Sitting of 6 November 1884

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN — Lieutenant Colonel Richard Fell Steble, for Scarborough.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Charitable Trusts Acts, re-appointed and nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered— First Reading — Liquor Traffic (Local Veto) (Scotland)* [28]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Durham)* [29]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Cornwall)* [30].
Second Reading—Representation of the People [1], debate adjourned.

QUESTIONS.

  THE GLASGOW CALAMITY—PUBLIC BUILDINGS (DOORS) BILL.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONE (for Mr. COLERIDGE KENNARD)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can inform the House if the exit doors of the public building in Glasgow, in which a terrible catastrophe has just occurred, were hung so as to open inwards; and, if so, whether he will withdraw the opposition he offered during the last Session of Parliament to the Bill entitled "Public Buildings (Doors) Bill," if again introduced?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have not yet received the official Report on this matter, and therefore I cannot judge, of course, of its bearings. But even if it were the case, as suggested in the Question of the hon. Member, that the doors of the theatre opened inwards, I do not think that would materially affect the grounds on which the Bill of last Session was opposed.
  MR. MACFARLANE: May I ask whether it is in the recollection of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Captain Shaw made a Report in regard to places of exit at public entertainments in the Metropolis; and, whether the recommendations of Captain Shaw have been fairly and efficiently carried out?
  DR. CAMERON: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman lay the Report on the Table?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have not yet received the Report; but I have no objection to do so.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I shall move for the production of the Report of Captain Shaw.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As I to the Report of Captain Shaw, the hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware that the authority in these matters is the Metropolitan Board of Works. I have done all in my power to induce the Board to carry out the recommendations, and I believe they are willing to carry them out. Indeed, I understand the works recommended have been carried out; but I should not like to say offhand

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE LANARK MILITIA.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is a fact that Thomas Scoffield, arrested in Ayr on October 13th on a charge of absenting himself from the annual training of the Lanark Militia, was kept in custody at a county constabulary station for five days without being brought before a magistrate for remand or committal; and, if he would explain how the delay originated, and how the case was ultimately disposed of?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I believe the facts are correctly stated in the Question. Questions have arisen from time to time as to whether minor offences against the Army Acts should be prosecuted by the Civil or Military Authorities. During last Session a definite arrangement was agreed to between the Departments concerned, which was to come into force on the 1st of October. It appears that this arrangement was not sufficiently known or understood by the Local Authorities on the 13th of October, and a misunderstanding between them on the point was the cause of the delay. The consequence was that the man was liberated without being brought to trial. The occurrence is certainly to be regretted; but I do not think that such a case will happen again.

  INLAND REVENUE—DUTY ON GOLD AND SILVER PLATE.
  MR. SLAGGasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any steps with the view of ascertaining the amount necessary to provide a reasonable drawback of duty upon gold and silver plate, new and unused, in the hands of manufacturers and dealers; and, whether such information could not best be obtained by means of the assistance of the Goldsmiths' Company of London and the other Assay Offices throughout the Country?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my hon. Friend I have to say that if it should be decided to make any payment in the nature of drawback of duty on plate in the hands of manufacturers and dealers, the fullest consideration will be
  1086
  given to the question of the scale and principle on which such drawback should be calculated. We should, no doubt, avail ourselves of the assistance of the Assay officers in considering on what articles such drawback should be allowed; but I cannot say that their advice as to the amount to be considered reasonable would necessarily be taken.

  REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE (IRELAND).
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether any steps have yet been taken to remove the grievances admitted last Session to exist in the Registry of Deeds Office, Ireland?
  MR. COURTNEY: I must demur to the implication that any grievance was admitted; the only admission is that some men in this Office are too good for their work. Special inquiries have been made into the condition of the Office, and I expect to receive very shortly a Report from the Treasury Remembrancer upon it.

  PUBLIC DOCUMENTS—DELAY IN PRINTING.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is aware that the delay in the production of Reports and Despatches is largely due to the fact that the Queen's Printers carry on their business with low-priced labour, therefore the best class of workmen do not accept employment in that firm; and, whether, having regard to the inconvenience caused to this House by the length of time which elapses between the laying of the Papers upon the Table and the delivery of them to Members, he will either make the printing contract an open competition in fact, or transfer the orders to the firm which now does the work of the Foreign and War Offices, and who have a complete command of the skilled labour market of the Country, so far as it relates to the printing trade?
  MR. COURTNEY: I have no knowledge as to the class of labour employed by the different Government printers, and it is not the fact that delays have been greater in work done by Eyre and Spottiswoode than others; I am, indeed, aware that they protest that there has been no delay attributable to them. Irrespective of the present complaint, it has

  1087
  long been settled that when the present printing contracts expire the work will be thrown open to public competition on an improved system.

  ARMY (INDIA)—EAST INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any, and, if so, what, steps have been taken by the Indian Government to lessen or remove the grievances of the Indian Medical Service?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The measures taken for reducing the number of unemployed medical officers in India have been efficacious. The Government of India have telegraphed that there are now only two unemployed officers in Bengal, and they have promised to communicate the number still unemployed in Madras and Bombay. It has been decided to place all surgeons of the Indian Service, not holding Executive charge, on precisely the same footing in respect of pay as surgeons of the Army or British Medical Department similarly situated. The lower rate of pay hitherto called unemployed pay will, for the future, be called grade pay, and will only be given when the officer is in receipt of staff salary in addition to his pay.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—BHOPAL, GWALIOR, AND NAGPORE RAILWAYS.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he can give any information to the House as to the proposals or contracts, if any, which have been made with regard to railway extension in India under the recommendations of the Select Committee on Indian Railway Communication?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, I can only say that negotiations are proceeding respecting the proposed Bhopal, Gwalior, and the Nagpore Railways; but I regret that they have not yet resulted in any contract.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (THAMES CROSSINGS)—SUBWAY AT SHADWELL.
  MR. RITCHEasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the attention ef the Metropolitan Board has been directed to the Special Report from the Select Committee on
  1088
  Metropolitan Board of Works (Thames Crossings) Bill, in which the Committee report that "two crossings are immediately required, and should be sanctioned by Parliament," the one a low level bridge, with openings at Little Tower Hill, and the other a subway at or near Shadwell; and express a hope that the Metropolitan Board of Works would undertake the construction of the subway contemporaneously with the construction of a bridge at Little Tower Hill by the Corporation of London; whether the Engineer to the Board reported, in 1882, recommending the construction of a tunnel at Shadwell; and, whether the Board propose to apply to Parliament in the ensuing Session for the necessary powers to construct the subway as suggested by the Select Committee, and recommended by their Engineer?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: In reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to inform him that the attention of the Metropolitan Board has been directed to the Report of the Select Committee on the Thames Crossings Bill, and that Report is now before a Committee of the Board. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, the Engineer of the Board did, in 1882, suggest the construction of a tunnel at Shadwell as part of a general scheme of communications, and that scheme would, no doubt, have been submitted to Parliament had the Board been able to obtain from the Government an assurance of the continuance of the Coal and Wine Dues. As regards the last part of the Question, I regret that I am not at present in a position to afford the information asked, as the whole question of Thames communications is still under the consideration of a Committee of the Board.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Lord Mayor of London, Whether the attention of the Corporation of London has been directed to the Special Report from the Select Committee of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Thames Crossings) Bill, in which the Committee report that "two crossings are immediately required and should be sanctioned by Parliament," the one a low level bridge with openings at Little Tower Hill, and the other a subway at or near Shadwell, and express a hope that the Corporation of London may be induced to undertake the great and useful work of constructing

  1089
  the bridge contemporaneously with the construction of a subway at Shadwell by the Metropolitan Board of Works; and, whether the Corporation of London propose to apply to Parliament in the ensuing Session for the necessary powers to construct such a bridge?
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that as soon as the Report of the Select Committee on Thames Crossings appeared the Corporation immediately took steps to ascertain how far its recommendations could be complied with. They decided to construct a low-level bridge at Tower Hill, and the notices required before we can obtain the necessary powers will be given in a day or two.

  ARMY (INDIA)—NUMBERS.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the English troops in India are below the established number; and, if so, by what number of men in each branch of the Service, and also by what number they fell short of the establishment on the 31st December 1883?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is very difficult during the trooping season, when detachments of men are on their way to and from India, to state the exact strength of a given arm in that country; but if the hon. and gallant Member will be content with the Returns for the 1st of September in the present and the past years, which may be taken as dates immediately preceding the trooping season, it will be seen that in the present season the Cavalry was 141; the Artillery 67; and the Infantry 4,224 below their establishment. It should be observed that a deficiency of from 800 to 900 was to be expected as arising from casualties since the close of the previous trooping season; and there is a further reason for deficiency in that two battalions from the Indian Establishment have been lent for service in Egypt. The corresponding figures for the 1st of September, 1883, showed the Cavalry as 419; the Artillery as 88; and the Infantry as 5,123 below establishment. I may add that the Authorities in India anticipate that by the close of the present trooping season their deficiency will be reduced to 650 men.

  ARMY—ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT—SURGEONS MAJOR — EXAMINATIONS FOR PROMOTION.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the Regulations in regard to the examination of Surgeons Major for promotion to the rank of Brigade Surgeon, as laid down in Army Circular, dated 1st November, 1884, Is there any precedent for examining officers ranking as Lieut.-Colonels of six years' standing, and is it proposed to extend these examinations to the other scientific branches of the Army, and examine Lieut.-Colonels of Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery before promotion to the rank of Colonel; is it the fact that several of the senior Surgeons Major are over fifty years of age, and is it the case that H.R.H. the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief, when giving evidence before Lord Morley's Committee, expressed an opinion against subjecting such old officers for examination; and, by whose recommendation were these examinations instituted?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: There are several Surgeons Major over 60 years of age, who, before being promoted to the rank of Brigade Surgeon, will be required to undergo examination. It is the case that His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief, in his evidence before Lord Morley's Committee, expressed an opinion adverse to the examinations of officers so advanced in life; but after full consideration of the difficulty of selecting officers for the rank of Brigade Surgeon the examinations were determined on at the suggestion of the Director General. There is probably no precedence for the examination of officers of similar rank in the service; but then there is probably no case in which the grounds of selection for promotion are so difficult to arrive at. There is no intention to propose the extension of the system of examination to the corresponding combatant ranks.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—THE NATIVE RESERVE.
  SIR WILLIAM M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there is any foundation for the report published in The Natal Witness of the 27th September, to

  1091
  the effect that the Native Reserve in Zululand has been, or is about to be, given to John Dunn and Zibebu; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate any other change in their relation to the Reserve?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, in reply, said, there was no foundation for the report in question, and the Government did not contemplate any other change in their relation to the Reserve.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES—REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, When the Report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes is likely to be issued; and, whether evidence has been taken, showing generally, and not in exceptional cases: the nature of the house accommodation provided for the working classes in the agricultural districts as compared with the towns; the rent charged in the agricultural districts as against that charged in the towns; the return of interest in the shape of rent on the capital invested in this class of houses in the towns as compared with the agricultural districts?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The first Report of the Royal Commissioners on the Housing of the Working Classes—namely, that which relates to England and Wales, is now under consideration; but I am unable to say when it will be issued. It is unusual for Royal Commissioners to make public statements as to the nature of the evidence taken before them; but I may say, in general terms, that the subjects mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member have received attention.

  SCOTLAND—APPOINTMENTS TO THE LOCAL MARINE BOARD, GREENOCK.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked Mr. Solicitor General, Whether the appointment, on the 23rd February, by the Board of Trade to the Greenock Local Marine Board of Mr. George T. Swanston and Mr. H. A. Dobson, employés of the Board of Trade, and resident in London, was legal under Section 110 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854; whether the appointment on the 4th of March last, by the Board of Trade of Mr. Abram Lyle and Mr. Edward
  1092
  Wilson (Provost of Greenock and, as such, already a member ex officio) to the Local Board was competent, having regard to the question of the lapse of the power of appointment prior to their nomination; whether the nomination by the Board of Trade of a gentleman to the Local Board, already an ex officio member, was within the provisions of the Act; and, if, in the case of the misconduct of an officer of a vessel belonging to Greenock, it is competent for the Board of Trade to direct the trial of such case (as recently took place) before the Local Marine Board of Glasgow instead of that of Greenock?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): With regard to the first part of the Question, I have to say that under the Merchant Shipping Act, in addition to the elected members of Local Marine Boards, four members are to be nominated within a month of the election by the Board of Trade. In some cases it has been found difficult within a month to find suitable persons to take the office; and the practice has prevailed now for a great number of years of appointing certain officials of the Board of Trade temporarily, and then, afterwards, on their resignation, of appointing other persons, whose fitness has been, in the meantime, ascertained. This is no new practice. I confess, however, that, having looked into the matter, I question whether it is within the letter of the law. I think it is not; and although it was no doubt done with the best intentions, I think it will probably not be repeated. With regard, to the second part of the Question, I think the appointment of those two gentlemen, apart from the matter referred to in the third part of the Question, was a legal appointment. I think that, whatever question there might have been as to the fitness of the persons originally appointed, their resignation caused a vacancy which was properly filled up with suitable persons. With regard to the third part of the Question, I think it is certainly open to question whether the appointment was an effectual one at all; because if effectual it could only take effect at the termination of his year of office. I would rather not pass a positive opinion on that point, because it is not so clear as the others. As regards the fourth part of the Question, I think there is a misapprehension

  1093
  on the part of those who have suggested it. It is not obligatory on the part of the President of the Board of Trade to direct that the trial should take place at the port to which the officer belongs; but it is in the Act that it is to be held at the nearest and most convenient place for the attendance of witnesses. In this particular case I am not aware that there was any inconvenience to the witnesses in selecting Glasgow instead of Greenock; but the reason was that owing to the questions which had arisen, such as the noble Lord has called attention to, some members of the Marine Board stated that they would not attend; and, consequently, it was found that if the trial were directed to be held at Greenock the great inconvenience might be felt of there not being a quorum when the witnesses were summoned to attend.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—MR. WALPOLE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Justice O'Hagan, when replying to the Memorial for the removal of Sub-Commissioner Walpole from the Cork Sub-Commission, had inquired into the specific charges of partiality set forth in the Memorial when he wrote that—
  "The Commissioners do not believe that any valid reason does exist in the case of any of their Sub-Commissioners;"
  and, if so, what was the nature of his inquiries?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I thought it right to communicate the terms of this Question to the Office of the Land Commissioners. I understand that the Commissioners are at present on Circuit in the West of Ireland. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat this Question a few days later on.

  WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (SCOTLAND)—THE LAND AGITATION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the grave intelligence received from the Western Isles of Scotland, concerning the excited state of feeling among the crofters, and the occurrence of collisions between the crofters and the police, the Government have taken any steps, or will take any
  1094
  steps, before permitting the employment of Military force, to inform themselves whether the existing state of affairs is due to any difficulties unjustly thrown in the way of the crofters in their efforts to secure by their labour the means of subsistence for their families and themselves; whether the Government, before sanctioning a resort to extreme measures, will apply their good offices to endeavour to induce the landlords to come to friendly terms with their tenants; and, whether the Government, with a view to allay the excitement now prevailing in the Western Isles, will hold the prospect of introducing in the coming Session of Parliament, for the benefit of poor tenants in the Highlands, a Bill on the lines of the Irish Land Act of 1881, or some such measure of practical remedial legislation? He also asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman had any information that a deputation representing 26,000 men of the Island of Lewis was at Stornoway awaiting for the answer to that Question?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had no such information as was referred to in the last part of the Question; but it only showed the seriousness of the answer he had to give on that matter. He was not aware that there was any further information on the subject than was contained in the voluminous Report of the Royal Commission. He had already stated that the Government had under their consideration what should be done in consequence of that Report; but he should act improperly if he for one moment countenanced the idea that anything was to be conceded to the violation of law and order. The first and unconditional duty of the Government was to see that order was maintained, and the law observed. It was impossible at this moment to set forth what legislation the Government might think fit to propose; and certainly no such announcement could be made as a condition on which the maintenance of order could depend.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked whether, after the Franchise Bill had been disposed of, legislation on this subject would be taken up? He did not ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to tell them what legislation would be proposed; but would there be any legislation, and when? He thought if the

  1095
  Government would make a statement to that effect the agitation would subside at once.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am very glad to hear that from the hon. Member; because I have already stated last Session, and I have no objection again to state, that the Government having appointed a Commission, and they having made an important Report, they will feel themselves bound to take action upon that Report.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1883—THE DOMINION OF CANADA.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence with the Canadian Government relative to the operation of Clause 3 of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of last Session?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that there would be no objection to produce the Correspondence in question.

  NATIONAL DEBT (CONVERSION OF STOCK) — OPERATION OF THE ACT.
  MR. SALTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Statement exhibiting the amount of Three per Cents. converted into Two and three-quarter per Cents.; the amount converted into Two and a-half per Cents.; the particular Stocks with respect to which the conversion has been made, Consols, Reduced Three per Cents., or New Three per Cents.; the amount of Stock, in each case, that belongs to private and to public funds, and the amount added to the capital amount of the public debt by the process of conversion; the amount of interest saved; the present capital sum of Three and three-quarter per Cents, and of New Three per Cents.; and, whether he proposes to take any further steps to accelerate the process of conversion?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the final account of these conversions is not yet made up; but that as soon as it is complete I propose to lay on the Table a Paper giving full details of the transaction. As to the second Question, Parliament has given the Treasury discretionary powers within certain limits for two years; and at this moment I have
  1096
  no communication to make on the subject. If further powers should become, in my opinion, necessary, Parliament will be informed.

  FRANCE AND CHINA—THE HOSTILITIES.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government recognise the existence of a state of war between France and China; and, if so, whether our duties of neutrality will be strictly observed towards both belligerents, including the closure of British ports and coaling stations in the Eastern Seas to their respective transports and men-of-war?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is not in my power to make, at present, airy addition to my statement on this subject of the 28th ultimo, as the reply to the communication, which I informed the House had been addressed to the French Government, was only received yesterday, and is being considered. Meanwhile, the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act are being strictly enforced against both France and China.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS ACT, 1879—INTEREST ON HARBOUR LOANS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to a speech delivered at Stonehaven on the 17th October, by Mr. R. W. Duff, M.P., one of the Lords of the Treasury, on the subject of the rate of interest charged upon Harbour Loans, and to his statement that the rate of interest on those loans was raised one per cent, by "The Public Works Loans Act, 1679;" whether he confirms that statement; whether there is anything in the Act of 1879 which restrains the Public Works Loan Commissioners from advancing money for Harbour Loans at any rate of interest which does not involve loss to the Exchequer; whether advances are now made at a rate unnecessarily high for the security of the Exchequer; whether it is not in the power of the Treasury to make regulations whereby that rate shall be reduced; and, whether he intends to make such regulations?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I will first answer the third Question of the right hon. Baronet, and I am afraid that I

  1097
  must, in doing so, enter into some detail. When the Bill of 1879 was originally introduced by the right hon. Baronet it contained a clause fixing the rates of interest on harbour loans, among others. They were to be according to a scale which required 4¼ per cent interest to be paid on loans for more than 40 years, and less rates for shorter terms. But this clause met with great opposition, and the right hon. Baronet omitted it and took power to the Treasury to fix these rates. He said, however, that he assented to this modification with the distinct understanding—I am using the words of the Minute which he passed at the Treasury—that the Treasury would discharge the responsibility imposed upon them by at once adopting the rates which the Bill originally contained. My hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire (Mr. R. W. Duff) was therefore right in saying that the practical effect of the right hon. Baronet's Act was to raise the rate of interest on harbour loans by 1 per cent—the former rate for long loans under the Act of 1861 having been 3¼ per cent—and this increased rate has been actually enforced since the passing of the Act. But it is also true that by the Act of 1879 the Treasury have power to reduce this rate of interest; and if the right hon. Baronet had been in the House on the 25th of July last he would have heard me say that before the Session of 1885 the Treasury would take into consideration and deal with all the rates of interest on loans made by the Public Works Loan Commissioners, having regard to two circumstances—one, the lower rate at which the Government can now borrow; and the other, the possibility of obtaining collateral security, such as local or county rates. We shall carry out that promise.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Postmaster General, What additional amount was offered by the Government to the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland in the course of the recent negotiations for an improved Mail Service between Dublin and the West of Ireland, and what improvement in the Service was stipulated for by the Government; also what additional sum the Company asked for a Mail Service of forty miles an hour; and, whether he will
  1098
  lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the correspondence between his Department and the Midland Railway Company, and of any memorials and resolutions submitted to him with regard to the necessity for an improved Mail Service between Dublin and the West of Ireland?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I am sure the House will regret to learn that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General is suffering from a severe attack of pleurisy, which will, I fear, prevent his transacting business for some little time. He has asked me to act again as his deputy, and in that capacity I will answer this Question. No specific sum was offered to the Railway Company for accelerating the existing trains, because at the outset of the negotiations the Railway Company assured the Post Office that it was not practicable to secure an acceleration by making the existing trains start earlier and run at a faster speed. As my right hon. Friend recently explained, the question whether the circumstances would justify the running of the additional train is now being carefully considered. He is of opinion that no useful end would be served by laying copies of the Correspondence and Memorials to which the hon. Member refers on the Table, especially so as he fully recognizes how much importance is attributed throughout the locality to an acceleration of the mails.

  CITY OF LONDON LIVERY COMPANIES' COMMISSION — LETTER OF THE SECRETARY.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will have any objection to lay upon the Table a copy of a letter written by Mr. H. D. Warr, Secretary to the City of London Livery Companies' Commission, by the direction of the Commissioners, and addressed to the editors of certain Liberal newspapers with a view to "educate the opinions of the Liberal electors of the Provinces" upon the recommendations of the Commissioners in their Report?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that since the right hon. Gentleman had put that Question on the Paper he had communicated with Mr. Warr, Secretary to the Commission, and also with its Chairman. On seeing the Secretary, that gentleman frankly admitted

  1099
  to him that substantially what was stated in the Question was true; but he also stated that he had no authority from the Chairman of the Commission, or from anyone upon it, to write such a letter. He had also communicated with the Chairman, who wrote that he never directed Mr. Warr to write letters to the newspapers, or to call their attention in any way to the subject of the Report of the Commissioners; nor did he know that Mr. Warr had done so; and Mr. Warr certainly had no right to use the name of the Commission in connection with any correspondence of that kind. He himself had told Mr. Warr that it was a most indiscreet and improper proceeding on the part of the Secretary of a Commission, who ought to be absolutely impartial in the matter, and ought to obey their directions in what he wrote and did. Mr. Warr, he thought, recognized that that statement on his part was well-founded. He thought, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would see that it was impossible to lay any Papers on the Table. He had not seen the letter in question; but Mr. Warr admitted that he wrote it without any authority from the Commission or the Chairman. Consequently, it would not be an official document at all, and it was written after the Commission was functus officio, and its Report had been made. Mr. Warr could only allege a slight communication from one of the Commissioners at all relating to communications with the newspapers.

  MEXICO — RENEWAL OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH GREAT BRITAIN—BRITISH CLAIMS.
  MR. SALTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the preliminary Agreement for the renewal of relations between Great Britain and Mexico has been ratified by the Mexican Congress; and, whether any steps have been taken for the settlement of British claims?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The preliminary Agreement for the renewal of relations between Great Britain and Mexico has been passed by the Mexican Senate, and the ratifications were exchanged at Mexico on the 28th ultimo. Her Majesty's Government have no reason to doubt that the Mexican Government will now proceed with the investigation into the British claims provided
  1100
  for in the 1st Article of the Agreement, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament in the Paper, Mexico, No. 1, 1884.

  SCOTLAND—SEA AND COAST FISHERIES—FISHING GRANTS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will cause to be prepared, and lay upon the Table, a Return of all persons to whom the Crown has at various times granted an exclusive right of angling in estuaries and on the coast of Scotland, the Return to specify the date of such grant, the service for which it was granted, and the revenue, if any, formerly and now paid for such monopoly?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Question of the hon. Member is not thoroughly understood in the Department. The Crown originally owned all the salmon fishings in Scotland, whether in rivers, estuaries, or sea coast; and, apart from grants made long since, what remains is treated as part of the land revenue, and the dealings with it are reported year by year in the Report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, to which the hon. Member may refer; but those Reports do not in any way relate, as I understand it, to rod fishing, to which the Question of the hon. Member appears to refer.
  MR. MACFARLANE: The hon. Gentleman says that grants were given a long time ago, and all that remains is now vested in the Crown. What I want to know is the equivalents that were given for these grants, for if the grants are not in existence, the tenants have no right to the fishings.
  MR. COURTNEY: I said they were grants of general rights of fishing, and the rights of fishing are treated as part of the revenues of the Crown; but there are no grants of angling, as I understand it. That is the point of the Question.
  MR. MACFARLANE: The grants I refer to are exclusive grants. I wish to ask if there are any exclusive grants of fishing by reason of which certain persons exclude the public from these waters?
  MR. COURTNEY: Certainly; there are exclusive grants of fishing; but I pointed out to the hon. Member that that is not the Question on the Paper. It refers to exclusive grants of angling. With respect to the fishing, as I said

  1101
  before, there were ancient grants made long since for considerations with which we are now very little acquainted. The rest of the fishing is treated as part of the land revenue. Large part of it is let on 10 years' leases to persons who choose to rent it from the Crown; but a good deal has recently been sold to landowners—fishings ex adverso—that being the best means, we think, both in the interest of the Crown and of the public, of treating that revenue; and in these cases the owners have, by grant, the right to the exclusive fishing off their lands. All these sales are reported from year to year in the Report of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. It would take a very long time to make out a complete list of the grants sold for Scotland.

  CITY OF LONDON LIVERY COMPANIES' COMMISSION.
  MR. W. H. JAMESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government contemplate any legislation to give effect to the recommendation of the City Liveries Companies Commission?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: My answer to that is that this matter is under consideration. I cannot say more at present.

  NAVY — ACCOUNTANTS AND ENGINEERS—REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Report of the Committee, appointed to inquire into the existing rules for counting junior time in the Accountant and Engineering Branches of the Royal Navy, will be considered in time to enable any recommendations that may be adopted by Her Majesty's Government to take effect in the forthcoming financial year?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The Report of the Committee will be submitted shortly, and the recommendations will be carefully considered before the commencement of the forthcoming financial year.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND) — BELFAST WORKHOUSE—IRREGULARITIES OF THE MASTER.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of
  1102
  Ireland, If his attention has been called to The Northern Whig newspaper report of the proceedings of the Belfast Board of Guardians of the previous day, in which it is alleged by Mr. Jackson, a large ratepayer in the Union, that an irregular, if not fraudulent, system of book-keeping has prevailed in the Belfast Workhouse for a long time past; if it be true that the master of this workhouse effected sales of farm produce, and other workhouse property, for one whole year and more, and made no entry, nor kept any record, of said sales in the books set apart by the Local Government Board for that purpose; if it be true that he has disregarded a resolution of the Board of Guardians requiring him to keep an inventory of the furniture and movable effects of the workhouse; if it be correct that forty paupers more were on the books of the workhouse, on the 29th September 1884, than were in the house; is it a fact that the present numbers in the house do not agree with those on the books; is it true that Major Stoddart, Government Auditor, and Inspector Hamilton, promised to conceal the master's misconduct, and did keep it concealed from the public, until Mr. Jackson's letter disclosed their conduct; have the Local Government Board condoned these offences; and, will an inquiry on oath be instituted into the whole question, or what steps will be taken?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This Question having only appeared on the Notice Paper yesterday, there has not been time for the receipt of the necessary Report, which could only be made after detailed inquiry in Belfast. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat the Question on Monday.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)—THE ARRAN ISLANDS.
  MR. O'BRIEN (for Mr. HEALY)asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Has his attention been called to complaints that the agent in the Arran Islands for many years has made the tenants under £4 valuation pay rates contrary to Law under threat of eviction, make roads without wages, and support a Protestant minister who, along with his congregation, had been imported by him into the island, and for whose benefit two tenants were evicted; if he would inquire if the

  1103
  tenants collected seaweed and made kelp from it without any charge for doing so for many years, but were first charged a royalty on this kelp when the agent became a director and shareholder of a kelp manufacturing company; has the Land Court of Appeal at Galway adjourned, at great inconvenience to the tenants, the decision of their cases at the request of the agent, in order to consider a demand he makes for royalty on seaweed for kelp, although there is no question about the abstract right of the tenants freely to collect seaweed for manure or otherwise; and, did the Court allow only £3 as expenses to seventy-eight tenants for the delay and the hazard of their lives in coming across the sea to Galway; and, will arrangements be made to have the points complained of speedily investigated?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): My attention has been called to complaints of the tenants of Arran Island and counter-statements of the landlord's agent. The tenants valued under £4 have, I am informed, paid poor rate up to last year; but this was not done under threat of eviction. The agent states he took on himself and paid all rates at the tenants' request, and charged them one rate equal to the county cess alone. I am informed that the tenants, up to a few years ago, did make roads without wages, and were threatened with eviction if they refused. The agent states they were bound by the terms of their tenancies to provide labour for the purpose. The Protestant clergyman is paid exclusively by the Sea Coast Mission Society. No Protestants have been imported into the Island. The clergyman has resided in the present house for 30 years. One tenant was evicted in 1877 for non-payment of rent. The farm was given to the clergyman, who held it only for a short time. It is now on the agent's hands The tenants were not charged for kelp until recently. I believe it is a fact that a royalty was first charged at a time when the agent was Director and shareholder of a Kelp Manufacturing Company. The Company has since failed. I am informed that the Sub-Commissioners only adjourned the cases till the claims to take seaweed, which was disputed before them, were settled. I have no information as to the circumstances under which the Sub-Commissioners,
  1104
  in the exercise of their discretion, measured this sum for expenses.

  THE WESTERN HIGHLANDS OF SCOTLAND (LEWIS)—MR. ROSS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If the Mr. Ross, who was recently deputed to investigate some alleged disturbances at Uig in Lewis, in his capacity of Procurator Fiscal, is the same Mr. Ross who is the Law Agent of the proprietor?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The position of Mr. Ross has already been explained to the House on, I think, not fewer than four or five occasions during the present year. He is the Procurator Fiscal, and he is also a member of a firm who do any local law business which may be required by the proprietrix of the Island. That lady's principal law agents are in Edinburgh. Mr. Ross's firm are not factors or managers of the estate.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS (IRELAND)—THE RIOT AT PORTADOWN.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Government will direct an inquiry into the police arrangements in connection with the recent riots in Portadown; and, if explanations have been demanded from the Resident Magistrate, Captain Whelan, and District Inspector Smith, as to the absence from duty upon the night of the riot, and to whom, in their absence, the direction of the police force was entrusted?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I can assure my hon. Friend that the subject is engaging the most careful attention of the Government, and especially the matter in the second paragraph of the Question. As soon as possible the result of the inquiry will be made known.

