Sitting of 23 June 1885

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Metropolis (Hughes Fields, Deptford) Provisional Order Confirmation* [205]; Metropolis (Tabard Street, Newington) Provisional Order Confirmation* [204].
Report—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [L66]; Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [167].
Considered as amended—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2)* [192].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5)* [190]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6)* [197], and passed.

QUESTION.

  THE EXECUTIVE GOVERNMENT (IRELAND)—SPEECH OF MR. CHAMBERLAIN.
  MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDgave the following Notice:—On the first day of Sitting to ask the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), "Whether he is correctly reported as having, in a recent speech, charged the
  1618
  late Government with ruling Ireland in a spirit of unjustifiable oppression, comparable only to the rule of Russia over Poland and of Austria over Venice; and, if so, whether the Cabinet, of which he was a Member, agreed to the course he pursued of thus publicly denouncing the Russian and Austrian systems of government?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I can save the time of the House by answering the Question at once. I did not use language which I think is capable of the interpretation put upon it by the hon. Member. What I said was, that the government of Ireland resembled that of Russia in Poland and that of Austria in Venice in its centralized and bureaucratic character.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT—ACCEPTANCE OF OFFICE BY THE NEW MINISTERS—STATEMENT OF MR. GLADSTONE.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Information which has been conveyed to me enables me to acquaint the House that Lord Salisbury has definitely accepted Office, and that his Cabinet is in the course of designation and appointment—I presume at an advanced stage—so much so that he is confidently able to expect that to-morrow, if it be the pleasure of the House to meet to-morrow, the Writs may be moved for the re-election of the Members for those places where Members of the Government may have vacated their seats. As I have no doubt that the House will be disposed to comply with that invitation, the most convenient course to take will be this—and I have no doubt the House will be disposed to comply with the invitation—that I should move the suspension for to-morrow of the first Standing Order which relates to Sittings on Wednesday; that I should then move that the House at its rising do adjourn until 5 o'clock to-morrow, which is the hour indicated by Lord Salisbury on the part of the incoming Government, and that then the House should forthwith adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Standing Order No. 1 be suspended, and that this House, at its rising, do adjourn until To-morrow at Five of the clock."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I see by the newspapers that an arrangement has been made between the Leaders of the two Parties to press forward certain Bills; but I do not find that a Bill of the utmost importance to tens of thousands of the new electors of the country is among the number—namely, the Bill to prevent disfranchisement by the receipt of medical relief. At present, therefore, the House is placed in a somewhat unfortunate and awkward position. Those of us—and I believe we form a majority of the House—think that that measure ought to be included among the number to which importance is to be given. More than a fortnight has now elapsed during which the suspension of the Business of the House has been going on. When the late—or perhaps I ought to say the present—Prime Minister moved the other day that the Orders of the Day should be postponed, he made an exception in favour of two measures, one of which he urged related to non-contentious matter—the Princess Beatrice's Annuity Bill, while the other was germane to the great measure of Reform which has just been passed—namely, the Lords' Amendments to the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. Now, the measure to which I refer comes, at any rate, under one, if not both, of those heads; and, therefore, I would urge upon the Government, or upon the Leaders of both Parties, to give some assurance that it should be included among the important measures to be pressed forward under the agreement which has been arrived at. Otherwise it would, I think, be my duty to take the sense of the House on the question, as I believe the majority of the House would be found to be in favour of proceeding with it. Indeed, I am not sure whether the House would not even be willing to take another stage of the measure to-night, and to read the Bill a second time tonight. Seeing that we are now hard upon the month of July, time is very precious. The Bill to which my remarks apply certainly forms part of the great measure of Reform to which the Prime Minister alluded when he made an exception in favour of the Lords' Amendments to the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill being considered. I do not think it would be at all
  1620
  out of Order, or at all opposed to the present situation we are now in, if he would make another exception in regard to this particular measure—namely, the one which appears as an Order of the Day, under the name of "The Parliamentary Elections (Medical Relief) Bill," its object being to remove the disqualification which now exists in connection with the receipt of medical relief, and which, as I have said, affects tens of thousands of the voters of this country. If the Prime Minister cannot give the House some assurance upon this matter, I think it will be my duty to oppose the adjournment on this occasion, in order to accentuate, at any rate, the importance which is thought to attach to this Bill outside the House. If the House agree to put off the adjournment, it would then be competent to postpone the Orders of the Day, with this exception, and to carry the Bill forward another stage to-night. That is a very moderate request, and in urging it I would use precisely the same arguments as those which were very effectively used by the Prime Minister when he made an exception of the consideration of the Lords' Amendments to the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill. In fact, the Bill is in precisely the same category as that Bill—that is to say, that it is necessary to complete the great measure of Reform which is now on the eve of passing into law. If the Leaders of the Opposition, or those who could speak for them with authority, can give the House some assurance that the Parliamentary Elections (Medical Relief) Bill will be included in the list which it is the intention of the Leaders on both sides of the House to press forward, such an assurance will be accepted by me, and by my lion. Friends who entertain the same views, as a satisfactory statement. In the absence of some such assurance, it will be the duty of those who feel deeply the gross injustice—for I can call it nothing else—which is being done to poor people throughout the country, to oppose the Motion now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman for the adjournment of the House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: We have been, in consequence of a statement made some time ago by the Prime Minister, expecting that some kind of statement might be made to-day with regard

