Sitting of 27 January 1887

Preamble
The House met at half after One of the clock.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and having returned;—
Several Members took and subscribed the Oath, and one Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
William Tindal Robertson, esquire, for Brighton.
James Big wood, esquire, for Middlesex (Brentford Division).

NEW WRITS DURING THE RECESS.
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House,—that he had issued, during the Recess, Warrants for New Writs, for Brighton Borough, v. David Smith, esquire, deceased; for Middlesex County (Brent-ford Division), v. Octavius Coope, esquire, deceased; for Liverpool Borough (Exchange Division), v. David Duncan, esquire, deceased; for Donegal County (Southern Division), v. Bernard Kelly, esquire, deceased.
CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
  BELFAST (WESTERN DIVISION).
  Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received from the Judges for the time being on the Rota for the trial of Election Petitions in Ireland, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the West Belfast Division of the Borough of Belfast, and the same was read.
  BELFAST BOROUGH (WESTERN DIVISION) AND SLIGO COUNTY (SOUTHERN DIVISION) ELECTIONS.
  Mr. SEXTON,returned for the Western Division of the Borough of Belfast, and the Southern Division of the County of Sligo, stated that he elected to sit for the Western Division of Belfast.
  LONDONDERRY CITY.
  Mr. SPEAKERinformed the House, that he had received from the Judges for the time being; on the Rota for the Trial of Election Petitions in Ireland, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the City and Borough of Londonderry, and the same were read.

  YORK, EAST RIDING (BUCKROSE DIVISION).
  MR. SPEAKERinformed the House, that he had received from the Judges for the time being on the Rota for the trial of Election Petitions in England the Certificate and Report relative to the Buckrose Division of the East Riding of the County of York, and the same was read.
  Ordered, That the Clerk of the Crown do attend this House forthwith with the last Return for the East Riding of the County of York (Buckrose Division), and amend the same by striking out the name of William Alexander M'Arthur, esquire.
  The Clerk of the Crown attending, amended the Return accordingly.

  LONDONDERRY CITY AND LONGFORD (NORTH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received a Letter from Justin M'Carthy, esquire, returned for Londonderry City and for the North Longford Division of the County of Longford, and the said Letter was read as followeth:—
  New York,
  10 th Jan '87.
  Dear Mr. Speaker,
  Having been returned for Derry City and for the North Longford Division of the County of Longford, I beg to inform you that I elect to sit for Derry City.
  I have the honour to be, Mr. Speaker,
  Very truly yours,
  JUSTIN M'CARTHY.

  ELECTIONS—SESSIONAL ORDERS.
  Ordered, That all Members who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom do make their election for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it shall appear that there is no question upon the Return for that place; and if anything shall come in question touching the Return or Election of any Member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate; and that all Members returned upon double Returns do withdraw till their Returns are determined.
  Resolved, That no Peer of the Realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath any right to give his vote
  56
  in the Election of any Member to serve in Parliament.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the Election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such Elections in Great Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a Candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament."
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that he did not intend to trouble the House with any remarks, because he understood that the Leader of the House was willing to consent to take a certain course.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, that that was so—the Government would carry out the pledge given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to move for a Committee on the subject.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by Bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such Bribery or other corrupt practices.

  WITNESSES.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been tampering with any Witness, in respect of his evidence to be given to this House, or any Committee thereof, or directly or indirectly hath endeavoured to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to be a high crime and misdemeanor; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  Ordered, That the Commissioners of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that, during the Session of Parliament, the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open, and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House, and that no disorder be allowed in

  57
  Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House, during the sitting of Parliament, and that there be no annoyance therein or thereabouts; and that the Serjeant at Arms attending this House do communicate this Order to the Commissioners aforesaid.

  VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS.
  Ordered, That the Votes and Proceedings of this House be printed, being first perused by Mr. Speaker; and that he do appoint the printing thereof; and that no person but such as he shall appoint do presume to print the same.
  Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.
  OUTLA WRIES BILL.
  Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read the first time; to be read, a second time.

  NEW WRITS ISSUED.
  For—
  Kent County (Dartford Division), v. The Right honble. Sir William Hart Dyke, baronet, Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education.
  Longford (Northern Division), v. Justin M'Carthy, esquire, who having been returned as a Member for the said County of Longford (Northern Division), and also for the City of Londonderry, has elected to sit for the City of Londonderry.
  Antrim County (Northern Division), v. Edward Macnaghten, esquire, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
    PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I beg to give Notice that I shall, at the earliest opportunity, move a Resolution relating to the Procedure of the House, and, as on former occasions, ask the House to give us the necessary facilities to proceed with it from day to day, subject only to such interruptions as may be necessary for the conduct of urgent Public Business.
  RESIGNATION OF THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, THE RIGHT HON. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL.

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Mr. Speaker, when a Member of the House who has held Office in the Administration has
    58
    been compelled to resign that Office, the House of Commons usually permits and expects some explanations of the reasons and causes of that action. If, Sir, it should be the good pleasure of the House to-night to receive such an explanation, I am informed by Lord Salisbury that I am possessed of the gracious permission of the Sovereign to place before the House certain facts and matters bearing upon my resignation of the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Speaker, I resigned that Office on the 20th of December last because I could not—I was altogether unable to become responsible for the Estimates which were presented by the Departments for the support of the Army and Navy in the coming year. Of course, it would be idle to deny what is very well known, that there were other matters of grave importance on which it was my misfortune to hold opinions differing from those of Lord Salisbury. But, Sir, those other matters were matters, in my opinion, perfectly susceptible of accommodation and contraction. This question of the Estimates on which I resigned was incapable of such contraction, for the reason that I was deeply and repeatedly pledged by many speeches I had made in various parts of the country to the policy of retrenchment and economy, because I was convinced by what I had learnt at the Treasury that such a policy was not only necessary, but perfectly feasible, and because, viewing those pledges, it was impossible for me usefully to retain Office as Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Government in whose policy effective retrenchment found no prominent place. Now, Sir, it is not, of course, my intention to analyze in any degree at this moment the Expenditure of this country, and, indeed, it is my desire to make my remarks on this occasion as brief and as concise as they possibly can be; because, in the first instance, the patience of the House has its limits, and, in the second place, if I were to try to make an explanation of a very elaborate character, such an explanation might tend to degenerate into a kind of indictment of the Government, which, I hold, would be neither useful nor becoming. But, Sir, I may state this detail—the amount of the Estimates which were presented to me as Chancellor of the Exchequer by the two Departments exceeded £31,000,000 for the

    59
    coming year for the support of the Army and Navy; and there is another fact which I must mention, because it operated most seriously upon me. I had also to give a consent, and I did give a consent, though a reluctant one, to unusually large Supplementary Estimates for these two Services. There will be—or, at any rate, when I left the Government there was going to be—I had consented there should be presented to Parliament Supplementary Estimates amounting to the sum of £300,000 for the Navy, close upon £500,000 for the Army, and another £500,000 for expenses connected with the Army in Egypt; and undoubtedly I thought that those enormously large Supplementary Estimates formed an additional and grave reason for a reduction in the Naval and Military Expenditure in the coming year. Well, Sir, I wish briefly to put before the House my view of the position which I endeavoured to take. My view of the position is this—that the Expenditure for this year which is now expiring, and the Expenditure for the preceding year on armaments and on naval and military purposes, was an Expenditure of a distinctly abnormal character, and that it was the duty of the Government to make an effort to commence a return to what I would call a more normal Expenditure. I will just explain to the House by two figures only what I mean by a normal and abnormal Expenditure. Sir, if you take the 10 years from 1874 to 1884 you will find that the average Expenditure on the Army and Navy amounted to £25,000,000 a-year—that that standard of £25,000,000 was very closely adhered to during those 10 years; but if you take the three years 1885–6, 1886–7, together with 1887–8, if I had consented to, and if the House had voted the Estimates which were in question, you will find that the average Expenditure has risen from £25,000,000 to over £31,000,000, an increase perfectly sudden, only the lapse of one year between the two averages, an increase of just about £6,000,000 a-year. Well, Sir, that, the House will see, is no light matter. Even hon. Gentlemen who sit around me, and who naturally enough may have been disposed to take a somewhat unfavourable view of the action which I took, even they will admit that it was no light matter and no small difference
    60
    which divided me from Her Majesty's Government. The right way, I think, to appreciate the magnitude of the difference is to turn that £6,000,000 into taxation. What does it mean in taxation? Sir, the increase of £6,000,000 on your Military and Naval Expenditure means a sum exceeding by £1,600,000 the entire produce of the Tea Duty; it means a sum equal to two-thirds of the Tobacco Duty; it means a sum equal to three-fourths of the Beer Duty; and it means a sum equal to six-sevenths of the Death Duties. The House must remember that this Beer Duty, and the Tea Duty, and the Tobacco Duty were all in existence before this increase took place, and they will not appreciably produce more than they are doing now, If you like to look at the figures in another way, and if you like to place the increase upon direct taxation, this increase of £6,000,000—this sudden jump, in time of peace, of £6,000,000 on Naval and Military Expenditure—means 3d. in the Income Tax. I only mention that point in order to show the House that it was a question of exceedingly large magnitude upon which I resigned, and that it was a question, in my opinion, which went to the very root of government and of policy. Sir, there has been, I think, a good deal of misconception as to the nature of the demand which I thought it was my duty to make upon the two Departments. People have supposed that I expected that that large increase should be immediately reduced upon a stroke of the pen. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) and my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) will bear me out in saying that I made no such demand. I never expected—I never was so wild or foolish as to expect—that any very large reduction could be immediately made, nor did I even expect that we should ever be able to get back to the average Expenditure of the 10 years I have named. But my right hon. Friends will confirm me in this—that the only request I made of them was that they should make a sensible and an appreciable effort, which should be expressed in pounds, shillings, and pence, to return, or to come to the commencement of returning, to a more normal Expenditure

    61
    on military and naval purposes. I named no figure; I carefully avoided naming any figure. The amount I left entirely to the discretion, and judgment, and superior knowledge of my right hon. Friends. In my own mind—and I may have mentioned it casually in conversation without insisting upon it—I thought that a reduction of £1,000,000 in time of peace upon the Military and Naval Expenditure of the country would have been an adequate and satisfactory reduction; but my right hon. Friends know perfectly well—and they will bear me out—that I certainly should not have made any obstinate quarrel about £100,000, or £200,000, or even £300,000—in fact, if the worst had come to the worst, I really believe—I confess it with some reluctance—I really believe I should have been satisfied with a reduction of £500,000. But, Sir, it was only when I found from the view which my right hon. Friends took of the position—it was only when I found from the view they held that they were absolutely unable to make oven the commencement of an effort to return to a more normal state of Expenditure that I was forced—forced by a power far greater than Party ties, forced by what I had said in the Autumn, forced by the knowledge which I acquired at the Treasury—to send my resignation to Lord Salisbury. I will mention two details which struck me as most unsatisfactory from my point of view. The Army Estimates show a reduction of £300,000 connected with the expenses of the military occupation of Egypt; but, in spite of that reduction, the whole of the Army Estimates showed an increase of £300,000. That is what I could not understand; and there was a detail in the Admiralty Estimates which weighed with me very much. My noble Friend (Lard George Hamilton), in the statement he placed before me, showed a reduction of £500,000 upon the total Estimates for the Navy; but the whole of that £500,000 was taken off one Vote—the Vote for machinery, and my argument was this—if so large a reduction as £500,000 can be made on so important a Vote as machinery, surely some reductions may be made upon other Votes if they are carefully overhauled. I only mention these details as matters which weighed greatly with me in coming to a decision on the subject. I know it has been
    62
    said, and it may be said again, that I have made an impossible demand. Well, Sir, I cannot, of course, pronounce upon whether it is possible or impossible. My own belief is that where there is a will there is a way, and the accuracy and efficacy of the maxim may be proved by what took place in 1869, when the Government of the day and the Parliament of the day were under the impression that the Naval and Military Expenditure of the country had reached an abnormal level; and so strong was that impression, and so resolute was the Government of the day, that the Estimates for 1870 for naval and military purposes, as compared with 1868, allowed a reduction of no less than £4,500,000. Certainly, Sir, I never asked for and never expected such a reduction as that. I thought I was reasonable. I thought I was entitled to ask some reduction to be made in a time of peace in this largely increased Naval and Military Expenditure. There has been another misconception which I am anxious to clear away. I am supposed to have resigned on the Budget. Sir, my resignation—and my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) will confirm me—had nothing whatever to do with the Budget. I never should have thought of resigning on the Budget. The Budget is the plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for providing for the Services of the year; and my idea is that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer produces a plan which is not acceptable to his Colleagues, it is his business and his duty either to modify or alter the plan until it is agreeable to his Colleagues. But, certainly, I had no right or claim to cram any financial scheme of mine down the throats of my Colleagues under the threat of resignation. My resignation had nothing to do with the Budget. I resigned upon the expenditure of a special Department of the Government. My right hon. Friend the present First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. Smith) laid down in this House, without much qualification, in 1883, a proposition which I almost entirely agree with. He then laid it down very positively that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was primarily and principally responsible for every shilling in the Estimates. I do not disagree with that proposition. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must satisfy himself reasonably in his own

    63
    mind upon two points—in the first place, that the demands put forward by the Departments do not exceed the necessities of the year; and, in the second place, that the money which is voted by Parliament shall be expended in such a manner that the nation gets full value for its money. These are two points on which, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be reasonably satisfied, and it is on these two points that I utterly and hopelessly broke down. I could not satisfy myself that the demands for these two Departments were not excessive. I felt certain that if the foreign policy of this country were a peaceful foreign policy these Estimates were too excessive. I felt equally certain—though I am liable to error—I felt equally certain that our foreign policy at the present moment ought to be a peaceful foreign policy, I do not mean that kind of peace which is a flattering phrase of a platform peroration; but I mean a genuine, effective, peaceful foreign policy, which should be marked by absence of unnecessary initiatives, by an indisposition to interfere too promptly in European affairs; and, Sir, in fact, a policy of that character which should approach very nearly to the domain of non-intervention. Well, Sir, on these two points I held the strongest possible opinions, and I did not see my way to alter those opinions. But in the second point—namely, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be satisfied that the money which Parliament votes is properly spent—there, again, I could feel no satisfactory assurance. In fact, Sir, I had suspicions which I ought not to call suspicions, because they amounted almost to a conviction, that the reverse was the case. It is not now the time, and this would not be the proper occasion, to examine that matter more minutely; but I may remind the House of this—that we have had since 1883 a series of what I may call Departmental scandals, I believe unprecedented in the history of this country. I only need to run them over on my fingers. There was the exposure—the scandalous exposure—of the defects in the Commissariat Department in Egypt during the first campaign. There was subsequently, during the second Egyptian Campaign, the exposure of the brittle swords, the bending bayonets, and jamming cartridges. You then
    64
    had in connection with the financial administration of the Admiralty that grave scandal which arose just before the Government left Office in 1885. The Admiralty was discovered to have spent no less a sum than £1,000,000 sterling without the knowledge of the Treasury, and apparently without their own knowledge. Then you had the very serious evidence which was given to the House and the public as to the total failure of three most expensive ships, the Ajax, the Agamemnon, and the Impérièuse—the total failure of these ships to fulfil the expectations of their designers, although they had cost no less than £1,500,000 of money. And then you had the bursting gun; and all these scandals with the charges of inefficiency, and worse than inefficiency, which accompanied them, came pressing one upon another. Sir, I took no part in the discussions in the House on these subjects, because I was not qualified to take any part in such discussions; but I listened, and the series, the rapid series, of these Departmental scandals produced a most unpleasant effect upon my mind. I say it not in the least as imputing blame, but I say it as one of my reasons for taking the action which I did, that I could not feel any assurance whatever that that series of Departmental scandals had made the same deep impression upon the mind of my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith), and upon my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton); and I do not wish to impute blame, but I say it produced a tremendous impression on my mind, one which I could not shake off. There is only one more question I should like to clear up, if I may do so without trespassing too much upon the time of the House. It has been widely stated, on authority apparently, that I resigned my Office in haste. In fact, I see it stated that I resigned in a temper, and I observe that my resignation is usually designated by a Government organ as an escapade, whatever that may mean. But I should like to tell the House exactly what the facts are, because it is important they should be known. The facts are these—that this controversy about expenditure has been going on between me and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Smith) and my noble Friend the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury) almost since the

    65
    commencement of the Government, going on in a perfectly friendly manner; and, indeed, all that occurred has not altered by one jot or iota the friendly feelings which existed between my right hon. Friends and myself. But, as a matter of fact, I brought my views before Lord Salisbury on this question of effective Army and Navy Expenditure as long ago as the month of August last, in a conversation which I had with him in Arlington Street. I then expressed my views, and told him how strongly I felt upon this subject. The House is possibly aware that in a speech I made at Dartford I especially alluded to this subject. I alluded to it briefly but strongly, and I think my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) and the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) were aware of how strong a meaning I attached to my expressions at Dartford. But before I went down to address the meeting at Bradford in the month of October—the morning before—I had another long conversation with the First Lord of the Treasury, and with Lord Salisbury in Arlington Street, and again I indicated most clearly to them that unless there was an effort at retrenchment it would be impossible for me to retain the Exchequer. Then, Sir, in the middle of the month of October, I wrote to the present First Lord of the Treasury, and to the First Lord of the Admiralty, requesting them, as a particular favour, to get the Army and Navy Estimates prepared, so that they might be considered by the Cabinet before Christmas. Not only was I anxious that these matters should be considered by the Cabinet while there was yet time and ample leisure, but I was also determined that if the decision as to the amount of those Estimates should be against me I should not continue in my Office, but would resign at such a moment as to give to Lord Salisbury the most ample margin of time to make any arrangement that was necessary before Parliament met. Well, Sir, on the 13th of December I wrote to Lord Salisbury to say that from what I heard I feared he would have before long to choose between the heads of his great spending Departments and his Chancellor of the Exchequer. On Thursday, the 16th of December, I had
    66
    another protracted conversation with Lord Salisbury on the whole question, in which I indicated to him that the matter was approaching a crisis. On Monday, the 20th of December, the Estimates were communicated to me, the Navy Estimates by my noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) in the morning, and the Army Estimates by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Smith) in the afternoon; and it was clear to me that the position that they took up was one which admitted of no modification and no alteration, and I also was aware of what the Prime Minister's mind was on the subject, and on Monday, the 20th, I was put in that corner that I had absolutely no option but to write to Lord Salisbury to resign my Office. I have only wearied the House with these facts because I wanted to show the House that the suggestion that my action has been taken in a hurry is entirely wrong. I greatly doubt whether any Member ever took action on any grave question more deliberately, more long thought of, and more considerately. Now, Sir, I think that those who suppose I would be capable of resigning the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer in a hurry or in a temper hardly do justice to their charge. There is no position open to a private individual in this country prouder and more honourable than that of Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons. It is not a position which is lightly or hastily resigned. I can assure my hon. Friends who sit around me that it was a very hard and bitter thing for me to have to do—to sever my connection with the Government, and to resign a position so honourable, although so anxious and responsible. But I could not help it. I was pledged by speeches which I had made to the people. Sir, I may make this remark. The relations which exist between a Minister and the people are nowadays so direct and very close, and owing to the practice of great and large mass meetings, which have become so usual and so common, a Minister or the Leader of the Opposition is brought into close contact with the people. He discourses with the utmost freedom, without much qualification, on public affairs. The practice may have its advantages and its disadvantages, but the practice exists; and I can conceive nothing more disastrous or ruinous, or more fatal to

    67
    the healthy tone of our English political life, than that the people should take it into their heads that a Minister or Leader of the Opposition, whoever he be, when he comes down to address them, thinks of nothing but exciting a momentary and passing cheer, and leaves the meeting straightway without remembering what manner of man he is. I hope it will never be imputed with accuracy or justice to me that I knowingly or intentionally contributed to such a belief. Sir, I have placed before the House as rapidly as I can the various reasons which forced me, on the 20th of December, to write to Lord Salisbury the letter which I am permitted to read. The House will understand that further opportunities will arise for a more exhaustive and analytical examination of the Expenditure of the Government. The House will not wish me, and I am not anxious to anticipate those opportunities. All I have to do is to place as briefly as possible before the House the reasons which caused me to leave the Government. I wrote on the 20th of December to Lord Salisbury—
    "Dear Lord SALISBURY,
    "The approximate Estimates for the Army and Navy for the next year have been to-day communicated to me by Lord George Hamilton and Mr. Smith. They amount to £31,000,000; £12,500,000 for the Navy, and £18,500,000 for the Army. The Navy Votes show a decrease of nearly £500,000, but this is to a great extent illusory, as there is a large increase in the demand made by the Admiralty upon the War Office for guns and ammunition. The Army Estimates, thus swollen, show an increase of about £300,000. The total of £31,000,000 for the two Services, which will in all probability be exceeded, is very greatly in excess of what I can consent to. I knew that on this subject I cannot look for any sympathy or effective support from you, and I am certain that I shall find no supporters in the Cabinet. I do not wish to be wrangling and quarrelling in the Cabinet, and therefore I must request to be allowed to give up my Office, and retire from the Government. I am pledged up to the eyes to large reductions of expenditure, and I cannot change my mind on this matter. If the foreign policy of the country is conducted with skill and judgment, our present large and increasing armaments are quite unnecessary, and the taxation which they involve perfectly unjustifiable. The War Estimates might be very considerably reduced, if the policy of expenditure on the fortifications and guns and garrisons of military ports, mercantile ports, and coaling stations was abandoned or modified; but of this I see no chance, and under the circumstances I cannot continue to be responsible for the finances. I am sure you will agree that I am right in being perfectly frank and straightforward on
    68
    this question, to which I attach the very utmost importance; and, after all, what I have written is only a repetition of what I endeavoured to convey to you in conversation the other day.
    "Believe me to be,
    "Yours most sincerely,
    "RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL."
    I wrote that letter on the 20th of December, and I received, late in the evening of the 22nd of December, the following reply from Lord Salisbury, which I am permitted to read. Lord Salisbury wrote:—
    "Hatfield House, Hatfield, Herts,
    December 22, 1886.
    My dear Randolph,—I have your letter of the 20th from Windsor. You tell me, as you told me orally on Thursday, that £31,000,000 for the two Services is very greatly in excess of what you can consent to; that you are pledged up to the eyes to large reductions of Expenditure, and cannot change your mind in the matter; and that, as you feel certain of receiving no support from me or from the Cabinet in this view, you must resign your Office and withdraw from the Government. On the other hand, I have a letter from Smith telling me that he feels bound to adhere to the Estimates which he showed you on Monday; and that he declines to postpone, as you had wished him to do, the expenditure which he thinks necessary for the fortification of coaling stations, military ports, and mercantile ports. In this unfortunate state of things I have no choice but to express my full concurrence with the views of Hamilton and Smith and my dissent from yours—though I say it both on personal and public grounds with very deep regret. The outlook on the Continent is very black. It is not too much to say that the chances are in favour of war at an early date; and when war has once broken out we cannot be secure from the danger of being involved in it. The undefended state of many of our ports and coaling stations is notorious; and the necessity of protecting them has been urged by a strong Commission, and has been admitted on both sides in debate. To refuse to take measures for their protection would be to incur the gravest possible responsibility. Speaking more generally, I should hesitate to refuse at this time any Supplies which men so moderate in their demands as Smith and Hamilton declare to be necessary for the safety of the country. The issue is so serious that it thrusts aside all personal and Party considerations. But I regret more than I can say the view you take of it; for no one knows better than you how injurious to the public interests at this juncture your withdrawal from the Government may be. In the presence of your very strong and decisive language I can only again express my very profound regret. Believe me, yours very sincerely, SALISBURY."
    The House will observe, Sir, that that letter is absolutely final and conclusive. Lord Salisbury did not demur to my suggestion that there was no use in discussing the question in the Cabinet.

    69
    Lord Salisbury did not request that the whole matter should be laid before him, as the First Lord of the Treasury, in order that it might receive personal examination. On the contrary, he expressed his total concurrence with the Heads of the Departments, and his total dissent from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He added that he had nothing to do but to express his deep regret. The House will see that that was a letter which brought things to a conclusion. Therefore, on the 22nd of December I wrote the following letter to Lord Salisbury:—
    "Carlton Club,
    December 22, 1886.
    Dear Lord Salisbury,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of to-day's date accepting my resignation of the Chancellorship of the Exchequer. I feel sure you will believe me when I express my deep and abiding appreciation of the unvarying kindness which you have shown me, and of the patience and indulgence with which you have always listened to the views on various public matters which I have from time to time submitted to you. The great question of public expenditure is not so technical or departmental as might be supposed by a superficial critic. Foreign policy and free expenditure upon armaments act and re-act upon one another. I believe myself to be well informed on the present state of Europe; nor am I aware that I am blind or careless to the probabilities of a great conflict between European Powers in the coming year. A wise foreign policy will extricate England from Continental struggles, and keep her outside of German, Russian, French, or Austrian disputes. I have for some time observed a tendency in the Government attitude to pursue a different line of action, which I have not been able to modify or check. This tendency is certain to be accentuated if large Estimates are presented to and voted by Parliament. The possession of a very sharp sword offers a temptation which becomes irresistible to demonstrate the efficiency of the weapon in a practical manner. I remember the vulnerable and scattered character of the Empire, the universality of our commerce, the peaceful tendencies of our democratic electorate, the hard times, the pressure of competition, and the high taxation now imposed, and with these factors vividly before me I decline to be a party to encouraging the military and militant circle of the War Office and Admiralty to join in the high and desperate stakes which other nations seem to be forced to risk. Believe me, I pray you, that it is not niggardly cheeseparing or Treasury crabbedness, but only considerations of high State policy which compel me to sever ties in many ways most binding and pleasant. A careful and continuous examination and study of national finance, of the startling growth of expenditure, of national taxation, resources, and endurance has brought me to the conclusion, from which nothing can turn me, that it is only the sacrifice of a Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the altar of thrift and economy which can
    70
    rouse the people to take stock of their Leaders, their position, and their future. The character of the domestic legislation which the Government contemplate, in my opinion, falls sadly short of what Parliament and the country expect and require. The foreign policy which is being adopted appears to me at once dangerous and methodless, but I take my stand on expenditure and finance, which involve and determine all other matters; and reviewing my former public declarations on this question, and having no reason to doubt their soundness, I take leave of your Government, and especially of yourself, with profound regret, but without doubt or hesitation. Yours most sincerely,
    "RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL."
    I have now laid before the House the causes of my resignation, and I have sincerely to thank the House for the indulgence which it has accorded to me.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Mr. Speaker, I have, Sir, on rising, to make an appeal to the House. Placed in the position in which I am, I desire to appeal to hon. Members for the indulgence and for that favourable interpretation of all my actions which are necessary to one who feels deeply his own deficiencies in following in the steps of the many great men who have held the important position which I now fill. I appeal to them in the hope that by the cordial support of my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and by the generous interpretation of my acts by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I may be enabled, to the best of my ability, to maintain the order and decorum of the proceedings of this House and the decencies of debate. Now, Sir, I have risen to make a few observations on the statement that has been made by my noble Friend; and I hope I may be allowed to express on my own part, and also on the part of my Colleagues, the profound regret with which we part from him as a Colleague. We are aware of his great ability; we have derived immense advantage from his counsel and advice; and I may say, for myself, that any sacrifice which I could have made personally would have been gladly made in order that he might have retained his position. He is perfectly well aware that I offered, unreservedly, to place my resignation in the hands of the Government if a Minister could have been found who would have met his views in the matter of public Expenditure, and I also assured him that I would cordially support the Minister who

    71
    would take my place in the Government in the effort to conduct the affairs of the Department over which I then presided with the economy which he desired. My noble Friend has stated to the House the circumstances which led up to the event which culminated on the 20th of December. My noble Friend was good enough to come to the War Office, and to discuss with me the draft Estimates which had been prepared, and he asked me to cut off the provision for the coaling stations.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did not ask for that; I suggested it.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Well, the noble Lord suggested that the provision for the coaling stations should be reduced, or, I think, cut off altogether, and that other considerable reductions should be made. My noble Friend has stated that he hoped we might have made a reduction of £1,000,000 in the Estimates of this year about to be presented to the House, as compared with the Estimates of last year as they were presented to the House. He has said that he would have been satisfied with £500,000, but that as we could not reduce the Estimates even by £500,000 he felt it to be his duty, looking at the tendency and the spirit in which the Departments were administered, to tender his resignation. Sir, I understand that it is not desirable that I should enter into details that might provoke debate. You have ruled, Sir, that debate under the present circumstances is not admissible, and that nothing beyond a personal explanation can be allowed. Under those circumstances, I refrain from entering into the details which would justify, in my judgment, the expenditure which I thought it necessary to propose to the Government. But the opportunity will be afforded, and I hope most earnestly that my noble Friend will then give his assistance to the House and to the Government in the effort to make those reductions which he believes to be possible and advisable. My noble Friend has spoken of himself as pledged to effective retrenchments, which, he said, found no permanent place in the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Well, I hold that I am individually—that I was, and that I continue to be, completely bound and held by retrenchment, and effective retrenchment
    72
    is part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, of the House of Commons, and is certainly part of the duty of the House of Commons. But the question arises, what is "effective retrenchment," and how is it to be carried out? I could not see, with my noble Friend, that it was possible to carry out effective retrenchment under present circumstances—under the circumstances alluded to in the letter of Lord Salisbury, referred to by my noble Friend—in the way in which he desired. My noble Friend spoke of the amount as abnormal. Undoubtedly there are abnormal charges in the present Estimates, for which the present Government are not in any way responsible. We are carrying out an expenditure of which, personally, we do not approve; but we could not immediately refuse an expenditure commenced by previous Governments, and which, in the opinion of the House of Commons itself, was found to be necessary and essential, and which was forced upon the Successors of the Government. My noble Friend has spoken of the circumstances and conditions which have brought about the demand which is now made. He has suggested that the policy of the Government is one which tends to an excessive initiation. He has suggested that if there had been a less disposition on the part of the Government to mix itself up in the affairs of Europe, there would be less necessity for the expenditure which has been contemplated. Now, I venture to declare, on the part of the Government, that there has been no excessive initiation, and that there is, in the very bottom of our hearts, a desire to keep England out of any unnecessary complications, and a determination not to enter into any engagements which may compel us to take part in those controversies to which my noble Friend has referred. My noble Friend, in the earlier part of his speech, made the remark that, although there were differences at first, they were susceptible of accommodation. Well, I am quite sure of this—that the differences in the Cabinet were not differences of a character that were susceptible of accommodation, or differences in which my noble Friend could possibly consent to be swayed by the majority of his Colleagues. There is one matter in his letter to which I would wish to draw attention, and that is where he remarks upon the attitude

    73
    of the Government and their disposition to pursue a line of action which it would be impossible to modify or check. My own belief is, that on further reflection he will find that such is not the case; that his own statement this evening is the more correct statement; and that any matters on which there might be differences of opinion were matters which were susceptible of accommodation between himself and his Colleagues. But I do not think I ought to occupy the attention or time of the House, under present circumstances, at greater length. I not only desire to defend the policy of the Government in regard to those matters of which my noble Friend complains, but I will go further, and say that I desire his assistance, and I will give him all the help in my power; and if he can put his finger on any single blot, if he can give evidence of any extravagance or of any unnecessary expenditure, all the assistance which either a Committee of this House or a Committee of Supply can render him will, I am sure, be cordially afforded to him by the House and the Government, and there will be no disposition to withdraw or keep back information, nor any wish to shrink from obtaining the opinion and the verdict of the House of Commons, both as to our policy and as to the reasonableness of all its conditions. Sir, I am deeply conscious of the distress and suffering which the taxpayer has endured during the last two or three years. I hope a better time is coming, and if it be possible to effect a reduction in the public burdens I shall be the first to welcome assistance in that direction, from whatever quarter of the House it may proceed.

