeed, hesitate before we follow him into those paths upon which he now invites us to enter. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has appealed to hon. Members. I appeal also to hon. Members on both sides of the House, having regard to the condition of Ireland and its history during the past six years—a history for which the Liberal Party and Liberal measures have been responsible—I ask them to pause before they embark upon this course. I ask them whether they cannot hold themselves aloof, and use their common sense and pause before they follow the infatuated man who leads them into disgrace abroad and anarchy at home? If they do not do so, and they vote for this Bill, I venture to predict that before five years are past they will bitterly repent the vote they have given; and the people of England will then arrive at the true meaning of the error they committed in 1880, when they declined to listen to the warning of Lord Beaconsfield with regard to Ireland, but once more returned to power the Member for Mid Lothian to complete his work of the disruption of the Union.
    LORD EDWARD CAVENDISHsaid, the noble Lord who had just sat down had told the Committee of the feelings with which he and hon. Members on the opposite side of the House listened to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). He did not know whether he had given a full interpretation of that speech, or whether he reserved a certain portion of it for prudential reasons. On that side of the House there were some who interpreted the meaning of that speech to be that the vote of hon. Members below the Gangway the
    874
    other night, which, till the last moment, had been kept a secret from the rest of the House, was no secret to the noble Lord and those who sat near him. [An IRISH MEMBER: It is utterly untrue.] However that might be, he did not wish to press the argument further, and would only say that they were glad to count the noble Lord on that occasion amongst the adherents and supporters of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. With the permission of the Committee, he wished to express the pleasure he felt that the noble Lord who had just spoken had sufficiently recovered from his indisposition to allow him to take part in the debate. At the same time, he was of opinion that the noble Lord's speech would do no good to the cause they all had at heart—namely, the future peace and prosperity of Ireland. There was much in that speech of the tone of the old ascendancy, and which would do nothing to reconcile the differences existing between the two countries. He felt, as an English Member, that perhaps he ought to apologize to the Committee for taking part in this discussion, which might be regarded as an Irish question; but his excuse must be that he looked upon it as an Imperial question; and he believed that many of the misunderstandings which existed between the two countries were due to the fact that English and Scotch Members had been too much inclined to regard Irish questions from their own point of view, and not as Imperial questions. The principal argument used in the course of the debate against including Ireland in the extension of the franchise was that it would largely add to the number of those Gentlemen who followed the lead of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and thereby enable him to turn the balance of Parties in that House in any way he pleased. The second reason was that the passing of this measure would act as a grave and serious discouragement to the loyal portion of the community in Ireland—to those who remained true to the English connection. On this last point he might say that in every part of England there had been the deepest sympathy with the loyal classes in Ireland; but it was felt that the difficulties in which those classes were placed were due mainly to the hostility of those amongst whom they lived, and that their difficulties would be diminished rather

    875
    than increased by conferring upon the classes who were not enfranchised the benefits which they themselves enjoyed. With regard to what had been said about increasing the following of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, the real danger and difficulty was not that the hon. Member should have 40, 50, or 100 followers, but the fact that his large majority might not disclose the actual feelings of the Irish people; and therefore he thought the question was one which deserved most serious consideration on the part of every Member of that House. At the same time too much weight ought not to be attributed to considerations of the kind, although it was impossible not to feel that in the next Parliament Parties in the House were likely to be more evenly balanced than they were at that moment. He held that they ought to endeavour to convince the Irish people that there was an honest, sincere, and heartfelt intention on the part of everyone in this country to treat them with perfect justice. The former action on our part had undoubtedly led to a sense of grievance and injustice amongst the Irish people. Unless they gave men what was right and just, they could expect from them nothing but hostility and ingratitude; but he honestly believed that, by making this concession to the Irish people willingly and cheerfully, we might be brought nearer to a happy future. The past had been dark and dismal, but he trusted brighter days were in store; and, these being his views, no power on earth would induce him to give his vote in favour of an Amendment which, if agreed to, would shut out the Irish people from the privileges we were about to confer upon ourselves.
    MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he was sorry that the happy accident referred to by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had enabled him to hear a speech from him (Lord Randolph Churchill), which, considering the favourable position he occupied with reference to the obtaining of information on affairs in Ireland, nevertheless contained more inaccuracies, fallacies, and antiquated theories than had often before been uttered by a Member of that House. The noble Lord had adverted to many topics which might as well have been left out of the discussion; for instance, he referred to the action of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and to the difference
    876
    between the Protestant and Roman Catholic religious. No one more than he (Mr. Tottenham) gave greater credit to the heads of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland for the manner in which they had endeavoured to put down everything in the nature of agitation and outrage; but the noble Lord must remember, or if he did not he ought to be perfectly well aware, that amongst the junior members of the Roman Catholic hierarchy there was not the same spirit which reigned amongst their superiors. He might, at all events, have known that there were Parties other than those in that House in which insubordination existed. Now the noble Lord, amongst other things, had stated as one of the reasons for the illiteracy which prevailed in the lower stratum of society in Ireland that the Irish language was principally spoken in the West. His recollection, however, went back further than the noble Lord's, and certainly that was not his experience. Again, the noble Lord had questioned the figures which had been quoted on this subject; but he believed he should be able to convince him that those figures were absolutely correet. Then the noble Lord went on to say, because Lord Grey passed one of the strongest Coercion Acts ever passed in the country the year after the passing of the Reform Bill that it was a reason why they should follow his example. Passing from the speech of the noble Lord to that of the Prime Minister upon this question, which the right hon. Gentleman said was made out of courtesy to the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), and not because it was necessary to reply to his arguments—the right hon. Gentleman stated that he could not consider that Ireland was divided into two Parties—namely, a loyal minority and a disloyal majority. Now, the right hon. Gentleman could generally persuade most people to take his view of most things; but he very much doubted whether he could persuade the English people that there were not two Parties in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a better feeling in Ireland than formerly; but if that were so, what was the reason for these repeated Coercion Acts which had culminated in that Act the most drastic and severe that ever passed the House of

    877
    Commons? Again, the right hon. Gentleman argued that because there were 500 or 600 English and Scotch Members of that House they were not likely to be dictated to by the Irish Members who would be returned under the Bill. But that was a false issue to put before the country; the right hon. Gentleman knew well that it was not a question of 70 or 80 Members dictating to 500 others, but of their dictating to the balance between Parties on a Division; he knew what the effect of that must be upon any Party in power; and he knew, further, that either on the old field of Kilmainham or elsewhere it would be necessary to make fresh, concessions to that Party to whom he had already so often given way. He (Mr. Tottenham) asked whether it was just to the people of England and to the loyal minority in Ireland that they should be placed in that position, and that instead of endeavouring to curb the power for mischief, which the Party to whom he alluded undoubtedly possessed, the right hon. Gentleman should deliberately place in their hands a weapon which would increase their present power four-fold? As the right hon. Gentleman had said, "It is equal justice which will determine the issue of the conflict," he would draw the attention of the Committee to a few of the component parts of that equality. The present value of rateable agricultural property in Ireland was £11,021,000; it was represented by 166,000 electors, and the Government were about to hand it over to an entirely new class—the 662,000 electors who would be created by the Bill. He failed to see any justice in that proceeding, which entirely obliterated all the capital, intelligence, and property in the Irish counties. These 662,000 electors did not contribute 1s. to the rates and taxes of the country, which were paid for them by a section of the existing 166,000 electors, it having been considered in previous legislation that persons in so low a position should not be called upon to pay their quota of public burdens. Yet these were the men that were to be allowed to swallow up the existing electorate by the means he had described. With the single exception of County Dublin, in which the addition to the roll of electors would be two-and a-half times the existing number, there was
    878
    no county in Ireland in which the electorate would not be trebled, while in Donegal and in Mayo it would be respectively eight and 12 times what it was at present; or, otherwise expressed, the electorate of Mayo, which was now only 3,080, would be raised by the Bill to 37,660, and that of Donegal, at present numbering 4,484, would be raised to 37,779, a state of things for which no parallel was to be found in any English county that would be brought within the scope of the measure. Looking at this matter from an educational point of view, he asked what was the condition of the citizens whom it was proposed to enfranchise; and whether the Government, or any Member of it who had considered this matter, would lay before the country and the House the real facts of the case? He thought the Committee would be astounded by some of the figures which he proposed to give from the Return of the Registrar General, and which he believed the Committee would think constituted an unanswerable argument against the extension of the franchise in Ireland in the manner proposed. It would be found that the average for the whole of Ireland of those who could read and write was only 59·3. In the counties where the additions to the existing electorate would be specially large the average was lower. Thus it was only 31·8 in Galway, 42 in Donegal, and 30·8 in Mayo, while the Province of Connaught, taken altogether, had only 47·2 who could read and write. Again, how would the matter stand in relation to the supposed secrecy of the Ballot? Why, the figures meant that out of every 100 votes for these comities, 60 per cent would be known to all the persons in the polling-booth, and the same would be the case with regard to Connaught and the whole of Ireland, to the extent of 53 percent and 41 percent respectively. He asked those who were responsible for the secrecy of the Ballot whether they were not stultifying themselves by supporting this measure? Then there were 64,000 persons who could only speak the Irish language, and who would further require an interpreter between them and the presiding officer. The Returns showed that at the lection of 1880 there were 5,312 illiterate votes recorded; but the Government were now

    879
    going to take in the whole class in which illiteracy existed. The result would be that, instead of 1 in 47, there would be 40 in every 100 whose votes would be known in every polling booth. Was there any justice in that—taking the voting power away from the educated people, and giving it to people who could not read the names of those they were taken to support? Now, what were the class, and the residences, and the surroundings of these people? The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had already adverted to this subject, and he agreed with the noble Lord entirely in the sentiment that it did not follow that because a man lived in a mud cabin, or in one or two rooms, he should therefore invariably be unfit to exercise the franchise; but when they found such an enormous preponderance of those who wore the lowest in the social scale, they were bound to come to the conclusion that they should not be allowed entirely to swamp those who were educated and were in a higher social position. He did not think they were aware of the extent to which houses or cabins of this sort existed in Ireland. From the Registrar General's Returns it would be found that no less than 40,665 of the proposed electors lived in mud cabins of one room, and that 376,165 lived in cabins of the same sort, but of more than one room. He maintained that these were hardly the circumstances and social surroundings which capable and independent citizens who were to be intrusted with the franchise should have. In 1867, on the 1st of August, when the Reform Bill was introduced, or when the second reading came on in the Upper House, the late Lord Derby used these words—
    "In considering the wants of enfranchisement, we took into consideration, not only great counties and great towns, but the due distribution of representation among the manufacturing, commercial, and landed interests."— (3 Hansard, [189] 540.)
    That was an intelligible principle; but what was there analogous to that in the proposal now before Parliament? They were sweeping away the whole of those interests by the predominating power which they proposed to place entirely in the hands of one class, and that class the one which had, in many instances, proved itself the least competent to possess it. He wished he could close the list
    880
    of electoral disabilities here; but there was another element to be considered even if any justification had been shown for this total and entirely arbitrary transfer of power. Given on both sides of the Channel equal conditions, he would admit that it would be hard to justify the proposition that Ireland should be denied what was given to England; but, given on one side loyalty and attachment to the Queen and the country, and given on the other side disloyalty and intended dismemberment of the Empire, little short of absolute recklessness and insanity could possibly prompt a policy of aiding and abetting this disloyalty, and making these people the sole depositories of political power. In this case the loyal minority would be reduced to absolute silence, and the disloyal majority would be invested with undisputed sway. Was it necessary to recall to the recollection of the Committee the state of two of the counties to which he had already referred, and which had been more or less distinguished for outrages during the past two years? The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had referred to thorn as being among the most peaceable and well-behaved counties in Ireland; but after the Papers presented and the statements made in that House, he should really think the noble Lord must have been wilfully deaf to all he had heard, or had shut his eyes to the facts presented to that House. One of those counties in particular was the hot-bed and birth-place of the crime and outrages which had disgraced the country; and to this it was now proposed to give a greater extension of electoral privileges than to any other district—and for what? To enable them with redoubled force to prosecute that agitation which their experience of the present Government had taught them could only be too successful in the hands of unscrupulous men. The Prime Minister had stated that he was not a flatterer of Gentlemen from Ireland below the Gangway, and he accused the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) of being their flatterer. Why? Because he called a spade a spade, and unmasked the fallacies and false issues put before the House and the country by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and other Members of the Go-

    881
    vernment, by which they endeavoured to mislead both the House and the country. His right hon. and learned Friend showed up the naked facts in an unanswerable manner; and he would ask any unprejudiced listener who heard the speech of the, Prime Minister, and saw the glances and blandishments he lavished upon that quarter of the House, and particularly when he stated that Ireland was fairly entitled to more than her numerical proportion of representation, and that she should gain it at the expense of this country, to say who was the flatterer. The Prime Minister, in a sketch of redistribution which he laid before the House, informed Members from Ireland that the number of Members from Ireland ought not, in any case, to be reduced, but that the number of Members for the Southern boroughs of England ought to be reduced and made use of for the benefit of Scotland and the North of England. If that was not practically telling Ireland that she was to obtain more than her proper numerical representation at the expense of England, he failed to understand the English language. Who was the flatterer then? Was a more undisguised or more unblushing attempt to gain the vote of a particular section of the House ever made by the right hon. Gentleman, or by anyone else, during his long career? The Chief Secretary had compared the present proposal with the principal feature of the Bill of 1868, which reduced the borough franchise from £8 to £4; and he argued that because that was done during the existence of a Coercion Act, the same thing might be safely and fairly done now. But what was the effect of that Bill? It had the effect of adding 15,000 electors to the whole electorate of Ireland, or about 10 per cent. Surely that was a very different proposal from that now before the House, by which they were about to add 300 per cent of the class who had principally brought about the necessity for a Coercion Act? The Chief Secretary further said that those people had yet to be proved to be bad citizens. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his experience, they had proved themselves to be good citizens? He had also said a large class would be won over to the side of the law who were at that moment outside the law. If the right hon. Gentleman seriously
    882
    believed that that would be the case, all he could say was that his credulity had been more imposed upon than he could ever have believed possible during his tenure of Office for two years in Ireland. In his opinion, the sum of the whole matter was this—the proposition was to transfer the representation of Ireland from those who had a stake in the country to those who had none—to the poverty-stricken; from those who had education and intelligence to those who were illiterate and ignorant; from those who had some little social status to those who were in the lowest scale in that respect; from the remnant of those who had been loyal to their Queen and their country to the disloyal and the turbulent. He would not be misunderstood by the loyal people of Ireland in regard to his opposition to the Bill and his support of the Amendment. There would, no doubt, be a small proportion of loyal men who would not be enfranchised if the Amendment was carried; but they would know that it was in their interest that it should be so, and that what had been done was solely to prevent their coming under the domination of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his following. There was a view of the question touched upon by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), and that was, the possible relations between this proposed change and the hoped-for change in the relations between England and Ireland which underlay every act and motion of the Party who called themselves the National Party. The Prime Minister had been well reminded that he could persuade himself of almost anything. Had he persuaded himself that he was not placing the trump card in his adversaries' hands, and, in fact, saving them the trouble, of playing the game? To anyone who knew anything about the country, and was not blindly reckless of the consequences, a more disastrous policy than this could not be conceived. He could not attempt to emulate the eloquent language of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Plunket) in the way in which he put the issue before the Committee; but he implored the Committee to pause before they gave their assent to a proposition fraught with the most grave and perilous consequences to the honour and dignity of Parliament, and to such a vital blow as this must