  1621
  to any communications which may have taken place as to any assurances which may have been given, or are proposed to be given, to right hon. Gentlemen opposite before they assume Office. I would venture to ask the Prime Minister if he will be good enough either to give us that statement now, or to tell us when that statement is to be given to us? We should like, in any case, to be assured that nothing has been done that deprives us, on this side, of our independent course of action in regard to any legislative measures that are likely to come before this House, and in regard to the privileges which independent Members now enjoy to bring on Amendments or Resolutions whenever they are able on the days now allotted for such a purpose by the Standing Orders of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the Question which has just been put to me, very naturally and properly, by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I believe Lord Salisbury is of the same opinion as myself, that not a moment ought to be lost which can possibly be avoided in giving to the House the information to which it is entitled with respect to the recent communications. I have very great hopes that it may be in my power to give that information to-morrow. I cannot, however, speak positively, as it depends upon the concurrence of another; but that is my hope and my desire. I will not now attempt to give any account of the character of this correspondence, or of the principles by which I have been guided in endeavouring to conduct it, as there will so speedily be an opportunity which will enable hon. Gentlemen to form their own opinion on an accurate knowledge of everything material that has taken place. That, I hope, is sufficient for my hon. Friend, so far as regards this particular subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) has—as I understand, in a good-humoured way—threatened to oppose the adjournment of the House if it be true that an agreement has been made between the Leaders of the Party coming into Office and the Leaders of the Party going out of Office, with respect to the progress of certain Bills, and if that arrangement does not include a measure in which he is very deeply
  1622
  interested, and which certainly has strong claims—I give no opinion on it at this moment—to be brought under the judgment of the House. But I think I can effectually relieve the mind of my hon. Friend. He is the victim of a delusion. There is no foundation whatever, great or small, for the belief that such an arrangement has been made, or that any communication of any kind has taken place upon it. The position, therefore, which his Bill has occupied, together with the freedom of my hon. Friend and of the House, remains positively unimpaired; and, under these circumstances, I think he will feel that the second reading of a Bill of that kind ought to be moved when there is a responsible Government in Office.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That Standing Order No. 1 be suspended, and that this House, at its rising, do adjourn until To-morrow, at Five of the clock.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Five, o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5)* (152); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6)* (153).
Second Reading—Gas and Water Provisional Orders (No. 2)* (136); Water Provisional Orders* (137); Yorkshire Registries * (133); Women's Suffrage (27), negatived.
Third Reading—Burial Boards (Contested Elections) * (105), and passed.

PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT—THE NEW MINISTRY—STATEMENT OF THE EARL GRANVILLE.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am authorized to state that Lord Salisbury has gone down to Windsor, and has accepted Office; and at his desire I propose, when the proceedings of the day close, to move the adjournment of the House, as usual, till Thursday.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (REDISTRIBUTION) BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS.
  Order of the Day for consideration of Commons reasons for disagreeing to some of the Lords Amendments read.
  Moved, "That the Commons' reasons for disagreeing to some of the Lords' Amendments be now considered."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  LORD DENMANmoved that the Commons' reasons for disagreeing to the Lords' Amendments be considered that day six months, on the ground that the measure was most imperfect, and had been forced through the House in a most unseemly manner. There was no reason to hurry forward an Election in November next, and the polling places could be completed before next year. In one division no polling places were complete until after the old registration to be completed in 1885.
  Amendment moved, to leave out the word ("now") and at the end of the Motion to add ("this day six months.")—(The Lord Denman.)
  On Question? Resolved in the negative.
  Original Motion agreed to.
  Commons reasons considered accordingly.
  Amendment made by the Lords in page 23, after line 18.
  Moved, "Not to insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he was perfectly astonished at the reasons which the Commons had sent up against this Amendment, and had been still more surprised at the speeches made in support of the Government in the House of Commons. The first reason given against the Amendment was that Jedburgh was a small town, closely connected with the county, and not homogeneous in its character with the Border Burghs. Jedburgh was not closely connected with the county, and it was homogeneous in character with the Border Burghs. Jedburgh was the only burgh liberated in the counties of Roxburgh and Selkirk which was not in the Border Burghs. If Mr. Trevelyan's arguments were worth anything at all

