Sitting of 31 January 1893

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

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Right Hon. William Ewart Gladstone, for County of Edinburgh; Right Hon. Sir William Vernon Harcourt, for Borough of Derby; Right Hon. Herbert Henry Asquith, for Fife County (Eastern Division); Right Hon. H. Campbell-Bannerman, for Stirling District of Burghs; Right Hon. Anthony John Mundella, for Sheffield (Brightside Division); Right Hon. Henry Hartley Fowler, for Wolverhampton (East Division); Right Hon. Sir George Otto Trevelyan, for Glasgow (Bridgeton Division); Right Hon. George John Shaw Lefevre, for Bradford (Central Division); Right Hon. Arnold Morley, for Nottingham (East Division); Right Hon. James Bryce, for Aberdeen (South Division); Right hon. Arthur Herbert Dyke Acland, for County of York, Part of the West Riding (Rotherham Division); Hon. Charles Robert Spencer, for County of Northampton (Mid Division); Right Hon. Herbert Colttown Gardner, for Essex (Northern or Saffron Walden Division); Right John Blair Balfour, for Clackmannan and Kinross; Edmund Robertson, esquire, for Dundee Burgh; Richard Knight Causton, esquire, for Borough of Southwark (West Division); George Granville Leveson Gower, esquire, for Stoke upon Trent; Thomas Edward Ellis, esquire, for County of Merioneth; Alexander Asher, esquire, for Elgin District of Burghs; William Alexander M'Arthur, esquire, for Cornwall Mid or St. Austell District.
The Right Hon. John Morley took and subscribed the Affirmation according to Law for the borough of Newcastle upon Tyne.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
Samuel Howard Whitbread, esquire, for Bedford County (Southern or Luton Division); Sir Charles Hall, for Finsbury (Holborn Division); Walter Hume Long, esquire, for Liverpool (West Derby Division); Thomas William Chester Master, esquire, for Gloucester County
50
(Eastern or Cirencester Division); Thomas Rybnrn Buchanan, esquire, for Aberdeen County (Eastern Division); Viscount Chelsea, for Bury Saint Edmunds; John Lawson Walton, esquire for Leeds (Southern Division); John Rigby, esquire, for Forfar County.

NEW WRITS.
For the Borough of Halifax, v. Thomas Shaw, esquire, deceased.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
Borough of Burnley, v. Jahez Spencer Balfour, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
MR. WILLIAM CODDINGTON: May I be allowed to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer why, in view of the enormous frauds committed by Mr. Jabez Balfour, he was permitted to accept the honourable office of the Chiltern Hundreds?
*THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT): The Hon. Member who put this question, and I think some other hon. Members, are mistaken as to the nature and tenure of the Chiltern Hundreds. The hon. Member used the words "accepted the honourable position of the Chiltern Hundreds." Now, in order to prevent any conception that the grant of the Chiltern Hundreds was conferring any honour, that any credit attached to it, certain words from the warrant were deliberately struck out. This is referred to in Sir Erskine May's book. Thus a good many years ago the words that attached any honour or credit to the Chiltern Hundreds were deliberately struck out, with the object of removing the misconception that had arisen. This is the only form in which a Member can resign, and by which the House of Commons can get rid of a Member. (Cries of "Oh!") Well, it is quite true that under certain circumstances you may get rid of a Member by expulsion, but we have had some recent experience of the difficulties of that process. For my part, I would always much rather give the Chiltern Hundreds to a Member who is an undesirable Member of Parliament, and whom I should be glad to see cease to be a Member, than to a good Member, whom I should he sorry to see leave this House. That is the true principle attaching to the gift of the Chiltern Hun-

51
dreds. I have taken the trouble to look into this matter, and I am quite sure that anyone who has held the office I now hold will confirm my view that this is the true principle to follow. First of all, it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant the Chiltern Hundreds immediately when they are asked for, unless there is some lawful reason to the contrary. That is a duty which was laid down as early as 1845. In the second place, the grant has no reference to the character or fitness of the applicant. That is shown by the change in the warrant to which I have referred. Thirdly, the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is purely ministerial. He has not the duty, or the right, or the means, to investigate cases of suspicion. That was laid down by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury in 1859. Fourthly, there are no exceptions to these rules except in order to maintain the authority of the House in cases where it has jurisdiction, as in matters relating to elections. There the House does not allow its jurisdiction to be defeated, as it would be by the withdrawal of the question. It has, however, even in such cases been laid down that it is not enough that an election should he pending, but proceedings must have been actually instituted. As to how far, when actual criminal proceedings are in progress in the Courts of Law, you can interpose an obstacle to the granting of the Chiltern Hundreds, does not seem to have been decided. But in this case no criminal proceedings have been instituted. The hon. Member states that the late Member for Burnley was guilty of gross fraud. I had no means of knowing that, and I could not assume that which had not been proved. It had not been brought to a test on which I could act. If Mr. Balfour had not accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and had now been a Member of this House, you would have had no means of coming to a conclusion on the subject. He would have remained a Member of this House, the borough of Burnley would have had no opportunity of electing. a fit Member to serve in the present Parliament and you might have been hung up for months, and even for years, before being in a position to decide the question. I think that shows the wisdom of the rule which has been established in this respect.
52
The whole proceeding is merely a constitutional fiction equivalent to resignation. It is certainly au anomalous and inconvenient fiction. A former Member of this House, Sir H. Drummond Wolff, in 1880, intimated that he would move for a Committee to alter the system. I am very sorry he did not do so, because I think it would be very desirable that another form of resignation should be established by this House. I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied, from what I have said, that I have not departed front the practice which has been universally followed on former occasions.
Motion agreed to.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

  MANCHESTER (EASTERN DIVISION) ELECTION.
  *MR. SPEAKERinformed the House that he had received the following Letters front the Judges appointed to try the several Election Petitions:—
  The Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, 1854 to 1883.
  To the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
  We, the Honorable Sir Lewis William Cave, Knight, and the Honorable Sir Roland Vaughan Williams, Knight, Judges of the High. Court of Justice, mid two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby in pursuance of the said Acts certify that upon the 14th, 15th, 16th, and 17th days of November, 1892, we duly held a Court at the Assize Courts in the Salford Hundred of the county of Lancaster, in the borough of Manchester; awl did try the Election Petition for the Eastern Division of the said borough between Joseph Edwin Crawford Munro, Petitioner, and the Bight Hon. Arthur James Balfour, Respondent; and that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the said Arthur James Balfour, being the Member whose Election and Return were complained of, was duly elected and returned, and that Ins Election was not void; and we do hereby certify in writing such our determination to you.
  And whereas charges were made of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the said Election for the Eastern Division of the Borough of Manchester, we in further pursuance of the said Acts report as follows:—

  (a.) That no corrupt or illegal practices were proved to have been committed at such Election.

  (b.) That there is no reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the Election for the Eastern

  53
  Division of the Borough of Manchester, to which the said Petition relates.

  Dated this 17th day of November, 1892.
  LEWIS CAVE.
  ROLAND L. VAUGHAN WILLIAMS.

  WALSALL ELECTION.
  The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
  The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.
  To the Right Honorable the Speaker of the
  House of Commons.
  We, the Honorable Baron Pollock and the Honorable Sir Henry Hawkins, Judges of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges on the rota for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby in pursuance of the said Acts certify that upon the 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th days of November, 1892, we duly held a Court at the Town Hall, in the borough of Walsall, in the county of Staffordshire, for the trial of and did try the Election Petition for the said borough between Henry Hately Thomas Moss and James Mason, Petitioners, and Frank James, Respondent.
  And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the said Frank James, being the Member whose Election and Return were complained of in the said Petition, was not duly elected or returned, and that his Election was void on the ground of an illegal practice, namely, a payment made by his Election Agent on account of hat cards, which we find to be marks of distinction; and we do hereby certify in writing such our determination to you.
  And whereas charges were made of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Act, report as follows:—
  That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any candidate at such election.
  We have given certificates of indemnity to—Victor James
  and
  William Henry Robinson.
  That there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the Election for the borough of Walsall to which the said Petition relates.
  Dated this 22nd day of November, 1892.
  C. E. POLLOCK.
  H. HAWKINS.

  SOUTH MEATH ELECTION.
  In the Matter of "The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868," and "The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883," and in the Matter of a Petition in relation to the Election, held inn the month of July 1892. of a Member to serve in Parliament for the South Meath Division of the County of Meath. Between—
  James Joseph Dalton, Petitioner,
  and
  Patrick Fullain, Respondent.
  We hereby certify to the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons that the above-mentioned Petition was tried before us at Trim, in the County of Meath, on the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 28th, and 29th days of November, 1892, and that after the conclusion of the said trial, we did, on the 30th day of November 1892, determine that the said Patrick Fullam, whose election was complained of by the said Petition, was not duly elected to serve in the present Parliament for the South Meath Division of the county of Meath, and that his said Election was void.
  And, pursuant to the said Acts, we hereby report to the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons that Patrick Fullam the Respondent was guilty, by his agents, of the corrupt practice of undue influence by threatening certain persons with spiritual injury to induce them to vote at the said Election for the said Patrick Fullam and to refrain from voting for the Petitioner, who was the other candidate at the said Election.
  And, we further report, that the corrupt practice of undue influence, by spiritual intimidation, did extensively prevail at the said election, but that, with the exception of such practice, no other corrupt or illegal practice was proved to have prevailed or to have been committed, nor is there reason to believe extensively prevailed at the said Election.
  And we further certify that we differ as to reporting the names of persons guilty of corrupt practices.
  We beg also to state that a copy of the said Petition and a copy of the evidence given at the said trial thereof, taken down by the deputies of the shorthand writer of the House of Commons, accompany this Certificate and. Report.
  Given under our hands this 30th day of November in the year of our Lord 1892,
  WILLIAM O' BRIEN,
  WILLIAM D. ANDREWS,
  Two of the Judges for the time being on the rota for the trial of Election Petitions in Ireland, and by whom the said Election Petition was tried, pursuant to the Statute in that case made and provided.

  HEXHAM ELECTION.
  The Corrupt Practices Acts, 1854 to 1883.
  To the Right Honorable the Speaker of the
  House of Commons.
  We, the Honorable Mr. Justice Cave and the Honorable Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petition's in England, do hereby in pursuance of the said Acts certify that upon the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 28th, and 29th days of November, 1892, we duly held a Court at the Assize Courts in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, inn the County of Northumberland, for the trial of and did try the Election Petition for the Division of Hexham, in the said county, between William Hudspith and John Knox Lyall, Petitioners, and Nathaniel George Clayton, Respondent.
  And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the said Nathaniel George Clayton, being the Member whose election and return were complained of, was not duly elected or returned, and that his election was void, on the ground that he was by his agents guilty of treating and of illegal practices, and we do hereby certify in writing such our determination to you.
  And whereas charges were made of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the said Election, we in further pursuance of the said Acts report as follows:—

  (a.) That no corrupt or illegal practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any candidate at such Election.

  (b.) That the following persons were proved at the trial to have been guilty of the corrupt, practice of personation, namely, Edward Tate, of Brownknowl, near Bellingham, John Emmerson, of Shildon Hill, near Stocktield.

  (c.) That it was proved at the trial that Isaac Baty, the Election Agent of the Respondent, was guilty of the corrupt practice of treating.

  (d.) That it was proved at the trial that the said Isaac Baty was guilty of illegal practices.

  (e.) That there is no reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices extensively prevailed at the Election for the Division of Hex-ham to which the Petition relates.

  We have given Certificates of Indemnity to the said Edward Tate, the said John Emmerson, and the said Isaac Baty.
  Dated this 7th day of December, 1892.
  LEWIS W. CAVE.
  ROLAND L. VAUGHAN WILLIAMS.

  WORCESTER ELECTION.
  The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.
  To the Right Honorable The Speaker of the House of Commons.
  We, the Honorable Baron Pollock and the Honorable Mr. Justice Wills, Judges of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges on the rota for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England and Wales, do hereby in pursuance of the said Acts of Parliament certify that, upon the 29th, 30th, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd days of November and December respectively, we duly held a Court at the Shire Hall in the City of Worcester for the trial of and did try the Election Petition for the said city between Glazzard and another, Petitioners, and the Honorable George Higginson Allsopp, Respondent.
  And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that, at the conclusion of the said trial, we determined that the said Honorable George Higginson Allsopp was duly elected and returned, and that his election was not void, and we do hereby certify in writing such our determination to you.
  And whereas charges were made of corrupt practices having been committed at the said
  56
  Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—
  That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any candidate at such Election.
  That there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the Election for the City of Worcester to which the said Petition relates.
  C. E. POLLOCK.
  ALFRED WILLS.

  EAST CLARE ELECTION.
  In the Matter of an Election Petition for the East Clare Division of the County of Clare.
  Between—
  Joseph Richard Cox, Petitioner,
  and
  William Hoey Kearney Redmond, Respondent.
  We hereby certify to the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons that the above-mentioned Petition was tried before us at Ennis, in the county of Clare, on the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th days of December, 1892, and that at the conclusion of the said trial we did, on 12th day of December 1892, determine that the said William Hoey Kearney Redmond, whose Election was complained of by the sail Petition, was duly elected to serve in the present Parliament for the East Clare Division of the county of Clare.
  And, in addition to the foregoing certificate, we hereby further report to the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons that no corrupt or illegal practice has been proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate at said Election, and that the said William Hoey Kearney Redmond has not been proved to be guilty by himself or his agent or agents of any corrupt or illegal practices.
  And, further, that on the evidence before us, it did not appear that corrupt or illegal practices extensively prevailed at the said election, and we have no reason to believe that any corrupt or illegal practices did extensively prevail at said Election.
  We beg also to state that a copy of the said Petition and a copy of the evidence given at the trial taken down by the deputies of the shorthand writer of the House of Commons accompany this Certificate.
  Given under our hands this 12th day of December 1892.
  WILLIAM O'BRIEN.
  G. JOHNSON.
  Two of the Judges for the time being on the rota, for the trial of Election Petitions in Ireland, and by whom the said Election Petition was tried, pursuant to the statute in that case made and provided.

  ROCHESTER ELECTION.
  The Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, 1854 to 1883.
  To the Right Honorable the Speaker of the
  House of Commons.
  We, the undersigned Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges for the

  57
  time being for the trial of Election Petitions in. England, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, certify, That, upon the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th days of December 1892, we duly held a Court at the Guildhall in the city of Rochester, in the county of Kent, for the trial of and did try the Election Petition for the said city or borough of Rochester, in the said county, between Alfred Barry and Charles John Saxby Varrall, Petitioners, and Horatio David Davies, Respondent.
  And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, at the conclusion of the said trial, we determined that the said Horatio David Davies, being the member whose Election and Return were complained of, was not duly elected or returned, and that the election was void on the ground that he was by his agents guilty of corrupt and illegal practices, and we do hereby certify such our determination to you.
  And, whereas charges were made of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—

  (a.) That no corrupt or illegal practice was proved to have been committed by or with the consent or knowledge of any candidate at such election.

  (b.) That the following persons were proved at the trial to have been guilty of the corrupt practice of treating, namely:—
  William Constable of High Street, Rochester, Fishmonger.
  William Boucher of High Street, Rochester, Butcher.

  (c.) That it was proved at the trial that Frederick William Walter, the Election Agent of the Respondent, was guilty of illegal practices.

  (d.) That facts were proved before us which preclude our reporting that we have no reason to believe corrupt or illegal practices prevailed at the Election, but these facts were not such as would support a report that corrupt or illegal practices have, or that there is reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices have extensively. prevailed at the Election.

  We have given Certificates of Indemnity to the said William Constable, the said William Boucher, and the said Frederick William Walton.
  Dated this 16th day of December 1892.
  LEWIS WM. CAVE.
  ROLAND L. VAUGHAN WILLIAMS.