    883
    necessarily be to the integrity and unity of the United Kingdom.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he was anxious, as one of the loyal Irish Members, to say a few words, before the debate closed, upon the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Claud Hamilton). He would say, as one of the loyal minority, that they would be able, in Ulster, to take care of themselves in the future as they had in the past; and he believed that when the crisis came in Ireland, under this Franchise Bill they would not be without their fair representation in that House. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool had spoken of the Government angling for the Irish vote. If his recollection served him aright, he was not aware that the Government during the last three or four years had ever received the Irish vote on any crucial occasion, when their existence was at stake; and he thought that angling for the Irish vote might be very well left to hon. Gentlemen opposite. With regard to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), the Committee had had an opportunity of comparing the broad and generous sentiments uttered by an English Conservative with the narrow and bigoted speeches of Irish Tories, who, with the exception of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), never in that House uttered one generous sentiment with regard to their fellow-countrymen. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock said he objected to an extension of the franchise principally on account of the danger of increasing the electorate in towns in Ireland. What were the facts? In Ulster, every borough but one—namely, that represented by his (Mr. Dickson's) son (Dungannon), was in the hands of the Tory Party; so that in that Province a £4 franchise returned all Tory Members, while the Liberal representation was confined to the counties upon a £12 franchise. Why should Ulster Conservatives, therefore, object to a reduction of the franchise? The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had effectually disposed of the cry about mud cabins; and he hoped it would not again be referred to in that House. The mud cabins in Ireland were in many cases very comfortable dwellings, and the occupants were not less qualified to
    884
    exercise the franchise than the dwellers in the foul slums of Liverpool, Birmingham, and London. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool had asked the Committee to look at this question of the extension of the franchise straight in the face. He would ask the Committee to do the same thing, and to consider for a moment the disastrous results that would follow upon refusing to Ireland equality with England and Scotland. That was a refusal which would scatter broadcast in Ireland the seeds of discontent, and which would yield in the future, as in the past, a harvest of disaffection and crime. He was anxious to see the Union between the two countries continued and more firmly established; but the enemies of the Union in that House were the men who would seek to deprive Ireland of the franchise and place her in a position of inequality to England. After the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, he had every confidence that the opposition of the Conservatives would cease; for he believed that in the country the Conservative Party would endorse the policy announced by the noble Lord, that Ireland should be placed in a position of political equality with England and Scotland.
    MR. CHAPLIN: The hon. Member who has just spoken drew a comparison between what he called the conduct of a bigoted Irish Tory on the one hand, and a generous English Conservative on the other. I am not able altogether to share the hon. Member's estimate of the generous English Conservative in this case; and I desire to make one or two comments upon the speech which was delivered by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) this afternoon. Unfortunately, I was not in the House when the opening of that speech was made; but I listened with the closest attention to the greater part, which was remarkable in itself, and will, I think, be known hereafter as memorable in the extreme. The noble Lord has recently achieved, by the display of rare political qualities, a very considerable, and even a great position among the statesmen and politicians of this country; but there is one quality—namely, that of political consistency, for which I cannot help thinking the noble Lord, in his speech he has made this afternoon, will not have much enhanced

    885
    his reputation. The noble Lord dealt with the question of mud cabins at considerable length; and, passing from that, he alluded to the charges of ignorance made against the Irish people; and then he proceeded to give his reasons in answer to the argument which had been used with respect to Protestant minorities; and he finally arrived at the conclusion that it would be his duty on this occasion to press Conservative Members on this side of the House not to persevere with their opposition to the extension of the suffrage in Ireland. But there was one question with which the noble Lord did not deal at all, and that is the question which has been pointed out over and over again in this House, and also by the noble Lord himself, as constituting the great danger we have to deal with in connection with this question, and it is a danger which I venture to think has occupied the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and of a vast number not only of Conservatives, but of Liberals, for months past—namely, the enormous addition to the force of the Separatist Party which will be made by this Bill. That, I think, is the real danger we have to deal with and to face; and so strongly is it felt, that not only was it spoken of by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War during the Recess, but his noble Relative (Lord Edward Cavendish), this afternoon, has also alluded to the question, although he came to a different conclusion. But I must say I am not altogether surprised at the entire and complete avoidance of this subject in the noble Lord's speech, because I recollect being amazingly struck by one of the most able speeches I ever read, and which was delivered by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock during the Recess on this particular question. Well, recollecting some of the sentiments which fell from him oil that occasion, I was greatly surprised at the speech he has now delivered; and I have taken an opportunity of refreshing my memory in the Library with regard to the contents of that speech during the Recess. I am sure the noble Lord will excuse me if I mention the statements he made at that time. He had been speaking of the probable number of adherents with which the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would return to Parliament under any circumstances after
    886
    a General Election. He put the number at 60 or 70; and he said—
    "If you lower the franchise in Ireland to the same level as the Government propose for England and Scotland, if you establish household suffrage in town and country all over Ireland, Mr. Parnell will have a working Party in the House of 100 Members; and this Party, be it 70, be it 100, will continue to proclaim, with increasing and resounding chorus, that the first and the last, the greatest and the least, of their demands is the repeal of the Union. Now, I say that is a serious state of things in time of peace; it would be a perilous state of things in time of war."
    I am reading exactly what the noble Lord said, and I cannot be a willing or a consenting party to this alarming and perilous state of things which he describes in these words. A little later on the noble Lord proceeds to say—
    "I do not say we are on the high road to losing Ireland; but I say this—that we are in sight of the entrance to the high road that will lead to the loss of Ireland."
    And, finally, he concluded with advice to the Conservative Party, which, I must say, appeared to me to be exactly opposite to that which he has given his Conservative Friends this afternoon, for he said—
    "It is time—it is high time—to pull up. Concede nothing more to Mr. Parnell, either on the land, or on the franchise, or on local self-government."
    Now, I must say I think I was justified in some of the astonishment I felt when I saw the noble Lord, with these words fresh in my recollection, turn round to my hon. Friend, and appeal to him to make the concession to the hon. Member for the City of Cork and to the House, which is demanded by the Government. I do not wish to deal with this matter in any way but a way which will be considered good-humoured. I am in some difficulty as to how to describe the matter, but I think the noble Lord himself has helped me out of the difficulty; and if I could cull a few flowers from his rhetoric I should call it "emancipation from an antiquated past." But the antiquated past in this case dates only from December last, and I hope that in the future these conversions of the noble Lord will be somewhat less sudden, and the past somewhat more antiquated than it has been in this cause. The noble Lord the Member for North Derbyshire (Lord Edward Cavendish) addressed us this afternoon—I think for the first time

    887
    he has taken any part in this question. I confess I would much rather have heard the sentiments of his noble Relative who sits on the Front Treasury Bench. That noble Marquess has been repeatedly challenged in this House to explain to Parliament the statements upon this question which he has repeatedly made in the country; but upon every one of these occasions he has remained silent, and has never had the courage to get up in this House and justify his position in the House of Commons at the present time. I must say that when a distinguished statesman like the noble Marquess, who was but lately the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House, is repeatedly challenged to make good before the House of Commons statements he has made in the country—or, at all events, to explain his reasons for departing so completely from them, and remains utterly silent in respect to challenges, there is only one conclusion which the country can place upon it. It has been stated over and over again—I think even this afternoon it has been referred to—that the noble Marquess declared that the extension of the franchise—or, at all events, that was the only possible inference to be drawn from his language—to Ireland at the present time, and in the present condition of that country, would be nothing short of absolute madness. I believe in saying that the noble Marquess accurately described the position as regards the country; but what is the position as regards the House of Commons? We have all seen the effect which the determined action of 30 united Members has bad in paralyzing the Business in this House. I cannot complain of the Irish Members, for they have been perfectly frank from the first, and have openly avowed that the great object and aim they have is to bring about a separation between England and Ireland. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] A declaration was made the other day by the hon. Member for the City of Cork that national independence of Ireland was the goal he had in view; and how Ireland is to have national independence without separation I am at a loss to conceive. But what would be the position of the House? When you have had difficulties from the presence of 30 determined Irish Members, when you have had your Business paralyzed, and your Rules altered, and
    888
    the House of Commons rendered practically powerless to deal with manifold and important subjects put before it, what will be then your position? Will it be better, or will it be infinitely worse, when you are confronted with 100 determined men, following the same Leader, and for the same purpose and object? A great danger which the country will have to face in future, and it is the greatest danger which I foresee, is this—that the time will arrive when, we shall have evenly balanced Parties sitting opposite to each other in the House of Commons, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork, with 100 men behind him, will be able to balance the scales. As illustrative of the fear which I entertain, and of the difficulties which I foresee, I would like to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, or to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Can they govern Ireland now without the Prevention of Crime Act? Will any Member of the Government get up in his place and say they are able, consistently with their duty to the country and the Queen, to govern Ireland at the present time without coercion? Have they any reasonable hope, that they will be able to govern Ireland next year without coercion? In the face of all the recent dynamite discoveries, of the serious gravity and importance of which I suspect the Government are more aware than any Member of the House, they must, indeed, be sanguine, if that is their opinion. If they cannot govern Ireland without coercion, I ask them how they are going to renew the Coercion Act, supposing this Bill is passed, and the Party of the hon. Member for the City of Cork receives large additions to its strength? You remember what occurred on the last occasion, when there were only 30 Members opposed to you. Even then the passing of the Coercion Act was only effected by a coup d'état, which the right hon. Gentleman himself was the first to say must never occur again. Does he think that the position will be made much easier or facilitated by trebling the number of the supporters the hon. Member for the City of Cork commanded at that time? I assume that we shall be told by Her Majesty's Government that this Amendment, if carried, will be fatal to the Bill; that, I understand, is the view which the Government take on

    889
    this question. I have held, from the first, that the present condition of Ireland affords a complete justification, not for separating, not for placing Ireland on a footing of inequality from England or Scotland, but for postponing the consideration of this question altogether. As I understand that this Amendment, if carried, would be fatal to the Bill, the end and object which I have in view would be accomplished by the adoption of the Amendment; and I shall, therefore, give my hon. Friend (Mr. Brodrick) my most hearty support.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) had suggested that any hon. Member who took a line in favour of the view which had been expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) might be wanting in honesty and straight forwardness. The hon. Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) carried the matter a little further, because he suggested that any person who took the same view as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock would be guilty of recklessness or insanity. It was a little dangerous for hon. Members to speak so strongly upon a matter on which they could not feel that the whole of their Party were agreed; and they might well take a lesson from a very wise remark that he remembered had once been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. (Sir Stafford Northcote), as to the course he pursued on the Irish Land Bill, that it was scarcely to be expected that he would take a very strong line when so many of his own political Friends took a directly opposite view. It would be well that those hon. Members who happened to take a strong view upon this part of the Franchise Bill should, at any rate, allow that it was possible that some persons who thought and voted with them upon most political subjects might take an opposite view. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) spoke of the Conservative Party as being pledged to a certain view upon the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick). Now, whatever might have been the inconsistency of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, as put forth by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire
    890
    (Mr. Chaplin), the noble Lord was quite capable of clearing himself from any charge of inconsistency. The noble Lord made no secret of his change of opinion, as, indeed, during the autumn, he had openly put forward a different view to that which he entertained at present. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) gladly welcomed the change of view which the noble Lord had adopted. He had always said that though the state of Ireland at present might be a sufficient reason for postponing the Bill; though it might be well to wait until there was that pacific, condition of Ireland to which he hoped events were leading; though it might be well to wait for a happier state of things before they gave the Irish people that right to which citizens of this country were entitled; yet if the condition of Ireland be not held to be a sufficient ground for the delay of the Franchise Bill, it could only be justice that that which Parliament gave to England they should also give to Ireland. It could be the only means which Parliament had of saying to the people of Ireland— "You may seek to separate yourselves from us if you will; you may enter into illegal combinations; but that will be no reason why we shall do anything which savours of injustice towards you or any part of your citizens." What was it that was said against the extension of the francise to Ireland? The mud-cabin argument was, to his mind, the lowest argument that could be used. Surely the majority of the House did not contend that because a man did not live in a good house he was unfit to exercise the franchise? Why, it was patent to everybody that the man who lived in a good house might be a fool, while the man who lived in a mud cabin might be just the reverse. It was said it would be dangerous to sanction the proposed extension of the franchise because the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) might have a larger following than he had at present. All he (Mr. Staveley Hill) could say was—"Be just and fear not." Let the hon. Member for the City of Cork come into the next Parliament—an event which he (Mr. Staveley Hill) hoped was not far distant—and let him come, if he could, accompanied by 80 or 100 Members. Let those Members, however, be elected by the larger constituencies; let them come to the House of Commons and be

    891
    able to say—"It is not simply the vote of the farmer we represent; but it is also the vote of the labourer." If they could come to the House and say that, their opinions would be entitled to far more weight than they were at present. He, for one, did not believe any harm would result from the extension of the franchise to Ireland, he believed that when the Irish Members felt that justice had been conceded to them it would be found that they were not so obstructive in the government of the Kingdom; it would be found that they would take a far greater interest in the affairs appertaining to the welfare of the Empire. At any rate, let Parliament give them the chance of doing so; because what did such an argument amount to if it was pursued to the end? It was said they ought not to extend the franchise to Ireland, because a greater number of Members holding the views now held by the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his followers would be returned. But if that argument was good for anything they ought to go further and say—"We will disfranchise Ireland altogether." It was conceded that what was described as an equally bad result would follow an Election by the present constituencies. If they were not prepared to disfranchise Ireland, why not give her the full measure of the franchise which they claimed for England and Scotland? He had no great love for the Bill at the present time; but he felt that if they altered their electoral power in one part they must alter it in the whole. When, however, they came to the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley), or to that of the hon. Gentleman oppposite (Mr. A. Grey), it should have his (Mr. Staveley Hill's) support, because he agreed that the Bill should be delayed until the introduction of the Redistribution of Seats Bill. But the non-introduction of the Redistribution Bill was no reason why, if this Bill should be passed, an act of injustice should be done to Ireland. They must be just to the Irish people; they must give them that franchise which was claimed for English citizens; and they must trust that that franchise would be well and properly used.
    MR. EWARTsaid, it was his intention to support the Amendment, because he did not share the optimist views which
    892
    had been expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. He considered that at the present time Ireland was in a state of veiled rebellion. It was true there was a large diminution in the number of outrages—the "Boycotters" and the "Invincibles" had suspended their operations—but he attributed the cause to the very extraordinary power which the Government possessed in the Coercion Act, and not to any change in the opinions or views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parcell) or of the people of Ireland. Now, this Bill would, according to the hon. Member's (Mr. Parnell's) own admission, add very much to his power. The hon. Member had a great object in the passing of the Bill, hence the attitude towards the Bill which he had adopted. The hon. Member had not in the slightest degree modified his demand for a separate Legislature, for his latest utterances upon that question were as strong as those of any previous time. A separate Legislature for Ireland meant nothing more than a repeal of the Union; and if hon Gentlemen opposite seriously considered the matter they must arrive at the same conclusion. If, however, they had any difficulty in arriving at that conclusion, he referred them to a recent declaration of Lord Derby's, who had said that if Ireland were granted a separate Legislature there would certainly be a repeal of the Union before many years were over. This Bill, if passed into law, would be the greatest possible discouragement to the loyal people of Ireland, while it would be the greatest possible encouragement to the disloyal portion of the community. It would practically disfranchise the loyal people of Ireland. He wished his hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) had given some details of the method in which the, loyal people of Ireland would in future be secured in anything like a fair representation. The Return relating to the number and value of houses in Ireland threw a flood of light upon the question. In round numbers there were now 230,000 electors, but it was proposed to increase them to 730,000. The new voters would be of a class very much inferior to the old voters, in education, in intelligence, and in independence. The Irish con-