  1609
  they ought to be applied to Selkirkshire. It was said that as Jedburgh was the county town it ought to vote in the county; but it ought to follow that Selkirk, being the county town, ought to vote with the county. It had been said that Jedburgh was against the change; but that feeling was not unanimous, because a strong Petition had been sent up in favour of the Lords' Amendment. It was a mistake to suppose that the Amendment proposed to alter the existing state of things. Exactly the reverse was the case. What he wished to secure was that the vote which had been given to the agricultural labourers should be exercised to its full value. Mr. Trevelyan had written a public letter, in which he said that this was Party action of the most objectionable character. He perfectly agreed with that. He thought the action most objectionable, but not in the manner in which Mr. Trevelyan meant. So strongly did he feel that he was inclined to ask their Lordships to take another division on this point, and to stick to their Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that looking at the circumstance that no one in the House of Commons had supported the change in the Bill upon this point which had been made by their Lordships, he should recommend his noble Friend not to insist upon the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYalso hoped the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lothian) would not insist upon going to a division.
  THE EARL OF MINTOsaid, he thought it was quite unnecessary to divide. He supported the original proposal of the Bill, considering it better that Jedburgh should remain in the county than that it should be joined to a set of burghs with which it had no connection.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, that as no sufficient reason had been shown against the Amendment he should press it to a division.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he hoped his noble Friend would reconsider his determination. The principles of the Bill had been agreed upon by the Leaders of both Houses, and he trusted his noble Friend would not think it worth while to put their Lordships to the trouble of another division on the subject. The same point might just as well be raised in regard to one of the
  1610
  burghs with which he was connected; but in the circumstances he had not considered himself justified in contesting it.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he would join in the appeal to the noble Marquess not to press the question to a division, as it was highly inexpedient at the present time to introduce anything like complication into the relations between the two Houses. While giving the noble Marquess every credit for the sincerity of his motives, he hoped he would withdraw his opposition.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he had no desire to do anything inconsistent with the public interest; and, therefore, after the appeal made to him by the noble Earl beside him, he would withdraw his opposition.
  On Question? agreed to.
  Amendment made by the Lords in page 86, line 35.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,in moving that the House should not insist upon its Amendment changing the name of the Spen Valley Division to that of Birstall, said, there was, no doubt, a great deal to be said in favour of both these names; but, in order to avoid any complication between the two Houses, he would ask their Lordships not to insist on this Amendment. Whatever might be the merits of the question between Birstall and the Spen Valley, the delay in the passage of this Bill was causing extreme inconvenience throughout the country, which would be aggravated if the alterations made by the other House were not now agreed to.
  Moved, "Not to insist on the said Amendment."—(The Earl of Kimlerley.)
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMproposed that their Lordships should adhere to their decision.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he must urge upon the House the undesirableness of any further delay in completing the final stage of this Bill. From all parts of the country complaints were arriving as to the confusion that was being caused by the delay of the measure, and further delay would be most serious.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKwas bound to say that it was extremely desirable that the Bill should proceed without delay. Although he thought the deci-