  THE RIGHT HON. THE LATE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Sir, I may, perhaps, be allowed to solicit the indulgence of the House for one single moment. I believe that in doing so I am acting almost without precedent; but the circumstance—the occurrence itself—is almost without precedent, if not altogether unprecedented. I refer, Sir, to the death of the late Earl of Iddesleigh, who was far better known in this House as Sir Stafford Northcote, and whose long tenure of a seat in this House entitled
  74
  and obtained for him the affection and respect of all of those who had the honour of sitting with him. I think I may be permitted to express the feeling, not alone of personal sorrow at the personal loss I have sustained, but also of the sorrow which my Friends and Colleagues also feel at the loss they have sustained in the death of one of the best and noblest public servants who ever held Office under the Crown. But I prefer rather to base these remarks upon the services which he rendered to his country and to his Queen—those conscientious, devoted, and painstaking services, which extended over a long period of time. He parted from us scarcely a year ago, and about a fortnight ago he fell, while still in the possession of intellect, in the possession of all the powers of his mind, and devoted, up to the last moment, to the discharge of the public duties in which he was engaged. I venture to think, Sir, that no one who has sat with him in this House, as I have had the honour of doing for 17 years, over failed to remark the vast stores of information which he possessed, the readiness with which they were reproduced, and the admirable use to which a most retentive memory enabled him to put them, and still more the gentleness and kindliness which were exorcised in the discharge of duties which required sudden determination, and very frequently a decision which must be painful or disagreeable to the persons whom they concerned. But there is no one in this House who can say that, at any period, an unguarded, hasty, or unkind word ever passed his lips. He did his duty by his Queen and by his country, and I think I may say with perfect truth that his widow and family are solaced in their deep affliction by the consciousness that the Sovereign and the people enter into their sorrow, and deeply feel with them the heavy loss they have sustained.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not intend, Sir, to offer a single word upon the subject which has been treated between the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the right, hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House; because I believe that an opportunity will be legitimately afforded for that purpose in the debate which may arise on the Speech from the

  75
  Throne. But I think that the House will, perhaps, consider it to be becoming on my part to say a few words upon the subject of the death of the late Earl of Iddesleigh, seeing that I had the privilege of a very long and very early friendship with that noble Earl. My knowledge of him commenced in 1843. I had the honour—and it was a great honour—of introducing him into public life, and I had the advantage of profiting largely by his personal services and aid, and of observing that rich and abundant promise of his early life which was so well fulfilled in the after years of his career. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken with excellent feeling, and with admirable propriety, of the character and services of Lord Iddesleigh. We must all, I think, have observed—and I wish to bear my testimony upon it, as in some sense it will be the completion of the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman—that the sentiment upon the death of Lord Iddesleigh which was expressed by the country was not partial, but universal. It was universal, and it was uniform. No distinction could be traced between Party and Party in the feelings that were expressed upon that lamentable event. There were, Sir, no doubt, tragic circumstances; so sudden and appalling a removal would do something to stir, in an unusual manner, the sympathies of the nation. But there was more in the character and the expression of those sympathies than could be accounted for by a mere reference to those momentary and incidental circumstances. As has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, it was known and felt that the country had lost a man of very large experience, of great accumulative knowledge, of remarkable power in instituting and applying that knowledge, and of admirable capacity to render public service to the country. But even that, I think, and the sense of the loss of such a man as I have described, by no means account for the depth of the feeling that has been excited in regard to Lord Iddesleigh. I think there was a sentiment that we had lost, not only that knowledge and that experience and that ability which, thank God, are not rare in this country, but that we had lost a man of qualities not easily to be replaced. The courtesy of Lord Iddesleigh was not only an unvarying
  76
  courtesy, but it was a courtesy immediately connected with the foundation of his character. And the same remark may be made with respect to his admirable temper. There is no school of temper like the House of Commons. A man, not happily gifted in that respect by nature, may acquire by self-discipline that self-control which is necessary in the transaction of the Business of the House. And so with respect to the courtesy which flowed out from Lord Iddesleigh. On all hands there is the courtesy—and the delightful courtesy—of the man of the world, founded upon his knowledge of society, and upon his knowledge of what is necessary to social intercourse. But the temper and the courtesy of Lord Iddesleigh were based upon a gentleness which was at the very foundation of his character. He seemed to be a man incapable of resenting an injury; a man in whom it was the fixed habit of his life to put himself wholly out of view when he had before him what he deemed to be the attainment of great public objects. And these qualities, Sir, permit me to say, are qualities which are even more valuable than any of the signal intellectual gifts which he expended so freely in the service of his native land. Sir, I join with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that his widow and his family may both have access to those sources of consolation which are higher than any we can offer; and I trust that they may likewise be greatly aided in enduring the bereavement which they have been called upon to suffer by the assurance of that sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman has so well expressed, and which, if I may presume to do so on the part of many who sit on this side of the House, I may say we entirely share and re-echo—by the assurance that in this Assembly, where, far beyond all other spheres, Lord Iddesleigh was well and thoroughly known—that here it is that the sympathy felt universally for him throughout the country is even more lively and more profound. Sir, it is not for me to speak of Lord Iddesleigh in relation to the political Party to which he belonged. Yet one thing I may venture to say—that, as far as an external observer may feel entitled to speak, I may venture to judge that as that Party has but rarely in its history had in its service a man of greater intellectual gifts,

  77
  so it has never had one who was more entirely loyal and devoted to its aims. This unanimity of feeling prevails among us, I believe, without distinction or difference of any kind, for, happily, we are not so far gone in the extremes of our great contentions that we cannot, upon occasions such as these, lay aside the recollection of them, and fall back upon that which is broadly human between us; and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will believe in my perfect sincerity, when I express my conviction with him that the distinguished man whom we have lost will long retain an honoured place in the respect and affection of the nation.

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

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  [FIRST NIGHT.]
  VISCOUNT WEYMOUTH(who wore the uniform of a Yeomanry officer) said: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the House will credit me with the feeling which I sincerely entertain of my inability adequately to do justice to the variety of topics which are mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech, which has just been read from the Chair. In craving the indulgence which this House has always so generously extended to those who have occupied a position similar to that which I have the honour to fill to-day, I beg to assure the House that I do so with all earnestness, impressed as I am alike with the responsibility of my position, and with the consciousness that, both in years and experience, I have the good or ill fortune to be numbered among the youngest Members of this honourable Assembly.
  Sir, I have the honour to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in answer to the Speech from the Throne; and in doing so I desire, in the first place, to acknowledge the high compliment which has been paid to the constituency by whose favour I enjoy a seat in this House through the selection of its Representative for the performance of this distinguished and loyal duty.
  In the first place, Sir, I crave the special permission of the House to refer
  78
  for a moment to the sad subject which has already been treated in such eloquent terms by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Before I obtained a seat in this House, and since I have had that honour, it was my privilege—and I shall ever esteem it a high privilege—to have been closely associated with the distinguished statesman who has so recently passed away. I trust I am not offending against the Rules of the House, or against the feelings of any hon. Member, if I ask for permission to pay a personal tribute of sincere respect and admiration to the memory of the high-souled, patriotic, and generous-hearted Englishman with whom my first acquaintance with political life was so closely connected, and whose remains only the other day were borne to their last resting-place, to the deep regret of the Sovereign he loyally served and the people he passionately loved.
  Her Majesty's Gracious Speech gives us the gratifying announcement that her relations with Foreign Powers continue to be on a friendly footing; and that, with regard to the affairs of South-Eastern Europe which are still in an unsettled condition, Her Majesty entertains no apprehension that the peace of Europe is likely to be disturbed. I know, Sir, that the House will re-echo the wish that Her Majesty's anticipations maybe altogether fulfilled, and that, especially in this year, which marks the Jubilee of her great and glorious reign, not even the shadow of a cloud of war may throw dark its reflection over any portion of the world which owns the sway of our beloved Queen. It is greatly to be desired that the difficulties to which Her Majesty alludes may ere long be solved—the difficulties which led to the retirement from Bulgaria, under circumstances highly to be regretted, of a Prince who had endeared himself to the people of that country by his military achievements on their behalf, and by his personal qualities. Sir, the House will receive with cordial approval the assurance that this country will not interfere in the election of Prince Alexander's Successor, but that strict regard will be had to those provisions of the Treaty of Berlin which dictate the position to be assumed by the Powers of Europe in the event of

  79
  any vacancy occurring in the Bulgarian Throne.
  Mr. Speaker, I venture to congratulate Her Majesty's Government upon the welcome intelligence which is conveyed to this House in regard to the condition of Egypt. Our troops are being withdrawn from Egyptian territory because they are no longer needed, and in consequence of the state of external and internal tranquillity which their exertions have so happily brought about.
  Then, Sir, I would venture to suggest that no more acceptable intimation is conveyed in the Royal Message than is contained in the announcement with reference to the affairs of Burmah. The brilliant genius of the hero of the march from Cabul to Candahar has found yet another field for its exercise in the service of his Queen and country; the valour and devotion of our brave troops have added fresh laurels to their previous records. The wisdom of the statesmanship of the Earl of Dufferin has already exacted an approving acknowledgment; and while a new and vast area has been opened out to British trade and commerce, we have the satisfaction of knowing that the Native population are already reaping the fruits of the civilized Government which replaced a barbarous and besotted despotism, and that a country of rich resources has been reclaimed to honest industry and secure cultivation. In addition, we have the satisfaction of knowing that most of those who were at first leaders of rebellion are now laying down their arms and becoming willing subjects of the Queen. It is with justifiable pride, I think, that we may reflect that once again in the history of this country the planting of the British Flag on foreign soil is synonymous with the institution of the blessings of civilization and order.
  I turn now to the declaration that the Estimates which are to be presented to the House for the service of the coming financial year have been framed with a strict regard to economy, and to the efficiency of the Public Service. The House and the country demand of the keepers of the national purse that there shall be no waste of the resources of the nation. At the same time, the House and the country demand, with equal insistance, that every Department of the State
  80
  shall be efficiently administered. The English people have ever been generous taskmasters to those who have served them well; but to no fault would so little indulgence be shown as to those who have charge of the defences of the nation, and who fail to fulfil their trust with scrupulous exactitude. The greatest of English interests is the maintenance of peace consistently with the national honour; and the surest way to maintain that peace is by creating an unmistakable impression of your ability to render the position of the peace-breakers one absolutely unsatisfactory so far as their own future comfort is concerned. A free and independent commerce, which belongs to a nation like ours, can only be secured by the possession of the means to defend it in the event of attack; and I would humbly submit that those means are mainly, if not entirely, to be found in the maintenance of the naval superiority of our country. I feel sure, Sir, that in their honest and earnest efforts to combine economy with efficient administration Her Majesty's Government will not be forgetful of the spirit breathed by the poet's lines—
  "The Fleet of England is her all-in-all;
  Her Fleet is in your hands;
  And in her Fleet her fate."
  Turning now to that portion of the Royal Speech which refers to home affairs and domestic legislation, I would venture to suggest that the prudence which has induced Her Majesty's Government to determine upon dealing first with the problem of the Reform of Local Government in England and Scotland before proceeding to legislate in the same direction with regard to Ireland will commend itself to the common sense and business-like faculties of hon. Members. A modicum of good work achieved is far preferable to ambitious projects which cannot be carried out; and I would venture to suggest that a comprehensive scheme for the improvement of Local Government in England and Scotland, which commanded the support of a majority of this House, would pave the way for the introduction of a similar measure in Ireland, due regard being had to the difference of locality, and the conditions of those for whom it is sought to legislate.
  The next measure to which reference is made is one, Sir, which, under a modest guise, will, perhaps, raise high

  81
  hopes in the breasts of those who are anxious to improve the legislative machinery of the House of Commons. This is a matter which, undoubtedly, underlies the success of all future legislative projects. The Business of this House is retarded by two evils—one the unwieldiness of its own machinery, and the other the growth of what is called wilful or designed obstruction. It is with the former of these evils that Her Majesty's Government propose to deal. Now, Sir, I believe that there is a general agreement that the Business which this House is called upon to transact is far too great for the capacity of the machinery with which it essays to do its work. To improve the process of Private Bill legislation will go far towards improving the legislative path which has so long been seriously blocked. Should these evils assert themselves in the future, as, unfortunately, they have done in the past, the House will look to its natural Leaders for protection. So far as freedom of speech within proper bounds is preserved, and so long as the rights of honest minorities acting within Constitutional limits are respected, those Leaders will not call upon hon. Members in vain for their support in re-establishing this ancient House in its proud position of Mother o! Parliaments and a pattern for all Legislative Assemblies.
  The Royal Speech conveys an intimation that the House will be asked to consider measures having for their object the removal of hindrances which exist as to the cheap and rapid Transfer of Land. I do not think that this measure, so desirable in itself, will be based on certain principles—or, rather, on certain no principles—which in some places have been advocated. I do not suppose that the transfer of land will be made so cheap as to cost nothing, or so easy of passage that the mere exercise of will will put one man in the possession of the property of another; but I venture to hope that by rendering the description of parcels of land more simple—perhaps by some system of registration of title—the cost of transfer may be so diminished, and the law's delays so removed, that the Crown may be set on legislation in this direction which is for ever connected with the name of Earl Cairns. In the same paragraph of the Speech we are promised a measure to provide greater facilities for the acquisition of
  82
  Allotments by Small Householders, and to encourage the Sale of Glebe Lands. The latter measure, while conferring an undoubted advantage upon the present owners of glebe lands, will, in itself, tend to assist in the achievement of the former measure. Representing, as I do, a constituency situated in a district which is closely identified with agricultural pursuits, the House will, perhaps, permit me to express my belief that these measures will be welcomed by the rural population, equally with the dwellers in the neighbourhood of small towns, as legislative benefits for some time promised on their behalf.
  The question of the levying of tithes has also attracted the attention of Her Majesty's Government. Upon this question, which affects some parts of England and Wales, I can only venture to express the hope that the grievance, which is limited in its area, but which is exceedingly irritating in its circumstances, will be removed by the legislation which is proposed.
  The proposals which are contained in Her Majesty's Speech with regard to Railway Rates will be received with no inconsiderable hope of relief by a large portion of the community, who are now labouring under the intolerable pressure of rates levied with undue preference. Those who are connected with the agricultural interest will hail with satisfaction a measure which will afford to them some prospect of assistance in the carriage of their produce to market; and the great mining industries of the country will receive a fresh impetus from the acquisition of greater facilities of transit for their outputs, owing to a fairer method of imposing the rates with which they are charged.
  Sir, in approaching the last subject in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, on which I feel bound to say a few words, I know that I shall carry the general consent of the House with me, at all events, in recording the satisfaction and the pleasure with which the House receives the assurance that crimes of a grave character have been rare during the last three months in the Sister Isle. I wish I could think that every reference which will be made to Ireland in the ensuing debate would be equally free from controversy. It is very sad to think that every ray of sunshine which seems about to burst through the clouds

  83
  of Ireland's trouble is destined to be obscured by the baneful conduct of evil conspirators and pernicious agitators. Class hostility, dishonesty in social relations, and treason to the Constitution are the stock-in-trade of those who fatten upon an impulsive and misguided people. There have been, Sir, we are authoritatively told, in some parts of Ireland organized attempts to incite the occupiers of land against the fulfilment of their logal obligations. Behind that conspiracy is another for the repeal of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland. The men who are engaged in these conspiracies are both active and mischievous; and, to quote the words of Mr. Pitt—
  "It is enough to make them hate the Union; that it has a tendency to preserve order, for order is the extinction of their hopes."
  Her Majesty's Ministers declare that these evils have gained way, owing to defects in the machinery of the law, but not owing to the law itself, and they have expressed their intention to ask for powers to remedy those defects. The country will consider that, in making this declaration, Her Majesty's Ministers are doing their duty. The evils which, unhappily, they are called upon to encounter are not too great for the genius of the people of this country to overcome, or for the majesty of those laws to counteract which prevail in every other well-ordered and civilized community. But, Sir, with the suppression of crime Her Majesty's Government have not lost sight of remedial measures for real grievances; and in the Report of the Commission which has recently been engaged upon an inquiry into the causes of the failure of the recent land legislation for Ireland, and into the best means of developing the resources of that country, we look for wise measures to promote the comfort and welfare of the law-abiding population.
  It only remains for me now, Sir, to thank the House for the kind manner in which it has acceded to my original request for its indulgence. I cordially acknowledge the generous forbearance with which it has received my first effort to elicit its sympathy and engage its attention. If, Sir, I have omitted to mention any matter of interest in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, it is because I feel that I should be unduly trespassing on the time of this House, and be-
  84
  cause I knew that I could leave those subjects to be fully dealt with by the hon. Member who will immediately follow me.
  In conclusion, may I venture to express a hope that ere long, in every quarter of Her Majesty's Dominions, all Her Majesty's subjects, without distinction of race or creed, may be united in a common devotion to Her Royal Person, in attachment to the fundamental principles of the Constitution, in affectionate regard the one to the other, knowing no rivalry, save that in which each strives to excel the other in promoting the well-being of a common country and a united State.
  Sir, I have the honour to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in reply to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne—the terms of which it is now my privilege to read:—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to thank Her Majesty for the Most Gracious Speech which Her Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament:
  "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty's relations with all Foreign Powers continue to be friendly:
  "To thank Her Majesty for informing us that the affairs of South Eastern Europe are still in an unsettled condition; but that Her Majesty does not apprehend that any disturbance of European peace will result from the unadjusted controversies which have arisen in that region. Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that while Her Majesty deplores the events which compelled Prince Alexander of Bulgaria to retire from the Government of that Principality, Her Majesty has not judged it expedient to interfere in the proceedings for the election of his successor until they arrive at that stage at which Her Majesty's Assent is required by the Stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin:
  "To thank Her Majesty for informing us that the task which has been undertaken by Her Majesty's Government in Egypt is not yet accomplished; but that substantial advance has been made towards the assurance of external and internal tranquillity:
  "To assure Her Majesty that we learn with satisfaction that the operations in Burmah have been conducted by Her Majesty's Troops with bravery and skill, for the purpose of extirpating the brigandage which has grown up during recent years of misgovernment. Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the bands of

  85
  marauders by whom Upper Burmah has been long infested have been dispersed, that many o the leaders have laid down their arms, and that Her Majesty entertains a confident hope that the general pacification of the Country will be effected during the present season:
  "To thank Her Majesty for informing us that Commercial Treaties have been concluded with the Kingdoms of Greece and Roumania, and that Papers on these subjects will be laid before us:
  "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the Estimates for the Expenditure of the ensuing year, which have been framed with a careful regard to economy and to the efficiency of the Public Service, will be submitted to us:
  "To thank Her Majesty for informing us that the condition of Ireland still requires our anxious attention; that grave crimes have happily been rarer during the last few months than during a similar period in the preceding year, but that the relations between the owners and occupiers of land, which in the early part of the autumn exhibited signs of improvement, have since been seriously disturbed in some districts by organised attempts to incite the latter class to combine against the fulfilment of their legal obligations. Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the efforts of Her Majesty's Government to cope with this evil have been seriously impeded by difficulties incident to the method at present prescribed by Statute for dealing with such offences, and that our early attention will be called to proposals for reforms in Legal Procedure, which seem necessary to secure the prompt and efficient administration of the Criminal Law:
  "To thank Her Majesty for informing us that since Her Majesty last addressed us, the Commissioners directed to inquire into certain subjects of great importance to the material welfare of Ireland have been actively prosecuting their labours, and that the Report of the Commission on the operation of the recent Acts dealing with the Tenure and Purchase of Land will shortly be laid before us, which will doubtless receive from us the careful attention which the serious importance of the subject demands:
  "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Bills for the improvement of Local Government in England and Scotland will be laid before us, and that, should circumstances render it possible, they will be followed by a measure dealing with the same subject in Ireland; that a Bill for improving and cheapening the process of Private Bill Legislation in England, Scotland, and Ireland, will be submitted to us, and
  86
  that we shall be asked to consider measures having for their object to remove hindrances which exist to the cheap and rapid Transfer of Land, to facilitate the provision of Allotments for Small Householders, and to provide for the readier Sale of Glebe Lands:
  "To thank Her Majesty for informing us that the Commission which Her Majesty issued in 1885, to inquire into the lamentable depression under which Trade and Agriculture have been suffering for many years, has presented a valuable Report, which, together with the important evidence collected by them, will be laid before us:
  "Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that a Bill for altering the mode of levying Tithes in England and Wales will be submitted to us; that, in regard to Scotland, we shall be asked to consider Measures for the reform of the Universities, for completing recent Legislation as to the powers of the Secretary for Scotland, and for amending the Procedure of Criminal Courts; and that Measures dealing with the Regulation of Railway Rates, and for preventing the fraudulent use of Merchandise Marks, will also be brought under our consideration:
  "To assure Her Majesty that our careful consideration shall be given to the subjects which Her Majesty has recommended to our attention, and to the Measures which may be submitted to us; and we earnestly trust that, with regard to these and all other matters pertaining to our functions, the keeping and guidance of Almighty God may be vouchsafed to us."
  MR. G. W. BALFOUR(who wore a Court dress) said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the Address in reply to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, which has been moved by my noble Friend, although I cannot, like him, plead that this is absolutely my first experience in addressing the House, I, nevertheless, venture to express the hope that I may receive an equal measure of consideration in the discharge of the difficult duty which has been laid upon me.
  My noble Friend, as well as the Representatives of both the Front Benches, have spoken in feeling terms of the loss which the country has sustained in the sudden and lamented death of Lord Iddesleigh. I desire to add my voice to theirs in the expression of the deep sorrow which has been caused by that melancholy event throughout the length and breadth of the land, alike in friend and foe. And yet I

  87
  doubt whether Lord Iddesleigh had a foe, and whether this word is appropriate in the case of one who was so blameless as a man, and so selfless as a statesman. Of Lord Iddesleigh it may be truly said that he died in harness; for I am assured, Sir, that Lord Iddesleigh left no arrears in his Office—that he finished the whole of the work up to the very day on which he was taken from us. The nation will cherish his memory with respectful affection; and the absence of his sage and moderate counsels will be a loss to his Party which they can ill afford at the present critical stage of affairs.
  For I think, Sir, that no one will deny that Parliament meets on the present occasion at a moment of grave anxiety, and in circumstances calculated to put to a severe test the statesmanship of our leading men, and the political sagacity and steadiness of the nation at large. Whether we look at home or abroad the prospect is serious, and even menacing. It is certainly satisfactory to learn, from Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, that her relations with Foreign Powers continue friendly. But Governments, as we know, are always at peace until they are at war; and I think if we look for solid comfort we shall find less in this general assurance than in the more explicit declaration which immediately follows it, that Her Majesty has no reason to apprehend that any disturbance of peace will result from the condition of affairs in the South-East of Europe.
  Undoubtedly there had arisen in the public mind a not unreasonable apprehension that a spark might be lit in Bulgaria which would set all Europe in a blaze, and, perhaps, involve this country in the universal conflagration. Allusion has been made in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech to the events which led to the abdication and retirement of Prince Alexander. The midnight plot, the kidnapping of a brave and gallant Prince in his own Palace in the capital of a country which he had just led to victory; his deportation beyond the frontier; his triumphant return; his second retirement, under open pressure from a Power which could not brook the defeat of its secret machinations; the bullying mission of General Kaulbars, and the steady courage and quiet dignity of the Bulgarian
  88
  people and rulers under circumstances of the greatest provocation—all this is too fresh in our memory to need recalling in detail. Sir, the circumstances which led to Prince Alexander's abdication excited, and justly excited, in this country the greatest indignation; but there is a long step between sympathy and active interference. It would be ridiculous in us to assume the office of knight-errant to the whole world. To adopt a line of action that would be likely to lead to conflict would not only be Quixotic, but wholly unjustifiable, unless our own interests were attacked, or unless a duty were imposed upon us by Treaty obligations.
  Sir, I rejoice that Her Majesty believes that a settlement of this perplexing question is likely to be effected by the peaceable methods of diplomacy. For that this country has got interests in the East, and that, in certain contingencies, these interests might be seriously jeopardized, I hold to be undoubted. It is true that Austria stands sentinel on the ramparts, and that she has nearer and dearer interests in any changes that may take place in the Balkan Peninsula than we have. Austria's is the house next to the house on fire; ours is only the next but one. But we cannot expect that Austria will do our business, any more than Austria can expect that we shall do hers; and if we approach the question with that expectation, we shall be apt to find that what is everybody's business is nobody's business. We have joint interests in the East, and, therefore, joint responsibilities, and in those joint responsibilities Austria's share is the largest.
  The censure implied in the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) on the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government is testimony, at least, to this—that the duty of maintaining the interests and honour of this country in foreign parts is not one the obligation of which they are likely to minimize. If the noble Lord is right, the foreign policy of the Government is likely to be too spirited, rather than too tame. I yield to no one in my admiration of the brilliant talents of the noble Lord, and in my regret that he should have found it necessary to leave the ranks of a Unionist Ministry; but I do