    893
    stituencies, on the whole, would be very much inferior to those of England and Scotland. In Ireland, unfortunately, the middle class formed a very small proportion of the community, so that the whole preponderance of political power was to be given to those who were wanting in the important Qualifications to which he had just referred. He should be sorry to see, even in Great Britain, supreme control in political affairs given to one class without some check or counterpoise, which this Bill did not propose. It was generally agreed that to give all the power to one class was highly dangerous to the State. If it was unwise to give unchecked power to the lower classes in Great Britain, how much more unwise would it be to give absolute power to the lower classes in Ireland, a large proportion of whom would be entirely in the hands of the demagogues? They would have no less than 80 or 90 Members following the hon. Member for the City of Cork, or if they were to take the opinion of that "eminent" Irishman and ex-head centre, Mr. Stephen, they would have returned to the House of Commons Members holding even more extravagant views than the followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork held. Members would be returned who would be pledged to the dismemberment of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had spoken of the moderate views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for County Cork (Mr. Shaw); but he (Mr. Ewart) very much feared that if this Bill passed his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw) would not be found in the next Parliament. What was it the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) said on the subject? Speaking at Manchester recently, the hon. Gentleman said—
    "His Party would come back to the House of Commons strengthened in numbers by probably 30 or 40. They would then be so strong that they would turn the balance in whichever way they thought right, and it would not be possible for any Ministry to remain long in power, unless they suited the Irish Parliamentary Party. When that time came they would hold the fate of English Ministries and political Parties in their hands."
    Was that a state of things which hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to see? Was that a state of things which would tend to good, useful, and honest legislation? He fully admitted that there
    894
    were great objections to omitting Ireland from the Bill; but such arguments were unanswerable against proceeding with the Bill at the present time. If the Leaders of the Irish Party laid down their arms the case might be different; but even then the Bill ought not to be passed without some good scheme for the representation of minorities. Without some such scheme the loyal people of Ireland would be practically disfranchised. Those people formed a third of the population, and they comprised the intelligence, the industry, and the wealth of the country. There were wanting in this Bill clauses dealing with the redistribution of seats in Ireland, and with the number of Members Ireland should have. He protested against the measure, because it would work nothing short of a revolution. In the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), "this Bill would be the greatest change in the law since the Revolution of 1688;" it transferred power from, those who now had it to those who had it not, and it contained proposals with regard to Ireland which were received with great concern by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). The opinions of those Gentlemen were entitled to the greatest weight. The words of the noble Marquess were particularly weighty from the fact that he once held the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. Other opportunities would probably be afforded of speaking on this question; but he (Mr. Ewart) felt bound to protest now, in the name of the largest constituency in Ireland, against this very dangerous measure.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that when the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) introduced his Motion some days ago, hon. Members were in great expectation that something like the opinion of the House would be taken on what was really the main principle of the Bill. Undoubtedly the main principle of the measure was the extension of the franchise to Ireland, because it was well known that if Ireland were excluded from the benefit of the Bill, the Bill must fall to the ground. But the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire, notwithstanding his great gallantry in debate, declined to go to the Division

    895
    which was open to him, and therefore, it was that the question was brought on again on Friday last, after comparatively little notice. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had incurred the displeasure of some hon. Members because he had the courage (if his opinions; although some of his opinions had been recently formed he had had the courage to express them. Many other hon. Members had changed their opinions, although they did not always make the fact known. When the Bill was introduced it was believed by some hon. Gentlemen that it would enormously magnify the power of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) believed it might increase his hon. Friend's power to some extent; but he ventured to say that nothing could be more unwise than the policy which the Irish Conservative landlords wore pursuing in denying the extension of the franchise to the labouring classes, confined, as it now was, most exclusively to the tenant farmers. All that could be said against the Bill, so far as Ireland was concerned, had been said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket). Now, that right hon. and learned Gentleman addressed the Committee in a speech of great power; but there was this defect in that speech—that he indulged very largely in prophecy. The Right hon. and learned Gentleman placed before the Committee some statistics which were taken from a Return prepared for "another place." He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) accepted those statistics as a valuable contribution to the knowledge of the House; but what did they prove? That there was a large class of householders, or, if they preferred the phrase, hovel-holders, who were without political significance and without the franchise, and who had no mode of expressing their opinions to those who had the franchise, except by outward demonstrations which did not always contribute to the maintenance of peace and order. When men were enfranchised they at once had more self-respect; each man was capable of taking care of himself, and would proceed to give judgment upon those who solicited his vote. What evidence had been adduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or by those who thought with him, to show that the class
    896
    it was proposed to enfranchise were likely to be less safe or less appreciative of the importance of questions brought before them than the class which had now almost exclusive possession of the franchise, at least in the. counties of Ireland? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was proposed by Her Majesty's Government to give the franchise to these people as a right, and he argued that the franchise was not a right. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) admitted that people did not possess the franchise as a right; but that admission applied equally to the franchise that already existed. The classes now enfranchised were originally unenfranchised; they had no actual right to the franchise until Parliament conferred it upon them. He did not think the Committee had anything to fear from the proposed extension of the franchise to the Irish labourers. They were the least dangerous and least criminal class in Ireland. He ventured to say that the cottiers, or hovel-occupiers, as they had been so described, contributed, in proportion to their numbers, the smallest number of criminals of any class in the country. As a matter of fact, it would be found, upon an analysis of the criminal statistics, that the criminals in the country were furnished by the classes who had no habitations of their own which would entitle them to the franchise under this Bill. Now, as to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) returning to the House after the next General Election with a greater number of followers, he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) did not hesitate to say that his hon. Friend would return to the House with a maximum number of followers with no extension of the franchise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had put forth no logical arguments against the inclusion of Ireland in this Bill; but he had drawn, from his own imagination, a series of pictures to scare them, which reminded him (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) of the shadowy Kings in Macbeth. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked the Committee to believe that because he made prophecies they were certain to come to pass. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the main object for which those whom he called the Separatist Members would use the powers they would get under the Bill

    897
    would be to break up the United Kingdom. The right hon. and learned Gentleman chose to assume the entire argument and case by speaking of Separatist Members. Now, he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) knew as much about the Home Rule Members and those whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman had styled separatist Members as the right hon. and learned Gentleman could possibly do, and he could state that there was no more foundation for the use of the term Separatists than if the right hon. and learned Member were to call them Mormons. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that "they proposed to sweep away by this Bill the innocent and harmless Home Rulers, if there were any such," and thereby to increase the number of the dangerous and disloyal section which was virtually seeking for separation. This statement was one which he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) utterly and completely rejected. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that the Irish Members were fools, and that while they sought the advantages of autonomy they did not also see the further advantage that would accrue to them by being subjects on equal terms of a great Empire which had influence and power and patronage in every quarter of the globe? There was nothing which appeared to him so inconsequential as the reasons assigned by those who argued that Home Rule meant Separation. He confidently asserted that it meant nothing of the kind. On the contrary, it meant the very opposite; and he would unhesitatingly say, whatever effect the statement might produce on his constituents, that the great object he had in view in attaching himself to the Home Rule Party was that he desired sincerely the consolidation of the Empire which he believed it would be the best possible means of effecting. Hon. Members might receive this statement very coldly, and, perhaps, incredulously; but if he had time he could cite abundance of examples to show why such was really the case. He would, however, ask the Committee what accession of territory did Austria gain when there was a forced Union between Austria and Hungary? While, on the other hand, when there was Union founded since Sadowa on Home Rule for Hungary, did they not extend their influence and territory in the East? Was it not the case that when that
    898
    real Union was wanting Austria lost a portion of her Dominions, because the brother-in-arms who helped her to quell or put an end to the French-Italian War robbed her, or, at any rate, dispossessed her, of the remainder of her Italian Possessions? And what, he asked, was the reason of this? Was it not because he had three or four regiments of Hungarians behind him at Sadowa? He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), for one, was a strong Unionist in the sense of desiring to maintain the union of the various portions of this great Empire; and he believed it was as great a slander to say that the Irish Members were Separatists as it would be to say that the autonomies at the present moment enjoyed by Canada, New Zealand, and Australia were being used for the purpose of obtaining separation. He wished now to say a few words with the view of reminding the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin that assertion was not prophecy, and that he had better abandon it for the future, and forget it as regarded the past. On the 15th of January in the year 1800, an ancestor of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, speaking of the measures then taken for bringing about a Union, under the Administration of Lord Camden, used these words—and he would ask right hon. Gentlemen on both the Front Benches of that House to bear them in mind. The ancestor of the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—
    "During the Administration of that nobleman (Lord Camden), the most extensive, deep, well planned, and wicked conspiracy that ever a nation escaped was hatched, matured, and prepared to burst upon the country. It was detected in all its parts and published in all its details, and the energies of the nation called out to resist it by the vigilance, information, and resources of a resident Irish Parliament."
    Then he went on to say—
    "If this wicked plot of Union (that was to say, the plot of the Union as carried out in. 1800) had then been effected, our Parliament at Westminster and every vestige of British connection would have been swept off the face of the land."
    And yet, in the face of these views, the grandson, or great grandson, of that noble Lord (Lord Plunket) came to that House and spoke as if Ireland had no past whatever—as if she had had no connection whatever with the past history of this Empire. The fact was that the

    899
    loyalty of Ireland to the Empire had been proved on many a bloody field when the loyalty of the English was doubtful, and the loyalty of the Scotch was gone. He would also venture to say that if the present Dynasty should in any emergency require soldiers for its defence, it would be found—and not the less if Home Rule were in the meantime conceded—that, in proportion to the population of the Three Kingdoms, the best and the bravest of its upholders—or, at any rate, men equally as good and brave as any in the other portions of the Empire—would not only be found in Ireland, but in numbers relatively greater than the other countries would furnish.
    MR. MACARTNEY (who rose amid cries of "Oh, oh!")said, he did not intend to occupy the time of the Committee at any length; but notwithstanding the outcries with which his rising had been received by the Party on the Benches below him, he desired to deliver his opinion as one of the loyal Irishmen of the North. He was well aware that they were looked upon with very much of what he might term detestation by what was called the great body of the people of Ireland, and he was also conscious of the fact that they were also regarded with very great contempt by hon. Members who represented the Radical Party on the opposite side of the House. Moreover, he knew that they were looked upon with very little favour by hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Benches immediately behind Her Majesty's Government; and he was sorry also to be obliged to add that they had frequently been looked on with very little encouragement and oven with a certain amount of distrust by certain Members of their own Party. Only on that very afternoon they had had two examples of the truth of what he had just assorted. He was not present in the House when the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) was delivered; but he had had the opportunity of listening to the speech recently made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Staffordshire (Mr. Staveley Hill), and he regretted, from what the hon. and learned Gentleman had led them to understand by that speech, that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had seen fit to change his opinion within the last few months
    900
    on the subject now being debated. He must say that he thought the opinions first expressed by the noble Lord on that subject were better than his last, and be hoped that the indications given in the speech of the noble Lord would not prove, in regard to his own career, a forecast of anything similar to that which had occurred in the career of his great ancestor who had supported one side apparently with the greatest firmness, while at the same time he was carrying on communications with and receiving encouragement from the other. He knew that the noble Lord had been on very intimate and friendly terms with Gentlemen who represented the party of disorder in Ireland; but he did not know that they had been able so far to prevail on the noble Lord's better understanding as to persuade him that it was his lot to offer a sop to Cerberus, as well as of the Prime Minister. Having said so much with regard to that particular point, he now desired to state what, in his opinion, were the facts before them at the present moment in Ireland. By "them" he meant the Loyalists. When the Loyalists were spoken of in that House, hon. Gentlemen on the Benches below him were very fond of claiming to be assumed to be counted among them. But he thought that those who were opposed to the Constitution of the country as it at present existed and to the connection which subsisted between the two countries—those who objected to the "crown" being put on the "green flag" along with the "harp," and who had recently made themselves notorious by their opposition to the name of the Monarch of the country being used in connection with the great Exhibition in Ireland, the result of which had been that in the late Exhibition at Cork those who represented the Loyalists were afraid to put forward the name of the Sovereign, and, therefore, on that occasion, for the purpose of securing unanimity, had refrained from doing so—could hardly be considered as being very ardent Loyalists. The position which they, the Loyalists, occupied was this. The proportions of the Irish population had been stated over and over again. They were represented as closely as possible by 79 as against 26—that was today, there were in Ireland 79 Roman Catholics to every 26 Protestants. This was as close an approximation as they could make.

    901
    Well, this would give the Loyalists, if; they were properly represented—and in this estimate he included Liberals as well as Conservatives—26 Members. Would anything like such a result be secured under the present Bill? Was it at all probable that under this measure they would have anything approaching to 26 Representatives? It should be remembered that these 26 Members would represent in a great measure the education and intelligence—he would not say the lower classes were not intelligent, for he knew that they were extremely so—but he meant the elevated intelligence of the Irish people—the intelligence of those engaged in matters connected with the commercial interests of the country, and who had in a great measure made Ireland what she was. He referred to those who had adhered to this country through weal and through woe—those who had shed their blood like water in defence of the connection between England and Ireland—those who had fought — though Irishmen always fought in every rank—but who had fought as leaders of the loyal Irish in the battles of byegone days. And here he would ask, had the Party below the Gangway on that side of the House ever been the leaders of the armed hosts of Great Britain in India, in America, in the Colonies, or in any part of the world? The answer was "No." The men who had been distinguished as military men on the side espoused by that Party had always been found in the Armies of France, Germany, and Spain, and among those invading forces that had made their way into Ireland when there was a disconnection of the two countries. He would not speak of the loyal Representatives of Ireland in long past times; but he would remind the Committee of the period that had elapsed from the days of Wellington to those of Roberts and Wolseley, and ask whether Ireland had not in the interval between those Generals sent forth a galaxy of heroes of whom any and every country might well be proud? Then, again, they had had in another walk of life men like Goldsmith, Burke, and Swift; while the only really illustrious author the other side could lay claim to was Moore. He put it that in such men was evidenced the intelligence of the country and its real intellectual strength. What, he
    902
    asked, would be the result if that intelligence were deprived of its representation? Because such would, no doubt, be the consequence if this Bill were carried in its present form. The result would be that the only constituencies which would return Representatives like those hon. Members opposite who sat on the Benches behind Her Majesty's Government or who sat on the same Benches as himself would be such as Belfast, the University of Dublin, and the counties of Down, Antrim, and Deny; and that would be the end of it. Everywhere else there was a majority of Roman Catholics; and though he was not fond of saying anything against the Roman Catholics, he felt that in mentioning them he was speaking of a body of men who were ready to vote at the bidding either of the priests, or of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), or of any other agitator who might assume his position and who might go further than he—for the more immoderate the Leader of Irish agitation, and the more anxious he might be to upset everything, the more ready would the majority of which he was speaking be to give him their support and approval. If, therefore, another man should assume the place now occupied by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and should try even to extend the present agitation, he would have the same sympathy as was now accorded to that hon. Gentleman. [Cries of "Question!"] He was speaking to the Question. The hon. Member below him who had spoken a short time since (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had dilated on the extreme loyalty of the Irish people, and he (Mr. Macartney) had a right to give his opinion on that subject. What be desired to say was this—that in all probability—for it was not only possible, but he thought it very probable—out of 105 Members whom the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister thought it absolutely necessary to assign to Ireland, notwithstanding that she had no right to that number, and who exactly represented those who were either Liberals or Conservatives in that House, no fewer than 95 would be returned as the Representatives of the so-called Irish National Party in Parliament. He had called it the so-called National Party advisedly; for when it was convenient in Ireland they wanted to create a