  1611
  sion of the House of Commons on this matter an unwise one, there being no such place known as the Spen Valley, yet it would be better not to insist on the Amendment than to run the risk of further delaying the Bill.
  On Question? agreed to.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL.—(No. 27.)
(The Lord Denman.)
WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE BILL.—(No. 27.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD DENMAN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he had wished that the second reading might be taken silently and discussion put off, as in the case of the Party Processions (Ireland) Act in 1832; but, as that could not be conceded, he must observe that the case for women's suffrage was much stronger than before the Franchise Bill, which, as he moved it on December 4, 1884, in a clause to that Bill, was an imperfect measure without it. He wished to state that his objection to Resolutions was not confined to those in "another place;" because, in looking to see if Lord Hardwicke had made any speech on the proposed exclusion of ladies from the House of Lords, he found that both Lord Hardwicke and that excellent Lord Chief Justice (Lord Raymond) had both voted—in a majority—against a Resolution for dispensing with Hessian troops when no other Forces were available. He hoped that he had not damaged the cause of women householders by bringing this forward; and if he had needlessly troubled their Lordships he regretted it.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read2."—(The Lord Denman.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORhaving put the Question, declared that the Not-Contents have it.
  LORD DENMANdissented.
  The usual directions for a division having been given—
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I do not consider that this is a proper method of dealing with this matter. I should not care to give a vote on this question, which is one of the greatest importance, without explaining my views upon it; and I, for one, shall leave the House.
  [The noble Earl then withdrew.]
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I shall vote against the Bill, and for this reason—because I do not consider this is a proper time for raising the question. Therefore, I shall vote against the Bill, without any reference whatever to its merits.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 8; Not-Contents 36: Majority 28.
  Resolved in the negative.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND COMMISSION—LETTER OF THE DUKE OF ARGYLL.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK,in rising to call attention to a statement reported to have been made in that House by the Duke of Argyll on the 7th of May, in moving for a copy of a letter addressed by him to the Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and to make an explanation, said, the noble Duke, on the occasion in question, expressed regret that his letter had not been given in the Report of the Royal Commission along with the evidence and the other documents contained in it, and said that, having asked the Chairman of the Commission whether there was any objection to its publication, and finding that there was not, he ventured to move that it be printed and circulated as a Parliamentary Paper. If the noble Duke had intended to imply, as might be inferred from the terms he had used, that his communication to the Royal Commission was in reality accidentally omitted from the Report by that Commission, then it became incumbent on him to state to their Lordships that the omission of the noble Duke's letter did not take place accidentally, but advisedly, and for the following reasons:—When the Commission came to consider what documentary communications submitted to them should be embodied in their Report, and what should not, the communication of the noble Duke was brought under discussion at a private meeting of the Commission. As no record existed of what passed at that private meeting, he could not undertake to state exactly what each Member of the Commission said or thought in relation

1613
to that subject; but the opinion of the majority—he might say the prevailing opinion of the Commissioners—was that the communication of the noble Duke should not be printed with the evidence in the Report. That opinion was based on reasons connected, first, with the form, and, secondly, with the substance of that communication. The form of the communication was very exceptional. It was, indeed, ostensibly addressed to the Royal Commission in the guise of a letter to the Chairman; but it was published and circulated in the form of a pamphlet before it reached his hands. The noble Duke, in making that communication, submitted his views at once to the public in the form most familiar in political controversy. That publication immediately obtained an immense circulation, at least in Scotland. It was widely disseminated; it was received by some with approval, by others with displeasure; but it was read by all with the greatest curiosity and interest, as was natural in regard to anything that emanated from the noble Duke. It had also been read by persons versed in these questions in England; and, in fact, the document had gained an amount of notoriety by its circulation throughout the country greater than even the Report of the Commission itself. There was much in the substance of that communication of an exceptional character. It embodied a great number of particulate illustrative of the economical condition of the Highlands and of the history of the noble Duke's property and of his own personal system of management—a system which, he had no doubt, deserved the attention and study of Parliament; but the noble Duke was pleased to mix up with these matters of general interest other matters of a controversial and personal character. During the sittings of the Commission, the noble Duke found fault with the conduct of different Members of the Commission, and commented on the opinions of several of the Commissioners and on expressions casually let fall by them with a vivacity and an irony which were familiar to the style of the noble Duke, and of which he was so great a master. In these circumstances, it became incumbent on him, as the Chairman of the Commission, to consider whether the letter was really a bonâ fide memorandum, submitted for his own in-
1614
struction and that of his fellow-Commissioners, or whether it was not a critique of a controversial character; and, having given his careful and, he trusted, his impartial consideration to the question, he was constrained to admit that the letter was at least so controversial in its nature that he could not press its adoption on the Commission with the courtesy which he owed equally to all the Commissioners. He did not think it was a communication which his Colleagues could have accepted and adopted with the courtesy which they owed to one another; and, therefore, he had been obliged to exclude the document from the Blue Book. He asked the noble Duke and the House not to imagine that he and his fellow-Commissioners desired any immunity from criticism; on the contrary, he was deeply sensible that he himself had committed errors, both of omission and commission, and he did not suppose that any of his Colleagues would hesitate to acknowledge the same. He could assure the noble Duke that the omission of the communication was owing to no want of respect or consideration for him personally, but simply for the reasons he had already mentioned.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was rather ashamed to occupy the attention of the House upon a matter of such small importance in the midst of this great political crisis. He had been much puzzled when he saw the Notice of the noble Lord to know what reason there could be for bringing this matter before the House at this time; but there were some elements of amusement connected with the matter which he would communicate to their Lordships. The method of proceeding followed by the Crofters' Commission was a curious one. He would take the case of his own estate in the Island of Tiree, which his noble Friend had admitted was a representative estate having a curious and an interesting history. The Commissioners went to this island in a steamer, landing at the only little harbour in the island. They got two or three gigs together and scampered off to a church where the meeting was held. So far as he knew, they did not visit a single croft or cottage in the island. No notice had been sent to him, except at a time so late that he was unable to be present. The meeting was held in the