  89
  not believe the country will be ready, without further evidence, to take his view of the imprudence of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's present Advisers. We know that his view is not shared by any one of his late Colleagues; and, at least, they may claim that their policy shall be judged by results. However this may be, of one thing we may be sure—that no matter to what Party a Minister of this country may belong, the foundation of his policy must be an earnest striving for peace. As my noble Friend has said, peace itself is one of the greatest of British interests, and no Minister could be so guilty or foolish as to choose the alternative of war, if he thought it possible to escape that alternative consistently with the honour and welfare of the nation. What possible reason could we have for a policy of aggression? We have no war of revenge to make—no war of revenge to anticipate. We have no tottering dynasty to support; nor have we any temptation to silence complaints at home by dazzling achievements abroad. The life of this country is commerce, and the interests of commerce require peace—peace, if possible, between our neighbours in Europe one with another; but, above all things, peace between our neighbours and ourselves.
  But, Sir, there is an old saying, and, as I believe, a wise one, that those who desire peace must be prepared, if need be, for war. That saying does not appear to commend itself to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. If I understand him rightly, his view is that those who desire peace ought to take care that they shall not be strong enough for war; that we should continue weak lest we be led into temptation. Sir, the noble Lord, in one of the letters which he read to the House, spoke of the danger of having a sharp sword, the possession of which, he said, was almost sure to lead to the desire of using it. Metaphors are somewhat misleading; but if I were to use a metaphor at the present moment, I should say that the Government, in insisting that our coaling stations and ports should be defended, is not asking for a sword, but for a shield. If the question is one of temptation, and if strength is likely to tempt us into war, we ought to remember that weakness would be no loss a temptation to our enemies to attack us. If the War Minister had asked for gigantic armaments
  90
  and a vast increase of expenditure, then I could understand the position taken up by the noble Lord; but, unless I am mistaken, the Estimates for the coming year will actually show a reduction. And what is the item which the noble Lord has singled out for attack? Why, it is the most defensive item in the whole Military Budget.
  No doubt, the view taken by the noble Lord is a very convenient one for the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but I think, in the long run, it would prove a very inconvenient view for the nation. We learn from Her Majesty's Speech that the Estimates have been framed with a due regard to economy and the efficiency of the Public Service. I trust that the first part of this formula is not a mere formula, and that the noble Lord has not sacrificed himself in vain on the altar of thrift and economy. But in every question of Expenditure we have two things to look at; the money spent and the value received. Zeal for economy ought not to blind us to the paramount necessity of efficiency in the Public Service. No doubt, the burden of taxation is heavy and grievous to be borne, and I fear it is also beyond question that much of the large sums raised by taxation is unprofitably spent. It is the business of those who are entrusted with the management of the national finances to discover the particular points where waste or leakage occurs, and to do their utmost to stop it. But, Sir, if a private individual wishes to set about curtailing expenditure he does not commence by cutting off the sums annually paid for insurance. I hope that we, as a nation, will not be guilty of a folly which we should shun in our private capacity. A great nation like ours, with Possessions in every quarter of the globe, whose commerce extends to all parts of the habitable world, cannot carry out the requirements of its Public Service for nothing. I trust the day will never come when the British nation will be afraid of its own greatness, and will shrink from those sacrifices which may be found necessary to maintain not only its greatness, but even its safety.
  Sir, I now pass to the question in which, as the Representative of a great industrial centre, I am peculiarly interested—I mean the question of trade. Attention has been called in Her Ma-

  91
  jesty's Speech to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Depression of Trade. The Report of the Commission is, indeed, of a most interesting character, and it bears throughout signs of that calm sobriety and genial wisdom which was characteristic of its lamented Chairman (the Earl of Iddesleigh). The fears expressed at the time of its appointment by over-jealous Free Traders have, I think, not been justified; for the Report may be studied from beginning to end by the most orthodox without the slightest fear of having their faith perverted. Its general character may be fairly described as optimistic, and the revival which has lately taken place goes some way to confirm the view which the Commissioners have taken. In their view the depression resolves itself, on inquiry, into lowness of profits, and, in many cases, even an absence of profits. But although, if that state of things were to continue indefinitely, it could not fail sooner or later to affect the wage-earning classes, it does not appear that, so far at least, there has been any great fall in the rate of wages. It is a satisfaction to learn from the Report of the Commissioners that the condition of the working classes appears, on the whole, to be one of prosperity. The recommendations which the Commissioners have made are comparatively few in number, and apply, I think, to two questions only—to the question of railway transport, and to that of the fraudulent working of merchandize. Measures dealing with both of these subjects are announced in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne. With regard to the latter, I do not think it is a matter on which much difference of opinion is likely to arise; but the question of railway rates is certainly one which involves difficult and delicate considerations. I have, however, a confident hope that when Her Majesty's Government produce their measure they will be able to reconcile the legitimate interests of the public with the established rights of the Railway Companies, which it would be unjust, and therefore unwise, to infringe.
  As being myself a Scotchman, I see with pleasure that, in addition to the Local Government Bill referred to by my noble Friend, several measures are in contemplation dealing with the wants of Scotland; and, in particular, a mea-
  92
  sure for the reform of the Universities. The Scottish Universities are institutions of which the Scottish people are justly proud. They are national and democratic in the best and worthiest sense, and it is high time that those changes should be introduced into their constitution which are confessedly necessary to maintain them in healthy growth, and enable them to continue in the future that work which they have so successfully carried out in the past.
  I must not omit to notice the prospect which is held out to us of a Bill for cheapening and improving the process of private legislation in the Three Kingdoms. This measure is intended to meet what I believe to be a very genuine grievance, and will, at the same time, relieve the Imperial Parliament of a portion of the work with which it is at present overburdened. I trust, too, that it will go far to satisfy whatever there is genuine and reasonable in the demand of the Sister Kingdoms for greater control over their own local affairs.
  I think, Sir, that I have now adverted to most of the points mentioned in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech which my noble Friend has omitted to touch upon. There remains the question of Ireland, which, following his example, I have reserved to the last, although, in point of importance, it will be generally allowed that it ranks first of all. Sir, I entirely agree with the view of those who believe that if a settlement of the agrarian question in Ireland could be effected, the agitation in favour of Home Rule would cease to be formidable. I also think that any real settlement of that question must be in the direction of converting the smaller tenants into peasant proprietors. We are informed in Her Majesty's Speech that the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the causes which have hampered the operation of the Acts dealing with the purchase of land will shortly be presented to us. But we hardly require to wait for the Report of the Commissioners to be convinced that the principal causes are the opposition of the National League, the agitation carried on under its auspices, and the hopes which it has excited in the breasts of the peasantry of Ireland that they have only to hold on and they will get their land at a

  93
  mere nominal price, or even for nothing at all. The agitation fomented by the National League has always been unscrupulous in its character; but for open defiance of the law it has reached a culminating point in the scheme known as "the Plan of Campaign."
  Her Majesty informs us in Her Gracious Speech that the Government, having found the existing legal procedure too cumbrous and dilatory effectively to cope with the organized attempt to incite the tenants of Ireland to combine against the fulfilment of their legal obligations, proposals will be laid before the House for such reforms of legal procedure as are necessary to secure the prompt and efficient administration of the existing Criminal Law. If the Government deem it necessary to make such a demand, certainly the greatest responsibility will rest upon this House if it withholds its assent. To maintain law and order, and to secure to every class of the community its just rights, is the object for which Governments principally exist. If a Government considers that the present methods of procedure are inadequate to the effective vindication of the law, it is their absolute duty—a duty from which nothing can absolve them—to make good the defect. In the absence of that habit of obedience to law which is necessary for the stability of the social structure, no remedial measure and no concession of power to Local Bodies in Ireland is given a fair chance of working successfully, It is useless to build additional storeys to your house when its foundations are crumbling away. [Irish Cheers..] Sir, I appeal not to those hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side who are so ready with their ironical cheers; but I appeal to the followers of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), and I desire to address to them one question. They are resolved to secure, if they can, Home Rule for Ireland. We, on this side of the House, are determined to resist the demand for Home Rule to the utmost extent of our power. But are they prepared to connive at the warfare which is being carried on by their allies in Ireland with unlawful weapons? Are they prepared to sit quietly by while the attempt is being made to wrest the concession of Home Rule by reducing the
  94
  deliberations of this ancient Assembly to impotence, and by making all government in Ireland impossible? To poison the wells has always been held to be a base and barbarous method of carrying on war. This method has its counterpart in political warfare also. To spread the deadly germs of anarchy and lawlessness, with a view to gaining some particular political end, what is this but to poison the wells, and to taint at its very source that which is a necessity of life to every civilized community? I hope the followers of the right hon. Gentleman will pause before they enter upon so reckless a course. Sir, I beg to second the Motion of my noble Friend.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, &c."—[See page 23.]
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, I rise at this somewhat inconvenient hour (8.10) on account of the value which I attach to the old traditions of this House, and on account, perhaps, of my own inclination to adhere to those traditions, hoping against hope, even when they have become somewhat superannuated. It has been almost uniformly the anxiety of Governments to limit the debate on the Address; and the person occupying the place of Leader of the Opposition has usually—indeed I think invariably—been found willing to promote that purpose by rising immediately after the Mover and Seconder of the Address. But I am bound to say that that arrangement has always proceeded upon the assumption that the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address were not to be polemical speeches. I shall do nothing to notice any polemical portions of those speeches upon the present occasion; but I will content myself by discharging a much more agreeable duty in making the statement that, in my opinion, both of them have shown abundant ability in the course of those speeches, and shown faculties which may enable them to take an important and valuable part in the discussions in this House. Therefore, while I congratulate these Gentlemen, I waive entering upon certain portions of their speeches, which, however, I anticipate will draw forth, answers from others. I shall notice first the declaration of the Gracious

  95
  Speech from the Throne that the Estimates which are to be laid before us have been prepared with due regard to economy. Of course, it will be easily anticipated that I commence with that portion of the subject in consequence of the speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). My own opinion is that that speech, which has already provoked an animated rejoinder—partly, I think, delivered while the noble Lord was out of the House—from the Seconder of the Address, has laid the foundation of very many future discussions. I shall observe all the care and caution I can in referring to it on the present occasion, because my anxiety is not to turn that speech to any Party advantage, but to regard it as affording hopeful opportunities for bringing about a recurrence to the older methods of public administration, and to principles of public expenditure, which have undoubtedly, of late years, lost much of their efficiency and power. The noble Lord has read a Correspondence of great importance, and has explained to us, in terms the most distinct, the nature of the reasons which compelled him to resign his Office. There was no portion of the speech of the noble Lord which I thought more directly commended itself to the general acceptance of the House than that in which he indicated his own sense of the greatness of the sacrifice he was making. The noble Lord has made a great sacrifice. He was entitled to the presumption that such a sacrifice could only have been made under the influence of deep conviction. I have known nothing of the noble Lord in regard to questions of finance and of public Expenditure until to-night, except that he had undoubtedly, as he told us in his speech, pledged himself largely on the subject of economy. To-night, in my opinion, he has shown he has formed a firm resolve to act upon and to redeem those pledges, if it be in his power. He has stated principles which have great breadth and comprehensiveness. He has also explained to us in very clear language the manner and the degree in which he proposed to apply those principles on the present occasion. I am bound to say, as far as my judgment goes, the principles he propounded were safe, and not only so, but the manner in which he
  96
  proposed to apply them. I do not mean as to this or that item of reduction; but the scale upon which he had proposed to apply them was judicious and was moderate. The noble Lord referred to a subject of great importance in touching upon the connection between foreign policy and the scale of our Expenditure; and I think it was the late Lord Beaconsfield who, standing in the position I now occupy, expressed, an opinion of great force and weight as to the existence of that connection. The noble Lord appeared to indicate to us that there are reasons why we should recognize a tendency towards increasing Expenditure, or a hindrance to the reduction of our Expenditure, in certain tendencies in our foreign policy. I do not mean to make any broad assertion upon that subject, and the general purpose of what I have to say on several points will rather be to invite re-assuring explanations from the Government, than to state propositions in the nature of charges or accusations against them. On the question of foreign policy I am bound to say that, as far as I know, the Prime Minister and now the Foreign Secretary, and the late Lord Iddesleigh as Foreign Secretary, have taken just views of the position of the recently emancipated races in the Balkan Peninsula, and of the reciprocal obligations between them and the Porte. Yet there was a speech delivered by Lord Salisbury, at the Guildhall, which raised in many minds some apprehension, and appeared to lay a foundation for the question whether it was true that we, in our negotiations upon the politics of the Balkan Peninsula, had indicated to one particular Foreign Power that if she were disposed to take a particular course, and that course led to a conflict with any power, we should be prepared to range ourselves on her side. I shall not enter into any discussion of that matter. I make no assertion beyond the fact that such was the idea conveyed to many minds, and I simply express the hope that upon that subject we shall receive assurances from Her Majesty's Government in the course of this debate which will entirely remove any such impression. With regard to the general bearing of the speech of the noble Lord, I consider it is a speech which is not delivered by way of appeal to the Party who sit on this side of the House; I consider it is a most important declara-

  97
  tion, addressing itself mainly to Gentlemen who sit opposite. If the question of economy be taken up largely on this side of the House it becomes a Party question. What I desire from the bottom of my heart is to see the question of economy once more what it was for the first 20 years of my political life—a question in which there was no distinction of Party, in which each vied with the other in real and energetic attempts to keep down the public Expenditure. On this question of economy I am bound to say I am only too familiar with the stereotyped official apologies which always proceed from the Representatives of Departments when they feel themselves unable to comply with demands like those of the noble Lord to derive the smallest satisfaction from those apologies. The challenge to the noble Lord to put his finger on this or that item appeared to me to be a challenge to fight a battle upon very unequal terms. The noble Lord cannot have the technical, professional, and official knowledge, armed with which every Representative of the spending Departments comes into the field. I will not pursue the question further than to say I trust that Gentlemen opposite, especially those who represent the large towns of the country, will deeply and profoundly weigh the declarations made by the noble Lord to-night, and that they will, while the question is still within the precincts of their own Party, consider what they can do to impress economical views upon Her Majesty's Government. Economical proposals made by us naturally come to them with prejudice; there is a flavour, there is a colour of Party, and the possibility of Party collision about them. When they come from those who sit on that side of the House there can be nothing of the kind. Let me tell them that the speech of the noble Lord and the effort of the noble Lord will be much considered and weighed in the country. They lie under a great and a special responsibility, because they can take up the views of the noble Lord as friends of Her Majesty's Government, and they can impress the mind of the Government, before it is finally committed to a given scale of expenditure, with the necessity of doing something to indicate, at all events, even if it be only as a symbol, yet as something in the nature
  98
  of a real symbol, an intention of endeavouring to reverse that incessant tendency towards the augmentation of Expenditure in the great Departments under which we have so long laboured. The favourable course of affairs in Egypt has, I think, afforded a great opening for encouragement. The heavy duties with which we were charged in that country added largely to the Expenditure of this country; and, unless such opportunities are made use of, I feel it is idle to indulge in mere generalities. There has been no period at which these generalities have not been thrown broadcast over the country; no period in which the Ministry of the day have not given constant assurances of their desire for economy. I remember the day when the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates—for there were then three Departments—amounted in all to £11,000,000; and these Estimates were proposed on the responsibility of Sir Robert Peel as the head of a Conservative Government, having for his leading and most important Colleague the Duke of Wellington, then in the full vigour of his age and the full maturity of his experience. These days are gone by, and cannot be revived. But between £11,000,000 and £30,000,000 there is a very wide space indeed. It is not a question upon which there need be the smallest distinction between Party and Party. If the day comes when it is—and it need not come as yet—it will be because Gentlemen opposite have lost their opportunity. I am making my appeal to Gentlemen opposite, who have the opportunity, if they think fit to use it, of distinguishing themselves and serving their country by endeavouring to press upon the Government the necessity of some spontaneous effort, not to do great things, not to make flourishing statements, but to make some spontaneous effort of a real though moderate character, which may indicate a fixed determination now in time of peace to work the public Expenditure into the direction of economy. There is a question in connection with the retirement of the noble Lord on which I think it necessary to speak some words of criticism. That question is in reference to the changes in the construction of the Government which have followed upon the retirement of the noble Lord. Those changes, though they are not numerous, are of the most

  99
  important character. They are open, it appears to me, to very grave objections, and I will state my objections under three heads. To the first objection I do not attach the same importance as to the second and the third; at the same time, it, is one which I think ought to be stated. My first objection is to the severance of the Office of First Lord of the Treasury from the Leadership of the Government. I do not know why it is that a Government which avows itself to be Conservative should, upon some temporary consideration of convenience, depart from an important tradition of 170 years' standing. For 170 years, with two exceptions, there has been an unbroken union between the Office of First Lord of the Treasury and the headship of the Government; and I should detain the House too long were I now to explain all the consequences of that union. But I will refer to one of the consequences of that union which at this moment is directly applicable to the case of the noble Lord. When the First Lord of the Treasury is the Prime Minister of this country, as by fixed tradition he has been for many years and ought to be, his position in regard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this—that he never interferes with him, at least he never legitimately interferes with him, in regard to the ordinary public Expenditure. But, on the great annual occasion when the scale of that Expenditure and the mode in which it is to be met are determined, the position of the First Minister as First Lord of the Treasury is of great importance. It is for him then to determine whether he should support the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I may say, Sir, from an experience of 12 years in the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer and nearly 11 years as Prime Minister, that there is no Minister who requires the support of the head of the Government like the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, one may say, is, in the public interest, the standing enemy of all the Departments. It is no slight matter to carry on that warfare. I rejoice that a man of the noble Lord's age and energy has set about it. No man, except one in the fullest possession of hopeful courage and energy, would undertake it; and that he should have at his back the First Lord of the Treasury, who is responsible for disowning or supporting
  100
  him, is a matter of the greatest consequence. I need not remark that it is no reproach to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when I say that if the First Lord of the Treasury is not the head of the Government he has no power whatever. What is the position of the right hon. Gentleman as First Lord of the Treasury, not being the head of the Government? He has the Leadership of the House of Commons, and in respect of that he will have to perform extremely laborious duties for six months, through which I heartily wish him well; but for the other six months of the year the right hon. Gentleman will be in possession of an excellent sinecure—a sinecure substantially in the same sense as that hold by the Lord Privy Seal, whose duties consist of affixing that important instrument from time to time. Apart from the headship of the Government, any man of business much inferior to the right hon. Gentleman—whom I believe to be an excellent man of business—could perform the whole of the duties of the First Lord of the Treasury in the space of less than three days. That is an arrangement, then, which, I am bound to say, does not commend itself either to my antiquated or my utilitarian notions. I come now to the two other points; and, first, I ask how is the Foreign Secretary, being also the First Minister, to exercise concurrent action with the heads of Departments in all the important affairs of those Departments? I say confidently that, according to the scale of the human faculties as they have been known in this country during the present century, the thing cannot be done. The Foreign Office requires the continuous attention of the Foreign Minister, who has the most exacting, unsleeping Office in the whole Government. It is impossible that a Prime Minister also holding that Office can watch and keep an eye upon the important proceedings of other Departments of his Government as he should do; and, so far as the action of the various Departments is concerned, I affirm that where the Foreign Secretary is also the Prime Minister the Government must be a Government without a head. In my opinion, the Cabinet, which has grown almost unobserved, passing on from step to step in the development of its existence and its powers, is at once the most delicate and also, perhaps, the

  101
  most important part of the whole of our Constitution, and serious public and political evil must follow any derangement of that machinery. It might be said that this is not the first time that Lord Salisbury has been Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, and that no objection has been taken to it. That is perfectly true. It is true that I objected very strongly at that time, as I do now, though it is also true that I did not lay my objections before the House. Why? Because when in January last we met the first Government of Lord Salisbury, I looked upon that Government as having a purely transitory existence. It was supported by only 250 Gentlemen out of 670, and it required no Zadkiel, no prophetic almanack or instrument of that kind, to predict, or at least to be conscious, that its days were numbered. I think it was not unknown before the present Government was formed what my sentiments were. I will now deal with the third objection, which is this—that this arrangement introduces a fundamental change into the machinery for working the foreign policy of the country. For the whole period of my political life—and I am pretty confident for many years before—the foreign policy of this country—I do not mean in mere Departmental concerns, but in everything of an important and delicate character—has been worked by the joint action of the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. One incidental consequence of that arrangement has been that in almost all cases, though I admit there have been exceptions to this, there has been in each House of Parliament one person specially responsible for Foreign Affairs. I may refer to the time of Lord Palmerston, Lord Grey, and Lord Melbourne. It is of the greatest importance that that dual action should be maintained, because it was in the nature of a security to the Sovereign, to the Cabinet, and to the country. I do not wish to convey to the minds of the House that the Prime Minister stood in the same relation to the Department as the Foreign Minister did; because, although it was the duty of the Foreign Minister to call the Prime Minister's attention to foreign matters, the decision would rest with him, and not with the Premier. That was the process in constant operation; but the system has now been swept away. Few
  102
  are the days, especially in the Session of Parliament, in which close communication with Foreign Affairs must not go on between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister; but now one man will be the sole judge, will be the judge of the diction of the despatches, and those niceties even of expression upon which our foreign relations, and even the peace of the world, so much depend. I am not going to speak, as I saw it stated in a newspaper the other day, of this arrangement as an "unconstitutional one." If I have avoided the use of that epithet, it is because it is an epithet which is the foundation of infinite disputation. But I will say this—that it is a wanton rupture of an old-established and invariable practice of the greatest importance, in my opinion, to the good conduct of the public affairs of this country. Nor am I aware of any compensating advantages which can be shown in the face of the formidable objections to which I am now alluding. Before quitting the subject, I will explain what I meant when I spoke of 170 years without a break. It is commonly considered that about 120 years ago—perhaps not quite so much—Lord Chatham was Prime Minister of this country. What I believe to be true is that Lord Chatham did perform a particular function ordinarily performed by the Prime Minister. He was the maker of the Cabinet, which afterwards became so well known as the Cabinet, first of the Duke of Grafton, and afterwards of Lord North. But I am totally unaware that Lord Chatham, after the making of the Cabinet, ever managed it as its Chief; on the contrary, it is well known, on the surface of history, that he substantially retired from public life, and from the Metropolis, and hardly took any part in public affairs, except to vindicate principles of his own. Well, these are principles of very great consequence and importance, upon which, entertaining a very decided opinion, I have thought it my duty to lay them before the House, because I think it should have an opportunity of forming a practical judgment on the matters with which I am now concerned. Now, there are certain points in the Speech to which I should like to call attention. I am very glad to see that Her Majesty's Government do not anticipate any rupture of the peace of

  103
  Europe. But what I wish to know is, whether it is intended to lay before us at an early date Papers relating to affairs in the South-East of Europe? With, respect to the condition of the people of Bulgaria, I feel—and I think it is generally felt—that after Bulgaria had been liberated by the arms of Russia, and at the cost of Russia, it would have been a perfectly natural and legitimate consequence that Russia should enjoy a large moral influence in Bulgarian concerns. The effect of gratitude would, in the natural working of the human breast, lead to that result. If Russia be content with that moral influence, I, for one, cannot grudge it her. But recent events have not tended to convince the whole world that she has been content with that moral influence. I believe it to be an error on her part, both with respect to her dignity and her power, if, instead of being content to reap the fruits of her former exertions in the spontaneous gratitude of the Bulgarian people, she should attempt to lay her yoke upon the necks of that people. With respect to Egypt, I rejoice to see reference made to the reduction of the force in that country. Indeed, I should be glad if we could be informed, in the course of the debate, to what point it is likely to be reduced. In November, 1882, we were so happy as to give instructions for its reduction merely to a single brigade. I think 4,000 men would have been the number, when the news came of the disaster to General Hicks' column, which entirely upset our plans, and entailed an enormous additional charge on this country. One thing I shall always be glad to state, whoever may be in Office. I said it when in Office myself, and I restate it now when the benefit is to be reaped by others—that, although our position in Egypt has been on many grounds a very difficult, slippery, and perilous undertaking, and although it is open to question from many points of view, one thing I think no rational and candid man can doubt—and perhaps it would not be admitted in some foreign countries—but I do not think any rational and candid man among us can doubt that the administration of affairs in that country, largely under British influence, has been eminently beneficial in many vital and primary matters to the population of that country. There is a question not
  104
  mentioned in this portion of the Speech on which I wish to address an inquiry, and that is the question of the Canadian fisheries. Undoubtedly, what we have heard and seen through secondary authorities does not leave our minds in a state of entire immobility. I should be glad if the Government would assure us of one of two things. What we should like best of all to hear is that the question of the fisheries does not at this moment present inconvenient complications; but, if that assurance cannot be given, then that there is a likelihood that we shall be speedily put in possession of information which will enable Parliament to form a judgment. The noble Viscount, in the able speech in which he moved the Address, said in substance that it was the object of the Government to achieve a modicum of Business rather than to make vast professions likely to be followed by small performance. Happily for himself, the noble Viscount is very young, and, therefore, very sanguine, and so he regards as a modicum the Business which is proposed in the present Speech. There is one subject coming off which cannot be included in the Speech; I mean the Procedure of Parliament. But, as I make out, there are 13 important subjects, all of them likely to make considerable demand upon the time of Parliament, which go to make up this modicum which the noble Viscount was so sanguine in hoping would be passed. He has my best wishes in the matter. I will not now dwell upon this question further than to say that, looking at the great bulk of them, they appear to be subjects upon which legislation may be very rational and beneficial. But we must recur to that which is the standing question on every debate on the Address under present circumstances—I mean the question of Ireland. We see how little there is to satisfy, as we now stand, the aspirations of those, and they are very numerous—the aspirations are not less numerous than they are rational—of those who say that it is a very hard case upon England and Scotland that they have so very little of the time of Parliament. Sir, I entirely agree with them. It is a very hard case, and, in my opinion, it is a case which is likely to be harder still. I draw the indications of it from many sources, and, among others, from the Speech which

  105
  is now before us. For, no doubt, the object of Her Majesty's Government, as far as they can properly pursue it, would be to reduce within limited and moderate bounds the share of attention to be given to Ireland; and yet I find, omitting the minor reference to Private Bill legislation, there are five references to Ireland, each of great and cardinal importance. The first of these references is an announcement which we must all receive with satisfaction. But perhaps I had better first take the legislative references. There are three references to Ireland with regard to legislation—one with respect to Criminal Procedure, one with respect to the Tenure and Purchase of Land, and one with respect to Local Government. With regard to Local Government, I am very sorry to find that we are losing ground instead of gaining it. The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington did not acquaint us that the subject of Local Government for Ireland had formed one of the differences between himself and his Colleagues. But the noble Lord certainly announced, in an important speech, that Local Government for Ireland should be dealt with, "in simultaneity"—the peculiarity of the phrase assisted to stamp it upon the memory—"in simultaneity" with England and Scotland. How does that stand now? There is to be a postponement of Local Government for Ireland until England and Scotland be dealt with, and that not accompanied by a pledge of immediate sequence, but a postponement qualified by the expression that Local Government for Ireland is then to come, provided that circumstances should render it possible. I venture to say that Local Government for Ireland with reference to this Speech, which only relates to a particular Session, must be regarded as a shadow, a delusion. It cannot be regarded as a promise at all. If it were a question of betting only, I would venture to bet at least 10 to 1 with any Gentleman on those Benches that there will be no Local Government for Ireland during 1887, and I do not believe that there is a man of them who would not have shrewdness enough to refuse my offer. With regard to any measure relating to the tenure and purchase of land in Ireland which Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce, I should not, under the circumstances, wish the right hen. Gentle-
  106
  man to say a word as to its nature and character—and, indeed, were I to ask him to do so, he would be justified in refusing—and I will, therefore, content myself with expressing my satisfaction that it is coming at all, and that it is coming early. Then, we have another promise which is still more proximate—that is, a measure in relation to the Criminal Laws of the country. I observe that the Mover and Seconder of the Address have drawn a distinction between law and procedure. There is, it seems to me, no idea of altering the law, but only of altering the procedure; but procedure is a very elastic word, and may cover a great deal. I apprehend that if a Bill were to be introduced into this House for the abolition of trial by jury in the Three Kingdoms, it might be argued that it was not an alteration, of the law, but only an alteration of procedure. We must not be too sure about the limited character of this apparently very modest proposal. This subject is not entirely new to mo. We were in Office in 1885, when we had determined to drop what we considered to be the coercive portions of the Crimes Act. I believe I may probably have used the very words—the very phrase—undoubtedly I did state to the House that all we intended to do was to make one or two proposals tending to the sort of improvement which is now called the improvement of procedure. Our attempt to make our rose smell sweeter by calling it by another name did not succeed. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) declared that he believed we were going to re-enact the worst portion of the Crimes Act, and that opinion was taken up by those who are now in the Government who broadly distinguished between their conduct and ours, because their conduct was the abandonment and ours the retention of repressive legislation. I will not ask what this amendment of procedures is to be. The words are very ambiguous, but I will be content to wait to learn the meaning of them when the proper time comes. The measure may be of small and limited scope, or it may be of very great scope and importance. I shall not enter into the subject of repressive or coercive legislation for Ireland at this time. My opinions upon it have been placed in the very fullest manner upon record, when I proposed the Irish Government