  CENTRAL FINSBURY ELECTION.
  The Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, 1854 to 1883.
  To the Right Honorable The Speaker of the House of Commons.
  We, the undersigned Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the its Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, certify that upon slue 12th, 13th, and 14th days of December 1892, we duly held a Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, in the county of Middlesex, for the trial of mill did proceed to try the Election Petition for the borough of Central Finsbury, between Frederick Thomas Penton, Petitioner, and Dadabhai Naoroji, Responden.
  And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that on the 14th day of December 1892, the third day of the trial, after some witnesses had been examined the Petitioner, by his Counsel, with the assent of the Respondent, by his Counsel, asked leave to withdraw the Petition and without either party paying the costs to the other. We thereupon, being sat is tied that such withdrawal of the Petition was not the result of any corrupt arrangement, nor in consideration of the withdrawal of any other Petition, ordered that the Petitioner be at liberty to withdraw the Petition, and we made no order as to costs, and we determined that the said Dadabhai Naoroji being the Member whose Election and Return were complained of, was duly elected and returned for the said borough, and that Frederick Thomas Penton was not duly elected for the same, awl we do hereby certify such our determination.
  And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we do hereby report that no corrupt or illegal practice was proved to have been committed by or with the consent or knowledge of any candidate at such Election.
  We further report that there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the Election for the borough of Central Finsbury, to which the said Petition relates.
  Dated this 19th day of December 1892.
  LEWIS W. CAVE.
  ROLAND L. VAUGHAN WILLIAMS.

  STEPNEY ELECTION.
  The Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, 1854 to, 1883.
  To the Right Honorable The Speaker of the. House of Commons.
  We, the Honorable Mr. Justice Cave and the Honorable Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby in pursuance of the sail Acts certify that upon the 15th, 16th, 19th. 20th, and 21st days of December 1892, we duly held a Court at the Royal Courts of Justice in London for the trial of and did try the Election Petition for the Stepney Division of Tower Hamlets between William Rushmere and William Charles Steadman, Petitioners, and Frederick Wootton Isaacson, Respondent.
  And in further pursuance of the said Acts we report that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the said Frederick Wootton Isaacson, being the Member whose Election and Return were complained of in the said Petition, was duly elected and returnee t for the said Borough. And we do hereby certify in writing such our determination to you
  And whereas charges were made of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—

  (a) That no corrupt or illegal practice was proved to have been committed by or with the consent or knowledge of any candidate at such Election.

  59

  (b) That there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the Election for the Borough of the Stepney Division of Tower Hamlets, to which the said Petition relates.

  Dated this 22nd day of December, 1892.
  LEWIS WM. CAVE.
  ROWLAND L. VAUGHAN WILLIAMS.

  NORTH MEATH ELECTION.
  In the Matter of "The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868," and "The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883," and in the Matter of a Petition in relation to the Election held in the month of July, 1892, of a Member to serve in Parliament for the North Meath Division of the County of Meath.
  Between—
  Pierce Charles de Lacy Mahony, Petitioner
  and
  Michael Davitt, Respondent.
  We hereby certify to the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons that the above-mentioned Petition was tried before us at Trim, in the county of Meath, on the 15th, 16th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd days of December, 1892, and that after the conclusion of the said trial we did, on the 23rd day of December, 1892, determine that the said Michael Davitt, whose Election was complained of by the said Petitioner, was not duly elected to serve in the present Parliament for the North Meath Division of the County of Meath, and that his said Election was void.
  And, pursuant to the said Acts, we hereby report to the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons that Michael Davitt, the Respondent, was guilty, by his agents, of the corrupt practice of undue influence by threatening certain persons with spiritual injury to induce them to vote at the said Election for the said Michael Davitt, and to refrain from voting for the Petitioner, who was the other candidate at the said Election.
  And we further report that the corrupt practice of undue influence by spiritual intimidation did extensively prevail at the said Election, but that, with the exception of such practice, no other corrupt or illegal practice was proved to have prevailed or to have been committed, nor is there reason to believe extensively prevailed at the said Election.
  And we further certify that we differ as to reporting the names of persons guilty of corrupt practices.
  We beg also to state that a copy of the said Petition, and a copy of the evidence given at the said trial thereof, taken down by the deputies of the shorthand writer of the House of Commons, accompany this Certificate and Report.
  Given under our hands this 23rd day of December in the year of our Lord 1892.
  WILLIAM D. ANDREWS,
  W. G. JOHNSON,
  Two of the Judges for the time being on the rota for the trial of Election Petitions in Ireland, and by whom the said Election Petition was tried, pursuant to the statute in that case made and provided.

  MONTGOMERY DISTRICT ELECTION.
  The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
  The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.
  To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the
  House of Commons.
  We, the Honourable Baron Pollock and the Honourable Mr. Justice Wills, Judges of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges on the rota for the trial of Election Petitions in England and Wales, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts of Parliament, certify that upon the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth days of December, 1892, we duly held a Court at the Town Hall, in the Borough of Montgomery, for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for the Montgomery District, between George and others, Petitioners, and Sir Pryce Pryce-Jones, Respondent.
  And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we certify that we differ as to whether the member whose Election is complained of was duly elected.
  And whereas charges were made of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, certify that we differ in regard to certain of the said charges, and in regard to the rest thereof we agree that they were not proved.
  And we find and report that no corrupt practice has been proved to have been or with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent.
  And we find and report that no illegal practice was proved to have been committed at the said Election.
  And we further find and report that there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the Election to which the Petition relates.
  C. E. POLLOCK.
  ALRED WILLS.
  23rd. December, 1892.

  LICHFIELD ELECTION.
  In the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division.
  The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
  The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883.
  To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
  Election for the Lichfield Division of the County of Stafford, holden on the 18th day of July, 1892.
  In the matter of an Election Petition from the said division, presented the 12th clay of August, 1892.
  Swinburne, Bart., Petitioner.
  Darwin, M.P., Respondent.
  We, the Honourable Baron Pollock and the Honourable Mr. Justice Wills, two of the Judges of the High Court of Justice, being on the rota of Judges selected to try Parliamentary Election Petitions (presented during the year ending 24th October, 1893) in England and Wales,—
  Do hereby report that a Summons for liberty to withdraw this Petition, on behalf of the Petitioner, was heard before us on the 24th day of November last, in the matter of this Petition. After we had heard the Counsel on both sides and read the Affidavits of the respective parties we ordered that the Petitioner should be allowed to withdraw the Petition.
  We further report that the withdrawal of such Petition was not in our opinion the result of any agreement, terms, or undertaking, in consideration of any payment, or in consideration that the seat should at any time be vacated, or in consideration of the withdrawal of any other Election Petition, or for any other consideration.
  C. E. POLLOCK.
  ALFRED WILLS.
  Dated this 27th day of January, 1893.

MOTIONS.

  NEW WRITS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Meath (Southern Division), in the room of Patrick Fulham, esquire, whose election for the said County has been declared void."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  MR. MACARTNEY: I wish to bring to the attention of the House the circumstances connected with the Petition with regard to the Division for which the Writ has just been moved, and I desire also to move an Amendment. I am well aware that in inviting the House to take a step of a character so grave and important as that which I am about to ask it to take on this occasion, it will be necessary for me not only to justify the terms of the Amendment, but to show that on previous occasions the House has taken steps of an even greater gravity, and exercised more stringent authority with regard to cases of a much less heinous character. The Report which has just been presented to the House by the Judges who tried the Petition with regard to the Southern Division of the County of Meath states that the election has been voided through the exercise of undue influence and spiritual intimidation. Now, Sir, those who are acquainted with the eases in which this House has interfered with the issue of a Writ after the Report either of a Committee of this House or of Judges directed to try an Election Petition, are aware that in most cases
  62
  the issue of a Writ has been suspended on account of allegations of corrupt practices, principally connected with the bribery of the constituency. But corrupt practices, Sir, are not confined to mere questions of bribery, and I shall be able to invite the attention of the House to a case which is almost exactly parallel with that which has been revealed by the trial of the Petitions for the Divisions of South and North Meath, and a case in which, having heard the statement of the Chairman of a Committee appointed to consider the question, the House proceeded to take steps of a much more stringent and grave character than that which I invite it to take on the present occasion. In the year 1857 Colonel French moved the issue of a new Writ for County Mayo, upon which occasion the Chairman of the Committee, who had been engaged in trying the allegations connected with the Petition with regard to that county—Mr. Schofield—rose to call the attention of the house to the fifth resolution of the Report. As the allegations contained in that Petition were practically of the same nature as those which have resulted in unseating Mr. Fullam in the South Division of Meath, I think I shall not be intruding on the House if I try briefly to call attention to some of the allegations which were proved before that Committee and which were brought to the notice of the House on that occasion by Mr. Schofield. Mr. Schofield said the House would see by the evidence that the proceedings of the election began with the issuing of a most unseemly electioneering mandate signed by the Archbishop of Tuam in favour of Mr. Moore against Colonel Higgins. He went on to say that this had been followed by unceasing activity OD the part of the priests, by spiritual intimidation, and by incentives to violence until the county was in such a state of excitement that it was not possible for Colonel Higgins' voters to go to the poll except they were escorted by the military. Further than that, they were not safe even in the booths. I do not think it necessary to trouble the House with the details on this occasion which Mr. Schofield on that occasion brought to the notice of the Members who were present. But those Members of the House who are curious on the matter will find that

  63
  in the case connected with the Mayo Writ in 1857 there is to be found an absolute parallel with the circumstances of the Election Petition tried for the Southern Division of the County of Meath. Mr. Schofield summed up the opinion of the Committee by saying that they had felt it was not a question of Protestantism as opposed to Catholicism, but that it was a question of the freedom of election as against priestly intimidation. So viewing it the Committee discharged their duty faithfully. And although he had always done his best to maintain the civil and religious privileges of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, he considered it to be his bounden duty to see that the priests did not infringe upon the civil liberties of the people. On that occasion there was a Debate of some considerable length, in which many Members of the House joined. The Leader of the House then was Lord Palmerston, and he supported an Amendment which had been moved by Mr. Schofield and which was eventually agreed to by a majority of 107. It was an Amendment of a much more stringent character than that which I now invite the House to support. It was on that occasion proposed by Mr. Schofield to suspend the issue of the Writ for the County of Mayo for the whole of that Session of Parliament. I have noticed that in all the Debates that have taken place in this House with regard to the inherent power of the House to suspend the issue of Writs, it has never been denied by any authority whatever that there is in the House absolute power to deal with a Writ in any way it chooses. Now, the circumstances which have taken place in the two elections in Meath—which may practically, for the purpose of this Debate, be treated as one election—are of so grave a character that I presume the House is justified in intervening. I feel that I also have to justify the actual form of the Amendment which I intend to propose. That Amendment is this: To leave out all the words after the word "that" in the Main Proposition of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway, and to insert the following words:—
  "The Writ for the election of a Member for the Southern Division of the County Meath be suspended until the evidence taken on the trial of the South Meath Election Petition has been considered by this House."
  64
  That Amendment is in the precise form of the Motion that came before the House in regard to the proposal made in 1875 by Mr. Whalley, the Member for Peterborough, in respect of the Norwich Writ. Again, when Mr. Lewis, the then Member for Londonderry, proposed the issue of a Writ for the borough of Stroud, the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed his Motion, and in that opposition was supported by the then Leader of the House, the late Lord Beaconsfield. The Chancellor of the Exchequer so opposed the Motion because it proposed to take away from Stroud the right of representation, and the House, he held, ought not to do away with the representation of any particular constituency. I do not propose to go so far as Mr. Lewis did on that occasion, neither do I propose to go as far as Mr. Schofield did in the year 1857. All I ask the House to do now is to do what was unanimously agreed to be done in the year 1875 under a precisely similar state of circumstances. In 1875, as I have already stated, Mr. Whalley moved the issue of a Writ for the borough of Norwich, and the then Attorney General got up and opposed the Motion. He said he had been taken by surprise, as the moment he received the shorthand writer's notes of the evidence and the Report of the Judges, he made a Motion that they should be printed and laid on the Table of the House. Surely it is quite impossible for the House on the present occasion to agree to the Motion which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, if for no other reason than that of precedent. I say that we are entitled, and that every Member of the House is entitled, to learn, from an authorised copy of the transactions, what took place in the Court House at Meath; what were the circumstances and what was the evidence upon which the election was upset. On the occasion of the moving of the Writ in 1875, to which I have referred, an Amendment was proposed by Mr. York in the terms of the Amendment which I am to-day inviting the House to consider, and so strong were the arguments advanced in support of it that the Attorney General of that time intervened in the Debate; and Mr. Herschell, who now occupies a very responsible position in the present Government, supported

  65
  the Amendment, and it was agreed to without a Division. I cannot help thinking that the House must see that under such circumstances as these it would be inadvisable to proceed with the Motion to issue the Writ which the hon. and gallant Member for Galway has proposed. I should like to remind the House that never before has such an attempt as this been made to issue a Writ under these circumstances at the very commencement of a new Parliament. In former days it was customary, by a Sessional Order, to preclude any such writs being issued until after a period of seven days, although I believe that in more recent times the House has contented itself with a Sessional Order that no such Writ shall be moved for until after a period of two days has elapsed. And if that Sessional Order had been in existence at the present moment, it would not have been necessary for me to have intervened on this occasion, because those of my friends who desire to take action in this matter would have had an opportunity of putting the terms of this Motion on the Paper of the House in due course, and they also would have had a full opportunity of considering what were the circumstances which were necessary to be brought to the attention of the House. I feel certain that the House will pardon me for intervening on this occasion, and I am sure that the older Members of this Assembly—those who have more experience in the business of the House, and are better acquainted with its precedents —will agree that I have a somewhat ample justification for the course Which I have taken to-day. I do not propose to argue at any very great length the questions which arose in the Court House in Meath, but I should like to refer for one moment to a passage which occurred in the Judgment of Mr. Justice O'Brien, because, as I before pointed out, the case or the South Meath Electing Petition is precisely parallel with the Mayo Petition, in regard to which the House, at the invitation of Mr. Schofield, took far stronger measures than I now ask it to adopt. Mr. Justice O'Brien, after alluding to various matters in the pastoral and the law applicable thereto, said—
  "I now come to the particular grounds on which the validity of this election is questioned, and the first and gravest is the pastoral of the
  66
  Most Rev. Dr. Nulty, which was read in all the churches on July 3, setting forth as it did the Divine authority of the Church, the obligations of the Moral Law which Mr. Parnell had violated, and the responsibility of those who supported Parnellism."
  Then he goes on to comment on the character of the pastoral, and he concludes that portion of his charge with the following words:—
  "'Invincible ignorance,'—I quote the words —that exception which it identifies the condemned doctrine with heresy, was allowed possibly to excuse misguided men and women, for it was laid down authoritatively that no intelligent or well-informed person could remain a Catholic and continue to cling to Parnellism.'"
  It is not necessary for me to comment at length on the whole of this Judgment. All I desire now to do is to call the attention of the House to the concluding words of Mr. Justice O'Brien's powerful charge. Referring to the clergy generally, he said—
  "I have no doubt a strong obligation of obedience to their own Bishop, and Whether or not in conformity with their own opinions and sentiments, did use language calculated to convey to the minds of the voters in this division that their conduct in this election involved the question of eternal condemnation or the contrary. Now, having expressed that opinion, it remains to me to say one word concerning the legal aspects of the evidence concerning this question in relation to agency, and upon that apparently very little difficulty seems to me to arise. I consider if there ever was a case of agency established it was in this particular case Mr. Fullam was named as the candidate from the very beginning of the contest; he attended all the meetings held; he attended there with clergymen; he named them as his agents, as his personation agents in many instances; he received the subsidy of money provided for the expenses of the election from them or some clergyman; he, upon the public occasion when the victory was celebrated, thanked publicly the clergy for the services they hard rendered, and the only question that would remain on my mind as the result of the evidence is the application of this term agent at all, and of the possible application of any such term to the position the clergy assumed. They appear to me to have fulfilled positions of principals, while Mr. Fullam was only the agent, and upon that part of the matter, there fore. I have formed my opinion. We have heard a great deal, of course, of the importance of this question, and this trial, and a great many arguments and observations had been made concerning it. I am quite conscious of the great importance of it—that it is a struggle between great Parties and great interests, and, it may be, of great consequences. But with the consequences I have no concern whatever. My concern is with justice; my allegiance is to justice alone, and in the fulfilment of that obligation I am constrained in justice to declare that, in my opinion, the election for the South