    903
    separate nation, but when they found another course convenient in England they only wanted the assistance of the English people to give them their just rights. The prospect before the loyal people of the North of Ireland was extremely black. He believed that the two great Parties in England were nearly equal in numbers; but if tins Bill were passed, the enormous majority of the people of Ireland would send a greatly enlarged Representation under the Leadership of one man, who would compel them to act as the House had seen the other night, when, on a Division which took place after a considerable amount of discussion, he led them, like so many sheep, into the Lobby. This being the case he could only say he should be apprehensive of the destinies of this country being placed in a very dangerous condition if one Party in that House was to bid against the other for the support of a body like that which he had foreshadowed. If such a state of things were to be brought about, he should say "Ichabod" might be inscribed on the standard of England, for its glory would have departed. He had felt it necessary to say this much, and he had only to add that he should give his cordial support to the Amendment.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it had been the impression on that side of the House that Gentlemen opposite had made up their differences; but from what had taken place they appeared to be far from a happy family. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had uttered sentiments which were regarded with so much horror by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they had spent the whole afternoon in denouncing them, and then not knowing what to say, or whether to oppose the proposal or not, the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench had gone away. He congratulated the noble Lord on much of what he had said that day; he thought it creditable to him as a politician anxious to take a leading part in the business of the country that he should have recanted and renounced the pernicious and reckless nonsense which he had been in the habit of uttering before the commencement of the Session, and which he thought good enough to throw in the ears of what he called the Conservative Democracy. He had hoped that, having recanted, the
    904
    noble Lord would have given them a sounder policy; but what he seemed to say was this—"Principle is all very well, but let us do all we can to get votes, and then, perhaps, we shall attain Office." The noble Lord told them that the psychological moment had come for the Conservative Democracy to make certain concessions to the Irish Party; but it seemed to him that the term "opportune moment" should be used, because the Irish Party a few days ago voted against the Government and with the Conservatives upon the Vote of Censure. Gratitude was all very well as a recognition of past services, but it was not so good a quality when it expressed a lively sense of favours to come. But that was not all. They were now informed that it was the intention of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords to throw out the Bill; and he asked what in the world was the good of tolling the Irish people that the Conservatives would agree to the clause giving the franchise to them, when the whole of the franchise proposed by the Bill to be given to England, Scotland, and Ireland was to be refused by the House of Lords? That was what the noble Lord offered to the Irish Party. But where, he asked, was the Leader of the Opposition? Perhaps the noble Lord would say—"Here I am!" But he was referring to the right hon. Gentleman whom they all respected as the Leader of the Opposition. He saw the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith); but it could not be suggested that the noble Lord was the Leader of that right hon. Gentleman. If a triumvirate had been established on the other side of the House which included the Members for Westminster and North Devon and the noble Lord, it must be based upon some sort of agreement that each Member of it should throw over their own followers, because the noble Lord had treated the right hon. Member for Westminster as a kind of Jonah, or as a sacrifice to be laid upon the altar of that friendship which had just broken out. For his own part, he very much distrusted what was going forward on the other side of the House; his impression was that a great deal of it was mere simulation. As on the Ministerial side of the House there did not appear any desire to talk on this Bill, it seemed to him that hon. Gentlemen opposite had decided to discuss the

    905
    matter between themselves. One Conservative Gentleman got up and expressed his views, and another rose to say they were worth nothing at all, the result being that the time was wasted, for nothing was done. All that must, he thought, be due to an arrangement amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he would suggest that Gentlemen on the Ministerial side should meet that conspiracy of loquacity by a confederacy of silence. He had asked the Leader of the Opposition, a few days ago, whether he was to take as gospel what he had read in The Standard, the organ of the Conservative Party — namely, that a meeting of the Leaders of the Opposition in that House and in "another place" had been held, and that it had been agreed to throw out the Bill in the House of Lords? He was confirmed in the view he had taken of that matter; the right hon. Gentleman, by not replying, practically assented to the statement, because silence gave consent. But he had read to-day in The Standard newspaper two letters. ["Question!"] It was the Question, because his point was that Gentlemen on that side of the House ought not to take part in useless discussions. He repeated that he had read in the newspaper called The Standard two letters—one from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the other from Lord Salisbury, in answer to a gentleman of Ipswich, both stating that they would do their best to promote as speedily as possible an appeal to the country. When two distinguished persons, the one a Peer in his right and the other the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons, thus declared their intention, it must be clear to all that they wished to get this question of Reform into their own hands. Under the circumstances, his opinion was that Gentlemen on those Benches should be silent while Gentlemen opposite were settling their difficulties amongst themselves, and await the result of the Bill being carried to the House of Lords, when, if it were thrown out, the question would have to be submitted to the country—whether 2,000,000 of people were to have the vote, or whether they were to be kept from having it by 300 or 400 Conservatives?
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had not intended to long occupy the
    906
    time of the Committee by intervening in the short space which remained before the Sitting was suspended. He should, therefore, be very brief in replying to the observations against this Amendment, the question being of too grave a character to justify notice of the jests of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He had ventured on a previous occasion to name his reasons for considering why this franchise ought not to be extended to Ireland. He was ready to admit, strongly as he held that opinion, that the question was one of some difficulty; and he could understand that some Members of the House should entertain doubts upon the subject, and argue that if this franchise were extended to England and Scotland, they could not very well refuse it to Ireland. But there were certain considerations which he thought it desirable to bring again before the Committee. They were asked, on the abstract grounds of justice and equality, to extend a uniform franchise to England, Ireland, and Scotland; and yet they were asked to make the qualification in Ireland lower than it was in England and Scotland. It was a matter of absolute certainty that the franchise in Ireland would be nearer to manhood suffrage than it was in England or Scotland. One of the arguments of the Prime Minister in favour of the extension to Ireland was that the people were poor. Last autumn, there was great excitement in this country at the miserable conditions under which many of the inhabitants of our large towns were housed; but he asked if it would enter into the mind of any Member of that House to believe that those unfortunate people could be made prosperous by merely giving them the vote, and making them the predominant political power in the country. Would not their circumstances and conditions prevent them from making a satisfactory use of the franchise? No answer had been given to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), although they had had two speeches, one from the Prime Minister and the other from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. His objection to the proposal was that not only was the Prime Minister strengthening a most dangerous and anti-British movement in Ireland, but that, in order to

    907
    support it, he -was compelled to resort to arguments which would be hereafter turned against him by the anti-British Party. Every argument in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman might have been used in support of the repeal of the Union. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was only one way of making England weak in the face of Ireland, and that was by not applying to Ireland the principles of equality and justice. And he went on to say that so long as they endeavoured to do justice to Ireland, no one, however evilly disposed, could prejudice or injure the integrity of the United Kingdom. He would read a resolution which had been passed at a large meeting of the National League in November last at Ballynaclo, and he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Prime Minister, who used such strong language on Friday last, whether he was prepared to endorse that resolution, which was the practical application of the principles laid down by the Prime Minister? The resolution ran thus—
    "Whereas Mr. Gladstone had declared policy of equality and justice as one which should he pursued towards Ireland, and as the standard of equality and justice in England was to he found in the doctrine of Constitutional Government, which recognized the voice of the majority as the will of the people, it was resolved that the meeting demanded the application of that standard to Ireland."
    Would the right hon. Gentleman assent to that? When that question was asked there was a dead silence at once; but when the right hon. Gentleman uttered the sentiment which the resolution embodied, he was cheered to the echo. The resolution concluded with these words—
    "We pledge ourselves never to rest satisfied with anything short of national self-government such as the majority of the Irish people desire."
    If the Bill were passed in its present form, what would be the position of subsequent Houses of Commons? They would have to meet the question of the repeal of the Union. But how would that question be met? Not by argument, because the Government had made that practically impossible. Well, then, would it be granted? It could not be granted, because, as the President of the Board of Trade had admitted, national self-government in Ireland meant the ruin of the Empire. How, then, could it be met, except by the old agency of
    908
    force? They had been told they would be creating a grievance if they refused the extension of this franchise to Ireland. The Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland spoke of a grievance universally recognized there. But the grievance was, not that the franchise was high, but that England governed Ireland. The Government were going to extend this franchise to Ireland, in order that the Irish people might more adequately represent their views in that House. Could they enfranchise vast masses of men on the ground that they were capable citizens, and when these masses, through nine-tenths of their Representatives, asked for the repeal of the Union, would the Government be able to treat that demand as the whim of spoilt children? There was no mean between refusing their right to the franchise and admitting their right to have their wish granted; and if they turned a deaf ear to the expression of those wishes, they would be creating a tenfold more legitimate grievance than any which existed at the present time. But the Government were striking at the root of Constitutional Government; they were bringing all the principles of the Constitution into ridicule and disrepute, and were giving to those dangerous men who wished to have recourse to violence and outrage for the attainment of their ends an argument which they never possessed before. It was said to be a mere question between the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) having 40 or 70 or 90 followers in that House. But the moment they lowered the franchise and allowed, nine-tenths of the representation of Ireland to be absorbed by that Party, they gave them an excuse for their demand for the disintegration of the Empire which, unless the right hon. Gentleman did violence to his own principles, he could not refuse. The Prime Minister said—"You flatter these hon. Members by assuming that 70 or 80 of them will be a match for the English and Scotch Members of the House of Commons." It was true that they would not be a match for the English and Scotch Members, if those Members were always true to themselves; but three years ago, when it was not a case of 550 against 70 or 80, but when 600 Members were prepared to support the Government against 20 or 30 Members, the Chief of whom, they had imprisoned

    909
    on a charge of treason, a Cabinet of 12 could not be true to themselves, for they deliberately threw out one of their ablest Colleagues in order that they might enter into negotiations with the very Gentleman whom they had imprisoned. He said that with that recent experience in their minds they would be fools indeed if they trusted to the, contingency that, in the face of Party exigencies, 500 men would always be together on national questions in that House. "Oh!" said the Prime Minister, "we have often heard those predictions before," and he answered the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) with a reference to some predictions which were indulged in in regard to the Emancipation of the Catholics. But if there was one man in the House who had not indulged in those predictions it was the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Prime Minister was for ever throwing at the heads of the Opposition the fact that 50 years ago the Conservative Party opposed a large number of legitimate and just reforms in Ireland; but it was a curious fact that the only man now in that House who was associated with that Party, and who then persistently refused to redress the just grievances of the Irish people, whether on the subject of municipal or national rights, or on that of Catholic Emancipation, was the right hon. Gentleman himself. It was not fair of the right hon. Gentleman to throw upon the present Opposition the heritage of his own misdoings. If anyone would refer to the eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman when he accompanied Sir Robert Peel to Glasgow, in 1837, he would find that he was correct in his statement as to the predictions of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of Catholic Emancipation. But since the right hon. Gentleman became himself a Reformer, the position was reversed, and it was the Conservatives who had been right in their predictions, and the right hon. Gentleman who had been wrong. Therefore, the presumption was that the Conservative Party were right in predicting what would be the certain result of the extension of this franchise to Ireland if unaccompanied by a redistribution of seats. He believed it was the hon. Member for Tyrone who taunted Gentlemen on those Benches by saying
    910
    that a generous thought never entered into their heads. They had not, perhaps, the same idea of generosity as the hon. Member and his Friends, because they came into that House and disappeared with such rapidity info lucrative permanent appointments that they evidently believed that a due recognition of self was a primary part of a just policy towards Ireland. Then the Conservative Party were told that they were opposed to every reform tending to improve the condition of the people in Ireland. He quite admitted primâ facie that because a man was poor it was not a sufficient reason for depriving him of the vote, and no one more than he deplored the lamentable standard of life which existed over a great part of Ireland, where many of the people were badly clothed, badly fed, and miserably housed. The fact could not be disputed that such was the condition of large numbers of the people, and he would be always ready to support any proposals made for the purpose of raising their standard of life. If the Government would adopt a sensible and sounder policy, such as that of bringing home to the poorer classes in Ireland the belief that it was their interest to support the Union, he believed that in process of time they would bring about a better state of affairs. The moment they could convince the people of Ireland of that truth, their hatred of England and their unquestioned disloyalty would be undermined, and no one more than he would work in the direction he had pointed out. He had stated on a former occasion, that if the Bill passed in its present state, no measure of redistribution would be possible for many years to come, and no Member of the Government had attempted to deal with that argument, which he adhered to and repeated. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), returned to that House with 90 Members at his back, would represent more than the number of seats to which his Party was entitled, and did the Government suppose that they would hereafter be able to curtail that number? The result would be that for years to come there would be no Redistribution Bill, because it would be impossible to carry one, and that was the consideration which everyone who looked at this question must bear in mind. It was not a pleasant thing to oppose the extension

    911
    of this franchise to Ireland, and to support its extension in England and Scotland; but those who supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend knew the danger involved in such a step too well to stifle their consciences with threadbare platitudes, or to surrender their judgment at the request of the Prime Minister. Therefore, he should cordially support the proposal of his hon. Friend, because he was perfectly certain that, if the Bill passed in its present shape, they would in a few years find themselves face to face with this dilemma—either the Imperial Parliament would have to consent to its own disruption, or it would have permanently to deprive a large portion of the United Kingdom of Representative Government. As he was not prepared to face either alternative with complacency, he should vote against the Government proposal.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he should endeavour to fulfil the promise of being very brief in the observations he had to make—a promise which the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) made at the commencement of his speech, but inadvertently did not perform. It was the fashion with many hon. Gentlemen in that House to call themselves Irish Members. His impression was that they were American Members. As one of the small body of Members whom he might call "the Old Guard," he wished to say a word or two. He could comprehend the position of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench if they stated that Ireland ought to be governed as a Crown Colony. Not one hon. Member, however, had ventured to make that declaration; and it was one that he and his hon. Friend could not assent to. It was said that because a lot of money had been flooded into Ireland with the best intentions, and accepted with equally good intentions by those who received it, they were to consider that for all eternity Ireland was to be a prey to those locusts which at present infested it. His humble opinion was that there would be a change in that regard, and that as the supplies went down the people would become more intelligent, and act according to their lights in reference to the particular gentlemen in question. This was a question for the tenant farmers of Ireland, of whom he was one; and those
    912
    gentlemen whom he called American ad venturers, finding that the question was worn out, were going about Ireland to find out a new position which they might take up. ["Divide, divide!"] Those Gentlemen who cried "Divide!" complained in Ireland that they could not be hoard in the House of Commons; they told the people of Ireland that they were not listened to; and yet they refused to allow a man to be heard who told them the truth to their face. He had the honour of being the senior Member in that House—at any rate, on the present occasion—and he might not, perhaps, have the honour of again addressing it. ["Hear, hear!"] He understood the hon. Gentleman who cheered that remark, who, doubtless, in Chicago and other places where money was to be collected through The Free man's Journal, would be ready to take one side today and the other side tomorrow. ["Order, order!"] He was not out of Order. If he were out of Order the Chairman would take note of it. Perhaps the young sea serpent from the county of Clare—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not apply language of that kind to a Member of the House.
    SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he withdrew the expression "sea serpent," and would confine himself to the doctrine that no man who called himself a Statesman or a Minister could say there was a United Kingdom of which England, Scotland, and Ireland were parts, and deny to one of them what was offered to the other two. With hon. Members below the Gangway opposite the question was one of self-preservation; they were paid for their services, and fought the country in the interest of self, and not in the interest of the country.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had appealed to him to withdraw his Amendment on the ground that he might be in a minority. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] Then he had misunderstood the noble Lord. However, he and his hon. Friends felt that there was one thing worse than being in a minority, and that was the sacrifice of a principle upon which they had taken their stand. However rapid the process of conversion might be, and however quickly conviction might come upon one, it was impossible that it

    913
    should take place within the brief period occupied by a Parliamentary debate. Having been supported by every Member of Irish experience on that side of the House, he felt that it would be discourteous to the Committee, and contrary to the pledge he had given, if he did not carry his Amendment to a Division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 332; Noes 137: Majority 195.—(Div. List, No. 99.)
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress; Committee to sit again upon Friday, at Two of the clock.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at five minutes after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment (No. 2)* (103).
Second Reading—Water Provisional Orders* (92); Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2)* (84); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (Alton-Barnes, &c.)* (85); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2) (Bovey-Tracey, &c.)* (86); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 3) (Ashill, &c.)* (87); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 5) (Acton, &c.)* (88); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 6) (Ashen, &c.)* (89); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 7) (Abberley, &c.)* (90); Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 8) (Abergwilly, &c.)* (91); Secretary for Scotland (79); Great Seal (83); Colonial Prisoners Removal (44).
Committee— Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (The Labourers Act) (Enniscorthy, &c.)* (64); Greek Marriages* (96).
Committee—Report — Gas Provisional Orders* (81); Land Drainage Provisional Orders* (82); Public Libraries Acts Amendment (95).
Third Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (68), and passed.