  107
  Bill on the part of the late Administration, and to those opinions I entirely adhere. But there are two other statements with regard to the condition of Ireland. One of them is an announcement which we must all receive with great satisfaction—namely, that grave crimes have become more rare in Ireland. I am bound to say that this announcement in the Speech of the Queen reminds me of the words which fell from the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington when, towards the close of the proceedings of 1886, he was acting as Leader of the House. I then said that it was exceedingly to be desired that Her Majesty's Government should, at an early period, announce their intentions with respect to the government of Ireland, because in Ireland the administration of government was intimately allied to social order, and the noble Lord replied that I had forgotten the great change that had taken place. He said—
  "You have associated yourselves with a movement of local and domestic government in Ireland; since you have done that, the country has put on a new face with respect to legality."
  [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH dissented.] Not the right hon. Baronet opposite, who, if I remember rightly, contradicted the noble Lord. I am quoting the noble Lord to show that while he stated that, in his opinion, they had a right to expect a greater regard for legality in Ireland on account of the course we had taken, he is borne out in this respect—that the Queen, in the Speech from the Throne, thinks it right to announce that grave crimes have been more rare in Ireland during the last few months than was the case in a similar period last year. Then there comes another passage, upon which I must say a few words, regarding the organized attempts to incite occupiers to combine against the fulfilment of their legal obligations. I do not find fault with the Government for putting a reference like that in the Queen's Speech. But I think, if a reference were to be made, it is defective in one important if not essential point. I think that from the nature and incidence of the evictions which have taken place in Ireland, which have produced a profound sensation in this country—I do not enter into the question of blaming anyone connected with them—which has, as a matter of fact, struck with horror
  108
  multitudes of men, I might almost say the general public of this country—it would have been well to have referred to them, and to have expressed some regret on the part of the Sovereign and the Government that it had been necessary to proceed in the depth of winter to eject people by force from their houses and to consume the houses by fire, when there was no evidence, as far as I am able to judge, that they were really able to pay their rents. I do not wish to enlarge the scope of my present observations further than the terms in which I have couched them. The hon. Member who has just sat down asked me what I thought of the "Plan of Campaign." I will tell him what I think of it. It is the consequence of the policy which he and his Friends have pursued. How does the matter stand? If it be necessary to remind the House of what took place at the opening of the Second Session of Parliament in 1886, the whole of those whom I am permitted to call my political Friends, as well as the whole of those who are known as Irish Nationalists, contended and urged on the Government in the strongest manner the absolute necessity for some legislation for Ireland with a view to the difficulties of the winter. We urged that it was absolutely necessary that there should be some legislation to enable persons who were unable to pay their rent, on proof of their inability before a Judicial Tribunal, to obtain relief in point of time. There was some difference in the arguments by which we supported our proposition; but our proposition was one and the same. I contended that Her Majesty's Government were bound to do it by their own declarations and by their own acts. I contended—and I contend now—that Lord Salisbury's speeches admitted that there were cases of the kind. I was not able to quote his words at the time. But I have referred to them since, and I have them now in my pocket. Lord Salisbury's words were that representations had been made that the people were unable to pay the judicial rents, but that he did not credit that declaration to any great extent; and yet he issued a Commission which was to inquire, among other matters, into the ability of the Irish tenants to pay the judicial rents. I argued on those grounds that it was an absolute duty to save the people who were by

  109
  presumption unable to pay their rents from the pains and penalties of eviction during the winter, by provisional legislation of that character which would enable them to obtain relief in point of time. What was said by the Government? In the first place, they said that I had misquoted Lord Salisbury—that he had never expressed any such opinion. They said the Commission did not imply that; and they went a great deal further; because when some of my hon. Friends near me contended from what they knew that the rents absolutely required reduction, and supported their statement by what was going on in England and Ireland, the general tone of the debate on the part of the Government was to contend that the rents did not require reduction, and that on that account they met the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork, not by another proposal of their own providing temporary relief upon proof of inability to pay before a judicial tribunal, but with an outright opposition on principle, and they refused to make any provision whatever to meet the difficulties of the winter. We thought, and we said, that great public evils must arise in consequence of that refusal on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I said—"Can there be anything more monstrous than to appoint a Commission to inquire whether people can pay their rents or not, and, in the meanwhile, while the Commission is inquiring, to allow the people to be turned out?" That was answered by declarations that there were necessary steps in the process of law, and that before the people could be turned out we should know what the Commission re commended. That has been completely falsified. The evictions have taken place, and a great deal besides has taken place. A great deal has been said about there being no occasion for a reduction o rents. I am now going to speak of matter of which I have no original know ledge, but which, I believe, rests on good authority. We are given to believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—far be it from me to censure him for it—has been, what we call, exercising pressure on the landlords. The right hon. Gentleman has been exercising pressure in one direction, because he thought there was a case of necessity; and some of the Nationalist Members, feeling it was no
  110
  use for them to go to the landlords and enter upon a course of reasoning and argument, it appears that some few of them have been exercising pressure in another way. I am rather jealous of the exercise of pressure by the Executive Government upon landlords, and I think it would have been far wiser and fairer that they should come to the House and say—"Pending this inquiry, we must make temporary provision for those persons who are unable to pay their rents. We will not be put off by professions of inability to pay; we will require judicial proof, and upon judicial proof time shall be given." Instead of that the extreme course was taken of putting pressure on the landlords; and it was said there was no necessity for the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork, of which, I confess, I have no knowledge, except as to its fundamental principles. Then have come these proceedings tending to compromise the dignity of the law, and which have given rise to the deplorable scenes which have caused such a thrill of horror throughout the country. In that state of circumstances, the hon. Gentleman the Seconder of the Address thinks he is in a position to ask me, who three months ago pointed out what ought to be done, what I think about the Plan of Campaign. I will detain the House no longer. I sincerely hope that the performances of the Session may justify more than I anticipate the sanguine expectations with which it is quite evident the Queen's Speech has been framed.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), but who is of necessity not in his place at the present moment, referred to the old traditions of Parliament. He spoke of the necessity of limiting debate. I think, Sir, that I may, even in his absence, remark upon the fact that the speech which he has delivered is one which is not likely to limit the debate on the Address to be presented in answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, for he opened questions of great width and magnitude, and with a force and a vigour which belongs to any statement that proceeds from the right hon. Gentleman when he throws his whole heart into the subject with which he has to deal. He congratulated my noble Friend behind me

  111
  (Lord Randolph Churchill) upon the step which he had thought it right to take conscientiously in the interests of economy, and in the interests of the country itself. He spoke of it as a great sacrifice. Well, Sir, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does my noble Friend only justice in making the remark of him that it was a sacrifice which a man in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very rarely called upon to make. I have already, Sir, referred to the observations which fell from my noble Friend in justification of the course which he took. I should be the very last person in the slightest degree to derogate from the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the position in which my noble Friend found himself. On the other hand, I will say for myself that there is also a duty on the part of those who are the heads of the great public Departments; and that duty is to maintain, from their own point of view and of their own responsibility, the efficiency of the Services for which they are responsible. It may happen that they may take an exaggerated or a mistaken view of their duties. I was myself perfectly prepared to take the full consequences of the acts for which I was then personally responsible. I believe that in the circumstances of the present day, looking at the condition of affairs abroad, looking at the vast interests of this country, looking at the great trade which we have to protect, looking to the multitude in this country who depend for their livelihood upon the security of their daily wage and their daily labour, that I should not have been justified in reducing the defensive forces of the country below the standard at which they existed and at which I proposed to place them. Nor should I have been justified in refusing to provide for the continuous defence of our coaling stations, which had been undertaken. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the necessity of economy. He spoke of the judicious and moderate views which were advocated by my noble Friend. I believe that my noble Friend, in advocating those views, was convinced in his own mind that they were both judicious and moderate. But I had also a duty to discharge, and I may say for myself that I believe no economy can be more short-sighted or more extravagant than to enter, under the pressure it may be
  112
  of Parliament or of public opinion out-of-doors, upon an expenditure which may be one-third, one-half, or two-thirds incurred, and then to abandon that expenditure before the object which was sought to be obtained and which was recognized as a necessity for the security of the country had been accomplished. My view of the duties and obligations of Parliament is that we ought not to commit ourselves to expenditure rashly, heedlessly, or thoughtlessly, but that we ought to examine carefully the necessity for such an expenditure, and that if we have begun an undertaking we ought to complete it. If we have entered upon an undertaking to fortify, it may be, our coaling stations, to provide defences for our commercial ports, to make secure our military forts, we ought to carry it through with economy, and in such a way that the expenditure already incurred shall conduce to the security and safety of the nation. For my part, as long as I have any responsibility for the conduct of Business in this House I shall invite it to realize for itself the importance of a particular work on which it embarks, and to commit itself to the completion of that work, or not to enter upon it. The right hon. Gentleman referred at some length to the remarks which were attributed—and which were attributed, I believe, with perfect accuracy—to Mr. Disraeli, that foreign policy and financial policy go closely together. They do. From what I know of the foreign policy of this country I claim that it is economical, and that it is directed to secure the peace of this country, the continuity and security of the industry of this country, spread, as its interests are, throughout the world. No, Sir; we are not aggressive; we are not disposed to interfere in the disputes of other countries or of other peoples; but we are bound to maintain the honour and the obligations of this country, and we are bound to fulfil the engagements to which Treaties bind us. The right hon. Gentleman referred to some observations which fell, I think, from my noble Friend as to the disposition which is supposed to exist that we should range ourselves on the side of one Continental Power or of another. I again, Sir, repeat that our disposition is bounded by the duties and interests of this country and by its obligations under Treaties, and that we

  113
  shall never interfere, unless we are bound to do so, either in the interests of the commerce and industries of this country, or on account of those obligations which we have undertaken. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of my challenge to my noble Friend to put his finger on any expenditure which he believed to be unwise as a challenge to fight a battle on unequal terms. Now, Sir, I have been most anxious to avoid anything which appears, in the slightest degree, to suggest a difference of feeling between my noble Friend and myself. It was natural that the right hon. Gentleman should avail himself of the opportunity to point out circumstances which would bring to pass a difference of opinion between Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House and the Government which they support. I believe there is no real difference of opinion between my right hon. Friend and myself on a single point. We desire economy, but we desire practical economy. Having invited my noble Friend to put his finger upon a single blot, upon any single excess or extravagance, I do not ask him to fight a battle on unequal terms; I ask him to assist his Friends on this side of the House in the endeavour to enforce that economy which is in our interests, as completely as it can be in his, or of the country itself. No, Sir; Parliament itself must be taken into council in matters of this kind; it must, by its own effort, aid the Government in the detection and correction of extravagances which may exist—extravagances, however, which, from the point of view I take, I believe do not exist. But in the conduct of the great Departments—and I see right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been associated with them—there no doubt always exist opportunities for retrenchment and improvement. In that direction, and in the direction of the maintenance of the armaments which exist, I ask the House to assume the responsibility to discharge its duty, and to acquaint itself with the system which exists. There appears to be an impression that the Estimates which have been presented and the armaments which are proposed are in excess of those which existed and were proposed by the late Government of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). There is no foundation for that impression. They are really less
  114
  in magnitude and less in amount than those which were proposed last March by the right hon. Gentleman, who then sat upon this side of the House. I admit that they are not reduced in effective strength, and that the reduction which has been effected is due to the economy and supervision which has been exercised in the various Departments, and which, I hope, may conduce to still better results for the public benefit. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the proportion which exists between the Expenditure of the present day and the Expenditure of many years ago. I am afraid that there is no hope that these proportions will be very largely altered. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the circumstances under which we are acting are entirely different—that the ships and the guns of the present day are as distinct and different from those of 10, 15, or 20 years ago as it is possible to conceive. We might as well almost go back to the days of bows and arrows for comparison as to compare the ships and guns of to-day with those in use 20 years ago, and the cost relatively is almost as much greater. But this is not the opportunity for entering into a discussion of this kind. Such a question can only be minutely investigated either by a Committee of this House, or by the discussion in Committee of the Whole House when the Estimates are produced, which will either justify or change the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the changes in the structure of the Government—to the position of my noble Friend the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Salisbury), and to my own position in this House. Well, Sir, I feel some hesitation in remarking on my own position. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will feel that I am at a disadvantage which almost shuts my mouth in the attempt to speak of the position which I myself occupy in this House. I had no desire to fill that position, and I occupy it merely in the discharge of what I believe to be, under the circumstances, a public duty. I would only say this—that I have never yet, even for a limited portion of the year, had the enjoyment of a sinecure. It is absolutely inconsistent with the life I have led, and I cannot imagine that I shall at any period of my public and

  115
  active life arrive at that happy position. But the right hon. Gentleman insisted, with great force apparently, upon the impropriety—at least, that appeared to be his argument—of my noble Friend who is at the head of the Government being also the Foreign Secretary. He admitted, I think, that the circumstances of the present day were grave, and that the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government was not, on the whole, unsatisfactory even to him; but he did not indicate that there was any one man at the present day better fitted to discharge the duties and the responsibilities of Foreign Secretary than my noble Friend. I believe, speaking with great deference, and with full regard to the great qualities which exist in public men at the present day—I believe that the country is prepared to say that there is no man, on the whole, better fitted to discharge the duties of Foreign Secretary than the Marquess of Salisbury. The question then arises whether the practical object which we ought to aim at of having the best man for the position, which has to be filled under circumstances of great difficulty, anxiety, and danger, not, perhaps, to the interests of England, but to the peace and the interests of the world—whether, under those circumstances, it was not wise and right that my noble Friend should assume the responsibilities and the duties of Foreign Secretary as well as those of Prime Minister. I will not presume to judge upon a question of this character. I only say for myself that I occupy the position which has been assigned to me from a simple sense of duty; and I believe I and my Colleagues will be fully informed—as if, indeed, we were Prime Ministers ourselves—of the views, of the mind, and of the policy of my noble Friend, and that we shall have all the influence which we ought to exercise, and all the power which we ought to possess, in the decision of any question which affects the interests of this great Empire and concerns the honour of Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government, under present circumstances was without a head; that it was a Government of Departments. Sir, I deny that altogether. I say that in Council we meet together under circumstances which give to the Prime Minister, and to those who exercise influence one with
  116
  the other, that complete interchange of responsibility and duty which enables is to act as one Government, responsible to the country, responsible to Her Majesty, and in complete accord with the Prime Minister himself. Reference was made to the advantages of dual action. The right hon. Gentleman insisted that there always had been dual action in this country—that there had been a Foreign Secretary and a Prime Minister—the Prime Minister reading the despatches, and the Foreign Minister sending them. I do not think we can say that the results of that dual action have been always entirely successful. Looking back upon the past, it must be confessed that we were involved in liabilities and responsibilities in Egypt as the result of dual action, which, had there been single individual responsibility on the part of a vigorous and capable man, might possibly have been avoided; and very much of the expenditure now objected to has arisen from that dual action in Egypt. I will pass now to other passages of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He asked me whether Papers with regard to the Balkan Peninsula would shortly be produced to the House. Yes, Sir; they will be produced immediately. But I think it would, perhaps, re-assure the House if I venture to state more precisely what the views of Her Majesty's Government are with regard to the Balkan Peninsula, and I will say that—
  "An invitation has been conveyed to Her Majesty's Government to give Instructions to the Ambassador at Constantinople to associate himself with the Representatives of the other Powers in the hope of arriving at an acceptable solution of the difficulty, and he has been informed that Her Majesty's Government are very anxious for the adjustment of the controversy which exists with regard to the future government of Bulgaria; that we should act, in the first instance, under a sense of our responsibility as signatory of the Treaty of Berlin; secondly that we desire to give effect to our wish for the independence and the freedom of the Bulgarian people, in accordance with our traditional policy and, thirdly, that subject to those considerations we desire to give all legitimate satisfaction to the wishes of the Russian Government."
  Sir, I do not think I could give an more clear statement of the views an policy of Her Majesty's Government wit regard to Bulgaria than I have read out to the House, and I have read out substantially the Instructions which have been conveyed to Her Majesty's Mini

  117
  ter at Constantinople. I was thon asked with regard to Egypt. I was asked to state to what number the British troops in Egypt were to be reduced. We found them at a very large number when we assumed Office. They were in excess of the provision which had been made in the Estimates for the year; and, thanks greatly to the skill, the moderation, and the good feeling exhibited by the Representatives of the English Government in Egypt, especially to General Stephenson, we have been, or shall be, able to reduce the number of the Army of Occupation to about 5,000 men before the 1st of April next, and, at the same time, there will be a considerable reduction in the Egyptian Army, probably to about 10,000 men. I need not say the effect of these reductions has been beneficial both to the Egyptian and to the English Exchequer; but, at the same time, there appears an excess of expenditure for which Estimates will have to be produced in this House. I concur entirely with the observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman as to the beneficial effect upon the people of Egypt of the administration of the country by the English Government. I believe it has been most beneficial to them in every sense of the word. I believe they have been relieved from trouble and difficulty which oppressed them before, and they have the advantage of orderly and settled government. With regard to the question of the Canadian fishermen, I need not say that Her Majesty's Government are most anxious to do anything in their power to bring about a satisfactory settlement of the question at issue between the United States Government and this country with regard to those fisheries. The Canadian Government itself has assumed a most moderate attitude in the affair. It has been the policy of the English Government in the past, under all Administrations, to maintain Colonial rights, and we are bound to do so so far as we can; but there are two kindred peoples who honestly desire, I believe, to arrive at a settlement of the questions in dispute, and no efforts will be spared on the part of Her Majesty's Government to bring those questions to a fair and equitable and amicable settlement. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of Ireland, and spoke of the hard case of England and Scotland in the past, and of the probably still
  118
  harder case of England and Scotland in the future. I can only say that if the right hon. Gentleman will give his assistance, with a view to bringing about peace and order in Ireland, and a termination of those interruptions to the conduct of Business in this House, we shall be most glad to accept that assistance; and he will thus contribute largely, I believe, to the happiness of Ireland, and to the advantage of England and Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that there were five references to Ireland in the Queen's Speech; that there were three with regard to legislation, and others to the condition of crime and outrage. The right hon. Gentleman has said, with regard to Local Government, that it was losing ground; that it would have to be postponed; that we have qualified our intention to introduce a Bill for the Local Government of Ireland, provided circumstances rendered it possible. I think myself it is always better, in dealing with questions of this kind, to be perfectly frank and open with the House and the country; and we say, as my noble Friend behind me said, that if the condition of a country is such that it is incapable of receiving any large measure of self-government, then it would be absurd and impossible to force such a measure upon it. The right hon. Gentleman offered, indeed, to bet me 10 to 1 that the Bill would not be introduced. Well, he has it in his own hands, as the head of the National Party of Ireland, to exercise that influence which will bring about a condition of order and obedience to the law in that country which would justify Her Majesty's Government in proposing measures for the increase of local self-government. If the right hon. Gentleman will, as the head of the National Party, in conjunction with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), exercise that control over those combinations and those agitations which disturb and distress and unsettle that country, then there will be no question that the measure for the local self-government of Ireland will be brought forward. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that great crimes are becoming more rare, and he spoke of the allusion in the Queen's Speech to the organized attempts at agitation and resistance to the law which had been made.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: A nice law.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I did not catch the hon. Member's observation.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I said it was a nice law that allowed a house to be burned.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), among other things, referred to the fact that there was no allusion to the evictions that have occurred in Ireland, and gave it as his own belief that if a certain Bill, introduced before the Session closed only four months ago, had been passed, these evictions might have been prevented. Well, Sir, there is no one in this House, or in this country, who has a greater sympathy for the suffering poor of Ireland than I have individually. I pity them from the very bottom of my heart; but there is nothing more deplorable than the fact that their sufferings have been made the instruments for agitation by men who have no regard whatever for the real interests of those people, but who only use them as ammunition for the attainment of their own particular views and objects. What are the facts of the case? I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman really understood them. The particular case of eviction to which he referred was the Glenbeigh eviction. It is notorious that if the Bill of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had been passed, no single eviction at Glenbeigh would or could have been avoided. No, Sir; put it how you like, the Plan of Campaign which the right hon. Gentleman appeared to justify, and which has been solemnly condemned by one of the Judges of the land, is a campaign directed against the interests of the poor suffering tenants of Ireland, because it compels a landlord, if he will not accept the terms offered by people who have no concern whatever in the question, to assert his rights in the manner in which he has done in the past. The right hon. Gentleman chose to refer to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) as having given colour end sanction to the Plan of Campaign. Why, Sir, what has my right hon. Friend done at the most and at the worst? He has, perhaps, on one, or two, or more occasions exercised his personal influence with gentlemen to endeavour to induce
  120
  them not to press their legal rights to the last extremity—from information which he has received, and believing that in doing so he was benefiting alike the owner and the occupier of the land. But what is this Plan of Campaign? It is the interference of other persons, who have no local concern in the place at all, to compel individual tenants not to pay the rent which they are able and capable of paying, and which they are willing to pay, to pledge them not to pay them, and to compel the landlords to accept that which they offer them, whether or not it is just or right. In the one case we have the influence—not the influence, but the suggestion—of a gentleman who feels deeply for the country, and for the interests of the people over whom he is called to govern; and in the other we have an organized attempt to bring the owner of the land and the tenant of the land into hostile relations, so that if the owner is not content to forego all his rights he must proceed to extremities against the tenants by having recourse to legal remedies. I have no sympathy whatever with the hardhearted landlord. I do not believe that there are 10 men in this House who have any sympathy with him. But you are putting the good landlord into a position from which it is impossible to extricate himself, except by the assistance of the law, and the miserable tenant into a position in which he is forced to accept the dreaded alternative of eviction. Let hon. Gentlemen be reasonable, considerate, humane to the tenants of Ireland. Let the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) exercise his influence, and let him take care to inform himself of the facts of the case. Let him act with the facts as his judgment, knowledge, and conscience direct, and then we may have some hope of peace and prosperity in Ireland. I do not propose to occupy the time of the House at any further length. I may venture to express the hope that the debate may partake of that character which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian himself desired—that it may be a short debate—that it may permit us as speedily as possible to proceed to the real Business of the Session, and that we may endeavour to devote some portion of the time of Parliament to the amelioration of the condition of the people of Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. W. H. Smith) had made an appeal to the late Prime Minister (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) to do something to promote order in Ireland; and he said it would be a good thing if the Members of the late Government exerted their influence to put an end to those things which were interrupting the exercise of the law in Ireland that day. To put an end to the obstructions which the law had received in Ireland, or what was considered to be law in Ireland recently, was first of all to put an end to scenes like those which occurred at Glenbeigh, when, at that time of the 19th century, under the flag of England, and with the forces of England, unfortunate people, who were unable to pay what the landlords demanded, were not only hounded from their homes in the depth of winter, but, to the disgrace of the Government and of England, had the roofs burned above their heads, and were smoked from their houses as if they had been rats, and not human beings. The right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had said that the Plan of Campaign was the cause of the bad relations which now existed between the landlords and tenants of Ireland. What was the fact? In Glenbeigh, where these unheard-of atrocities had taken place, the Plan of Campaign was never heard of; and if it had been exercised in the district of Glenbeigh, instead of the people being hunted through the fields, while their houses smouldered in ruins, they would now be at home under their own roofs, and would be receiving overtures of peace and settlement from the landlords, and would have got what reductions the landlords had given on other estates where the Plan of Campaign was in operation. The right which Irish Members had to interfere in such cases was this—that they were the elected Representatives of these people; and one of the chief duties which these people had delegated to them was that they should spare no exertion in order to keep them safe in their homes. He would remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), when in the witness-box in Dublin, had not denied that he had used pressure on the landlords to abstain from enforcing their technical
  122
  rights; and the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had at last admitted, as Leader of the Government, that there were harsh landlords, and that it was the duty of the Government to discountenance them. That was to say, the Irish Nationalists were reviled in England because they persistently preached what the First Lord of the Treasury had now admitted in the House to be necessary. That right hon. Gentleman had confessed—and he (Mr. Redmond) felt bound to say that he received the admission with great satisfaction—that there were harsh landlords whom it was absolutely necessary to appeal to, to prevent them from exacting from their tenants more than the tenants could pay. He (Mr. Redmond) and his Friends hoped the Government would exercise pressure, and so fall in with their efforts to put a stop to evictions in Ireland. The Government had acknowledged to-night that it was necessary to interfere between landlords and tenants, and endeavour by personal influence to stay evictions. That admission altogether demolished the argument sometimes used—that the landlords were a class of men who might be left to the kindness of their own hearts in dealing with their tenantry. If Her Majesty's Government thought it their duty to interfere to prevent the harshness of landlords, how much more strongly must the Representatives of the poor tenants feel it would be their duty to interfere for the same purpose? It looked very much as if it was because the Government failed by their method of personal pressure, that they were so jealous and bitter against the Plan of Campaign. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House described the Plan of Campaign as an engine brought to bear on landlords who refused to surrender all their rights. But that showed a complete ignorance of facts. The Plan of Campaign was only adopted upon a few estates; and in these cases the landlords were only asked to give a fair reduction, and it was always promised that when that reduction was made the rent would be paid. It was also said that the Plan of Campaign was not fair, because the tenants themselves fixed the reduction that they asked; but there was every desire to meet the landlords in a fair arbitration. This, however, they would not do, and the answer they usually gave was a

  123
  shower of writs. It was under circumstances such as these that the Plan of Campaign was adopted. The right hon. Gentleman spoke contemptuously of the "persons" who were returned for trial for their connection with the Plan of Campaign. He (Mr. Redmond) was proud to say that he was one of those persons. The estate he had been connected with was that of Lord Dillon, in the county Mayo, from which Lord Dillon, though he had never put his foot in Ireland, drew £25,000 a-year. The tenants had themselves reclaimed the barren rocks and hills of the estate, and, owing to the severe depression, they asked for a reduction. Lord Dillon refused, and a quantity of writs were served. Then the Plan of Campaign was adopted, and Lord Dillon, after some time, consented to grant a reduction of 20 per cent. Then the entire rents, less this reduction, were paid over to him. Under such circumstances as these, the Plan of Campaign was fully justified; and if he and his Colleagues were found guilty of the mythical criminal offence with which they were charged—if by packing of juries and changing of venues that was possible—they would nevertheless rejoice in their action, which had saved many hundred people from the horrors of unjust eviction.
  SIR GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, that it was melancholy to find once again in the Queen's Speech a phrase drawing attention to the fact that, although grave crime had become rarer in Ireland, violence of a more insidious nature prevailed. It was, he believed, attributable to the defeated measure of the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister, which was still being dangled before the eyes of the people of Ireland, who were led to believe that, by resorting to this system of violence, they would at last attain their ends. He often wondered that the late Prime Minister should be so anxious to deny that separation would result from his proposed legislation; because, if there was any merit in his scheme, it was that its adoption would result in our being no longer troubled with the Irish Question. Now, there had been enough of surrender by instalments. It was supposed by its author that the measure for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church would bring content to Ireland; but the change was only re-
  124
  ceived as an instalment, and the same was the case with the two successive Land Bills of the late Prime Minister. The Conservative Party had been asked to disclose an alternative policy. Their policy was "no surrender," as opposed to "surrender;" they had been sent to Parliament to maintain the Union at all hazards, and they were determined to do it. It was greatly to be regretted that there existed statesmen who were prepared to throw over to-day the principles which they advocated yesterday. For example, it seemed but yesterday that the late Prime Minister threw into gaol the very men who were now his close allies. Then it was not very long ago when the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) declared that all minor considerations must yield to the maintenance of the cardinal principle of Party union; and yet that very night they had heard from the noble Lord that the small question of a difference in the Estimates of £500,000 had been sufficient to induce him to discard that cardinal principle. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) appeared now to be anxious to arrive at a modus vivendi with the late Prime Minister, and half-inclined to offer Home Rule with safeguards. In the present temper of the Irish people it would, he believed, be very dangerous to make any such offer. The only policy that had been tried and failed was that of "shilly-shally." There must be firm and resolute government, and it would be useless to offer Ireland any further legislation of a remedial nature until the people were prepared to accept such legislation as a final measure. The present Government were, he trusted, resolved to carry out a firm policy in Ireland, and in that resolution they would be supported by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington). It was only by following a policy of that kind that they could insure the ultimate welfare of a distracted country.
  MR. LANE: I believe the English and Irish people will prefer to take their ideas of honesty and morality from the opinions expressed by the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland and the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister, rather than from the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the