  FREEMASONRY (IRELAND) — OPENING OF A NEW LODGE AT BANTRY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on the 16th ultimo, a new Masonic Lodge was opened in Bantry, county Cork, at which the leading "brethren" were Mr. E. B. Warburton, Resident Magistrate, Mr. W. H. Fizelle, District Inspector Royal

  1105
  Irish Constabulary, Bantry, and Mr. J. S. Hume, District Inspector Royal Irish Constabulary, Skibbereen; and, whether, in view of the sentiments of the Catholic inhabitants of the neighbourhood, he will consider the advisability of modifying the police arrangements of the district?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Beyond what is indicated by reports published in the local Press, the Government has no knowledge of the circumstances referred to as to the alleged establishment of a Masonic Lodge. With regard to the suggested modification of the police arrangements of the Bantry district, the Inspector General informs me that, if any representation is made to him on the subject, he will be prepared to consider whether any necessity for such modification exists.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether there were any inquiries made by the Government of any of the gentlemen present at the opening of the Lodge?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir; we have not inquired into what appears to be a private matter entirely.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is it not a matter of some concern that the whole administration of the Police Force should be in the hands of Freemasons?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that in Ireland, as in England, it has never yet been considered that being a Mason precludes in anyway individuals from the discharge of official duties.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882 (WARRANTS) — EXTRA POLICE ATTIMAHOE, QUEEN'S CO.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary, Whether it is a fact that four additional police have been put upon the district of Timahoe, in the Queen's County; whether the district in question is one of the most peaceful in Ireland; what are the representations which have induced the Government to take this step; and, from what responsible authorities did the representations come?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Four additional police have been placed in the district on account of the prevalence of intimidation and "Boycotting" and apprehension of outrage. It was because reports to this effect were made
  1106
  to the Divisional Magistrate and responsible Constabulary authorities of the district that the charge has been made.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether a single outrage of any kind or description has occurred for many months in the district?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I did not say there had been outrages; I said it was because there was intimidation and apprehension of outrage.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the Government proposed to throw any extra charge upon his constituents on account of extra police placed in Queen's County only upon the surmise of the Resident Magistrate and in the absence of outrage?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied, that if this Question were anything more than appeared on the Paper, he must ask for Notice. If the hon. Member desired to know whether any extra charge would be placed on the county, perhaps he would give Notice.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would repeat the Question on Monday.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—OVER-PRESSURE IN BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, in view of the statements contained in a Report made at his request by Dr. Crichton Browne, F.R.S. one of the Lord Chancellor's Visitors in Lunacy, and printed by order of this House, and of the published opinions of Sir William Jenner, President of the Royal College of Physicians, that the report, if acted upon, "will save much suffering and some lives," he will take steps to procure the appointment of a Commission of medical men unconnected officially with the Education Department, to inquire whether the present method of applying the Elementary Education Acts injuriously affects the health of the children and teachers? He would add to what stood on the Paper in his name the following Question—namely, Whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Metropolitan Association of School Board Teachers, representing more than 2,000 masters of board schools, had passed a Resolution supporting the contention of Dr. Crichton Browne?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I may say that I have also received many representations

  1107
  from Metropolitan teachers to the contrary effect. I have reason to believe that the London School Board will to-day order an inquiry into the allegations in Dr. Crichton Browne's Report, and into the whole question of the alleged over-pressure of London board schools. If an efficient inquiry is instituted, and if, as I hope, it is assisted by impartial and thoroughly qualified medical experts, it would seem to be undesirable and unnecessary to conduct a second inquiry at the same time, and for the same objects. But, as I have already stated to the House, the most careful precautions have been taken in the Code of this year to guard against the evils complained of. The power of classifying children, either as infants or children, subject to individual examination, the provisions for the withdrawal and exemption of dull and delicate children are now universally applied, and there is a general sense of responsibility on the part of school boards, school managers, and Her Majesty's Inspectors as to the discharge of their duties in these respects. In addition to this, and, perhaps, more important than anything I have stated, the public discussion of this question is leading to the establishment of voluntary associations for supplying assistance, in the shape of cheap and, in some instances, gratuitous food and clothing, to starving and neglected children. In London a Committee of representative Managers are actively engaged in investigating the requirements of the various districts of the Metropolis, and by their aid 13 centres are in course of establishment for supplying dinners for poor children. I have been able myself, through the munificent generosity of some Members of this House, to offer considerable pecuniary help to this Committee, and I anticipate the most useful results from these efforts. Meantime, I can assure the House that I am watching carefully the general administration of the Code and Education Acts, and the effects of the recent relaxations of its provisions. I have also inquired into every alleged case of over-pressure that has been brought to my notice, and I shall shortly lay the result of these inquiries before the House.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I should like to ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that is own administration
  1108
  and that of the London School Board are different matters? The London School Board has only authority to inquire into the proceedings of school boards, and not those of the voluntary schools. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to maintain that any inquiry by the London School Board would relieve him from responsibility?
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he could only refer to the Report of Dr. Crichton Browne itself, in which he stated that if the provisions of the Code were only carefully carried out it would be all that was required. He had also the testimony of medical men, school boards, and others, to the effect that where the Code was properly applied, no over-pressure would arise from it. He had also received an admirable letter from Mr. Birley, of Manchester, who had had great experience on the subject, and who stated distinctly that the Code, if properly administered, would not produce over-pressure.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS — SCARBOROUGH ELECTION.
  MR. CAINEasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the following handbill, which was largely distributed by Sir George Sitwell's Committee on Sunday last in Scarborough:—
  "More Disgrace for England.—Terrible News "from Egypt.—Fall of Khartoum.—Capture of General Gordon by the Mahdi.
  "The following telegram, which was received in Scarborough this (Sunday) night, will be read with Shame and Indignation by every patriotic Englishman:—

  "'From

  To

  "'Sir T. Bateson,

  Sir Geo. Sitwell, Bart.,

  "'Strand, London.

  Scarborough.

  "'Gordon's Capture by the Mahdi is confirmed by information received by Government. Seven thousand of his troops deserted. Fate of Gordon unknown.
  "'Hold the Government responsible for this Indelible Disgrace;'"
  if he is aware that no printer's or publisher's name was attached to it; and, if he will institute proceedings against the person or persons responsible for its publication, under the eighteenth section of "The Corrupt Practices Act, 1883?"
  SIR THOMAS BATESON: Before the Attorney General answers the Question, and in consequence of my name having appeared, I venture to trespass on the indulgence of the House for a few minutes in a matter of personal

  1109
  explanation. I was, Sir, informed by what I regarded as a reliable authority—[Cries of "Name!" and "Order!"] If hon. Gentlemen will allow me to conclude, then I will answer any question they put to me. I was informed late on Sunday afternoon that the rumours of the few previous days with reference to the capture of General Gordon by the Mahdi had been confirmed, and that intelligence—I did not say official—had been received by the Government to that effect. The Observer newspaper, at a later period of the evening, felt this intelligence to be of so much importance that the proprietors of that journal actually printed and published a special edition, giving most minute and circumstantial details with reference to this supposed disaster; and I am quite sure the noble Lord the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Richard Grosvenor) will not deny that The Observer newspaper is one of those general supporters of the Government which receive favours from him.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Baronet is entitled to give a personal explanation, but he is not warranted in travelling outside that limit.
  SIR THOMAS BATESON: I will speak of myself. I fully believed this information to be true on the Sunday evening, and half London also believed it to be true. The Times newspaper evidently believed it the next morning, for it published an article upon it. On the faith of the information I received, I did telegraph to Sir George Sitwell a message somewhat in the terms quoted by the hon. Member, which are substantially correct. I think I said "8,000," and not "7,000." I can only add that nobody will rejoice more than I shall if this information is totally devoid of foundation. I only hope that the Expedition which proved too late to save the life of the gallant Colonel Stewart, has not been too late to rescue his heroic Chief. ["Order!"]
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I have received a copy of this document, and it certainly bears no printer's or publisher's name; but as the fact of that publication may be made the subject of proceedings for the recovery of a penalty, I shall not express any positive opinion as to whether an offence has been committed or not. But I understand that the pith of my hon.
  1110
  Friend's Question is whether, as representing the Crown, I should institute proceedings against the publisher and printer for having committed this alleged offence if his name were furnished to me? Well, apart from the consideration that the power of procedure is in the hands of any person—and certainly in relation to questions arising out of political and electoral contests it is not advisable for the Government unnecessarily to take part in proceedings—I can only in this case apply the rule that I have very frequently to apply to the more general law where the printer's and publisher's name is not affixed to any placard, apart from political considerations. The principle that I apply is to consider what was the object of the suppression of the name, and what is the effect that has been produced by the name not being published. Well, as to the suppression of the publisher's name here, I, of course, will receive any information my hon. Friend is good enough to communicate to me on the subject; but, looking into the document, I cannot suppose there was any intention in the suppression of the name, because I feel even now, after the explanation of the hon. Baronet, although we may feel some curiosity to discover the source of the information which caused him to say that the Government had received information of the capture of General Gordon, I think those who received this intelligence from a Gentleman in his position would not have any reason to doubt the truth of the statement as it was communicated to them. As to the result which was produced by the publication, I do not believe my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) will feel that the result has been a very disastrous one. The more immediate result of the publication has been inconvenience, because it caused the hon. Member to spend the greater part of the "polling" day in a waggonette, explaining to the electors that the information was entirely unfounded; and I believed that he announced to their great satisfaction that General Gordon not only was, but for a number of years would be, in a state of perfect security at Khartoum. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now travelling beyond the limits of an answer to the Question. [Cries of "Name!"]
  MR. LABOUCHERE: As the hon. Baronet has intimated his readiness to answer any Question that may be put to him, I should like to ask him whether he will give the House the source of his information?
  MR. SPEAKER: I must appeal to the House not to allow the matter to go further. The course taken by the hon. Baronet was not taken in his capacity of a Member of this House, nor had it any relation to any of the proceedings of this House.

  NAVY—BREECH-LOADING GUNS.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If he could state how many 18 and 43-ton guns of the new pattern breechloader have been applied for by the Admiralty to re-arm the Navy; and, how many such guns have been already delivered by the War Office, or by contract?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Twenty-two 18-ton guns have been taken in the Estimates. Three have been delivered to the Navy for experimental purposes. Fifteen are ready at Woolwich, except that the sighting is not complete, pending a decision as to the brand of powder to be used. The remaining four are incomplete, but will be ready in time for the Impérieuse, for which ship they are intended. Of the 43-ton guns, 15 were taken in the Estimates. Ten have been actually delivered. Four are being proceeded with for the Collingwood, and will be ready in time. The remaining gun is a spare gun, and is well advanced.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "AGAMEMNON" AND "AJAX."
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, If the distance between the two screw shafts of the Agamemnon and Ajax, respectively, is 18 feet from centre to centre; if the screws are 17 feet 4 inches in diameter; if this leaves eight inches of space between the rudder and the twin screws on either side; whether this defect in construction fully accounts for the powerlessness of the rudder at rates of speed exceeding nine knots; and, whether any enlargement of the rudder is likely to remedy this evil?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: The distance between the two screw shafts of the two vessels is 28 feet. The diameter
  1112
  of the screws is 17 feet. These corrections will show that the remaining Questions are based on a misconception of the facts.

  ALKALI WORKS REGULATION ACT, 1881—DEATHS AT RUNCORN.
  MR. WARBURTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the death of two children from suffocation by chlorine gas at the Soap and Alkali Works near Runcorn; whether he is aware that noxious vapours, destructive to vegetation and life, are constantly allowed to escape from these works; and, whether he will take steps to compel the owners of these works to adopt measures for the prevention of this danger in the neighbourhood in future?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: We have made inquiry respecting the deaths of the two children referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and have to-day received a copy of the depositions made at the inquest and of the verdict of the jury. I regret to say that it is true that the deaths of two children were caused by an emission of chlorine gas from the bleaching powder plant of the Runcorn Soap and Alkali Company's works at Runcorn. This omission, the jury state in their verdict—
  "Was due to an error of judgment, and to misadventure on the part of the man in charge in opening the door of a chamber at the works."
  The Reports received from the Inspector under the Alkali, &c. Works Regulation Act, 1881, as to the works in question have been satisfactory. So far from the Board being aware that noxious vapours destructive to vegetation and life are constantly allowed to escape from these works, they believe from the Report of their Chief Inspector under the Act that the escape of gas on the occasion referred to was altogether exceptional, and that the rule is that the requirements of the Act are fulfilled. The depositions which have been received to-day will be considered, with a view to determining whether the case is one for a prosecution under the Act.

  BELGIUM—ANTWERP INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in view of the importance

  1113
  to British trade of the forthcoming International Exhibition at Antwerp, Her Majesty's Government will appoint a Commissioner to act in concert with the Commission appointed by the Belgian Government, and to give attention to British interests at the Exhibition?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The question of the appointment of a Commissioner is at present under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE CONSULAR REPORTS—WAGES IN GERMANY.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has observed that a Report by Consul General Oppenheimer as to wages in machine factories in Germany, just published by the Foreign Office, is rendered almost valueless for comparison by the total omission of all reference to the number of hours in the working day; and, if he will take steps to have this omission rectified?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Mr. Oppenheimer will be instructed to forward a supplementary Report containing the information asked for by the hon. Member.

  WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (SCOTLAND)—THE CROFTERS OF SKYE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true, as announced in The Inverness Courier news paper of 4th November, 1884, that armed policemen, specially drilled, have been sent to the Island of Skye, and a steamer chartered to lie off the Island; and, whether he will at once lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the communication or communications from the local or police authority to the Government on the subject, also of the reply or replies made, sanctioning this step?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We are in communication with the Local Authorities in the county of Inverness as to what measures are necessary in order to protect the police from any attacks made upon them in the execution of their duty. These communications are not yet complete. When they
  1114
  are so, I shall have no objection to lay them on the Table of the House.

  PERSONAL ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  MR. COOHRAN-PATRICKasked the Lord Advocate, referring to what was said when the Personal Estates (Scotland) Bill passed the Second Reading last Session, If he is in a position to make any statement on the subject to the House?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Communications have been passing, which I hope may result in a satisfactory basis for legislation being arrived at.

  SOUTH AFRICA—BECHUANALAND—THE MURDER OF MR. BETHELL.
  SIR FREDERICK MILNERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he is aware that full and complete details of the murder of Mr. Christopher Bethell appeared in The Kimberley Independent of 9th August; if he is able to explain how it happened that these details were not received at the Colonial Office before 23rd October; whether, on receipt of Commander Bethell's letter of 22nd August, asking for the particulars of the murder of his brother, the Colonial Office cabled to Sir Hercules Robinson, or if they only wrote by post; whether the Government have instructed Sir Hercules Robinson to cable back the steps he thinks necessary to take for the arrest of the murderers of Mr. Bethell, and when we may expect to hear what has been decided on; and, if he can explain how it was that the letter from Mr. Assistant Commissioner Wright (No. 98), written to Mr. William Bethell, of Rise, and which was received at the Colonial Office on 23rd October, was not delivered to Mr. Bethell till 29th October, the day on which the South African Debate took place, notwithstanding the fact that the particulars contained in that letter must necessarily have been of great service to those who were introducing the case of Mr. Bethell?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: In reply to the first Question, I have to say there is no mention in the newspaper referred to of the names of the murderers, or any evidence to prove their identity, two points which I have already several times said are obviously necessary elements on

  1115
  which to base any steps for their punishment. The first and only communication which gave those details was, as I have already said, Sir. Wright's despatch. In reply to the third Question, the Colonial Office did not cable—only sent a despatch. In reply to the fourth Question, we have received a telegram from Sir Hercules Robinson, who had consulted his Attorney General, and we I are submitting the question to our own Law Officers to see if we can meet the legal difficulties which the High Commissioner brings before us. I shall be glad to show that telegram to the hon. Member privately; but I think he will understand that to make it public until we are able to say what course we have decided on would be very inconvenient. As to the last Question, I find, on inquiry at the Department, that the explanation of the delay of four days, one of which was a Sunday, in sending to Mr. William Bethell the letter referred to is the oversight of a clerk in the Department, caused by the pressure of getting the Papers prepared for Parliament, including this one, which was the very last received. I must be allowed very strongly to repudiate the insinuation contained in the latter part of the Question.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—SPECIAL RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any new arrangements are to be made with respect to the offices of the Special Resident Magistrates in Ireland; and, if so, whether the House will be afforded an opportunity of discussing these arrangements before they come into force?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No now arrangements regarding Divisional Resident Magistrates in Ireland are intended.

  RAILWAYS (INDIA)—NEW RAILWAYS.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is a fact that sanction has been given to the construction of a Railway between Umballa and Kalka, and of another towards Ootacamund; and, whether it is intended to proceed with these two Railways at a time when the traffic returns of Indian Railways are showing a considerable falling off, and when the policy
  1116
  of the emigration of Government Departments to the hill stations is being reconsidered?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The line from Umballa to Kalka is one of those which have been surveyed; but no intimation of sanction to its construction has reached the India Office. The line towards Ootacamund is not one which Government has contemplated constructing. Promoters of a Company for making such a line have been in negotiation with the Government of Madras and the Secretary of State; but no terms have yet been arrived at.

  EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART DEPARTMENT (ADMINISTRATION).
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the intention of the Government to give effect at an early date to the recommendations embodied in the Report of the Select Committee on Education, Science, and Art Administration?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We propose on an early day—I cannot name the day exactly—to adopt measures founded upon the Report of the Select Committee.

  INDIA—UPPER BURMAH.
  MAJOR GENERAL ALEXANDERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the atrocities recently committed in Upper Burmah; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any action in the matter?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: Perhaps I may answer this Question. The Secretary of State has seen with regret, the report in the newspapers of the horrible atrocities said to have been perpetrated at Mandalay; but he is not aware that the Government of India contemplate interference in the internal affairs of Burmah, which is an independent State.

  PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION—BOROUGH OF SLIGO.
  MR. SEXTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he has received a Copy of the following Resolution, unanimously adopted at the last meeting of the Sligo Board of Guardians:—
  "That this Board urge on the Government the necessity and justice of returning to Sligo its representation in the Imperial Parliament, of which it was deprived many years ago; and that we respectfully request the Government

  1117
  to take the matter into consideration in any scheme of Redistribution which they may introduce this Session of Parliament, particularly so as the population, the trade, and general importance of Sligo has vastly increased since the Borough was disfranchised, Sligo being now the most important town in the West of Ireland;"
  whether he is aware that a Resolution, identical in import, has been adopted by the Corporation of Sligo; and, whether, in view of the lapse of time, nearly twenty years, since the disfranchisement of Sligo, the growth of a new constituency there, the increasing population and importance of the town, and the almost total lack of urban representation in the province of Connaught, he will include in his forthcoming Redistribution Bill a proposal to re-enfranchise the Borough of Sligo?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not complain of the hon. Member, or challenge the propriety of his asking this Question; but I think he will see that I cannot say more than that the case of Sligo shall be fairly considered. If I did say more, it is quite obvious it would be regarded by every community in the country as premature.

  EGYPT (EXPEDITIONARY FORCE UP THE NILE) — INSTRUCTIONS TO GENERAL LORD WOLSELEY.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, before a further Vote of Credit is asked for in connection with the operations in the Soudan, he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the instructions sent to Lord Wolseley, defining the relative position between himself and General Gordon, in the event of the relief of the latter?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In replying to this Question I must refer the hon. Member to an answer given by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, who stated that he did not consider it desirable that the instructions to Lord Wolseley should be made public until he was in a position to act upon them. We still adhere to that—that it is not desirable to publish those instructions.
  MR. ONSLOWasked what was to prevent the publishing of instructions as to whether Lord Wolseley was to supersede General Gordon when they met?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is not in my power to indicate whether Lord Wolseley
  1118
  will think proper to act on these instructions. If we find it to the public convenience we shall be ready to publish the instructions.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &C.)— THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK'S REPORT.
  MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to state what they propose to recommend to the Khedive in pursuance of the inquiry and advice of Lord Northbrook?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My noble Friend, by great activity and exertion, has completed a most onerous and laborious inquiry in a very short time; but Her Majesty's Government have not yet been put in possession of his Report. My Colleagues have only to-day received the first preliminary intimation of any recommendation that he is to make; and, therefore, all I can say is what I have stated before—that we shall lose no time, as soon as we have had an opportunity of considering the recommendation, in announcing to the House our decision.

  EGYPT (THE EXPEDITION UP THE NILE)—THE VOTE OF CREDIT.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When he will be in a position to make a statement to the House as to the estimated cost of the Soudan Expedition?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The time for making in detail any statement in relation to the Soudan Expedition will be when the Vote is proposed. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman rather intends to ask what course we propose to take in regard to that proposal; and I have to say that as soon as we are clear of the Franchise Bill we shall choose the earliest day that is in our power for proceeding with it, consistently with giving full information to the House.

  THE NATIONAL LIBERAL CLUB — OPENING CEREMONY — THE ADDRESS TO THE PRIME MINISTER—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. BROADHURST: I should like to ask the indulgence of the House for a moment, while I make a personal explanation, affecting my official work. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) is reported

  1119
  to have said last night that I had, in connection with some other persons, been working up an address to the Prime Minister. I beg to say that there is not the slightest foundation for any of the statements so made, neither as to the connection of myself, nor as to any of the other facts which the noble Lord mentioned in his speech last night.

  LIGHTHOUSE ILLUMINANTS' COMMITTEE.
  MR. GRAYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to an article in The Financial News of October 17th, to the effect that "The Improved Gas and Oil Burner's Company" is about to be voluntarily wound up; that the capital of this Company consisted of £50,000, in 10,000 shares of £5 each, of which £30,000—£25,000 in shares, and £5,000 in cash—was to have been paid to Sir James N. Douglas for certain patent rights for improved burners, &c.; that £17,500 in shares was to have been given to Messrs. Hopcroft and Co. for their services in constituting the Company, and procuring the subscription of the remaining 1,500 shares; that if on these 1,500 shares £1 10 s. per share only has been paid up; whether this is the same Sir James N. Douglas who is Engineer to the Trinity House; whether Sir James N. Douglas has received any portion of the £5,000 he was to have been paid in cash; whether, at the time he was negotiating the sale of his patents for a very large sum to the Company above-named, it was proposed to place him on the Illuminants Committee, which was to judge of the respective merits of his and rival patents for the improved illumination of lighthouses; whether this led to the resignation of Professor Tyndall; and, whether the Board of Trade contemplate instituting any inquiries with regard to the transactions between the engineer of the Trinity House and the Improved Gas and Oil Burner's Company?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen the article to which the hon. Member alludes, and which refers to, among others, the Engineer to the Trinity House, who has informed the Elder Brethren that he has received in cash £500 out of the £5,000 which he was to have been paid in cash. He further states that the sum so received is about
  1120
  one-fourth of the money expended by him out of his own pocket in perfecting the invention. The two Parliamentary Papers which were laid on the Table of the House last Session will show the whole history of the Illuminants' Committee, and contain all the information in my possession as to the resignation of Professor Tyndall. Before the formation of the Committee, the positions of Sir James Douglas—who had given the free use of his patents to the Lighthouse Boards—and of Mr. Wigham, the well-known gas engineer, of Dublin, who, being a manufacturer and contractor, held patents of which he retained the benefit, were much considered. It was originally proposed that both should assist the Committee, but that neither of them should be a member of the Committee. This was found inconvenient, and the Committee was enlarged so as to include, among other members, both Sir James Douglas and Mr. Wigham. The facts will be found fully stated in the Letter of the Board of Trade of the 11th of May, 1883. The Trinity House are acquainted with all the facts, and are satisfied of the perfect integrity of their engineer. It is not, therefore, my intention to institute any further inquiry.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he would take an opportunity of calling attention to the subject, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could say whether the administration of the Trinity Board would form portion of the subject for inquiry by the Royal Commission on Shipping?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; it will not.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND) — THE TRIAL OF MR. FITZGERALD.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I wish to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland a Question as to which I do not think he will require Notice. It is, Whether, at the trial of Mr. Fitzgerald yesterday, 19 Catholic jurors were ordered by the Crown to stand by; and, whether, at the trial of Messrs. Cornwall and Kirwan the other day in Dublin, no juror was ordered to stand by; and, whether he can offer any explanation of the difference in the mode of procedure?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I am informed that 19 persons were challenged by the prisoner, and 18 were ordered to

  1121
  stand back by the Crown, and that there were three Roman Catholics on the jury. Beyond that I know nothing.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 1.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Trevelyan, The Lord Advocate.)
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.— [BILL 1.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. GLADSTONE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: Sir, there is an opinion more or less widely prevalent that when a measure of great importance has to be proposed to the House of Commons the speech in which it is submitted to the House ought to be of proportionate length. Upon this occasion I think an exception may be fairly made to that rule. This is a question which has been thoroughly discussed. It is a question immediately connected with the provisions of the Franchise Bill. I do not even know in what position we stand with regard to any hostile Motion on the subject. The Notice Paper of to-day contains no such hostile Motion. It may be that there will be a revival of the Notice which appeared on that Paper some days ago; but even if there is, I should think it would be an abuse of the time and the patience of the House to discuss it in detail. In truth, my great desire on this occasion is to avoid everything that could partake of a controversial or polemical character, and that for this reason—that the declarations and intentions of Her Majesty's Government have been so fully placed before the House on former occasions that it will probably be enough to merely refer to them now without repeating them. It is known from those former declarations how entirely impossible it must be for us to consent either to the union of the two subjects of the Franchise and Redistribution in a single Bill, or to their simultaneous treatment in two Bills; and this simply for the reason that in our view the paramount interest concerned in this great question, which casts every other into the shade, is that of the franchise, and that we can do nothing which, in our opinion, tends in any way to place in jeopardy the passing of a measure which has for its object the extension
    1122
    of the franchise. In our view, if we were to consent to either the union of the two subjects in a single Bill, or to their simultaneous treatment in separate Bills, we should sacrifice not only our power as an Executive Government representing the Crown—although that would be no light matter; but we should sacrifice what is far greater and more important—namely, the title of the majority of this House to retain an effective control over the Business of this House, and to bring to an issue within a reasonable time within the walls of this House any measure which they may deem it necessary to pass. I do not wish to debate the question; but it is because we know and we conceive that the majority of this House would lose that control entirely were we to consent to either of the courses to which I have just referred—it is on that ground, and that ground alone, that we have found it necessary to make our opinions and intentions so clear to the House upon former occasions, that I think I may, as I have already said, be content merely to refer to them without repeating them. There is one other subject upon which I wish to say a few words. It is a subject which has been referred to from time to time in the course of these debates; it is the possibility and the justice of drawing a distinction between warning and menace. It has been to us a matter of absolute obligation not to keep back in absolute silence the apprehensions we feel in connection with the prolongation and exasperation of the present controversy. Apart from the use of disrespectful language, and apart from entering into invidious details, any attempt, however cautious and limited, to refer to that subject, has been treated with evident sincerity by persons of great distinction in this House as an undisguised resort to menace. If that be so, then it follows that no person, in pointing out to the person whom he loves, or to a body of persons whose privilege he wishes, on the whole, to preserve, can, even with the most friendly intentions, impress upon him or them the danger of pursuing a certain course. Surely it is an extravagant proposition to say that on that subject he must be altogether silent. It would be a course most unnatural to pursue in the incidence of private life. If my house is on fire, and my friend is sleeping in one of the

    1123
    chambers within reach of the conflagration, am I, in awakening him and endeavouring to persuade him to rise, to conceal from him the motive that leads me to do so, and exhort him to get up and go out into the cold without informing him of my reasons for doing so? The argument is just as strong in what I admit to be a case not corresponding with the one I have suggested in every respect. It is the question of an Institution, and of those who guide and direct the fortunes of that Institution. It is not insolent, it is not wantonness to utter such a warning. It is a sense of duty—nay, it is a friendly duty, which requires, with a due regard to the proprieties of the case, and to the respect which every person ought to pay to an established great power in the State, that some indication, careful in its form, and respectful in its language—["Hear, hear!"]—should be conveyed to those concerned of the consequences which may seem to come within the range of anticipation. I said respectful in its language, and I admit the justice of that limitation; but I have not yet heard it said that any language used by me on this subject was disrespectful. I am only seriously saying this—that we cannot admit the justice of those who denounce as menace even the most careful and limited intimation of danger. We cannot subscribe to such a proposition, and we must protest against the handing over to imagination and feeling the work that ought to be done drily and cautiously with a practical understanding by practical men in a great political and national crisis. Although, as I have said, the immediate question relating to the reasons for passing a Bill to extend household suffrage to counties may be held to be exhausted, there are certain conterminous questions on which it may be useful that I should address a few words to the House, and the more especially on that nearest of all conterminous questions, of which we have heard so much in the course of this discussion—namely, that relating to the redistribution of seats. This is a question of great interest, historically and politically; and I am the more glad to approach it, because in what I have to say I shall not find it necessary to use either offensive, or, I hope, even controversial language. This question in 1831–2 constituted the bulk of the controversy
    1124
    which was then before the country—I mean the bulk in a Parliamentary sense; and if we are to divide into two great portions the Reform Act of 1832, we may, perhaps, say with truth that, at that time and under the circumstances of that epoch, the part which related to disfranchisement and the redistribution of seats was even more important than the enfranchisement of the middle classes by means of the £10 suffrage. At that time the great and Constitutional principle which was at issue, and which was conscientiously brought forward by the Tory Party and gallantly fought and maintained by them, not without much countenance from high Constitutional authorities, was that it was necessary to retain within the walls of the Representative Chamber a large non-representative element. That was a subject which no doubt separated, by an almost immeasurable chasm, the two Parties in the State upon that great occasion. Happily, there is no such principle now at issue—there is no such chasm now to fill up. I am able, I may almost say, to compliment the Party opposite upon the readiness which many of them have shown—and which it is not beyond hope all may show—to deal fairly with the question of redistribution, if they can only get over those phantom fears which some of them are still possessed of in respect of the extension of the franchise. I rejoice to know that there is now no such difference between us in principle upon the subject-matter of redistribution as separated Parties in 1831–2. Nor do we approach the question of redistribution as we approach the question of the franchse, nor is one to be regarded from the same point of view as the other. The question of the franchise was one of extreme simplicity, especially as we invited the House to handle it; but the question of redistribution, quite apart from Party tactics, is not necessarily of extreme complexity. The question of the franchise was, in our point of view, the paramount question that would not admit of compromise or delay. We were reproached with a severe and rigid adherence to the provisions of our Bill when it was passing through Committee. I admit that, having reduced it to that simple outline, it was a case in which we were compelled, as far as we were concerned, to invite the House to adhere

    1125
    substantially to the main provisions of the Bill. But this question of redistribution, however, from its complexity, is necessarily more open to variety; and fortunately, as it is much less a subject of vital differences between the respective Parties, we desire, and we not only desire, but we feel that we should endeavour if possible—and I cannot say yet whether it will be possible—to make the measure of redistribution what, unfortunately, we could not make the measure with regard to the franchise, the work, not merely of the majority of the House, but one which should receive the approval of the House at large. I do not say it will be possible to attain that aim; but I do say it is our duty to strive to attain it, and not only our duty, but it will be our satisfaction to strive for it; and if we are able to carry the great mass of opinion in this House without reference to Party differences, I can only say that it will heighten the satisfaction with which we shall regard the consummation of a great work. No doubt it is true that Gentlemen opposite differ entirely from most of us, and certainly from myself, in the relative importance which they give to these two great subjects. I believe I am not overstating the case—in fact, if possible, I am understating it—when I say that while they admit the extension of the franchise to be a good, they regard it only as a conditional good; and if the condition of attendant redistribution does not accompany the franchise, then the franchise is in their view not a good, but an evil. That is to me unintelligible. I do not think the country has been able at all to enter into that proposition so as to see that it has a serious meaning. I quite grant that within the limits of the Party it has been largely accepted and echoed. But I never can depart from the proposition that in our view the franchise is the main matter, and that though the extension of the franchise is a much greater good accompanied with redistribution, yet that it is a good in itself whether redistribution accompany it or not. Though I have alluded to that difference of opinion I have not done so for the purpose of pressing it, but for the purpose of illustrating what I have said with regard to redistribution. We hail every symptom that we can detect of any possible approximation with regard to the bases of a measure of that kind, and it will not
    1126
    be our fault if indications of that kind shall be unhappily frustrated. There are certain main principles of redistribution in respect to which I think the House will agree with me that we must look upon them as beyond question or dispute. Any measure of redistribution which is to meet the exigencies of the case at the present date, and which may give a reasonable hope of something like permanence in the settlement of them, must be a large one. The second proposition is that evidently it must be a measure which shall give very considerable satisfaction to the principle of population or numbers, as compared with the present regulations or the present system of the electoral areas. In the third place, I think that all will probably admit—though there may be some difference in the interpretation—it ought not to be of needless complexity. Very simple it cannot be. Its propositions and provisions cannot be reduced to a very limited number; but needless complexity ought not to be introduced into any part of our electoral system. Further—and to this I attach immense importance—it must be equitable and liberal as between the great divisions of the country—and in speaking of these great divisions I have avoided the term "the three countries" known to the Constitution, because it is not unnatural to substitute the number four for the number three, and speak of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. Further, the measure ought to be just between the different classes of the community, and the different pursuits to which those classes belong. These are the leading propositions from which, in their essence and principle, there ought to be no deviation; but in the application of them there is much ground for temperate consideration, and for some sacrifice of opinion and of prepossessions with a view to unity and concord. For example, I have spoken of the principle of population, and of the large scope that it will be necessary, in any satisfactory measure of redistribution, to allow to that principle; but, of course, the question arises—Shall that principle be the only one taken into view, or shall it be, to some extent, restrained and limited by other qualifying considerations? Shall anything be allowed to prescription and possession—to privilege which has been long enjoyed, and which has not been