  67
  Division of Meath, both under the Statute and the Common Law, is void through undue influence, and must be set aside."
  Having, Sir, read the concluding sentences of this Judgment, I venture to say there is not a Member of this house, no matter on sole he may sit, who will not feel that these grave and important, words demand at least the attention of the House, and that I am not asking diem to assent to a Motion which goes beyond what can legitimately be asked. All I ask is, that before any step is taken in issuing a new Writ, before any further opportunity is given to those who have already trampled on the liberty of individual opinion in the South Meath electorate, before they are again allowed to exercise such intimidation mid undue influence, as a Judge of the I Ugh Court reports to have been exercised there. Every Member of this House should have the fullest opportunity of acquainting himself with the evidence given on the Petition and with the terms of the Judge's charge. I take it the Government can hardly see its way to agree to the issue of this Writ. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone), who has been one of the most distinguished and careful custodians of the Precedents of this House, will for one moment sanction a departure for a Precedent which is completely on all fours with the course I now invite the House to take, and winch in the year 1875 had the sanction of his present Lord Chancellor (Lord Herschell). I think I have said sufficient, to justify the Motion I now make, seeing that it will give the House at some future date—after hon. Members have acquainted themselves with what took place in the Meath Court Ilouse—an opportunity of deciding what steps, if any, should be taken with regard to the issue of a new Writ.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out front the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words the Writ for the Election of a Member for the Southern Division of the County of Meath be suspended until the evidence taken on the trial of the Election Petition for that division has been considered by the House,"—(Mr. Macartney,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I can assure the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that I am by no means insensible of the grave nature of the allegations contained in his speech, and the proposal that I have to make will imply no disposition on my part to disparage them; neither, on the other hand, do I intend to enter in any manner upon the merits of the original Motion itself; but what I wish to put before the House is that there is a prior consideration, which was glanced at by the hon. Member for Antrim (Mr. Macartney), and which ought to preclude the House from proceeding with the Debate at the present moment. My objection, as far as it is an objection when considered in the view of the forms and usages of the House, is undoubtedly an objection not so much to the Amendment as to the original Motion itself. There is no such thing, I believe, as a Standing Order of the House applicable to the question I am about to raise. I do not know that there is so much as a Sessional Order of the House, which the hon. Member believes to exist; but there is a usage of the House which is supported by so much practice and authority, that it forms a pave fact in the case, and is, I think, so obviously reasonable that nothing ought to be done to weaken the force of that usage. Usage has been glanced at by the hon. Member for' Antrim, and I invite him to consider in an impartial spirit the reference I am about to make to it, a reference in respect to which I am bound to say I should feel myself very greatly confirmed in the view I take of the matter, provided you, Sir, with your great authority in the. Chair, are disposed to advise the House in the same sense in respect to this, rather important question of its Forms of Procedure. It is an established usage of the House, when any seat has been vacated in consequence of the sentence of a competent tribunal that the election has been vitiated by corrupt and illegal practices, that no Writ shall be moved for the purpose of filling the vacancy until a notice has been regularly given and placed upon the Votes; arid that two days shall intervene before the Motion call he entertained by the House. I think that that is obviously a reasonable practice, and I believe it is also an

  69
  established practice. If I might venture to make a suggestion, I would say we should most completely conform to the practice. Were the hon. and gallant Gentleman to ask leave for the present to Withdraw his Motion, and then to place a regular notice upon the Votes, I have little doubt, from tile spirit of Ids speech, that the Mover of the Amendment would place no impediment in. the way of the proceeding. It is not in my power in any manner to enforce that method of procedure, or to make a Motion directly in support of it but what I can do in order in some degree to attain that object, if there is a general concurrence of view upon the subject, is to move that the Debate he now adjourned. The effect of that would be to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman time for consideration. If the view I have expressed should he supported by t he weight of your authority, I would venture strongly to recommend the hon. and gallant Member to adopt this course. It would then be in his power to take steps to re-commence the proceedings, and he could raise t he question at a more convenient moment. I venture, therefore, to put in your hands for the present the Motion I have indicated, bearing in mind the great assistance which would be afforded to the House should you be prepared to give an opinion as to the best course to he adopted. I beg to move that this Debate he now adjourned.
  *MR. SPEAKER: After the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that it is generally the case that there is in force an Order passed by this House that in cases such as those referred to, two days' clear notice should be given of a Motion to issue a new Writ. But it is not a Sessional Order; it is not a Standing Order, though I think it ought to be made a Standing Order, but there is now no Order in force. The reason, therefore, why I have not interfered is because I have no order to act on. But in the course, probably, of to-morrow or next day, in accordance with usage, it will be competent for Her Majesty's Government to move that in all cases, such as those referred to, two days' notice should be given. But this is the first day of the Session, and the consequence is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) is perfectly entitled to bring forward this Motion. I would, however, venture to make the
  70
  suggestion, not that the debate should be adjourned, but that the previous suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury Should adopted, and that both the Motion and the Amendment should be withdrawn, and that two clear days' notice should he given. The spirit of the Order, which I am sure the house will pass, will then be complied with.
  *MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I may say in explanation that, at all events, we are agreed as to the present prosecution of the debate. But if there be a disposition to go a little further back and to recommence the debate later on, I shall be delighted to withdraw the Motion I have made.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: After what has fallen front you, Sir, I hope there will be no hesitation on the part of the hon. Gentleman who initiated the debate to follow the advice which von have tendered. So far as I can gather from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, I have no doubt that if the course you suggest should be pursued, he would see it followed with sincere gratification. I therefore hope, Sir, that we will defer the debate until Friday next.
  MR. JOHN E. REDMOND: I ask the permission of the House to make just one remark. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Nolan), in making his Motion, had no desire to violate the usage of the House. All that we desire is that the Writ should be moved as soon as practicable. The suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, that the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend should be withdrawn, that he should give now a new notice to move for this Writ in two days' time, is a suggestion which I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will adopt. I can scarcely take the view of the right hon. Gentleman who has last spoken that that is the spirit of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment, because the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman was an Amendment directed to the suspension of the Writ until there has been a discussion on the merits of the evidence which would be in due course laid on the table of the House. But what I want to safeguard myself against is that in agreeing to postponing the Motion for the Writ on the suggestion of the First Lord of the

  71
  Treasury, that I am agreeing also to the idea that the Writ should he suspended until the evidence is laid on the table, and until there has been a discussion on the evidence. The evidence, I presume, will be laid on the table in due course, and the fact that this Writ has been moved for, and that an election has taken place, will not ill the slightest impede the consideration by the House of the undoubtedly grave questions raised by the Petition. I suggest, therefore, to my hon. and gallant. Friend that he should adopt time suggestion of the First Lord of the Treasury, on the understanding that if, having given two days' notice, he moves for the Writ, he shall not be met by an attempt, such as that made by the Amendment, to raise the entire question, and that the Writ shall be suspended until the matter has been considered. [Ironical Opposition Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen, then, have no right to cheer their leader. The right hon. Gentleman said that was the spirit animating the speech of the mover of the Amendment. I therefore hope that when the Writ is moved for again I shall not be met by the same kind of Motion, but that two days having expired we will then have time Writ issued for a new election, and that the House will consider the questions raised in the Petition in a proper and regular way hereafter. That course will not be impeded in the slightest degree by the issuing of the Writ. Speaking for those who brought the Petition, and against whom these influences were directed, and who were only beaten by 80 votes, we desire above all things that there should be a speedy new election, and that we should again appeal to the suffrage of the people as soon as possible.
  COLON SAUNDERSON: I shall be sorry if there were any misapprehension of the course we intend to pursue with regard to this Writ. We oppose the issue of the Writ, and we shall oppose it when it is moved two days hence. I hope, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member will not be under the misapprehension that we will allow the Motion to pass when it is moved for two days hence.
  MR. M. HEALYSeeing the senior Conservative Whip (Mr. Akers-Douglas) in his place, I desire 10 ask he considers that the Con-
  72
  servative Party has a right to move the Writs in the case of Rochester, Hexham, mind Walsall where Members of his Party have been unseated, the previous occupants of the seats having been Liberals? This question, I think, involves a matter of considerable importance in regard to the rotations of parties in this House. If it is left open to any skirmisher to move a Writ which is generally supposed to be in the hands of the Commander of the Forces of the Regular Army, I need not point out the inconvenience to this House and the obstruction of its business if the moving of Writs were allowed to be sprung upon it, and further the impossibility of the present relations between the Parties as to the moving of Wits being adhered to. For instance, suppose in regard to the Writ for. Rochester that some Irish Member on the Nationalist side got up and moved the Writ on some Wednesday when a Tory Bill was on, and that some other Member got up afterwards and moved the Motion that the Member for one of the Divisions for Antrim (Mr. Macartney) has now moved, it would be impossible fm. the Tory Party, or the Liberal Party, or any other Party in this House to continue time working of its business in the usual spirit that prevails between Parties if hon. Gentlemen who have the proper carriage of Writs were not allowed to intervene. I believe there is also the usage that the Whip of every Party in the House shall receive notice that it is the intention of some other Party to move the Writ. I do not know, so flit as regards the right hon. Gentleman the Whip of the Conservative Party, or the right hon. Gentleman the Whip of the Ministerial Party, whether in this case that practice has been carried out; but I submit it is as much incumbent on the Lender of Her Majesty's Opposition as much as on the Prime Minister to see that nobody has the carriage of Election Writs except the Party that has vacated the seat. I submit that as a proposition that ought to carry with it the general and unanimous sense, of the House. The object of the present case is plain. Hon. Gentlemen suppose that they may have a benefit in moving for the Writ for South Meath before the Writ for North Meath. They think they have an advantage, but it has always been supposed that it is the party that vacates

  73
  the seat that should within a reasonable limit of time move the Writ. I think I have good reason to complain that not only has the usual order that two days' notice, which we conceive ourselves we are bound to give, has not been followed, but also what I may call the comity of Parties has been broken into by the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway. I hope that this question will be considered by the Whips, both Ministerial and Opposition, and I trust we may have some explanation on the subject.
  MR. T. HARRINGTON: Before the Whips answer the question put to them. I should like to say a few Words on the Motion nude by my hon. and gallant Friend, and on the late South Meath Election. The seat for Which the Writ was moved was occupied by a member of the Party to which my hon. and gallant Friend belongs. I assume that when an election has been voided by the Judges the seat is not in the possession of the Member elected, but reverts to the position it occupied before the election was voided, and that therefore the Whip of the Party to which it belonged before the voided election has the right to move for the Writ. If the views of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House hold good, I see no way of moving for the Writ except through the Judges Who voided the seat. The seat in this case has been vacated by the decision of the Judges who tried the Petition. The seat had been held by a Member of the Party to winch the hon. and gallant Member for Galway belongs; and I think it is thoroughly in accordance with precedent that the Party which held the seat before the corrupt election which has been set aside should now move for the Writ.
  COLONEL, NOLAN: I wish to say that I do not wish for one moment to violate any of the rules of etiquette of this House. I thought the rules of procedure were all on my side. Before this election the seat was held by Mr. Mahony— no, Mr. Shiel held the seat, and Mr. Shiel was a Member of our Party. The illegal Member elected at the last election was in only long enough to give one vote, and in my opinion it is really our seat for the present until it is filled. Some of the hon. Members around me will be claiming my
  74
  scat next, and indeed they tried hard to get it. The Judges declared that this election in South Meath was not a true election, and therefore it was no election at all. I am not giving any word of my own—that is the opinion of the Judges. They declared that in North and South Meath there was so much intimidation mid undue influence that they were not free elections, and all election is not free it is no election whatsoever. Therefore I say that as we held the seat before au illegal election put Mr. Fullam into possession we have the right to move for the Writ. I may be wrong, but I do not see what is to prevent me moving for the Writ unless due Whips of this House—the Conservative Whips and the Government Whips—come together and say I was Wrong. If they declare that I am wrong I will not go on except in this way—I Will take what is the usual coarse will go to the Whip of the Party who should move for this Writ and say, "If you don't move this Writ on such and such a day I will move it." That is the rule and custom of this House. I have often seen it done in the last twenty years, and that is what I will do if the Whips declare that I am wrong. As to why the Writ for South Meath should be issued first, I moved for it because the Report of the South Meath Petition was first read by the Speaker.
  MR. BARTLEY: I rise to order. I wish to ask whether this discussion is germane to the question before the Chair?
  COLONEL NOLAN: I am justified in answering what the hon. and learned Member for Louth said. He called me a skirmisher. I suppose the hon. and learned Member knows a great deal about law; but I should say his tactical knowledge is not up to date, for this reason—that battles are now almost exclusively decided by skirmishers. Whole lines are made by skirmishers, and I have no objection to be called a skirmisher in that sense of the word. I am anxious to say that if I have sinned against any rule I did it through bone fide reasons. I will accept the proposition of the Leader of the House; that is, I Will give notice that I will trove for the Writ for South Meath next Thursday. I suppose that is two clear days. There are so many meanings now given to three clear days that I must be sure on that point, but I

  75
  call that two clear days. I will move for the Writs for South and North Meaths on Thursday, unless the point of etiquette is settled by the Whips against me, and that the Writ will be moved on that day by the Whip properly concerned. I now beg to withdraw my Motion for the Writ, Mr. Speaker.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, Withdrawn.
  SIR THOMAS LEA: I wish to ask, Mr. Speaker, will there be two clear days' notice if the Motion is made on Thursday and not oil Friday?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The Motion cannot he put On the Paper till Wednesday, and therefore, it would not naturally come on till Friday.
  COLONEL NOLAN: Then on Friday.

  NEW WRITS DURING THE RECESS.
  *MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House —that he had issued daring the Recess, Warrants for New Write:—For Burgh of Dundee, v. Edmund Robertson, esquire, Civil Lord of the Admiralty; for County of Essex (Saffron Walden Division), v. Herbert Gardner, esquire, President of the Board of Agriculture; for Borough of Leeds (Southern Division), a. the Rt. Hon. Sir Lyon Playfair, HOW Baron Playfair, called up to the House of Lords; for County of Bedford (Southern Division), v. Cyril. Flower, esquire, now Baron Battersea and Over-strand, called up to the House of Peers; for County of Gloucester (Eastern or Cirencester Division), v. Arthur Brend Winterbotham, esquire, deceased; for County of Aberdeen (Eastern Division), v. Peter Esslemont, esquire, Chairman of the Fishery Board for Scotland; for Borough of Liverpool (West Derby Division), v. The Honourable 'William Henry Cross, deceased; for Borough of Huddersfield, v. William, Summers, esquire. deceased.
  NEW WRIT.
  For the County of Cork (North Eastern Division), v. William O'Brien, esquire, Who having been returned as a Member for the said County of Cork, North Eastern Division, and also for the City of Cork, has elected to sit for the City of Cork.—(Sir Thomas Esmonde.)

  ELECTIONS.
  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 comity, city, or borough Great Britain, bath any right to give his vote in the Election of any Member to serve in Parliament.
  Resolved. 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 pretend 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 ember to serve for the Commission in Parliament.
  Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person bath 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.

  WITNESAES.
  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, ties 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 Westminster Hall, or in the passages leading to this House, during the sitting of Parliament, and

  77
  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 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.
  OUTLAWRIES BILL.
  "For the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," rend the first time; to be read a second time.

  JOURNAL.
  Ordered, That the Journal of this House, from the end of the last Session to the end of the present Session, With an Index thereto, be printed.
  Ordered, That 750 Copies of the said Journal and Index be printed by the appointment and under the direction of Sir Reginald Francis Douce Palgrave, K.C.P., tie Clerk of this House.
  Ordered, That the said Journal and Index be printed by such Person as shall be licensed by Mr. Speaker, and that no other Person do presume to print the same.

  THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
  MR. SPEAKERreported Her Majesty's Speech, [see page 2] awl read it to the House.