  125
  House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, in the speech which he delivered a short time ago, said that the late Prime Minister, in the views which he has expressed this evening as to the Plan of Campaign, showed that he knew very little of the facts of the case. Now, I think that any person from Ireland who listened to the remarks of the Leader of the House must have been satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman himself knows much leas of the facts of which he has attempted to speak than the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister, because the Leader of the House said that the Plan of Campaign was an uncalled-for interference in the relations between landlord and tenant by persona who had no interest whatever in the payment of rent in Ireland, and that it was, to a certain extent, an act of coercion or intimidation on the part of the Nationalist Members, in order to prevent the tenants of the property where the plan has been put into operation from paying their just and legal liabilities to their landlords. That sentence alone convinces me that the right hon. Gentleman must have made a very superficial inquiry indeed into the meaning and working of the Plan of Campaign. If he had asked right hon. Gentlemen who sit at his right and left for information I think he would have obtained much better information than he seems to possess at present. Now, it was my privilege to be the first Irish Nationalist Member who co-operated with any body of tenants in Ireland for putting this Plan of Campaign into operation. I need not inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland of that, because it is on public record that when the fact was brought under the notice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman he gave an opinion upon the Plan of Campaign, the genuineness of which has been much debated ever since. Well, Sir, having been the first to co-operate with the tenants in putting the Plan of Campaign into operation, I think I may claim a more intimate acquaintance with it than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House; and it is only right that the Members of this House should hear from one or two Irish Representatives who have been connected with the Plan of Campaign something
  126
  more about it than they have heard up to the present before they begin to discuss it, or even to speak about it. I do not know a single case in Ireland where the initiative in this matter has been taken by a Member of Parliament, or by any other individual than the body of tenants who were interested, on the estate where the Plan was put into operation. It is well that hon. Members should clearly understand how this Plan of Campaign works in Ireland. The first step which is taken by the tenants is to meet together to discuss the rents on their holdings—the excess of rents over the valuations, and then the particular depression of prices in their various departments of agriculture, because, owing to the distance from markets, and a great many other local causes, the prices got for the same sort of produce in different parts of Ireland vary to a very large extent. These tenants, having fully discussed their affairs, came to an agreement among themselves as to what was a fair all-round reduction of rent to ask from their landlords for their mutual protection. Having done that, they go to the agent or landlord and make the offer which they say is the best they are able to make. If the landlord or his agent on the spot agrees to accept that offer, in every case the rent is paid without the slightest hesitation on the part of the tenants; but if the landlord or his agent refuses to make the reduction, then the tenants adjourn to some place in the district in order to determine what is to be the next course they ought to pursue. The general result of that action is that these men, not being able, to a certain extent, to manage their own affairs, ask their Representative, or some other Member of Parliament whom they happen to know, to go down and consult with them, and help them as to the best mode of procedure. I am stating now the course which has been adopted in reference to various properties from my own experience. I was asked by 400 tenants to assist them in this matter, and having met them I found that the largest number of them were inclined to ask for a reduction of 50 per cent; but, having gone thoroughly into the particulars of each case, I came to the conclusion that a demand of that kind was excessive. I was assisted in the matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid

  127
  Cork (Dr. Tanner), and after a great deal of persuasion we induced the tenants, who were determined in the first instance not to pay more than 50 per cent, to abate their demand to 35 per cent as the maximum reduction. In regard to that estate, I can vouch for the fact that when the tenants came in to pay the rent they had agreed to pay into the common fund a very large number of them stated to myself personally, and to the clergymen who were co-operating with me, that they had in many instances been compelled to sell articles of household furniture, not to speak of cattle and other portions of their stock, which might be considered legitimate things to dispose of for such a purpose. They had had, actually, to dispose of their household furniture in order to obtain the amount, which they were perfectly ready to hand over to their landlord or his agent if it was agreed to accept it. On properties immediately adjoining this of which I am speaking, and on land running into it, other landlords—and there are hon. Gentlemen opposite who know the fact—other landlords who are Members of the Tory Party in the County of Cork made much larger reductions than these tenants asked for, and I know that they tried to use their influence with the particular landlord I was dealing with on that occasion in order to induce him to accede to what was considered to be a fair and legitimate arrangement in regard to his estates; but he refused to do so. On that particular property there are more than 400 tenants. Under ordinary circumstances I know, for a positive fact, that a good many of them could not have made an offer to pay the rent this year at all; but, owing to the fact that they were called upon to adopt some united course of action, the agreement they arrived at was that which I have stated. I believe that their conduct will stand the test of the closest investigation, and that it will be found that these men scraped the money together from sources of which I and their neighbours had no idea, for the purpose of paying the last farthing it was possible to pay to their landlord. That, Sir, I think is clear proof that there is no such thing as wholesale dishonesty on the part of those tenants of Ireland who have adopted the Plan of Campaign. I believe that every Member
  128
  from Ireland who will follow me in the course of this debate will be able to give similar testimony as to the great sacrifices which have been made by the tenants of Ireland in order to meet every fair, just, and reasonable demand their landlords can possibly make upon them. As a proof that there is no dishonesty on the part of the tenants of Ireland, and no general combinations to refuse to pay rents, I may mention the fact that there have not been more than 50 or 60 instances, up to the present moment, in which the Plan of Campaign has been adopted. In all other cases the landlords, with a few exceptions, have met their tenants in a fair and reasonable spirit; and I am myself acquainted with a great many properties and estates where the Plan of Campaign would not have been adopted if the landlords had shown the slightest disposition to treat with their tenants, or to meet them fairly. It was only resorted to where the landlords displayed no inclination whatever to abandon the pound of flesh they demanded in the nature of rack-rents. If there had been any conciliatory attempt to meet the tenants on the part of these harsh landlords, there would have been a desire on the part of the tenants to meet them half-way. As an invariable rule, wherever the Plan of Campaign has been adopted, it will be found that the landlords are inexorable in their claims. They will not acknowledge that there has been any depression of prices; that their tenants are suffering any hardship whatever; or that there is any fair ground for making a reduction. I think I have given proof to the House that we have not been trying to prevent the tenants from paying the rent. In every case where the Plan of Campaign has been adopted, and the money put into the common fund, the landlord has been told plainly and distinctly that the money is there ready for him to take if he is willing. There is no hesitation in paying it over to him; and in every case where the landlord has come to terms the whole of his half-year's rent, less the reduction which the tenants have asked him to make, has been paid to him, without the slightest deduction on account of any expenses which may have been incurred in reference to legal proceedings. One proof of the actual necessity of putting this Plan of Campaign

  129
  into operation, and particularly in the South of Ireland, with which I am personally connected, is contained in a fact which I will mention to the House. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald), who led the opposition last Session to the Tenants' Relief Bill of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), called a meeting of the landlords of the county of Cork, and of the South of Ireland, immediately after he returned to Ireland from Parliament. Speeches were made at that meeting by the hon. Member for Cambridge and the hon. Member for South Huntingdon (Mr. Smith-Barry), calling on the landlords of Cork and the South of Ireland generally to acknowledge the badness of the times and the depreciation of prices, and to make fair and reasonable allowances to their tenants upon the half-year's rent. It is only right that, in speaking from these Benches, I should acknowledge that many of the landlords, in answer to that appeal, did make large reductions, and among the foremost of them was the hon. Member for South Huntingdon himself, who made a larger reduction than we have asked for under the Plan of Campaign upon property immediately adjoining that upon which the Plan of Campaign was put into operation. Surely this fact affords strong justification for the proceedings which the tenants have been compelled to resort to. The hon. Member for Cambridge led the opposition, to the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) last autumn. But when he went home and inquired into the circumstances, he saw at once the absolute necessity of making a wholesale and sweeping reduction of rents to the tenants. One very curious thing connected with the Plan of Campaign is this. It has almost invariably been in connection with properties where the landlords are absentees that this Plan of Campaign has been put into operation, for the simple reason that, unlike those gentlemen who live among their tenantry, and who are able to inquire into their affairs, these absentee landlords know nothing of the circumstances of their tenantry, and are altogether guided by the reports which they receive from parties who are interested in making no settlement. It is a very well known fact in Ireland, if it is not known to Members in this House, that almost invariably the land
  130
  agent in Ireland, or some one of his relatives, is a member of the Legal Profession. Of course, the more law there is on these properties the better it is for the land agent, or for his brother or son, or whatever relative happens to be solicitor to the estate. If the landlord came to terms with his tenant, and gave a proper reduction, there would be no law costs find their way into the estate office. I believe that in a large number of cases where this unfortunate strife prevails between landlord and tenant, if they could be thoroughly investigated, it would be distinctly found that this is one of the primary causes which prevents the landlord and tenant from coming to an amicable settlement. Upon one particular property in which the Plan of Campaign has been adopted, the entire reduction, if allowed, would not have come to more than a few hundred pounds, and yet I am informed that the landlord has already incurred costs which amount to £600 or £700 without having received a single farthing of rent, or being likely to do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House seems to have gone somewhat out of his way in order to show how little he knows of this Plan of Campaign and its operations in Ireland. He referred to it as one of the causes of the Glenbeigh evictions. My hon. Friend who spoke from these Benches has already referred to that matter, and has told the House that in Glenbeigh, where those unfortunate cottiers live who have been hunted out of their homes by the agents of the Hon. Rowland Winn, and left without a roof to cover them for some weeks, the Plan was never heard of. It is an extraordinary fact that on all the properties in Ireland where the tenants have adopted the Plan of Campaign, up to the present moment there has not been a single case of eviction. If the Government have been, as has been stated, doing their best to prevent evictions in Ireland, and if these evictions are, in the eyes of the British people and of the Government, a source of shame and degradation, how is it that the law does not prevent them, and why s it that the forces of the Crown are used in order to assist in carrying them out? It is a source of congratulation to us who have been connected with the Plan of Campaign that not a

  131
  single unfortunate family has been put out on the road-side in this inclement winter on any property where the Plan of Campaign has been adopted. Whatever may have been thought of our action here in England—and I believe that very different views are held of the morality and the justice and the necessity of the Plan, of Campaign in England generally from those which have fallen from the Tory Benches opposite—we shall always look back with pride to the fact that we were, in this winter of abnormal agricultural depression, able to maintain upon their farms, in many localities, persons who would otherwise have been driven out upon the road-side or compelled to emigrate. There is one other circumstance in connection with this Plan of Campaign which I would ask English Members and others to give their attention to, as a justification and reason why a different view may be taken from that which has bean persistently adopted by the Members of the Government; and that is that while this great persecution of the tenants is going on all over Ireland, and while these grossly harsh evictions are taking place which are arousing the indignation of the whole civilized world, Her Majesty, in the Speech which she has addressed to the Houses of Parliament, has announced the fact that there has been less of grave crime committed in Ireland in the present winter than for a long time past. What is the cause of it? Why is it that we have not this winter, as we have invariably had in other winters, long records of agrarian outrage and crimes following directly in the wake of evictions and as the direct consequence of evictions? It has been acknowledged by Captain Plunkett, the representative of the Government in the South of Ireland, that the reason why we have not had these crimes is this—that the Plan of Campaign has obviated the necessity for the tenants of Ireland to have recourse to those acts of violence which they have adopted in former years, when they were handed over unprotected to be persecuted and exterminated by rack-renting landlords. That is an additional reason why we who have taken part in this Plan of Campaign in Ireland, instead of feeling intimidated by the State prosecutions which have been initiated in Dub-
  132
  lin, or by the threats which have been thrown out from the Treasury Bench this evening in regard to the adoption of the Plan of Campaign being a violation of the law, are able to stand up here as fearlessly as we do in Ireland to acknowledge with pride and pleasure that we have taken part in the Plan of Campaign, and that we have done so knowing intimately the circumstances of the tenantry with, whom we have co-operated. We know that the tenants have been making a fair and honest demand, and that if they had paid more than they have offered they would have been doing great injustice to themselves and families. If they had made any effort to meet the unjust claims of the landlords at the present moment, they would have been merely staving off, for a very short time, the same drastic course of persecution on the part of the landlords, because it would be sure to be repeated when the March rents came round again, and when they would be less able to meet the claims made upon them. I must apologise for detaining the House at such, great length, but I thought it was necessary that some of us who have taken part in the Plan of Campaign should deny the deliberately false reports which have been made in regard to our proceedings in Ireland, and endeavour to place before the House the real circumstances and conditions under which we have put this Plan of Campaign into operation. We challenge a verdict on our conduct from all fair-minded and impartial Englishmen as fearlessly as we do from any fairly constituted Jury of our fellow-countrymen in Ireland.
  MR. SHIRLEY: Any measure for the reform of county government which is likely to meet with the approval of Members on this side of the House must be of a distinctly democratic character. I con fess that I have little faith in the re forming pretensions of the present Government; and we have already heard in Ministerial speeches made within these walls, that the new County Board are to be composed largely of ex officio members. Now, I venture to say that any scheme of that nature which may be brought forward will not meet with acceptance. The desire of the country to have Councils elected on a purely de-

  133
  mocratic basis; that the members should be the direct representatives of the ratepayers of the locality; that the electors should have the protection of the Ballot; and that the principle should be adopted of one man one vote. Under these circumstances, I should like to have some information given to the House by some Member of the Government as to what their plan is. It has been suggested by some that the parish should be the area, and by others that it ought to be the Union; but my opinion is that, while on the one hand the parish would be too small, on the other the Union would be too large. I would suggest myself that the Boundary Commissioners who were sent round the country in connection with the Redistribution Bill should be sent round again in connection with the system of local government, so that districts might be mapped out with populations averaging 6,000 or 7,000—in some cases by giving a Charter of Incorporation to a large village or a small town, and in other cases by the grouping together of a number of villages; and to the Councils representing these districts ought to be transferred all those powers which are now exercised by the Court of Quarter Sessions. I sincerely hope that the scheme to be introduced by the Government will be on lines of that kind. As the Representative of rural electors, I know what it is they want. They do not want a sham Bill; they have no desire to find out, when the new system is brought into operation, that they are to continue to be governed by the parson and the squire, and that they have only got Quarter Sessions over again under a new name. That is certainly not what they want; but their desire is to have the full power of local self-government exercised by the persons who pay the rates. At the time the Municipal Corporations Act was passed, in 1835, the people who lived in the towns were given the full right of managing their own local affairs; and that system has answered so well in the case of the towns during the last 50 years that it ought now to be applied to the rural districts as well. My opinion is that Her Majesty's Government are only making a pretence of legislating in the matter, and that they will not put into the hands of the electors the real power which they ought to have. Then, again, there is another branch of the
  134
  question of local self-government which is very inadequately referred to in the Speech from the Throne—namely, local self-government as it relates to Ireland. I am glad to be able to believe that the cause of Home Rule has been making considerable progress during the last few months; and nothing, I think, indicates that more clearly than the Liverpool Election. There we saw the spectacle of a Tory statesman of the first rank, holding a high official position, and with every kind of advantage in his favour, not only enjoying the powerful support of the Press, but also the assistance of a large number of influential persons calling themselves Liberals, and the fight was on the one question of Home Rule. And yet in that great constituency of Liverpool, where the commercial ability of Mr. Goschen must have been so thoroughly understood and appreciated, the Home Rule candidate was returned. All that I have observed of late shows that the cause of Home Rule is making rapid progress. We have been told by hon. Members opposite, not only in this House, but throughout the country, that we who advocate Home Rule are Separatists. We deny the accusation, and hurl it back with scorn and indignation at the men who make it. We say that it is you who are the real Separatists, and that it is we who are the real Unionists; and that it is foolish for you to keep up that condition of separation which has now existed for the last 86 years. Have you had any solid union during those years? You have had a paper union; but no union of heart or affection. You have had the union of Parliaments; but you have never had a union of people; and, therefore, I say that it is we who advocate Home Rule—we, who are willing, under proper safeguards, for the protection of minorities, for the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, and for the unity and integrity of the Empire, to intrust the Irish people with the power of managing their own local affairs, who are the true Unionists. I believe that the people are getting more clearly to understand that the concession of a statutory and subordinate, not a co-equal and co-ordinate Parliament, does not mean separation. We are not Separatists, because we desire, and intend, that Ireland shall always remain an integral portion of the Queen's Dominions. We do not in-

  135
  tend that Ireland shall ever be separated from Great Britain; and the people of this country are rapidly beginning to understand that to intrust the Irish people with the management of their own local affairs would be a perfectly safe experiment.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I have noticed that the present debate is very similar to others which have taken place upon the Address in answer to the Queen's Speech. Debates on the Address generally turn upon the question of Ireland and of coercion. I think it is somewhat strange that on the present occasion we do not find the many embryo statesmen in this House prepared to descant upon the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. We have not heard anything of Prince Alexander in the course of this discussion, or of the Eastern Question, or of Austrian sentiment, or anything like that. The debates which usually follow Her Majesty's Gracious Speech generally hang upon Ireland, and in most cases on the propriety of coercing Ireland. No matter how the ideal may be put, no matter what may be the language used, there is always found in the Queen's Speech some hint of coercion for Ireland. We have that very mildly put in the Speech of Her Majesty to-day, for I find that Parliament is invited to consider that question in these terms—
  "Your early attention will be called to proposals for reforms in legal procedure, which seem necessary to secure the prompt and efficient administration of the Criminal Law."
  Now, Sir, I am somewhat curious to know whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Law Advisers to introduce into that Bill some means by which Her Majesty's Crown Prosecutors in Ireland may be prevented from packing juries. We, in our capacity of Representatives of the Irish people, have often strongly to protest against the efforts made by the Crown Prosecutors in Ireland to pack juries. We were successful in one case this year in smashing up a jury panel in Sligo, and we were also successful in securing for the prisoners sent to Cork for trial the benefit of the doubt. For the first time the unfortunate prisoners brought to Cork for trial got fair play, and it was only because my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) and myself demanded fair play in such a remarkable fashion that the
  136
  juries of Cork and the Crown Prosecutor himself dare not deny fair play. I trust that in any legal procedure that may be introduced by Her Majesty's Advisers they will take good care to put it beyond the power of the officials in Ireland to pack juries and deny the rights and privileges of citizens and the British Constitution itself. But I am inclined to think that the language of the Royal Speech, although very mild, does convey to those who are able to read between the lines that something more is intended to be done. For my part I believe it is intended to coerce Ireland again, and I have only to point out to Her Majesty's Government, as I have often pointed out before, that in proportion as you coerce the people of Ireland, in proportion as you oppress them and deny them their rights, will be the crime that exists in Ireland. I remember—I think it was in 1881 or 1882—reading a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Air. Gladstone), in which he clearly proved that as the local leaders of opinion in Ireland were put in prison so did the number of outrages increase in the localities in which the arrests had taken place, and that when these men were restored to their homes and the influence which they had always exercised over their neighbours was again exerted, crime was throttled and suppressed. I believe that if the same course is pursued by Her Majesty's Government now a like result will follow. As I have said already, it is very strange that in all the debates which occur after the reading of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, the principal topic of discussion is Ireland. On this occasion the speakers who have already occupied the time of the House have fortunately the much-abused Plan of Campaign to fall back upon. We have seen the Plan of Campaign abused by the Press; we have heard it abused on the platform; and we now invite discussion upon it. We are satisfied that after a full discussion of the matter the Government will sing very small indeed. I have very little to say as to the Plan of Campaign. That Plan of Campaign has only been put into operation in order to effect that which the Government themselves desired to bring about. Why, Sir, the landlords of Ireland have entered upon a Plan of Campaign of their own. Hon. Members of this House

  137
  as well as the Irish Members have witnessed the operations which have been carried out under the Plan of Campaign. I myself had not the opportunity of witnessing the terrible evictions which have been taking place in the district of Glenbeigh; but although I was not in the South of Ireland I was in a district in the North in which evictions were attempted to be carried out—namely, in the district of Gweedore, in the County of Donegal. A more miserable country I have never put my foot in. The inhabitants of the district live amidst rocks and stones. The whole surface of the land is white with granite—great granite boulders weighing five or 10 cwt.—scattered all over the surface of the laud. The people descend to the shore and bring up on their backs huge piles of seaweed, which they lay down between the crevices in the rocks and over the surface of the stones. On the land thus formed they sow potatoes, but I am sorry to say that a very small crop indeed is produced. I myself examined the crop produced upon the land of one of the tenants who was evicted, and this (holding up a small potato) was the largest I could find. Nor is it very inviting. But no sooner have the peasants made this land than the landlord comes down upon them for the rent. They have in this district of Gweedore patiently paid rent for years, but owing to the pressure of the times they have now found themselves unable to do so. But because these people are unable to meet the landlords' demands, by virtue of necessity they have been obliged, if not to adopt the Plan of Campaign, at least to strike against the payment of the exorbitant rents that were demanded from them. The landlord put the law into operation, and last week he proceeded in this terribly bleak and barren district to evict some 13 families. With the aid of 200 policemen he succeeded in evicting one man, but no sooner was he evicted than the people, in their resentment, put him back again into the house from which he had been expelled. Now I maintain that it was a worthy act. That, Sir, is the state of things at Gweedore. If the people in other localities have adopted the Plan of Campaign they have done so by virtue of stern necessity, and not with any intention to defeat or evade the law, or to refuse to fulfil their legal obligations. I am acquainted with
  138
  another estate in the South of Ireland on which I have witnessed on one or two occasions the collection of money from the tenants, and I know that many of the farmers in that district have been compelled to encroach upon their domestic resources in order to contribute their portion to the common fund. Many of them have gone to the meetings of their friends, assembled to take council, and have professed their inability to pay anything, either to the landlord in the shape of rent, or into the Tenants' Defence Fund. They have said that it would be necessary to go to some fair and dispose of their last cow, or sheep, or pig, as the case might be, and they have appealed to their friends, as they would appeal to the agent or landlord himself, for time to enable them to pay in the money to the Tenants' Defence Fund. This is, I believe, the state of things which exists on all the estates where the Plan of Campaign has been adopted. Yet because the Plan of Campaign has been adopted, by virtue of stern necessity, the advisers of Her Majesty make her say in the Gracious Speech from the Throne that—
  "The relations between the owners and occupiers of land, which in the early part of the autumn exhibited signs of improvement, have since been seriously disturbed in some districts by organized attempts to incite the latter class to combine against the fulfilment of their legal obligations."
  What has been stated here by my Colleagues who have preceded me is a fact—namely, that the Nationalist Members of Parliament in Ireland have not identified themselves with the initiatory steps which have been taken by the tenants in adopting the Plan of Campaign. Never until they had themselves decided upon adopting that plan have the Nationalist Members interfered, I and very often they have only intervened for the purpose of cutting down what might otherwise have been an exorbitant reduction. A case came under my observation last Sunday. A body of tenants waited upon me, and, having made a statement, I advised them not to demand the reduction which they thought they ought to get in order to enable them to live and thrive. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe Her Majesty has been very badly advised in regard to her Speech so far as Ireland is concerned. I believe that

  139
  there is no foundation for the assertion that there have been organized attempts to incite the tenants to combine against the fulfilment of their legal obligations to the landlords. I believe that there has been no combination among the Irish Members, or on the part of any organization in Ireland, to incite the tenants to refuse to fulfil their legal obligations. I believe, also, that Her Majesty has been badly advised in stating that she wishes this House of Parliament to introduce any measure of coercion in Ireland. The coercion, if any is to be applied, should be applied to the officials of Dublin Castle, and those officials under British rule who tyrannize over the subjects of Her Majesty in Ireland, who pack juries, and send subjects into penal servitude who are innocent of the crimes laid to their charge. Not only am I of opinion that Her Majesty has been badly advised, but I believe that the Government will know it before long. It is not the first time that a Tory Government has advised Her Majesty wrongly in relation to Ireland. They are out of sympathy with the majority of the people of Ireland, and they are in sympathy and harmony with the oppressors of the Irish people. They are trying to get for the landlords the best bargain they can possibly make, and at the present moment they are using the forces of Her Majesty to keep up the land at a fictitious value in order that they may enable their friends, the Irish landlords, to retire with flying colours and full pockets. But they are counting without their host. The Irish people to-day have friends; they have advisers and counsellors who will not allow the Government to play into the hands of their enemies in the manner in which, perhaps, Her Majesty's Government desire. No doubt before long we shall have some grand scheme of land purchase in Ireland. I think it is foreshadowed in Her Majesty's Speech. When the Government find that they are unable to maintain the rents in Ireland at a fictitious value by other means, they resort to the old methods of coercion. They prosecute the advisers of the Irish people, put them in prison under a Peace Preservation Act, and prosecute them under some special Statute which provides some hasty and obsolete means of dealing with them. We are asked now to furnish Her Majesty's Government with means for removing the advisers of
  140
  the Irish people, who now stand between them and the landlords, in order, as I have said, to sustain the rents at a fictitious value, so that they may retire the old garrison before they create a new one, with flying colours and full pockets. The Irish landlords have been for a long time in the occupation of the country, and now, like a retiring army, they are endeavouring to lay waste the land as they retire. They are seeking to devastate the country, but we will not allow them if we can prevent it. On the contrary, we desire to hasten their retirement, so that they shall have no time to carry out their work of devastation. I have felt it my duty to point out to the Government the mistakes they have made in the advice they have given to Her Majesty in the Royal Speech which was made to-day from the Throne. I believe that a grave mistake has been committed; and whatever course is before us, whether it be coercion or conciliation, we are prepared for any fate in store for us, and are resolved to stand by the people, no matter what the consequences may be.
  MR. BLANE: Some hon. Members on this side of the House have touched upon what is called the Plan of Campaign. Now, I maintain that the Government have had at their disposal a devastating army, and that that devastating army has not confined its operations to what are called the rebel and disaffected portion of the Irish people. I know of my own knowledge that what has been termed the English garrison in Ulster has suffered as much, and perhaps more, from the ruffianism of landlordism as any other Province. I know something of Ulster. I remember when, in North Armagh, Lord Lurgan cleared out 100 families in one locality, and for what purpose?—in order to make a run for dogs. And yet this arbitrary course of procedure was resorted to in the case of the men who, whenever the Empire is in danger, are to rush to the front and defend the integrity of the Empire. They were supposed to be Loyalists in the true sense of the word, and yet Lord Lurgan swept them off in droves like cattle. That is the estimate in which the Loyalists of Ulster are held by one of the Irish landlords. They have not been treated in any degree better than the rebels and disaffected, as they are called. I know, of my own knowledge, that during last

  141
  winter, in that part of the county of Armagh which I have the honour to represent, the tenants in what are called the Nationalist districts got a reduction of rent from 25 to 30 per cent, but no such reduction was made in the Loyalist districts. I commend this fact to the notice of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who must often have heard of the Protestant garrison of Ulster for the defence of the unity of the Empire and of the Crown. It would be much more proper to speak of it as the defence of the landlords' half-crowns. We are not told much of the loyalty of the landlords; and in a time of emergency, judging from the past, the landlords, as a class, are not the men who would be prepared to stand in the breach. Indeed, we have been told by The Times that in the time of the Crimean War 2,000 aristocratic cowards laid down their arms; and I, for one, certainly do not regard such men as the defenders of their country. I have thought it right to intervene in this debate because I have heard so often, both in and out of Parliament, that the Irish garrison of Ulster is to maintain the country for England. My belief is that the Loyalist garrison of the North would be the worst enemies of the country, and that it would fill it with combustible materials. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) has, to a large extent, bridged over the differences between England and the Irish people. He has endeavoured to create a real union between the two peoples; and it must not be forgotten by the men who now call themselves Unionists, on the other side of the House, that more than 100 years ago, at the time when the Americans wanted to rule themselves, Lord North and his Party said they would not tolerate any disruption of the Union. What was the result of their refusal to concede right and justice to the American people? I have myself seen, on the Chesapeake and Potomac, the Stars and Stripes waving where the British Flag might have been floating to the present day. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian and the Liberals who follow him have no intention, certainly, of adopting a policy which, in the case of America, threw away a Colony of the Crown. At the present moment you have a difficulty with the American people. You have the Canadian Fishery Question at issue
  142
  with the very people from whom you separated, and whom, if you had not separated from them, you might have had some share in ruling. Taking the advice of the Unionists of those days you threw away all your chance. You may possibly have a war now, for the United States are not likely to submit tamely to the piratical acts of Canada. If you were not able to contend with them 100 years ago, or in 1812 or 1814, you may not fare much better in these days. Surely the sympathy of the Irish people in any European or American complication is worth consideration, and it may be far more worth your while to have the goodwill of the Irish people by allowing them to rule themselves than to have them ruled by bad landlords, and disaffected towards your rule when a time of difficulty arises. The landlord class may collect their rents, because they are Justices of the Peace and judges in their own cause; they have control of the Sheriffs and bailiffs who execute the law; they empanel the Grand Juries, and form the Visiting Committees of the gaols. In addition, they are ex officio Poor Law Guardians, equal in number to the whole of the elected Guardians. They can sit on more than one Board; and in the county of Armagh, although you may find different Boards, they are always the same men. The law as it now exists enables them to oppress the people, and it is put in force by such men as judge Lawson and Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar, a German. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary himself has such contempt for the law in Ireland that he anticipates the judgment of the Courts and sends down his emissaries to seize the money of the people on the ground that they have incurred legal liabilities to the landlords, notwithstanding the fact that no writ has been issued or judgment delivered. Before any judgment is got at all the Chief Secretary directs a number of policemen to go down and throttle one of my hon. Colleagues, so that they may wrest the tenant's money out of his hands. The magistrates themselves have so much I contempt for the Judges that they do not wait for the ordinary operations of the law, but direct the seizure of money which never belonged to them. I can understand the Chief Secretary sending down to seize this money if a