NEW PEER.
The Right Honourable Sir Henry Bouverie William Brand, G. C. B., late Speaker of the House of Commons, having been created Viscount Hampden of Glynde in the county of Sussex—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

AFRICA (WEST COAST) — THE IN TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION AND FRANCE.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF FIFE: I wish to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the paragraph in The Times of this morning as to the negotiations between France find the International African Association comes from any official source; and whether the noble Earl will, before the Whitsuntide Recess, make a statement on the subject?
EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl asked me a Question on this subject the other evening. Since that time I have applied for permission, to publish documents which are at present of a confidential character, and I hope I shall be able to answer the noble Earl in a few days.

SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL.

  (NO. 79.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, he did not rise to offer any objection to the second reading of the Bill, because he believed, on the whole, its effect on the country would be very good; but the objections he had to the measure were rather in respect of sins of omission than of sins of commission. He intended, if the Bill passed the second rending, and he should vote for its doing so, to move certain Amendments when it got into Committee for the purpose of extending its scope, and he now wished to say a few words as to what the effect of those Amendments would be. Their effect would be in the direction of placing the elementary education of Scotland in the hands of the new Secretary. Most of their Lordships were aware that the system of education in Scotland had
  800
  been, for more than 300 years, a universal and successful one. They had boasted frequently of that system of education, and he thought justly; but it had lately been changed, and for the last 12 years there had been in operation a measure under which school boards had been universally established, the object generally of the Act being levelling up, so as to bring primary education to every child in Scotland. It was generally felt throughout Scotland that there was now great need to supplement that measure, so as to give au improved system of secondary education, and there was also a very strong opinion throughout Scotland that they should never get a satisfactory system of secondary education except through the means of a Scottish Department, specially exercising the control of Scottish education. It was, therefore, with that object that he should move to bring the whole system of Scottish education under the control of the Office of the Secretary for Scotland. He did not wish to say a word against those who in London managed the Scottish Education Department. He believed that Department was managed by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council, and those who with him were responsible for Scottish education, as well as it was possible for them to manage it, with the limited knowledge they had of the system of Scottish, education. The chief objection, however, he had to the London administration was this—that those who had to administer the Education Acts in England wore not really acquainted with the system which had been practised in Scotland for so many centuries, and which was still being practised; and, also, that they wore not aware of the necessities that existed for the further extension of that system. Their Lordships would notice that the Bill proposed to transfer to the new Secretary the powers and duties vested in one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State in reference to Universities in Scotland, and also the powers of the Privy Council in reference to educational endowments. It, therefore, gave the Secretary for Scotland entire control over the higher branches of education; and if they gave him the control over higher education, why did they not also give him control over the system of primary or elementary education? It might be

  801
  said that the expense which the change would incur would be excessive; but when they came to Committee, he hoped to be able to show that, instead of creating additional expense, the change would tend to increased economy. It might also be said that if Scottish education was entirely administered by a Secretary for Scotland, why did they not propose also that the police, industrial schools, reformatories, factories and workshops, the Agricultural Holdings Act, and the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, should be placed under his control? His answer was, that each one of those Acts was bound up with Imperial interests, and ought to be administered by a Central Authority as pertaining to the community as a whole. But that argument did not hold good in regard to primary education in Scotland. He had just touched briefly upon the main points, which he should go more largely into in Committee. He consented to the second reading of the Bill; but he thought it would be of advantage to Scotland that the entire system of education should be placed in the hands of the new Secretary.
  LORD BALFOUR, said, he did not rise to object to the policy of the Bill. He regarded that matter as practically settled, and as settled in accordance with what he believed to be the wishes of the vast majority of the people of Scotland; but he should like to take that opportunity of saying that he had been requested by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lothian) to express to the House his great regret on account of his not being able to be present on this occasion in order to commend this Bill to their Lordships' notice. His noble Friend had presided over a large meeting held in Edinburgh in support of this proposal, and he (Lord Balfour) knew from himself that he was most anxious to be present there that day, but he was unavoidably absent. His noble Friend, however, hoped to be there when the Bill reached Committee, and in the meantime he had asked him (Lord Balfour) to make that apology to their Lordships for his absence. There were one or two points in regard to the Bill which he (Lord Balfour) hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider before that time arrived. For example, he should like to have some explanation as to why the
  802
  salary to be paid to the new Secretary was to be paid out of the moneys provided by Parliament. It might be that that was the regular form, but as to that he had not been able to thoroughly inform himself whether it was so or not; but if the Bill were to stand in that form, would it not give the power to one House to abolish the Office which the passing of a Bill through both Houses of Parliament was necessary to create? He felt that there might be more to be said in favour of the clause as it stood than he was aware of, and he should therefore be glad if the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dalhousie), who was in charge of the Bill that day, would give some explanation as to the precise position in which the matter stood. He should also like to know why a large and important Department like the Register House in Edinburgh had been excluded from the scope of the Bill? He ventured to think that if there was one Department more than another which required to be thoroughly looked into, and placed under a responsible head, it was that Department, and although he was not, as at present informed, prepared to move that it be placed under the control of the new Secretary, he should be glad if the noble Earl could give the House some explanation on that point also. Again, he should like to know whether it was possible for any Return to be given to the House of the rights of patronage which were to be transferred to the new Secretary under the Bill? The powers and the duties which he would have to perform wore very fully set forth in the Schedule; but no list was given of the patronage, or offices and appointments which the new Secretary would have under his control; and he did not know of any source from which it was possible to inform oneself as to what those were. Therefore, he hoped they should have some explanation from the noble Earl on the point. Before he sat down he found it necessary to say a word also as to the proposal of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Huntly). The noble Marquess had correctly stated the result of this Bill if it passed in its present shape—namely, that the responsibility of the Home Secretary in reference to Scottish Universities would be transferred to the new Secretary, and also that the administration of the Educational Endowments Act would be

  803
  vested in him. Now, he (Lord Balfour) thought it was quite right that the powers and duties and privileges of the Home Secretary in regard to the Universities should be so transferred; but he had very grave doubts as to the propriety of transferring the administration of the Educational Endowments Act, especially at the present time, to the new Secretary. There were three ways in which Parliament could deal with education in Scotland in regard to the new Office. In the first place, the administration of the whole system of primary education might be transferred to the new Office, as well as the administration of the Educational Endowments Act; or, in the second place, the administration of the Educational Endowments Act alone could be transferred, as was now proposed; or, in the third place, as he ventured to think would be the better course, at any rate for the present, the administration of none of those Acts might be transferred. He could quite conceive something being said—in fact, the noble Marquess opposite had very well put the arguments on his side of the question, and he (Lord Balfour) could imagine their having some weight in favour of inducing Parliament to transfer the administration of both the Educational Endowments Act and the Elementary Education Act to the new Office. But there was also, as he thought, a great deal to be said in favour of retaining the administration of education, as at present, in the Education Department in London. What he did not think was advisable was to transfer the administration of the Educational Endowments Act alone, and leave the administration of the Elementary Education Act to be done from London. With regard to a very large number of the schools in Scotland with which the Commission appointed under the Educational Endowments Act had to deal, they were very little removed, if anything, from being elementary schools; and he thought it would lead to dual government of the worst form and of the most disadvantageous character if the administration of the public schools—which was the Scottish expression for schools coming under the Elementary Education Act — should be retained under the Privy Council, while the administration of the Educational Endowments Act was transferred to Edinburgh. That, he thought, would be
  804
  indefensible, and he sincerely hoped that proposal would not be persevered in. But he would deal with it in exactly the opposite way from the noble Marquess opposite, and, if no one else did so, he should certainly propose an Amendment in Committee in the direction he had indicated—not that the administration of the public schools in Scotland, the whole educational system of Scotland, should be transferred to the new Office, but that the work of the Privy Council in regard to the administration of the Educational Endowments Act should not be transferred. His reasons for that were briefly these. There was no provision whatsoever in this Bill for any staff that would be required for the administration of the Elementary Education Act under the new Secretary, and he thought it would add very greatly to the expense of such administration if they were to have an Education Office in Whitehall and another in Edinburgh. Besides, he had very great doubts whether it was desirable for the Government to allow such a large spending Department, such as the Education Department was becoming — indeed, had become — to have an Office away from London. He did not see how that could ever be seriously proposed. That was one reason why, in his opinion, the administration of the Elementary Education Act should not be transferred; and, further, he thought the present time would be a singularly ill-chosen one for making that transfer. He therefore hoped—indeed, he thought he might be sure—that their Lordships would not consent to it without full consideration, because there was, at the present moment, a most influential Committee of the House of Commons considering what should be the future administration of Education as a whole. The Reference to that Committee was in the following words:—
  "That a Select Committee should be appointed to consider how the Ministerial responsibility under which the Votes for Education, Science, and Art are administered can be best secured."
  He thought it would be a most unusual proceeding if, when one House of Parliament was considering what was best to be done, the other House of Parliament should make a proposal which might, or might not, be in accordance with the Report of that Committee when it was presented. There was not much

  805
  use in appointing a Committee, if they were going to deal with the very subject which it was appointed to inquire into before the Committee had presented its Report. The noble Marquess opposite had said the whole system of elementary education in Scotland was different from that which, obtained in England. There was, no doubt, a great deal of truth in that statement; but he (Lord Balfour) doubted whether that fact, properly considered, was a reason for the separation of the administration, because he ventured to think that, in the matter of education, England might learn something from Scotland, and Scotland from England, and each country might profit from the experience of the other. Upon that ground, also, he should be sorry to see the administration of the two systems separated. He did not wish to conceal from the House the fact that opinion in Scotland was divided on the subject; but he sincerely hoped that full time for consideration of the matter would be given; and he ventured to think that if full time for consideration was given, it would be found to be by no means certain that the majority of those interested in educated would desire to see the administration of it transferred from London to Edinburgh. Therefore, his advice, if he might venture to offer it, would be that, at any rate in the meantime, education should not be one of the matters transferred to the new Department. It might be that opinion would mature in the direction indicated by the noble Marquess opposite, and it might be that they should ultimately have to transfer education, at any rate in part, to the new Office; but he sincerely hoped that in this matter nothing would be clone in a hurry, and that full consideration would be given to the arguments on both sides. He should, therefore, when they reached the Committee stage, propose that the part of the Schedule which dealt with the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act should be omitted from the Bill. Meantime, he sincerely hoped their Lordships would give a second reading to the measure.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he also intended to support the second reading of the Bill; but, at the same time, it would require amendment, for he did not think it was altogether satisfactory, because it seemed to him that it either did too much, or did not do
  806
  enough. Now, there were two ways in which they might deal with the administration of the affairs of Scotland as regarded education. Either they might consider the Home Secretary Minister for Scotland, in which case it would be sufficient to appoint an Under Secretary of State to act in co-operation with the Lord Advocate; or else they might abandon that theory, as he believed had now generally been done, in which case it would be better, and indeed almost necessary, if anew Minister were created, to appoint an Officer very much in the position of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He supposed this measure did all that was possible at the present time; but, at the same time, he thought if they were dealing with the question in a thorough and final manner, they should now be proposing the suggestion he had made to establish an Officer somewhat in the nature of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He did not know how Ministers ranked; but he understood one mode of ranking them was according to their salaries. He should be very anxious indeed to see the Minister for Scotland, whoever he might be, in the Cabinet; and in that view he should also prefer to see a Minister created holding a higher salary than £2,000 a-year. He wished entirely to endorse the remarks just made by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) in regard to that portion of the Schedule which related to educational matters; but he differed entirely from his noble Friend on that side of the House (the Marquess of Huntly). He thought it would be a most unfortunate thing if the Secretary for Scotland were to become an Educational Minister. They had just heard that the whole question of administering the Votes for Education, Science, and Art was at present under the consideration of a Select Committee of the House of Commons; and for that reason, if for no other, he thought it would be most unfortunate if they were to place the administration of one Educational Act under the Privy Council, and another, and one only, under the Secretary for Scotland. At the same time, he wished to gay that he would be very sorry to see an Educational Scotch Board which would meet in Edinburgh. He thought that the Educational Committee of the Privy Council was specially well fitted to deal with all questions affecting education,

  807
  whether in England or Wales or in Scotland, and therefore that it would be able to deal, from a much broader point of view, with all the questions that would arise under these Acts than would a merely National Board; and for that, if for no other reason, he would be very sorry to see the Privy Council resign any portion of its authority. Consequently, when the noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) brought forward his Amendment in Committee to omit this portion of the duties of the Secretary for Scotland from the Bill, he should vote in its support.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he should be very sorry to disturb the general harmony which had prevailed so far upon both sides of the House with regard to the Bill; but, after what he had said last year, he hoped he might be pardoned if he simply expressed his regret that the Government had thought it necessary to bring it in. Reference had been made to Ireland; but Britain and Ireland were by no means at one, and, however that might be, he had always thought that Great Britain, at all events, was a United Kingdom, although it seemed that Ireland was in a great degree alienated from this country. Although he knew that he had not the support of his compatriots, remembering what he had said last year, he wished to express his regret that the Bill had been thought necessary. Of course, he should not go farther than that; he did not wish to oppose it, but rather to ask one or two questions with regard to points in the Bill on which the intentions of the Government did not seem to him to be very clearly expressed. In the first place, the question of expenses had been alluded to. Then there was the question where was this Office to be located? for, practically, the proposition contained in the Bill was to take away powers of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and to give them over, to a large extent, to another Officer to be appointed; but they had been told by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill (the Earl of Dalhousie) that the now Secretary was to be looked upon as an inferior Officer. Of course, there were two or three subjects that were excepted, and one exemption of an important nature—namely, that in regard to law and justice. He must say he was very glad of that, especially in this respect—that he
  808
  thought it most essential that the powers of the Crown in regard to the Prerogative of mercy as regarded criminals should still remain in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. There was another minor point. He observed that a Permanent Assistant Secretary was to be appointed by the Secretary for Scotland. By the way the Bill was drawn, he should infer that it was intended rather to be an appointment of a political nature, so that whenever the Secretary for Scotland was changed it would be open to him to change the appointment of the gentleman who was termed in the Bill the Permanent Secretary. He hoped that that was not intended in the Bill, as he could not imagine anything more mischievous than that. If the office were to be a permanent one, as it surely ought, he thought it ought to be entirely free from everything like political bias. He did not think it was the intention of the Government to give it that character, but that was the effect of the Bill as it stood. There were other points to which he took exception. One was with regard to the Lord Advocate. There was no doubt that the position of the Lord Advocate would be greatly changed by the Bill. It was quite true that the Bill nominally provided against that, for the last clause said that—
  "Nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or interfere with any right, powers, privileges, or duties vested in or imposed on the Lord Advocate by virtue of any Aet of Parliament or custom."
  He was not going through the whole clause; it was to the last two words, "or custom," he wished to draw their Lordships' attention. Their Lordships were well aware that, at the time of the Treaty of Union, the Office of the Secretary of State for Scotland was reserved to that country, and that it was not until 40 years afterwards, for reasons into which he would not go, that the Office was abolished. From that time, popularly known as the "'45," there was no doubt that the Lord Advocate had practically had the whole of the functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland in his hands. ["No, no!"] He heard that was objected to. He should have said, perhaps, until within recent years—it would be more correct in that way. However, he must say that, as a Scotchman, he had some little jealousy in