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
  *MR. LAMBERT: In rising to move the Address of thanks to Her Majesty for Her Gracious Speech, I wish to claim Mall sincerity that privilege oh kind indulgence which is usually accorded to younger Members of this House. I esteem it a very great honour indeed to have been selected to move the address of thanks at the commencement of a Parliament, which promises to be of great historical interest. It must be a matter of congratulation and gratification to all the Members of this House that the first paragraph of the Speech indicates that the horrors of war are not known in Her Majesty's Dominions, that our relations with foreign Powers are satisfactory, and that that peace has been, and is being, maintained which is so essential
  78
  to the prosperity of our gigantic commercial enterprises. We hope this May long continue to he so. The House will remember that the late Government granted a Charter to the British East Africa Company, for trading; and other purposes, in Uganda. Through the unfortunate failure of the anticipations of the company, it has withdrawn from that country. But the Charter involved some governmental control over the company's action; and ass it is difficult to relieve control from responsibility, the Government have thought tit to send the experienced Commissioner into Uganda to ascertain if any responsibility involving the honour of Her Majesty's Government has been incurred. The House will Ho doubt be glad to learn that Papers are Promised on this subject at the earliest possible moment. With regard to Egypt, hon. Members tare well aware of the complications which recently arose there. The Khedive deposed a Minister who was in sympathy with British authority, and appointed in his place one whom the British Commissioner in Egypt could not recognise as being favourable to those reforms which have happily been initiated in that country under British guidance. When the facts were brought to the Khedive's knowledge he promptly deposed the unsuitable Minister. But although he has thus made reparation, and has promised its ail future matters to rule in consonance with the wishes of the British Government, yet the possible consequences of what might only have been a slight youthful indiscretion but when committed by one occupying such a high responsible position has rendered it necessary to slightly increase our forces in that country. It is one of the unsatisfactory characteristics of a military occupation that, if a disturbance were to break out in Cairo or any other large town, might be held responsible for damage done to the persons and property of foreign residents, for therefore, it has been deemed proper to have in Egypt a force capable of maintaining that law and order which is so necessary for the good government of the Country. Egyptian Government desired all increase of the Native Army, but that was frustrated (although not by us), while also the recent invasion of the Dervishes has helped to guide Her Majesty's Government in the action they have taken. But the Govern-

  79
  ment wish it to be distinctly and deliberately understood that this step involves no change of policy whatever, that the policy laid down in the Queen's Speech in 1883 will he strictly adhered to, and that the withdrawal of British troops will proceed as expeditiously as a prudent consideration of the circumstances will permit. I feel convinced that the vigorous, yet temperate action of Her Majesty's Government will command the approval of every Member of the House. Coming to home politics, I may say it is a matter for great satisfaction that we have a Queen's Speech dealing with so many subjects of the deepest interest to the electors of this country. We know that agriculture is suffering under a grievous depression. It would not be consistent with the traditions of Liberalism were the Government to remain indifferent to that fact, and they are, therefore, prepared, following the precedent laid down by Lord John Russell in 1836, to appoint a Committee to inquire into all the grievances afflicting agriculture. If this cannot afford any immediate relief to farmers, they will, I am sure, have great satisfaction in knowing that their necessities are being made the subject of inquiry by an impartial Committee of this House. Speaking for myself, as one who has been a professional fanner all my life—not a very long life, I admit—I think the duties of this Committee will not be light. They will find a successful foreign producer, who largely cultivates his own land, and who has no restrictive covenants hindering him from making the best of his produce. Whatever capital he spends on his holding goes into his own pocket only. The foreign producer is not hampered as the British farmer is those largely increased charges for transit which, unfortunately, the Railway Companies have seen fit to impose. I think he competes on more than favourable conditions with the British farmer, who is hampered by the knowledge that he may be vexatiously disturbed from his holding without adequate compensation, and who is in some cases paying at the present time an exorbitant rent for his land. That has been brought about by the keen competition which must exist where an unlimited number of farmers are striving for a limited amount of land, intensified by the fact of the landlord being made a preferential creditor. Then, as we know, British farmers are
  80
  unable to get farms of suitable size for their capital. They have to bear the whole incidence of local taxation, and get no benefit from it when they quit their holdings. They are also hampered by covenants, which restrict them in their cultivation, and which will not allow them to have the freest facilities for the disposal of their produce. If we could get rid of those restrictions, I think the British farmer would be able to adapt himself to the altered circumstances and to the altered demand for the various commodities he has to sell we should, in fact, see a more prosperous state of affairs for agriculture. In order that agriculture and agriculturists may prosper it is essential that the tenant farmers and the labourers should be prosperous—that their prosperity may shine upon the landlords. I believe the Government are also prepared to deal with the question of land transfer and the law of primogeniture with a view to securing a material increase in the number of owners of land, instead of fostering it by artificial legislation, as has been the case during the past few Sessions. I, for one, deplore very much indeed that any gentlemen calling themselves the friends of the farmer should go into country districts and talk about Protection. They may depend upon it that if a change of our fiscal policy is desirable the large centres of population, such as the hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. Howard Vincent) represents, will not consent to a tax upon food. I regard those gentlemen who go down to the country and make these fallacious promises to the farmer as the worst enemies of my class. In the next paragraph of the Speech is mentioned the question of Ireland. It is difficult to say anything new or that is not controversial on that hotly-contested subject; but I wish to congratulate the House on the fact that the commencement of this Session has not been marred by the announcement of the imprisonment of any Members of Parliament. That, I hope, is a happy augury of the conciliatory policy which the Government intend to introduce for the benefit of the Irish people. It will be a matter of infinite satisfaction to the House that since the rigours of repressive legislation have been removed

  81
  agrarian crime has sensibly diminished, proving that even in Ireland respect for the law born of confidence in the lawmakers is a far more effectual preservative of the peace than even the most overwhelming physical force. The Irish people have again and again asked for the restoration of their Parliament which was so cruelly torn from them by that venal told corrupt majority which passed the Act of Union. Before that time, according to the historian Lecky, the material progress of Ireland was rapid and uninterrupted. It may he from sentiment that they are asking for this change, but it is patriotic sentiment, therefore the duty of statesmen, especially of Liberal statesmen, to endeavour to find some remedy to satisfy the aspirations of the Irish people with a due regard to the safety of the Empire. This question has been discussed with wearying iteration on thousands of platforms during the last six years, and now for the first time there is a majority in this House who believe that there is a means of satisfying Irish needs while maintaining the supremacy of the Empire. We cannot atone for the wrongs of the past 700 years, but we can turn over a new page with reconciliation indelibly inscribed upon it. There may be difficulties in the way, but those difficulties will be overcome by the co-operation of the two nations, wishful for an early settlement. The benefit will not be wholly Irish. One result will be to relieve this Parliament from a congested state of the public business which the democratic sentiments of the country impose upon it. It will be a bright jewel in the legislative crown of any statesman who initiates a policy which will tend to the permanent pacification of the Irish people. The next paragraph! in the Speech refers to our Registration Laws; and if we have any amendment of them, it must be in the direction of simplification, because it is impossible to conceive anything more complicated than our present system, which seems to be formed to exclude, rather than include, the greatest possible number of electors. There is an urgent necessity for the reduction of the qualifying period, for at the last Election it was obvious that a man must have occupied his qualifying holding two years before he could vote. Men who have, in
  82
  search of their livelihood, to move from place to place should not be prevented from claiming their franchise rights within a reasonable time. Our registration is kept up by Party organisation. Surely that ought not to be so, but a public officer ought to be appointed who without legal quips or cranks would put every qualified elector up1m the register. I am sure the House will concede this that it ought to be made as easy as possible for a citizen to exercise the first right of citizenship, that of having a voice in his country's government; and if we can make it as difficult to keep him off the electoral register as it is now difficult to put him on, we shall have advanced a long stage in the solution of this difficult problem. Then there is the matter of official expenses. I presume that Members of Parliament are elected for the public welfare, and, therefore, the public funds ought to bear the official expense. The duration of Parliaments will also receive attention. Seven years is a very long time for a Government to rule a nation without appeal to the electors, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite will give every facility for passing a Bill for shortening the duration of Parliaments, because they will regard seven years as a long time to remain in the cold shade of Opposition. Besides, after a General Election, there is a great outburst of legislative zeal, as we have witnessed by the notice of so many Bills to be introduced this evening. Equalisation of the franchise is also mentioned in the Queen's Speech. This is more usually known by means of the formula One Man One Vote. That would establish the principle that wealth is not necessarily synonymous with patriotism, and that the interest of a man in his country's welfare is not regulated by the extent of his earthly possessions, but by his manhood. And, since a large number of electors hold that opinion, I feel sure that the Government will be justified in giving that measure a foremost place. The next subject mentioned in the Speech is the proposal to introduce Suspensory Bills to check the growth of ecclesiastical establishments in Scotland and Wales. This is according to the precedent of the Queen's Speech of 1869, "that Parliament will be governed by the desire to promote religion through principles of equal

  83
  justice." Equal justice, according to the overwhelming expression of opinion by Welsh and Scotch Members, is not now done, and the Government are bound to consider that the Established Church in Scotland or Wales is not the religion of the many, but the Church of the few. Another paragraph in the Speech, that of the extension of Local Government, is of vital interest to one who, like myself, represents a rural constituency, the depopulation of which we all so deeply deplore. The late Government established Comity Councils, the success of Which, I have no doubt, has exceeded their sanguine expectations. But, in order that the County Councils may do their work properly, they must be supplemented by District Councils. We in Devonshire greatly feel the need of a body to which we can delegate our powers in order that they may be more thoroughly performed. Boards of Guardians also need to be popularised. The President of the Local Government Board has done something in that direction by reducing the qualification to a uniform rate of £5. But Boards of Guardians must still further conform to democratic ideas by their members being elected by a single and a secret vote. Some take objection to that on the ground that it would lead to the election of men who have no stake in the economical administration the funds, but it would he a lamentable fact if the protectors of the poor were to merge their identity into protectors of the rates, and become Poor Rate, rather than Poor Law Guardians. The President of the Loral Government Board has appointed a Poor Law Commission composed of competent advisers and I sincerely trust that it will be able to devise smile means by which honest aged workers may anticipate a brighter end than the prospect of looking through the workhouse window into a pauper's grave. It has been said that means should be found to inculcate thrift milling the toiling classes. However laudable this may be, agricultural labourers do not need to have thrift inculcated by Act of Parliament. Having to live upon 12s. or 15s. a week, the exigencies of their position make it necessary for them to exercise that desirable attribute. But the structure of local government will not be complete without Parish Councils, and a
  84
  measure to ensure success must be placed upon a broad, a comprehensive, and a democratic basis to those Councils must be relegated a share in the educational and sanitary arrangements, and ether important subjects which affect every day life, so that no right of citizenship that is now enjoyed by, the more fortunate dwellers of towns shall be denied to the rural resident. We know that the agricultural labourer, since he has had the political vote, has immensely increased his political knowledge, and we believe that by giving hint an active interest in the affairs of his parish, we will be doing something to benefit him and to induce him to remain on the soil which he is now se ready to abandon. I come now to the fast paragraph of the Queen's Speech. I leave to my hon. Friend who will second this Address the paragraphs dealing with the Loudon Programme, and with other matters affecting city life; but the last measure referred to in the Queen's Speech is of vast importance to the community at large, and that is the measure which proposes to deal with the increasing evil of the intemperate consumption of strong drink. As instanced by the startling fact that£140,000,000 was expended last year on spirituous liquors, and also emphasised by criminal statistics, this intemperance is hanging like a millstone round the neck of the British maim., and is undermining our -whole social system. The evils of intemperance surround us on every hand. We cannot come into this Metropolis without seeing the baneful effects of the intemperate use of strong drink. Thousands of children are brought up in this foul atmosphere. They are pinched and starved, and they hunger for the food that might -be bought for them by the money now squandered in the public houses. But although so many evils spring from the excessive use of alcoholic liquors, it is subject to little or no popular control. The Government, however, now intend to throw the responsibility of this question on the people themselves, in order that their representatives shall discharge that duty now devolving on the magistrates. The direct veto will be conceded by a separate vote of the ratepayers in borough and county municipal con-complete without Parish Councils, and a stituencies, who will have control of

  85
  the licences in the whole of the United Kingdom, and the opening of public houses on Sunday will be regulated, too (in England alone), by this new licensing authority. I have only now to thank the House for the very courteous consideration it has extended to me, and to move this Address of Thanks to our Most Gracious Sovereign—
  "That we, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the Most Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
  *MR. M. BEAUFOY: In rising to second the Address moved by my hon. Friend, I hope I may be allowed to mention an occurrence for which I am sure the House will agree whit me when I say We feel a deep and sincere regret. I canted forget the able and interesting speech which was made by the hon. Gentleman who occupied the position I now fill on the last occasion the Address was moved, and I ant sure the House will be unanimous in deploring and regretting With me the untimely death of that hoe. Gentleman, Mr. Cross. I am informed by those who are entitled to give advice on the difficult task before me, that there are two main objects to he taken in View by those who have the honour to propose and second the Address to the Queen's Speech: One is, that the speakers should, as far as possible, avoid controversial matter; and the other is, that they should confine their speeches to the most reasonable limit possible. But I am bound to say that the task of dealing with controversial matters in an uncontroversial manner is entirely beyond my powers, and I feel that in that respect I can only throw myself on the kind indulgence of the House. The maxim declares that brevity on such an occasion as this, if not the soul of wit, is the essence of wisdom, commends itself more readily to my mind; and if the House grants me but a brief indulgence, I shall endeavour not to press unduly on their attention. My hon. Friend who moved the Address expressed his gratification with the tranquillity which now prevails in Ireland, and expressed the hope that that there
  86
  would go on increasing, and that there would be a still larger decrease in agrarian crime. I cordially share in that gratification; and I think I may congratulate Members on all sides of the House on the prominence given in the Queen's Speech to the Government measure which will soon be laid before us for the better government of Ireland. No doubt that is a highly controversial measure, on which I should tow he unwilling to enlarge; but I think every Member will share with me the satisfaction which I feel that this difficult question is shout to be withdrawn from the heated discussion of the platform to the calmer, if more critical, consideration of this House. I do express the hope that in spite of the many difficulties with which this question bristles, the discussion of it will he worthy alike of the great importance of the subject and of the best traditions of Debate in this Assembly. I share with my hon. Friend his pleasure that the Government is about to introduce a Registration Amendment Bill. My hon. Friend has dealt with the question as it affects the rural voter; but I venture to say that great as is the injustice in the rural districts, it is greater in urban districts, and greatest of all in this city of London. I hope some means will Le found of doing away with the old end out-of-date borough limits, and that we shall secure greater ease in enforcing claims for successive occupation, and so enable thousands to exercise the franchise who have been so long deprived of that privilege. But if this question is interesting, as it undoubtedly is, to the electors, it possesses a peculiar interest to those elected by the electors. Though, no doubt, the evils of the present system are evident to every citizen, I am sure that every hon. Gentleman who has gone through the difficulties and trials of a contested election can feel nothing but the greatest possible relief that the Government intend to modify and simplify the present confusion that exist in our Registration Laws. With regard to the shortening of Parliaments, that is a matter which, however viewed in this House, will he viewed with satisfaction by the country as tending to bring the sentiments of the House into closer connection with the electors outside, and thus insuring that it shall be more representative of the real feelings of the people.