  143
  writ or judgment had been previously obtained; but he has waited for no authority whatever. Well, a pickpocket I could not do more than that, and I believe there is a Statute in existence which inflicts the penalty of flogging upon any man who takes money out of the pocket of another. Small as my knowledge of law is, I must confess that under these circumstances my respect for it is still less, and for this reason—that the responsible Officers of the Crown in Ireland do not respect it themselves. You must respect the law yourselves if you desire to make it respected. And the law must be in accordance, not only with the Divine law, but the natural law. But how can you look upon any proceeding as being in accordance with either Divine or natural law by which men are thrust out upon the roadside and their houses pulled down or set on fire? In a military campaign a victorious army would do far less than you have been doing in Ireland by means of the Sheriffs and the bayonets and rifles of the police. And this, too, in the year of Her Majesty's Jubilee. What a monument it is to Her Majesty upon her Jubilee! 4,000,000 of Irish people have been done to death since the accession of Her Majesty in 1837, and 270,000 houses were levelled in the years 1846 and 1847. These are the monuments of the reign of Queen Victoria. We are asked to be loyal, and we do the best we can; but you will not allow us to be loyal. I would ask how loyal you would be under the same circumstances? What have not Englishmen ventured in the past for the preservation of their rights and liberties? But if we dare to murmur a complaint against the harsh and cruel laws which are imposed upon us, our mouths are immediately closed and we are put in prison. The police in this country do not carry rifles and bayonets; but in Ireland they have them, and charge them with buckshot. The Government do not care what happens, although I believe that Englishmen generally are ashamed of the transactions which take place in connection with Ireland. I have heard Englishmen say that they are ashamed of the accounts they have read in regard to the conduct of the troops and police in Ireland. Surely the Irish people have a natural right to the soil of their own country. I have no right to the soil of this country be-
  144
  cause I am not an Englishman, but I venture to submit that, as an Irishman, I have some right to the soil of Ireland. Therefore I maintain that the law which you support in Ireland is not the natural law. It is a law which gives the lives and bodies of other men into the custody of third parties. It does not make much difference whether a man owns a slave or whether he owns the land on which that slave is kept; he is a slave all the same. We deny that there is any power on the part of this country to put an end to the natural rights of Irishmen to the soil of their own country. Certainly the Irish Representatives refuse to admit your power to legislate for their country in that spirit, and if they took any other course the Irish people would very soon send another class of Representatives to this House, who would probably not treat you as respectfully as we do. We do our best to respect your procedure and your stupid laws, but we endeavour to induce you to alter them. You, on the other hand, manifest no disposition to alter them, and you are slow indeed in taking any steps that will be for the benefit of the people. On behalf of our constituents, we protest against the violation of their natural rights and law of which you have been guilty. The course you have pursued in the past has not tended to produce tranquillity in Ireland, but it has made the Irish people the enemies of your Empire. You talk about the American Irish. How is it possible that they can have any feeling of loyalty towards this country? No doubt the action of the National Representatives, of the National League, and of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), has done very much to soften the asperities which exist in other parts of the world. I would therefore ask who are the greater friends of the Empire—we, or those who increase the number of the enemies of Great Britain and bring the law into contempt? Not only that, but they bring the Sovereign of this Realm into hostility with the people, for every writ that is issued against the people runs in this way, "Victoria, by the Grace of God." I ask fearlessly whether we or the landlords are the best friends of the Empire? These are the remarks I have to make on this subject, and I have to thank the House for the attention paid to them. I could not allow the debate to close

  145
  without saying a few words, more particularly with, regard to the events which have occurred in the North Armagh Division.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Colonel Saunderson.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: Can the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury give the House any information with regard to the circulation of the proposed, new Rules of Procedure?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): Yes, Sir. I will give attention to the subject, and I trust they will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
THE PARLIAMENT, which had been Prorogued successively from Saturday the 25th day of September, 1886, to the 11th day of November; thence to the 9th day of December; thence to the 13th day of January, 1887; and from thence to the 27th day of January, met this day for the despatch of Business.
The Session was opened by Commission.
THE HOUSE of PEERS being met;
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House,
"That Her Majesty, not thinking fit to be personally present here this day, has been pleased to cause a Commission to be issued under the Great Seal, in order to the opening and holding of this Parliament."
Then Five of the LORDS COMMISSIONERS—namely, The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Halsbury); The LORD CHAMBERLAIN (The Earl of Lathom); The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Viscount Cross); The Earl of KINTORE (Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard); and The Earl of COVENTRY (Master of the Buckhounds)—being in their Robes, and seated on a Form placed between the Throne and the Woolsack, commanded the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod to let the COMMONS know "The Lords Commissioners desire their immediate Attendance in this House, to hear the Commission read."
Who being at the Bar, with their Speaker:—The Commission was read by the Clerk:—Then

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR delivered HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"MY relations with all foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
"The affairs of South Eastern Europe are still in an unsettled condition; but I do not apprehend that any disturbance of European peace will result from the unadjusted controversies which have arisen in that region. While deploring the events which compelled Prince Alexander of Bulgaria to retire from the Government of that Principality, I have not judged it expedient to interfere in the proceedings for the election of his successor until they arrive at that stage at which my assent is required by the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin.
"The task which has been undertaken by my Government in Egypt is not yet accomplished; but substantial advance has been made towards the assurance of external and internal tranquillity.
"In Burmah operations have been conducted by my troops with bravery and skill for the purpose of extirpating the brigandage which has grown up during recent years of misgovernment. The bands of marauders by whom Upper Burmah has been long infested have been dispersed, and many of the leaders have laid down their arms. I entertain a confident hope that the general pacification of the country will be effected during the present season.
"Commercial Treaties have been concluded with the Kingdoms of Greece and Roumania.
"Papers on these subjects will be laid before you.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"The Estimates for the coming year will be submitted to you. They have been framed with a careful regard to economy and to the efficiency of the public service.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,"
"The condition of Ireland still requires your anxious attention. Grave crimes have happily been rarer during the last few months than during a similar period in the preceding year. But the relations between the owners and occupiers of land, which in the early part of the autumn exhibited signs of improvement, have since been seriously disturbed in some districts by organized attempts to incite the latter class to combine against the fulfilment of their legal obligations. The efforts of my Government to cope with this evil have been seriously impeded by difficulties incident to the method at present prescribed by Statute for dealing with such offences. Your early attention will be called to proposals for reforms in legal procedure which seem necessary to secure the prompt and efficient administration of the criminal law.
"Since I last addressed you, the Commissioners directed to inquire into certain subjects of great importance to the material welfare of Ireland have been actively prosecuting their labours. The Report of the Commission on the operation of the recent Acts dealing with the tenure and purchase of land will be shortly laid before you, and will doubtless receive from you the early and careful attention which the serious importance of the subject demands.
"Bills for the improvement of Local Government in England and Scotland will be laid before you; and, should circumstances render it possible, they will be followed by a measure dealing with the same subject in Ireland.
"A Bill for improving and cheapening the process of Private Bill legislation in England, Scotland, and Ireland will be submitted to you.
"You will be asked to consider measures having for their object to remove hindrances which exist to the cheap and rapid Transfer of Land, to facilitate the provision of Allotments for Small Householders, and to provide for the readier Sale of Glebe Lands.
"The Commission which I issued in 1885 to inquire into the lamentable depression under which Trade and Agriculture have been suffering for many years has presented a valuable Report, which, together with the important evidence collected by them, will be laid before you.
"A Bill for altering the mode of levying Tithes in England and Wales will be submitted to you.
"In regard to Scotland, you will be asked to consider measures for the reform of the Universities, for completing recent legislation as to the powers of the Secretary for Scotland, and for amending the procedure of Criminal Courts.
"Measures dealing with the regulation of Railway rates, and for preventing the fraudulent use of Merchandize marks, will also be brought under your consideration.
"In the performance of these and all your other momentous duties, I
6
earnestly pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend your labours."
Then the Commons withdrew.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
PRAYERS.
ROLL OF THE LORDS—Garter King of Arms attending, delivered at the Table (in the usual manner) a List of the Lords Temporal in the Second Session of the Twenty-fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge—Singly took the Oath.

SAT FIRST.
The Earl Amherst, after the death of his father.
The Earl of Stratford, after the death of his father.

NEW PEERS.
John Glencairn Carter Hamilton, Esquire, having been created Baron Hamilton of Dalzell in the county of Lanark—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Edward Macnaghten, Esquire, Q.C., appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, under the provisions of The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, with the dignity of a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Macnaghten of Runkerry in the county of Antrim—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—took the Oath.

SAT FIRST.
The Lord Monkswell, after the death of his father.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro formâa, read 1a.
THE LATE LORD IDDESLEIGH.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OK STATE FOU, FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of):

  7
  My Lords, before we proceed to business, I cannot refrain from notifying to your Lordships that there is one melancholy circumstance connected with our meeting upon this occasion. Since we last met—nay, only a few days ago—a noble Lord, who was one of the most illustrious Members of this House, has passed away from among us—I mean the late Lord Iddesleigh. To all of us it is a severe loss. To me, my Lords, I need not say that, in the circumstances of his death—I having seen it myself, suddenly, in the midst of his work—it left an impression upon my mind which I feel can never be effaced, and which brought home to me keenly that celebrated exclamation of Burke—"What shadows we are; what shadows we pursue! "My Lords, Lord Iddesleigh was well known to many of us; but to this House as a whole he had not had the opportunity of making himself acquainted, and many of your Lordships had had no opportunity of judging of his skill in debate, or of his powers of persuasion. But he was well known—better known, perhaps, than any other statesman of his time—socially, to great numbers of us. He was well known to those of us who have been in the House of Commons as one of its most distinguished ornaments; and he was known to those of us who have sat in the Councils of the Queen as one of the wisest and shrewdest Councillors she has ever had. My Lords, as a friend, as a member of society, he was probably more beloved than any statesman we have seen in our time. His gentle temper, his unfailing high spirits and courteousness, his uniform kindness to all, made him universally appreciated and regarded. As a debater he was known in the other House as one who might not move to passion, but who carried conviction, both by the weight of his arguments and by the force of his character. As a Councillor I should say that he was especially shining. It was those who sat with him in council who valued most the peculiar qualities of his mind. I should note two peculiarities which distinguished him from other men. One was that, from the field of his political vision, the element of personal antagonism was almost—if not entirely—absent. He judged of every question by its merits, and it never seemed to have occurred to him
  8
  to inquire by whom it had been supported. And another, and not less curious, peculiarity was the remarkable caution of the man—remarkable, I may say, because it was not mere caution. He was eminently cautious—as cautious as any man with whom I have ever conversed—but the peculiarity of it was this, that the caution had in it no shade of timidity. While his temper was cold and abstract, his counsel always erred, if it erred at all, on the side of caution; but when perplexity or real danger arose there was no man who was freer from any counsel of fear than Lord Iddesleigh. This made him a man whose influence within the Cabinet, within the Councils of his Party, was far higher and greater than appeared by his actions in the public eye. This House, and the country, and our Party have lost a wise, a self-restrained, a noble Councillor; his soul was never soiled by any mere vulgar ambition; he devoted his life and his strength, without care for any apparent reward, in the service of his country and his Queen.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, although I cannot speak with the authority of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) in the eloquent, comprehensive, and touching remarks which he has just made, yet I am sure your Lordships will not object to my adding a few words upon the subject. I apprehend that we all feel that this sudden loss has cast a gloom over our proceedings to-day. The noble Marquess alluded to Sir Stafford Northcote's recent accession to this House. It is not a very long time ago since we welcomed him here, surrounded with an atmosphere of regard and respect, which he accumulated during his long and laborious services in "another place." There is always some danger, when speaking of the death of an eminent man at the time it takes place, of using some exaggeration; but when the noble Marquess spoke of Sir Stafford Northcote's powers in debate, I could not forget that some eight years ago, when speaking of Lord Iddesleigh (then Sir Stafford Northcote), I spoke of him as a formidable foe of 20 years, but a dear friend of many more. Now, with regard to this word "formidable," I have observed that some, while paying a tribute to Sir Stafford Northcote's character and great ability, have spoken of him as

  9
  something of a feeble opponent. Well, I doubt whether in these days of political warfare lookers-on are always as good judges as those who cross the steel in the fray; and I can only say that often, and often again, I have heard some of the ablest of my political Colleagues in "another place" admire and sometimes complain of the sagacity, the skill, and the readiness with which Sir Stafford Northcote had sustained their attack, and the vigour with which he had returned the blow. My first business connection with Sir Stafford Northcote was some 36 years ago, when, in very difficult times, he agreed to be the Secretary of the Commission of 1851. I may say this, because I know it, that it was the opinion of the late Prince Consort, and of some of the ablest men of the Kingdom who composed that Commission, that no public body over had a Secretary so able and so useful as Sir Stafford Northcote, so industrious, so accurate was he, and so easily and readily did he dispose of the most difficult questions. Later on Sir Stafford Northcote put me under personal and political obligations. I obtained the sanction of the Queen and of the Prime Minister to offer to him the post of Member of the Commission to America to settle the Alabama Claims. The matter was a difficult one. The Commission was not popular, and the work was almost certain to be severely criticized. Sir Stafford Northcote, with the utmost readiness and with the sanction of Mr. Disraeli, accepted that post. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) near me can testify to the services which he rendered on that occasion. With his usual modesty, he refused the offers of a high honour made to him. He was willing to co-operate with political opponents for a great public object; but he declined to receive rewards and honours from them. I venture to trust that the remembrance of Sir Stafford Northcote's character will have some effect in diminishing any chance of that bitterness of discussion which sometimes not unnaturally arises in moments of great political excitement.
  EARL FORTESCUE: I will not take up your Lordships' time; but I crave indulgence to supplement the touching eulogies that have been pronounced on my departed friend. I just wish to mention that on the last morning of
  10
  Lord Iddesleigh's truly noble life he told me he had gone through his Foreign Office boxes, and he believed he should leave without a single arrear when he delivered up the Seals of his Office, as he expected to do, to Her Majesty the next day, thus fitly closing his patriotic, distinguished, and most exemplary career.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  The QUEEN'S SPEECH reported by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
  THE EARL OF ERNE(who wore the uniform of a Lord Lieutenant), in rising to move an Address in reply to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, said: I have, in the first place, to bespeak at your Lordships' bauds that consideration and forbearance which your Lordships invariably extend to those who labour under the disability of addressing you for the first time.
  My Lords, it is impossible not to feel that we meet to-day under the shadow of a great loss. It would be presumptuous in mo, speaking in the presence of so many of his late Colleagues in the Cabinet, as well as of those who have been so long associated with him, either as allies or opponents in public life, to dwell upon the eminent services rendered to his Party, his country, and his Queen by the late Lord Iddesleigh. But having served under him in an official, though subordinate, position in the House of Commons for eight Sessions, during which time I was brought into daily—I may say hourly—intercourse with him, I may, perhaps, be permitted to say this—that I never knew anyone who possessed in such an unusual degree the power of attracting to himself, not only the admiration and esteem, but the warm personal affection, of all those with whom he was brought into contact. The secret of this power lay in that absolute unselfishness end that rare consideration for the feelings and the wishes of others which were the chief characteristics of his nature. I, for one, can never forget the numberless acts of kindness I received at his hands during the period of my official connection with him. My Lords, his gentle and unselfish spirit has been taken from us, and the nation is the poorer for his

  11
  loss; but Ms memory remains a bright example to us and to future generations of all that an English statesman, an English patriot, and an English gentleman should be.
  My Lords, this Session, whatever surprises the future may have in store for us, is, in all probability, destined to be memorable as the one which will witness the 50th anniversary of the accession to the Throne of Her Gracious Majesty. This reign has already exceeded in length, with, I believe, but two exceptions, those of all its Predecessors: it has exceeded them all immeasurably in the marvellous strides made in prosperity and in the arts of civilization by the people of this country. Not a little of this progress is due to the noble example set by the Queen, and the tender solicitude invariably exhibited by her for the welfare of her people; and I feel sure that your Lordships will, when the time arrives, join heartily in tendering your congratulations to Her Majesty on the auspicious anniversary, and in prayers for the prolongation of her long and glorious reign.
  The opening paragraph of the Speech from the Throne deals, as is customary, with Foreign Affairs, and we are informed that the relations between this country and Foreign Powers continue to be on a friendly footing, and that, in spite of all the disquieting rumours which we have heard of late about the state of Europe, no disturbance of the peace is anticipated from the unsettled state of affairs in its South-Eastern regions. While yielding to none in admiration of the heroism exhibited by Prince Alexander of Bulgaria, in recognition of his devotion to the interests of his adopted country, and in condemnation of the cruel and cowardly outrages which accompanied his dethronement, your Lordships will hardly expect that this country will embark in any Quixotic enterprize for his restoration; but you will doubtless await with patience the time when we shall be called upon, in common with the other Powers of Europe, to give our assent to the election of his Successor in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin.
  The condition of Egypt has been for a long time the source of much anxiety. We have heard of late with satisfaction that it has been considered safe
  12
  to materially reduce the number of British troops in that country; and I think we may now fairly look forward to the time when, owing to the restoration of internal tranquillity and financial stability, it will be possible for us to withdraw altogether, and to leave that country to develop of itself those resources with which Nature has so abundantly furnished her.
  Your Lordships will be glad to hear that the operations in Burmah, which, as I may recall with pride, were initiated and are being brought to a conclusion by two eminent Irishmen, are progressing satisfactorily. Operations of this nature, small though they may appear, cannot fail to be a drain on the resources of the country which conducts them; but I believe that this drain will be more than compensated for by the stability which the pacification of Burmah will confer upon the frontiers of our Indian Empire adjacent to it.
  Passing by the subject of the Commercial Treaties with Greece and Roumania, which, I have no doubt, will realize the benefits anticipated from them. I must now turn to a less agreeable topic, but one which, nevertheless, monopolizes the greatest share of public attention at the present time. The state of Ireland for many years—though at times there have been gleams of sunshine and glimpses of improvement—has not been an agreeable subject for one like myself to dwell upon—one who was born there, who has lived among the people, and who hopes to be permitted to spend the remainder of his life amongst them; but I believe that I should be unworthy of the trust which has been committed to me, were I to fail to speak out what I believe to be the truth on this subject, however painful it may be to me to do so.
  My Lords, to rightly appreciate the state of affairs now existing in Ireland it is necessary to go back to what happened at the last General Election. At that time the constituencies of this country, constituencies but recently established upon the broadest and most democratic basis, declared by an unmistakable majority—a majority which, I fully believe, but for the magic of one great name, would have been largely increased—that the Union as heretofore existing between Great Britain and Ireland should be preserved. Charged

  13
  with this mandate the present Government came into power, and, indeed, the maintenance of the Union may be said to be the reason of their existence; and for a time it seemed as if the Irish people as a whole had accepted the verdict of the nation, and that a new era of peace and prosperity was about to dawn. Crime diminished; rents began to be paid with greater punctuality; and the tenant farmers began to avail themselves of the facilities for acquiring the fee simple of their holdings provided by the Land Purchase Act of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord Ashbourne). But this state of things did not suit the Irish agitators, or their allies on this side of the water. A peaceful and a prosperous Ireland would mean, for them, their occupation gone, and their sources of wealth from the other side of the Atlantic dried up. They also saw that as long as the alliance between the two sections of the Unionist Party remained intact their chances of attaining the object of their desires—the Repeal of the Union—was nil. They therefore invented the notorious Plan of Campaign, with the deliberate object of driving a wedge into the ranks of the Unionist Party, in the hope that by raising the agrarian cry they might detach from it those of its Members whose views upon questions of land were more advanced than the rest. My Lords, if there is any country in the civilized world in which the raising of an agrarian agitation is utterly unjustifiable, that country is Ireland. The Irish tenant holds an unique position among occupiers of the soil, and enjoys advantages conferred upon him at the expense of the landlord which tenants elsewhere may well envy. Not only is he secured against his rent being raised on account of improvements executed by himself or his predecessors in title—though a distinguished Member of the Government which passed the last Land Act, recently writing in a periodical, seems to be ignorant of the fact—not only can he sell these improvements, together with the goodwill of his holding, to the highest bidder, but if he considers his rent excessive he can go into Court and have it fixed by a tribunal specially appointed for the purpose. With tenants thus situated, the authors of the Plan of Campaign step in and deliberately supersede the law. They
  14
  tell them that they are not to pay a rent agreed upon between themselves and their landlords, or fixed by a judicial tribunal, as the case may be, but only so much of it as they choose or are advised to offer; and if the landlord has a spark of spirit in him, and refuses to be dictated to, he may go without his money. I ask, was there ever such an audacious and impudent travesty and mockery of right and justice? My Lords, I feel that it is unnecessary for me to enter at length into a denunciation of these tactics; they have been declared to be an illegal and criminal conspiracy by the highest tribunal in the land, the Court of Queen's Bench—they have been condemned as immoral by the preponderance of public opinion in this country. My Lords, on an occasion like this, I should wish, as far as possible, to avoid any observations of a recriminatory character; but I cannot help saying that I hope that during the course of the debate on the Address in this or the other House of Parliament we shall be favoured with a more explicit and emphatic condemnation of the Plan of Campaign by the responsible Leaders of the Opposition than has been hitherto vouchsafed to us.
  My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have been blamed for not having acted with more vigour and promptitude in grappling with this movement, and I think even their strongest opponents will admit that they have strained the virtues of patience and forbearance to bursting point; but it must be always borne in mind that there is one great initial difficulty that every Government in Ireland, armed only with the ordinary powers conferred by law, has to face; and it is this—that the public mind has been so debauched and demoralized by a long series of pernicious and immoral agitation that resistance to the law and repudiation of debts has come to be looked upon in large portions of the country not only as not a crime, but as something laudable and praiseworthy, and that the class of men from whom common jurors are drawn have been either so taught to disregard the solemn obligations of an oath, or so intimidated, if they are suspected of a disposition to pay heed to it, that in cases of an agrarian or political character, trial by jury, in all but a few favoured spots, has become nothing short of a farce.

  15
  I remember last year that my noble Friend the noble Duke (the Duke of Abercorn), who on that occasion performed the task now allotted to me, gave your Lordships a very graphic description of the terrible state to which the unfortunate people were reduced who came under the operation of what is known as the system of "Boycotting," and dwelt with considerable force upon the horrors of that system. My Lords, I will not travel over the same ground again; but I can assure your Lordships that that system still continues in full force in many parts of the country, though so complete is the reign of terror that has been established that its victims bow to its decrees without resistance, and we consequently do not hear so much of it as we otherwise would. My Lords, I do not, of course, pretend to know what the proposals with regard to the changes in the form of legal procedure alluded to in this paragraph may be; but I hope they may be found to give more summary powers in dealing with "Boycotting," and also that they will provide for some alteration in the mode of trial by jury, whether by change of venue, the empannelling of special juries, and, in extreme cases, the abolition of trial by jury altogether, and the substitution for it of trial by Judges. But advantageous as these changes, if carried out, will be, I cannot conceal my opinion that no real good will be effected till the National League has been declared to be an illegal organization, and suppressed as such, in the same way that the late lamented Mr. Forster crushed its prototype and predecessor, the Land League.
  My Lords, in carrying out the task which they have imposed upon themselves, Her Majesty's Government will receive the support of all the best elements of society in Ireland. Though a Member of your Lordships' House, I can speak in a representative capacity: I can speak as the elected head of a large and powerful body of men, long distinguished for their enthusiastic loyalty and their devoted attachment to the cause of the Union. But, above and beyond these, I can speak for the whole body of Irish Loyalists, the English "Garrison," as they have been contemptuously called, whether Catholic or Protestant, Whig or Tory, landlord or merchant, farmer or shopkeeper, la-
  16
  bourer or artizan. My Lords, I venture to say that this community has given, in proportion to its numbers, more soldiers and statesmen, who have contributed to build up and maintain the greatness of the Empire, than any community which that Empire contains. On these grounds, if on no other, they have a claim to appeal to this country for assistance and protection; but on far wider and far higher grounds—on grounds of truth, and right, and justice—I appeal to your Lordships, on their behalf, to assist the Government in putting an end to a state of things which is a scandal to civilization and a danger to the Empire, and I am confident I shall not appeal in vain.
  The next paragraph of the Speech refers to the Commissions which were appointed last autumn to inquire into matters relating to the development of the resources of Ireland; and we are told that the Report of that Commission, to which the question of Land Purchase was specially referred, will shortly be laid before us. I hope we may have early legislation in the direction of the extension of the Land Purchase Act of 1885. There is no use in denying the fact that whatever may have been the advantages conferred upon the tenants by recent Land Acts, the relations between them and their landlords have been thereby brought into a state of hopeless muddle and confusion; and it is impossible that the resources of the land can be properly developed till the dual ownership now existing is abolished, and the land reverts again into single hands. I believe your Lordships will agree that in the extension of the provisions of this Act the only solution—if a solution be practicable—of the land difficulty in Ireland is to be found. But of this I must warn the Government—that such is the demoralization now prevailing in Ireland, that I know for a fact that many tenants who have purchased their holdings under my noble and learned Friend's Act are openly proclaiming their intention of repudiating the repayment of the instalments of the purchase money, and that unless the law be enforced and the fulfilment of contracts made obligatory there will be the same difficulty in collecting their instalments as there now is in collecting rents; and in that case I should advise your Lordships, in the interests of the

  17
  taxpayers, to have nothing to do with Land Purchase.
  I shall touch but briefly on the remaining topics mentioned in the Speech. I am deeply sensible of the kindness your Lordships have extended to me—a kindness which I feel all the more, as I cannot but be aware that some of the observations I have felt it my duty to make cannot have been very palatable to all of your Lordships, and I am anxious not to abuse your forbearance; but I may, perhaps, be permitted to notice with satisfaction that the subject of Local Government occupies a prominent place in the Queen's Speech. I believe it will be admitted on all hands that the time has arrived—if, indeed, it had not arrived long ago—when the elective element may be safely entrusted with the management of local affairs in counties in England and Wales; at the same time, I hope that place may still be found for that body which has hitherto controlled them with so much credit to themselves and advantage to the community. I observe in this paragraph, what I may call a pious aspiration, that it may be possible to deal with Local Government in Ireland and Scotland also; but from my experience of Business in the other House of Parliament I fear I should be exciting false hopes in your Lordships' breasts were I to hold out an expectation that effective legislation in that quarter were possible, for this Session at all events.
  My Lords, the success which has attended the operations of what is known as Lord Cairns's Act shows that questions of Land Transfer and Allotments are such as can be dealt with advantageously by the Conservative Party; and I believe that changes in this direction will be found to strengthen the tenure of that kind of property in which your Lordships are chiefly interested. But, my Lords, I believe the country has no great inclination at the present time to attend to those and to other minor details of legislation. Two things are principally expected of Her Majesty's Government: that they should maintain the honour and interests of the Empire abroad and its unity and integrity at home; and in the full belief and expectation that in carrying out this policy they will be supported by a large majority of your Lordships' House, as I am sure they will be by the
  18
  majority of the people of the country, I have now the honour to move the adoption of the humble Address in answer to the Gracious Speech from the Throne.
  VISCOUNT TORRINGTON(who was attired in the uniform of an officer of the Rifle Brigade), in rising to second the Motion, said: My Lords, I crave your indulgence for a brief period, while I venture to draw your attention to some important points dwelt upon in Her Most Gracious Majesty's Speech.
  My noble Friend who has just so eloquently addressed your Lordships has dealt so fully with the Irish Question that I scarcely like to trespass upon your time while I add my testimony, based on many years' official experience on the Staff in Ireland, to the anarchic state of that unfortunate country. Ireland continues to groan under a cruel, tyrannical, and inhuman despotism exercised by the National League, rendering insecure the lives, liberties, and property of the law-abiding, and crushing out from among the people of that unhappy island even the very vestiges of civilization. The Irish, though impulsive, and easily led astray by unscrupulous agitators, practising chiefly on their cupidity, can be converted into peaceable and orderly citizens by firm and consistent government; and it is this course which I rejoice to see Her Majesty's Government are determined unflinchingly to follow. My Lords, the recent attack on the citadel of the Constitution has failed through the laudable and patriotic co-operation of the Liberal Unionists; and it only needs now the strict and continuous administration of the law, equally in all parts of the Kingdom, to enable us to maintain intact the existing Union, which has added so much in the past to the greatness, prosperity, and even the security of both countries.
  This desire to maintain the existing Union naturally causes our thoughts to turn to the hope of Imperial Federation, which would bind together the Mother Country and her Colonies and Dependencies in the enduring bonds of mutual protection and advancement, and retain them in the paths of peace and prosperity. It is the hope of many, and, indeed, the belief, that this result will be surely, although gradually, brought about. The realization of this hope will, no doubt, be materially aided by the