  809
  regard to the status of the Lord Advocate. He was not the Lord Advocate of Scotland; he was the Lord Advocate; there was no other Lord Advocate; and it was, he confessed, with some regret he saw that this ancient Office was becoming rather minimized with, regard to its importance. He could not help thinking that some little difficulty would arise in connection with this matter, and the manner in which it had been dealt with; and this seemed evidently to have been foreseen by the draftsman who had drawn the Bill, because—under orders, no doubt, from the Government—he had appreciated the proposition he had referred to. That was shown by the insertion of the words "or custom" in the Bill. It was rather an interference with what had always until very recent years been acknowledged to be the privilege of the Lord Advocate. With regard to Acts of Parliament, there would probably be no difficulty; but in regard to custom, it would not be easy to say what had always until recent years been acknowledged to be the powers, prerogatives, and privileges of the Lord Advocate as regarded patronage and other matters. He did not wish, as he had said at the outset, to offer the slightest opposition to the second reading of the Bill; but he did hope that the position of the Lord Advocate would still be maintained as one of a proper dignity, as it had been hitherto. He congratulated the Government, notwithstanding his objection, on having brought in a very much better Bill this year than the measure of last year.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he was afraid he was almost alone in feeling that the Bill was unnecessary, and that, at all events, if they were to have a Secretary for Scotland, he ought to be a first-class, and not a second-class, Secretary. To make this Bill a truthful representation of what it was, the words "second class" ought to be introduced before the word "Secretary." His main purpose, however, in rising was to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill not to ask the House to go into Committee upon it until after the Whitsuntide Holidays, for there had been questions raised in the debate which ought to be fully considered in Scotland and by their Lordships.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE: My Lords, I think that Her Majesty's Go-
  810
  vernment may be congratulated on the manner in which the Bill has been received by your Lordships. In so far as criticisms have been made which are not altogether in approval of the Bill, they relate to its details, and not to its principle; and I think, with your permission, I should like to say a few words upon them. I am myself, perhaps, partly answerable for the misunderstanding of the position of the Secretary for Scotland, that seems to have taken place on the part of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Galloway) and the noble Earl who has just spoken from the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss). They both object to having what the noble Earl calls a second-class Secretary for Scotland; and my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Camperdown), no doubt, expressed very much the same feeling, when he said it was hardly likely that a man with £2,000 a-year would find his way into the Cabinet. But when I look around me, I see several noble Lords who receive two and a-half times as much as my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council, and yet who are not in the Cabinet. The noble Earl may think the Lord President a second-class President, and if so I can offer him no consolation; but he must reconcile himself as best he can with having only a second-class Secretary for Scotland. When I recollect that the salary not merely of the Lord President, but of the President of the Local Government Board and of the Board of Trade is not more than £2,000 a-year, I can see no possible reason why the Secretary for Scotland, if he is a strong and able man—as strong and as able as these other great Officers of State—should not also find his way into the Cabinet. My noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Galloway) objected to the manner in which the Permanent Secretary was appointed, and asked whether it was to be a political appointment. If it is a permanent appointment, I fail to see how it can be a political appointment. The appointment of a Permanent Secretary is, I believe, generally made by the Parliamentary Chief of the Department in question. As to the position of the Local Advocate, and the manner in which it will be affected by this Bill, I must say the observations of the noble Earl would have had greater weight, if he had expressed, some years

  811
  ago, when his Party were in power, some such views as he has now expressed, to the then Secretary of State for the Home Department. In that case, the position of the Lord Advocate at this moment would be somewhat different from what it is. I think, therefore, that the regret of my noble Friend comes somewhat too late. The judicial functions the Lord Advocate now exercises will still remain with him, and it is only the administrative functions that will be transferred to the Secretary for Scotland. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Balfour) was anxious to know how the salary was to be paid, and why the clause awarding a certain salary to the Secretary for Scotland and to the Assistant Secretary was inserted in the Bill. Well, I believe that the plan adopted is the manner in which salaries are awarded to Officers of State. I believe that, with the exception, perhaps, of the Secretary of State for India, all the great Officers of State are paid by money voted to the Treasury for the purpose. With reference to a further remark of the noble Lord, the Register House is at this moment under a great Officer of State, and is specially regulated by a Statute passed in 1879, and the Government see no reason why that particular Department should be transferred with the rest to the Department of the Secretary for Scotland. In regard to one question which justly appears to be considered the most important of all, Her Majesty's Government incline to the view expressed by the noble Lord opposite rather than to that of the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Huntly). So far as regards the question of educational endowments, which the noble Lord says ought not to be transferred to the new Department, unless the whole educational machinery is transferred to that Department, that, no doubt, is a point which the Government will take into their very serious consideration; but when the noble Marquess says that he will, in Committee, move that the whole education of Scotland shall be placed under the new Officer, I have to say that, as at present advised, Her Majesty's Government cannot consent to make that change. The Government have carefully considered the question, and have come to this conclusion, to a very large degree, on the grounds put forward by the noble Lord
  812
  opposite, and I cannot hold out any hope to my noble Friend that Her Majesty's Government will give way in this matter. That question, no doubt, will be discussed again when the House gets into Committee, and I will say nothing more at this moment. I will merely thank your Lordships for the reception you have given to the Bill, and say that, Her Majesty's Government's proposals having received your approval, they are sanguine that the Bill will shortly become an Act of Parliament, and that it will go a long way to meet the wishes of the people of Scotland.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

GREAT SEAL BILL.—(No. 83.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
GREAT SEAL BILL.—(No. 83.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was a formal measure, having for its object the simplification of the passing of instruments under the Great Real of the United Kingdom. It proposed to enact that a warrant under Her Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, countersigned by the Lord Chancellor, or by one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, or by the Lord High Treasurer, or two of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, should be a necessary and sufficient authority for passing any instrument under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom according to the tenour of such warrant; but it contained a Proviso that any instrument which might now be passed under the Great Seal by the fiat, or under the authority or directions, of the Lord Chancellor or otherwise without passing through any other Office, might continue to be passed as heretofore. It also proposed to give the Lord Chancellor power, from time to time, to make, revoke, or vary regulations respecting the passing of instruments under the Great Seal, and respecting the warrants for that purpose, which should be prepared by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. The making of any warrant for passing any instrument under the Great Seal, or the procuring any instrument to be passed under the Great Seal otherwise than in

  813
  the manner provided by this Bill or by the Crown Office Act, 1877, was proposed to be made a misdemeanour. It further provided, amongst other things, that after the passing of the Act it should not be necessary that any instrument should be passed under the Privy Seal. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he felt some difficulty in dealing with the Bill in the absence of noble and learned Lords who were qualified to discuss it; and that the more especially as it appeared to him—and he could not help having received the impression—to be of rather an insidious nature, as it seemed to be intended to effect a somewhat important Constitutional change in regard to an Office which had existed from an ancient date. The noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack had said that the measure was simply a formal measure; but he (the Marquess of Salisbury), however much he might be inclined to regard it as one of form, did not think that it was a pure matter of accident that this Bill should immediately follow the Secretary for Scotland Bill; and it appeared to him not improbable that the real object of the Bill was to create a vacancy which the Secretary for Scotland was to fill. The £2,000 which was to be given to the Secretary for Scotland was to be taken from the Lord Privy Seal, and in order to do so the noble and learned Earl practically proposed to eviscerate the Office of the Lord Privy Seal. In that case, he thought that the measure should bear upon its front the title of a Bill to abolish the Office of the Lord Privy Seal. It was, perhaps, not very easy to justify the existence of sinecures; but no one had held a Cabinet Office without being conscious that sinecures were often of very great value to the Public Service at particular conjunctures. They were not confined to the Privy Seal; their value was recognized in the other House, where there was a sinecure called the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, which no one thought of abolishing, because it was often of very great value by enabling the Ministry to fill the Office by the appointment of a man who could render great service to the country. He had
  814
  heard nothing to convince him that the Office of the Lord Privy Seal should not be preserved, or that a similar value did not attach to it. The only reason given for the abolition of the Office was that his noble Friend the Duke of Northumberland, when Lord Privy Seal, could not be found by a person who was sent after him. He thought great precautions were required in regard to the issuing of warrants and the countersigning of the Sign Manual. He hoped, therefore, that, at all events, the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack would consent to put the Bill off until his noble and learned Friend (Earl Cairns) could be present, so that the House could have his opinion upon it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that with respect to the objection of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), the signature of the Lord Privy Seal was given as a mere matter of form, and the counter signatures of those who knew what the warrants were, and on whose advice and responsibility they had received the Royal Sign Manual, would still be required. There would be ample opportunity for discussing the measure on its subsequent stages.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on the first sitting dag after the recess at Whitsuntide.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 95.)
(The Lord President.)
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 95.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked the noble Lord the Lord President for some explanation of the meaning of the Bill?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL), in reply, said, that there was a doubt whether public bodies, such as Municipal Corporations, had power to execute a trust deed devoting buildings to the purposes of Art Galleries or Museums, and the measure was intended to remove that doubt.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.

COLONIAL PRISONERS REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 44.)
(The Earl of Derby.)
COLONIAL PRISONERS REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 44.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DERBY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to remove certain inconveniences which have been seriously felt from time to time in Colonial administration, and which are always liable to recur. Those inconveniences have arisen from the necessity of keeping men, who have been sentenced to imprisonment or to penal servitude in any Colony, within the limits of the Colony in which their trial has taken place? We therefore propose, in the Bill, to take power to remove a prisoner from any Colony to any other, or to bring him home; but subject to this Proviso—that the Colony from which he is sent and that to which he is sent must both concur, as well as the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The reason which makes this power desirable is two-fold. In the first place, small Colonies often have not suitable means for enforcing penal discipline, and cannot provide such means without undue expense. The extreme case is Heligoland, which has no gaol at all; and a man was lately sentenced there for manslaughter, who could not have been punished according to his sentence if there had not been an agreement under an Imperial Act between Heligoland and Gibraltar, in accordance to which he was transferred to Gibraltar. It is obvious that there is an economy in removing a prisoner from a small Colony, where there are no proper means of detention, rather than in supplying those means of detention in places where they may very seldom be wanted. Another reason is the inconvenience and danger to life, if strict penal discipline is to be enforced on European prisoners in tropical and unhealthy climates. If you are to deal with an English sailor imprisoned on the West Coast of Africa as you would at Portland, you would probably kill him—if his confinement has to be relaxed and mitigated, to avoid the danger from climate, it ceases in a great measure to be penal, and introduces irregularity in the discipline of the prison, if Natives
  816
  are also confined there. As proof that these difficulties are not theoretical only, in the last few weeks I have received an application from a Foreign Government, to remove a prisoner now undergoing his sentence on the West Coast on the ground of extreme danger to his life. It is provided in the Bill that criminal lunatics may be brought home in the same manner as other prisoners for treatment in England. The Bill is concurred in by all the Departments concerned, and the principle of it has been referred to the Colonies, and generally accepted there. There is already in force an Act by which one Colony may agree with another for the transfer of its prisoners, so that the theory is sanctioned; but that Act requires an Order in Council to make it operative, and that Order can only be obtained on Address by the Legislative Bodies of both the Colonies concerned—a proceeding obviously too cumbrous and dilatory for the general run of such cases. I mention this to show that we are not asking Parliament to sanction a new principle, but only to give greater facilities for bringing into operation a principle which is already sanctioned in previous Acts, but which cannot get acted upon in consequence of the defective machinery of the present law. I now beg to move the second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl of Derby.)
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTHasked how the Bill would affect prisoners sentenced by court martial?
  THE EARL OF DERBYasked that the question might be repeated when the Bill reached the Committee stage.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, be saw no objection to the principle of the Bill, which might, however, require amendment in detail when it reached the Committee stage.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

THE WELLINGTON STATUE.

  RESOLUTION.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it appeared to him that, with reference to two Motions standing on the Paper in the names of the noble Lords (Lord Strathe-

  817
  den and Campbell and Lord de Ros) in respect to the removal from London of the statue of the Duke of Wellington, recently removed from Hyde Park Corner, the two Motions were not in accordance with the Law of Parliament, as raising substantially a question upon which Parliament had already expressed its judgment in the present Session. He had consulted Sir Erskine May, and also a high authority in their Lordships' House, both of whom agreed that the Motions substantially raised the same question, and that, in the circumstances, neither of them could be put in accordance with the practice of Parliament. He would move, therefore, that the first of these Motions, that of the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell), to which that of the noble Lord (Lord de Ros) was put down as an Amendment, be not made.
  Moved, "That the said Motion be not made."—(The Earl Granville.)
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, I may be expected to make some remarks in answer to the objection of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), of which no kind of Notice had been given to me. He thinks the propositions now before the House identical with that which, on the 24th of March, was by a small majority defeated. It is easy to point out that there is no identity between them. The Motion of the 24th of March affirmed that the House ought to Address the Crown; that the statue ought to remain in London unconditionally; and that its site should be in the neighbourhood of Apsley House as formerly. My Motion for to-night does not ask your Lordships to Address the Crown; maintains only that the statue should remain in London until we know how it is intended to replace it; and, as to the exact site, lays down nothing whatever. It would be perfectly consistent for any noble Lord who voted against me on the 24th of March, to vote with me this evening. I will now say a word on the Amendment of the noble and gallant Lord (Lord de Ros), as there is no rivalry between us. It is still more completely sheltered against the technical obstruction of the noble Earl—of which the House will recognize the purpose—than the Motion which precedes it. The noble and gallant Lord desires the House to act on in
  818
  formation recently disclosed, and not in their possession at the time the noble Earl refers to. On the 24th of March, the Amendment could not have been offered. A proposal which, on the 24th of March, was actually impossible, can hardly be confounded with the proposal negatived this evening. My Lords, little more is necessary; but there are many instances of Parliament retracting its decisions, if we were—which we are not—engaging it to do so. In the other House, soon after 1832, there was a vote to do away with the Malt Duty which was afterwards retracted. In recent days, a vote in this House, reflecting on some appointment under Lord Beaconsfield, was cancelled, after a speech which Lord Beaconsfield delivered to your Lordships. This House, after deciding to part with its appellate jurisdiction, was induced, on more reflection, to uphold it. The noble Earl alluded to authorities on usage whom he had consulted, principally "elsewhere." I, also, before putting down the Notice which now stands, consulted an authority on usage better gualified to guide this House than any he has mentioned. If there was at all a general opinion that the Amendment of the noble and gallant Lord is more technically guarded than the Motion which precedes it, I should be indifferent which was first debated. Beyond that there can be no concession upon my part.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) appeared to think that, of the two Motions, the Amendment was the more invulnerable one. That was a considerable concession to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), for his noble Friend had expressed his opinion that the Motion was deliberately and literally opposed to the former vote of the House. He (the Lord Chancellor) would point out the necessity of their having Rules which could not be evaded. No doubt, the noble Lord had quoted precedents in which previous decisions had been rescinded; but, then, he had omitted to say that that had been done by Motions to rescind. In this case, the Motion of the noble Lord was diametrically opposed to a former vote of their Lordships' House; and, surely, it was not advisable to review Motions which had been determined already, especially when these