    1127
    abused, as compared with privilege which is about for the first time to be conferred? Shall we have regard in any degree, and, if so, in what degree, to the principle of the community as distinct from the individual—the historical existence of certain communities—or shall those communities be reckoned as so many individuals, according to the figure of their population, and thrown into hotch-potch to take their chance with the rest? Shall the most concentrated populations—and especially, of course, the great concentrated population of and about the Metropolis—be treated upon exactly the same principle as was recommended with great ability by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in the last Session of Parliament—that is to say, treated upon the same principle and basis as the more dispersed and remote populations? Shall any distinction be drawn, and to what extent, between urban and rural pursuits? Because it must be observed that the distinction between urban and rural pursuits, and so applied as to introduce complex forms of districts and geographical divisions, is of itself a distinct deviation from the pure principle of population. Now, these are points upon which undoubtedly the ultimate character of the measure of redistribution will greatly, and, perhaps, principally depend. They are points upon which probably all of us have, in one one sense or another, a prejudice and a prepossession. I have my own prepossession, to some extent, in regard to the whole of them; but I feel, at the same time, that there are points in regard to which prepossession does not amount to principle, and having respect to the great good of a vast enfranchisement being accomplished—if it be accomplished—I think that upon points of that kind regard ought to be had to the prospects of harmony and peace, and the immense advantage of carrying in a great legislative change the largest possible body of friendly and contented opinion. That is language which I hope will not be thought to deviate in any manner from the propositions and professions with which I set out. I am bound to say that I proceed upon this principle and basis—that it is absolutely impossible to construct any large measure of redistribution, in my opinion, which shall not be a measure favourable
    1128
    on the whole to popular liberty. I am sorry that in a great and august Assembly ingenuity has been exercised to import from across the Atlantic words which belong to the vocabulary of slang. I shall not recite any of these words; but I do think that the standard of Parliamentary language is not unimportant, and that there is an increasing necessity for paying attention to it. I frankly own I can conceive making a small measure of redistribution which shall be a surreptitious and dishonest measure; but if the measure be a large one—I do not know what human ingenuity can accomplish—I am sure that no ingenuity which I can command, or which my Colleagues can command, could by any possibility enable us to produce such a measure other than favourable to the general liberties of the people. Therefore, it is our desire to approach the subject in a large and comprehensive spirit. I will not inquire from what circumstances, or through whose agency, we have been compelled to see this question down to the present date handled to a very great extent, perhaps almost entirely, in association with those ideas which belong to our Party contests; but there are reasons why we may entertain some hope of a change. As to redistribution, we have no reason to abandon as yet the hope that there is not the amount of difference of opinion which prevails on the subject of the franchise. As to the franchise, every observer must have been led to the belief that the opinion is spreading—not in circles of Liberal politics alone—that the time is nearly exhausted, and that the franchise cannot be safely withheld, and that all efforts from all quarters ought to be directed to a safe and fair adjustment of redistribution. If it be true that there is a generally diffused, and, perhaps, almost unanimous desire for a large measure of redistribution on the opposite side of the House, far be it from us to say that such a desire proceeding from that quarter is to be treated with less respect, or is entitled to less sympathy, than if it appeared simply as our own opinion originating within our own camp. Well, Sir, if that be so, I am inclined to regret that we are obliged again to have a contest—if we are to have a contest—on the question of the union of the two Bills. So far as we are concerned, it is a fight

    1129
    which has been fought out already, and belonging to the past. So far as argument and reason are concerned, we are content with what we have said; we believe, rightly or wrongly, that the nation is of our mind. On those propositions we cannot go back; short of those propositions we have every disposition to join hands. If we have in any manner postponed, or if we are still holding over our official and collective decisions on any of the points of this great question, it is not because we have been slack and neglectful in preparing ourselves to decide them, but it is because we know that from the moment an official decision is taken there is a danger that considerations of Party may come to group themselves around it, and because we are anxious as long as we can, and to the utmost degree, to keep the important points of this question out of that dangerous association. It is on these principles, and animated by these views, that we desire to go forward. If Her Majesty's Government do not, beyond what necessity and propriety require, enter upon the details of any old conflict now to be renewed, it is mainly from the fear that the renewal of that conflict will not tend to the objects we ought all to have in view, and that, our work having been done, the attempt to do it over again might rekindle fires scarcely yet extinguished. I have no doubt there will be a disposition in the House generally to conduct, in a dispassionate and tranquil spirit, any debates that may arise. We have contributed, I think—at least, I have endeavoured to contribute by the assurances I have given—to a practical and to a speedy progress. I believe that the more speedy our progress may be in the stages of this measure, the better it will be for the vast issues that are involved in its passing, and the more unmixed will be the satisfaction with which, when the Royal Assent is given, it will be entered upon the Statute Book, as it will also be enshrined in the memories of the people.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. E. STANHOPE, in rising to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, any measure purporting to provide for the better Representation of the People in Parliament
    1130
    must be accompanied by provisions for a proper arrangement of electoral areas,"
    said: In the absence of my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)—["Hear, hear!" and a laugh.]—who, I am sorry to say, is suffering from severe domestic affliction—a fact that might have averted that somewhat deplorable cheer—I rise to move the Amendment which stands in his name. I am sure the House generally will not only feel sympathy with the noble Lord in his bereavement, but may also regret the unworthy substitute that has been provided for the very able and incisive speech which the House has undoubtedly expected. We have heard a speech from the Prime Minister couched in terms of moderation, and I desire to imitate him so far as I am able. I will go further, and say that amongst those vague generalities which form so large a portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech there are some propositions in which I am happy to be able to concur with him. We desire just as much as the right hon. Gentleman that a settlement of the question should be arrived at favourable to the general liberties of the people. We desire equally with the Government to make every effort to secure a safe and fair adjustment of this question; and I am only sorry that, as on a former occasion, we have not had a corresponding effort on the part of the Prime Minister to enable us to come to such a settlement. For my own part, I should have wished that it had been absolutely unnecessary, in consequence of some statements that might have fallen from the Prime Minister, for me to move this Amendment. I had hoped, even against hope, that at the eleventh hour we might have had some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the most reasonable proposition we have always put forward would in some way be met by the Government. That proposition was so reasonable that it was actually put forward a year ago by most of the principal Leaders of the Party opposite, and there are a good many who at this moment cordially agree with it. If there had been a will I do not think there would have been any difficulty in finding a way. The difficulties might have been got over, and this controversy might have ended in a manner honourable to both Parties, and advantageous to the country. I have, therefore, been very

    1131
    much disappointed by what has fallen from the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman laid down some general principles, about which I will say a word or two later; but I am unable to detect in his speech any symptom of a desire to meet the views we have consistently put forward, or any solid guarantee to secure what we have at heart. This disappointment is undoubtedly intensified, inasmuch as every principal argument hitherto put forward in support of the proposition that we ought to separate franchise from redistribution has been enormously weakened, if not altogether disposed of, during the last six months. Take one of these arguments which has done good service during the Recess—the argument of time. It was said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was not possible, within the limits of a single Session, to pass both a Franchise and a Redistribution Bill. How does the matter now stand? We are here, in the midst of an Autumn Session, with a prospect of adjourning to the full Session in the year to come. The principle of the Franchise Bill is now accepted by both sides. And more than that, the details of that Bill have been discussed and decided upon in this House. Therefore, the main argument upon which hon. Gentlemen have hitherto relied, that it is impossible to deal simultaneously with the two Bills, is invalid. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for War, speaking in March, gave his views upon this subject. He dwelt upon the enormous importance of dealing with all branches of this question as consecutively as possible. He said that it would be much to the advantage of the country that both branches of the subject should be dealt with in one Parliament, in one Session, and, if possible, in a single Bill. The noble Lord laid down certain conditions which must be fulfilled before the advantage of dealing in that manner with both branches of the subject could be secured. He said—
    "But there is only one way in which such a thing can be accomplished, and that would have been by the existence of some general agreement upon the subject, some admission on the part of the House generally, that the time had now come when the measure which had been granted in 1887 to the boroughs must be extended to the counties, and by an equally general admission that the most grave and glaring anomalies which still exist in the distribution of political power must also be redressed."—(3 Hansard, [286] 700. 1.)
    1132
    Those conditions, I maintain, have been fulfilled; and I therefore claim the vote of the noble Lord in favour of my proposal. In introducing the Bill at the beginning of last Session, the Prime Minister further urged that there was a political objection of a very grave kind to the simultaneous passage of the two Bills—
    "Where the two measures are mixed together, those who think their local interests are touched by the measures, oppose the extension of the franchise for fear of the redistribution which is to follow."—(Ibid., [285] 128.]
    At the time that argument was used I thought there was a good deal of force in it; but it must be perfectly obvious that there is now no fear of that kind. The principle of the Franchise Bill is now accepted generally; and the conduct of anyone who attempts, directly or indirectly, to oppose the franchise, for fear of after consequences, will be detected and resented by the country. There is, also, the leverage argument that is put forward. It is said that without the leverage—I might call it coercion—that will be brought to bear by the previous passage of the Franchise Bill, it will be impossible to pass a redistribution scheme. I venture to say that exactly the opposite is the fact. Supposing the Franchise Bill were passed, can any body doubt that it is extremely probable that the zeal of hon. Members opposite for this great measure of Reform will be considerably damped, and that they would immediately discover that although the Redistribution Bill was of great importance, there were numerous other questions which could not brook an hour's delay? The only true lever, in my opinion, for the passing of that most difficult Redistribution Bill through the House, is to have the Franchise Bill in reserve. The true propelling power is that the Franchise Bill should not yet be passed. One of the contentions of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the country is most keenly alive to the necessity of extending this household franchise to the counties. I will add something to that. I will admit that in consequence of the agitation during the Recess there are persons in the country previously indifferent to this subject who have, at any rate, been led to expect this privilege. Will anyone suppose that they will brook delay in this matter? If they have a Franchise Bill accompanying or following the Redistribution Bill they will take care, because

    1133
    their immediate interests are concerned, that no undue delay shall take place in this matter. I trust, then, that I have been able to show that the force of arguments that were put forward in support of separating franchise from redistribution has been diminished by what has taken place during the past few months. After all, those arguments dealt only with a question of procedure. The hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who, with a brutal frankness, often knocks the right nail on the head, has said boldly—
    "Irrespective of Party tactics, it is unquestionable that the production of the Franchise Bill and Redistribution should go together."
    But if we turn now for a moment from the arguments that have been alleged in favour of separating franchise from redistribution to those we have endeavoured persistently to put forward on behalf of their being simultaneously pressed on the attention of the House, the House will see that our contention has never been based on procedure or tactical considerations, but based entirely and solely on principle. They will see, further, that nothing whatever has occurred during the Recess to modify in any way the conclusions at which we arrived, or the grounds on which we support them. We have desired, and we have always put forward our desire in the plainest terms, a complete measure. We desire it because we think it would be fair and just to all parties and to all classes. We desire it in the interests of peace and order, and of the early settlement of this question; and we desire it because we believe it is the only settlement which would provide a permanent strengthening of the foundations of the Constitution. We know hon. Gentlemen opposite say—"Oh, but your contention has been put to the country, and the country has decided against you." How? and when? and where? [An hon. MEMBER: Hyde Park.] We have not yet been taught it is any part of the Constitution of this country that questions of great political importance should be decided by a show of hands, or even by manhood suffrage. When a deadlock upon a political issue arises in this country we believe the only way to decide it is by a reference to the constituencies. But that is just what you want to avoid. Certainly, so far
    1134
    as we have been able to form any judgment from the proceedings of the Recess, there has been nothing to make us in any way hesitate in the belief that the country thoroughly understands and appreciates the position we have put forward. [Ironical Ministerial cheers.] I am glad to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite cheer. Let us take a test case. There are many hon. and learned Gentlemen sitting on that side of the House who belong to the Profession of Law, to which I once had the honour to belong. Many of them are possessed of the greatest and highest attainments, and are well qualified for a seat on the Judicial Bench. How is it that with these Gentlemen of great merit and with that wide area of choice almost every vacancy on the Judicial Bench is filled from the outside? I suspect the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Richard Grosvenor) could supply an answer to the question. Then, a more effective and less logical attempt to answer our case is in the form of an attack on the House of Lords, ranging from the vulgar and coarse attack of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) to what I may call the deprecatory style of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister deprecates the attack on the House of Lords. That reminds me very much of what we used to observe when we visited the Righi Hotel. There is a notice at the hotel to the effect that visitors desiring to see the sun rise must not wrap themselves up in their blankets. So the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury told his constituents in Wales that it was the greatest mistake to suppose that the Liberal Party was in favour of the abolition of the House of Lords. That remark was taken up by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), who commented upon it in this way—
    "I do not think the noble Lord meant what he said. I take his words in the non-natural sense. What he meant was—'Do not nail his ears to the pump.' Taking it in that sense, I think Lord Richard Grosvenor really intended to encourage us to go on with great meetings like this."
    And the meeting at which he spoke thus was one for the abolition of the House of Lords. But this is beside the question. When the time comes it will be perfectly easy to show—indeed, it cannot be denied — that the House of Lords has

    1135
    acted in a thoroughly Constitutional manner in the course it has followed, and that, in the words of the Duke of Argyll, written not very long ago—
    "There is no conceivable constitution of a Second Chamber which would not include the power of withholding its assent from particular measures where there is any real doubt of public opinion until after an appeal to the constituencies."
    But, as I have said, this is altogether beside the question. Grant that the House of Lords is wrong, unconstitutional, and foolish, yet that does not affect our position in this House; and we, the elected Chamber, representing public opinion, are entitled to protect popular rights, and are bound to insist on the fullest information and the amplest guarantees before we allow this great scheme of Reform to become law. What information and what guarantees have we received? Shortly before this Session began there was a rumour that the Government intended to produce a Bill dealing with redistribution, and that as soon as the Franchise Bill passed this House the Redistribution Bill would be introduced. I confess that I never credited that rumour. It did not seem to me at all possible. If it were so, I should, indeed, congratulate the House of Lords that it had escaped the servile condition to which this House is apparently to be reduced. But even if a Bill had been introduced, I think it would have been easy to show that it would have afforded no real security either to us or to the House of Lords. The essence of redistribution, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, is in the details of the measure. It would be impossible for the Government to pledge itself that any Bill which they laid on the Table and which went to a second reading would be anything like the Bill which would emerge from the House; and even if they desired to pledge themselves to it, I question very much if they would have the power to fulfil it. We have had a statement to-night from the Prime Minister, who has again discussed the general principles on which he thinks the Redistribution Bill ought to be framed. I presume that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman speaks, not only his own individual opinion, but also the sentiments of his Colleagues, because there was great inconvenience in the course he adopted on the former
    1136
    occasion. I hope we are no longer to be put in a position of having a statement made by the Prime Minister which expresses his own individual opinion only. But we want much more than that. We want not only the statement of opinion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and on the part of his Colleagues, but we want that statement to be put in such a form, on the authority of the Government as a whole, that we shall be able to deal with it and to consider it. I note a very remarkable omission in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He has told us nothing on the subject of boundaries. Can anyone doubt, if you are going to pass an adequate Redistribution Bill, that we must have some inquiry into boundaries? If such Redistribution Bill is, as has been said, to be passed within measurable time, some steps ought to be taken to inquire into the boundaries of boroughs. But the fact is, the Government are still fencing with this question of redistribution; and I cannot help thinking the country is beginning to ask—"Why, if you have all these fine general principles, do you not produce your Bill?" If it is such a fair Bill that even the Tory Party will not specially quarrel with it, why should you be afraid of the country seeing it? I am of opinion that, with one or two exceptions, the right hon. Gentleman has thrown very little additional light on the subject by what he has said today. Amid a good deal of vague statement, he has enunciated one principle which we have heard with satisfaction—namely, that he wished to make the Bill just between different classes and different pursuits. That is going further than the principles he advocated when he introduced the Bill last Session, and we are glad to welcome that advance. But, in estimating any suggestions made by the Prime Minister for the drafting of a Redistribution Bill, we are obliged to reduce them to this test—namely, that we must always keep steadily in view the principle on which we have been throughout acting. Bearing this in mind, have the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman done anything to meet and assist us in dealing with the question? Our principle always has been that this measure must be considered as a whole. But we have not had the smallest assistance or suggestion

    1137
    from the right hon. Gentleman that he will move one single step to help us in that matter. It is said that we upon this side of the House have been accustomed to look upon this question with a view to the interest of our own Party. We should be more than human if we did not consider that to a reasonable extent; we should be untrue to our constituents if we did not consider very carefully any scheme in its bearing upon the prospects of the Constitutional Party. But I want to consider the matter from a higher point of view. Let us, free from the glamour of Party prejudice, ask ourselves this simple question—What do we desire when we set to work to reform our Constitution?—what object of national importance do we set before us? I assume that, in the first place, we desire to make the House more perfectly representative. The right hon. Gentleman said the other day that he wanted a House better calculated to understand the wants of the country. That, I think, is a most inadequate description. What we want is a House of Commons not only better calculated to understand, but to represent the wants of the country. We require for that a system of representation varied according to the requirements of the different parts of the Three Kingdoms, and so adjusted to its needs as to afford an opportunity for the expression not of all opinions, for that would be ridiculous, but of all substantial bodies of public opinion. Is there anything in this Bill that gives such an assurance? There is nothing of this sort either in the Bill or in the speech of the Prime Minister with the exception of a single sentence, which I was glad to hear, and there is no guarantee that one class will not be wholly swamped by others. Important interests and important classes are altogether effaced by this Bill. One class—the agricultural labourers — are, I know, likely to be better represented. That is very desirable and very reasonable. Not that I admit that their interests have been neglected. I do not think many hon. Members will agree with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade when he spoke of the wholesale robbery of the agricultural labourers—an evil, by-the-bye, which, since he has been a Member of the House, the right hon. Gentleman himself has never lifted
    1138
    even his little finger to prevent. I may call as a witness the Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, in his annual speeches delivered in the last Parliament on the enfranchisement of the agricultural labourer, used to bring forward special grievances and wrongs of that class, and to tell the House that they required to be redressed. It is a remarkable fact, however, that, after about three or four years, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster withdrew that contention, acknowledging frankly that the particular grievances to which he had been wont to point had all been dealt with by the House, and, he might also have added, by a Conservative Government. But, even assuming it was true that the interests of the agricultural labourer were neglected, it only strengthens my case. The more we have allowed his interest to be overlooked amid the pressure of other matters, the more important is it that we should now take every security when we enfranchise the peasant that his votes shall not be swamped by the artizans who are already fully represented. Again, I presume that we wished to make the House a more efficient engine for doing the work of government. None of us, I suppose, hold that the legislation of 1867 has been particularly fortunate in that respect. But let us put the saddle on the right horse. Everybody knows that it is not the constituencies who tell their Members to be silent. Many of the constituencies, so far from thinking that their Representatives stated their grievances or expressed their views too much, consider rather that they fall short in that respect. If I might venture to say what are the chief dangers ahead they are these. First of all there is a danger of this House becoming too sensitive to public opinion. That is a danger already in existence, and I could quote cases in point. Even at the present time safeguards, which most of us believe to be desirable in the true interests of the country, are lightly abandoned because of the pressure of outside opinion, mainly uninstructed and influenced by vague clamour. There is a possibility that that danger will be indefinitely increased. Then there is a considerable danger that political convulsions will become more severe, and that

    1139
    the swing of the pendulum of public opinion from side to side will be dangerous to the true interests of the Empire both at home and abroad. But if we desire to moderate the swing of the pendulum—if we desire to check by wholesome restraints the violent oscillations of public opinion, is there any other way that we can do this than by taking care that minorities are fairly represented? If we desire to enable this House to resist unreasoning and unreasonable clamour, we must take care to protect the independence of individual opinion, and provide adequate guarantees that, in the adjustment of political power which we propose, it shall not all fall into the hands of the wire-pullers. These are very grave questions; and in my humble opinion not only the true interests and liberty of the people, but even the existence of the Empire, depend upon our looking facts fairly in the face, and upon our not allowing ourselves to be led into deliberately accepting an incomplete scheme of electoral reform blindfolded, and in the dark. First, we want more information, and then we want some substantial guarantees, that this great question of electoral reform shall not be put before us piecemeal, but that we shall have an opportunity of considering and dealing with it as a whole, and providing that it shall come into operation as a whole. It is because we have been unable to detect in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, or in the Bill, any guarantee of a substantial character for securing these important results that it is my duty now to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, any measure purporting to provide for the better Representation of the People in Parliament must be accompanied by provisions for a proper arrangement of electoral areas."
    MR. ECROYD, in seconding the Amendment, said, he rose under a feeling of sadness at the unexpected intelligence of the loss of a public servant whose high character, great ability, eminent courtesy, and temperateness in the examination of all public questions had been, he was sure, appreciated in every part of the country, and not the least by those who sat on the Opposition Benches. He was sure that, under the circumstances, every man must feel less disposed to say one word upon that discussion which would add
    1140
    to the bitterness of Party controversy. He sincerely hoped that in discharging the duty which had fallen upon him he might, at least, avoid saying anything which would be likely to raise any additional obstacles in the way of a fair settlement of the question. He believed that there was no serious difference of opinion between any part of the House in regard to the main lines of a fair and equitable settlement of the great questions of Reform; but he could not help regretting that they were puzzled and nonplussed by the ill-judged separation of that question into two portions, neither of which could be completely examined unless the House was in possession of the other. All that the Conservative Party had to fear in connection with that was an unfair arrangement of the question of redistribution—an arrangement which, while it might in some respects appear to be just and impartial, would yet reduce to an absolute political nullity the voice of important interests in this country. He would not go over the ground of the relative claims of different portions of the country, as that was a question which did not touch the argument he wished to take. The Prime Minister had held out to them no solution whatever of the difficulty. His speeches held out no offer of accommodation. They were merely repetitions, in moderate and courteous terms, of a demand for absolute surrender. They were asked now to give up, under the mere name of a compromise, all that they considered vital to the interest of the constituencies. The experience of the last four months had been alluded to both to-day and on previous occasions; but he claimed that in that experience the Conservative Party had found no reason to doubt the wisdom of the position they had taken up. Although the country had been stirred up by Party managers from one end of it to the other, hon. Members opposite could not point to one single convert from the Conservative ranks. In the ranks of the working men who supported the Conservative cause they found most energetic supporters of the stand which had been made on the subject. They had learnt the result of an election in a constituency which already possessed household suffrage; and, in his opinion, that election could not be pointed to as any evidence of a change of opinion

    1141
    favourable to the Government. He would rather, however, ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider how absolutely useless and impossible, from the Conservative point of view, must be the means taken on the platform and in the Press to make them recede from the position they had taken up. What would be their position in the eyes of their constituents if they were to do so? They would never again be able to face them. No; they might be fairly beaten at the General Election, or by some other means they might be overruled; in that case they would be able to know how to take it; but, at least, they were bound to prove themselves faithful to the trust committed to them by their constituencies, and to maintain that to alter the franchise in the way proposed would tend to political injustice which it was impossible to exaggerate. To pass the present measure without redistribution would aggravate the existing inequalities of the franchise five-fold. They were told that the effect of the Franchise Bill was simply to place householders in counties in exactly the same position politically as in boroughs. As a matter of fact it did no such thing. Let them take the case of a large population which had been made the subject of remark and discussion during the last few months—the case of Accrington. There were many householders there who were also holders of rateable property, and who were anxiously looking for a reform which should place them on a par with the property-owning householders at Blackburn and Burnley. What he wanted to point out was that if Accrington was made a borough under a Redistribution Bill, the provident men there would enjoy twice as much political power as their less thrifty neighbours who were not property-owners. But if Accrington was left in the constituency of North-East Lancashire these men would enjoy the glorious distinction of being made householders in the same hour in which they would be disqualified as owners of rateable property. That would show the absolute necessity of taking the two questions of Reform and Redistribution together. Then the Prime Minister had warned them lest, in separating the two questions, they should bring forward another question besides that of the franchise. But they were not left to choose
    1142
    whether an attack was to be made on a part of the Constitution or not; all that they had to choose was whether that attack should be an open and declared one, or veiled and disguised in some other form. For his own part, he infinitely preferred an open attack; and if the House of Lords was to be deprived of its real place and power in the Constitution, he hoped it would be by open attack and by fair discussion in the country, and not by a side wind. Not by the adoption of measures which would reduce the House of Lords to a mere nullity—to the shadow of a name—and which would for ever eliminate it from a real place in the Constitution of the country. They had been reminded of the danger of raising a great Constitutional question; he thought that it was evident that the very method of bringing forward the Franchise Question, and the action which had provoked hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House to opposition, was in itself raising a Constitutional question of the first order. They considered that Constitutional questions had been raised not only by the manner in which the Franchise Bill had been treated, but still more by the way in which it had been introduced; and on that point he would like to ask the attention of the House to the peculiar circumstances under which the Franchise Bill was examined by that House last Session. It had been brought into that House cut and dried by the Prime Minister, and it had been understood that no alteration of that Bill was to be permitted in its passage through the House. They all knew that, whatever might be the opinions of many hon. Members opposite as to its details, the expression of those opinions, to a large extent, by speech, was limited, and by vote almost entirely forbidden. They all knew that under the pressure of the Party system very important matters, which ought to have been the subject of considerable discussion, had been passed over; and the only reply to remonstrances was that it was necessary, for the enfranchisement purposes of the Government, that the Bill should pass substantially as it stood. Were they to have questions of the first Constitutional magnitude brought solemnly before that House, and then practically withdrawn from discussion? Was not that a curtailment of the duties and

    1143
    privileges of the House? That was a matter more important than the mere passing of a Bill; and he said, with the most positive knowledge, that in any large constituency such as he represented, where there were great bodies of working men attached to the Constitution, this symptom was regarded as a most serious one. It was not merely that the Privileges of the House of Lords were in danger, but those of the House of Commons. If this Bill were to be passed through the House with little real examination or discussion on important questions of detail, as in last Session, a most important diminution in the powers and privileges of that House would have been silently accomplished. The Franchise Bill was not a simple measure; and the point to which he had drawn attention, the exclusion of the property vote, was of the gravest importance both in its social and political aspects. As the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), stated the other day, the working classes of this country were divided into two classes, one not unprosperous, who protected themselves to a considerable extent by their own organizations, and thus maintained their position with great and increasing ability, but outside these there were the incapable and incompetent classes, who could not readily obtain employment. If they were to give no predominance to the provident over the improvident class of working men, they would be taking from the hands of the class most capable of influencing them for good one of the fittest instruments for that purpose. The only reply he could obtain from the Prime Minister on this important subject was a brief speech of two minutes' duration; and in the same way many other points were, upon the slightest pretext, withdrawn from the consideration of the House in such a manner that they might well ask whether this was the Bill of the House of Commons or the Bill of the Executive. This question was the question to be considered, and was considered by the masses of intelligent working men in this country, and was of such importance as to overshadow the importance of any Franchise Bill whatever. The anxiety of those who had long been associated with the great masses of population in this country, who knew their habits, their wants, and their feelings, their great
    1144
    and prevailing anxiety was that the better part should prevail. That was the way to insure peace and social order among that portion of the working classes who at present were so difficult to raise. If they were to take away such an instrument as this for the exercise of political influence, for the solution of great social questions, and the advancement of the lower orders of the people, those who could best exercise it would not be able to do so; and they would then be striking a fatal blow at the future political safety of this country. In the name of those for whom he spoke, owners of property—men entitled to be heard—men who knew how to raise themselves, he must express an earnest hope that the House would not, in important matters like these, sacrifice the highest interests of the country to any circumstances, however pressing, or however important, in the eyes of the Executive. He would only add, in conclusion, with regard to the whole matter, that, in his opinion, the real differences between the two Parties were so small that half-a-dozen thoughtful men drawn from each side could have framed a solution that would have been generally accepted; and he hoped they would still, every one of them, use their influence to bring about a peaceful settlement of the question. But he could not say, after the speech of the Prime Minister that night, that he saw much prospect of a compromise. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was in tone and temper a most moderate and courteous speech; but in its essence was there one single note of accommodation? Was there anything that could be offered to them as a solution of the difficulties that pressed upon them? The Conservative Party throughout had been absolutely prepared to join in a reasonable and fair settlement of the question; but the doubt on the Conservative side was with regard to the question of Redistribution. They could not submit to a settlement of the question which might put them in this position—that the scheme of Redistribution would be so arranged that certain populations would be thrown into the mass of the county population for the sake of putting them into an area that properly should have no influence at all. The Government must either trust their political opponents and disclose their intentions, or, if they refused to do

    1145
    that, they could not call upon the Conservative Party to place that confidence in them which they themselves refused to extend to their opponents.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, any measure purporting to provide for the better Representation of the People in Parliament must be accompanied by provisions for a proper arrangement of electoral areas,"—(Mr. E. Stanhope,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GORSTsaid, he was disposed to think that the differences between the two sides of the House were now so small that half-a-dozen sensible men might easily settle all that was between them in a few minutes. He could not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Ecroyd) that this was a question on which there was no possibility of compromise. From the appearance of the House, it was very evident that the House in general, and the Conservative Party in particular, took very little interest in the discussion of this Amendment; and that was not surprising, because it was only the old question which had been brought forward by the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), and it had been discussed ad nauseam. He, therefore, defied anybody to say anything new on the subject. He was in favour of the Amendment as an abstract Motion; and if he could support it without impeding the progress of the Franchise Bill, he should be perfectly ready to follow the hon. Gentleman into the Lobby. He wished, however, to point out that since this question was discussed last Session a great many things had happened. In the first place, they were defeated in the House of Commons by a very large majority. If Parliamentary government was to be carried on at all, there must be some questions upon which the minority must yield to the majority; and if there was any question upon which the minority should yield to the majority, he should say it was on a question of procedure. He had taken no part in the agitation of the autumn; but, as a looker on, he could discover no very clear evidence on the part of the country that it desired to disassociate itself
    1146
    from the vote of the House of Commons. The Leaders of the Conservative Party were just as anxious as the Government to agree to the extension of the franchise, and that had always been their position in times past. [A laugh.] Well, for 10 years he had found himself in perfect harmony with his Leaders on this question, and he was always in favour of extending household suffrage to the counties. But not only was the Conservative Party anxious to extend the franchise; the Government and their supporters were equally anxious to pass a Redistribution Bill. That was the situation between them. What guarantee had they that the Government would carry their promises out? He was as suspicious as most people of the pledges of the Government; but he confessed that, on this particular matter of redistribution, the Government were as solemnly pledged and bound as they could possibly be, and that they could not go back from the pledges they had given to the country without laying themselves open to a charge of gross breach of faith. If they had a security that some Bill would be brought in by the Government, what security had they that the Bill would be a fair Bill? Well, in the first place, he did not see any radical difference between the two Parties as regarded redistribution and the principles which should be applied to it. They were all agreed that the change must be in the direction of representation in accordance with numbers, without rigid mathematical apportionment. There must, of course, be anomalies, unless they had equal electoral districts. When the Prime Minister enunciated the principles of his redistribution scheme, he observed that they met with the general assent of Members on the Conservative side. Therefore, he supposed that in these principles enunciated by the Prime Minister there were no points of difference that ought to create a great crisis. There was one point, however, on which the Prime Minister did not touch, and that was the representation of minorities; but that was not a Party question. Then, as to the charge that the Government might manipulate the redistribution of seats so as to gain an advantage for their own Party, he said boldly that that was a task they could not perform. He did not say it was impossible to manipulate a scheme of representation with regard