  19
  beneficent action of the Imperial Institute.
  My Lords, when we regard foreign affairs, it is gratifying to note that the survey of the situation is pacific and reassuring. But, as practical people, we cannot banish from our minds the deplorable and perilous tension under which the Continental Powers are kept through their colossal armaments—ready at a moment's notice to take the field. Our policy is based on a desire for peace and the loyal fulfilment of the stipulations of existing Treaties; but, in order to realize these aims, we must take care that our Army and Navy are kept in the most efficient condition to meet all possible contingencies, our motto being that of our Volunteers, "Defence, not Defiance."
  The preposterous rumour that anyone in authority in this country contemplated interfering in the election of a Ruler for the Bulgarian Principality has been most emphatically disclaimed; and it is scarcely necessary for me to add that, where British interests are not primarily and immediately involved, the initiative is no part of our duty.
  Egypt would make rapid progress, both moral and material, if all those who profess to be interested in her welfare were to co-operate loyally in England's self-denying policy.
  My gallant Friend (Sir Frederick Roberts), with that force of character and those high military qualities of the possession of which he has shown so many signal proofs, aided by the valour and endurance of our troops, both Native and European, and assisted by incomparable Administrations drawn from the Civil Service of India, will, ere long, bring about the pacification and settlement of Upper Burmah, and, by bestowing upon its people the blessings of civilized government, render them as contented and prosperous as their kinsmen in the neighbouring Province.
  I feel convinced, my Lords, that the country is thoroughly in accord with Her Majesty's Government as to the propriety of the course they propose to pursue with regard to the various matters of domestic legislation mentioned in the Speech; and I venture to think that from no quarter in the House will serious exception be taken to the measures to be brought before your Lordships.
  20
  My Lords, before resuming my seat, I will, with your permission, touch on an absorbing topic. The nation is to be congratulated that not only we in the United Kingdom, but those our fellow-subjects throughout the wide Dominions of this Empire, are permitted by God's Providence to celebrate the 50th anniversary of our beloved Queen's most happy reign. Our hearts beat in unison, and the prayer "God bless her" is offered up through the length and breadth of her glorious Empire by a loyal and affectionate people. My Lords, in conclusion I beg to second the Address moved by my noble Friend (the Earl of Erne).
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have listened with interest and pleasure to the speeches made by the noble Earl the Mover of the Address and the distinguished officer who seconded the Motion; and I congratulate the noble Marquess on his having been able this year, unlike last year, to find two independent and unsalaried Peers who would consent to do the work so well. The noble Earl, I know, is an old Parliamentary hand, and I am not entitled to pay a compliment to him; but I must say that I was very much struck by what he said, even when I differed from him. My second-hand information about Ireland does not agree with his; but all the same, and making allowance for what he may have been prompted to say as the head of the Orange Party, I must say the general tone of his speech was good, and, I thought, an appropriate opening to this debate. Then his remarks with respect to the late Earl of Iddesleigh were especially touching. Both the noble Lords in their speeches supplied an omission in the Royal Speech, which contains no allusion whatever to the coming interesting Jubilee of Her Majesty's long reign. My Lords, the opening of Parliament exemplifies to a great degree the glorious, though sometimes lamentable, uncertainty of political affairs. None of your Lordships could have imagined two weeks ago the position in which the Government present themselves to Parliament to-day. The noble Earl has said that we require a strong Government, and I quite agree that that is the case, particularly with reference to the position of foreign affairs and the condition of Ireland. I have heard it

  21
  stated quite lately, not only that the Government is strong, but that it is stronger than before the resignation of the late Leader of the House of Commons and Chancellor of the Exchequer. I admit that it has one very great element of strength, that of being able, with the assistance of a Liberal minority, to command, for the present at any rate, the support of a large majority in the House of Commons. I also admit that the accession to the Government of a man of the high character and ability possessed by Mr. Goschen is a further element of strength. On all sides there seems to be an agreement that it is good for the country, good for himself, and good for us whom he has left, that he should have joined the Government. I very much agree with that. In some points Mr. Goschen is more Liberal than those whom he joins. He has himself said that he differs from the Conservative Party on four out of five questions; but I am of opinion—and I do not think I am wrong—that on some of the best points of Conservatism he is a sounder Conservative than many of the Leaders of the great Conservative Party itself. There is one point on which he may have some difficulty. No one has described so well that the present Government is a Government on sufferance. He stated emphatically at Willis's Rooms that the Ministers had the Offices, but Lord Hartington had the whole power. Now, if any difference arises—and differences will arise among the best of friends—what will Mr. Goschen have to do? Will he side with the man who has the Office, or with him who has the power? Now, my Lords, beyond the two points I have mentioned I fail to see how the strength of Her Majesty's Government has been greatly increased. We were told up to a recent period that Lord Randolph Churchill was the second most important—that he was the most brilliant and popular Member of the Government. He left the Government upon a difference, or differences, as to which we shall be fully informed this evening by his statements, and by those of the noble Marquess and of Mr. Smith. I cannot tell how far these statements will justify the assurance we used to receive of the united harmony of the Government. The step the noble Marquess at once took showed his own sense of the great loss he sus-
  22
  tained. He approached Lord Hartington again. Discounting as much as you like what the instinct of self-preservation and political tenacity of life may do, there is no doubt that the subordination of all personal claims to his wish to strengthen the Government was highly creditable to him; but it was, to a certain degree, an acknowledgment of the weakness of the Conservative Party, and we have heard rumours that it was felt as such by some of them. Lord Hartington refused. Although, he might like the flag with a motto on it which seemed to us to be delusive, he did not wish to put on the uniform, or the livery, as the case may be. His refusal cannot be said to have strengthened the Government. It was then almost ostentatiously announced that an offer had been made to a noble Earl, a Friend and late Colleague of mine, and that a Transatlantic message had been sent to Lord Lansdowne to the same effect. These were very judicious offers; but on what grounds it was thought that they were likely to accept after Lord Hartington's refusal is not clear. Then, as to the lamented death of Lord Iddesleigh. We all know ourselves, and it is impossible, after the touching testimony the noble Marquess gave of his value as a Colleague, not to feel that his loss is anything but a gain to Her Majesty's Government. There is another point connected with the reconstruction of the Government to which some attention has been directed. I remember alluding to it some 15 months ago, and I regret that I did not then bring it to the full consideration of your Lordships' House—I mean the transfer, with salary, of the sinecure Office of First Lord of the Treasury to another Minister—a proceeding which is a fine example of the Tory Democratic contempt for all tradition, and especially when, in addition to this, there is a combination of the Offices of Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. Now, I believe that this combination is bad for the country, bad for the Sovereign, bad for the Cabinet, and most unfair to the noble Marquess himself. I have had some opportunities of observing the work of the Prime Minister. It is true that at some moments it is not overwhelming. But there are periods when, almost every hour of the day, the Prime Minister is required to advise the Queen, to maintain harmony in the

  23
  Cabinet, to regulate the action of the Departments, to superintend the preparation of legislation, to watch over the Parliamentary proceedings of both Houses. When I first entered the Foreign Office, in a subordinate capacity, the despatches were some 17,000 in the year. When I succeeded Lord Palmerston for two months, in 1851 and 1852, they had risen to 34,000. In 1870 I believe they were 70,000, and—the noble Marquess will correct me—I am informed they have now risen to more than 90,000. Lord Palmerston told us that the routine work took him eight hours a-day, and this exclusive of diplomatic conversations, Parliamentary attendance, and the performance of all Court and social duties. Now, of all the Offices I have ever known the Foreign Office is the one in which it is least possible for the Secretary of State to remain ignorant of the general work of the Office. He would be found out in a week. It is not possible for a man to have the mental and physical strength to carry on the two Offices in their full operation. My Lords, I should have thought that the ablest man would have felt the great advantage of having a competent statesman with whom to advise on all important questions. It frequently happens that the mere suggestion of the omission of a sentence, or even of a word, of a despatch prevents great and complicated evils from arising. With regard to the Sovereign, I think it is wrong that the authority upon which His or Her Majesty place their commands should be limited in this way to one person. I am sure it is bad for the country that one man should unite so much unchecked power in his hands. My noble Friends who have been in Office know that when Parliament is not sitting and when the Cabinet is dispersed the noble Marquess is in almost absolute command. It is perfectly impossible that one man can bear that great responsibility. I know the noble Marquess's ability—his intellectual activity. That only makes it more certain that he will soon break down. I never meet a well-known blue brougham but I say—"See, he has not time to walk even from Arlington Street to Downing Street." There is another remark which I cannot help making. I saw it recorded during the autumn that Foreign Ministers and Ambassadors
  24
  used to visit the Prime Minister immediately after seeing the Foreign Minister. Lord Aberdeen, Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Gladstone always set their faces against this practice except on special occasions. It is quite clear that the foreign Representatives like it very much, as it gives them two strings to their bow, and enables them to write much longer and more interesting despatches. But this way of doing business is unfair to the Secretary of State, and is certainly not favourable to the Public Service. I am old-fashioned enough to think that the really good system is for the Foreign Minister to do the work of the Foreign Office, subject to the general superintendence of the Prime Minister. The reconstruction of the Government is a matter of great importance. We are, however, imperfectly informed as to the future proceedings of the Government until we near the noble Marquess's statement. At the beginning of October we had a remarkable speech from the then Leader of the House of Commons at Dartford, in which he described the future policy of the Government. That speech was praised by the Conservative Press, and was joyfully accepted by the Liberals as an indication that the Government were adopting a Liberal, almost a Radical, policy. As far as I remember, the noble Lord promised greatly to reduce expenditure and taxation. He promised a reversal of Lord Palmerston's foreign policy in the East, as no longer suitable for this country; he promised a Local Government Bill, which should not be tampered with; he promised that the House of Commons should be enabled by the Government to fulfil their pledges to the agricultural labourers on the lines of Mr. Jesse Collings's proposals; and with regard to Ireland he promised that this Session the Government would lay the foundation of measures of local government, which no Government and no Party could shirk. My Lords, it maybe said that it is hardly fair to quote a noble Lord who has, unfortunately, been since shown to have decided differences from his Colleagues. If I remember rightly, the noble Lord at the end of October made a speech at Bradford in which he entirely confirmed what he had previously said, and which, he said, was merely a repetition of the Prime Minis-

  25
  ter's speech made a year ago. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach in his Bristol speech made no objection, and said that the Government would fulfil all the pledges which they had given to the Radical constituencies. But another Member of the Government was still more explicit, no less a person than the present Leader of the House of Commons, whose word is respected by all. He spoke after both of Lord Randolph's two speeches. Did he repudiate on behalf of the Government what the noble Lord had said? You shall hear—
  "I cannot undertake to tell you what is the whole policy of Her Majesty's Government upon every possible question, still less to repeat to you all that has been said with such infinite skill, power, and completeness by my noble Colleague and Leader in the House of Commons, Lord Randolph Churchill. The noble Lord has told you what are the views of Her Majesty's Government upon most of the important questions of the day, and it will not surprise you to hear that Her Majesty's Government are agreed one with another. When Lord Randolph Churchill speaks, he speaks with the full assent, knowledge, and consent of all his Colleagues in the Cabinet."
  Then comes a little cut at poor us—
  "Without drawing invidious distinctions, this has not always been the case with recent Governments. We are a united Government, and we are determined to serve the country as a united Government as long as we can do so. When we can be no longer united, we will go and shall cease to be a Government."
  Though this latter threat has not been carried out, the whole extract proves conclusively that on the last day of October the policy of the Government on finance, on foreign policy, on cows and acres, and on local government, both in England and Ireland, was such as I have quoted from Lord Randolph's speeches. Now, judging by the light of later events, it does not seem probable that this policy will be carried out. It is quite true that there is a promise of a Local Government Bill; but there is no indication whether it is to be Lord Randolph Churchill's Bill or Mr. Long's, or that which was shadowed forth by Mr. Balfour. There is nothing, moreover, in the Queen's Speech which indicates whether there is to be a complete reversal of the spirited foreign policy of which we have heard so much. As to the great reduction promised by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Leader of the House of Commons in expenditure and taxation, we
  26
  have now nothing but a vague and unmeaning phrase about efficiency and economy. I have only a word to say on the Colonies, which are entirely omitted from the Speech, though there are Colonial matters of urgent importance. I should be glad to know what progress has been made with the questions concerning the Samoa Islands, the New Hebrides, and the claims of Germans and Portuguese in the centre of Africa. There are also the two old festering questions of a triangular character with the United States and with France as to the North American fisheries. I had hoped that before this we should have been informed of some advance which does not brook much delay. A Conference has been announced of an intercolonial character. There may be some doubt as to immediate practical results; but such communications, under the Presidency of men of judgment and tact like Mr. Stanhope or Sir Henry Holland, cannot but be useful. I do not wish to say much upon foreign affairs. I desire to press for no information beyond what the noble Marquess thinks it is right to afford, as he must be fully aware of our anxiety to hear all that can properly be told. The great military nations of the Continent have certainly pushed the principle of the due preparation for war, being the best preservative of peace, almost to the bending point. I look with great hope to the noble Marquess being able to give some soothing assurances on this point. In Egypt measures originated during Mr. Gladstone's last Administration but one seem to be making some, though slow, progress. We have always rejoiced that circumstances have brought the Government into general agreement with the doctrines we have always held as to the Balkan Peninsula. I cannot speak with the same satisfaction of a speech made by the noble Marquess on this subject at the Guildhall. It was much cheered in the City, and it was praised by his supporters; but the result of it on the Continent seems to have been that Russia felt herself deeply insulted; that Germany, the most powerful factor in the matter, thought herself ignored; and that Austria believed she had been told that she was mistress of the situation, and was sure, in whatever course she took, to be blindly followed by us.

  27
  Your Lordships will, perhaps, bear with me, if I make a few observations as to the state of Ireland. The Speech deplores the present relations between landlords and tenants, but states that great crimes are scarcer in Ireland than during "the preceding year." I believe that instead of the preceding year "the preceding five or six years" might have been used. The noble Earl (the Earl of Erne) attributed this to the vigour of the Government; but I have been informed, by persons who have been close and watchful observers, that absence of severe crime is much more owing to the encouragement which Ireland has received by the sympathy of a large number of persons in England and Scotland, that has induced them to believe that it is not necessary to have recourse to violence. The Irish should know that anything in the nature of violence or outrage, if I may be allowed to use a cynical quotation, "is not merely a crime, but a blunder." There is no course which could more absolutely alienate the sympathy of this country than any resort to such lamentable courses. The noble Lord attacked his political opponents by saying that they had not been sufficiently active in denouncing the Plan of Campaign. I do not think that we shall hear this attack from the Front Bench, for two reasons—first, that when noble Lords on the other side were themselves in Opposition, they absolutely refused to give the slightest repudiation of the inducements which were undoubtedly offered to the Orangemen, to do that which was contrary to the law, and when in Office they remained perfectly quiescent for two months in the face of the Plan of Campaign, waiting for others to denounce that which they themselves believed to be illegal and immoral. I do not myself think that Her Majesty's Government can be acquitted of all responsibility in connection with the Plan of Campaign and with eviction. The noble Marquess will remember that last year he alluded to the statement that it was said that prices had fallen so low as to make payment of rent impossible; and he said he entirely refused to admit that statement in its full extent. But in the other House of Parliament Her Majesty's Government strenuously opposed Mr. Parnell's Bill of last Session, which, whe-
  28
  ther it was right or was wrong, would certainly have prevented many evictions from taking place. They utterly denied that the fall of prices made it difficult for the tenants to pay their rents, although that denial was perfectly inconsistent with their own action in appointing a Commission of Inquiry into the subject; and they added that there was no danger of evictions, because the Government would be able to deal with the question after the Commission had reported and before evictions could practically take place. In supporting the second reading of Mr. Parnell's Bill, Mr. Gladstone carefully stated that he did not agree with all its details; but he said that he thought, the Government having admitted the principle of the Bill by appointing the Commission of Inquiry into the facts, it was undesirable that evictions should, in the meantime, take place in the case of persons who were utterly unable to pay their rent. Her Majesty's Government now propose, as far as I can make out, to meet the present lamentable state of affairs by a measure for improving the procedure of the Criminal Law. It is a grave matter for a Government to apply for increased powers, and an equal responsibility rests with the Opposition how to deal with such a demand. Now, this Bill may be a great or a small matter; it may be good or bad; it may be inefficient, or it may affect the liberties of the subject; it may be exceptional, applied to Ireland alone, or it may apply to England and Scotland as well. Your Lordships will approve of my not anticipating the proper moment for such a discussion. But I must remind your Lordships that the Government, in "another place," more than once during the last Session, distinctly pledged themselves to simultaneous action as to any legislation regarding the local government of England, Scotland, and Ireland. By the Speech we are promised a measure at a very early period dealing with England and Scotland; but as the question of a Bill for local government in Ireland is relegated, not, indeed, to the end of 20 years of resolute administration, but to a perfectly vague and shadowy future, it is sad to consider the relations which now exist between the landlords and tenants of Ireland. I do not think you will do me the injustice of doubting that we all feel the deepest sympathy with the large

  29
  majority of landlords, of whom so great a number of the best are in this House, and who have done so much, by moderation and forbearance, to meet the circumstances of the case. I am afraid that if I were to appeal to them whether they think Mr. Gladstone and his political Friends understand Ireland and know how to govern it, they would give an unfavourable answer. ["Hear, hear!"] I thought so. But I put to them exactly the same question with regard to Her Majesty's present Government. I would ask them whether there is any independent unofficial Irish Peer in this House who will get up in his place and state that he can honestly and sincerely declare that, in his opinion, Her Majesty's present Government know how to deal with the government of Ireland, and have shown that they have that knowledge by the way that they have administered the affairs of Ireland, either during the late or the present Administration? If no Peer is chivalrous enough to respond, I would put to them the logical inference. If they believe that neither of the two great Parties of English public men are able or willing to govern Ireland as it properly should be governed, would it not be desirable to consider whether they themselves, in conjunction with our Irish fellow-subjects, should not attempt the task?
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): It is my pleasant duty to express the gratification and admiration with which I am sure we all listened to the speeches of the noble Lords behind us (the Earl of Erne and Viscount Torrington). The speech of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) has been more addressed to the condition of the Government than to the contents of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, and I will try, as far as I can, to ease his mind on some points in respect to which the present condition of Her Majesty's Government moves his disinterested concern; and, in doing so, I am bound to say that though he exercised his duty as an opponent in attacking all our weaknesses in places where he thought we were weak, he did so in a kindly spirit to myself, which I, of course, acknowledge. But I am afraid he is too much in the habit of believing all that the reads in he newspapers. He seems to imagine
  30
  that we sent an ostentatious offer to one noble Lord, and a sensational kind of telegram to another noble Lord, and he proceeded to make a charge against Her Majesty's Government that we were anxious to advertise our doings. I can assure him that if we had been anxious and able to hide our light under a bushel on that occasion we should have been very glad to do so. In the same way the noble Earl has found somewhere or other, in some strange place, an assertion that the present Government are considerably stronger because they have lost the services of a very distinguished orator who was the Leader of the House of Commons when it last met. I can assure him such an idea has never entered into the mind of the Government. We fully recognize the great loss we have suffered. We believe that though the cause of difference which separates us is deep, it is not likely to grow more extensive. My noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) undoubtedly was deeply impressed, in the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer—which, from all that reaches me, he filled with remarkable ability and skill—with that which must have impressed most men who have long taken an interest in public affairs—namely, the rapid and most injurious rise in the public expenditure. There is no one who has given his attention to the subject who has not felt a desire to find some way by which that expenditure might be lowered. We did not differ from my noble Friend in that; but he resigned upon this point—that he desired to give expression to his most patriotic and laudable wish for economy by a process which seemed to us to be so rough and so indiscriminate that it would not attain the end of economy, but, on the other hand, would have a very injurious effect on the efficiency of the Public Service. We were not prepared to cut off a considerable lump sum from the Estimates which my right hon. Friends at the head of the Admiralty (Lord George Hamilton) and the War Office (Mr. W. H. Smith) declared to be necessary for the defence of the country; and our feeling of the necessity, at whatever sacrifice, of holding to that view was and is stimulated by the aspect of affairs all over the world, and by the evidence, to which no one could shut his eyes, that a time of a critical character might be before us. But I assure the

  31
  noble Earl he is entirely wrong in thinking that we came to that resolution without the deepest sense of the loss that we were incurring; and I venture to hope that the difference of opinion that separates us is not one of a permanent description, and that the Conservative Party in the future will have the advantage of the services of my noble Friend. But the criticisms of the noble Earl on the condition of the Government did not stay there. He made many pokes in his own playful fashion into the sides of his Friend Mr. Goschen. Mr. Goschen knows the noble Earl's mode of warfare, and he is competent to defend himself; but with respect to Mr. Goschen, I will honestly confess that, after the great loss we have suffered, I conceive it to be a matter of the most extreme importance to obtain his assistance, and I should have been glad if I could have obtained the assistance of more of those who hold the opinions we do on the subject of the Union with Ireland. I feel it to be of great importance, not only that we should bring into the service of the Government Mr. Goschen's unequalled powers as a financier—and I must say that during a long period of Opposition I have never uttered a word, as far as I know, to the detriment of those powers—but also that we should mark before the public eye, and establish in the warfare of the House of Commons, the fact that, for the moment, the guardianship of the Union supersedes every other subject of political interest, and that in the presence of that one great necessity all conflicts over past differences, all minor subjects of controversy, must be silent. The noble Earl seems to think that it was a sign of great weakness, and something of humiliation, that I addressed myself to noble Lords who were not in the Government, asking them to join us. Has he never been in a Government which has asked those outside to join them?
  EARL GRANVILLE: Yes; but it did not strengthen us.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Of course, the noble Earl is an authority on that point. I remember that one of those he applied to was Mr. Gladstone, and I quite admit the comment he has just made—that it did not strengthen them. It is a common effort on the part of those who have the charge of recommending Advisers to Her Majesty—it is
  32
  their duty—to bring in as many as can agree upon the main, burning questions of the day; and if you will consider it you will see that our system of dividing politicians into two Parties cannot be worked at all, unless you allow that those two Parties shall be arranged according to their opinions on the main subjects which divide men at the moment. You cannot expect to divide the political world into two halves, and that each half on all possible subjects shall think the same. It would be an ideal and impossible state of things. But if you look into the history of this country since Parliamentary Government began you will find that Parties range themselves, not according to their opinions on 20 smaller subjects which might occupy a portion of their time, but on some one great issue by which men's minds were turned. First, it was a dynastic issue; later on you had the American War; then you had the French Revolution; then you had the great question of Reform; next, the great question of Protection; now we have the great question of Ireland. So it has been from the first. The great question of the day has been accepted as the dividing line which is to separate the Ministry from the Opposition, and men have joined together, by reason of their agreement on that great question, without regard to the other subsidiary questions on which they are divided. I do not recognize the accuracy of the quotation in which the noble Earl said that Mr. Goschen and we differed in four questions out of five. Even if that had been true, and that fifth had been the Union with Ireland, I should have said he did right to join us. Then the noble Earl proceeds to criticize the Ministerial arrangements which were necessary in consequence of that junction. When you have a great object to pursue you must arrange your Offices in order to attain it. Mr. Goschen, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, under the circumstances, could hardly have been Leader of the House of Commons. It was necessary to provide an Office for the Leader of the House of Commons, and the only Office available was that which I filled—the First Lord of the Treasury—and therefore it was necessary that I should take another. The noble Earl seems to think that Mr. Smith will have a sinecure. My impression is that the Leadership of the House

  33
  of Commons is no sinecure for anyone who undertakes it. He will have plenty of work for one man, and will earn his salary. But with respect to myself, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the care he has shown in regard to my health, and I will try to avoid the various pitfalls he has pointed out to me; but I cannot help thinking that his description of what goes on at the Foreign Office was drawn from recollections a little more remote than the present day. I am aware he was at the Foreign Office at a recent period; but he has formed his ideas of the Office a little earlier. The work has been diminished since Lord Palmerston's day by the fact of two Under Secretaries having been appointed, and the use of the telegraph has very much diminished the number of important despatches. That same circumstance takes away a disadvantage to which the noble Earl pointed, which I should be the first to recognize—namely, that there is only one mind, in a case where the Prime Minister is also Foreign Secretary, addressed to the determination of the various burning questions which come up for decision. Of course, when you only used despatches those despatches did not reach the other Members of the Cabinet for some considerable time, and the check on the Foreign Minister, except in regard to the widest principles of policy, was not very active or efficient. But that is all changed now. The practical business of the Office is now nearly all done by the telegraph; and the telegrams are seen, as the noble Earl knows, by all the Members of the Cabinet about as fast as they arrive. The knowledge of what is done is prompt and intimate to all the Members of the Cabinet, and the Foreign Minister is 20 times more under the control of his Colleagues than he was in the time of Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston was practically supreme, and the control over the Prime Minister was a very imaginary control indeed. The control which Lord John Russell, during the Ministry of 1847–1852, exercised over Lord Palmerston until the very last hour was, I imagine, as slight as any control could be. But in the present day, from the entire change which has been brought about by the telegraph, I do not think that the apprehensions of the noble Earl have any foundation, and I believe that my Colleagues have
  34
  the fullest opportunity of controlling everything that I can do. I think it right to make these observations—though we do not usually discuss what goes on in the Foreign Office—because it would be a very unfortunate doctrine to go abroad that the Foreign Minister was without check in exercising his very important functions. The noble Lord then turned to matters in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. He did not give much of his attention to them, and the observations that he made do not call for any very particular reply from me. In respect to Ireland, I confess I deeply regret that we did not have from the noble Earl any kind of condemnation of the Plan of Campaign. I think, considering the sanction that it has received from persons in high ecclesiastical positions from whom we should have expected a very different doctrine—considering how it has received the support of the whole of that Irish Party which has been accepted by the Opposition as their strongest support and surest alliance, considering how it is supplanted in that very doctrine of Home Rule which noble Lords opposite accepted as a panacea for Ireland—I think we had a right to expect some opinion from them, and to know whether the inheritors of some of the proudest traditions of English statesmen did or did not falter in their denunciation of a scheme of deliberate robbery. I am told that the change that has taken place, or that took place for a time, in the rate of crime in Ireland was due to no Government action of ours, but was due to the promises of concessions of the noble Earl opposite. Well, it is perfectly true that if you give to a man whom you meet upon the highway all that he demands he will probably abstain from any breach of the Eighth, or, at least, of the Sixth Commandment. It is perfectly true that if you yield to outrage all that outrage is destined to obtain, it is probable that outrage will cease, or sensibly diminish. The racoon in the American story, who, when he saw a sportsman coming to him, said, "Do not shoot, for I will come down," might have claimed, on the same ground, that he had put a stop to the murderous instincts of the American sportsman. I do not think that the pursuit of that mode of pacifying Ireland will conduce much to the restoration of law and

  35
  order, or to the security of the loyal people whose aspirations and wishes, necessities and conditions, the noble Earl entirely passes by. He tells us that his Government is accused of having failed to govern Ireland. He challenges some independent Peer to say whether we have succeeded in governing Ireland. I think that challenge will come more suitably when Parliament has granted us the powers for which we ask. We do not profess to be able to repress crime with a law that is too feeble for the purpose, or a law which contains so many delays and pitfalls that it is not practically useful for the purpose of repressing offences which did not exist when it was originally enacted. But when the noble Earl goes on to draw from that comparison of the two Governments the inference that no Government that England can furnish is competent to govern Ireland, and that, therefore, as he puts it, the Irish Peers and others should undertake to govern Ireland, he shows a wilful blindness to the social conditions of that country at this moment. Is it the Irish Peers, the Irish proprietors, is it any portion of the classes who have a stake in the country with whom the Government of Ireland will rest if Ireland was abandoned to herself? We have two duties before us; we have the duty of maintaining law and order for the sake, not only of the loyal population, but also for the population which breaks it, and we have the duty of securing the loyal population from such a change in the Constitution of the country as shall place their dearest interests in peril. It is idle to talk of leaving the Irish people to govern themselves. You know very well that they will not govern themselves, but that the majority will govern the minority in a way utterly inconsistent with its rights, and in a manner utterly fatal to all its industrial and commercial hopes. My Lords, I join with the noble Earl in thinking that it is wiser to abstain from discussing the measures which we shall submit to Parliament until those measures are before it; but we earnestly beg you to remember that the enemy we have to meet is not the same enemy that had to be met by the generations that have gone before; that the organization of crime, of outrage, and of dishonesty has reached a pitch which it never reached before; and that you
  36
  must have law, at all events, more sure and rapid in its process if you wish that the present evils should be suppressed and put down. Until we have obtained those powers, and with those powers have failed to produce that state of society which you have a right to expect—until that has taken place you cannot say that our efforts to fulfil our pledges in respect to Ireland have failed. The noble Earl very rightly abstained from any lengthened remarks on foreign policy at this time. I shall follow his example. But before I sit down I just wish to make a few observations. One is with reference to what the noble Earl said in respect to a speech of mine at the Mansion House. He seemed to infer that some alienation of this country from Germany was the result of that speech. Certainly, as far as my knowledge goes, there is not the slightest foundation for any such apprehension, and I do not think that anything in the speech justifies the construction that the noble Earl has put upon it. The other thing I wish to say is not due to any language used by the noble Earl, but refers to apprehensions that have been recently and publicly expressed both with respect to our policy in the South-East of Europe and to the prospects of European peace being broken. It has been imputed to us that we have been pursuing a policy having for its end the restoration of Prince Alexander to the Throne of Bulgaria. I cannot understand from what circumstance that utterly groundless idea has taken its rise. We regretted his fall, because we saw how well he was fitted to give that cohesion to the Christian communities which they so greatly want; but since his fall we have fully recognized that his re-election is not within the domain of practical politics, and, as far as I know, it has been contemplated by no Foreign Office in Europe, and certainly it has never been contemplated by ours. Our desire in reference to the condition of things in the South-East of Europe is, in the first place, to perform our duties as signatories of the Treaty of Berlin; and, in the second place, we wish—it is the traditional policy of this country—to strengthen and to uphold the freedom of those Christian communities which, in proportion as they maintain their freedom and cohesion, will be the greatest security against any