  87
  With regard to plural voting, it is an interesting question to rural districts, but it is one of those subjects that have a peculiar interest to London, for one of the effects of the proposed change will be to minimise the evils of the present old and out-of-date Livery Franchise, which so discredits our elections in London. I rejoice that the Government have shown a determination to take into consideration questions affecting labour. The Employers' Liability Bill now before the House is likely to receive support from all parts of the House, and the support given to the Bill of the late Government shows it is desirable that the term "common employment" should be satisfactorily defined. I venture to think that the country generally has lost very little by the postponement of the consideration of this measure. I think the House now contains a larger number of working men than it ever contained before, and we cannot over-estimate the advantages which will accrue to the deliberations of this House on labour questions by having a number of skilled experts, with not only sound views on the subjects, but able also to bring to bear on our discussion their practical experience of what the real wants and wishes of the working men are. I venture also to express the hope that one of the results in the amendment of the Registration Laws will be a very large increase in the number of working men Representatives in this House. The overworking of the railway servants has been a source of danger to the travelling public, and the time, indeed, has come for the House to take this question into consideration, for not alone in the interest of the public, but in the interest of the working classes, some means of limiting the long hours of labour is required. The amendment of the Conspiracy Laws has been frequently before the House, and I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty on the prominence given to a subject in which he has taken such great interest, and which he has done so much to elucidate. But there was one part of the Queen's Speech to which, as a London Member, I attach peculiar importance, and that is the paragraph which deals with the proposed enlargement of the powers of the London County Council. That is a ques-
  88
  tion of the greatest possible interest to Londoners, and, therefore, of the greatest possible interest to those who represent Londoners in this, House. The claims of London are not few; and if I may speak somewhat. plainly, they are not always peculiarly modest; and while we should like to see a whole Session devoted to London, it is obvious that in the present congested state of affairs and arrears of Public Business, it is too much to expect that any great sacrifice of the time of the House can be made for the furtherance of measures which affect London alone. But I am sure the people of London will be gratified by the announcement in the Queen's Speech in reference to London affairs, not only because they will be pleased to find that Tier Majesty's Government places confidence in the London County Council—a body in which London itself has placed its confidence—but because I venture to think it foreshadows a greater union between the Government and the London County Council than has ever existed before. Speaking as a metropolitan Member, I may be allowed to express a hope that the benevolent intentions of the Government towards London will not be exhausted by the production of this measure. It is an open secret that the London County Council is preparing, or has already prepared, a member of bills or questions of importance affecting London, and I hope that the Government will give the greatest possible consideration to those bills, as a proof of their confidence in the London County Council. There are, of course, many questions affecting London which are of a national and Imperial character, but there are many minor questions which can be better and more speedily remedied by the London Parliament sitting at Spring Gardens than by the Imperial Parliament at Westminster. I am sure that Londoners will be grateful to the Government for this mark of confidence in the London County Council, and I hope it foreshadows the coming of better things for London. I hope I have not broken my pledge that I would not unduly take up the time of the House. I thank the House for the indulgence it has extended to me and for the assistance it has given me in the discharge of the duty allotted to me. I think that the list of measures

  89
  mentioned in the Queen's Speech will give us considerable work for some time to come. Of course, much controversy must naturally arise from the variety of interests affected; but actuated as we all are on both sides of the House with a sincere desire to do our duty to our constituents and to forward the best interests of the country, I hope the result of our labours will be not only to obtain a well-earned holiday, but to better the welfare of all classes.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That," &c. [See page 85.]
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down told us in the closing observation of his speech that the task entrusted to him and Ids colleague on the present occasion was not an easy one. I am sure the House will agree with that statement, and will feel that I am only expressing the common sentiments of the House when I say that that task, difficult and delicate as it was, has been performed by them admirably and to the satisfaction of till who heard it, to whatever Party or politics they may belong. The hon. Gentleman Who moved the Address told us, and told us truly, that there was a large number of interesting subjects dealt with in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. That certainly is the case. Whatever criticism may be passed on the Speech Her Majesty has been advised to deliver, it cannot be said that it lacks interest or lacks matter. I notice, further, that the hon. Gentleman is not quite content with the Speech as it stands, and that he showed some disposition, I thought, to add to it a large number of Bills which may some day see the light, but which are not noted at present in the programme of the Government. He referred to District Councils—a matter of which I see no location in the Speech—to a Land Transfer Bill, to various Bills connected with agriculture, and to a Bill dealing, root and branch, with the form of the present Poor Law administration. These are all no doubt very interesting and important questions. They are questions which are certainly worthy of the consideration of the House, but, so far as I have observed, they do not form a part of the programme—the ample and sufficient programme which the
  90
  Government are to bring forward in the course of the present Session. The hon. Gentleman spoke with especial authority on the question of agriculture, and that question of agriculture is mentioned in the Speech from the Throne in words of sympathy that everybody connected with agriculture, directly or indirectly, either as owner, occupier, or in any other capacity, must feel are none too strong for the present unhappy condition of that great national industry. Whether the remedy which the Government proposes, which is that of a Parliamentary inquiry, is likely to do much good I cannot say. I think it may be of interest and importance, and I do not at all desire to minimise the value of any such investigation. But the hon. Gentleman was not content with either the expression of sympathy in the Speech or with the particular remedy proposed by the Government, for, if I do not misunderstand him, he appears to attribute the present unhappy position of those interested in the cultivation of the soil in this country to the fact that farmers were restricted in their mode of tillage; that the existing law of compensation for unexhausted improvements was wholly inadequate, and that there was competition between the funnel's for farms which drove up rents to the highest possible height. Well, I do not mean in any controversial sense to object to any of the questions thus raised, especially as they are not in the Queen's Speech; but I think if the experience that he has had in his own part of the country at all resembles the experience I have had in such parts of the country as I have land all opportunity of examining, certainly among the evils under which agriculture groans at the present time, an inutile competition among the farmers for farms is not one. I now pass on to those paragraphs of the Speech which deal with the very important questions of foreign mid colonial policy. The first paragraph deals with the question of Uganda, and on this subject, though I have a question to ask the Government, I have nothing but congratulations to offer them on the policy which I understand they have adopted. There was a moment when I, at all events, was afraid that the spirit Which animated them in opposition might continue to animate them in Office, and that we should find that they dealt with the problem of

  91
  Uganda as responsible statesmen very much in the spirit of those Debates which we all have fresh in our minds, and which took place in the spring of last year. Some influence or influences, of which I do not possess the secret, appear to have made a profound modification in the views of the most powerful Members of the present Administration. At all events, we have heard nothing of that policy of abandonment which certainly I understood to Le recommended by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), speaking at that time merely as the Member for Derby. However, better counsels have prevailed, and I do not wish to rake up unnecessarily what is past; but I should like to ask with regard to the future what provision the Government have made—I do not ask for details, but I should like to have some general account of the provision they have made—for that interval which I presume must elapse between the abandonment by the company of Uganda and the period when some final and permanent arrangement will be made by Her Majesty's Government for dealing with the great interests and the vast populations of that district in Africa. I notice, and notice with satisfaction, from a phrase in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, that the Government are fully alive to the fact that unless Sir Gerald Portal be supported by material force he is not likely to be able to carry out with success the object of his mission. But when that mission has been accomplished—when he leaves Uganda and returns to make a Report, I should like to know what plans the Government have for administering the country? They must have some policy on the subject, and all I desire to know, and not in any controversial spirit, is whether it is at the present time consistent with the public interest to tell us what that policy is? Egypt, I am glad to say, affords but little matter on which we need do otherwise than congratulate the Government. They had to meet a difficult and very sudden crisis—apparently a crisis of which no previous warning was given, and which, as far as we know, they had no reason to anticipate. They met that crisis with courage, with directness and promptitude, which is the very best way to secure that their object shall be peaceably accomplished; and I
  92
  can assure them that if their policy in the matter of Egypt, and in other foreign affairs, is on the same lines as those which they have pursued during the last few weeks, they may count on the support of gentlemen sitting, on this side of the House. I should like to know, however, from the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give us any account of the causes which have led to this apparently most unexpected difficulty. I do not anticipate an exhaustive account of those causes from him, because I imagine that it is impossible to deny that among them are to he found the somewhat rash utterances which he and the Secretary for Ireland made on the subject not long ago. I do not know precisely what policy with regard to Egypt was in their minds when they made these statements, but they surely might have known, mid if they did not know they ought to have known, that it is impossible for men in their position, speaking whether as Ministers or as ex-Ministers, to make the statements which they did make about our position in Egypt without raising expectations in foreign countries and in Egypt itself which cannot but be fruitful, and I fear have been fruitful, of great trouble in that country. I notice it is stated in the Speech from the Throne that the measure—the strong measure, I admit the necessary measure—of sending troops to Egypt does not indicate any change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government, or any modification of the assurances Her Majesty's Government have given from time to time respecting the occupation of that country. That is true; but do not let us go off with the delusion that, because no modification is Made, or indeed ought to he made, in the pledges and promises to which we stand committed in this matter, nevertheless the position is changed—is materially changed, and may be changed for many years to come—by the incident that has occurred. It has been brought home to us in the clearest manner—it has been emphasised by acts of policy that cannot be forgotten that, in addition to the external dangers of Egypt, to the dangers of internal sedition, to all the difficulties which must ensue from the peculiar relation in which Egypt stands, to the power of Europe this further danger has

  93
  been added: that the fruits of our long labour in that country may at any moment be upset by a Ministerial crisis at Cairo. It is a fact; it is true; it stands evident on the face of the Queen's Speech; it is written deeply on the page of history. We cannot forget it; and it must inevitably profoundly modify the view we take, which we must take, or the difficulties of our position in that country, and the added responsibility thrown upon us. Now, Sir, I do trot think that it is necessary for me to say more than I have said upon the first portion of the Queen's Speech, which deals with questions of foreign affairs. I turn, therefore, to the second portion, which deals with projects of legislation and questions of domestic concern. Of agriculture I have already said something I will not say more, especially as I doubt not that those who represent in this House agricultural constituencies will feel themselves in duty bound, before this Debate comes to an end, to deal at length with that most important question. But I must make this observation. The words of the Speech leave it vague, leave it doubtful is to whether it is to he dealt with by Committee or Commission. The Mover of the Address, I think, clearly gave it to be understood it was to be dealt with by a Committee of this House. I must congratulate the Government on that decision, for I cannot pretend that they have been happy in their attempts to deal with problems by Commissions instead of Committees. They have appointed two Commissions—one dealing with the Highlands of Scotland, and the other with a very important amid interesting problem in Ireland. The Highland problem, in its ultimate bearing, has a social aspect, but the basis for any legislation with regard to the extension of crofters' holdings is a question, in the first instance, of the possibility of turning the land in the Highlands to a particular purpose. It is rather a question for experts, and for experts alone. The Government have chosen to make up a Commission of eight, four of whom I understand to be gentlemen interested in, and acquainted with, the Highlands generally, but not acquainted with the agricultural possibilities of the Highlands at all, whilst all of them are deeply committed on the very question into which they are asked
  94
  to examine. I do not know what good results the Government anticipate from their inquiry. I am not hostile to the inquiry itself. I am sure the more the truth is known about the state of things in the Highlands the better for everybody concerned but if the Government desire not to put off awkward questions by appointing a Commission, hilt to have a Commission which will command respect, that is not the way in which a Commission should be constituted. But there is a Commission even more famous, I would say notorious, than that which is about to begin in the Highlands, and that is the Commission which, in consequence of a compact between the present Government amid that most important section of their followers, was appointed to examine into the position of the evicted tenants. I have had to deal with this Commission elsewhere, and I have no particular desire to repeat, though I am ready to do so, what I have already said but I think it is absolutely necessary that on this occasion, when it is our business to make a survey of what the Government has done since last we were assembled within these walls, it is absolutely necessary I should say something about a question which has so properly engaged the attention of the public. The opposition of the Evicted Tenants' Commission was, on the face of it, an unfair one. Turn and twist the thing as you may, it is quite clear that the opinions of the majority of the gentlemen who are now carrying on this examination into the position of the evicted tenants do not make them fair representatives of the various interests concerned. You might have appointed a Commission not containing persons of strong political views to make a representation as to what you were to do with the evicted tenants. I admit that the objection to such a course was great, because probably any small body of gentlemen who were not committed to political views on this question would have told you there was nothing to be done. That would not have suited the views of the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the government of Ireland, and, therefore, there is a great heal to be said for appointing gentlemen who, at all events, represented something or other. But I think you should have chosen a Chairman who would preserve,

  95
  at all events, the externals of fairness. I do not think you add to the dignity or authority of the Commission you appoint when you select men who, whatever he their ability or their position in the country, are moved to behave as the President of that Commission undoubtedly did behave, even front the very first day it sat. He appeared to riot and revel in his sudden freedom from the trammels which bind an English Judge, and he could not refrain from indulging in the unwonted luxury of delivering the verdict before be had heard the evidence.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: A gentleman of law and order.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But my complaint in reference to this Commission is not based wholly or chiefly on what I am obliged to describe as its imperfect composition. My complaint is that there is no adequate machinery, and that, owing perhaps to the action of the President, and perhaps to the action of the right hon. Gentleman, no machinery has been provided by which any cross-examination could take place on the evidence put before the Commission. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is under the impression that he was following a precedent, or that the Commission, at all events, were following precedent in not allowing counsel or persons interested to appear and cross-examine on their own behalf. So far as my knowledge of the matter goes it would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, to find a Viceregal Commission in Ireland—("Oh, oh!") Is this, or is it not, a Viceregal Commission? It would be difficult, if not impossible, to find a Viceregal Commission like this—for it was a Viceregal Connnission and nothing else—in which cross-examination by counsel or the parties interested has not been permitted. I care nothing about these technicalities. I should not have objected to the right hon. Gentleman creating a new precedent had it been a good precedent. But you have only got to read cursorily the examination on any day of this Commission to see that the results of its labours are rendered hopelessly worthless—("No, no!")—by the fact that no adequate cross-examination takes place upon it at all. I heard some hon. Gentleman expressing dissent from the Benches opposite, and, therefore, to satisfy him I will give an illustration of
  96
  the kind of thing; I mean, and he will find twenty more if he wants them. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) was examined the other day before the Commission, and he gave a very great deal of interesting and valuable information, and among other things he stated that the "Plan of Campaign" was a purely agrarian battle. De was asked a good many questions on that subject, and nobody who reads his evidence, as reported in the Freeman's Journal, but will agree with me in saying that the purport of it was unquestionably to this effect: that the "Plait t of Campaign" —with regard to which not a single criticism has ever been passed by any member of the Commission at all—the "Plan of Campaign" was for purely agrarian purposes. Now, Sir, one of the members of the Commission was Mr. Roche, Q.C. Ire was counsel for the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo when he was tried for participation, I think I am right in saying, in the "Plan of Campaign." [Mr. W. O'BRIEN: No; I think you are wrong.] At all events, that is not material to the point I am about to make. Part of the evidence against the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo consisted in certain speeches delivered in connection with the "Plan of Campaign." In those speeches I understood—I have looked at those speeches, and they are incapable of any interpretation whatever other than this—that the "Plan of Campaign "was part of apolitical movement carried on for political objects, and was part of the machinery by which Home Rule Government was to be brought in. Now, Mr. Roche must have been cognisant of these facts, because he was counsel to the hon. Gentleman, and I presume he knows enough about Ireland, even if he had not been counsel, to have been aware that the statement of the "Plan of Campaign" was a purely agrarian business is a paradox so monstrous that, at till events, a little bit of cross-examination would not have been indecent or improper. Not one single word or question was asked by my member of the Commission, from the President downwards, in order to test the statement, which, I suppose, will appear in the official Reports of that Commission as an authoritative and unquestioned fact. The

  97
  hon. Gentleman Who said "No, no" when I said just now that the machinery for cross-examination was inadequate may now be disposed to change his opinion, and he may think. at all events from the point of view or the Government themselves, it would have been well that they should have appointed a Commission, the result of whose labours would have been less open to question than is inevitably the case at present.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman pardon me? I say the question was put tome, in connection with that question, whether, in instituting the "Plan of Campaign, we ever considered the political opinions of the men connected With it. I was cross-examined on that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member, I believe, was asked that question, and I believe he said "No." But I notice a passage in one of the hon. Gentleman's speeches—
  "We call upon you to tell us to destroy this Government of men called landlords—(cheers and groans) —who never in the past history of Ireland have shown any sympathy for her people, and who, whet any demand has been made in the past to set free our country, these landlords have always stood forward as foremost and bloodiest to put down the national ranks. Believe me you will never see in Ireland a free people, never see this country a five country able to deal with its, own laws until," as he "this plan was successful."
  MR. DILLON: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but as he has taken me strongly to task, and insinuated that I gave an untruthful answer on that occasion, I would ask him to be good enough to explain to the House his idea of the distinction between an agrarian and a political movement?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That would he a very interesting and proper subject for cross-examination. The hon. Gentleman has replied it was not political but it was agrarian. I will give him a broad distinction which I think adequate. I say that a conspiracy which is directed against men, not because of their particular relations to their particular tenants, but because they formed what is described as part of the garrison—the loyal garrison of the country—a conspiracy which is directed avowedly to bring these men to their knees, and is
  98
  avowedly a part of the method Ly which Irish nationality is to he vindicated, that, I say, whatever else it is, is unquestionably a political movement; and in spite of the speeches to which I have referred, and in spite of Mr. Roche's knowledge of those speeches, the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo Was allowed to answer, without cross-examination, a question to the character of the combination in these words, "It was a purely agrarian movement. Entirely, of course." I have no desire to desire to come into conflict wile hon. Member for East Mayo, and it is not his merits or demerits that are now to question, but what I am pointing out to the Irish Secretary, and to the right hon. Gentleman who will follow; me in this debate, is this—volt have by this incident, and many others I might have mentioned, erected a tribunal which is incapable Of carrying out the first duty of any tribunal, because by its lack of power of cross-examination it cannot get at the truth. Before having this question of the evicted tenants I should like to ask, as a merely practical inquiry, whether the right hon. Gentleman bus any hope of their reporting soon? As far as my observation goes, there was nothing in their reference, though there may have been in their instructions, but there was nothing in the reference to confine their attention to the "Plan of Campaign" estates; I am not aware they made any inquiry into the case of tenants not on the "Plan of Campaign" estate. Are they going to report only on one branch of this inquiry? Are they going to report Soon, and, if not, are these tenants—in whom the hon. Gentlemen from Ireland and the Government are so deeply interested—are these tenants going to continue in their present difficult position without in the least knowing what is the elucidation and the position to he proposed by the Government? It would he interesting to know this, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give ns some information on the subject. Well Sir, the Speech goes on to soy that—
  "The proclamations recently in force which placed Ireland under exceptional provisions of law have been revoked, and I have the satisfaction to inform you that the condition of that, country with respect to agrarian crime continues to improve."