    1147
    to small boroughs, for which men could be returned at the will of some nobleman. If there was any talk of retaining boroughs of the kind, he did not deny that there would be room for some manipulation; but if they were going to construct large and important constituencies, with an adequate number of electors, he defied the cleverest election agent in the world to manipulate a scheme of the kind. This, however, was a point with regard to which there was much nervous timidity on his side of the House; but he did not see it in that light. Both Parties were often mistaken as to the effect a particular provision would have upon their respective interests. Two instances would show this. In 1867 there was a great Party struggle as to whether the urban element should be drawn within the boroughs by an extension of boundaries, or left in the counties. Both Parties believed the new voters would be Liberal, and the Conservatives feared they would swamp the existing county voters. The Liberals had their way; but the result had been that the new voters had proved one of the most Conservative elements in the State, and the Metropolitan counties, which consisted almost wholly of that class, had returned Conservative Members from that time to the present. Again, in the case of the minority vote, which was inserted by the House of Lords on the Motion of Lord Cairns, and which affected seven counties and five boroughs returning 36 Members, according to the majorities these places should return 21 Conservatives and 15 Liberals, whereas the actual representation was 18 Conservatives and 18 Liberals. But the most powerful security against an improper manipulation of the seats, even if that were possible, was the dread of the Government of public opinion, which assuredly would resent any attempt on the part of the Government to break its pledges. If there was one thing which had been made more clear than another by the agitation of the present autumn it was that the majority of the people desired a complete measure of Reform to be passed in the present Parliament; and he believed that public opinion would punish whichever of the two Parties in that House tried to defeat their wishes. He had heard it said that the Government wanted to pass the Franchise Bill and then to dissolve; but if
    1148
    they carried out that intention it would be a most disastrous thing for themselves. If they were to carry out such an intention, they could not take the opinion of the country under more unfavourable circumstances. They would be appealing to boroughs which were condemned by anticipation, and to counties which their laches had deprived of their just share of representation, and they would be appealing to people who were indignant at their breach of faith. All these securities for the passing of a Bill for the redistribution of seats being in existence, what was the position of the two political Parties at the present moment? The Tory Party were no longer in the position of having to dissimulate their love for the extension of household suffrage to the counties, while the Liberal Party were pledged up to the hilt to the introduction of a fair measure for the redistribution of seats. The difference between the two Parties, therefore, was very small—it having been reduced to a mere question of procedure. In such circumstances it would be most discreditable to our Parliamentary system if the two Parties could not agree upon some mode of procedure by which their mutual objects would be attained. But, unfortunately, there were obstacles to that agreement. The first of those obstacles was furnished by the speeches delivered on platforms in the country, and, he was sorry to say, even in that House, by hon. Members who had no desire to come to an agreement, who wished to keep the wound open, and who had motives which went far beyond the passing of the Franchise and the Redistribution Bills, and who desired to stir up dissension in the constituencies. These were the men who rubbed the sore when they should bring the plaster. He hoped, however, that the House would discourage all such persons, and all such speeches. The next obstacle to a satisfactory settlement of the question was that the Leaders of both sides of the House were unwilling to trust Parliament to legislate with freedom. They wanted to have a rope round the neck of Parliament. The Leaders on his own side of the House were, he was sorry to say, using the 2,000,000 of capable citizens, whose right to enfranchisement they had admitted, as a sort of lever, to force from the Government a Redistribution Bill,

    1149
    when no compulsion was necessary to attain that object. He had rather a strong opinion with regard to the wisdom of using the rights of those 2,000,000 of persons for that purpose. In his humble judgment, the Conservative Party had got hold of a very ugly and dangerous edged tool in this matter. It was not impossible that the 2,000,000 of capable citizens might resent their rights being made use of in this way for the purpose of putting a screw upon the Government; and he thought that they would probably look to the votes of hon. Members on the second reading of the Franchise Bill rather than to their speeches. If he were a county Member he should be sorry to have to face the newly-enfranchised electors whom they had deprived of their privileges until they had got concessions from the Government on the mere question of procedure. He did not acquit the Prime Minister in this matter, because he had been attempting to use the Franchise Act, when passed, as a lever to force the passage of a Redistribution Bill by a Parliament quite willing to pass it without force. He thought that the solid sense of the country would repudiate any attempt to coerce Parliament, or to induce them to act otherwise than with perfect freedom. He hoped that the determination to repudiate all kinds of coercion would find an echo on both sides of the House. Holding those views, his desire would be to pass the Franchise Bill nem. con. through the House of Commons. Why should any Party in that House desire to make enemies of the new voters? They could not keep them out if they would, and they would not keep them out if they could. As he had said, the people would look more to their votes than to the speeches of hon. Members; and he believed that Members on the Opposition side who might hereafter become candidates for populous constituencies would find it very hard to explain their conduct in voting against the second reading of the Franchise Bill. They might profess a desire for the enfranchisement of the county householder; but they would find a great number of people, both in boroughs and counties, who would say—"If they voted against the franchise they do but flatter with their lips and dissemble in their double hearts." Why should the Conservative
    1150
    Party run their heads against a stone wall upon a mere question of procedure? If there was to be a Tory Party in the future they must rely upon that solid Conservative sentiment which history had proved existed among the masses of the people of this country. The days of privilege and of exclusiveness had gone by for ever. The Opposition had a great case to bring against the Government before the constituencies. They had a case of disaster in our foreign relations, and of indifference to our Imperial interests. If they were so ready to impeach the Government, why not impeach them before the country at large—why should they make a futile attempt to pack the jury and make enemies by alienating those whom they could not get rid of by any chance? Supposing that the screw was put on the Government, and violent measures were used for the purpose of inducing them to proceed with their Redistribution Bill, he believed that the passing the Franchise Bill, in the way he had suggested, unanimously through the House of Commons would give the Opposition an enormous lever with the constituencies. A great number of the Members on the Government side of the House, he believed, would very cordially approve of that course. Whatever might be the fate of the Bill in the other House, he, for one, hoped the Government would give hon. Members every opportunity of doing their duty. That duty, he understood, was to make the most rapid progress they possibly could according to the procedure indicated by the Government with a complete measure of Reform which the country desired to see passed. He regretted very much that the Prime Minister in his speech did not announce any definite intention of introducing and proceeding with the Redistribution Bill as soon as the Franchise Bill had passed that House; and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would take into consideration the possibility and the propriety of adopting such a course. If the Government did adopt that course, he would promise to give them the most cordial and candid assistance. He believed that on both sides of the House there were a large number of Members who were sincerely desirous of seeing this question settled; and he hoped that both a Franchise and a Redistribution

    1151
    Bill would become law during the present Session.
    MR. FIRTHobserved, that it was a most interesting question how far the admirable speech which had just been addressed to the House by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was inspired, and how many followers he had in the House. It was to be regretted that, so far as was at present known, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not yet persuaded his Leaders to adopt his views on the subject under consideration. Those views were only new as entertained by a Conservative, for the Liberals had been placing them continuously before the country during the last three or four months. The anxiety of the Conservative Party to pass the Franchise Bill was one of the most remarkable features of the present situation. It was now said that the question at issue should be left for the decision of the constituencies. He did not know why they should not be satisfied with the reference to the constituencies in 1880. There was one point in the tactics of the Conservatives which led him to doubt the reality of their anxiety for the Franchise Bill. He could not understand their tactics, because if the Franchise Bill were passed and redistribution were brought forward, a great number of difficulties would arise which would give their opponents the opportunity of dividing the Liberal Party. It might be asked why the Government did not introduce a Redistribution Bill at once. The answer was—and it seemed to him an excellent one—that the difficulties attending redistribution were such that many Members might take advantage of them for the purpose of throwing the Franchise Question over altogether. It was perfectly evident that if the Government were to introduce any Redistribution Bill whatever until the Franchise Bill was passed there would be such opposition directed against it from various points as to enable the franchise scheme altogether to be destroyed. Redistribution took a much longer time for discussion in 1832 than the Franchise Bill; and he ventured to say that if a Redistribution Bill proposed only to disfranchise Bridport, Eye, and Woodstock, the whole time of Parliament, having regard to the capacity for discussion of the Representatives of those constituencies,
    1152
    would be taken up by those Members alone. Having regard to their experience of the time occupied by the Franchise Bill last Session, it was very surprising to find the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon stating at Newcastle that the Redistribution Bill could easily have been passed together with the Franchise Bill last Session. It was said that if the Franchise Bill was passed without redistribution it would create a number of anomalies; but those anomalies would not be greater than the present ones. He was glad to find that the Prime Minister had adopted so firm a tone; and he hoped that, having taken up their present attitude, the Government would maintain it, and would not introduce a measure of redistribution until the Franchise Bill was safe through the House of Lords.
    MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he gathered that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down thought the present Parliament could not deal with the question of redistribution; and he further contended that no measure of redistribution ought to be introduced until the Franchise Bill had passed through the House of Lords. He (Mr. Dalrymple) inferred from that, that if the Government then found themselves face to face with the inherent difficulties of redistribution, which had been so graphically described, they would decide not to deal with that question, but to go to the country on the Franchise Bill alone. He was not disposed to complain of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), who had a perfect right to his independent opinion, which he always expressed in the House. But if he were inclined to complain of it at all, he thought the hon. and learned Member had been sufficiently punished by the effusive and laboured eulogium of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Firth). He (Mr. Dalrymple) could not help thinking, when the hon. Member for Chelsea denied the possibility of dealing with the complete question of Reform in one Session, that it would not have been so very impossible if only the Government, in the Session in which they intended to deal with the question before, had not brought forward a great mass of other legislation with which they did not seriously intend to deal. He referred, of course, to such measures as the Bill for the Government of London,

    1153
    which certainly was a question not suitable to be introduced in a Session in which Parliament was to be asked to deal with the question of Reform. Unlike the hon. and learned Member for Chatham—with many of whose remarks he found himself in considerable agreement—he intended to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). He was always sorry, in reference to the Franchise Bill, if a construction were put on a vote in favour of such an Amendment that it was a vote against the Bill, and there was none who felt that more keenly than he did, for it so happened that he enjoyed the singular privilege of being the only surviving Conservative Member who voted in 1874 with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Trevelyan). It was true, as he explained in a subsequent year, that he did not think it wise, year after year, to press the question on a then reluctant Parliament, and he gave effect to that opinion by a vote in, he thought, 1876. At all events, having always considered that an extension of the franchise was a necessary corollary of the legislation of 1867, he had no difficulty in resuming in the present year the attitude which he formerly took up when the question was not quite so popular as it was now. He could not help noticing, in passing, when reference was made to the conversion of Members of the Conservative Party on this question, the number of conversions that had taken place on the other side of the House. When they heard the Conservative Party charged with being secretly opposed to the extension of the franchise and with distrust of the people, he could not help remembering that, in some of those years when the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster brought forward this question, his right hon. Friend complained that he had three great opponents to contend against—the Prime Minister of that day, The Times newspaper, and what he then described as the late Solicitor General. The late Solicitor General to whom he referred was the present Home Secretary. So that if there had been conversions on the Conservative side of the House, conversions on the other side had been equally notorious, and not of so very remote a date. But passing from that, he agreed with the hon. and
    1154
    learned Member for Chatham in what he said as to the approximation which had taken place between the opinions on both sides of the House with reference to this question. It was admitted that the principle of the extension of the franchise was now accepted by both sides; but he presumed still to hold that the question which they had urged both in and out of Parliament was also of paramount importance—that they should have the whole measure of the Government scheme of Reform before them. He saw two maps the other day in an able evening journal, which professed to give an account of the number of meetings held in the country on the one side or the other during the Recess. He did not know that he attached special importance to the number of meetings, or to the number who attended the meetings, on one side or the other. He should think from the nature of the case it was highly probable that a greater number of meetings was held in favour of the Franchise Bill, because if they asked people to believe the Franchise Bill was in danger, undoubtedly they could get numerous and largely attended meetings in support of the Bill. Many of those who got up the meetings knew perfectly well the Franchise Bill was not really in danger, and that what was contended for on the Conservative side was not that the Franchise Bill should not pass, but that they should have the whole scheme of Reform before them. He had heard with satisfaction much of the speech of the Prime Minister to-night. He recognized not only the conciliatory spirit of that speech, but he regarded with satisfaction the sketch of the scheme of Redistribution which the right hon Gentleman had put before them. He recognized in that sketch something of the sketch which the right hon. Gentleman put before the House last Session. But why, if the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to advance his scheme of Reform, as he believed the right hon. Gentleman was, did he not go one step further, and having shadowed forth the scheme of Redistribution, undertake to lay it on the Table of the House after the Franchise Bill had passed this House? If he had done that it would not only have been conciliatory, it would have been much more; it would have shown the House and the country that he was anxious to meet

    1155
    the fair demand which the Conservative Party had made—a demand which was according to precedent—and by so doing he would have found he would have greatly facilitated the passing of the measure of Reform. He sometimes wondered if hon. Gentlemen opposite seriously disputed the contention which the Conservatives made. It was difficult for him to believe that they did not feel the force of that contention, especially as it was well known that they only contended for what had been granted in former times—namely, the exhibition of the full scheme of Reform—a contention which, when the last measure of Reform was before Parliament, was advocated by two men who were now Members of Her Majesty's Government at the present time. They had heard a good deal about a crisis at the present time. He had sometimes been inclined to question what the nature of the crisis was. It was not seriously stated, he thought, that it was a crisis of the country; but was it really a crisis of the Franchise Bill? Could that, for one moment, be said to be true? If it had been said hitherto, it could not be said after what had passed to-night. He believed, if crisis there were, it was a crisis of the Government. The difference of opinion which existed was not a difference of opinion between the House of Parliament and the country. It was a difference between the majority of the other House and the Minister of the day. As he had said, he believed if the Minister of the day—a phrase he used in preference to the Ministry of the day—had gone one step further than he did to-night, and had promised to lay on the Table of the House a scheme of Redistribution on something like the lines which he had described, he believed the right hon. Gentleman would have found that much of the difficulty with which he had to contend would disappear. He agreed entirely with the spirit of part of the remarks of the Prime Minister when he spoke of dealing with this question, not in a partizan or Party spirit, but in a wider and more generous spirit. He (Mr. Dalrymple) did not envy the man who had hoped, out of this present excitement with reference to the Reform Question, to catch the passing breeze of partizan support. He did believe, as had been said more than once, that there was nothing in the issue between them
    1156
    which could not easily be settled if only there was a disposition to settle it. But, as the hon. and learned Member for Chatham pointed out, there was an element which rendered the settlement of the question a difficult one, and that was, that there was a number of Gentlemen in the House, and a certain number of persons outside the House, who were looking beyond the present controversy, and were endeavouring to import into it notions of a more extended change than had anything to do with it. He had a doubt whether, in the event of the passing of this measure, those persons would easily be disposed to part with their cry against the House of Lords. But, be that as it might, he could only say that while he supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend with the utmost heartiness, believing that the Conservatives were contending, as they were in the early part of the year, for what was absolutely just—namely, that they should see the complete scheme of the Government—he did sincerely desire, as there was a considerable approximation of opinion between the two sides of the House on this question, that there might still be found a means of reconciling the differences which remained; and he believed it was quite within the power of Her Majesty's Government, if they were so disposed, to introduce a scheme of Redistribution which would strengthen the representative institutions of the country, and which would give satisfaction to both Parties in the State.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that, while recognizing the conciliatory speech of the Prime Minister as one worthy of himself and of the occasion, the real question was whether the right hon. Gentleman could not go one step further than he had done. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman spoke, not from an abstract idea of the question, but from a concrete one—that he had, in fact, a complete scheme in his own mind, and if it was not actually framed, yet it was in such a condition as would shortly enable it to be laid on the Table. He (Mr. Gregory) was as anxious as any hon. Member to pursue a conciliatory course on this occasion; and he would, therefore, seriously entreat the Prime Minister, if he had such a scheme as that suggested, to lay it at once on the Table. They were very much in the

    1157
    position of litigants who approximated closely to each other on material points at issue, and who only needed the interposition of one or two judicious friends to arrive at a complete settlement. If the Prime Minister would communicate the details of his Bill to some hon. Gentlemen of moderate opinions, whose weight and authority were recognized by the Conservative Party, and if its details were discussed on both sides, some settlement might be arrived at, and a measure might be produced acceptable generally to the country. The Prime Minister was bound to lay before the House the details of the measure which he had shadowed forth, and to do so before he called upon it for a final vote in regard to the measure now before it.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that in the speeches to which the House had already listened it was manifest that what was in the mind of every speaker was really the subject of Redistribution, and not that of Franchise. He thought no stronger evidence could be adduced of the wisdom which dictated the policy of the Government in separating these two questions. If they had the two subjects before them, Members would have passed from one subject to the other, and it would have been almost impossible to maintain an orderly debate. He thought that, if they might judge from the speeches that had been already made, the Conservative Party had become reconciled to the passage of the Franchise Bill. That being so, he could only wonder that this measure should be again delayed, and that the Conservative Party did not co-operate in getting it out of the way so as to make progress with the serious question of Redistribution. He had had many opportunities of judging public opinion as shown at large meetings in various parts of the country; and he did not hesitate to say that no issue could be so destructive to the power of the Conservative Party as a repetition of the action of the House of Lords with regard to this Bill. If it were again rejected, it would be almost impossible for the Conservative Party to stand up against the odium which would be generated throughout the country during the winter. He maintained that the Bill which they were now discussing was in itself a compromise. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had expressed a wish that the
    1158
    Prime Minister had gone a step further, and given them some assurances as to the Redistribution Scheme, and had said that under those circumstances the Bill would have had an easy passage through that House. But even if the Liberal Party were disposed to bring in a one-sided Redistribution Bill they would be powerless to carry it. If they were to attempt anything like jerrymandering, they would lose all their popularity and power in the country. He hoped the Conservative Party would do all that was necessary in influencing a noble Lord who exercised such an influence in "another place." He was satisfied the longer the settlement of this question was put off the more drastic would its nature be. For his own part, he should prefer that there should be a general understanding come to, by means of which the present measure should be allowed to pass through both Houses, and by which a Redistribution Bill might be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible. As to the Redistribution Scheme which the Government would propose, he feared it was not such a scheme as would be acceptable to the Advanced Liberal Party. The words of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) should be well weighed. He believed the Liberal Party had done with compromise, and he trusted the Government would not move one step further in that direction, and he did not hesitate to say the country would ratify the course they had taken.
    MR. BIDDELL: Sir, when I came into the House, I, as an independent Member, did not know on which side I was going to vote, for I felt convinced that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) would have suggested some practical course satisfactory to both Parties; but though he has spoken with great suavity and gentleness—to use his own term—yet he has done nothing of the sort; the Bill, therefore, is no forwarder than it was months back. In the Recess the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) made a most statesmanlike, conciliatory speech, which I was delighted to read; but I much regret that nothing has come of it. After all, what do the Lords require? Simply that they should have a general knowledge of Part 2 before they pass Part 1 of this great Reform Bill. I think, seeing how the two Parts so intimately affect

    1159
    one another, their request a reasonable one. But for the sake of argument let us assume that it is a whim or prejudice of the Lords; it would then be well for the Government to humour it, for the purpose of speedily passing the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman would then show that his anxiety to pass the Bill was greater than his apparent dislike to the Lords. The Government has argued against such a course; but, under the force of circumstances, they could most honourably pursue it. We are told that the Redistribution Bill is now ready; but the Government practically tells its supporters that if it lets them know what it contained, they would not pass the Franchise Bill. A more unjust reflection could not be cast upon them, for more faithful followers no Government ever had; for, indeed, hardly one faithless Member can be found amongst them. The Government views could easily be made public, without formally placing them on the Table, either of this or the other House. I cannot appreciate the secrecy of the Government, for, if I mistake not, our countrymen hate secrecy, but will fully value openness and candidness. Statesmanship is shown in devising good measures, and proclaiming them to the country. The Premier has indicated that he would give more information respecting the Seats Bill, but it has not been asked for. I would now ask, are boroughs of less than 10,000 inhabitants to lose their Members? Are those of 40,000 to be winged by losing one Member? Is grouping of large towns to be carried out, thus preventing the counties being swamped by town population? And is the anomaly to be continued of county residents being unable to vote for their property in the boroughs, while the residents in the latter are still to vote in respect of their freeholds in the counties? Even now, if the Government would pursue this course and treat the House with confidence and adopt a conciliatory course, my vote shall not be found in opposition to them.
    MR. SAMUEL SMITHsaid, he warned hon. Members opposite not to be misled by the quiet tone within the House into thinking a similar state of feeling prevailed without. In the country the agitation had reached a point which might be described as alarming. It was no satisfaction to him to see such a growth of sentiment out-of-doors, as he
    1160
    desired to see great Constitutional questions settled in a Constitutional manner, and not by a wild demagogic agitation. Out-of-doors this question was coming almost exclusively to be regarded as a struggle between the two Houses, and the issue was which should prevail—the elective or the hereditary? Was that the state of things which Conservatives could regard with much satisfaction? He had no desire to see the agitation assume a revolutionary character, which it would certainly assume if it continued much longer. He could foresee during the coming winter a state of things which they would all deplore if the Franchise Bill were thrown out a second time. There was great distress prevailing, and serious questions as to the soundness of our social system. If the Peers invited this agitation, it would not only be directed against the Upper House, but against the aristocracy and the holders of property generally. He felt deeply afraid that there would merge out of the strife a new Party like the Social Democrats of Germany, and that the guidance of Parties would pass from the hands of wise statesmen into that of extreme and violent men who were watching their opportunity. It was considerations of that kind which made him, as a moderate man, desire to see a speedy settlement arrived at. True Conservatism would best be shown in the effecting of a speedy settlement of this question. If the irritation which existed led to the wrecking of this measure, history taught them that in a few years a much stronger one would have to be assented to, and that either the Tories or Liberals would have to pass a Bill for manhood suffrage and equal electoral districts. All men must see that was the goal to which they were drifting. There were many hon. Members on that side of the House who had no desire to swamp Conservative feeling, and who would not be parties to any unfair scheme of Redistribution, if such were proposed, which he was certain the present Government would not do. He could not conceive that any lines of redistribution could be drawn more fair or more just than those shadowed forth by the Prime Minister in his opening speech. It would be a hopeless task to try and pass the two measures combined. The Government possessed no means of driving this complicated measure through

    1161
    the House, except the certainty that the Franchise Bill would pass into law at a given time. That being the fact, he could not conceive the excessive unwillingness there was to permit the Franchise Bill to pass. The statesmanlike speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) gave great comfort to him (Mr. Samuel Smith) and to others, and it held out some hope that this great controversy might be brought to a close without a violent dislocation in the country. Terrible times were in store for them if this question was kept open for a year or two. He hoped the two Houses of Parliament would soon join in passing this Bill, which preserved the ancient character of our Constitution.
    MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, he thought a rather one-sided view had been taken of the agitation which had raged throughout the country during the Recess. He did not wish to minimize the importance of the agitation. It had doubtless intensified Radical feeling; but he doubted whether the Conservative working men had been affected in the slightest degree by the agitation. He spoke with some knowledge of working men, as he employed 5,000 of them in Lancashire, and he represented a constituency the great mass of which consisted of colliers and other working men. As far as his own experience went, he found no diminution of the Conservative feeling which undoubtedly did exist before the autumn agitation. He would appeal to his right hon. Friend's (Sir R. Assheton Cross's) testimony with regard to the meeting held at Wigan a short time ago. The colliers in South Lancashire were, to a very great extent, Conservatives, and the colliers were a very fair representative class of the working men throughout that county. He did not know what the agitation might be worth in other parts of the country. There had been a great deal of sound and fury in it, and large meetings had been held both by Liberals and Conservatives. The real question before them was, whether the Conservatives were justified in their contention that redistribution ought to be considered in connection with the extension of the franchise? The right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) might be quoted in support of that contention; but when the right hon. Gentleman was quoted he generally retorted
    1162
    that the quotation was a lie, or used words to that effect. When, however, his contradiction was analyzed, it simply amounted to this—that a quotation which applied to a state of things when the Conservatives were in Office was totally inapplicable to a state of things existing when the Liberals were in Office. He might also quote in support of the Conservative contention the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fawcett) whose loss they had now to deplore. However, he would not go into that question, because he thought it had been debated sufficiently. He believed that the Conservatives had made out their case, not only in the House and in "another place," but also in the country; and the more the country examined the justice of their contention the more, he was convinced, would it be convinced of the justice of their arguments.
    MR. ELTONsaid, he thought that on his side of the House sentiments had been expressed with which the other side perfectly agreed. It afforded him great pleasure to recognize the spirit of conciliation and good feeling which the Prime Minister had shown in his speech. Throughout the excitement of the autumn he (Mr. Elton) had been one among the small minority who had always thought the question in dispute was a thing that ought to be settled; and as we belonged to a nation remarkable for its common sense, he had always believed that it would be settled, and he could not give up that belief. The Prime Minister laid down certain principles which would animate him in dealing with redistribution, and though they differed from the principles which the right hon. Gentleman personally laid down on a previous occasion, he thought the differences were in some respects for the better. What had frightened the Conservative Party on a former occasion was the idea that there was to be one rule to apply to Ireland by which the same number of Members were to be given to her as she had now, and another to apply to Scotland by which she was to have more, the result of which two rules would be that England would suffer. He thought, however, from what had been said, that the different portions of the United Kingdom would be regarded from the same point of view. The right hon. Gentleman

    1163
    the Prime Minister had asked on a former occasion, "What is it you Conservative Gentlemen fear?" The fear was two-fold; one was that there would be a General Election on the present constituencies without redistribution, so that the agricultural interest would be swamped; and the other was that there would be a Redistribution Scheme, as to which, though they could not exactly define the fear, they had distinct warning that it would be one which they would never pass except under pressure of time. But those two fears had been somewhat allayed by the conciliatory tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought they should know a little more about the rules of redistribution, something that would not consist in mere generalities. Those rules could be drawn up by any three sensible men on either side of the House, and when they were drafted the victory of the Conservative Party would have been won. They wanted to come to business, and they wanted to come to figures, and he was quite sure that if they did so their unanimity would be wonderful.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that after the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), who stated that he had "made a vulgar and coarse speech about the House of Lords," he felt bound to say a few words. These words if used by ordinary men or newspapers would not affect him at all. He had never made any attack upon individuals, and had always referred to classes and Parties. If he had cared to have done so, he could have amused his audiences over and over again with what he knew about individual Members of the House of Lords. He could even have told of an ancestor of the hon. Member himself who was known as "Jacobin Stanhope" and "Citizen Stanhope," the friend of Horne Tooke and Hardy, and who probably, if he had not been a Peer, would have been put into the dock beside them. He had never called the Leader of the Opposition the "Moloch of Mid Lothian," nor called a Member of the Opposition a "pinchbeck Robespierre," nor talked about "snivel and drivel." He had known many Members of the House of Lords who were ornaments of the Order to which they belonged. But what he said was that, collectively, they had not only been of no use, but had been unmitigated
    1164
    mischiefs. For 250 years, and for 250 years only, the House of Lords had been a political power in England, and he challenged anybody to find that during that time they had ever done a single just act or expressed a single generous sentiment. Some one had attempted to defend the House of Lords, on the ground that they interposed between Fox's India Bill and the King, but, in his opinion, so far from that being an action to be applauded, it was one of the basest acts in their base history.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is referring to the other branch of the Legislature, and I am bound to remind him that he must speak with respect of the House of Lords.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he would withdraw the expression at once. He would simply refer to the facts of the case, and he would say now, what he would probably say again, that a great many Members of the House of Lords ought not to be in any House of Assembly at all. Might he not remind hon. Members that Bills were constantly being brought into that House to settle the estates of noble profligates?
    MR. FINCH-HATTON: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to call your attention to the words just used by the hon. Member, after he has already been reproved for similar expressions.
    MR. SPEAKER: The remarks of the hon. Member are, I think, regrettable, and I do not see that they are relevant to the Question now before the House—namely, the Franchise Bill.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: As the hon. Member has referred to observations of my own, I must direct his attention to the particular point that was in my mind. I was alluding in particular to the speech of the hon. Member wherein he compared the House of Lords to Sodom and Gomorrah, and to the collective abominations of an Egyptian temple.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSrepeated, that what he said then he said now, that during the whole period of the existence of the House of Lords he could discover no righteous act and no generous sentiment that had ever been advocated by them. In order to make plain what he meant to his audience of working men—who probably knew their New Testament better than hon. Gentlemen opposite—he had said that of such a record

    1165
    as that of the House of Lords he thought he could say, in the words of the New Testament—"It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for the House of Lords." He was bound to say that he was not at all inclined to retract anything he had said. He did not intend to allege the identity of the House of Lords with the cities of the Plain; he simply said that collective misconduct was to be interpreted under the principles of collective judgment. Having explained the expression he had made use of, he hoped, to the satisfaction of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Stanhope), he would like to say a few words on the subject before the House. He gladly recognized the fairness of the Prime Minister's desire to bring about a generous understanding, on the points at issue, between all Parties; but he could not help entertaining the opinion that the Franchise Bill would leave untouched certain institutions which called for reform. For example, it was hard that the gentlemen known as "freemen" were still to flourish. He knew a borough in which the freemen sold their votes collectively to one candidate, and they might generally be regarded as constituting the worst possible form of manhood suffrage. Then when they misconducted themselves they were never punished. He lived in a borongh (Oxford) which boasted the presence of a Dean and Chapter, and all such boroughs were corrupt. The only explanation he could suggest of this was that the Deans and Chapters set up a standard of impossible virtue, and that the mass of the population rushed into the opposite extreme of degrading vice. Be that as it might, it was hard upon the ratepayers of Oxford that they should have been compelled to pay several thousands of pounds for a rotten Election Commission, which let off all the real culprits, and that not one single shilling should have come out of the pockets of the freemen. In 1832 the freemen were disfranchised by that House, but were restored to their position by that august and noble Assembly which met in an adjacent Chamber, just as that Assembly would always restore any mischievous and scandalous institution.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must remind the hon. Member that his remarks are contrary to the principles of
    1166
    amenity which should guide the conduct of Members of this House in speaking of the other House.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that he did not mean to say anything uncivil of the other House; but there were occasions when one's feelings got the better of one's judgment. He objected to the enjoyment by one man of a plurality of votes. He (Mr. Thorold Rogers) possessed that most mischievous and noxious franchise known as the University franchise, and he had other votes besides. Why should he have more than one? He should be quite content with only one. A great many hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House were disinclined to swallow many of the things which the Prime Minister had placed in the Franchise Bill, in a spirit of conciliation, but for the sake of peace and compromise they had elected to accept them. It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that these things would be permanently settled on the lines which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had laid down. He felt sure that public opinion would oppose the system of the plural vote, and all fancy franchises. Neither would it be made to believe that any reason existed why members of a University should have votes, when members of the Inns of Court, of the Apothecaries' Company, and of the City Companies had none. It was idle to suppose that the people, whose minds had been stirred to their very depths by the facts that had been brought before them during the last three months, would remain quiet for ever after the passing of the Bill. They would, he felt sure, keep on agitating in order to bring about a really fair representation of the English people in Parliament.
    MR. GUY DAWNAYsaid, that he did not think it necessary to reply to the extraordinary and painful speech which the House had just heard. The mere fact that the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) rose professing his habit of using gentle and generous language, and had then made so ill-conditioned a speech that he had been called to Order three times for speaking disrespectfully of another Chamber, was sufficient comment upon it. After the speech of the hon. Member they would be curious to hear whether Billingsgate was to be made a separate constituency under the new scheme of Redistribution.