  37
  possible overflow of military power into that distracted part of Europe. To them, properly organized and fully developed, we must look for the future guardianship of those countries. We do not desire to establish any special influence of our own; we should have no use to make of it if we possessed it. We do not desire to deny to Russia any legitimate object she may have in view; on the contrary, subject to the conditions which I have already stated, we shall be glad that her legitimate wishes should be fulfilled. But we feel, above all things, that the influence which she may claim in consequence of race, or faith, or history, must not be expanded into domination. Any attempt of that kind will not only destroy that influence, but it will be fatal to the interests of Europe, to whom the independence of those Christian communities is necessarily dear. The other matter, as to which I shall speak with caution, is the apprehension that has been recently felt lest there should be an outbreak of war among the Great Powers of the Continent. It is impossible to be blind to the danger which is caused to the public peace by the vast armaments, growing larger and larger, which threaten each other from opposite sides of a frontier. Those who are near and within reach of those armaments are constantly in the position of men standing in the path of an avalanche which they see above them, and which any accident may detach and bring down upon them. Vigilance is the duty of all men under these circumstances; but vigilance may generate suspicion, and suspicion may end in collision. It is impossible to be blind to these dangers; but, at the same time, I am bound to say that during the last few weeks—certainly during the time I have been at the Foreign Office—nothing whatever has occurred to give us the impression that the danger is more acute than it was; and, in the judgment of the experienced Ambassadors which we have both at Berlin and at Paris, the prospects are not warlike, but peaceful. I earnestly hope that their anticipations may prove correct, and that Europe may be spared the great calamity of a conflict between the most civilized nations in the world.
  The EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, it has been usual for your Lordships not
  38
  to have a prolonged debate on ordinary occasions upon the Address, nor should I have broken through this custom on any ordinary occasion. But, my Lords, this is not an ordinary occasion. It is, I venture to think, as serious and as critical a time as has existed within the memory of any of your Lordships, if not in the history of this country; and I believe I may be pardoned if I make some observations which the reference to Ireland in Her Majesty's Speech appears to call for from some independent Member of the House. This is not an occasion for entering into the proposals which the late Government made to Parliament for the future government of Ireland, which the late Parliament rejected, and of which the constituencies of the country have solemnly ratified the rejection. An opportunity will probably come for entering into that large question, and I have no doubt that when it does come there are many of your Lordships who will desire to take part in that discussion. What I desire to address myself to is the matter of the present state of Ireland. Now, the first part of the paragraph relating to Ireland speaks of the improvement with regard to crime and outrage, which cannot but be highly gratifying to your Lordships. It speaks also of the signs of improvement which were exhibited in the early part of the autumn with respect to the relations between the owners and occupiers of land. It speaks of something which has happened to interrupt that prospect. Now, I believe from the bottom of my heart that a very great part—I am willing to believe the greater part—of the people of Ireland are in their own disposition and desires peaceable, would perform their duties, and would honestly abide by their obligations, and would prefer the maintenance of law and order to the maintenance of anarchy and disorder. No one who has seen the people, and is able to judge of them, can fail to be deeply impressed with the many fine and noble qualities of that people. They have many virtues, and they have great natural gifts; and I am firmly persuaded that if there were not a tyranny over them, the honesty and integrity and good faith between man and man in Ireland are such that we should have no need of extraordinary legislation. What, then, is it that has

  39
  happened to prevent that? It is the establishment of a tyranny in Ireland, of an organized despotism, of a conspiracy against morality and law; and it is that which has interrupted the favourable prospect that offered itself in the autumn. The noble Earl on the Front Opposition Bench (Earl Granville) said that with regard to the diminution of crime and outrage he doubted whether the credit could be claimed by the present Government for the effective measures they had taken—that the diminution which undoubtedly has taken place should rather he ascribed to the offers holdout by the late Government. To whom? To those who held the springs of crime and outrage? We have often been told that the National League controls the politics of the majority in Ireland at the present day, and it is to them that it was proposed practically to hand over the government of Ireland. We are told that they are not the persons responsible for crime and outrage; that there are two movements, which are to be separated from each other—the political movement, and something else behind it. If that is so, the argument of the noble Earl is a very remarkable one. Well, I do not pursue that topic. I will now pass on to the next point. What interrupted the improvement in the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland? It was a remarkable renewal, in an altered form, of the old declaration against the payment of rent. We know that the old declaration was that no rent was to be paid unless political Parties permitted it to be done. This was simply to enable them to dictate with regard to the ownership and enjoyment of property and the political relations between Ireland and the United Kingdom, and to dictate their terms to the Government of England. Most people thought that a remarkable departure, not only from the duties of a citizen, but from the fundamental principles of morality, and opposed to all possible government. After the proposals of the late Government, and simultaneously with the effect it is suggested that they had on the frequency of crime in Ireland, you have a new declaration—the Plan of Campaign. The name, in itself, is significant of the nature of the thing. The tenants are now not to pay their
  40
  landlords; they are to pay one-half, or as much as they please, to other people—to the agitators—to be spent by them in continuing their agitation. That is a remarkable development, coming at a remarkable time. But that is not all. The law is invoked; the law is clear on the subject; and when these proceedings have taken place, and security has been given according to law by the leading men who have instigated them, the moment they are out of Court they go on again in full defiance of the law, and prosecute the same policy of doing all they can by intimidation and influence to prevent the fulfilment of their legal obligations by men who would otherwise be willing to perform them. With regard to what has been said about evictions, no man with a heart in his body can read of evictions, under certain circumstances, without feeling that those who are really answerable for them have upon them a most deep responsibility. Who are those persons? Did we not hear lately of landlords who had so long delayed coming to extremes that the last legal opportunity of claiming their property would have expired if they had abandoned legal remedies? They have acted with the approval of the people on the spot, and with the advice of the priests and clergy—for I am happy to say that there are many signs that the priests wish their flocks to be honest. In cases in which the landlord is most unwilling to evict, in which he is willing, possibly after some pressure, to accept what the tenant can pay, and just as the tenants are on the eve of paying, with the approval of their clergy, certain Members of Parliament step in—I am ashamed to say not Irish Members only—between the landlord and his tenants, between men and their duty, between other men and their rights, and force on these evictions. This is a piece of unscrupulous cruelty which, if committed by landlords, we should hear strongly denounced. These things have been done after the offers of the late Prime Minister and his Government have, we are told, been powerful enough to diminish crime and outrage. These offers have not been able to prevent these things, which are very like crime and outrage. The late Prime Minister has, in 1881 and in 1886, used language which shows how utterly

  41
  opposed to his ideas of the manner in which political reform should be sought these proceedings are. At Leeds, in 1881, when the No Rent Manifesto came out, he used this language, which I am not aware that he has ever retracted. He said—
  "This is the first time in the history of Christendom that a body of men has arisen who are not ashamed to preach in Ireland the doctrine of public plunder."
  Then he named Mr. Parnell as the Representative of the opinions which he denounced; and he continued, after paying a tribute to Mr. Parnell's abilities—
  "But his doctrines are not such as require any very considerable ability to recommend them. If you go forth on a mission to demoralize people by teaching them to make the property of their neighbours the object of their covetous desires, it does not require any superhuman gifts to procure a number of adherents to a doctrine like that."
  That is what the late Prime Minister said in 1881; and if it is forgotten, his followers can scarcely have forgotten what he said last August, just before the Plan of Campaign was produced. In his pamphlet he spoke of the Constitutional and peaceful action, and of the purely moral forces with which England and Scotland had secured their political triumphs; and then, recommending the same course to Ireland, he said—
  "It is the potent spell of legality which has done all this, or enabled it to be done. The evil spirit of illegality and violence has thus far—"
  and this was in August last—
  "had no part or lot in the political action of Ireland, since by the Act of 1885 she came into that inheritance of adequate representation from which she had before been barred."
  Since then the Plan of Campaign—another form of the No Rent Manifesto—has been issued; and yet neither from the late Prime Minister, nor from my noble Friend (Earl Granville) to-night, have we heard any denunciations of it. Why is this? It is not because the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Earl do not detest and abominate this plan. Is it because those who ought to lead have not the courage of their opinions in this matter, and because they find that they cannot maintain their alliances if they denounce public demoralization? There is another Member of the late Government whom I always greatly admired
  42
  and respected. I am very sorry that his views on this subject should be different from mine; but nothing will make me forget his public services. He (Earl Spencer), in the course of one of his speeches, used these words, which I think did him high honour—
  "We have to see that law and order are maintained, and we cannot allow anarchy in that country;"
  And he proceeded to point out how inextricably entwined were English and Irish interests. He was right. Public demoralization is catching and apt to spread. Why, then, have these things not been denounced? Why do not the late Prime Minister and his Colleagues declare—"If these things are done, we will have nothing to do with people who do such things?" This attitude is the more necessary, because some Members of Parliament, who are not, perhaps, entirely without importance as supporters of the late Government's policy, have defended the legitimacy of this Plan of Campaign. I think it is high time we should know where we are. So long as this denunciation is not forthcoming the inference I draw is that your Lordships and everyone in the country who thinks that government is necessary, that there cannot be government without the maintenance of law, nor government if persons can impose their own wills against the law of the land upon their fellow-countrymen—those who think this, whether in this House or in the other House, or in the country, must feel it their duty to support this Government, or any Government who will perform the primary duty of Government, and oppose any Government that will not. If the choice lay between declaring the Imperial Parliament powerless to enforce the first duties of government in Ireland, powerless to maintain the law against those who avowedly set it at defiance, powerless to protect loyal citizens who wish to pay their debts and do their duty against the intimidation that would prevent them—if the choice lay between this and granting the demands of the Separatists, I, for my part, would far rather not give Ireland what is called Home Rule, handing her over to the domination of those who seek to accomplish their ends by the means which we condemn. I would far rather give her complete inde-

  43
  pendence, when, at least, we should be free from the responsibilities of government. To pretend to maintain the Imperial connection, while renouncing the performance of the first duty of a Government—the protection of the liberty and property of the loyal—and abandoning the loyal to the tender mercies of those who set law at defiance and trample upon liberty, would, in my opinion, be a worse thing than total separation.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, it was not my intention to take part in this debate; but after what has been said by the noble and learned Earl I feel compelled to make a few remarks. I had considered this question of the Plan of Campaign, and whether it was desirable that it should be made a subject of debate in your Lordships' House, and I had come to the conclusion that this was not the proper time for discussing the matter fully. Several Members of Parliament in Ireland are going to be put upon their trial in connection with this matter; I therefore do not think it proper or decent that it should be gone into fully, lest, while this important trial is pending, the parties should be prejudiced. I shall not shrink at the proper time from giving my opinion on this or any other subject; but at the present moment I will content myself with denying that Mr. Gladstone and his Colleagues are bound to agree with all the views taken by Irish Members who may have supported the late Government. We are not responsible for all the actions and declarations of those who may at different times have supported our policy; and I shall not think it necessary, on every occasion when an Irish Member makes a violent speech or perhaps supports some illegal action, to get up and repudiate that speech or that action, merely because on a former occasion this same Member supported the Government to which I belonged. My noble and learned Friend has referred to something which I once said about anarchy. Well, I maintain still that no Government can be tolerated which allows anarchy to prevail in this country, whether it appears in the form of crime and outrage or in that of illegal conspiracy. I denounce all illegal conspiracies, and I believe that no Government can continue to control the affairs of Ireland for any time which neglects
  44
  its fundamental duty—that of protecting the property, rights, and liberties of Her Majesty's subjects. This is not the proper time for a defence of the Irish policy of the late Government; but I may perhaps, be permitted to say a word or two with respect to the way in which the present Government have administered Irish affairs. The noble Marquess says—"You must not judge us before we have obtained the powers which we require for the government of Ireland." That is a confession that without extra powers they are unable to maintain the law, and that confession has a special significance when we recollect the important and unusual statement in this House by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), who announced that it was the deliberate intention of the Cabinet to which he belonged not to propose exceptional legislation for Ireland. Everyone must have read with great interest and some pain the important judgment delivered some time ago by that distinguished Irish Judge, the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer. Referring to some evictions in Galway, he pointed out that the Sheriff's officers who attended to execute the writs were prevented for some days from fulfilling their duty, although accompanied by several Resident Magistrates and 250 policemen. And he showed how the police stood aside, and did not protect the Sheriff's officers. Now, the police should not interfere actively themselves in the execution of writs; but their business is to prevent breaches of the peace, and it is extraordinary that the law should have been violated, in their presence, as it was at these evictions. Whenever the Government are compelled to support the law it is important that they should not allow their officers to be defeated. When such a defeat is permitted it is taken as a sign of weakness, and it leads to outrages in other parts of the country. And another question to which constant reference has been made is the interference of the Irish Government between landlord and tenant. I know nothing which so much tends to crime and outrage as unfriendly relations between landlord and tenant. When the Land Commission was appointed a marked improvement was shown whenever the Sub-Commissioners sat in any district. I therefore fully appreciate the importance of having

  45
  these disputes between landlord and tenant settled. I have also known it necessary on occasion for the Government to endeavour to bring landlord and. tenant to an agreement, though the cases were very rare. Now we are told that the Government have been constantly intervening between landlord and tenant, and have brought pressure to bear on the landlords in order to induce them to come to terms with their tenants. We all know that the Government have the power of bringing an enormous pressure to bear even when acting within the law, but which may be of an improper kind. It may take the form of their saying that they will withdraw police protection, or make the landlords pay for police protection. I want to know how far the Government have gone, and what has been the pressure exercised by the Chief Secretary? We have read the correspondence in The Times of yesterday with regard to the Glenbeigh evictions. I confess that I think the general tone of the correspondence between General Buller and the different agents reflects the highest credit upon the humanity and discretion of that distinguished man. I lament immensely that he was not successful. But is it possible for the Government to be carried on if the energy and skill of its officers are to be employed in settling disputes between landlord and tenant? These questions are very grave, and I should like to have some explanation from the Government. They say it is difficult to carry on the Government under the ordinary law. Then recourse is had to exceptional or repressive legislation. Such legislation is not the less exceptional, even if you make it the law of the whole Kingdom. But such legislation will only accentuate the ill-feeling prevalent in Ireland, and until you make the Irish people support the law you are doing no good and gaining no ground in Ireland. My noble and learned Friend referred to the intimidation which exists by large bodies of agitators over the minds of the people, and said that if that were removed all the good qualities of the Irish would come to the front and make government easy in that country. I have had a long experience of Ireland—eight years is a long time—and though I was for a long time misled by that delusion, I have come gradually and
  46
  sadly to the conclusion that, in many parts of Ireland, the people are not unwilling sufferers under intimidation, but are in thorough sympathy with all the principles of the Nationalists. I fear that this delusion has been going on too long. I despair of effecting an improvement by what is called resolute government, for that will not only exasperate the Irish, but will prevent the removal of those difficulties in the government of Ireland which have so long baffled the statesmen of this country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I think the whole House is under a great obligation to the noble and learned Earl opposite (the Earl of Selborne), who has made a last appeal, and given a last chance to the late Advisers of Her Majesty to show whether, even cow, they can pluck up their courage to denounce what every honest man in the country has denounced as a scandal. My Lords, there is no responsible public man, outside the narrow class to which I have referred, who has not given a frank and manly opinion upon a state of facts upon which a child could express an unhesitating opinion on the plain difference between right and wrong. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Spencer) says he did not intend to make a speech, but that he had considered the Plan of Campaign, and had deliberately arrived at the conclusion that this was not the proper occasion for entering into the whole merits of the Plan of Campaign; and then he said that he was not bound to denounce it merely because it was illegal. The noble Earl has had the opinion of two most able Judges in Ireland that it is illegal, and also that of one of the greatest legal authorities in this country (the Earl of Selborne); and yet, in face of all that, the noble Earl refrained from making up his mind. The noble and learned Earl described the Plan of Campaign as an organized despotism against morality and law. But the noble Earl opposite said that Ireland should be encouraged to have respect for law. Yet his contribution to the promotion of that respect for law is to deliberately shrink from denouncing what these great authorities have stated to be both illegal and immoral. Lord Hartington, who has had great experience of Ireland, and was one of the most powerful Colleagues of

  47
  the noble Earl in several Administrations, spoke very plainly last December, and expressed the view of impartial public opinion that this Plan of Campaign was a subversion of every principle upon which hitherto social order has been maintained. Mr. Chamberlain, too, who holds strong and extreme views on some subjects, said that it was the moat immoral and dishonest conspiracy which had ever been devised in a civilized country. It has been described in public by my noble Friend the Prime Minister as organized embezzlement and as public robbery; and on a former occasion, as we are reminded by the noble and learned Earl, Mr. Gladstone described a similar organization and similar methods as a policy of public plunder. Yet it has been reserved to the Leader of the Opposition in this House to-night, after making some criticism of a general character, to sit down without expressing a single syllable as to the morality of the Plan of Campaign; and the late Viceroy, who used the word "despair" more than once, did not rise till he was compelled by the speech of the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne) and the moral pressure of the House, and his only contribution was that he deliberately refrained on the present occasion, which he did not think was a proper one for entering into the whole merits of the Plan of Campaign. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition said that the smallness of the number of grave crimes and outrages in Ireland were to be ascribed to the sympathy with the people of Ireland shown by their friends in England and Scotland. If the noble Earl thinks that a conviction in the minds of people in Ireland that the sympathy of their English and Scotch allies would not go with them if they commit crime and outrage tends to prevent such crime and outrage, why, then, does not the noble Earl say that he will withhold his sympathy from the Plan of Campaign, and see what will be the effect of that course in Ireland? I have referred to Lord Hartington. Perhaps Mr. Gladstone may speak "elsewhere" for himself and his Colleagues on this subject; but in The Times of January 5 in the present year there appeared an extraordinary letter from the late Prime Minister, who was asked by the secretary of a Liberal Association what was his opinion on the
  48
  Plan of Campaign. What was the answer of the late Prime Minister to that question? He wrote—
  "Sir,—I do not intend to discuss, upon partial or fragmentary evidence, what is now going on in Ireland. It is not my business to govern that country, or to pass judgment upon those who govern it, until I hear in my place what is to he said for and against them."
  Well, I think the public opinion of this country has a right to complain of the way in which this question has been left in this discussion. When it goes forth to Ireland that your Lordships have sitting among you those who represent the views of Mr. Gladstone, and that when challenged they refuse to say a solitary syllable in condemnation of the Plan of Campaign, will it not be very easy then to persuade ignorant people in Ireland, who are very credulous and very easy to persuade, that it is because they themselves either indirectly sympathize with the Plan of Campaign, or that they have not the manliness to say that they condemn it? The occurrences at Woodford have been referred to. In that case the house was blockaded; it took a considerable time to get appliances to reach the inside of the house, and then the Resident Magistrate and the police acted with courage, vigour, and success. The noble Earl (Earl Spencer) has alluded to pressure put upon landlords. I suppose your Lordships have, many of you, heard speeches delivered in reference to the conduct of the landlords, and the moral influence which anyone has a right to exercise upon them with a view to advise them to show forbearance. But if it is put as a suggestion, or as an innuendo, that the Government has acted with any unworthy or undue pressure, or has exerted any power of the State to prevent the proper enforcement of the law, I emphatically repudiate and deny any such insinuation. That is a thing to which I, for one, would never be a party, which I entirely disapprove, and which, to my knowledge, has never taken place in any single case in Ireland. All that has been done is to give friendly advice, and, of course, it is open, and in the power of anyone, to give that. Reference has also been made to the Glenbeigh correspondence, which appeared yesterday in The Times. I have read the correspondence which appeared in the newspapers yesterday, and I do not

  49
  find that General Sir Redvers Buller used a single word suggesting that any such unworthy interference or pressure should be exercised to prevent the enforcement of the law. All that was remarked to-night on the subject was that it was wonderful that he should have found time to act as he had done in those matters. The noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition referred to the evictions in Ireland, and said they would have been stopped if Mr. Parnell's Bill had been passed.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Some of them.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: That amounts to a suggestion that if the advice of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Parnell had been taken there would have been a diminution in the number of evictions carried out. Now, what are the facts? Why, the actual figures show that the number of those who were really evicted, and their families—that is to say, who were neither re-admitted as tenants nor as caretakers—was, in 1882, 2,672, and in 1884, 2,205, whereas in 1886 it was 1,535, or about 700 families less than it was two years before. Those facts prove that the Irish landlords as a class and in the mass have shown great consideration and forbearance towards their tenants, and have done their duty wisely and well. Many of them, under very great difficulties as to how to maintain themselves and their families, have to the full met the advice given them to exercise their legal rights with moderation, kindness, and forbearance. The administration of the law in Ireland is always a matter of grave responsibility; but I myself regard the condition of Ireland with no exaggerated hope on the one hand, and with no exaggerated despondency on the other. I have never, either in this or in the other House, used any such language; but I do believe that with firmness, with a steady determination to administer justice and an equally steady determination not to permit injustice, we may expect that the ways of peace will be found again in that country; and I can assure your Lordships' House that the Government are fully alive to their responsibilities, and will endeavour by every possible means to fulfil them so as to bring about that result.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble and learned Friend (Lord Ashbourne) as
  50
  to the gravity of the condition of things which exists in Ireland, and I unite with him in feeling that it is impossible for anyone to Utter a word in relation to the condition of that country without incurring a very heavy responsibility unless he weighs carefully every word that he uses. But I cannot agree that my noble and learned Friend was following the injunction which he himself laid down, when he tried to induce the belief that those sitting on this—the Front Opposition—Bench entertain sympathy with any sort or kind of illegality. My noble Friend (Earl Spencer) distinctly said—
  "The 'Plan of Campaign' has been pronounced by two distinguished Judges in Ireland to be illegal, and I condemn every form of illegality in Ireland."
  What can be clearer or more emphatic than that statement? Surely the greater includes the less. I certainly take a different view as to the proper course to be adopted from the noble and learned Lord. I admit that if there is a condition of things existing in Ireland, or elsewhere, it is perfectly open to persons to express their opinion upon it; but when you have certain individuals waiting their trial for a particular offence, it is entirely out of the ordinary course—it would never be done in regard to England; nobody would ever dream of suggesting it in regard to England—that those who occupy a responsible position should get up and express any opinion with reference to the particular offence with which they are charged, and on which they are entitled to have a fair trial. Therefore, why should such a course be adopted as regards Ireland? The whole question will turn on what is the nature of the acts that have been committed; because all that I know of them is what has appeared in the newspapers; but I understand that it is denied in the strongest possible way that the acts done were really of the kind that has been described. I am afraid of entering into the question, because the inference might be drawn that I justified what they admit they have done. The noble and learned Earl said the Plan of Campaign consisted in bringing intimidation to bear on tenants who were willing and able to pay their rent in order to make them not pay. [The Earl of SELBORNE made a remark which was inaudible.] That brings us at once to a discussion

  51
  of the facts which are in dispute. But I understand that the accused entirely deny that this pressure was brought to bear to induce those who were willing and able to pay not to pay. Of course, the noble and learned Lord will not admit that to be the case; but I say that that is stated on behalf of those who are charged with the offence. Now, whatever form of illegality may be committed, whether in this form or in any other, I condemn it; and I am so far from having any sympathy with it, and so far from approving it, that I regard it with abhorrence and reprobation. But I decline to discuss the particular acts of the men about to be tried. It is not a question like murder; but one in which the very acts these men did is the question in dispute, and which is going to be tried in the Courts of Law. The less that is said about this question at this time the better; because it is not only important that the administration of justice should be fair and just, but that it should seem to be just. I think nothing would be more calamitous than that anything should take place in this House which should even give the semblance of a ground for complaint that there had been an attempt to prejudice the cause of men about to take their trial. On this point I am very sensitive, and on that account I desire to deal in generalities, and not with the particulars of the case. Now, I said that I make no limitation, no exception; but I confess, after all, that I doubt very much whether we do much good by denunciations at particular times of crime. It is one of the terrible misfortunes of the social condition of Ireland that men, who in other matters would be honest and would deal fairly, should very often conceal the dishonest nature of the acts they are doing with a cloak of patriotism with which they completely deceive themselves. One has seen it not only in Ireland, but, elsewhere; and I fear that, without looking at their situation and position, violent denunciations of the acts the people are doing will not cause these acts to cease, nor alter the opinion of the people with respect to them. They will not think the less of those who give them the advice. I doubt very much the usefulness of denunciation; but, at the same time, I agree that it would be mischievous if it were thought that those who had held
  52
  responsible positions in this country, whatever their sympathies might be—either with agrarian improvement by legislation or some change in the Government of Ireland—I say it would be a sad thing if it were thought that they had any sympathy with the recourse to any mode of illegality whatever with the view of attaining its ends. I can assure noble Lords, speaking for myself as well as my Colleagues, that we have no such sympathy, and have no desire to shrink from declaring a want of sympathy with any proceedings of this description. We cannot too emphatically repeat that we condemn illegality, whatever form it may assume; and, so far from having any sympathy with it, we regard it with the greatest horror and detestation. I deprecate, however, any attempt now to discuss the action of those being charged with criminal offences which will shortly be coming before the Courts of Law. No useful object whatever can be served by doing so; and we should be careful not to lay ourselves open to the charge of influencing tribunals.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, they had been told by the Front Opposition Bench that this was not a convenient occasion on which to discuss this question; but he contended that the Plan of Campaign should have been denounced by the Opposition speakers in public long ago. Not only that, but he thought even now that a distinction was attempted to be drawn between the illegality and the immorality of the Plan of Campaign. Seeing that there were certain persons on their trial with respect to the illegality of the movement, he did not think it reasonable to express any opinion on the point. On the other aspect of the question it was different; and what he and others desired to know was—was the Plan a moral one or not? He contended that it was a conspiracy against the main business of Ireland, which chiefly consisted in owning and occupying land. If a witness were needful on this point he should call Mr. Dillon himself, who had told them what the object of the Plan of Campaign was. The hon. Gentleman said that if Mr. Roe wished for occupation of that sort, let him go with him to Mayo, and I he would show him men who would not pay, not because they were unable to pay, but because he had told them to

  53
  accept the Plan of Campaign, and not to pay. That was an immoral doctrine, which it was the duty of everyone to denounce. If the noble Earl or any of his Colleagues had denounced that doctrine on a public platform, and had said that they would have nothing to do with Mr. Dillon or Mr. Parnell if they prosecuted that Plan, he was certain they would have gained a good deal. Indeed, if Mr. Gladstone would denounce it at once some good results might ensue.
  LORD HERSCHELLsaid, that he denounced the conduct of any person who induced tenants not to pay rents who were able to do so.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he thought that that was the information which they had been endeavouring to obtain for the last two months, and showed that the debate had done a great deal of good. It had conveyed a great deal of information to the country which had been vainly sought for during the past two months. He was glad to hear noble Lords had denounced the Plan of Campaign; and he hoped they would take opportunities, both in Parliament and on public platforms, to declare that they would have nothing to do with persons who were connected with such immoral doctrines and such immoral practices.
  Address agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM and CHANDOS appointed, nemine dissentiente, to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES—Appointed.
SUB-COMMITTEE FOR THE JOURNALS—Appointed.
APPEAL COMMITTEE—Appointed.
House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.