  99
  I gather from that that, in the minds of the Government at all events, there is, if not an immediate connection between the repeal of the proclamations mentioned and the diminution of crime, as between cause and effect, at all events they wish us fully to grasp that there is no antagonism between these two particular sections and the improvement of the country. Well, what were those proclamations? I believe in the main they consisted, and consisted only, of power to change the venue and power of special jury and secret inquiry. These were the only parts of the Crimes Act in force in Ireland when the late Government left Office.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: With a view to the General Election?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was not done immediately before the General Election, on the contrary it was a position of affairs of long standing. However, at present the merits of the late Government are not the question. We are discussing the position and merits of the present Government. I want to know, in the first place, why the Government particularly triumphed in the repeal of those two sections. No doubt they were part of the Crimes Act, but they were parts of the Crimes Act and preceding Crimes Acts, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has over and over again said that they were not to be described as coercion, that they were not in diminution of personal liberty. I think that either he or some members of his late Government actually went the length of suggesting that these provisions should be extended to England, and have force here as at this moment they have force in Scotland, therefore when the present Government repealed those things it was not in the interests of liberty that they did it. In what interest was it? These two sections could only have two effects, they would facilitate the detection of crime and the punishment of the crime. To which of those objects was it the right hon. Gentleman objected, and does he feel so confident at this moment, in spite of the improvement of which he boasts in the Speech, and no doubt rightly boasts—does he feel so confident that time perpetrators of the moonlight raids, of the agrarian murders
  100
  and outrages which have taken place since the repeal of those two sections—does he feel confident that they will be detected, and if detected will be brought to justice? I believe I am not going beyond the truth when I say that since Lord O'Hagan's reform of the Jury Acts in 1872 there has not been a conviction before an ordinary jury, except at Winter Assizes, for an agrarian crime. A Winter Assize, as every one who has been in Ireland knows, is equivalent to a change of venue, and at a Winter Assize, under all circumstances, a certain number of convictions in clear eases have been obtained. But the right hon. Gentleman, for some reason which I dare say he will explain, but which I cannot conjecture, has forborne to deal with many of these eases at the Assize.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): No, no.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will he give us a full account of them?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That accusation is entirely unfounded.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My suggestion was that many cases have not been dealt with at the Winter Assize. That was my suggestion, and I am glad to hear the contradiction of the right hon. Gentleman. I shall have another opportunity of criticising the right hon. Gentleman, but in the meantime I entirely accept his statement. The right hon. Gentleman, I presume, would agree with me in saying that it was a good policy to bring forward these eases at the Winter Assize, as there was a greater chance of justice being administered. The right hon. Gentleman agrees with me in that. Why have you a better chance of justice? Because von have a change of venue. The right hon. Gentleman admits that you have a better chance from change of venue—then why has he withdrawn that part of the Crimes Act which gives that change? Why has he deliberately deprived himself of a weapon incapable of abuse—but yet by which the criminal might be brought to justice? How many men have been made amenable for offences committed in Clare and elsewhere during the last few months. Has the right hon. Gentleman been really successful in finding out the perpetrators of outrages, and, after they have been found out, in bringing them to

  101
  justice? If he has, then, and not till then, he may put in a paragraph to boast that he has abolished this admittedly salutary provision of the law, and that, nevertheless, the agrarian condition of Ireland continues to improve. Now, with regard to the improvement of Ireland itself, the right hon. Gentleman has advantages which his predecessors never enjoyed. He has the aid in pre-serving law and order of a great many important influences which were not at the command of the late Government. There are those deeply interested in the success of this Administration, not without some influence upon the rise and fall of agrarian crime in Ireland, who are bound by the very necessities of their position to give every aid to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not grudge it him —I rejoice in any good consequences that may ensue from it. But the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there are dangers in that situation which he has not apparently seen Ids way wholly to avoid. If you work too much with those who have been connected with persons who have broken the law you should, at all events, be careful to do nothing to suggest to the public the impression that you have bought their support by the favour of criminals. I am not sure that the present Government have done all that they could do to avoid that rock. I do not allude here inure principally or particularly to the release of two dynamite criminals, to which a great deal of public attention has recently been called. On the contrary, with regard to one of those men—Egan—I recollect that my right hon. Friend, unfortunately not now in Ids place, the late Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) distinctly told me that he would have released him—
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): Released Callan.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, I think I am right; and at all events, without resting upon personal reminiscences of private conversation, I believe that my right hon. Friend stated in this House that he did see a very wide distinction between the case of Egan and the other men. With regard to Callan, I have no recollection of any conversation with my right hon. Friend; but I should be pre-
  102
  pared to accept the statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is responsible in this matter, if he were to tell the House that the release of these men was no part of a policy of amnesty, and that he had no intention whatever of recommending the extension of the Royal clemency to other persons, with regard to whom special circumstances could not be alleged, who had been found guilty of those crimes. If he makes that statement, I for one should be content; but it must be recollected that I should never even have raised this question, or asked for a statement front Ministers of the Crown upon the subject, if the present Administration had not by their previous declarations and recent acts given too much ground for the suspicion which has taken hold of the public mind that they are perfectly prepared to buy political support by recommending the extension of the Royal clemency to criminals. I am certainly not going to make an accusation so grave without attempting some proof, and as hon. Gentlemen below the gangway cheer me I will begin by quoting from a speech of one of these. I observe that the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) made a speech on January 17th to which I beg respectfully to call the attention of the Home Secretary. Speaking at the Meath Convention on the 17th January, the hon. Member said,—
  "I myself was engaged in a very urgent correspondence with the Home Secretary as to the case of John Daly and James Egan, as to whom I have a very particular feeling in the matter, and a very considerable hope of a satisfactory conclusion at the very moment when that diabolical explosion at Exchange Court came to thwart and deprive these unfortunate men of their chance of liberty."
  There is only one conclusion to be drawn from that speech. An important Member and supporter of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Morley) is under the impression that after the correspondence conducted between himself and the Home Secretary Daly was only kept in prison—not because he was a dynamiter, not because he was a man who ought to he kept in prison—but simply because another dynamite explosion in Dublin Castle made it inexpedient on political grounds and in view of the temper of the public mind in England. That is not my view of the right hon. Gentleman,

  103
  but that is the view of the hon. Member for Cork. That is what the Member for Cork thinks of it, and I say if the right hon. Gentleman has the misfortune to possess such friends, it is impossible he should wholly escape from the accusations which have been levelled—and, as I believe, unjustly levelled—at the Home Office administration for the last few weeks. There is another and even more serious reason or justification for the suspicion which undoubtedly exists in the public mind on the subject, and that reason is the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland dealing with the release of the Gweedore prisoners. Now, Sir, I do not wish to go at length into the case of the Gweedore prisoners, but I must remind the House of the bare outline of certain material facts. There was a warrant out against Father McFadden. Father McFadden deliberately evaded the police weekday alter weekday. Father McFadden publicly announced that if he were arrested there would be bloodshed in Gweedore, and finally, after the police had in vain attempted to serve the warrant upon him, an effort was made at a certain place on a Sunday morning, and in the course of that effort Inspector Martin was most brutally murdered. A certain number of the persons engaged in that transaction were made amenable. They were brought before the magistrates, and subsequently brought before the Assizes. They pleaded guilty, or rather a number of t hem pleaded guilty, and they received sentences most carefully considered by the Judge, as anyone can see who reads the reports of the case. One got 10 years, two seven, and one five. Their cases were separately and carefully considered by the Judge, and he explained at great length that they were fortunate in getting off with the sentences which were inflicted upon them. The right hon. Gentleman conies into office, and the Lord Lieutenant, the controller of the prerogatives of mercy, takes up his duties, and almost immediately after all these men, whether sentenced to 10, seven, or five years, are let out without, as far as I know, or as far as we have heard, any steps being taken by the right hon. Gentleman either to discover the Judge's opinion, or to discover the merits of the case and deter-
  104
  mine what ought to be done. The right hon. Gentleman objects to that. I as smite, therefore, he did go into the merits of the question, and I presume, therefore, he consulted his present Attorney General. His present Attorney General (The Mac Dermott) was the counsel for the accused on that occasion.
  MR. J. MORLEY: As a matter of fact I did not consult the present Attorney General, exactly, because he had been counsel in the ease. The person I consulted most was the Lord high Chancellor of Great Britain.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Did he then before Lord Herschell the facts which, had he consulted the Attorney General, he might have made himself acquainted with? The right hon. Gentleman appears to think. I brought in the name of the Attorney General because there might be a suspicion that the Attorney General having been counsel for these men would be unduly favourable to this case, but my point was exactly the opposite. [An hon. MEMBER: Explain.] I will explain. The Attorney General for Ireland knows too much about the ease. Had you consulted him he could not have said —and you know he could not have said—that in his opinion these men did not deserve all they got in the way of sentences; but even more, because it so happens, Mr. Speaker, that on this case a side light was thrown by a certain trial of libel, in which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Timothy Healy), who Was one of the counsel for these men, was plaintiff. The present Attorney General for Ireland was the other counsel with him for the defence of these men, and he was examined in this libel action. What came out tit that trial? It came out that in the opinion of counsel themselves—in the opinion of the Member for Louth and the Attorney General for Ireland—the Crown had got a pull in this case—the Crown had got worsted in the trial of these men, who had got off with much smaller sentences than they would have got if the Crown had laboured successfully to conduct their own ease. It came out conclusively that there were facts stated upon the brief for the defence which, had they been known to the counsel for the prosecution, might

  105
  have ended in the hanging of these very men: that these were facts known to a Castle official—I suppose the Attorney General is a Castle official—they were known to the Member for Louth, they might have been known to the right hon. Gentleman, for they were not secrets which a counsel was bound to keep with regard to his clients, but facts made notorious in the Courts of Law in Ireland, and of which reports can be read to this day in the files of the Freeman's Journal. I say these being the facts of the case, the Minister who shows his contempt for the safety of the police by arbitrarily diminishing the just punishment of these malefactors is using the prerogative of mercy not as it was intended to be used —namely, as an instrument of justice—but that political ends may be furthered. The remainder of the Speech, about which I shall be very brief—as I am conscious that I have already occupied the House an undue length of time—deals with projects of legislation. I do not mean to discuss those projects at any length. Some of them deal with subjects which ought to be dealt with, and which in my opinion are eminently worthy of the consideration of this House. Some of them deal with subjects on which I shall certainly reserve my criticism till we see the exact form in which the present Government propose to deal with them —such, for instance, as the reform of the Registration Laws, the Employers' Liability Bill, and other Bills. Other measures seem merely to be considered—I judge from the position they occupy in the Speech—as a somewhat barren homage paid to the Newcastle Programme and I do not collect that the Government have any very great belief in the possibility of bringing them to an issue in the course of the present Session. That may well be. All Governments are liable to bitter disappointments—and I have no ground for anticipating that the present Government are likely to be more fortunate than their predecessors. One of these Bills, however, I must say a word about. It is that dealing with the Ecclesiastical Establishments in Scotland and Wales. I pass by the question of shorter Parliaments, for I do not suppose that any gentleman on either side of the House supposes that time life
  106
  of this Parliament, at all events, will be unduly prolonged. But with regard to Ecclesiastical Establishments, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with, I think it was the Mover of the Address, who stated that this procedure—namely, of bringing in Bills for the prevention of the growth of new vested interests in the Ecclesiastical Establishments of Scotland and Wales—is in accordance with precedent. So far as I have been able to discover, it is not in accordance with precedent. A Bill of a similar import was brought in, no doubt. in the case of the Irish Church, hut after a Resolution of the House of Commons—deelaring in favour of Disestablishment. Then, and not till then, did the right hon. Gentleman think himself justified in bringing in a Bill which must have for its effect the paralysing or the great clerical institutions with which it deals, and van anything be conceived more cruel than the position of a Church in Scotland and in Wales if these Bills were passed? That they would be followed rapidly or effectually by any process of Disestablishment nobody acquainted with the difficulties inherent in any programme of Disestablishment can possibly believe, and therefore it is actually proposed by the Government that, in the absence of any Resolution of the House in favour of Disestablishment, and with nothing before them except the record of past Sessions, uniformly adverse to Disestablishment, they should bring in, and, if possible pass, Bills which, should they become law, will paralyse the efficiency of the Church of Scotland and the Church of Wales, will place them in an impossible situation, toil will hold out to them no hopes of a final issue either in the direction of Establishment or in the direction of Disestablishment. Sir, I cannot conceive that when time Government really face the policy which they have undertaken in the Speech from the Throne they will deliberately elect to adhere to it. But, Mr. Speaker, all these final paragraphs of the Speech sink into insignificance compared with that one paragraph dealing with what is described as "provision for the government or Ireland." The task of carrying through that gigantic constitutional revolution is, indeed, heavy enough for the shoulders of any Parliament, sufficient to occupy

  107
  the time of any Session. I suppose it will be my fate to make many speeches before the Session closes upon this question. I do not mean to discuss it now. It call hardly even be that the Debate on which WC are now engaged shall close without some gentleman opposed to that policy challenging one or other of the main issues raised by any Home Rule Bill. I shall reserve Until that occasion arises anything I have to Say, contenting myself now with observing that vigorous indeed must be the faith which shall seriously believe that any measure or the kind indicated in the speeches of the responsible Members of the Government shall carry out the great objects indicated in the paragraph which deals with the question of Home Ride. There we are told that this Bill
  "has been prepared with the desire to afford contentment to the Irish people, important relief to Parliament, and additional securities for the strength and union of the Empire."
  Even in the first blush of enthusiasm for their own measure I can hardly believe that the gentlemen on that Bench accept in their own hearts the statement that they have put in the Speech. Well, I do accept that, but it is difficult to accept it. I admire the robustness of their faith; I admire the boldness and the audacity of their convictions. We are asked to find securities for the strength and union of the Empire in a measure which reverses the invariable process by which every Empire in the world has been built up. It is a measure which runs counter not to this lesson or that lesson, but to the whole lesson of all history. Show me an Empire which has grown in strength by any measure of the kind and I withdraw. So far as my researches in history go, it has been by the concentration and not by the dissipation of power that Empires have been built up, and I shall not readily believe that the laws of history are going to be reversed for the special benefit of the British Empire. With regard to the other statement, that it has been prepared with the desire to afford contentment to the Irish people, I can only say that a measure which is regarded not merely with dislike, but with passionate and irreconcilable aversion by one-third of the Irish people, which is regarded with a sentimental approval mixed up
  108
  with a certain desire for spoliation and plunder by another third, and which by the remaining third is regarded simply as an instrument by Which you are to wrest further concessions from the Imperial Parliament, is not one, whatever else may be said of it, which is likely to afford contentment to the Irish people.
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREA SURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): Mr. Speaker, though I have heard many portions of the very comprehensive speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) with deep regret and strong dissent, some of his remarks even exciting, in my mind astonishment at the course pursued on this occasion, for the first time in my recollection, by a leader of the Opposition. I have great pleasure in referring to the graceful tribute which, at the opening of his speech, he paid to the Mover and Seconder of the Address. He did them both justice so large that for me he has left nothing to do. I will only say with respect to my two hon. Friends that, in acknowledging the tact and judgment of the speeches which they delivered, so much to the satisfaction of the House, I am, I can assure them, not merely complying with a conventional custom—for such it may almost be said to have become—but I am rendering to them a spontaneous and genuine tribute which everyone who heard them knows to be deserved. The right hon. Gentleman in the beginning of his speech, which was the more pacific part of it, referred to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government and to Bills not in the Speech, as well as to Bills in the Speech. Undoubtedly those intentions are large. Some, perhaps, may press us to frame further plans and add to the proposals that ale now canting before Parliament. We may, like others, rail to give full effect to what we desire, but the measure of what we desire and what we have announced is to be found in the fact that we have seen for a long course of years, with an increasing eagerness in the country for vigorous legislation, a continuing, growth in the arrears of that legislation, and we have thought it our duty to acknowledge largely that desire of the country, with the firm intention of losing no opportunity and sparing no effort to give effect