    1167
    He had no desire to detain the House long on a subject so monotonously one-sided, or on a point so thoroughly threshed out, and, on their side, so amply proved, as the necessity of combining the operation of a Redistribution Act with the present measure for the extension of the suffrage. He could understand easily enough, of course, that, for the satisfaction, and with the applause, of an uneducated or prejudiced audience, the subject was capable of being distorted by a skilful use of the suppressio veri, and by a reckless employment of the suggestio falsi; and that, at least, they had seen demonstrated with all the weekly regularity of Saturday afternoon agitation. He could understand the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) amusing himself by playing with the intelligence of a Welsh audience, and smiling as they swallowed fallacy after fallacy amidst gulping cheers; but he could not understand how, amongst hon. Gentlemen occupying seats in that House, after the manner with which the measure had been turned inside out during the many heavy months that the discussion had endured, there should be any disposition still to deny the necessity of a Redistribution Bill being brought in contemporaneously with the Franchise Bill. One of the most notable features of the discussion had been the disposition of hon. Gentlemen on this particular point to swallow their own words—to repudiate them without mercy and without apparent memory either. In saying this, he had no wish to refer to all those bygone accusing pages of Hansard or of the daily Press that bore witness to the political acrobacy of various right hon. Gentlemen. It was to a very recent exemplification of this reversibility of reasoning he wished to allude, and he would like the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) to give the House some explanation with respect to the chief argument he had used the other day, when he went to sound his Ministerial war-whoop in Wales. He (Mr. Guy Dawnay) might, however, be wrong in using the word "war-whoop," because the right hon. Gentleman had explained that he expressly deprecated on the part of his audience any of that violence which, he reminded them, had been so useful on former occasions. He did that merely from his natural love of historical
    1168
    reminiscence; and, after that, any subsequent rioting could not, of course, be laid to the charge of the speaker, any more than, in the well-known instance, already alluded to that evening, of nailing a certain person's ears to the pump, that brutality was perpetrated in spite of the impassioned protest of another maligned and misconstrued orator. The right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech at Denbigh, a month ago, by declaring, with more modesty than waste of accuracy, his own inability to twist and turn and change his opinions, like the Tories. He accused us of changing every full moon, elated by the proud consciousness that it had taken him some 10 revolving moons to deliver himself of a brand new and totally opposite set of opinions as to the value of redistribution. And he then proceeded—
    "Now, ladies and gentlemen, this question of the franchise is one which is especially interesting for the people of Wales. You have nothing to gain in any case from redistribution, although, if Lord Salisbury had his way, you would have a good deal to lose; but with regard to the franchise, it is altogether a different matter. Will you be content that these men should be deprived of all their rights, that this unjust and unreasonable disqualification should continue?"
    Now, he would ask the House to compare those words with the opinions expressed by the same right hon. Gentleman in Birmingham last year. He then said—
    "But, gentlemen, there is a more important question before us than the extension of the franchise. We have to see that an equal valne is given to the vote. It is no use increasing the number of voters, if you water them and minimize the political influence which the vote confers. It is no use putting 1,000,000 in the place of 100,000, if the 1,000,000 have no greater power than the 100,000."
    He would like to hear from the President of the Board of Trade how it was that an increase of voters without a corresponding increase and readjustment of the influence of their votes was condemned by him as absolutely useless last year, while this year the slightest delay in making that absolutely useless increase was denounced by him in inflammatory language as altogether unreasonable and unjust? Would the right hon. Gentleman, who so greatly deprecated inconsistency in others, condescend to explain this sudden alteration of his views between Wales and Warwickshire, between 1883 and 1884? Or was it possible that his views and logic were both

    1169
    somewhat warped by his eagerness to pay off that old reckoning of his with the House of Lords, and by his eagerness, by consulting a new, even if a watered, electorate, to avoid the chance of adding yet another "ejected Minister" to the records of his line? The Prime Minister made a direct statement in the House that evening which he had made also in Mid Lothian, and which had been likewise made lately by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster)—namely, that the extension of the franchise even without redistribution was in itself and by itself a good thing. Now, it appeared from the Return obtained by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) that 20,000,000 inhabitants in the counties of the United Kingdom, with nearly 3,250,000 electors, would return 283 Members, while the boroughs, with something more than 13,000,000 inhabitants and 1,920,000 electors, would return 360 Members; that was to say, that the counties, with 1,250,000 more electors and over 6,000,000 more inhabitants, would return 77 fewer Members than the boroughs. That meant that the voters in the boroughs would each possess more than double the influence, in a future Election, of the county voters, and the county Members would, in a new Parliament, have only half the influence which they ought to possess as against the borough Members, and which they would be required to exercise in maintaining the rights of the counties against those of the boroughs, either in settling a Redistribution measure, or on any other point on which the interests of borough and county might diverge. Nor was that all. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had said that in 30 county constituencies out of 95 this Franchise Bill meant an entire transfer of power from the rural to the urban element. That was to say, that in nearly one-third of the county constituencies they would give the whole of the electoral power to the boroughs, on the ridiculous pretence of widening the franchise of the counties in which the boroughs were situated. Therefore, they were giving to the boroughs not only double, but treble, the power they ought to possess, and with that enormous predominance of borough-elected, or virtually borough-elected Members, they proposed to settle the Redistribution Question, in which the
    1170
    interests of town and county were diametrically opposed. How the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) could honestly persuade himself that the urgency of adding to the electorate, even without waiting for redistribution, had suddenly in 1884 become so great that it was worth running the risk he had foreshadowed, or how the scruples which hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House avowed as influencing them and forcing them to insist on the safeguard of a suspensory clause could be denounced as a baseless subterfuge for delay, he could not understand. Never was there a question on which the real point at issue was more deliberately disregarded, or a controversy which in itself was more easy of solution. There was no doubt in this dispute as to which of the Parties should give way—the Party which looked upon this as a mere point of procedure, or the Party which regarded it as a vital question of principle. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) had told the country that this was a mere matter of procedure. They (the Opposition) did not so consider it. They said it was a matter of principle; and that in resisting even the possibility of the extension of the franchise without, at the same time, readjustment and reapportionment of electoral power, they were loyally doing their best as a minority in that House, though—as he believed—not a minority in the country, to prevent a fatal blow being dealt at their whole representative system, and, through that, at the real liberties of the country.
    MR. RAIKESsaid, be was not going to follow the hon. Member for Southwark in his justification of the attack which that hon. Gentleman had made on the House of Lords, because the language used by the hon. Member was not likely to form an interesting subject of discussion either in that or the other House of Parliament. But the hon. Member was good enough to indicate a wish that in any scheme of redistribution the University franchise might be extinguished, and he went on to enforce that by saying that be had a vote for the University of Oxford. In reply to that he entreated the House not to think his constituents were to be judged by the sample they had come across to-night. But, coming to the main question,

    1171
    it was impossible to deny that those who sat on the Opposition Benches had listened with very mingled feelings to the speech in which the second reading of the Bill was moved. No one would dispute that that speech was very much more in accordance with their views than the last which they had heard from the same quarter. They could not forget that the third reading of the Franchise Bill in July was introduced in a speech which certainly had been considered as conveying to the other House of Parliament, if not a menace, at any rate an intimation of some terrible consequences which would follow upon their exercising their own judgment upon this measure. To-day they heard that the language then used not only by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, but his Colleagues, had been rather the language of a kind host, who, perceiving his own house to be in flames, had invited his guest upstairs to descend before the fire reached him. It appeared to him rather like the language of a man who went about brandishing a torch in his hand and exclaiming to the inmate—"If you do not come out of the room you will find the house blazing about your ears." He did not see any reason why they should take any exception to the language or the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in his speech on this question to-night; but he was afraid when they came to analyze the view he put before the House they would find that, excepting language, they had not gained very much. He had hoped against hope that they should have heard from the Prime Minister something that would give substantial effect to his evident desire for conciliation. The right hon. Gentleman still told them that the question of the Franchise cast the question of Redistribution into the shade, and that he could not deal with the question in the same or even in simultaneous Bills, otherwise the House would lose control over its own Business. He would have gladly seen the right hon. Gentleman in his place, for he wished to call attention to a reference which he (Mr. Gladstone) had made to a speech of his own. He had no exception to take to the verbal accuracy of the quotation; but he wished to point out how entirely the Prime Minister—no doubt, through
    1172
    misadventure—had misrepresented what he stated. He quoted the speech as saying—
    "If the Redistribution Bill was introduced next year, it was very doubtful whether it would receive the Royal Assent before the 31st of July."
    He had used that argument to show how difficult it was to pass the two Bills separately, and he said it was absolutely impossible to pass a Franchise Bill and a Redistribution Bill in one Session, if you separated the one from the other, unless you came to an understanding with the Opposition. The Redistribution Bill which saw the light the other day proposed the disfranchisement of 110 seats, of which some 70 were occupied by Liberals. The Government passed the Franchise Bill by a majority of 130, as they were always telling the House, with the assistance of those 70 Gentlemen. Did hon. Members suppose that if their majority remained in other respects the same those 70 Members would vote for a Redistribution Bill which put their own seats in peril in the same way that they voted for the Franchise Bill? If they left the Redistribution Bill to take care of itself, Heaven help it among those 70 Members. The result would be that the course the Government took, while it secured the enthusiastic support of their more advanced adherents, would not please the moderate section so much. The position of the Government was not unlike that of a man who had to drive a cart heavily laden with all sorts of parcels of different sizes up a hill, and who, in order to please the spectators, cut the traces and galloped his horse up the hill as hard as he could, leaving himself to carry up his load as best he might—or, to take another illustration, suppose you wished to hit a mark you would naturally make up a cartridge for that purpose; but do you think it would be prudent or wise to expend all your powder in fireworks and feux de joie, leaving the bullet to propel itself by its momentum? He had always felt that in attempting to deal with redistribution alone, the Government had immensely increased their difficulties. Moreover, he believed that the object of a Reform Bill was to fulfil its title, and a Bill which aggravated every injustice and remedied none was not worthy of that title. They had heard some valuable

    1173
    statistics from his hon. Friend with regard to the enormous injustice done to the new constituencies by leaving them without redistribution. They found that the new constituencies in the counties would have something like twice the number of voters they had before, and the boroughs would thus have a double share of representation in comparison with the new county constituencies. People had talked about the question of Reform as if it was the only one which would be likely to occupy the attention of the House in the next two years. What would be the position of the country and the House if a change of Government was brought about in the course of 1886 by any other event, and they had a Minister called to power who would be entirely unable to command the majority in the existing House of Commons, but who would, under ordinary circumstances, have the Constitutional remedy of a Dissolution? Such a Minister would be debarred from exercising that Constitutional remedy, and would not be justified in going to the country without a much more certain means of forming a judgment of the position of his Government than any which he could possibly possess. That state of things meant that the present Government, if the House passed the Franchise Bill without Redistribution, was to be kept in Office for a whole year without the possibility of the Queen, or the House, or the country securing a change in the Administration. Thus they were placed in a position wholly and absolutely without precedent in this country or in any other country in the world, and one which could only be pregnant with the most serious evils and misfortunes, resulting from a state of affairs in which there was no possible way of ascertaining the real feeling of the English people. The Prime Minister, in speaking of the question of Redistribution that evening, said there were five principles which must underlie the question. The right hon. Gentleman said that the scheme must be large, that it must be framed so as to give satisfaction to those who believed that population should be represented, that it should not be complex, that it should be equitable to the different divisions of the country, and that it must be equitable between different classes and different pursuits. He thought it was hardly worth
    1174
    while that the Prime Minister should come there that evening and tell the House those things which were written in the very copy-book of politics. The points mentioned did not go one step further towards the root of the matter. He thought they might have heard some indication as to the limit to be fixed with regard to the return of Members, and as to whether they were to have an absolute extinction of small boroughs, or a grouping of boroughs. He also looked for some remarks with reference to the representation of minorities. No information, however, was given on any of those points; but, notwithstanding that, they no doubt would be told that the Prime Minister had displayed almost a too eager spirit of concession and conciliation in endeavouring to meet halfway a perverse and recalcitrant Opposition. No concession had really been made, though at the same time they gladly admitted the alteration in the tone of the right hon. Gentleman, and the more moderate spirit in which his remarks were made. The House might be quite prepared to give a just extension of the franchise, or even to go as far as the present Bill in swelling the existing county constituencies; but had the time not arrived when they ought to consider whether they should not retain for the future some portion of the representation which minorities had hitherto enjoyed? It had been stated that the present constituency of East Cheshire numbered 6,000 or 7,000; but that the new constituency, taken under the scheme of the Government, would be about 30,000. The existing constituency, therefore—that was to say, the persons who possessed property and who paid any appreciable amount in the shape of rates—would be absolutely submerged in the flood of the new electors. In the face of such a fact as that they ought to have regard to the right of representation put forward by minorities. He appealed to the Government not to put this question aside without some consideration and declaration. If he thought that the Government intended to accompany their Franchise Scheme with some measure that would give a just representation to the minorities in the large towns, he should regard the Bill now before the House with very much less doubt and anxiety than he did now. He entirely discountenanced

    1175
    the idea of making that House a branch of the Executive and the representative of the majority only in the constituencies of the country. He hoped that the Government would, before the House passed the Bill, state their views on the pressing question of the representation of minorities. Before concluding he desired to refer to a speech made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), which contained the celebrated sentence, advising that any Franchise Bill which did not deal with Redistribution should be repudiated without mercy. The right hon. Gentleman, when he was asked whether this placard faithfully represented what he had said, was pleased to say that it was a lie, or used language equivalent to that. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman on that statement. In 1876 Mr. Lowe quoted this very passage in the House in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman. The passage was to be found in a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman in 1859 at Bradford, and was to be found in the 182nd volume of Hansard, page 1,715. When Mr. Lowe cited the passage on April 19, 1866, the right hon. Gentleman was unable to deny it. Would he deny it in 1884? He ventured now to say it was a lie. That occasion ought not to pass without the right hon. Gentleman explaining in his place what he meant, or did not mean, by the letter in which he denied the quotation. Whatever might be the character of that House in other respects, nothing was more precious than the absolute veracity of its Members. He would conclude by repeating his perfect conviction that if the Government wished to endanger the progress of the Franchise Bill and to delay the enfranchisement of 2,000,000 of persons, they could not do better than separate the two measures. From a speech made at Westminster the other day by the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), it would appear that the Government were almost thirsting to receive suggestions about redistribution. But he would suggest that that was a matter for the Government, although he could assure them that any measure on the subject would be received by the Opposition with the fairest consideration.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he did not agree very much with the right
    1176
    hon. Gentleman who had just spoken; but he did so in one respect—namely, in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman that the question of redistribution of political power could never be settled in that House, unless there was a certain measure of consent between the two Parties. He did not propose to enter into any matter of detail, because he concurred in the views which had induced the Prime Minister to commend to the House a Bill which would otherwise have been thought of too Conservative a character. The hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Guy Dawnay) had kindly alluded to a Return which had been ordered by the House at his (Mr. Arnold's) request. He felt it his duty to express his thanks to Her Majesty's Government for the readiness with which they had accepted the labours which it had been his privilege to devote to that Return. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) in the reference they had made to the Amendment proposed to the second reading of the Bill, because he did not think any argument he or the most eminent Member of the House could adduce could be significant as compared with the overwhelming Resolution of the House itself. It had already declared its preference for dividing the subject into two separate parts; and it was idle, in the face of that overwhelming decision, for any private or official Member to argue the question. It was altogether beside the question for the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge to quote the opinions of even so eminent a Member as the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), because the question had been settled once for all by the House. They must all regret the cause which had led that evening to the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill); but apart from that lamentable cause, any hon. Member who felt an interest in the political career of the noble Lord, would be disposed to congratulate him on not having been in his place that evening to move the Amendment which stood in his name. [Mr. GORST: Hear, hear!] He had not expected the hon. and learned Member for Chatham to

    1177
    cheer that sentiment; but he thought when the noble Lord read the most able, logical, and undoubtedly successful speech of the hon. and learned Member, the distress under which he was suffering would receive considerable relief. There was one other reason why the noble Lord should have been the last man on the opposite side of the House to bring forward such an Amendment. In one of his speeches, the noble Lord stated that it was absolutely impossible for any Government or political Party to present any really unfair measure of redistribution of political power. That was one great security which the House possessed; and having listened attentively to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), he could only express a hope that a Redistribution Bill would be introduced in the present Session, and be separated by as short an interval as possible from the Franchise Bill. He, for one, had always said, and was prepared to maintain, that there ought to be no needless separation between the two measures, and he would hail with pleasure the introduction of a Redistribution Bill this year. That, however, only could be done, of course, with due regard to the passing of the measure now under the consideration of the House. He had not been in the least degree surprised to hear the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) deprecate the enfranchisement of 2,000,000 of capable citizens. The deprecation of that important measure came well from the right hon. Gentleman, who had no connection whatever with the representation of the people. He was not, however, surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had dwelt with considerable emphasis on the importance of the redistribution of seats, because he hoped that the representation of the Universities would be dealt with. He (Mr. Arnold) would rejoice if circumstances permitted the Government to introduce a Redistribution Bill during the present Session, and he could only suppose that that might be possible if Her Majesty's Government could obtain assurances for the satisfactory and secure progress of the Bill now under the consideration of the House. He thought there was great truth in the observation of the hon. and learned Member for
    1178
    Chatham (Mr. Gorst) in his interesting speech that evening—that the people of this country would be disposed to punish any political Party or person who obstructed the passage of this important measure. Every hon. Member must be aware that in the agitation which had taken place during the autumn the people had made very great sacrifices. He did not say the people of one Party or of the other; but it would be familiar to the minds of every hon. Member that hundreds of thousands of persons, and mostly working people whose time was of great value to themselves and families, had already made large sacrifices for what they believed to be the interests of the community. Those sacrifices had not been lightly made; and certainly he was disposed to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the people of this country would visit very severely upon any political Party the offence that would, to their minds, be committed by any obstruction being interposed in the way of this great question. The people of the country, no doubt, felt keenly that a class, and that the smallest, but, at the same time, endowed with political rights infinitely larger than those of any other class in the country, should set themselves in opposition to the enfranchisement of 2,000,000 of their fellow-countrymen. That fact had produced a profound impression in the minds of the people of the country, and the possible consequences had been alluded to in suitable terms by the Prime Minister, although not in terms calculated to give offence to hon. Gentlemen opposite. There could be no doubt that the progress of this Bill towards enactment ought to be speedy and secure. He had read that day in a paper published for the information of Parliament, that the House of Lords had assured Her Majesty that they would give their most careful consideration to this matter. He had read also, in Her Majesty's own words, that she had been most graciously pleased to receive that pledge on the part of the House of Lords. He hoped that that careful consideration would be given, that it would be given in a more genuine manner than last Session, and that it might lead to the speedy accomplishment of this very great and most dutiful work.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he was anxious to say a few words on this question, because he had not had the opportunity which many of his hon. Friends on that side of the House enjoyed of speaking upon it during the Recess. In consequence of the position he occupied, he had thought it better not to address any meeting outside his own constituency, and he had not, therefore, had an opportunity of expressing his feelings. No one, however, could say that, being the Representative of a great constituency, he was not fully within his right in desiring to say a few words on this most important question now before the House of Commons. He had seen it stated that there were only two persons who opposed this Bill on principle—namely, his right hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) and himself. The right hon. Gentleman was well able to speak for himself, and, therefore, he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) would not speak for him; but, speaking for himself, he would say that he did not believe there was any feeling existing in this country which rendered it imperative for the Government to bring in this Bill. The country was, he believed, perfectly satisfied with the state of things that now existed, and there was no necessity at the beginning of last Session for introducing the Bill. He did not mean to say that when the question had once been brought under the notice of the country its solution could be any longer delayed. Her Majesty's Government had brought in their Bill, and it now became the duty of men of all Parties to consider what the best solution of this most important question was. He wished to point out most strongly that if it was necessary to deal with the question at all, it was desirable that it should be dealt with as a whole, and that they should have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, without having a small portion of it brought into the House. He knew it had been alleged by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and even by the eminent authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself, that the whole question could not be dealt with in one Session—that time did not permit of its being brought in and disposed of by the House in one Session. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman possessed a very great power of persuading himself that any view which he, for one moment,
    1180
    entertained was the correct view. Therefore, he believed the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly sincere when he said so; but if it were not for the respect he felt for the right hon. Gentleman he should certainly consider that statement to be simple nonsense. Let them look back to the history of the last Session of Parliament. Parliament was called together at a period later than usual. He believed the House met some four or five days later than the usual time. It would have been quite open for Her Majesty's Government to have called Parliament together two or three weeks earlier. That would have been quite possible last year. He knew there had been great complaints of the delay which had taken place in regard to the debate on the Address, and a Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine), the object of which was to get rid of the Address, in future, altogether. But if there had been great delays on the Address, he attributed it to the conduct of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Richard Grosvenor), for whom he entertained great personal regard, and with reference to whom he wished to speak with the greatest possible respect. Hon. Members would recollect the time when the position now occupied by the noble Lord was filled by Mr. Glyn, and Mr. Glyn invariably gave facilities to private Members for bringing on their Motions. Notwithstanding the regard he felt for the noble Lord, he felt bound to say this—and he thought private Members opposite who recollected the time he spoke of would agree with him—that they had not received the same facilities from the noble Lord as they did from Mr. Glyn. Mr. Glyn always endeavoured to keep a House on Tuesdays and Fridays; but the noble Lord had never felt himself called upon to do so. That being the case, it was not to be wondered at that private Members, finding it impossible to obtain facilities on Tuesdays and Fridays, felt that the only course open to them was to bring on their grievances upon the Address. Therefore, the delay which now arose in debating the Address was a necessary delay, and must be accepted as an accomplished fact. That being so, it would have been easy for the Government to call Parliament together at the beginning of January instead of the middle of February. But what did Her

    1181
    Majesty's Government do when Parliament met? Not only did they bring in this Franchise Bill, which was to be the great question of the Session; but they overburdened the Session with other measures. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) brought in a great Shipping Bill, which was so important a measure that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it thought it necessary to make a speech of four or five hours in moving the second reading. Then, again, another right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) brought in a Bill with regard to the Government of London. Now, one thing was obvious, that if these great questions—the question of the Merchant Shipping, was a most important subject, and interested many hon. Members on both sides of the House; while the question of the Government of London, it must be admitted by hon. Gentlemen opposite, was one on which a good deal might be said, especially upon its details in Committee—if those two questions were to be dragged through the House, it was quite evident that there would not be time for the consideration of a Reform Bill. If, on the contrary, Her Majesty's Government, when they called Parliament together, last year, had devoted their whole time and attention to the question of the Representation of the People in Parliament, he believed there would have been no difficulty in laying a complete Bill before the House. Every precedent was in favour of that course. References had been made by the Prime Minister, in the course of his speech, to the events which occurred in 1831 and 1832. There was no doubt that on both of those occasions the Bill which was brought in, and ultimately passed, was a Bill dealing with the whole subject. The late Earl Russell repeatedly brought Reform Bills into Parliament, and they were always complete measures. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was at the time a Colleague of Earl Russell, who was called up to the House of Lords, and the Bill which he himself introduced, in 1866, was a Franchise Bill ultimately supplemented by a Bill for the Redistribution of Seats. The Act under which our electoral system was now constituted was brought in by Mr. Disraeli in the following year,
    1182
    and was also a complete Bill; and he wanted to ask what would have been the difficulty in the way of Her Majesty's Government if they had brought in a complete measure in the early part of the year, and had devoted the whole power of the Government towards getting it through? There could have been no difficulty whatever in passing a satisfactory measure through both Houses of Parliament last Session. Why, then, had they only introduced a partial measure? He believed the reason was this—Her Majesty's Government did not want a complete measure. He was of opinion that the Liberal Party wanted no full Bill. He believed the idea of those who regulated that Party behind the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury—namely, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) and his Friend Mr. Schnadhorst—was to bring in a Bill dealing with the Franchise only; to pass that Bill, and then to find excuses for diosolving Parliament before a Redistribution Bill was passed. ["Oh!"] He did not believe that that was the desire of the Prime Minister; but he believed that it was the real idea of the wire-pullers of the Liberal Party who wanted a Franchise Bill, but who did not want a Redistribution Bill. This Bill seemed to him to be a Bill to make the right hon. Gentleman a pseudo-Mayor of Paris. If the right hon. Gentleman was to be succeeded in that high position by his hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire, (Mr. W. H. Gladstone), as Pepin, succeeded Charles Martel, there would not be very strong objection to it; but he did not hear that his hon. Friend was mentioned in connection with that high position, and he therefore apprehended that the Successor would be found from below the Gangway. That was his idea about the Bill; and he believed the game of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to be this—to have a Franchise Bill passed, and then to offer one excuse after another—and it was always easy to find excuses at the close of a Parliament for dissolving Parliament—which would have the effect of giving the Liberal Party another six years' lease of power. They could not hope that the right hon. Gentleman would continue to be Prime Minister many years longer, and probably the right hon. Gentleman the President

    1183
    of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) would be able, six years hence, to bring in a Redistribution Bill, and to make the same appeal to the country which was being made now—namely, "The majority of the House of Commons have passed the Bill, and it is very wrong and unjustifiable for noble Lords in 'another place' to interfere with it." Under those circumstances, he certainly thought hon. Members on that side of the House were bound to give the Bill their most strenuous opposition. The agitation which had taken place during the Recess had not been directed so much against the Conservative Party in that House as against its Friends in "another place." They had been told that the House of Commons was the popular House, and that noble Lords in "another place" were bound to bow to the decision of the Representatives of the people. If Her Majesty's Government had brought in this Bill in the year 1881, he should have thought there was a good deal in that argument, although certainly, in that case, he should have been prepared to maintain that the country had not really been consulted on the questions involved in the Bill. When the country was appealed to in 1880, the Parliament had almost come naturally to its end. It could not have lasted, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite made their appeal to the country against the wicked foreign policy of the Earl of Beaconsfield's Government. They made their appeals against the wars in Afghanistan and in South Africa, and against the European policy of the Government, and they called upon the country to dispossess the Conservatives, and place them in power. The country responded to that appeal. He was not going into the question whether the result of the change had been to strengthen their Empire in India, to bring them honour in South Africa, or to increase their position in Europe. That was not the question to consider on the present occasion. What he did maintain was, that this question of Parliamentary Reform was very casually alluded to at the time of the Dissolution. It was merely a bye-question, and hon. Gentlemen opposite were elected, as regarded the question, in the same way, as, going back some 25 years ago, they would find that hon. Gentlemen pledged themselves to
    1184
    support the Ballot, believing it not to be a practical question. He was of opinion that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the same way, had pledged themselves to an extension of the Franchise, believing that it was not a practical question. ["No!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "No!" He was only giving his own opinion, but he thought there was substantial evidence in support of what he said. He believed he was correct in stating that in the Prime Minister's Mid Lothian speeches, only two lines were taken up with this question; and when hon. Members took up the Franchise Question, although, to a certain extent, they pledged themselves to it, it was not the question upon which they fought the Election. If it had been, it would have been the bounden duty of the Government opposite to have taken the question in hand in the year 1881. Nothing of the sort was done; but, on the contrary, the question was deferred to the tail end of the Parliament. After Parliament had been sitting for four years, and then with a Dissolution impending, the Bill was brought in as a cry to go to the country upon. That was his opinion in regard to the present Bill. He maintained that if, four years after the election of the Parliament, the question was to be discussed, the time had come when this very important issue ought to be submitted to the constituencies. It was not a question to be decided by a moribund Parliament, but by the people of England. He knew they were told that the people had held meetings throughout the country in favour of the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had held many meetings, and had been supported by large demonstrations in Hyde Park and Aston Park, in Birmingham, and in other places; but it seemed to him that there was but one Constitutional appeal to the people of England—namely, an appeal to a General Election. They were told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they did not fear that result; but it appeared to him that if they did not fear that result, they would resort to it with greater willingness than they were now displaying. If they were as confident as they professed to be in that House, they would more heartily appeal to the people of England, and welcome the result of such an appeal in giving them a new lease of life. When he found Her Majesty's

    1185
    Government proclaiming by their acts that they dared not face the present constituencies, the conclusion forced itself upon his mind that they were afraid of the result of an appeal to the people; and it was because they feared an appeal to the present constituencies that they were endeavouring to pass this Bill through a moribund Parliament. They had heard a great deal of abuse of the other House of Parliament. It seemed to him that when that illustrious House declined to pass a Bill until they knew what the whole scheme of Her Majesty's Government was, they were not only taking a Constitutional course which no one disputed, but they were simply doing their duty to the people of England. They had heard not only menaces, but a great many warnings held out to that illustrious Assembly, that if they did not choose to bow to the will of the House of Commons they must take the consequences. Now, he said most sincerely that if that Assembly was to fall, he should like them to fall like gentlemen. He should like them to fall fighting for a good, great, and Constitutional cause, and not simply to submit to the dictation of a Government and a subservient majority in the House of Commons. What was it that hon. Gentlemen were doing? They asked the House of Lords to pass this Bill; and what was to be the result of their refusal? They said—"If you do not pass this Bill, you will raise great Constitutional questions which may threaten the very existence of the House of Lords." If the House of Lords submitted to that degradation, and if, under that threat, they consented to pass the Bill, the result would be that they would place themselves in this position—that whatever the House of Commons sent up, no matter at what period of the Parliament it was sent up, no matter whether it was a new Parliament, a Parliament fresh from the constituencies, or a Parliament which had been sitting for many years, and no matter whether it was a question on which the constituencies had not been consulted, they would have to submit to the dictation of the House of Commons. They were also warned not to raise the question of a Second Chamber. He knew that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite were prepared to maintain that this country should be governed by one
    1186
    House of the Legislature only. He saw that an eminent Member of the House—the junior Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley)—had publicly advocated that course, and that other hon. Gentlemen were prepared to follow the views of the hon. Member; but he apprehended that many of them were of opinion that a Second Chamber should be constituted of men of experience in the law and in other matters. Did hon. Gentlemen really believe that if they were to have a Second Chamber at all, if they were to get men of position and eminence in that country to sit in such a Chamber, that they would consent to be a mere Parliament of Paris, to register the decrees of a Louis Quatorze, or of the Prime Minister of the day. They might depend upon it that any alteration of the constitution of that Second Chamber would only make it a more powerful Body than it was at the present moment. He maintained that if that illustrious Assembly—[a laugh]—hon. Members opposite sneered at the idea of the House of Lords being an illustrious Assembly; but he apprehended that the eloquence of that Assembly would not be disputed if hon. Members would take the trouble to walk to the other end of the Corridor and listen to a debate. He was prepared to say they would find that the eloquence of that Assembly would vie with anything in the House of Commons, and probably, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, there were five or six noble Lords in the other House far superior to any orators in the House of Commons. What he was going to say was that if that illustrious Assembly was simply to become a registering Body of the decrees of the House of Commons, they would much better consult their honour and their dignity by not consenting to fill such an ignominious position. They were told to avoid questions of this kind, and to avoid a great Constitutional crisis, and yet the way in which that was to be avoided was by lowering their own dignity, by consenting to degrade themselves, and by condescending to become the mere subservient tools of the Government and the majority of the day. He hoped the House of Lords would never consent to occupy such a position, and that position could not be brought about except by great Constitutional changes,

    1187
    He did not see how such Constitutional changes were to be brought about without a civil war, which he was quite satisfied the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had no wish to bring about. He trusted that if ever such a dire calamity were threatened, the House of Lords would be heartily supported by the great Conservative Party which sat in that House. He would say, in conclusion, that if that illustrious Assembly could be so false to its honour and its interests as to give their consent to this Bill at the dictation of Her Majesty's Government, then good-bye to the greatness of the British Empire.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, that hon. Members must have been very much struck with the difference between the manner and the matter of the observations which had been made that night. As far as the matter was concerned, it might be supposed that they were on the eve of a Revolution, yet he was happy to say that no desire to draw the sword was evinced either on the part of his hon. Friends, or by anybody on the other side of the House. Hon. Members, not only in the House but throughout the country, had been discussing the question as if the House of Lords were placing themselves at the present time in the same position of antagonism to the wishes of the people as they did in 1831 and 1832, and that the same feeling of anger, which was undoubtedly felt against them then, was felt and experienced against the House of Lords now. Moreover, that the same feeling that would have induced 100,000 men to march from Birmingham upon London, not for the purpose of expressing their feelings, but if necessary to give effect to those feelings by blows, animated the minds of the people at the present moment. It was idle to say that the anger referred to a short time ago by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) was anything of that kind. The only anger which existed had been stirred up by the false statements which had been made at the meetings called in behalf of the Government. The hon. Member for Salford had said very truly that the only chance of carrying a Redistribution Bill in that House was by endeavouring to get the Government to take the matter in hand, and to deal with it as if they desired the benefit of the country at large, and not of a particular
    1188
    Party in the State. But he wanted to know what chance there was of having the question dealt with by the Government in a friendly spirit if the Conservative Party were to be met as they had been that night, and during the whole of the Recess? Hon. Members on that side of the House were anxious that not only the question of redistribution, but that the entire question, instead of being dealt with as a Party question, should be dealt with as a whole, for the benefit of the country. Hon. Members opposite contended that the franchise portion of the scheme must be dealt with as a Party question. To use the expression of the Prime Minister, a claim was made that it should be dealt with by the majority; and the moment the majority had driven their bargain, and dictated the character of the Franchise Bill, and the Conservative Party in this House, and in the Lords, had unconditionally surrendered on that part of the question, then they would take Parliament into their confidence, and ask it to join with them in carrying a Redistribution Bill for the benefit of the country. He did not think that was the way the Opposition should be dealt with, if it were really desired by the Government that the whole question should be dealt with by the present House of Commons. He would remind the House of what took place in 1866—of what took place prior to the settlement of 1867. The propriety of extending the franchise in the boroughs had been the common topic of debate in that House, and had been considered by various Governments, from 1850 down to the time of the Bill of 1867, not the question of the franchise accompanied by redistribution, but the simple question of the reduction of the franchise. Every successive Government experienced the same difficulty in dealing with that question. They failed to settle it; they all treated it as a Party question; and it was not until 1867, when Mr. Disraeli took the question in hand, and appealed to the House to assist him, and placed the matter in the hands of the House, that the question of the franchise in the boroughs was settled in a way that was satisfactory to the country. That being so, he was entitled to appeal to the past history of the question in the House of Commons in order to ascertain whether the Government were really in earnest in their desire