  819
  votes remained unrescinded. That Resolution being unrescinded, he suggested that they could not proceed with the Motion without stultifying themselves.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he would ask their Lordships to consider the effect of such a contention as that of the noble and learned Earl upon the Woolsack. According to that, if their Lordships once came to a decision as to the Egyptian policy of the Government, or the foreign policy of the Government, or upon any other matter upon information in the Blue Books laid before them, from which, it subsequently turned out, important facts—say, for instance, a despatch—had been suppressed, did the noble and learned Earl contend that, under such circumstances, and upon the new circumstances which had come to light, their Lordships could not reverse their previous decision and reopen the question? It appeared to him that in consequence of the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland), the House were now in possession of fuller knowledge with reference to the sentiments and feeling of the late Duke of Wellington upon the subject of the statue, and he thought that the Motion ought to be proceeded with. This was a question which ought to be decided as a question of sentiment and not of art.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, it appeared to him that there were two reasons why they ought to enter into a discussion of this question. First, there was no Standing Order which ruled the point, but only practice; and he questioned whether precedents, if looked into, would not favour one view as well as the other. Again, they were not asking for a reversal of the Resolution of the House, but simply for delay, in order that the matter might be more fully considered. He was strongly of opinion that they should enter into such a discussion, on the ground that fresh information upon the subject had been given to their Lordships.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he was also of opinion that the question should be further considered. The Government were totally and entirely unacquainted with the facts which he had stated. He was not quite sure that the Government were clear upon the point. The Vote in the House of Commons was not for the purpose of removing the Wellington statue, or for putting it on a
  820
  pedestal at Aldershot when it got there. The £6,000 was simply and solely for the execution of a new statue, and he hardly thought their Lordships could be bound by that decision.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided—Contents 52; Not-Contents 78: Majority 26.
  Resolved in the negative.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, the decision of the House engages me to go on with my Motion; but after the prelude which retarded it, mid the debates which have occurred before upon this matter, I shall not detain the House for many minutes. Whoever brings the subject forward is exposed, in one quarter, to the charge of an improper pertinacity. It is invariably asked, and with a tone of reprimand, why is the controversy so frequently recurred to? My Lords, the answer is an easy one. If something which Members of the Legislature consider mischievous, uncalled for, and, in a high degree, derogatory to an illustrious name, is threatened, they are clearly bound, until it is effected, to resist it. Their pertinacity is based upon their duty. It is said they are fatiguing Parliament. Possibly, they may be. But who is responsible fur the fatigue of Parliament? Unless a disturbance, almost a desecration without precedent had been conceived, the subject would not have arisen. Had the scheme been dropped, discussion would have vanished with it. The fatigue of Parliament is brought about by the abettors of the scheme, and not by its opponents. The pertinacity complained of belongs to Her Majesty's Government, who still insist upon a measure which they disavow, by throwing its whole responsibility on an illustrious Prince, while that illustrious Prince has never yet declared himself in favour of it. It has been said, indeed, that Parliament has sanctioned it. It has already been explained that, as regards "another place," the statement is entirely inaccurate. In this House, only 26—after all the efforts of the Government—could be found to vote against an Address to the Crown of a prohibitory character. Are the opinions of 26 to be accepted as the final judgment of your Lordships, who are not far from 500? But can they be accepted as the final judgment of the

  821
  Ministerial Supporters? To bring them down to 26, at least 40 must have determined to absent themselves. The 26 may all have voted upon grounds which would not now have any application. They may have thought in March the measure was not seriously imminent. But the debate we have just had anticipated that topic. It is only here essential to remark that the speech of the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) last Thursday week—a more instructive and impressive one than has been often heard in this or any House—together with its details, creates a wholly new departure on the subject. My Lords, at this time, we ought not to give up the strongest argument, because it may not be a new one. It is the right of the original subscribers. It is remarkable that Her Majesty's Government, however rich in legal subtlety and talent, have not attempted to reply to it. Would the original subscribers of 1846 have contributed £5, or even 1s. 6d., had they been told that in less than 40 years the statue would be removed from London altogether? They even went so far as to insist on the very site which was adopted. Some years ago an incident occurred which bears on this part of the question. The statue of Mr. Canning, on a pretext which turned out to be entirely fallacious, was taken from the line of Parliament Street and Palace Yard to where it is at present. There was a general remonstrance in this House, in which the late Lord Clanricarde and the late Lord Stratford De Redcliffe, the nearest Representatives of Mr. Canning, cordially united. It was pointed out that the donors of the statue were entitled to the site the country had originally granted. But had it been proposed, not to move the statue of Mr. Canning backwards a few yards into relative obscurity, but to withdraw it 20 or 30 miles into the country, it is easy to perceive that the derangement would not have been tolerated, even with the promise of a new statue to be formed, by a precarious subscription and a foreign artist. Noble Lords should ask themselves whether that which, in the case of Mr. Canning, would have been indignantly repelled, in the case of the late Duke of Wellington, ought quietly to be accepted? It is also worth while to remark how the proceeding would affect those who might unite to raise a
  822
  monument of any sort at present. Suppose all the noble Lords on this side of the House—it is no fanciful hypothesis—determined to erect a statue to the late Earl Grey, as the successor of Mr. Fox, as the Minister who carried the Reform Act, as the Leader of their Party in its darkest time, as well as the most brilliant; suppose, also, a proper and conspicuous site to have been granted, would they submit to the necessary outlay if the State reserved a latent power of withdrawing their construction where it would be utterly invisible? Whether the design was openly avowed, or cautiously suspected, it would be fatal to the project. It is, therefore, clear that the original subscribers in 1846 are going to be defrauded. It is not, as some affirm, a question of taste opposed to a question of sentiment. It is a question of contract on the one hand, and spoliation on the other. When I venture to remark that it is not a question of sentiment, I shall not be supposed to mean that there is no outrage on the distinguished character whose statue was erected in its violent removal. A noble Lord, who voted on the 24th of March, has drawn my attention to what was thought in ancient times upon the subject. There is a passage in the 10th Satire of Juvenal, on the ruin of Sejanus under the displeasure of Tiberius. The fall of the statues which had been raised in honour of the favourite is mentioned as the last indignity, by which his brief supremacy was expiated. As Dryden has endeavoured to translate it—
  "Down go the titles, and the statue crowned,
  Is by base hands in the next river drowned."
  But is it not a modern principle as well that the statues of great men ought to be inviolable? In Paris, as your Lordships know, those of Henry IV. and Napoleon I. have stood through many revolutions, against both the Monarchy and Empire. In London, there is another instance more remarkable. In. the short Reign of James II., a statue was erected to him. Neither his flight and abdication, nor the change of dynasty which followed, nor the struggles and rebellions which only ended at Culloden, have been permitted to disturb it. It remains in Whitehall Gardens now, where anyone may see it. It might be pointed out to foreigners as an example of the tenacity with which the British public guard the monuments they may have been too

  823
  hasty in conceding. If this scheme is carried out, it will be answered that there is less tenacity of monuments which brilliant service had obtained and pious gratitude constructed. My Lords, whatever happens, the recorded judgment of this House is necessary to clear its name of all participation in the measure of the Government. That measure violates the public faith with the subscribers, reverses the decision of the Crown, in 1846, and rudely takes away the monument a nation had endorsed, and which the late Duke of Wellington had watched, accepted, and appreciated. More I will not add, as the House would like to hear the noble and gallant Lord on his Amendment. It is to me indifferent which of the two Motions is adopted. They are not, as I have said before, opposed to one another; but I proceed to move the Resolution as it stands upon the Paper.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is not desirable to remove the equestrian statue of the late Duke of Wellington from London until the public have an opportunity of judging the monument by which it is intended to replace it."—(The Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
  LORD DE ROS, in rising to move an Amendment to the Motion of the noble Lord, said, that he did so in consequence of the remarks made by the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) the last time the subject was before their Lordships' House, and his object was to endeavour to persuade their Lordships as to the advisability of reconsidering this matter before it was too late. He did not propose to weary them with a recapitulation of the facts brought forward by the noble Duke, as they were fully reported in the newspapers; but he would confine himself to observing that these facts were obtained from most reliable sources, and proved beyond doubt what were the views and feelings of the Great Duke himself on the subject of his statue. He ventured to think that if these facts had been more fully known by the Committee over which His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales presided, and also by Her Majesty's Government, a different conclusion would have been arrived at as to the fate of the statue. There were several considerations which he desired to bring before the House. In the first place, it was well known that the Duke of Wellington refused to sit until he had the sanction of the Queen that
  824
  the statue should be placed upon the Arch; secondly, the Duke saw Mr. Wyatt, and said that he should like Mr. Wyatt to see him on horseback; thirdly, that the present Duke was annoyed at the removal of the statue from Hyde Park Corner; fourthly, that the statue was a good likeness of the Duke as he appeared at Waterloo. Those, he thought, were sufficient reasons against the removal of the statue from London. he had no doubt Mr. Boehm was quite capable of executing a very admirable equestrian statue; but it could not fail from being purely ideal, because it was more than probable that Mr. Boehm never set eyes on the Duke, whereas the Duke had sat to Mr. Wyatt for the original. Since he had last addressed their Lordships on this subject a great number of persons of all shades of opinion had expressed to him the very strong public feeling that existed as to keeping the statue in London, because it belonged to the nation, and therefore should not be removed from the Metropolis. He would leave the question of site to be settled by a Committee; but he contended that the statue ought not to be allowed to be removed down to Alder-shot—to a barrack-yard, as it had been called. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Sudeley) stated that two votes had already been taken on the matter; but the vote in the House of Commons was distinctly a Money Vote for a new statue, and the vote in that House was not on the point as to the removal of the statue from London. The noble Viscount (Viscount Hardinge) stated that the officers quartered at Aldershot had signified their assent to the removal of the statue to that place; but he (Lord de Ros) begged to observe that the officers at Aldershot formed a very small portion of the Army, and there were very few regimental officers serving at present who held their first commissions at the time when England had to mourn for the loss of one of her greatest heroes. There were some general officers in the Army who had served under the late Duke who always made a point of raising their hats as they passed the statue. To such men the removal of the statue would be a great blow. A letter had lately appeared in The Times newspaper from General Sir William Codrington on the subject, expressing a strong feeling against the removal, which he said would be re-

  825
  garded by old soldiers with deep regret; and that letter, he (Lord de Ros) ventured to think, illustrated the feelings of the officers who served under the Great Duke. There was also a letter from a gentleman who generally wrote pretty much to the point in The Morning Post, which deserved attention. He earnestly hoped that their Lordships would not allow this opportunity to pass, and that they would support the Amendment which he now ventured to move.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That this House, being now possessed of fuller knowledge of the views and feelings of the late Duke of Wellington as regards his statue at Hyde Park Corner, is of opinion that it ought not to be removed from London."— (The Lord de Ros.)
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, that, in his opinion, it was quite a mistake for the noble Lord the Mover of the Motion (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) to imagine that any slur was intended to be cast upon the memory of the late Duke by the removal of the statue, as if the statue was going to be cast into the Thames. The fact was that nothing of the kind was intended; but he thought it would be acknowledged by everyone who had studied the subject at all that the country stood higher in the way of art than in previous years; and all that was intended was that a better statue should replace the original, which had been condemned by a Committee presided over by the Prince of Wales. The noble Lord who had just sat down had said the other day that every soldier who passed the statue touched his hat.
  LORD DE ROS: I said I knew several general officers who had served under the Duke, and who when they passed the statue lifted their hats.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, that, in that case, he thought there was no reason why they might not just as suitably raise their hats to a good statue by Mr. Boehm as to the bad one which lately stood at Hyde Park Corner.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYsaid, he decidedly objected to the idea of replacing the statue on the Arch, especially as the position of the Arch was now askew. Such a proceeding would be simply an intensification of the dominating ugliness of the statue. He (Lord de L'isle and Dudley) thought that Aldershot would be a good place for it, and, therefore, he should vote against
  826
  the Motion. He desired to call attention to the fact that the present Duke of Wellington had expressed his willingness that the statue of his illustrious Father should be removed to Aldershot, and that another and a better one should be erected at Hyde Park Corner.
  LORD MOUNT TEMPLEsaid, the idea of the subscribers had been to honour the Duke by the biggest statue that could be made, and to hoist it as high as possible. The question was, what would be the best form of statue to give expression to the feelings of admiration and reverence which the nation entertained for the Great Duke? The present statue had been condemned as an artistic failure by all the best authorities in Art; and the only excuse produced for keeping it was that the Duke of Wellington sat for it, and that he objected to its being taken down. But there was no reason to suppose that the Duke would not have preferred a better statue. Why should not the best statue that could be procured be placed at Hyde Park Corner? This statue was not in harmony with the character of the Duke. He was remarkable for simplicity and dignity. The statue was pretentious, exaggerated, vulgar, and even grotesque. It could do no honour to the memory of a great man.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he must apologize to their Lordships for troubling them again upon the subject. It was said that there was to be a new statue; but how did they know that it would not be worse than the old one?
  LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: Impossible.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, that for the Royal Academy to say that the old statue was a bad one was monstrous. It was a matter of history that the Duke of Wellington, writing to Mr. Croker, in 1846, said that—
  "Lord Morpeth writes a circular letter to the members of the Royal Academy before the statute can be seen at all; and requires each of them to assist him with their opinions of it. What is the meaning of this? It is a Minister offering a reward for opinions against the work; which it is well known has been placed where it is, not only against, but in despite of his, the Minister's opinion. Will ever any member of the Academy, looking to the Court for favour—and which of them does not—give a fair or independent opinion upon the subject?"
  Since he (the Duke of Rutland) had last addressed the House on this subject, he

  827
  had received additional information as to the sentiments entertained by the late Duke with regard to the existing statue. In a letter from Lord George Bentinck to Mr. Croker, the contemporary feeling in favour of the statue being placed on the top of the Arch, as being both a suitable site and in accordance with the Duke of Wellington's sentiments, was shown conspicuously. That letter, written on the 10th of July, 1847, said—
  "You will see what passed last night in the House of Commons. A private communication and negotiation had previously taken place between Lord John and me, the result of which was that Lord John engaged 'that the equestrian statue of the Duke of Wellington should remain where it is unless the Duke should intimate to Lord John that its removal to some other site would give him mere pleasure;' and that' the Duke's declining to give any opinion is to be construed as dissent.' This, of course, concludes the business. I have written to the Duke of Wellington, acquainting him with this, and likewise, at the desire of my supporters in the House of Commons, telling the Duke that they all came up manfully; sixteen, I believe, who had left London for the season, came up from the country; and, from the appearance of the House, I have no doubt whatever that I should have beat them two to one, if the artistical gentlemen had persevered. My idea is that the discussion would have damaged Lord John Russell and Lord Morpeth more than anything that has occurred, either during this or any preceding Whig Government. I believe we should have raised the blood of the whole country against them. But I am a jockey, and it is the first principle of our craft to be satisfied with winning the race if it is only by a head, and never to risk losing by showing off how much further it might have been won. My people were very anxious I should wait upon the Duke and tell him how cheerfully they had responded to the call to protect him from any slight; but I hate ceremony, and never call upon anybody."
  It was said by noble Lords opposite that the Duke did not care much where the statue was placed, whether it was placed on the pedestal or on Primrose Hill; but the following letter from the Duke, dated the 14th June, 1847, from Walmer Castle, would reveal that that was contrary to the fact: —
  "My Dear Croker,—It has always been my practice, and is my invariable habit, to say nothing about myself or my own actions, More than 40 years ago Mr. Pitt observed that I thought as little of myself, or of my own acts, as if I had been an assistant surgeon of the Army; and from the year 1838 (when the statue was proposed to be placed on the arch) to the present moment I have considered it most becoming to avoid to interfere respecting a statue of which the professed object is to commemorate bygone transactions in which I had borne a part. I
  828
  follow the habit of avoiding to talk of myself and of what I have done, with the exception only of occasions when I am urging upon modern contemporaries measures which they do not like, and when I tell them I have some experience and have had some success in these affairs, and feel that they would experience the benefit of attending to my advice. I never talk of myself. These are the reasons for which they think that I do not care what they do with the statue; but they must be idiots to suppose it possible that a man who is working day and night, without any object in view excepting the public benefit, will not be sensible of disgrace inflicted upon him by the Sovereign and Government whom he is serving if it is removed. The ridicule will be felt if nothing else is. This last would have been vastly aggravated if I had not cautiously avoided to take any part in the affair since the year 1838."
  Could anything be stronger than that letter, as showing the feelings of the Duke upon the subject? With the permission of the House he would relate an anecdote concerning the Duke. A few days before the late Duke's death, Mr. Croker went down to see him, and had a talk with him that occupied some hours, in the course of which may talked about every subject they could think of which had occurred during the Duke's life. In the course of their conversation Mr. Croker said—"Do you remember travelling with me down the Old North Road in a postchaise and pair?" "Yes," said the Duke; "I recollect it perfectly." Mr. Croker went on to say—"And do you recollect our trying to guess at what was on the other side of each hill we came to, and that you were always right, and I was always wrong?" To which the Duke responded—"The whole art of war consists in getting at what is on the other side of the hill; and, moreover, the whole art of life consists in guessing what is on the other side of the hill, or, in other words, in learning what we do not know from what we do." Applying the Duke's own maxim to the present case, he (the Duke of Rutland) might say, without the possibility of contradiction, that knowing what were the opinions of the Duke in his life with regard to the removal of this statue, he would, had he lived, have felt even more sensibly the disgrace of its removal, after it had rested there for 40 years, not only from the Arch, but out of London. In asking that the statue should be replaced on the Arch, or, at any rate, not removed from London, it would be said they were