  109
  to the views we have expressed. There are Bills, undoubtedly, which it is the intention of the Government to present, and which it is their hope to pass, not named in the Speech from the Throne. I will not go over them, because I trust that in the course of a few days the notices given by the members of the Government will convey the most authentic information as to those Bills. There is one thing I should mention. It is the intention of the Government, proceeding partly from recollection of Debates in this House during the last Session and in no small part upon what has taken place in Wales during the recess, to issue a Royal Commission for the purpose of examining into the laud question in Wales. The right hon. Gentleman has put to me a number of specific questions. He asked me whether the proposal to introduce suspensory Bills is agreeable to precedent.
  MR. A.J. BALFOUR: I said "without previous Resolution."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If the right hon. Gentleman will look Lack to the circumstances of 1868 he will see that the Suspensory Bill did not rest simply on the previous Resolution and as not the natural sequence of such a Resolution. The Suspensory Bill was passed because the House was on the eve of dissolution, and not because it was an adequate sequel to the Resolution. There was no connection between the two, and the Suspensory Bill grew out of the circumstances of the Rinse itself with respect to dissolution. why, Sir,— why are we to he prohibited from taking cognizance of other circumstances besides a Resolution of the House? If out of 30 Members for Wales 28 are returned determined for disestablishment, are we to be precluded from taking notice of that fact and proposing a measure which I do not believe with the right hon. Gentleman will in the slightest degree suspend, on the contrary, I believe it will quicken, the activity of the Church in Wales, and which is thoroughly justified by opinion in that country? The same considerations are applicable to Scotland, though the numbers are not so conclusive. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken in his speech of precedent. I would like to know where he got die precedent for the Leader of the Opposition, in discussing upon the Queen's Speech a specific
  110
  announcement, an inoffensive announcement, of a measure of the most enormous constitutional importance, and, while disdaining all intention to discuss it, entering in inflammatory sentences into a ease which begged every question, which broached every argument, which exaggerated all that could have been said as the result of the most careful inquiry and most comprehensive investigation of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has dime his best, to prepossess the minds of those who follow him with conclusions the most extravagant, with contradictions of history the most "Show me," he said, "an Empire strengthened by the principles of local autonomy." I will show him that every Empire which has adopted those principles has been strengthened. I quote the ease of Austria. Now, Sir, I am going to carry the right hon. Gentleman back to the days of the declarations of Lord Salisbury. Lord Salisbury was then engaged in courting assiduously these Home Rulers—these Separatists—and he alluded in glowing terms to the case of Austria, and intimated that it was not, impossible that matter be drawn from the case of Austria applicable to the ease of Ireland. Have we in this country no experience in this matter? What was the relation of this country to its colonies GO years ago? A relation which, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, would have beep perfection itself. They were all ruled front the centre. The principles of freedom were discountenanced. The desire for separation was charged in Canada upon those who called for Canadian Home Rule. The same arguments were used, and the same imaginings freely dealt in, but not by the then Leader of the Conservative Party. He was not the man to follow such a course. What has happened? An absolute revolution has taken place in the entire system of governing the people of the colonies of the Empire, and the consequence is that, instead of being a cause of weakness and discredit, they ht ye become one of the chief glories of Great Britain, and one of the main sources of our moral strength. I want to get rid of these vagaries of the right hon. Gentleman, and pass to his treatment of Ireland. He appears to consider WC have been guilty of great offence,

  111
  because after removing certain proclamations which he criticized in no invidious terms, but in terms of great mildness, we find a decrease of agrarian crime in Ireland. Let me here say that with one sentence of very severe denunciation in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman I should stand in the most cordial concurrence but for one slight defect, and that was its total want of truth and accuracy. No one, to whatever school or creed he belonged, would fail to denounce, any Government which. Would condescend to debase itself by making the prerogative of clemency an instrument for gaining political support. And if these acts were proved, we should not be behind the right hon. Gentleman in the severity of the censure we should bestow upon the guilty politicians. The principle of the right hon. Gentleman cannot be matter of debate. It cannot be denied that the wise administration and the wise clemency, in my opinion, of my right hon. Friend and of the Irish Government has been simultaneous with, and has been an illustration, and a favourable illustration, I think, of a continuing decrease of agrarian crime in Ireland. I will only say on that part of the subject that it appears to me painful to notice the unwillingness, the almost resolute determination, of the right hon. Gentleman to allow nothing to clemency and mercy, nothing to the disposition of a political mind which strives as far as possible to meet the demands of a nation. I thought the whole of that part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was pervaded by what I must call the animus of coercion. I have not time now to examine the great inaccuracies of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman on that subject, nor will I follow him into the argument about the dates of the withdrawal of the Coercion Act, or the particular parts of the Coercion Act withdrawn in various parts of Ireland. I must say one word on the subject of the Commission appointed under the advice of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. My right hon. Friend placed at the head of that Commission one of the most respected Judges in England. It was impossible for any man to give a better indication of the spirit in which he wished the inquiry to be conducted. The right hon. Gentleman has raised two
  112
  points, which arc these—one is that cross-examination was improperly refused. If he can give me a single precedent of a case in which cross-examination has been practised, I—
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said there was no precedent in Viceregal Commissions.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: What are the Viceregal Commissions in which cross-examination has been practised?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And I ask for a Return.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: You ask for a Return. But why, before a Return is granted, make these accusations? The right hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Justice Mathew is guilty of giving the verdict before he heard the evidence. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has himself been about. The whole of the attack on this Commission was au attack upon a body upon which it is totally impossible to form a judgment until its Report is before us. The charge which the right hon. Gentleman made against Mr. Justice Mathew is a charge which in its fulness and its force as it appears to me recoils on himself. The Report he has declared must be absolutely worthless. If it is to be absolutely worthless, why does he weaken Ids own position by anticipating the fact? Why does he not wait, until the Report is before is, when, if he is justified in his accusation, he might urge it with legitimacy and with force. Now, I ought, before going to foreign affairs, to give one assurance with regard to Egan. The right hon. Gentleman demands of us that we should disclaim the idea which may have been charged upon us by some that the release of Egan was part of a policy of release—that is to say, a policy of release other than the policy of release which has been traditional in the Home Office, and which depends upon the careful examination of case by case, and upon the dealing with each case on its real merits. The right hon. Gentleman may receive from me on this subject the most unequivocal answer. The subject was raised in the debate which preceded the defeat and resignation of the last Government in August last, and, in terms agreed upon with the most competent of my colleagues, I entirely disclaimed any such policy of release or any such intention to

  113
  seek for political advantage through this medium, and I pledged those who were then in Opposition under no circumstances to follow a contrary plan to that which has been in operation at the Home Office in respect to the remission or mitigation of sentences on prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman commented on two paragraphs of the Speech which relate to foreign affairs. He said he did not complain of the spirit of the paragraph which touches upon the case of Uganda, though he appeared to think it was totally out of keeping with the sentiments delivered by those who were in opposition whets they questioned some proceedings of the late Government in respect to the country. He put to me a question which was pointed in its nature and which deserves a reply. He wanted to know if Sir Gerald Portal proceeds to Uganda and makes a Report upon the subject, what provision is to be made for the peace of the country during the period between his making that Report and the time when that Report might be received, might be considered, and acted upon. The right hon. Gentleman scents very sensitive upon the condition of Uganda during. a period of about nine or 12 months. Does he not see that, with tenfold force, the question he has put applies to the declaration of policy he made himself on behalf of his colleagues with regard to Uganda? What was that declaration? He disclaimed abandonment. He announced in 1892 his intention to apply to Parliament in 1893 for powers to make a railway. The making of that railway of over 700 miles and over an elevation of amity thousand feet must have occupied, I suppose, at least three or four years, besides the preliminary year of delay with which He began. What was to become of Uganda during those five years? He is horrified at the idea that Uganda should be for one moment without the presence of the British Government, but he contemplated with perfect satisfaction the five years—a most moderate estimate if Parliament had ever agreed to his railway at all, of which I am doubtful. But I am aware that although that is a tu quoque, it is in a form which shows that five or six times what we appear to contemplate was the fixed, and announced as
  114
  the fixed, policy of the late Government. Yet tu quoque is a poor argument if you rest on tu quoque alone. The reason why we have done this is because our inquiry is a bona fide inquiry. With respect to Uganda there may he those in this House who think, and there may be many who desire, that we should wash our hands of it, and have nothing to say to it; but these gentlemen ought to consider what are the terms of the Charter given by the Crown to the East Africa Company. I will not at this time of the night attempt to weary the House by reading the terms of that Charter, but they are most remarkable, by reason of the largeness of the powers which they convey to the Secretary of State both for compelling and controlling the company, and by the manner in which they give authority to the company for exercising the rights of government. They certainly raise questions which are not very easily answered. What is the condition of the British Government? Its condition is this—that it lots been represented in the country almost exclusively by two parties—on one side the agents of the East Africa Company, nail en the other side by the missionaries, to whose independent efforts all possible honour is due. But there is no evidence before us which proceeds from persons W110 are entitled or who are even well qualified to speak on the part of the British people, or direct the course which they ought to take. The Government of the right hon. Gentleman accepted—I do not see how they could do otherwise—the policy of withdrawal of the company. They did not provide—and I do not see well how they could wisely have provided—any machinery to take up the actual work of the company and form a consecutive line of proceedings. They left a state of things in which we are almost entirely in the dark as to what may he the relations and what the expectations created by the circumstances that have taken place. We had no other course to take except by sending a competent person to that country in order to make investigations upon the spot and to place ourselves in such a position that we might be enabled to arrive at a rational, temperate, and well-informed conclusion on behalf of Parliament and

  115
  the country. I have seen it stated by a gentleman of very good authority that Sir Gerald Portal carries to Uganda, a foregone conclusion, and that he is a determined advocate of annexation. If that be so, it is not known to us; it is not believed by us. It is believed and it is known—we proceed On his own official declaration—that he proceeds there with large and comprehensive views upon the whole question, with an earnest desire to bring out its difficulties as well as its obligations, and advise that course which may appear for the best, and place us in a condition in which we may be enabled to arrive at a rational conclusion. Then comes the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman upon the case of Egypt. The right hon. Gentleman asks me if I can give the causes of the late proceedings of the Khedive in Egypt. Sir, I think I am hardly the person to whom such au inquiry should be addressed. What we lament told consider unfortunate is that the Khedive made no communication to us about these causes, that he took a very important measure of internal government, and took it not, as we conceive, in conformity with the usage which had been long established and uninterruptedly pursued—with one exception, I may say. There was a circum-stance which tended to raise the notion that the Prime Monster whom he dismissed was a person whom he might properly dismiss—that was, that he was unfit for his duty, as he was suffering at the time from grave indisposition—an in-disposition Which at the tune disqualified him from performing the duties of his office. It did not disqualify him, as we believed, permanently, but at the same time there was a course open there which it would be unfair to suppress. Apart from that, I am afraid I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to other quarters. What we had to do was to consider the state of facts which arose in Consequence of the act of the Khedive—an act followed by explanations and assurances on his part, the terms of which were such that it was impossible for its to take exception to them. We consider that as far as those terms are concerned the relations of the two Governments are placed on a footing which ought to be perfectly satisfactory. But the right hon. Gentleman went a little beyond this—with what
  116
  intention I do not exactly know. He said that there had been rash declarations on the subject of Egyptian policy. It appears to me that when statements of that kind are made—and made with regard to persons whom they treat as having an important influence on foreign policy—they ought to be supported by something like particulars. I entirely deny the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. What has been said by me on this subject of Egypt is, in my opinion, not half so dangerous as-what has been said to-night by the right hon. Gentleman himself. And now I am referring to what all have heard. What did he mean by his description of the increase of difficulties in Egypt, and why did he dwell on that subject except in order to suggest that we ought to lose no time in getting out of it If not, what is the point in any declaration made by me which he refers to as rash and dangerous I believe that what I said was that if Lord Salisbury were able to carry to a conclusion the plans and policy which he himself had promulgated, which he had pursued with great zeal and much ability and nearly brought to a conclusion, that he would have my support and approval in concluding them. It should be recollected that if Lord Salisbury's plan had been carried out, of the Drummond Wolff Treaty had been ratified—and it was not his fault that it was not ratified—we should at this moment be out of Egypt. It was due to an adverse series of circumstances—which we were taught to believe were untoward circumstances that that Treaty was not carried into effect. In Egypt there are two things perfectly distinct. The one is the condition of the occupation, the great—according to the right hon. Gentleman, the increasing—dangers which surround it; and the grave political considerations which are thereby raised, and which ought, I think, to be reserved fir the most careful and most dispassionate consideration. That is one of the questions connected with Egypt. We had not to deal with that question, but we may have to deal with it as our predecessors had. A communication was made in the autumn to the British Government to the effect that the French Government desired to address to us some friendly overtures upon that subject, and

  117
  the French Government were assured, in reply, that any such overtures proceeding from them would be received by us in a corresponding spirit. Nothing has occurred in consequence of those preliminary communications; but possibly something may occur, and it it should occur, doubtless among the historical circumstances that will assist in guiding ns will be the very important proceedings adopted by the late Government. But the question we have had before us is a totally different question. I believe that not perhaps the whole of Europe, but that almost the whole of Europe, Perceives that we had virtually no option in the crisis which was recently brought. The responsibility of our position is of We grayest character. We are entirely and exclusively responsible for the maintenance of peace and order in Egypt. The question whether the evacuation of Egypt would be a sound policy or not is a totally distinct question, and any opinion any man may hold upon it ought on no account to be allowed to obscure his perception with regard to the other arid, for the moment, imperative question—what are our duties to Egypt while we stay there? If our duty is plainly to maintain order, if we are responsible for the preservation of order to all who might suffer from breach of order, for my own part I do not see how that responsibility is to be avoided. Undoubtedly, then, we must not flinch from doing whether it be agreeable to its or not—that which on a rational and temperate view of the circumstances is necessary for the purposes of so maintaining order. We did nod proceed on any vague intimation or any unwarranted assumption of our own, hut upon the assurances both of the civil and military authorities on the spot and I rejoice to think that what has been done has received the general acquiescence of the great body of the community both at home anti abroad. I think that is all I have to say On the subjects referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, but I think I must add one word more upon the condition of Ireland. Perhaps it might he of interest to the right hon. Gentleman and the house if I gave the figures, which are very short, that show that the statement in the Speech is not a hasty or unauthenticated statement with regard to agrarian crime.
  118
  In the year 1891 the agrarian offences were 472, and in the year 1892 they were 405. Perhaps more remarkable than that is the comparison between the halves of the year 1892. In the first six months the offences were 231, in the Second six months they sank to 174. We have faith—within the limits of reason and prudence—in the operation of conciliatory measures. If the right hon. Gentleman says, and says, and says with sane truth, that we are supported in the work of maintaining order in Ireland by agencies from which he did not derive a similar benefit, does dial not raise very serious questions as to the, soundness of his policy for maintaining order in Ireland if it deprived him of suture part of the social and moral influence which might have assisted him
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:Not moral.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: By moral agencies I mean agencies in the moral sphere. The right hon. Gentleman has ascribed immorality wholesale to the Representatives of Ireland, but he does not seem to see the fundamental weakness implied by that very reproach in his own position. What is the position of a man who, standing in the face. if not of a nation, at am rate of four-fifths of a nation, is obliged to mistrust them, and when he has difficulties to meet has to has to have recourse to measures of coercion. and is obliged to confess that the Party opposing him has great social advantages him has earnest hope I must express, and that is, that we shall not he inflamed before the time by violent denunciations of the Bill Nye are about to bring' in. If, indeed, there were any disposition to hold back that Bill, I could understand that the impatience of the House aught then find vent in denunciations, of that character. But surely it is better that, instead of resorting at this early date to rhetoric and declamation, we should wait to see what are the provisions which will be propounded for the acceptance of Parliament, and should then endeavour to give to those provisions tile full advantage of it careful, and a deliberate, and, if it maybe, even a deliberate, judgment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is one opinion which the right hon. Gentleman attributed to me with regard to Egypt on which he was mistaken, and on which I