    1189
    to settle the question by endeavouring to ride rough-shod over the minority of the House by insisting that their mechanical majority should decide one part of the question, but not the other. When the House of Commons gave way upon that branch of the subject, Her Majesty's Government would then agree to take it into their confidence in regard to the redistribution of seats. The hon. Member for Salford alleged that the people were very angry, that they had made very great sacrifices, and that they would punish those who prevented the passing of the Bill. Why were the people angry? No doubt, the constituents who returned the hon. Member for Salford might be angry. Why was that? It was because they had been misled, and had had false statements made to them by hon. Members opposite, who were the chief sinners on this head. He defied them to refer to a single speech made by the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) at Birmingham in which he had put before the people the real question at issue, and made them understand that the question was not whether they should have the franchise or not, but whether the Franchise Bill should be passed in conjunction with a Redistribution Bill or not. In every speech made by the right hon. Gentleman he had told the people that the real fight the House of Lords were making was to prevent them from having the franchise altogether, and not that all they insisted upon was in having what the Liberals had told them a very short time ago was the necessary sequence and a part and parcel of this question of the franchise—namely, a redistribution of seats. No doubt, under these circumstances, the people would be angry. He believed they would vent their resentment upon hon. Members opposite when they found out how, for Party ends, they had been deceived. If the hon. Member for Salford had been as guilty—he did not say that the hon. Member had been anything like as guilty as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain)—of misrepresenting the facts of the case, it was very likely his constituents would express their anger with him by sending him about his business. With regard to the speech of the Prime Minister, he had not been surprised at the language the right hon. Gentleman had used. Of
    1190
    course, that language was courteous; but the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his determination that there should be no surrender at all on the part of the Government. He had practically told them the same thing in his speech on the Address; but what had struck him (Mr. Grantham) most was the declaration that it was absolutely necessary to keep the two measures of franchise and redistribution separate, and that it would be fatal to bring them forward together. If it would be fatal, as the right hon. Gentleman argued, to the franchise and to redistribution to bring both Bills in together, why had the right hon. Gentleman sketched out and shadowed forth the principles on which the Redistribution Bill was to be framed? It was very much like a sop in the pan, or the children's game of "cherry bob," where the cherry was allowed to touch the lips, but never to enter the mouth. If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the only question to be considered now was the question of the franchise, he had no right to tell the House anything whatever about the redistribution scheme, and to raise their hopes and fears as to the character of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted, at the beginning of last Session, that his plan was not confined simply to the franchise. If he had not made that admission, the right hon. Gentleman knew very well what would have happened. All the Press throughout the country would at once have said—"This is not dealing fairly with the people; the Government have no right to force a Franchise Bill through the House until we know what their redistribution scheme is going to be." But then the mere statement by the right hon. Gentleman of the heads of a redistribution scheme was not evidence at all that that would be the redistribution which would be ultimately carried in the House. It was known very well, from the statement made at the beginning of last Session, when this question was first introduced, that the scheme propounded by the right hon. Gentleman at that time was not the scheme of the Cabinet, but a vague sketch shadowed forth as the individual view of the right hon. Gentleman intended to tickle the ears of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman was right in withholding his

    1191
    scheme of redistribution, he had no right to refer to it at all, or to mislead the House and the country into supposing that they were in earnest upon that question. The only way to show their sincerity was by placing their Bill upon the Table of the House; by allowing it to be brought in as something like a tangible measure, which would enable the House to know what they were about. There was another observation he desired to make in reference to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, upon his remarks upon the question of a compromise. They knew that the question of a compromise had been discussed by all those who were anxious to avoid a collision between the two Houses of Parliament, and they had been told that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War (the Marquess of Hartington) had made various offers of compromise, both publicly and privately, to Members of the House of Lords. But how could that be so, if that night they were told by the Prime Minister that the matter was one about which there could be no compromise at all? What was the meaning of this? For weeks and weeks they had been misled by the idea that if they would only accept the suggestions made by one of the leading Members of the Government no difficulty would arise; but because the terms offered were not considered acceptable by those to whom they had been offered, the right hon. Gentleman came down now and repudiated everything that had been done with the remark that it was a matter about which there could be no compromise at all. If that were so, what prospect could there be of the Conservative Party being able to accept any compromise in future?—because it showed that, unless it was done in such a way that the right hon. Gentleman could manipulate it as he liked, he would repudiate it when the time came, and nothing would enable him to act fairly or honourably by the country, or the House of Lords. He had no wish to detain the House too long upon this question; bat he thought it was a very important one for the country to consider. He believed that, as far as the people were concerned, if, as the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) said, they felt angry on the subject, it was because they had been wilfully misled by the speeches which
    1192
    had been made to them by Liberal supporters of the Government. But, as far as his experience was concerned, the people of the country were not angry with what the House of Lords had done. He thought the majority of the thinking and intelligent people of the country were thoroughly satisfied with the action the House of Lords had taken in the matter. ["Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "Oh!" He presumed they believed the statement of the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) the other day, when he said the Conservative Party had not held an open meeting, and that they had never dared to hold an open meeting during the Recess. He did not know where the right hon. Gentleman could have been during the Recess. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman was so devoted to himself and to his own constituency that he had paid no attention to what went on elsewhere. All he (Mr. Grantham) would say was that he had addressed open meetings where Radicals were free to come in, and that at those meetings Resolutions had been carried by enormous majorities in favour of the House of Lords. Therefore, the people of the country were not all of one way of thinking; and he believed they were, as a matter of fact, in favour of the action of the House of Lords. Reference had been made to what took place in 1831 and 1832. At that time it was true that 100,000 men could have been found to march from Birmingham to London, and he did not believe 100 men could have been got together to march on behalf of the House of Lords against the people of Birmingham; but if 100,000 men could be found now to march against the House of Lords, with the right hon. Member for Birmingham at their head, he (Mr. Grantham) would undertake to say that he would find no difficulty in getting 200,000 men from Middlesex or Surrey to march against them. That showed the difference in the feeling now. In 1831 and 1832 it was impossible to find anybody among the people prepared to support the House of Lords; but in the present agitation it would be found that one-half of the people of the country—and that the thinking half—were ready to do so. He wanted to know by what right the Liberal Party were threatening to destroy the House of Lords, when they had shown

    1193
    no desire to refuse political power to the people as they had in 1832; and when all that was in dispute was merely a matter of procedure, which ought to be, and might be, amicably settled? In 1832 the people were fighting for grim death because they had no representation and no political power, and unless the House of Lords gave way they had no chance of obtaining representation. That was not the question now. Therefore, it was idle to compare that time with the present, when the House of Lords was acting in the interests of a large minority of the House of Commons, and especially in the interests of a large minority of the people of the country, if not in reality of a majority of the people of the country. Under these circumstances, he had no fear of the result. Hon. Members opposite might threaten as much as they liked. They might threaten to destroy the House of Lords, and to do away with a Second Chamber altogether. One hon. Member—the junior Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley)—thought that because he had come to the conclusion that one House of Legislature was sufficient, that, therefore, the country would, of course, come to the same opinion. But those who had strongly developed the pride of intellect were not generally good statesmen; and he (Mr. Grantham) had no fear that the country would be misled by the egotism of any individual, however eminent he might be; and if the Government were determined to write on the forefront of their banner "No Surrender," they must be prepared to accept the inevitable consequences of ultimate defeat and certain disaster to the country.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, I should not have risen but for the remarkable fact that, although the subject is of the greatest importance, not a single Member of the Government has taken part in the debate. We have been informed that their object is to curtail as much as possible the proceedings with regard to this Franchise Bill. For my own part, I can say I have never known a more extraordinary course adopted in dealing with an important question, or one more calculated to protract the debate; because if Members of Her Majesty's Government will not reply to our arguments they only produce a state of irritation
    1194
    on the part of those who have brought forward the arguments, which must have the effect of extending rather than of curtailing the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), in a most clear and forcible speech, has again stated the arguments which were adduced in the course of last Session, and which have never been answered by the Government either in Parliament or on the platform. All they have done has been to maintain a policy of silence in this House and of misrepresentation abroad. In the hope that some Member of Her Majesty's Government will follow me, I will re-state our cause in a shape which I hope will make it clear what it is that we maintain. The Conservative Party are not opposed to the principle of the extension of the franchise. [An hon. MEMBER: Oh!] I think I am better able to interpret the views of myself and my hon. Friends than the hon. Gentleman who interrupts me. The Conservative Party are not opposed, I say, to the principle of the extension of the franchise; but they object to the novel and unprecedented procedure which the Government has adopted—a form of procedure which would place an instrument in their hands which would be of great advantage to them during the impending Election. We say to them that they may give us whatever promises they like, but that it will not be to the interests of the Liberal Party to carry a Redistribution Bill if this Franchise Bill passes. It would be outside the competence of the Government to carry a Redistribution Bill, and the reasons which induce me to arrive at that conclusion are very simple. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) differs from hon. Members on this side of the House, and has made the astounding statement—a statement, I will undertake to say, that would not have been cheered if it had not been made by a Conservative—that if the Government were to dissolve on a large constituency without redistribution they would be at a great disadvantage. Now, if there is one thing more certain than another it is that under no scheme of redistribution will the Liberal Party be so favourably situated as they would be with an enlarged Register in the present constituencies without redistribution.

    1195
    The matter does not admit of an argument. The Liberals hold at the present moment two-thirds of the boroughs, and the Conservatives hold two-thirds of the counties in England. For the first time in the history of Parliamentary Reform the franchise is proposed to be extended to one constituency alone—the county constituency—and for the first time the franchise is not to be connected with the redistribution of political power. The result will be that these county constituencies, enormously unrepresented as they now are, would be still more unrepresented. If an Election were to take place without redistribution on the existing franchise we should be in this position—that every county Member would represent over 12,000 electors, while every borough Member would represent less than 6,000 electors. What would be the position of myself and my hon. Colleague in the County of Middlesex? The County of Middlesex possesses between 40,000 and 50,000 electors, and returns two Conservatives. It is proposed by this Bill to double the constituency, and two Gentlemen are coming forward to contest the representation—one, the noble Lord the Member for Haverfordwest (Lord Kensington), a small fishing village in Wales; and another from the borough of Scarborough (Mr. Caine), which now returns two Members to Parliament with an electorate of 4,000. These two boroughs are to return three Liberals; and Middlesex, with 70,000 voters, is to return but two Conservatives. What is the object of giving a man a vote except to enable him, and those who hold the same opinions to obtain representation this House?—and that is why almost every Liberal authority has always maintained that the redistribution of seats is more important than the reduction of the franchise. There has been a melancholy rumour in the House, which I find is unfortunately only too true, that we have been deprived by death of one of the most able and upright of our Members. I was only looking this morning at a most remarkable article on the question of Reform, written by the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, whose sudden death everyone deeply regrets. It was written at the time of the last General Election, and published after the Election had taken place. In that article the right hon. Gentleman
    1196
    went minutely into the redistribution of seats and the reduction of the franchise; and, being fresh from an election representing one of the largest constituencies in the Kingdom, he arrived at the conclusion that there were two questions which were so inseparably connected that they should not be kept apart—namely, a reduction of the franchise accompanied by redistribution. He stated that he was in favour of a measure that would give equal representation to every man in the Kingdom, and that redistribution in any other form would be worse than the present system. The right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) has been accused of making certain statements which he has certainly declared to be untrue. I believe them to be true, for I have verified them. In 1866 he made a statement which puts our case into a nut-shell. What the right hon. Gentleman then said was this—
    "I would frame a measure which would give a vote to every man in the Kingdom, for under redistribution framed under any other form the representation would be infinitely worse than it is at present."
    Well, that is exactly our case. All we ask is that the Government should give us some reasonable guarantee that a redistribution scheme should be effected before the reduction of the franchise comes into operation. Is that unreasonable? What conceivable objection can there be to it? I listened carefully to the arguments of the Prime Minister; but he never adduced one single argument in reply to that request. He indulged in high-flown language as to the majority giving up the control of their own business; but surely it would be the fault of the majority if it could not control its own business. By associating the two measures the majority would not be giving up the control of its own business, but would be absolutely expediting the question of Reform. If there be this earnest desire on the part of the people for the reduction of the franchise, of course the Government would have a tremendous lever by which to work a Redistribution Bill, if there were nothing more than to show that it was the sole impediment to the Franchise Bill coming into operation. Once, and once only, was the Prime Minister betrayed into making use of an incautious expression, and it constituted

    1197
    a complete reply to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). Addressing a meeting of Radicals, and thinking it probable that he would not be reported, the right hon. Gentleman gave us really to understand what the Redistribution Bill was to be. I will call attention to what the right hon. Gentleman said at the meeting at the Foreign Office. He said—
    "I affirm to you positively and absolutely that you will not, and cannot, pass a Redistribution Bill unless the Opposition have some motive for allowing it to pass. The goodwill on the part of the Opposition which we want, and which we require, in order to give a Redistribution Bill a chance, cannot be had unless they knew that the extension of the franchise is to take place, and that if they will not have it with redistribution they must take it without."
    Now, what does that mean? It means this much—that the Opposition were to be placed in the position of having either to take such redistribution as was offered, or else to go to the country on the existing franchise without redistribution at all. Now, I maintain that that is an unfair and an improper position in which to place the Opposition. Supposing the Prime Minister were to meet us in the same spirit, and were to give us a guarantee that they would put a clause in the Bill to provide that the measure should not come into operation unless it is accompanied by a Redistribution Bill, what difficulty would arise? Suppose the House of Lords should throw it out, what would the position of the Liberal Party be then? During the whole of the Autumn campaign your arguments have been based on presumption and assumption; but if the Conservatives were to block and obstruct your Redistribution Bill you would no longer have to found your arguments on assumption; but you would have facts to deal with, and you would be able to go all over the country ten times stronger than you are now. Moreover, you would be justified in asserting that the Opposition were not in favour of a reduction of the franchise, because they were now taking every conceivable means to prevent this Bill from coming into operation by blocking and obstructing the Redistribution Bill. I suppose there is not a single Member who has spoken at any political gathering during the Autumn Recess who did not in his observations make some allusion to the
    1198
    Reform agitation of 1832, to the deep feeling evoked, to the danger there was of popular feeling coming into collision with the law, and, in fact, of a revolution occurring. What was the cause of the collision between the House of Lords and the people in 1832? Has any hon Gentleman taken the trouble to ascertain, because it is a little curious? The history of Reform in 1831 and 1832 is simply this—Earl Grey's Government brought in a Bill in 1830, the second reading of which was carried by a majority of one; and in the unreformed Parliament General Gascoyne carried an Amendment in Committee which was hostile to the Bill as interpreted by the Government. Earl Grey dissolved Parliament, and appealed to the country; and the next Parliament passed the Bill by a large majority, and sent it up to the House of Lords, who threw it out in 1831. In 1832 the House of Commons sent the Bill up to the House of Lords by a still larger majority, and the House of Lords then passed the second reading; but the Government subsequently resigned on account of an Amendment proposed by Lord Lyndhurst. Does any hon. Member know what that Amendment was? He proposed the very procedure for the settlement of Reform which the Government now support. He proposed to postpone the Redistribution Clauses until the Franchise Clauses had been settled; but the Government of Earl Grey declared that that Amendment was absolutely prejudicial to the settlement of Reform, and rather than accept it they resigned. Well, now, 50 years after, the Liberal Party are going about the country stirring up the people just in the same way against the House of Lords, because they are adhering to what has been the invariable practice in connection with previous Reform Bills, and are really acting on the advice of the Reformers of 1832. Let me take another point. We are told that if we persevere in the line we are taking we may raise a more organic question; and the Prime Minister has told us, in terms of warning, what that organic question is. But the unfortunate part of the controversy is that the Government have already raised this great organic question by a side wind, and in its most unpleasant form. The principle the Prime Minister is contending for is, that whenever

    1199
    there is a difference between this House and the House of Lords the majority of the House of Lords is to give way. That is to deprive the House of Lords of their functions as an independent Legislative Assembly. Everybody admits that the House of Lords must give way to the will of the people, when the people have decided that they are in the wrong. What is the question raised out-of-doors, and raised in a much less dangerous shape than the principles which the Government are contending for? Out-of-doors, with the single exception of the junior Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), the demand is not for the abolition of a Second Chamber, but for getting rid of the hereditary principle which now exists in that Chamber. Now, I contend that it would be much more dangerous for the Government to ask us to consent to a course of procedure which would practically deprive the Second Chamber of its independence than to leave the Second Chamber with its functions unimpaired, attacking only its hereditary character. What the Government are practically trying to do is to deprive this country for ever of an independent Second Chamber. Once deprived of its independence of action, that independence of action can never be restored, no matter what the composition of a Second Chamber may be. Let me point out the danger of attempting, in this insidious way, to deprive the country of an independent Second Chamber. How are you to limit the power of majorities in the House of Commons if the only Party who can resist them effectually is put aside? The Prime Minister made use of strong words in laying the foundation stone of the National Liberal Club. He gave his audience clearly to understand that that which was for the advantage of the Liberal Party was for the national interest, and that everything they did to promote the interests of the Liberal Party was done to promote national interests. Then, why should not the right hon. Gentleman himself be retained in Office by a special Act of the Legislature for the next 10 years? The present Prime Minister is absolutely essential to his political Party; why, then, should the Liberal majority not save the Prime Minister the trouble of going to a General Election by extending the existence of Parliament
    1200
    for 10 years. They know quite well that if they do appeal to the country their majority will be largely reduced; and I may remind the House that it was in some such position as this that the Septennial Act was passed. A Parliament, which had been elected under the triennial system, found itself so unpopular that it was certain it would not be retained; and under the view that there would be certain elements of danger produced by getting rid of them, they passed an Act for the purpose of prolonging their existence. The principles for which the Prime Minister is contending are most dangerous and unreasonable. Has the agitation during the last two months been conducted in such a manner as to induce or entitle the Opposition to yield to it. What has been the weapon which has been used during the past Autumn? At the commencement of the agitation I called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the avowed object of the agitation. It was to organize the intimidation of the House of Lords. The right hon. Gentleman exercised great ingenuity in parrying my question; but he never uttered a single word against the course proposed to be pursued. What has been the course pursued during the Recess? I do not hesitate to say that the Liberal Party have done everything in their power to calumniate and malign the House of Lords, and especially the Marquess of Salisbury. Let me take one statement as a substantiation. I do not think I could refer to the speeches of any man who combines with the filling of a high official position such an amount of recklessness of language as those of the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). I will take two statements by two Members of the Cabinet—first, one by the Earl of Derby, a Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman. This is what the Earl of Derby says, and it is a description of the conduct of the House of Lords—
    "No doubt, no one who has heard or read the debate here will be likely to suppose that you object to the extended franchise; but do you suppose that the classes who have power—the present electors, or those who are to be electors—read long debates? Not they. If anybody tells them that the Opposition Leaders have said they were not fit to be trusted with a vote, they will swallow it to a man.—(3 Hansard, [290] 391.)
    That is what the Earl of Derby said.

    1201
    He states distinctly that it was untrue to suppose the House of Lords objected to the extension of the franchise; but he implies that if unscrupulous persons make such an accusation against them the electors will swallow it. And now, what did the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) say at Birmingham?—
    "The Franchise Bill has been assassinated; its murderers wear masks, and the chief conspirator shrinks from the confession of his crime, and in the presence of the assembled Thanes he cries—'Thou can'st not say I did it.'"
    Then we are told that the people of the country are in a dangerous temper, and that terrible consequences may ensue if a protracted opposition be offered to the Bill. But have not some hon. Gentlemen opposite been a little too confident in their predictions of evil? One of the hon. Gentlemen who cheers me has, I think, been guilty of a little imprudence in respect of a statement which was circulated the other day circumstantially in an Irish newspaper to the effect that the working classes in Birmingham are ready to commit a gross personal outrage on my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). The gentleman who supplied the information has been accused of fabricating it; but it afterwards appeared that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) was his authority.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I distinctly deny that statement. I gave no permission for any man to make any such statement. As far as I know, I have never spoken to the gentleman in question, and certainly do not know him. No permission was given, and the statement is absolutely untrue.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Of course, I am ready to apologize if the hon. Member says he made no such statement; but certainly I do not understand him to say that he never made the statement.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: If the noble Lord will say what the statement is, I will say whether I made it or not.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I do not wish to pursue the conversation if the hon. Member says he made no such statement, which is that if the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock goes down to Birmingham, the working men there are so incensed against him that
    1202
    they have made up their minds to horsewhip him.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I absolutely deny that statement.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: If the hon. Member denies it, I of course apologize. As to the violent language alluded to, it has all come from above, not from below; it has not emanated from the working people of the country, but from a number of politicians who have gone about endeavouring to stir them up to fever heat against the House of Lords. Although I have not been present at any very large meetings, I have attended and addressed a large number of smaller meetings, and I have letters from working men describing themselves as Liberals, who tell me that the position taken up by the Conservative Party with regard to this question is perfectly fair and legitimate; because, as they say, the Conservatives have not objected to the principle of the Franchise Bill, but have taken objection to the novel procedure which, for the first time in Parliamentary history, the Government are adopting. Under these circumstances, I hope that some Member of Her Majesty's Government will endeavour, in some shape or other, to answer the arguments which I have put forward. I and a number of my hon. Friends, during the last Session, stated and re-stated those arguments, and the only reply from the Treasury Bench was that we made the same speeches twice over. That, I submit, is not the proper way of dealing with, the arguments of reasonable men. If Her Majesty's Government cannot meet the case, let them say so. I have always felt that whenever the proposal of the extension of the franchise to the counties comes forward it is one which cannot be opposed. ["No, no!"] An hon. Gentleman says "No;" but I assume that I know my own thoughts better than the hon. Gentleman, whose remark is an illustration of the method of mis-statement by which our opponents have throughout carried on the argument. Speaking for myself, I have always said, and I say it again, that whenever the proposal shall be made to make the county franchise similar to that in the boroughs, as established by the Earl of Beaconsfield, it will be a proposal that cannot be opposed. And for this reason—I doubt whether the working people of any country were ever subjected to a

    1203
    more severe test than have been the working people of this country during the last 15 years. Rarely has the transition from exceptional prosperity to exceptional adversity been greater than from 1873 to 1880, during which period there was much distress, and many were reduced to absolute privation. Side by side with that, the Education Act has come into force, and the working people are deprived of the labour of their children at a time when that labour is most valuable, and they are compelled not only to part with the value of that labour, but to pay the fees for their children's education. They have nobly responded to the calls made upon them, and the fact that during the depression of trade and commerce the deposits in the savings' banks have increased shows that the working people of the country are taking their lesson to heart. Therefore, because they have shown under these exceptional circumstances the best qualities of citizenship, and as a considerable number of the working people in the counties are unenfranchised, I feel it is impossible to oppose the extension to the counties of the franchise existing in the boroughs. I believe that the longer this controversy goes on, the more will the position of the Conservative Party towards the Bill be seen in its true light. Wherever they have been allowed to state their case, and have not had their meetings broken up, they have succeeded in satisfying their audiences. They do not pretend to be able to compete in noise and violence with their opponents, who, therefore, in that phase of the agitation, have had an advantage over them. But the great mass of the people of the country are law-abiding, and hate violence; they take note of those who incite to it, and although there may be a continuation of the inflammatory speeches which have marked their opponents' proceedings during the Autumn, I am confident that the more the Party opposite resort to violence and unfair play the greater will be the rebound in favour of the position taken by the Opposition with regard to this measure. Therefore, if Her Majesty's Government cannot answer our arguments in the House of Commons they are not likely to convince the people out-of-doors, and I am tolerably confident that in the long run the Conservative
    1204
    Party will gain, because whatever cause cannot stand discussion—and apparently the cause of Her Majesty's Government will not bear that test—is, in my opinion, doomed.
    MR. HUGH SHIELDdesired to say a very few words in answer to that part of the speech of the noble Lord in which he dealt with what was called the "leverage argument" of the Prime Minister. The noble Lord had said that the Prime Minister had candidly avowed that one of the reasons which influenced the Government in declining to combine the measure of franchise with that of redistribution was the necessity of having this leverage at their disposal. But he would point out to the noble Lord that it was not alone the Prime Minister who had avowed the necessity of having the means of putting Parliament under some pressure in order that a Redistribution Bill might be carried. The same position had been taken by the Secretary of State for War. The Marquess of Salisbury had stated that it was the deliberate purpose of the Government to establish a machine for controlling and coercing the judgment of the House of Lords, and that such an attempt had never before been made in their history, even under the most encroaching of Monarchs. He asked whether the observations of the Prime Minister which had been referred to deserved the comments which the noble Lord had made upon them? On the contrary, he maintained that so far from being the words of a cynic they were the wise utterances of a statesman, whose reasoning was that so difficult was the subject of redistribution, so numerous the questions of principle which clustered around it, and so multitudinous the wilderness of its details, that unless the opponents of any Redistribution Bill could be brought to approach it under some inducement to forego something of the obstructive power of their position it could never be passed. It was upon this reasoning that the so-called leverage argument was founded, and he asked whether it was fair to say that it out-did the encroachments of the most encroaching Monarchs? In 1831–2 they had a Reform Bill introduced by a Government thoroughly in earnest, supported by the people, who were thoroughly in earnest, and pressed forward

    1205
    against a reluctant Opposition; the Bill of 1832 was carried under the direst possible compulsion—almost on the verge of a civil war. Everyone knew—it was a matter of history—that the Prime Minister of the day went down to the House of Lords with the King's licence in his pocket to create as many Peers as were necessary to pass the Bill; and, therefore, with those facts in his mind, he did not think that the Marquess of Salisbury was entitled to say that never before had a Minister of the Crown assumed the right to exercise compulsion towards the House of Lords. But the Bill of 1867 was introduced in a very different state of things. Its supporters had not to press it against a reluctant Opposition; the real friends of Reform were then the Opposition. That Bill, no doubt, passed with the free assent of Parliament. But he thought he was correct in saying that it appeared from the Memoirs of the Earl of Malmesbury that even the Bill of 1867 was not passed by the free decision of the House of Lords, but under the threat that the Earl of Derby would resign Office. Therefore, he said, they might pass a Redistribution Bill or a Reform Bill with the free assent of Parliament, without compulsion, when the measure was backed by an Opposition as eager for Reform as the Government who promoted it; but that when they had to pass a measure of the kind against a reluctant Opposition, they were taught by history that it could only be passed under a pressure which brought the country almost to the verge of revolution. In lieu of such a pressure the Prime Minister sought to put Parliament under an inducement—the inducement of avoiding a consequence which they all deprecated—namely, an appeal to the old constituencies, inflated by the addition of the new voters before redistribution. Far from being the outcome of a despotic spirit, the Prime Minister's "leverage argument" was proof of his moderation and preference for peaceful methods.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  DEATH OF THE RIGHT HON. HENRY FAWCETT, POSTMASTER GENERAL.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity of saying a very few words, and I am very sorry the House is so thin, for I am quite sure that what I am going to say reflects and expresses the feeling of the whole House — of both sides of the House. I wish to say one word to express the very great and strong sense we all have of the loss which the Government and this House have sustained by the melancholy event which was communicated to us earlier in the Sitting. All of us who have had the pleasure of sitting in the House for any length of time with Mr. Fawcett, and especially those who, like myself, have sat in the House the whole time that he has been a Member of it, could but have come to one conclusion—that there was no man who more thoroughly commanded and received the respect and the regard of the House than did Mr. Fawcett. From the first moment he entered the House he showed that he was determined to take a zealous and active part in its proceedings; and throughout his career he has been one who has been always ready to speak freely and boldly, and, if necessary, with vigour upon all questions that arose. But, at the same time, I do not think anybody can recall a single word that ever fell from him that gave unnecessary offence or pain to anyone. He was a man in whom, when he spoke against us—which, in regard to Members on this side, was most commonly the case—we always recognized a spirit of fairness and readiness to enter into the feelings and arguments of his opponents that gave double and treble weight to what fell from him. I could not refrain from taking this opportunity of saying just a single word to express what is the unanimous feeling, I am sure, of the whole House, and what I believe also to be the feelings of others far beyond this House—of all who knew and respected him.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I am sure I shall express the feelings of all who sit on this side of the House if I rise to say a few words to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the kindly and sympathetic terms in which he has expressed himself for the great

  1207
  loss which has befallen the Government, and I think I may say the whole House, in the death of Mr. Fawcett. He commanded the respect, and I think I may say the affection, of the whole House. We have admired the courage with which he has confronted a most painful and distressing infirmity which would have prostrated the energies of most men. From the very commencement of his entrance into public life he commanded the respect of all who were brought into contact with him. The independence with which, when he occupied an independent position in this House, he was in the habit invariably of expressing his opinions, whether they were in entire harmony with the opinions of those with whom he usually acted or not, secured for him an amount of respect which very few Members of this House have ever been able to obtain. The energy with which he threw his remarkable intellect into the duties of the Office which he was called on to administer, and the invariable courtesy with which he met the wishes and representations of Members on all sides of the House, added to the respect previously felt for him. Sir, I can only say that we all most deeply regret the great loss that has befallen this House, and that we are greatly indebted to the right hon. Gentleman opposite for the very sympathetic terms in which, on the part of his Friends, he has expressed his sense of that loss.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Sir, I cannot allow the Sitting to terminate without saying, on behalf of those who act with me, that we join in the expression of regret which the whole House feels at the sudden and melancholy close of so promising and great a career. We, the Irish Members, have always respected and admired Mr. Fawcett's great capacity, exerted in the face of so terrible a calamity. We have always respected and admired his transparent integrity, and the manner in which, while expressing his own convictions, he respected and had consideration for an equally earnest expression of the opinions of others. For myself, I have known Mr. Fawcett personally for more than 20 years, and have felt nothing but admiration and friendship for him. I speak now on behalf of others as well as for myself, and I desire to join most sincerely in the common expression of the regret felt by the House.

QUESTION.

  AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (IRELAND).
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he should like to know from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Richard Grosvenor) whether the Government intended this Session to reappoint the Committee of Inquiry on the working of the legislation affecting Irish labourers? The matter was most urgent, and the Session should not be allowed to slip away without something being done to continue the investigation commenced last Session.
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENORsaid, the reappointment of the Committee would be moved to-morrow.

MOTIONS.

  CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACTS.
  Select Committee of last Session, to inquire into the operation of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1869, and to consider and report how far it may be expedient to amend the powers exercised under them by the Charity Commissioners, re-appointed:—Committee to consist of Mr. DAVEY, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, MR. PELL, Mr. WALTER JAMES, Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, Mr. BRYCE, Mr. YORKE, Sir JOHN KENNAWAY, Sir THOMAS DYKE ACLAND, Mr. MAYNE, Mr. BULWER, Mr. LONG, Mr. JOHN MORLEY', and Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, with power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Charitable Trusts Acts to inquire into the working of "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882."—(Mr. Shaw Lefevre.)

  LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL VETO) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable owners and occupiers in burghs, wards of burghs, parishes, and districts in Scotland, to prevent the common sale of Intoxicating Liquors, or otherwise to have effectual control over the Drink Traffic within such areas.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. M'LAGAN, Mr. WADDY, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. MACKINTOSH, Mr. ERNEST NOEL, Mr. DICK PEDDIE, Mr. STEWART CLARK, and Mr. MUNRO-FERGUSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 28.]

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (DURHAM) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. THEODORE FRY, Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on

  1209
  Sunday in the county of Durham, ordered to be brought in by Mr. THEODORE FRY, Mr. WALTER JAMES, Mr. LAMBTON, Mr. DODDS, Mr. THOMAS RICHARDSON, Mr. GOURLEY, and Mr. THOMAS THOMPSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 29.]