  829
  flying in the face of a Vote of the House of Commons, who had voted £6,000 for the purpose. But they were not asking the House of Commons for any money; on the contrary, they were asking them to save the money of the nation. He merely asked that, if thought desirable, some small portion of the amount already voted should be spent in replacing it on the Arch, or upon a pedestal in some convenient place in London, such as at the top of the Green Park, at the Horse Guards, or in Hyde Park; but he most strongly protested against it being removed to Aldershot. He was quite convinced that, if the Queen had known of these statements and of the letters he had read, Her Majesty would never have given her sanction to what the Duke would have considered an indignity; and, then, the Government would never have proposed the Vote in the other House. It was said that, whatever might be the facts of the case, it was now too late to alter the decision that had been arrived at; but it never was too late to do what was right. If the noble Lord (Lord De L'isle and Dudley) desired to have a statue of the Duke of Wellington at Aldershot, by all means let the one Mr. Boehm was to produce go there; but he hoped their Lordships would never consent to do that which must confer obloquy on the hero of Waterloo.
  THE BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLSsaid, that he desired to join in the protest against the removal of the statue out of London. In doing so, there was one consideration which greatly weighed with him, and that was the historical incident of the old statue being placed near to Apsley House in the Duke's lifetime; and, looking at all the circumstances of the case, he hoped that their Lordships would, by a large majority, show their sense that it was not right at this time of day to undo what was then done. He well remembered that at the time the reasons which weighed with the public were the vicinity to Apsley House, and the fact that Hyde Park Corner stood at the entrance of London, so that the statue of the Great Duke would be one of the first objects seen on approaching the City. The only objection, which was felt by everybody, was that the Arch was not fitted to support such a statue. That objection was removed by the removal of the
  830
  Arch. The obvious thing was to place the statue on a proper pedestal on the same site. He maintained that a new statue would not command the veneration which the old one did. If they removed the latter they entirely destroyed the old historical sentiment.
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, that this question had been repeatedly before their Lordships. In one form or other, it had been brought forward no less than seven times in that House during the last 18 months; and, on the 24th of March, their Lordships affirmed, in a Division, the policy pursued by the Government in determining to carry out the proposal of the Committee that it should be removed to Aldershot. It was unnecessary for him, and he feared it would only weary their Lordships, were he to enter into details as to the various steps which the First Commissioner had found it necessary to take, to insure arriving at an accurate and thoroughly independent decision. Their Lordships were aware of the proceedings of the Committee which sat last year, and of the pains which were taken to have it composed of the best known authorities on such a subject; and, by having the present Duke of Wellington on that Committee, it was felt that the desires of the family would be efficiently represented. The decision at which the Committee arrived, after considering every possible site in London, was that the statue must be broken up. That step was averted by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales actively and patriotically interesting himself in the matter, and suggesting that, most likely, the removal of the statue to Aldershot would meet with general satisfaction, if combined with the construction of a new statue, and considered by the public in connection with the great improvements to be completed at Hyde Park Corner. The Vote of the Committee of Supply in the House of Commons confirmed the decision of their Lordships' House on the 24th of March, by the overwhelming majority of 111, which was no less than two to one. Several noble Lords had stated that that Vote was only a Money Vote for the new statue, and that it had nothing whatever to do with the removal of the existing one to Aldershot. That statement was, to a certain extent, true; but it must be remembered that the general question was brought before

  831
  the House of Commons on that occasion by Sir Robert Peel and several other Members, and was very fully discussed before a Vote was taken. That appeared to the Government to finally dispose of the matter. The order was consequently given, and all necessary arrangements made for the removal of the statue. The noble Lord (Lord Stratheden and Campbell) was, however, still dissatisfied, and had once more returned to the charge. On the present occasion he had nominally altered the terms of his Resolution and suggested that the statue should remain until the new statue had been made. He thought it impossible not to see that that suggestion was merely designed in order to shelve the question, and to secure a reversal of the decision at which their Lordships' House had already arrived. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment (Lord de Ros) spoke of the correspondence brought forward by the noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) as being an entirely new matter which entirely altered the circumstances of the case. That was not so. Most of the letters which the noble Duke had quoted last week and that night wore published in a Parliamentary form; had been on the Table of the House since 1847; and everyone who had considered the subject must be well aware of their contents. The noble Duke would have the House believe that the original construction of the statue and the placing of it on the Arch met with general approval, and especially with the approval of the Duke of Wellington himself. But what were the facts? From the very day, in 1838, when the idea was started, down to the year 1847, there was one endless chorus of dispute and even bitterness. Their Lordships would remember that the selection of the sculptor, Mr. Wyatt, was vehemently opposed by a large number of the Committee, so much so that, on the 8th of August, 1838, a large proportion of that Committee wrote to Lord Melbourne asking the Government to suspend their consent, because they objected to the manner in which the sculptor had been chosen. The Members of the Committee who signed the protest were the Dukes of Northumberland, Richmond, and Buccleuch, and Lords Powys, Liverpool, Hill, Strafford, Palmerston, Anglesey, Tavistock, Dungannon, Combermere, and Craven. It was true that Lord
  832
  Melbourne advised the Queen, to give permission for the statue being placed on the Arch; but the Papers showed that Lord Lincoln, Lord Melbourne, and Lord Canning subsequently did their best, on the part of the Government, at different dates, to prevent it being so placed. After much correspondence on the subject, Lord Canning, in May, 1846, made a final appeal to the Duke of Rutland, explaining how much the Government disapproved of the proposed site in these words—
  "It is my duty to state to your Grace that the remonstrances which reach Her Majesty's Government against the proposed appropriation of the arch are so many and so strong, the representations of its architect, Mr. Burton, in the same sense, are so earnest, and the opinion of every other eminent architect, artist, or other competent authority who has been consulted on the subject is so decided, that Her Majesty's Government feel called upon not only to make a final effort to induce the subscribers to reconsider the project of placing the statue on the site at present proposed, but to do all that lies in their power to facilitate a change in the design."
  Finally, the statue was allowed to be placed on the Arch; but only on the distinct understanding, that it should be taken down if, in the opinion of the Government, the result was unsatisfactory. A short time after it was erected, Lord Morpeth wrote to the Duke of Rutland, that the Government had decided that it must be taken down. That led to further angry controversy; and then it was said that the Duke of Wellington expressed himself strongly against the removal, and thus it was allowed to remain. What actually happened was this. The First Commissioner of Works stated the other day in the House of Commons, that he had the highest authority for saying that, after the Government had settled that the statue could not be allowed to remain on the Arch, it was suggested that the Duke of Wellington should be consulted. He was asked to go down to Windsor, and he there told the Queen and the Prince Consort that he never wished the statue to be made; that it was against his wish that it should be put on the Arch, but that, being there, and after the long controversy about it, it might be looked upon as a mark of disapprobation towards himself if it were removed. On that it was argued that the statue was liked by the Duke, and that it would be a dishonour to remove it from the vicinity of Apsley House.

  833
  He believed there was not one tittle of clear and substantial evidence in the Papers or letters quoted to show that the Duke had any such feeling in the matter. He had, for eight years, been a silent spectator of the controversy which had been raging about a statue to himself; and could it be a matter of wonder to any man that, modest and retiring as he was, and of a sensitive disposition, the Duke got heartily sick of the whole affair? It was only natural, therefore, that he should have done anything to prevent the renewal of what could not fail to have been to him a painful and irritating discussion. That, then, was how the statue was allowed to remain. No gentleman could do less than show a lively appreciation of such a costly and well-meant memorial. Which of their Lordships would not give a courteous and grateful answer to a body of gentlemen, who came to inform him that a subscription of between £30,000 and £40,000 had been got together for the erection of a monument in his honour? It was an old saying, that a man could not look a gift horse in the mouth; but, in this case, the Duke was forced not only to look the gift horse in the mouth, but to ride another man's hobby. If it were necessary, he could quote many of the articles and letters which appeared during the eight years of this controversy, to show how very painful and unpleasant it must have been for the Duke of Wellington, and how glad he must have been at the prospect of its cessation. Having been thus settled, the controversy should never have been re-opened, and no one would have thought of removing the statue; but what were the simple facts of the case as they now presented themselves? It had been found necessary, in making the great improvements at Hyde Park Corner, to move the arch. The First Commissioner of Works would have been the last man to have suggested the removal of the statue, had it been possible to avoid it; and he went a long way to see if the arch could not be bodily removed; but that had boon found impossible. Now that the statue was actually on the ground, the circumstances were entirely altered; and he (Lord Sudeley) was of opinion that he would be a very bold man who would suggest that the statue should be put again on the arch. Then, the question arose as to
  834
  what was to be done with the statue? Putting aside all questions of Art, the fact was that the colossal size of the statue made it dwarf all surrounding positions; and, as the Committee found by practical experience with a wooden profile, it was too large for any site which had been named. It had been argued that it was a bad precedent, and that, in the time of a Communistic Parliament, the statue of Lord Beaconsfield and other Conservative Leaders would be carted out of the town; but, surely, what was now proposed could not be looked upon in that light. All competent authorities told them that the statue was too large and too colossal to be placed in any site in London. Then let them substitute for it an equestrian statue of a fitting size which had every prospect of being suitable, and the precedent was one of which they certainly need not be ashamed. If the country was anxious to do honour to the memory of the great Duke, what could be done better than to have a fitting and really artistic statue placed near Apsley House, as now proposed, instead of one out of all proportion with its surroundings, and constantly held up to ridicule? At Aldershot, the colossal statue would be in a position where its size would be no drawback, and where it could be fittingly placed among the future soldiers of the country. It had been argued that the new sculptor, Mr. Boehm, would not have the advantages possessed by his Predecessor. The noble Duke adhered to his statement that the Duke of Wellington sat for his statue. It was hardly necessary to argue that, because it was perfectly clear, from the Papers on the Table, that he sat for the design, but did not sit for the statue. The Report of the Committee from which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Rutland) had quoted was dated 1838, before the statue was commenced. Mr. Boehm would have for his assistance the two splendid pictures in the possession of Lord Penrhyn and Lord Bathurst, both of which were exact pictures of the Duke. He would have equally at his service the bust of Nobelli used by Mr. Wyatt, and would have a knowledge of the various criticisms on the present statue. It was a well-known, fact that the great difficulty in this matter had been that everyone had his own views

  835
  of what ought to be done with the statue; and, while they would not listen to any opposite view, would all combine against any particular scheme. No doubt, there was much to be said in favour of any one of the 10 sites which had been suggested; but, as reasonable men, they must see that someone would have to give way, unless this question was to be allowed to drag on, and they were to become the laughing-stock of other nations. The decision of the Government had been arrived at in no hasty manner. It was the result of great and patient inquiry; and it commanded the entire approval of the present Duke of Wellington, who had written as follows:—
  "Strathfieldsaye, April 12, 1884.
  "Dear Mr. Lefevre,—I am quite satisfied with the proposed arrangement, and I feel that by it full respect is paid to the memory of my father.
  "I have the honour to be
  "Dear Mr. Lefevro,
  "Yours faithfully,
  "WELLINGTON.
  "The Right Hon. G. Shaw Lefevre."
  He confidently hoped that at that eleventh hour, when preparations had actually been made for the conveyance of the statue to Aldershot, when both Houses of Parliament had already sanctioned the decision of the Committee, their Lordships would not now take steps to relegate the matter to a state of hopeless confusion.
  LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL, in asking for leave to withdraw the Motion, said: My Lords, I had intended, without suggestion from the noble Viscount, to recommend the House to adopt the Motion of the noble and gallant Lord (Lord de Ros), as likely to unite the greatest number in its favour. Much has been said on the opinion of the present Duke of Wellington. In this House he has never yet declared one. The noble Lord (Lord Sudeley) has made a prolix speech against the statue being connected with the arch; but for its removal from the capital he has made no speech whatever.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Amendment again moved.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 66; Not-Coutents 44: Majority 22.

  CONTENTS.

  Rutland, D.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Bristol. M.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Ashburnham, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Belmore, E.

  Bradford, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Carnarvon, E.

  Coventry, E.

  Colchester, L.

  Haddington, E.

  de Ros, L. [Teller.]

  Hardwicke, E.

  Dinevor, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Dorchester, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Lovelace, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Milltown, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Powis, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Romney, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Strafford, E.

  North, L.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Robartes, L.

  Hood, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Strathallan, V.

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

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L. [Teller.]

  Ashford, L. (V. Bury.)

  Templemore, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Tollemache, L.

  Bagot, L.

  Trevor, L.

  Beaumont, L.

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Bramwell, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, E. (L. Chancellor.)

  Balfour of Burley, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Grafton, D.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Saint Albans, D.

  Westminster, D.

  Carlingford, L.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Northampton, M.

  Crewe, L.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Bathurst, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Derby, E.

  Hammond, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Granville, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Howth, L. (E. Howth.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Jersey, E.

  Kimberley, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Morley, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Northbrook, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Mount-Temple, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Hardinge, V.

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Powerscourt, V.

  Skene, I,. (E. Fife.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Alcester, L.

  837

  Sudeley, L. [Teller.]

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDasked the Government what course they now intended to take?
  EARL GRANVLLLE: I am very sorry I am not at liberty to say what course the Government will take.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  RESOLUTION.
  Moved, That it be an instruction to the Select Committee on the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and Office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to inquire into the arrangements for the distribution of Parliamentary Papers, with a view to seeing how it happens that reports of Royal Commissions are often commented upon in the newspapers before they have been distributed to Members of the House; and also why it is that papers are often distributed to Members of the House of Commons before they are distributed to Members of this House; agreed to (The Lord Balfour.)

  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Cruelty to Animals Acts—Was presented by The Earl of REDESDALE; read 1a. (No. 103.)
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.