1615
parish church, and all the tenants and Crofters were invited to attend there. A great deal of the evidence adduced before the Commission at these inquiries was good; but a great deal of it also was utter nonsense. His noble Friend knew that a great number of agitators went before the Commission throughout the Highlands instructing the greater number of the poor Crofters what sort of things they were to say at the official inquiry. A number of the Crofters on his estate complained of land being taken from them; but, as a matter of fact, not a single acre had been taken from them. He must say that his noble Friend who presided at the inquiry cross-examined the witnesses most inefficiently; that was not his noble Friend's fault, because he had not the knowledge of all the circumstances of the island to enable him to cross-examine the witnesses as they ought to have been examined. In these circumstances, he found all the evidence thus adduced, much of which was erroneous, published by the Press and circulated all over Scotland. All the accusations brought forward by the Crofters against the landlords were published and circulated throughout the country; and it seemed to him that it was most important that those reports should be contradicted, and the real state of the facts placed before the public. He adopted the course of sending a letter to the noble Lord the Chairman of the Commission giving all the facts. He thought it important to address to his 'noble Friend a statement of the facts connected with the history of crofting in this island. He spent a great deal of time and trouble in collecting the documents for that purpose, and the letter which he wrote gave a history of crofting in that island for 150 years. What, however, was his astonishment to find that when the Report of the Commission was issued this letter had been suppressed. Although his letter had been published, and had obtained a large local circulation in Scotland, it could not have reached the Members of this and the other House of Parliament in the same way as if it had been included either in the Report of the Commissioners, or published as a separate Paper? What justification had the noble Lord given for not publishing the letter? One reason was that it had already been published; but his
1616
answer to that was that all the evidence had been published in the Press, certain journals taking especial pains to publish all the falsehoods against the landlords, refraining very often from publishing the defence. Another reason given was that the letter was contentious in its character; but nine-tenths of the evidence given before the Commission was in the highest degree contentious. The evidence of most of the witnesses was contentious against the landlords; and he considered that he had a perfect right to publish evidence on the other side. But the noble Lord had not stated the real reason for the suppression of this letter. The noble Lord had a Colleague who seemed to have been exceedingly troublesome to him, because he observed that on one occasion his noble Friend interposed his authority as Chairman of the Commission, and, he thought, stretched it to such an extent that he ordered this Colleague to put no more questions of this particular character. This took place in reference to his own estate; and most offensive and injurious questions were put to a tenant of his bearing on the character of a dead man, an agent of his who had been dead for 10 years. This Gentleman, sitting with the authority of a Royal Commissioner, had the gross bad taste to suggest that this dead, factor might possibly have falsified the books of his estate. A more monstrous proceeding he did not know; and he had thought it his duty to call the attention of the public in Scotland to the gross character of the conduct of this Gentleman. His noble Friend said it was due to the courtesy he owed his Colleagues that he should suppress the communication in question. He (the Duke of Argyll) thought the suppression of that document was a mistake. It was, he considered, a perfectly fair proceeding on his part to direct public attention to so gross a departure from the judicial character of this Gentleman's office as Commissioner. When he found that this document, which was held in many quarters to be an important contribution to the question, had been suppressed, he had moved for it; and he felt certain that if the circumstances had been laid before their Lordships a majority of the House would have supported his Motion for its production. He believed Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh, the Gentleman to whom he had referred, objected to

1617
his having described the suppression of the letter as an accidental circumstance, and he supposed had insisted upon his noble Friend making the explanation he had just given. But he submitted that he had been perfectly right in directing the attention of the public to the circumstances of the case, and that there was no justifiable reason for the exclusion of the pamphlet in question.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKwas understood to say that he did not wish to raise the question whether the noble Duke was right or wrong in what he had done. He had only wished, in fairness to his Colleagues, to state the reasons which had guided him in excluding the noble Duke's communication. He (Lord Napier and Ettrick) was still of opinion that he had only done his duty in taking the course he had upon this matter.
House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.