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY (CORNWALL) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR VIVIAN, Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday in Cornwall, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR VIVIAN, Sir JOHN ST. AUBYN, Mr. BORLASE, and Mr. ACLAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 30.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Earl Cowley, after the death of his father.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ADJOURNMENT.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, seeing my noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) in his place, I have a request to make to him on behalf of my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook). I am sure he will regret, and will not be surprised, that after the hard work and the long journey of my noble Friend, he has been attacked by a malady not altogether unknown to some of your Lordships; and although it is not of a very serious description, it makes it exceedingly difficult for him to come down to the House. If it is equally convenient to my noble Friend, I would ask him to postpone his Motion as to the Colonial Possessions and Garrisons Abroad until to-morrow.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON: I am very sorry to hear the cause of the absence of my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty. Of course, I will postpone my Motion. Perhaps the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) will allow me to fix a day for its discussion after consultation with some of my Friends—probably, some day next week.
VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: In consequence of the statement as to the indisposition of the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Earl of Northbrook), I beg to give Notice that I will postpone my Question as to an inquiry into the strength and condition of the Naval Forces.
Subsequently,
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in consequence of the postponement of the Notices for to-morrow, there will be no Business done; and, therefore, I propose, in the manner I did the other day, to move the adjournment of the House from this evening until Monday.
Motion agreed to.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to move—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons to inquire into the condition of the trade and commerce of the country,"
  said, that he should have to ask the House to give him a little time and attention while he attempted to deal as shortly as he could with a very difficult subject, because, in asking for a Parliamentary inquiry into the condition of trade, it was necessary for him to show that the circumstances of the case were very grave; that the country was suffering from something more serious than one of those ordinary and transitory fluctuations to which trading communities were liable; and that the time of Parliament was not to be taken up in an unnecessary inquiry. He did not know how far the existence of serious depression would be admitted, for until quite recently it was denied by some of the highest authorities. The period of prosperity came to a close in 1873. In 1874 a period of depression set in which, notwithstanding occasional slight reactions, had lasted to the present date. Yet for a long time statements relative to the depression of trade were met with flat denial. Thus, as late as August 1, 1881, The Times said that—
  "The depressed talk which is current is most unfounded, and the real prosperity of our national industries and the real well-being of our people at the present time ought to be generally recognized."

  1045
  In the following month the same journal stated that there was hardly a trade or a manufacturing district "which was not doing well." Mr. Giffen, of the Board of Trade, constantly denied the existence of depression. Speaking at the Mansion House in October, 1882, the President of the Board of Trade said that "this country was on the eve of a period of great prosperity," and as late as last January he said at Newcastle that "trade was now fairly good." It was to be hoped that the knowledge of the President of the Board of Trade as to the causes of depression was more accurate than his estimate as to its extent. Yet, while these attempts were being made to lull the nation into false security, evidence was not wanting to justify the fears of those who were most alarmed at the signs of the times—evidence which had accumulated until it was now impossible any longer to deny that the depression was of a most serious nature. Let their Lordships look at the enormous and increasing excess of imports over exports. He was aware that by a certain school of economists the fact that imports exceeded exports in value was looked upon as a sign of prosperity. It was so to the same extent as the prosperity of an individual who succeeded to an estate known to produce £10,000 a-year, was proved by the fact that he spent £15,000 a-year. The excess might come out of profits derived from some unknown source, or it might come out of capital, or partly from capital and partly from profits. If it came out of capital, it was entirely bad. If it came out of profits on capital invested abroad, which had been or might be invested at home, it was partially bad—bad as far as the working classes were concerned. It was good only if the profits were derived from investments abroad which could not possibly, under any circumstances, be profitably made at home. The excess of value of imports over exports was, to a large extent, accounted for by the profits of the carrying trade, which was formerly in a flourishing condition. But, unfortunately, the carrying trade, and all the numerous industries connected with it, had now followed the sad example of other trades, and showed itself smitten with the same disease. Let them consider the condition of our other great trades. The cotton industry was
  1046
  stagnant. The output was still large, but the rate of increase had been most seriously checked. Stagnation had succeeded healthy growth, and stagnation was bound to intervene between growth and actual decay. Messrs. Ellison & Co., unimpeachable authoritios, stated that the consumption of raw cotton had increased since the year 1872–3 only 2·72 per cent. In other words, the great cotton trade had almost ceased to grow. And that was not all, for we knew from many sources that the profit of the trade, such as it was, had fallen almost to the vanishing point. The iron trade was no better off. In 1882 there were 566 furnaces in blast in England. In 1883 the number was reduced to 543, so that 23 furnaces were extinguished in one year. We had not far to look for the cause. Sir John Brown, the head of a very eminent firm in Sheffield, put the case clearly. He said—
  "Our former customers have become our competitors, and not only sell against us, but undersell us, not merely in neutral markets, but under our very noses at home."
  The noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), speaking at a meeting of the Iron and Steel Institute, in October, 1881, stated that in four years—from 1874 to 1879—there had been a reduction in the quantity of steel and iron we exported of 25 to 30 per cent, and in the value of 50 per cent. He said—
  "That reduction in value represents to the iron trade of this country a net value of something like £40,000,000 a-year, so that during those four years no less a sum than £160,000,000 was lost to the iron trade."
  Since that time, the trade had gone from bad to worse. The woollen trade had also suffered. At present that industry was enjoying a revival, but that revival was due to causes which could not last. The coal trade, which, owing to very natural causes, held out stoutly, was weakening, and so were the great industries connected with shipbuilding. The same tale of depression might be told of every industry in the land. The position was well and accurately defined by The Economist in its review of the trade of 1883. The Economist confessed that the year was "one of disappointment." It said—
  "With a few exceptions, which may almost be counted on the fingers of one hand, there runs through the long series of trade reports

  1047
  the same unvarying complaint of lessened returns to those by whom the trade of the country is conducted."
  Well, the state of trade had not changed for the better during the present year. Distress had penetrated below the class of capitalists, and was making itself felt with terrible severity among the great mass of people engaged in trade. At Sunderland there were, it was said, 11,000 men out of work; at Glasgow, over 4,000; on the Tyne and Wear, about 25,000; at Jarrow, hundreds of families were on the point of starvation; and in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire trade was bad, and it was feared that in a very short time 10,000 men would be out of work in that district. About 60,000 men were employed, on an average, in the London Docks; of that number one-third were out of work, and one-third working four days a-week only. The wages of those at work had been generally reduced. The instances which he had given showed that some 200,000 or 250,000 human beings depending upon our main industries for employment were deprived of the means of subsistence. That was serious enough; but it must not be forgotten that even if he could furnish the total number of men out of work, statistics of the unemployed did not reveal the true state of trade. Masters preferred putting all their hands on short time to discharging any portion of them. That was the case in Staffordshire, Lancashire, and other great industrial centres. So much for what he might term the great trades, the industries upon which, putting aside agriculture, we depended mainly, not only for national well-being, but for national existence. In the case of these great industries the roots were deeply struck into the soil, the capital invested was enormous, the wealth at the back of them gigantic. Their power of resistance was great, and yet they had yielded slowly to the enervating lassitude of disease. It was only natural to expect that industries of comparatively minor importance should more rapidly succumb. The sugar trade was in great straits, and many other industries—such, for example, as were connected with the sale of silk, gloves, musical instruments, &c.—were either dead or in a dying condition. He had touched upon the conditions of these various trades, not because he meant to say that the decline
  1048
  or even extinction of any one of them must of necessity prove a national calamity, but because he wished to impress upon the House that the whole commercial, trading, mining, manufacturing community was suffering. The decline of any particular trade might mean merely the transference of capital and labour from an unprofitable to a profitable undertaking, an operation which, although it might cause temporary distress, might eventually be beneficial to the nation. But if all industries were languishing, and if in each case the decline was owing to the fact that in that particular trade capital could no longer be profitably employed, the inference was very different. Such a state of things proved that the capital invested was becoming unprofitable, which meant national ruin. This question of the value of a trade, the question whether it was profitable or unprofitable, was one of the most profound and vital importance. It was impossible to form a sound opinion concerning it by the study of statistics and the perusal of Board of Trade Returns. We might estimate the output in a large industry; we might ascertain correctly the volume of the trade, but we had no means of proving whether the capital in money and labour employed in it was profitably employed. The prosperity of a trade depended not upon the bulk of the articles produced in it, but upon the exchangeable value of those articles. Statistics could help us little in this matter, and it was to a great extent on that account that he demanded an inquiry. But there were other proofs of depression besides those which he had mentioned which ought not to be passed over. The Revenue derived from Excise Duties was falling off, and the consumption of an article of such universal consumption as tea was diminishing. There was a great desire on the part of capitalists to reduce their personal risk by turning their private businesses into limited Companies, and there was a tendency on their part to withdraw capital from industries in the United Kingdom and invest it in the same industries on the Continent. He might be told that, on the other hand, the Income Tax kept up, that the deposits in savings banks were increasing, and that pauperism was declining. These, however, were

  1049
  delusive tests of a nation's prosperity. If the savings banks deposits increased, it only showed that such deposits were not made by what were commonly called the working class. As a matter of fact, artizans and working men usually invested their savings either in Trades Unions or Friendly Societies. The Income Tax was a poor criterion. It did not affect the class he had alluded to, and it was no indication of the state of trade. It was calculated on past profits, and was often paid on imaginary profits. To reduce the amount it was necessary for a business man to submit his affairs to the closest scrutiny, and practically to the public eye. In course of time it would serve to show the state of trade to a certain extent, but not for some years, and it would not be affected in the least by a transfer of capital from the United Kingdom to foreign countries. The Income Tax revenue might remain but little changed, while the working classes here were starving. As to pauperism, it took a good deal to pauperize this country, thanks to the high qualities of the people and the accumulation of wealth. We were often accused of being an improvident and thriftless people. He dared say we were not nearly as thrifty and prudent as we ought to be. But the people did accumulate something, either privately or in the fund of Trades Unions and Provident and Friendly Societies. That reserve had been drawn upon. It had carried them over a long time, but it must become exhausted soon. In a letter to The Times of the 30th of last month, a Trades Unionist paid a tribute to the good work the Trades Unions had done. He mentioned one—the Boilermakers' and Iron Shipbuilders' Association at Newcastle—which paid out the huge sum of £37,000 in relief to members out of work in the last financial quarter only. It was impossible to collect much information on this point, because the accounts of Trades Unions were not published. But we might safely assume that very large sums were being paid to men out of work. He had had put into his hands letters from the secretaries of Trade Societies at Aberdeen, Glasgow, Birmingham, Darlington, Hull, Leeds, Edinburgh, Bristol, Cleveland, Liverpool, all testifying to deep distress and destitution, and expressing grave fears for the winter. Let them not forget that the tost for relief
  1050
  was now very severe, and that the idea of parish relief was intolerable to the English artizan and working man. Nothing but the direst distress would drive them to it. Their savings in Trades Unions, their private savings, their furniture, their comforts, their necessaries, everything must go first. They would suffer and suffer greatly in silence. If they complained their Lordships might be sure the complaint was wrung from them by the bitterest distress. They would undergo anything sooner than admit they could not support themselves, sooner than forfeit their independence and submit to the degradation of relief. The people were very patient, very brave, had most honourable instincts; and now the possession of the very qualities we honoured and respected most in men were turned against them, and they were told that because they were not paupers they did not suffer. Were we to wait until the whole accumulated property of the working classes was exhausted before making even an inquiry into the circumstances that were making their labour unprofitable? Were we to wait until vast multitudes were pauperized to think what could be done to avert such a fate? Delay was a cruel and a dangerous thing. He thought he had said enough to show that serious depression existed among us. The silk trade and some of our minor industries were dead or dying, and who could calculate the suffering that those words implied? The unavailing efforts, the despair of honest men, the breaking up of homes, and all the long train of misery that lead from independence to absolute want. In the cotton trade we saw looms idle and factories closed. In the iron trade furnaces were blown out, capital was withdrawn, and labour could not find employment. In our great shipbuilding districts silence reigned in yards which not long ago re-echoed the busy sounds of industry. Our dock-gates were besieged with men eager for work which they could not get. Everywhere the same most pitable spectacle—able-bodied, honest, skilful men clamouring vainly for work to support themselves and their wives and children. Was there any reason to expect an improvement? He feared not. The depression had lasted long, and had gradually increased. It was totally different in extent

  1051
  and nature from ordinary bad times, consequent upon some financial crisis or temporary excess of production over demand. Now a few words as to the causes of depression. We were generally told that the depression of trade we laboured under was due to bad harvests and overproduction, and that the people were suffering from their own bad habits. He was very far from undervaluing the disastrous reaction upon our manufacturing industries produced by the depression in the great industry of agriculture; but it would not account for it all. And what was more important, we must dismiss the view that agricultural depression was due entirely to lack of sunshine. The loss in agriculture had been estimated by the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) at £130,000,000 or £150,000,000, by the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) at £200,000,000, and such a gigantic dead loss must, of course, have acted very unfavourably upon our home markets. We had been passing through a long series of bad seasons. But the harvest of this year was good, and our flocks and herds were free from disease. But as far as could be gathered, the profitable nature of agriculture in the present year, the value of the produce of the earth's surface in food, was not such as to justify us in supposing that renewed sunshine would restore the industry of agriculture to its former position. Though we were perfectly right, therefore, in putting forward agricultural depression as one of the causes of trade depression, we should be totally wrong, and be merely deluding ourselves, if we assumed that agricultural depression would be remedied by sunshine, and that, in consequence, good harvests would produce good trade. Now, as to the other reason generally advanced, to account for the universal depression said to exist all over the world owing to universal over-production. The world was said to have become too industrious, and to make more than it could consume. He would not go into that abstract question; but he would compare, as well as he could, the condition of other countries with that of the United Kingdom, and would prove that the depression from which we suffered was out of all proportion heavier than that affecting other nations. When they spoke of a declining
  1052
  trade they were usually struck in the face by a violent discharge of statistics to prove that it was expanding. That might be true. Our trade had expanded in volume. But let their Lordships compare it with the expansion of trade among our neighbours. Since 1870 the United States had increased their total commerce by 75 per cent, Russia by 70 per cent, France by 51 per cent, Germany by 40 per cent, Great Britain by only 26 per cent. Let them take one industry alone—the greatest of our industries—the cotton trade. The United States had increased their consumption of cotton since 1873 by nearly 84 per cent, the Continent generally by nearly 64 per cent, and Great Britain by not quite 3 per cent. He did not wish to weary the House with many figures. He thought he had proved by these few that England, instead of increasing more rapidly than any other nation, was not holding her own; that she was not even holding her own, but had fallen back utterly, and that she was become last, instead of first, in the race. And in the face of such facts we were told we were only sharing in a universal depression. But there were special circumstances affecting our neighbours which must not be lost sight of. And, besides, he denied that there was any evidence on the Continent of such suffering or of such a decline of trade as was only too clear with us. He saw nothing of it in Germany, and yet Germany had to bear the burden of an enormous Military Establishment. What, he wondered, would become of this country under those circumstances? France might be suffering slightly. Granting for argument that she was, look at what she had gone through. Only 14 years ago her whole social and commercial economy was upset. She suffered an invasion. Nearly her whole territory was occupied by the enemy. She had to pay £371,500,000 sterling war expenses, and she lost two Provinces. Since then she had lost enormously by the ravages of the phylloxera. Where should we have been had such calamities occurred to us? In the United States there was considerable depression, but it was merely transitory and traceable to distinct causes. The commercial system of the United States was not conducted in the most healthy manner. It was too much affected

  1053
  throughout by Stock Exchange operations. It was infected by the spirit of gambling. The depression in the States was due to over-speculation in Stocks and to a slight excess in the development of the country. The nation was suffering a little headache, the result of excess, and a slight growing-pain incidental to youth. It was of no consequence and would soon pass. We could not, therefore, even console ourselves with the poor consolation that we were no worse off than others. But if we could, if we were only sharing a universal distress, was that any reason why we should sit down idly and do nothing? He thought it a more worthy part that we should bestir ourselves and see if we could not do something to help ourselves. He, at least, was not content that England should suffer because other nations were suffering also. It was a cowardly and illogical argument. If an outbreak of typhoid occurred in Westminster, should we neglect to inquire into our sanitary arrangements because they had cholera at Naples? Our duty was to our own people. Whatever might be happening to foreigners it was the first duty of the English Parliament to see that Englishmen did not starve, or, at any rate, to know the reason why they did. Then as to the causes. He had seen some remarkable reasons given for the existing distress in this country. Mr. Giffen, of the Board of Trade, in writing in 1877 about a depression, the existence of which he afterwards denied, gave vent to a kind of Gladstonian utterance, and said that it had "its roots in human nature which lends itself to an ebb and flow, an action and reaction in affairs." No doubt, commerce, like most actions of men, had its roots in human nature; but it was difficult to know exactly what Mr. Giffen meant, and he did not see that commerce having its roots in human nature was any great comfort to men who were starving for want of work. Afterwards Mr. Giffen became more practical, and informed us that—
  "What mankind require for the greater efficiency of their labour is that the proportion of people employed in agriculture and mining should diminish, and foreign manufactures should increase."
  Foreign manufactures had increased largely, and the population engaged in
  1054
  mining and agriculture had largely decreased. He hoped Mr. Giffen was satisfied with the result. But the depression continued, and it was now infinitely worse. No doubt, commerce still had it roots in human nature, and the ebb flowed on with increased velocity. The President of the Board of Trade spoke in 1881 of—
  "Weak industries, such as those of Coventry and Bethnal Green, in which energy was engaged which was capable of much better direction."
  That meant, he supposed, that the money and labour in those industries should be more profitably employed elsewhere. That was very sound sense under certain circumstances. But surely now when, as he maintained, all industries were suffering, it would be only common charity on the part of the Board of Trade to point out where the energy, the capital, and the population were to go to. The capital might go to Saxony, France or Belgium; but how about the people and the energy? The depression could not be traced to purely natural causes or improvident reckless habits. No great dislocation of trade centres or trade routes had occurred; our coal was not exhausted; we had abundance of capital. There was no evidence that as a people we had lost our skill, energy, or courage. We might be suffering to a certain extent from universal over-production, but not to an extent sufficient to account for the depression. We were affected by overproduction, not because the supply throughout the whole world was greater than the demand, but because we were no longer allowed to supply our fair share of that demand because foreign markets were forcibly closed to us, and because our own markets were unfairly interfered with. Our industries were suffering from bounties and foreign tariffs. He could not go at length into controversial topics. The bounty question was probably well known to their Lordships by the prominence which had been given to its effects upon the sugar trade. It was a simple question. The object of bounties was to create or foster an industry that could not compete with the same industry existing elsewhere under more favourable circumstances. It could be combated only by countervailing duties. This was admitted by the Committee of the House of Commons

  1055
  that inquired into the condition of the sugar trade. No one would deny that it was allowable for the Government to persuade foreign countries to take off bounties. If persuasion failed they might equally counteract the effect of the bounty. The only argument against doing so was that it was advantageous to the whole community to purchase an article of so universal consumption as sugar as cheaply as possible, oven below cost price. The argument was specious but false. The value to the community of the cheapening of the article would have to be compared with the loss to the community of the value of the industry. The value of the sugar trade was very great. A very large amount of capital was invested in it and in industries dependent upon it in this country, and it employed a large number of people at home, 51,000 of whom, it was estimated, had been thrown out of employment through the effect of bounties. The capital invested in the Colonies was estimated at £30,000,000, supporting a population of 500,000 at least. That loss would have to be deducted from the gain of unnaturally cheap sugar. It would be a dead loss; the capital could not be reinvested. There was no opening for it in any other industry. If, after competition was destroyed, the price of sugar rose again our trade could not be recreated. It was as easy to destroy a trade as it was to cut down a tree. It took generations to build up one and grow the other. But the main argument was that consumers would not ultimately benefit. Bounties destroyed competition. Anything that destroyed fair competition and restricted the area of production was prejudicial to the consumer. As soon as the competition of our Colonial produce and Home manufactures was got rid of the price of sugar would rise to an unprecedented price. It was admitted that our export trade was crippled by hostile tariffs. That import duties could possibly do any harm except to the people who were rash enough to impose them on themselves was at one time stoutly maintained by economists of the Cobden Club school.
  EARL GRANVILLEasked the noble Earl whether he could substantiate that assertion?
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, he could not do so at once; but he would
  1056
  undertake to do so on a future occasion. But some glimmering of common sense had penetrated even into the sacred precincts of that sanctuary of theory. The evils to us of hostile tariffs were allowed. Our whole system of Commercial Treaties proved it. The very idea of such a Treaty, the importance we attached to a Most Favoured Nation Clause, the very employment of the word "favoured" proved that hostile tariffs were injurious to us. The conflict of opinion was as to the best method of combating hostile tariffs. Free imposts, an attempt to bargain when we had nothing to offer in return for the benefits we asked, and a liberal distribution of Cobden Club tracts were the methods we had hitherto employed, with the result that tariffs had been raised and our export trade had rapidly declined. It was high time to try some other plan. We should be much more successful by altering our fiscal system in such a way as to raise revenue by the imposition of a uniform low duty on all foreign imported manufactured goods. In many cases the pressure of such duties would compel foreigners to relieve our goods of excessive duties, and we should obtain better prices for them; and even if it did not have that desirable effect, revenue would be raised and applied to relieve the taxation, and the cost of production would be lessened. The quantity of foreign manufactured goods was far larger than was generally supposed, and a low duty on articles chiefly luxuries would raise a sufficient revenue to give us considerable relief. In the case of import duties, the exporter paid a proportion of the duties, large or small, according to the relative necessity to sell or to buy. At present their industries were heavily taxed at home, and, in addition, contributed largely to the revenues of foreign countries. The foreigner should contribute to our revenue, and give proportionate relief to our taxation. The effect of protective tariffs was two-fold. Those high duties wholly or partially excluded their goods from foreign markets. But that was not all. They enabled foreign manufacturers to compete with them unfairly in the home and the neutral markets. Being secured, wisely or unwisely, mattered not, from our competition in their home markets, they were enabled to throw their surplus stock upon our

  1057
  markets at very low rates. The quantities might be small, but they were increasing, and they were sufficient to bear down our home market prices to an unwholesome extent. Every argument that could be used against foreign bounties was applicable against foreign protective tariffs, and, even admitting that there was not a word to be said in favour of Retaliation, the imposition of low import duties on our part was necessary to neutralize the effects of high protective duties abroad upon our home market. He might be called a Protectionist. After all, Protection was the political creed of the United States, with 50,000,000 English-speaking people, and of all the British subjects in Canada and the Australasian Colonies. The United States had progressed most marvellously under a fiscal system based on pure Protection. They began the present century with a commerce worth £20,000,000 a-year. By the year 1870 it had increased to £116,000,000, and by 1883 it had reached £300,000,000. Under it they had also paid off £180,000,000 of their Debt, and they had brought an enormous area of land under cultivation. Protection could not have been very detrimental to them. But he did not believe in Protection for us. He wanted no advantage; he asked only for equality. Free Trade was the free exchange of various products of the world, and he believed in that principle. The object of Free Trade was that every locality and every person should be able to produce that which it could naturally produce to the greatest advantage. But our system acted in an exactly opposite direction. If, for instance, sugar could be grown and manufactured at Magdeburg as cheaply and of better quality, or of equal quality and cheaper, than it could be grown and manufactured in Demerara and England, then, on Free Trade principles, the trade should be prosecuted in Germany, and the imposition of a duty in favour of Colonial, and against German, sugar would be Protection, That would be Protection. But if the contrary was the case, if the locality best suited to the trade was the West Indies and England, then anything that tended to transfer the trade to Germany was in direct violation of the principles and objects of Free Trade, and if they passively permitted such a transference of
  1058
  trade to take place when it was in their power to prevent it, they were guilty of acting contrary to Free Trade. Political economy was not an exact science. There was no absolutely perfect fiscal system suitable for every country under all circumstances. The theory of Free Trade was perfectly correct, and it must be good in its effects, provided it had fair play. But it was necessary that it should be exercised over a sufficiently large area. Trade was exchange, and if they had not got free exchange, they had not got Free Trade. They might have a very excellent system, but it was not Free Trade; it was absurd and ridiculous to call it by that name. Our commercial system might be good, but its advocates were guilty of a most unwarrantable act of piracy in calling it Free Trade. And this unjustifiable misapplication of term had most unfortunate results, for, in spite of the authority of Shakespeare, there was a good deal in a name. The bulk of the people of these Islands believed in the doctrines of Free Trade, and they were right. They further believed they had got it. In that they were wrong. And the fact that they falsely thought they were in the enjoyment of Free Trade induced them to tolerate a system which, if pursued, would eventually work their ruin. They were trading under circumstances never anticipated by the advocates of Free Trade. They expected the whole world to join with them. Mr. Cobden said in the House of Commons—
  "Adopt Free Trade, and there will not be a tariff in Europe that will not be changed in less than five years to follow your example."
  Nearly 40 years had passed, and the prophecy remained unfulfilled. Sir Robert Peel also argued on the supposition that our example would be followed. He said—
  "In spite of the desire of Governments and Boards of Trade to raise revenue by restrictive duties, reason and common sense will induce relaxation of high duties. The sense of the people will prevail."
  And he added—
  "Our last accounts from the United States give indications of a decline of a hostile spirit in this respect."
  Yet they still heard of "indications" from the United States; but they remained "indications," and nothing more. The country where the people were supposed to rule, where, therefore, the "common sense" of the people,

  1059
  if they had any, must prevail, was the most Protectionist nation on the face of the earth. The right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) was constantly telling them that America was on the point of adopting Free Trade. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Earl Derby) held out the same hope in a speech at the Cobden Club dinner, full of many most interesting fallacies. They would reduce their tariff, no doubt, because they must do so, or invent some way of spending their surplus revenue. But they would never reduce it lower than they were compelled, by the strange difficulty they laboured under of reducing their income to the limits of their expenditure. The question, therefore, of the truth or falsehood of Free Trade was in no way involved in a consideration of the depression of trade or the causes of it; but the question was whether our present system was suited to our present circumstances? It was suitable when we could sell freely. It was unsuitable now that we were not allowed freedom of sale. Our trade suffered from perturbations owing to sudden calls from abroad, especially from the United States. England, instead of doing a good, steady business, was in the position of a journeyman waiting for a job. Full of work occasionally, and then relapsing into comparative idleness, our resources in capital and population flowed largely to the United States. When demand overran supply for a brief period in that country, orders came to us, and we had a brief spurt of prosperity, followed by a corresponding reaction when supply in the United States had overtaken demand. Nothing could be more unwholesome than such a state of things. The remedy lay in the direction of looking less to foreigners, as consumers, and more to our Colonies and Dependencies. Every legitimate effort should be made to turn British capital and British emigration to India and the Colonies, for the very simple reason that upon India our principal industry — cotton — depended, and our Colonies were the only customers we could rely upon. With the one exception of the Cape Colony, they bought largely from us in proportion to their population. It was at least worthy of notice that the only exception was in the case of that Colony in which the Imperial tie was weakest, and where
  1060
  our duties had been most neglected. A continuance in our present commercial and Colonial policy would bring about the ruin of England. But by a policy directed to developing the Empire and increasing the purchasing power of British subjects across the seas, and by a commercial system aiming at neutralizing the evil effects of bounties and hostile tariffs, and a revenue system on which revenue should be raised on foreign manufactured articles and applied to the relief of taxation, prosperity would be secured to England in the future. It was not his business to formulate a system or define a scheme. It was impossible to do so without the information that a full and exhaustive inquiry into the condition of trade alone could give. He wanted to know, also, what the practical men thought—the master manufacturers and shipowners, the great agents and shippers and dealers, the artizans and operatives and labourers. If a change was necessary it was of the utmost importance that the change should be made deliberately, and after the most careful and serious consideration. The commercial revolution which swept away most of our import duties was forced upon us by a national calamity. It was undertaken hurriedly, and it had resulted in evils which might have been averted by more mature consideration leading to riper judgment. We ought to profit by experience, and not wait until another, and, perhaps, a far more serious, calamity forced a too violent reaction upon us. An inquiry into the conditions of trade ought to have been undertaken by Her Majesty's Government long ago; but Her Majesty's Government were not famous for forestalling evil or anticipating events. The Government were, to his mind, neglecting their first duty. They showed no signs of moving in the matter. At least, he expected them to accede to the request of a private Member of the House, not only to sanction an inquiry, which, after all, committed them to nothing, but also to use their best endeavours to assist the inquiry in every way.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons to inquire into the condition of the trade and commerce of the country."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords I have lately read a very clever and amusing book

  1061
  by a very old and noble Friend of mine who usually sits opposite; and I remember one passage where he described his own difficulties as one of the principal Conservative Leaders at the time when Protection was considered to be dead by the Conservative Party, and the difficulty which he had in making a speech on this subject, the difficulty consisting in this—that he was not to discourage the Protectionists and yet not to commit his friends. The Head of the Party entirely approved of the line he had taken. I entirely acquit my noble Friend (Earl Dunraven) of any wish to ride on so narrow a stile as that, although his moving from the Cross Benches to a more prominent place, seems to imply that he thought it fairer not to commit the Cross Benches to some of the theories and facts which he has stated this evening. My noble Friend has laid great stress upon his not being a Protectionist. He says he is a Free Trader, and the only thing he objected to was that he did not like "sham Free Trade." He has been good enough to admit that, on the whole, foreign trade was an advantage to the country. I should have thought that as a real Free Trader he was aware what foreign trade consisted in; that it is a sort of barter; that you cannot get foreign goods without paying for them in goods. It is a perfect illusion that you pay for foreign goods in gold. Gold must, like water, find its level. You cannot keep more gold in the country than you want, because it lowers its value, and it immediately flows into places where its value is high. This is proved in the most clear way, because for nearly 40 years this country has been importing much more than it exported to the whole world, and yet concurrently with that, instead of our sending gold out of the country, the balance of import gold over export has been continually greater. The noble Earl objects extremely to this state of things. His object is to increase our exports and to diminish our imports. I believe it is perfectly impossible to do that.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I do not wish to limit our imports.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl says he does not wish to limit our imports—he only wishes this country to pay more for them. There are some elementary principles of Free Trade which I should like to know whether my noble
  1062
  Friend agrees with or not. Does he think that it is no advantage that Free Trade leaves people to follow the most natural and profitable course for the employment of their capital and labour? Does he not think that the division of labour is an important thing, and that Free Trade adds to the power of a division of labour more than anything else; whereas Protection, which he really advocated although he repudiated it, would destroy that division of labour? The noble Earl has given us his views. Five years ago, I remember—and I dare say a good many of your Lordships remember—a remarkable speech of Lord Beaconsfield on the subject. He gave an historical account of what had happened 30 or 40 years ago. It was a most interesting account, although in some particulars I ventured at the time to question its perfect accuracy. Lord Beaconsfield then contrasted the speeches of two noble Lords who had spoken in favour of an inquiry much like that asked for to-night. He showed that they entirely differed in their views, very much as the Fair Traders do at the present moment. Then he goes on to say that, putting aside altogether the question whether the policy of Reciprocity and Retaliation is good in itself, and whether Free Trade was well applied by Sir Robert Peel and his Friends at a time when our tariffs were burdened with duties, and almost every article came into this country subject to duties, it was impossible to pursue this policy now when only 22 articles were left in our tariff. I really do not think that Lord Beaconsfield contemplated the possibility which the noble Earl suggests of recurring to that cumbrous method of putting duties on every small article that came into this country. Lord Beaconsfield ended by a complete denunciation of an inquiry without any defined object and without any likelihood of the promoters bringing it to a practical end. I really think I might sit down and say that speech entirely disposes of the Motion of the noble Earl. But the noble Earl has brought forward so many questions that I should like to go into them. Now, the noble Earl has assumed that there is a great depression of trade. I must say that, in a statement like his, I have hardly ever heard so little evidence brought forward to support it. The noble Earl has travelled, himself, and

  1063
  has been told by secretaries who have not published their accounts what happens. But he seems to have neglected all the official documents which we have on this subject. Now, I do not deny that there is great suffering, both commercially and agriculturally. I believe exactly what Lord Beaconsfield said five years ago. I believe, as Lord Beaconsfield said on that occasion, "there is neither ruin nor despair to the bulk of the people." The noble Earl has made so many statements that perhaps he will allow me to make some observations with regard to the present state of the country. I quite agree that our profits, although they are not disappearing, are smaller than we should like them to be. The principle point in connection with the present depression would appear to be that it is, to a large extent, only nominal, the volume of trade being larger than ever it was before, and the appearance of depression arising from the lower prices. This is conspicuously the case as regards the foreign trade. The imports and exports for the last few years have been in millions of pounds: — Imports.—1879, 363; 1880, 411; 1881, 397; 1882, 413; 1883, 427. Exports.—1879—British, 191; Foreign and Colonial, 57; total, 248. 1880—British, 223; Foreign and Colonial, 63; total, 286. 1881—British, 234; Foreign and Colonial, 63; total, 297. 1882—British, 241; Foreign and Colonial, 65; total, 306. 1883—British, 239; Foreign and Colonial, 66; total, 305. Thus, the foreign trade was larger in 1883 than it had been for several years before, although prices were lower than in any of the other years in the table. The nominal figures have not been higher in any previous year, except as regards the exports of British produce in 1872 and 1873, when the large totals of £256,000,000 and £255,000,000 were reached; but in 1872 and 1873 prices were abnormally high, and they were in 1883, on the average, 20 to 30 per cent lower than in 1873. If the exports and imports were now to be valued at the prices of 1873 the volume of foreign trade would appear much larger than it has ever done. The magnitude of the volume of trade down to 1883 is also apparent from other figures. The production of pig iron in 1880, 1881, 1882, and 1883 was the largest on record—namely, in 1880 it was 7,749,000 tons, in 1881 it was
  1064
  8,144,000 tons, in 1882 it was 8,580,000 tons, and in 1883 it was 8,490,000 tons. The annual average of 1869–74 was only 6,223,000 tons, and of 1875–80, 6,609,000 tons. This, surely, is a most extraordinary condition for a trade which, as the noble Earl represents it, has been entirely destroyed. The noble Earl has drawn attention to coal. Similarly, the production of coal has progressed as follows:—The annual average in 1869–74 was 118,000,000 tons, in 1875–80 it was 135,500,000 tons, in 1880 it was 147,000,000 tons, in 1881 it was 154,000,000 tons, in 1882 it was 156,500,000 tons, and in 1883 it showed the enormous increase of 164,000,000 tons. Now, take the raw cotton. The amount of raw cotton used in manufacturing has likewise increased. The annual average in 1869–74 was 1,150,000,000 lbs., in 1875–80 it was 1,245,000,000 lbs., in 1880 it was 1,373,000,000 lbs., in 1881 it was 1,439,000,000 lbs., in 1882 it was 1,461,000,000 lbs., and in 1883 it rose to 1,511,000,000 lbs. In the present year—1884—there are signs of some falling off from the large totals of 1882–3—a decrease of £24,000,000 in the imports, or 7½ per cent, and of £3,000,000 in the exports, or 1½ per cent, during the nine months ending with September. But these decreases are more than accounted for by the low prices. The Gazette average of wheat last week was only 32 s. 3d., as compared with 40 s. 3d. at the same time in 1883, and other prices have fallen similarly. In sugar, raw cotton, wool, jute, iron, copper, tin, and lead, a great reduction of price is shown at the present time as compared with the same time last year. Apart from reduction of price, therefore, it would appear that the volume of foreign trade is larger at the present time than ever it was known before. The noble Earl had quoted the condition of the people, and had actually cut the ground from under my feet by saying—"Do not talk to me about Income Tax, pauperism, or deposits in savings banks." The noble Earl relied in preference on Benefit Societies, whose accounts were not published, and which he (Earl Granville) did not know. But these considerations were most essential to the case. The fact was that the Income Tax of 1d. in the pound, which once meant £1,000,000, now meant £2,000,000. The following are

  1065
  the material figures as to Income Tax, consumption of certain articles per head, pauperism, and savings banks deposits, all indicating the condition of the people: — The annual average of the Income Tax assessments was, in 1869–74, £204,000,000 on Schedule D, and the total was £487,000,000; in 1882, it was £267,000,000 on Schedule D, and the total was £601,000,000. Surely that proves something; but the noble Earl entirely rejects it, because, he said, the Income Tax does not touch the poor. But certainly it has some effect on the depression or the prosperity of the whole country. Again, the noble Earl says that pauperism is no test, as there is more difficulty about out-door relief. I am very glad there is, because I think it is an excellent thing, not only for the ratepayers and the farmers, but for the persons themselves who are the recipients of the relief. But I think it cannot be denied that the figures relating to pauperism have an important bearing on this subject. In the years 1869–74, the number of paupers per 1,000 of the population was 42½; whereas in the year 1883 it was only 29. Take, again, the savings banks deposits. In 1869, they were £51,000,000; and in 1883 they rose to £87,000,000. Then the consumption of articles in the country shows a state of prosperity or depression. I find, in regard to sugar, tea, coffee, tobacco, and spirits, that the consumption of coffee has rather fallen off, though not very largely. With regard to spirits, I was rather in hopes that there would be a diminution in the consumption owing to the much greater temperance of the people; but this is not the case. In 1840 the consumption of spirits was 0·97, and in 1883 it was 1·06 gallon per head. I think figures like these must have some sort of importance. There is much discussion among economists as to the causes of the low prices. Mr. Goschen, in the House of Commons, and in a lecture to the Bankers' Institute last year, attributed them to the scarcity of gold. Mr. Hubbard and others have contended that it is the great multiplication of commodities, due to such influences as extension of telegraphy, great rapidity of communication, and low freights, &c. The two assertions are not in reality contradictory. If there had been more gold produced, prices would undoubtedly have risen, or not
  1066
  have fallen, notwithstanding the real abundance of commodities. The relation between gold and commodities generally has changed. For the present purpose, however, it is only necessary to point out that the present depression of trade is to a large extent only apparent. Production and consumption are large, and people are well off. As wages have not yet fallen in proportion, the profits of wholesale merchants and manufacturers are curtailed, and hence the complaints. If it is argued that it is possible by appointing a Commission or Committee of the House to examine how the production of gold is certain suddenly to increase trade, that is an argument which will hardly be valid with your Lordships. The noble Earl laid great stress upon the comparison between ourselves and foreign countries as to the depression in trade. He, first of all, said that the depression is not at all the same in foreign countries as it is with us; and then he said it had no bearing at all on the argument. But I think it has very great bearing on the argument; for if the countries protected are in a much more flourishing condition than we are in, then, I think, there is at least a primâ facie case against Free Trade; but if you find that this depression is common to all countries, then it is extremely absurd to refer it to legislation which occurred 40 years ago, and had been followed by singularly prosperity in all the countries affected by it. My Lords, the fact is that in Germany and Austria the depression is quite as great as our own. The following figures show the foreign trade of the United States and France in recent years. It will be seen that the present depression in each of these countries is greater than in our own. In the United States the maximum year for imports in recent years was 1881–2, in which they amounted to £147,000,000. In 1883–4 the amount was £139,000,000; and in the two months July and August this year there is a further decline of 10 per cent compared with last year. As regards exports, the maximum year in the United States was 1880–1, in which the amount was £184,000,000; in 1882–3 the amount was £151,000,000—a decline of one-sixth. In the two months July and August there is a further decline from £23,814,000 to £22,660,000, or about 5 per cent. In France the maximum year of imports was 1880, the total being

  1067
  £201,000,000; in 1883 the total was £192,000,000. In the nine months ended September 30 this year, as compared with the same period last year, there is a further decline from £140,000,000 to £134,000,000. The maximum year of exports in France was 1875, when the total was £154,000,000; but not going so far back, and taking only 1882, which was the highest year lately, with a total of £143,000,000, it appears that in 1883 there was a decline to £138,000,000. In the nine months ended September, 1884, there is a further decline as compared with the same period of 1883, from £100,000,000 to £94,000,000, or 6 per cent. The following is a comparison with the United Kingdom:—Imports—United Kingdom—Maximum year, 1883, £427,000,000. In nine months of 1884 a decline of 8 per cent compared with 1883. United States—Maximum year, 1881–2, £147,000,000; 1883, £139,000,000. In two months of 1884 a decline of 10 per cent compared with 1883. France—Maximum year, 1880, £201,000,000; 1883, £192,000,000. In nine months of 1884 a decline of 5 per cent. Exports—United Kingdom (British produce)—Maximum year, 1882, £241,000,000; 1883, £240,000,000. In nine months of 1884 a decline of 1½ per cent. United States—Maximum year, 1880–1, £184,000,000; 1883, £151,000,000. In two months of 1884 a decline of 5 per cent. France—Maximum year, 1882, £143,000,000; 1883, £138,000,000. In nine months of 1884 a decline of 6 per cent. In the face of those figures, showing how much greater in two protected countries—two countries with the greatest natural wealth in the world—the depression has been than with us, I really think that any hearsay evidence brought forward by the noble Earl must fall to the ground. The noble Earl also gave us figures about sugar, and he seemed to believe that the bounties which other Governments put upon refined sugar was one of the three causes which have reduced this country to the miserable state he has described. But the sugar bounties affect only a very small portion of the sugar industry. From figures I have before me, it appears that in 1840 the consumption of sugar in this country was 15⅕lbs. per person; whereas at this moment, when the sugar trade has entirely disappeared
  1068
  from the country, it has risen to the enormous amount of 71⅗lbs. per head. In 1840 the consumption of tea was 1⅕lbs. per person, while last year it was 4⅘lbs. And in the same way the consumption of tobacco in 1840 was only ⅘lb. per head, while last year it was 1⅖ lbs. I do not believe that noble Lords opposite will support the noble Earl in his suggestion that a remedy for a matter affecting only an infinitesimal portion of the trade would be found in putting a countervailing duty against the bounty given by other countries. But the noble Earl makes three suggestions. He suggests that a low fixed duty should be put upon every manufactured article introduced. That is, in short, a proposal to return to that old, condemned, and obsolete tariff of duties which was formerly levied on large quantities of articles, to the great obstacle and detriment of trade, and also to the great injury of fiscal arrangements, the cost of collection being enormously increased. The noble Earl proposed to fix a duty on manufactured articles, and at the same time expressed sympathy with the farmers, and did not propose to tax them. He protected the farmers, and he does not propose to tax food or the raw material for our manufacturers, but proposes to put the duty entirely on manufactured articles. That will certainly not help the farmer. On the other hand, by his plan he raises the value of every single article which his wife, his family, or he himself use. The general scope of the noble Earl's plan is to take away trade and emigration from foreign countries and force them into the Colonies. I am quite sure nearly all the Colonies have raised their tariffs since 1869 in a higher proportion than any foreign country has done since that time, with the great exception of the United States; and I must say here, when the noble Earl entirely repudiates the idea of our example having been of any use whatever to foreign countries, I must remind him that foreign countries have to a certain degree followed our example. There does not at this moment exist a single prohibitive tariff in the world—a great advance since we introduced Free Trade. The noble Earl follows the example of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) in saying that Sir Robert Peel, in establishing Free Trade, was guided by the conviction

  1069
  that all other countries would follow our example.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: When did I say that, and where?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I do not recollect the locality or the date.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never said so.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Marquess has certainly laid great stress upon the gigantic blunder which, according to him, Free Traders made 40 years ago in believing that foreign countries would follow their example. I would, however, point out to the noble Marquess that the Free Traders of those days did not merely advocate their policy with the object of our being imitated by foreign countries, but they put that policy forward because they were convinced that simply and by itself Free Trade was best for this country. The object of the noble Marquess is not quite the same as that of the noble Earl on the Cross Benches. He does not propose to establish permanently a fixed duty upon all manufactured articles; but he would threaten to do so, and use the threat as an instrument of warfare with which to frighten all foreign countries into reducing their tariffs and becoming Free Traders like ourselves. If the noble Marquess could satisfy me that by our using that threat or putting it into execution for one year we should cause all the Protective walls in every part of the world to fall down, it might be well to make the experiment. But I do not believe in our power to achieve that result by using such a threat. The plan was tried for 20 years, and we went on trying to force other countries to fall in with our views by clapping 20 per cent on to the price of their goods; but without result. If we were to say—"We are going to use our tariffs as a means of forcing you to do that which you do not think advantageous to do," we should be using an argument like that which a missionary would use were he to say—"Heathens, your religion is unsuitable. Ours is the only true, pure, and inspired religion. If you do not follow our example and become Christians, we shall be forced to become heathens ourselves." If the views of noble Lords opposite are to prevail, how are you to deal with the Most Favoured Nation Clause which exists in almost every Treaty which we have made?
  1070
  This demand for Fair Trade appears to me to be as theoretical and fallacious as anything can possibly be. I must say that I shall be extremely surprised if your Lordships, simply on the statement of the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven) as to the existing state of things, which, I think, I have proved is not a correct statement, and after his suggestions as to the reforms he would carry out, should agree to grant the inquiry which he desires.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he had heard with perfect amazement the assertion of the noble Earl that there was no very serious depression in this country.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that at the beginning of his speech he stated that there was very great suffering and distress among certain classes of the community.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, it was something to have got that acknowledgment from the Government. He asked their Lordships to consider whether the arguments of the noble Earl who had just sat down (Earl Granville) did not afford the strongest reasons for the holding of such an inquiry as was asked for? The noble Earl had pointed out that the present volume of the trade of this country had never been exceeded, and had also acknowledged that large classes of the community were in a very depressed and suffering condition. What was the meaning of such an extraordinary state of things? The volume of trade was greater than it had ever been, and yet very large masses of the people were in the greatest straits. Surely this mystery ought to be inquired into. The whole burden rested on Her Majesty's Government to tell the House why there should not be an inquiry. The noble Earl had given no reason why there should not be an inquiry, and had rested himself mainly upon what Lord Beaconsfield said five years ago. But when Lord Beaconsfield made that speech he had no idea that the depression would go on increasing at the terrible rate which had been the case, and it was perfectly absurd, therefore, to quote that speech now. Another argument in favour of permitting the inquiry was the fact that the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Dunraven), who, on that occasion, represented a large mass of the industrial population, and the noble Earl who represented the Government

  1071
  (Earl Granville) were at complete variance in regard to matters of fact. He held that the real facts ought to be ascertained. In the manufacturing districts, in the iron and coal districts, the depression of trade was only too manifest. He (the Earl of Harrowby) had been in the manufacturing districts this autumn, in the great Port of Liverpool, and in the iron and coal districts, and unless his eyes deceived him there was one uniform testimony as to the suffering in every branch of trade. The Liberal Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), in "another place," said the other day—
  "The fact has to be faced, that this great commercial country, which for years made such rapid progress by leaps and bounds. … has for some years past shown a tendency towards retrogression."
  That came from a Gentleman who was well versed in commerce, and it was testimony worth a good deal more than the statistics of the noble Earl opposite. As to the statistics quoted by the noble Earl opposite, he would remind the House that nothing could be more deceptive than a mass of figures, which could be handled in a variety of ways. He should, therefore, decline to give his assent to the statistical statement of the noble Earl until it had been fully sifted by people of opposite views. He did not entirely agree with the noble Earl who brought the subject forward as to the reasons for the existing depression. In his opinion there were greater reasons. Trade and commerce were very shy of instability and uncertainty, which were fatal to enterprize, and one of the chief reasons why depression now prevailed was that the acts of the Government, and the speeches of some of its Members, had succeeded in creating a feeling of uncertainty and instability at home, and of great insecurity abroad. Enterprize was in consequence shy, commerce was frightened, and everybody seemed to be afraid to launch out. There was nothing extraordinary in this when they remembered the legislation of the Government in regard to land; their proposed shipping and attempted railway legislation; their attempted tampering with the coinage of the country; their bankruptcy legislation, which was evidently breaking down; and the threats which they had levelled at their Lordships' House. When they remembered these things, they would no
  1072
  longer be astonished that trade and enterprize were less prominent than formerly, and that labour was not receiving its just reward. Surely it would not be denied that our commerce was suffering from the instability of our policy and the state of uncertainty with regard to foreign affairs. The Government had neglected our commercial interests—that could be seen in many instances. Did we not see in every part of the world a state of things which made commercial men anxious? Were we not told by Sir Donald Currie and by Mr. Stanley that commerce was flying from West Africa in consequence of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government? What about their treatment of the Congo? They were allowing stringent tariffs to be established against our commerce on the Congo. Was their support of commerce in China encouraging? And what had been done in Madagascar? Everywhere we found the same feeling—that traders were afraid to launch out boldly into commercial enterprize, because the British flag was not likely to protect them, and the Government was not fairly supporting them. The uncertainty of trade, and feeling of want of stability and uncertainty at home, were, in his opinion, potent factors in the present trade depression. It was the opinion of a large mass of people who agreed with the noble Earl who had made this Motion that an inquiry ought to be held, and no reason had been given by Her Majesty's Government why it should not. But Her Majesty's Government were only following a fatal precedent. Their answer always was "No inquiry." When their Lordships wished to inquire into the operation of the Irish Land Act, the answer was "No inquiry." The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) asked for an inquiry as to the condition of the sugar industry, and the answer was "No inquiry." The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) urged for an inquiry into the state of our finances; but "No inquiry" was still the answer. And so again, with regard to our merchant shipping, a Select Committee was refused last year. And with respect to that most important matter, the Conference on Egypt, the Government made use of their majority to prevent inquiry. He owned he did not expect that the inquiry now moved for would be granted,

  1073
  as he had watched the conduct of the Government on former occasions. But the country would not rest until there was a full and searching inquiry, nor would any sensible man be afraid of demanding it lest he should be called a Protectionist. This inquiry would come in time; what the result of it would be it was not for him to say, but the country had a right to have this matter thoroughly investigated.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that neither the beginning nor the end of the noble Earl's (the Earl of Harrow by's) speech was consistent with the middle of it. In the beginning of his speech the noble Earl gave reasons for inquiry, and at the end of his speech he adduced what he deemed very strong reasons for it; but in the middle of his speech he cut away the ground for inquiry altogether, because he had found out that the way in which Her Majesty's Government had conducted foreign affairs was the cause of all the mischief. What the noble Earl really wanted was, not inquiry, but the removal of Her Majesty's Government. He (the Earl of Kimberley) was not going to follow the noble Earl in his long and unconnected statement with regard to every possible subject, from foreign affairs to Irish land, but would direct his remarks to what had fallen from the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Dunraven). Her Majesty's Government were asked, Why not grant an inquiry? The answer was, because nothing could be worse unless they had made up their minds that the evils complained of were of such a nature that they could be remedied by the action of the Government and by legislation. Her Majesty's Government had made up their minds that the evil from which we suffered could not be so remedied by them, or by legislative measures. They ought to have some notion of a remedy before encouraging people to hope for one. The noble Earl on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Dunraven) had a remedy—the application of the principles of Reciprocity. The principles of Reciprocity were held in some countries; but what he would ask was, were we prepared to look forward to the establishment of a system of Reciprocity with other nations? This was a practical question, not a question of theory. Unless we obtained Reciprocity
  1074
  Treaties from all the nations of the world we must introduce differential duties in favour of countries from whom we obtained Reciprocity. And suppose we did so; the question was, would that produce any effect upon the other countries? Taking the United States, for example, suppose we were to endeavour to drive them into a more liberal policy by a system of differential duties, were we going to put a duty upon corn, or upon raw cotton, or upon the raw materials imported from the United States and used in the most important trades in this country? The attempt to force foreign countries to change their commercial policy by putting on differential duties would be the most Quixotic enterprize it was possible to enter upon. If they on that (the Ministerial) side of the House did not consider the introduction of a system of Reciprocity and Retaliation a practical measure it could not form to them the ground for any inquiry. Then if we were not going to introduce such a system, what possible scheme could be suggested for meeting the evil? The noble Earl said he would not deal with one of the principal interests of the country—namely, the agricultural interest. It might be all very well for noble Lords to put that out of their view; but the agricultural interest was a very important interest, and if they were going to leave food untaxed and to tax other things which the producer of food in this country used, they would be doing a great injustice. This was a thing he had often begged farmers to consider. If by any chance the people of this country were to be persuaded to put duties on foreign manufactures, the large mass of our population would never consent to have duties imposed on food, and therefore the agricultural classes would be placed in this position—that they would not have high prices for their produce, while they would have to pay high prices for all they had to consume. The noble Earl referred to theories which he said were held by members of the Cobden Club—for instance, that foreign tariffs were not an evil to this country. Anything that injured the trade of this country was an evil; that nobody could deny; but whether it would be wise in us to put duties upon foreign imports in order to break down the system of foreign tariffs was

  1075
  quite another thing. This was perfectly certain, that if goods were imported, from foreign countries, they must be paid for by the produce of the labour of this country, and the produce of the labour of this country was the riches of this country, and the larger our imports—he did not say in any one year, but for a series of years—the greater our prosperity. He did not believe that this was a matter which would be regarded with disfavour. The noble Earl made a comparison between the advance of trade in certain countries and the advance of trade in this country over a given series of years; but that comparison was not a fair one. If they took the case of New South Wales and looked at the imports and exports of that Colony for the past 30 years, he had not the smallest doubt that it would be seen that the advance made there was greater than had been made by France in the same period. The reason was that the advance was much greater in a new country than in a country which had a greater volume of trade. The noble Earl quoted the wonderful progress in America in support of his argument. It would be a remarkable thing if the United States had not made a wonderful advance; but to compare the progress of America during the last 40 years with the progress of Great Britain of late years, was not a fair comparison. It had been said that he stated the other night that there was no depression in agriculture. He made no such statement. What he said was that there was no such depression as to induce them to mention it in the Queen's Speech. At the same time, he added that he was painfully aware, from his own experience, that there were parts of the country in which there was very serious depression, but that there were other places where depression did not exist, or where it was not so serious. He hoped it would not be supposed that he denied the existence of distress among many classes. He did say, however, that nothing could be less advantageous to the country and in the long run to these suffering classes themselves than an inquiry such as that now asked for. It would not be to the advantage of the people to make them lean upon such measures as the Government could supply. They ought rather to trust to the vigour and energy of the population.

DEATH OF THE RIGHT HON. HENRY FAWCETT, POSTMASTER GENERAL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I may be permitted to interrupt the debate for one moment to communicate a very sad piece of intelligence, which I received with very deep regret, which I am sure will be shared by every Member of this House. Two or three hours ago the death of the Postmaster General, Mr. Fawcett, occurred. I did not know any man whose intellectual qualities and high character more entitled him to the respect of every one who knew him. He was one of the bravest of men under a great physical disability.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will only add one word to what the noble Earl has said, and that is to join with him in expressing the belief that there are few public men whose loss at this moment would be received with so much regret. Mr. Fawcett was a man who, while holding strong political opinions, excited the liveliest sympathy and admiration alike among his opponents and friends.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he heartily concurred in the expression of regret at the loss sustained by the death of Mr. Fawcett, whom he had had the good fortune to know. The noble Earl said, that in considering the subject before their Lordships, there were two things they should bear in mind. First, they had to consider whether there had been a case made out worthy of inquiry; and then, in the next place, whether the mode suggested was the best way of dealing with the matter? The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) deprecated any inquiry, because it would mean a preconceived opinion as to the measures to be adopted. With regard to the condition of the trade and commerce of the country, he was not prepared to agree with the argument that, in accepting the Motion, the question would practically be Free Trade or Protection. He denied that Free Trade ought to be made a sort of idol or fetish, before which everything should be judged. It

1077
seemed to him that nothing could be more unreasonable or absurd than to say that, because they took off the duty on corn 40 years ago, they should not now have an inquiry into commercial and agricultural distress. That depression existed no one could doubt. It was depression in some cases, but in others it was misery and almost ruin; and it affected not one, but many classes. There had been none of that recuperative vigour and force which they had seen on former occasions. The depression which now existed had continued over a period of eight or 10 years, and there was no sign of recovery. On the contrary, every sign there was pointed to a still further downward course, It was true there was abundance in the exports of manufactured articles, just as there had been in the harvest; but, on the other hand, there was a diminution of profits. One might attribute that state of things to one reason, and another to another reason; but they ought, in his opinion, to try and ascertain what this phenomenon, which was new to them, really meant. It had been stated that the cause of the depression was the removal of British capital to foreign countries. In such a case as that no sign could be more alarming; but was it so? The answer was, inquire. By instituting an inquiry, the truth of such statements might be ascertained. Then there was the enormous competition which existed at this moment in many trades. That competition existed in large as well as in small trades. It was only the other day that he heard that the whole of the ironwork of an enormous railway station in the Midlands had been imported into this country from Belgium, and he knew from his own knowledge that iron for railway bridges had been brought over from abroad. It was precisely the same in smaller industries. When all these matters were put together, they produced an alarming result; and when he looked to the terribly severe winter which was in prospect, he, for one, could not contemplate the future without apprehension. He greatly regretted that the Government had opposed the investigation asked for. Scarcely anything had been said about agricultural distress, a subject which would require a long discussion to itself. During the last few years a vast amount of land
1078
had been thrown out of cultivation. No doubt, no blessing could be more greater than that which we had derived from cheap bread, which had carried us through many seasons of distress during the last 30 years. Still we ought to recognize what the throwing of land out of cultivation really meant. During the last 10 years 1,000,000 acres had been changed from arable to grass; 1,000,000 acres of grain would be about one-fourth of the total grain production of the country. All conversion of arable into pasture involved two consequences, one social and the other political. It meant the displacement of so many families and individuals, who were driven either to emigrate, or to contribute to the overcrowding of the large towns. He was not one of those who objected to emigration, for he had seen its advantages; but he did say that the driving of agriculturists and their families into the towns was in itself an unmitigated curse, which increased populations for whom the means of industrial employment were already too limited, and increased the struggle for life, and the general distress. Then it meant another very serious matter; it practically reduced the area of land devoted to the food supply of this country. We already depended for two-thirds of our food supply upon foreign countries, and it was a very great risk for the country to live on the sufferance of foreign nations. It had been said by the Prime Minister that farmers should recover their losses by growing fruit and rearing poultry. He could not understand anyone who knew anything of agricultural matters speaking of such small and potty agricultural pursuits as the substitute for growing corn; and, although these industries might be developed, we could not depend upon them as a means of subsistence, and the bulk of the land in England must always be farmed upon different principles. It was a mere fraction of the land of the country that could be applied to these purposes. Little had been said about our commercial relations with our Colonies; but for many years our Colonies had been our best customers, and a merchant or tradesman generally desired to meet the wants of a customer. Why had not we done anything of the sort? Our Colonial Empire was one of such extent, fertility, and variety of production, that we could get everything we

1079
wanted from them. Canada could supyly us with all the wheat we wanted at 30 s. a-quarter, and in time of war we could hold the lines of communication, which would be a much more simple matter than living upon the sufferance of others. One of the best things we could do would be to see if we could not devise some form of commercial connection between the Colonies and the Mother Country. He believed that the case made out by the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven) was one worthy of inquiry, and that it was wise to ask for a Joint Committee of both Houses, because the weakness of this House in its knowledge of commercial subjects could be made up by the abundant knowledge in the other House. It would save public discussion and public time if the inquiry were granted, and in proportion as Free Traders were confident of the soundness of their principles, they ought to be willing and eager to submit them to the test of an inquiry. The Government were making a mistake in refusing an investigation on which the heart of the country was more set than it was on any other matter, and public feeling would be intensified by the distress of the coming winter.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had called special attention to the arguments that arable land had been turned into pasture. Did he suggest that inquiry might lead to legislation to prevent farmers and landlords cultivating land in the way they thought most profitable, or that this should be done by adopting the obvious course of putting such a duty on pasture as to bring land under the plough when wheat ought never to be sown, as was done by the Corn Laws?
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the inquiry of the noble Earl showed the supreme inattention with which he had listened to his remarks. What he had contended was that the large acreage of land which had gone out of cultivation had partly caused a distress which should be fully inquired into.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should be sorry that this debate should close without my saying one word, which is to express the hope that my noble Friend will not push his Motion to a Division. Although I deeply regret that Her Majesty's Government have not granted the inquiry, yet the
1080
very structure of the Motion would have made it obviously inconvenient for us to resolve upon inquiry when we know that Her Majesty's Government are determined to arrest it. I am sorry that the Government have come to that conclusion. But I am more sorry that they have done so on arguments which I am sure will seem to the country to imply considerable scepticism as to the existence of this general depression. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) gave us statistics; he poured upon us all the columns of the Statistical Abstract. But I am sure, that if he had done that in the other House to anything like the same extent, he would have been told by a great authority that he was dealing with this country as though he were dealing with Jupiter or Saturn. He was treating us with scientific formulas, and elaborate quotations of statistics, in order to traverse the existence of a thing which anybody, who moves about in England at all, knows to exist as well as he knows that the sun shines in summer. The noble Earl admits the existence of this distress, at all events among certain classes. He admits its extreme severity. I do not know how much of human misery is necessary, in his mind, in order to call the attention of Parliament to its existence, and the powers of Parliament to inquire into its cause. But the Government, in this debate, have given us a reason against inquiry which certainly cannot be applied to any other department of life. The noble Earl almost angrily corrected my noble Friend for not having asked for this inquiry with a foregone conclusion as to its results. I have heard the advice not to prophesy unless you know. But this is the first time I have ever heard the doctrine propounded that you ought not to inquire unless you know what the result of the inquiry will be. The noble Earl (Earl Granville) used to-day a favourite argument with the Government—a quotation from a speech of Lord Beaconsfield delivered five years ago, which appears now to impress them with a reverence which it did not produce at the time. Lord Beaconsfield spoke in 1879, and although he was a man of marvellous powers, he could not have foreseen what would be the state of things in 1884. At all events, whatever may have been in Lord Beaconsfield's mind on that subject, I can prove that he did not go on

1081
the doctrine of "Never inquire unless you know what the result will be." When the late Government assented to the Royal Commission on Agriculture, he never required that the Duke of Richmond should write down his ideas of the conclusions to which the Commission would come.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: What have been the results?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Recommendations which I very much wish you would carry out.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Upon what?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Upon local taxation. I regret this view of Her Majesty's Government, and I shall remember it when they bring forward any Departmental Inquiry, and I shall bear in mind that it would not have been undertaken unless the result had been known beforehand. But, my Lords, I do not take that view, The objects of inquiry are to ascertain facts and to form conclusions—to ascertain whether legislation is required, and, if so, to lay the basis on which that legislation should rest. But inquiry has another important function—namely, to inform the minds of the people of the country. We are governed by public opinion, and it is our highest interest that that public opinion should be rightly stored with facts and rightly guided. Therefore, it is of great importance that the matters of fact in dispute should, as far as possible, be ascertained, and that the materials for the judgment of the country should be placed before it in a form in which they can be dealt with. The noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) cannot ignore the fact that this notion of Fair Trade is gaining force in every quarter—that there is a mass of public opinion forming which, if his view is correct, is most pernicious in its aims, and which ought for that reason to receive the attention of Parliament. I think I am at one with the noble Earl as to the point of Reciprocity, and that the use of countervailing duties would be legitimate as weapons of offence if there were fair grounds to believe that that species of warfare would be successful. The noble Earl's opposition is based upon scepticism as to the success of that kind of warfare. Surely in that he forgets the
1082
experience of his own official career—he forgets the Reciprocity Treaties which he himself has had a hand in negotiating. It was by an offer of reduction of tariffs that the French agreed to a relaxation of their prohibitory and protective system. Therefore, I think that the experience of the noble Earl himself should have warned him that this kind of threat is not so entirely without its influence with Foreign Powers as he is disposed to think. But, on the other hand, I agree with him, as Lord Beaconsfield said five years ago, that the difficulties surrounding any such undertaking are very great and enormously enhanced by the excessive and somewhat imprudent facility with which we have allowed our own free action to be bound. But, at all events, is it not wise that these difficulties should be faced by inquiry, and that it should be shown whether or not they are insuperable? I cannot understand that from any point of view more light would be an evil. We have strange and new phenomena to deal with. We wish the mysteries which attach to our present difficulties should be dissipated. We wish the misery, whose existence is more or less freely admitted, to be explained as far as possible, and I cannot see that any evil whatever could arise from exposing to the free light of inquiry the fiscal policy of the last 40 years, which, if it be sound, will only emerge the stronger from any inquiry which may be held.
THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, that after the debate that had taken place, he was willing to withdraw his Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Debate resumed.
MARRIAGES LEGALIZATION BILL.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the Marriages Legalization Bill was an excellent and a comprehensive Bill, as it would probably have obviated the necessity for those Acts to legalize marriages which were passed almost every Session, and of which two—for Stopsley, Bedfordshire, and Wood Green Church—had been passed last year. This Bill had been sent down to the other House on the 23rd May, and had been withdrawn on the 24th July. How was it that it had not passed in

  1083
  those two months? Complaints had been made by the Government whenever they had boon asked to initiate legislation in this House of the difficulty of passing their Bills; but it seemed there was something wrong in the other House, or in the management of it by the Government, for the year before, also, a Government Bill—the Indian Marine Bill—the principle of which had been unopposed, had failed to pass the House of Commons, and had come up again last Session. He would ask the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack whether he intended to reintroduce it?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in reply, said, that the reason why the Bill had not become law was because the House of Commons had not passed it. Their Lordships were aware of the circumstances under which the last Session terminated. No Bills except those which were absolutely uncontested were passed. Some hon. Members of the House of Commons thought that this particular measure had not been skilfully prepared, and the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) found he would not have an opportunity of passing it. In these circumstances, the Bill, like many other measures, fell to the ground. He hoped that he should be able to reintroduce it next Session, and that the objections to it would then disappear. He certainly intended to persevere with it.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.