  119
  must have conveyed to him an impression which, I believe, I did not convey to the rest of the House. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that I was of opinion that the recent crisis would hurry, would necessitate, a more rapid evacuation of Egypt than might otherwise take place. What I did endeavour to explain was that the recent crisis showed new difficulties in Egypt, new responsibilities, and new dangers that would have to be met. The inference the right hon. Gentleman drew from my words was not the inference I drew myself, nor the inference I intended to convey.
  MR. DUNBAR BARTON: I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Barton.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  *MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had stated that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had addressed the House in an unprecedented manner. It seemed to him (Mr. Barton) that his right, hon. Friend had, as a matter of fact, shown exceptional chivalry in his speech. Referring especially to the subject of the release of the dynamiters, he (Mr. Barton) knew he was speaking the feelings of many Members of the House when he said they would expect more information than his right hon. Friend had asked for. They would have to ask the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) how it was that the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Barry) was informed that Egan was to be released from Portland Prison on a certain morning, and was thus enabled to find his way to the door of the prison and meet that released convict. If the right hon. Gentleman did not furnish some explanation, hon. Members would be led to the conclusion that, in the words of a Nationalist newspaper, the Government wished to "nobble" Egan for one party in Ireland. As the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said his right hon. Friend had spoken in an unprecedented way, it was well to
  120
  remind the House that the Government had approached Parliament under unprecedented circumstances. Speaking prior to the General Election of 1885 the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister referred to the state of things that would arise—and which, as a matter of fact, had arisen—if the Liberal Party were returned to Parliament in such a minority that it might become a majority with the aid of the Irish vote. The right hon. Gentleman then said, speaking as he said "seriously and solemnly," that though the Liberal Party was an honourable, Party and trustworthy, it would not be safe to trust it, under such circumstances, to deal with the Government of Ireland, and that a Party in such a position and dealing with such a question would be a "source of danger to the country and the Empire." The House thus had it on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself that his Government was under existing circumstances a source of danger to the country and the Empire. Could the Prime Minister be surprised, under these circumstances, if the Leader of the Opposition found it necessary to address to him language which naturally did not meet with his entire approval? His right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was incorrect, in the statement he made across the Table and in the statement he had made at Newcastle, to the effect that at the Viceregal Commissions hitherto held cross-examination had not been permitted. He (Mr. Barton) had inquired into the precedents. He had found that there had been at least six such Viceregal Commissions during the past 35 years in which cross-examination was freely permitted. The Commissioners were generally Irish lawyers, several of whom afterwards became Irish Judges. Among them were Lord Justice Barry, Mr. Justice Bewley, Mr. Justice Murphy, the late Judge Lynch, and the late Baron Dowse. Surely these were not men who would be impugned in the House for their ignorance of precedents. Baron Dowse was Attorney General in a former Gladstonian Government, and certainly he would have taken care to inform his mind on the subject of precedents. Well, in every one of these cases cross-examination was freely

  121
  allowed, and the parties were represented by counsel and solicitors, and the Judges subsequently, in their Reports, drew attention to the satisfactory results of the cross-examination. He could confidently assert that if cross-examination had not been allowed these Commissions would not have secured that amount of piddle confidence which they succeeded in obtaining. The Commissions of which he spoke included those of Londonderry, the earlier Belfast Riots, the Belfast Municipal, Dungannon, and Lurgan. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary relied upon the last Belfast Riot Commission of 1886, but he could not have relied upon a more unfortunate precedent. What had occurred in that case? Why the counsel for the Roman Catholic party asked to be allowed to cross-examine. When Mr. Justice Day refused, Mr. O'Shaughnessy pointed out the precedents, and Mr. Justice Day re-plied to the following effect: "True, I admit that there are precedents, but my case is a different one. Parliament lots given me statutory powers. It has given me by special Act power to summon witnesses and as I can force them to attend, I think we can dispense with cross-examination." But what what was the present case? Parliament had not given statutory powers, and the Commission had no powers of procuring the attendance of witnesses, and could acquire no powers of the kind save by inspiring public respect, and he submitted that powers gained in dolt way would in this case be very small. The Chief Secretary might fairly be called upon to explain how it was that he had ignored precedents in the present case, particularly having regard to the fact hat the Commission was a small one. He would challenge the right hon. Gentleman, furthermore, to defend the composition of the Commission when he came to speak of it. He had defended it at Newcastle, butt on extraordinary grounds. He had represented that Mr. Redington was an Irish landlord. If a trades 'unionist was being tried by a blackleg and was told that that was the proper person to try the case because he was a working man, it would be as reasonable as to defend the appointment of Mr. Redington, because he was a
  122
  landlord. When the Chief Secretary and Lord Ripon were enthusiastically received at a demonstration in Dublin during the late Administration, this gentleman made a speech in Which he not only practically justified the Plan of Campaign, hut in winds he denounced the landlords as the worst enemies of their class and the worst enemies of their country. No doubt Mr. Redington believed what he said; but was the man who entertained such a belief the right sort of man to put upon a Commission to try the Irish landlords? It was reported in the newspapers that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was present when the speech was made. Did he hear it? Did he know of it? If he did, how can he suggest to us that he was acting fairly in putting Mr. Redington on die Commission? Then, as to Mr. Roche, Q.C.— a, respected member of his (Mr. Barton's) own profession, and one against whom, as a lawyer, he would say nothing—he held it to be unfair to Mr. Roche, and to all parties concerned, to put him upon the Commission. What was his record? He was a director of the Freeman's Journal during the most critical period of the evicted tenants' question, when Clause 13 of the Land Act of 1887 was in operation. No one could better answer the question. "Why was not Clause 13 taken advantage of by the evicted tenants?" than Mr. Roche. The Freeman's Journal. for the conduct of which that gentleman was responsible, advised the people not to take advantage of it. One of the most important subjects of the Commission's inquiry was the cause of the failure of this Clause 13 of the Act of 1887; and to appoint, that gentleman as one of the Judges to try the case was contrary to all justice. Probably the Chief Secretary was not aware of these things before; but DOW that the facts had been brought under his notice, he (Mr. Barton) asked him as a fair-minded and honourable statesman how he could justify the appointment of Mr. Redington and Mr. Roche upon the Commission? If it had been proposed to appoint these gentlemen to prosecute the landlords, it would have been most unfair: but to constitute these gentlemen the Judges of the Irish landlords was a public' scandal—a scandal which, he ventured

  123
  to think, would deprive the Commission and its Report of all value in the eyes of the House and the country. But what about the other two Commissioners? When the Commission was originally appointed there were two other gentlemen upon it. The Chief Secretary at Newcastle had taken credit for appointing Mr. O'Brien. Well, if the right hon. Gentleman had appointed Mr. O'Brien, he had taken care to deprive the Commission of his presence very early. He had appointed him to another office after he had sat for only one day. They were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain whether it was intentional or only through carelessness that Mr. O'Brien was promoted to another office after his appointment on the Commission. It was true the right hon. Gentleman had appointed one neutral man on the Commission—Mr. Murphy. He (Mr. Barton) knew something of politics in Ireland, but he did not know that Mr. Murphy was a Unionist until he saw it announced in the newspapers. He would give the Chief Secretary every credit for having appointed this gentleman. But what happened in his case? So shocked was he at the high-handed conduct of the President, and the proceedings of the Commission, that he left the Commission in disgust; and how could any fair-minded man blame the landlords for refusing to take part in the proceedings which the independent gentleman selected by the right hon. Gentleman found to be so inconsistent with his honour or position that he declined to take part in them? The right hon. Gentleman would find it hard to justify those proceedings. He (Mr. Barton) did not wish to enlarge upon the other subject the right hon. Gentleman referred to—the release of the Gweedore prisoners. The hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. Timothy Healy), who defended the prisoners, had, of course, done his best for them, and he had had to confess after the sentences that they had "got off in a coach." Had the Chief Secretary released the men on a ticket-of-leave?
  Me. J. MORLEY: No.
  MR. BARTONwould therefore ask for precedents. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell them the precedent for men who had pleaded guilty to
  124
  manslaughter, and whom their own counsel had declared had got off fortunately in the sentences they received, being released after three years without a ticket-of-leave?
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I cannot admit that the men got off fortunately. It seems to me that the understanding arrived at was broken.
  MR. BARTONsaid that the circumstances to which he was drawing attention fairly entitled him to demand an explanation from him on these points. On what grounds could he justify these releases? Why had he released Barabbas? The reason he had offered at Newcastle—namely, the peaceful condition of Donegal—was neither more nor less than a paltry excuse for a revolutionary act. What was that peaceful condition due to? To the conviction and imprisonment of these very men whom the right hon. Gentleman had now sent back without a ticket-of-leave to the district in which they had committed the offence. The right hon. Gentleman thought he had governed Ireland with success during the last six months. The right hon. Gentleman's colleagues and the leaders of the Nationalist Party joined in praising the right hon. Gentleman's Administration. If they were sincere in their praise, what a powerful argument that was against Home Rule. If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to govern Ireland with success under a Liberal Administration, why were they going to waste this Session by bringing in this miserable Home Rule Bill which everybody knew could not possibly become law? If the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in the government of Ireland, he had provided the most formidable argument against Home Rule that could be provided. But how had he governed Ireland? He had governed it in a way which could not ensure permanent success. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends were delighted because the country had not yet been plunged into disorder. But it was the Leader of the Opposition who had restored order in Ireland. The system winch the Leader of the Opposition set up in Ireland was not a transient system, and the stable structure which his right hon. Friend had built up could not be destroyed quickly.

  125
  It would take more then six months to destroy the good work he had bone six years of Unionist Government. How had the present Chief Secretary governed Ireland? He (Mr. Barton) would not deal with outrages. The right hon. Gentleman had shown himself a master of Castle statistics—he had shown how well he could shuffle and deal them. But he ventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman had largely preserved order, so far as he had preserved it, by making promises which he could never perform, and holding, out expectations which were doomed to disappointment. For example, he had led t he Irish Nationalists believe that the evicted tenants would be reinstated, and that the honest men who had taken their farms would be turned out. These promises of the right hon. Gentleman were hills which would not be met when they fell due, and cheques which would be dishonoured when presented. Under these circumstances, what would become of the contentment of the Irish people? The right hon. Gentleman had, as a matter of fact, yielded to the blackmail of his political associates. The right hon. Gentleman would not refuse responsibility for the advice he had given the Lord Lieutenant, and he (Mr. Barton) would therefore ask hint to explain how it was that the Lord Lieutenant refused the addresses of loyal subjects of the Queen who came forward and expressed the view that the legislative union was essential. The Chamber of Commerce of Dublin was a body of importance, and included men whose manes commanded general respect. Their Council approached the Lord Lieutenant with a respectful address expressing welcome to him without a word of bitterness or reproach, but adding an opinion to the effect that the commercial interests of Ireland would he injuriously affected by any interference with the legislative union. How did the Lord Lieutenant receive that address? These respected merchants of Dublin were sent away, being told that their address was an insult to the Lord Lieutenant—Lord Houghton. The address was similar to the one they had presented to the Earl of Aberdeen. After that, what were they to believe about this veto of the Lord Lieutenant, which they were told was to he such a
  126
  great protection for the Loyalists of Ireland? What chance had the Loyalists that his veto would be exercised to protect them when respectful addresses submitted by them were not listened to, because they expressed approval of existing institutions. The Methodists of Ireland, than whom there Was not a more orderly, quiet, or retiring body, came forward with addresses, stating most respect-fully that their lives Will liberties depended on the maintenance of the legislative union, and the Lord Lieu-tenant refused to receive them. Then in the appointments to Public Boards the chief Secretary had made a Clean sweep all over the country, removing many Unionists or Loyalists, and putting Nationalists in their places. He did not complain of Nationalists being put on the Boards when vacancies occurred in a proper way. But was a general policy of removal partisanship, or was it fair play? He would take the ease of the division he represented. The Chairman of the Town Commissioners — the principal citizen of the town—had been removed, also the leading Presbyterian minister, who hail been seventeen years on the Board. There was a universal belief in the place that these two men were selected for removal because it was desired to give a deliberate slight to the Loyalists of the place. The right hon. Gentleman, in carrying out his policy of blackmail0, bad been using not only his friends the priests and his supporters in the National Party, but sill the instruments of coercion which remained at his disposal. He had been packing juries. In a non-political trial at Wicklow, in which the present Attorney General prosecuted, about 15 jurors were ordered to stand aside, all of whom were believed to be Catholics. No doubt the Attorney General would say, "We set aside jurors in order to secure fair trials." Well, that was what the late Government and their supporters had said all along. When the Chief Secretary came to justify his release of the Gweedore prisoners—if he did so—and made use of the pretext of jury-packing, he would tell him to look into his own house and inquire how it came about that his own Attorney General had acted in this way.

  127
  The right hon. Gentleman had used other instruments of coercion. Eviction scenes had been reported in the newspapers. Boiling water had been thrown on bailiffs as much under the right hon. Gentleman as under his predecessor. Formerly these things were regarded as sensational material for attacking the Government of the day, but now they were merely incidents which the Chief Secretary deplored, but did not consider himself responsible for. The right hon. Gentleman had made some appointments, of which he (Mr. Barton) heartily approved. He had, for instance, appointed Mr. Meade to be a Privy Councillor. As a Unionist, he desired to see Irish Nationalists taking the places which their position and ability entitled them to. It was said that the Irish Members would not take office. He believed they would if the Government would wait if they would have patience. The appointment of Mr. Harrel as Under Secretary was one of which he approved: but seeing, that this gentleman had been selected from Dublin Castle, it would not appear that that place was such a corrupt and abominable place as it had been so often described by the friends and supporters of the present Government. In conclusion, he wished to say that since the right hon. Gentleman came into Office the Loyalists had refrained from doing anything to embarrass him. They had not made his government more difficult for him, and he would find, when he wished to uphold the law and preserve order and resist the undue pressure of the Irish Members, that they would afford him every support in their power. He was led to make an appeal to him. When the right hon. Gentleman came to deal with these questions to-morrow let him of use shallow pretexts, let him deal candidly with them, and make a clean breast of it. Let, him candidly admit to the House that he had adopted and followed a policy of discreditable blackmail.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir M. J. Stewart.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Mr. Barton
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite as to Procedure. It has been usual on the day after the meeting of Parliament to stop the discussion at a rather early hour in order to enable hon. Members who have, Bills to introduce them. I should like to ask if the Government intend to adopt that precedent tomorrow, and to say at what hour they Would propose to move the adjournment of the Debate?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in his description of the practice usually followed in cases of this kind. The Government will offer no objection to adjourning the Debate immediately after the first gentleman who is good enough to sit down after 3 o'clock.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
  Copy presented,—of Order in Council dated 26th November 1892, sanctioning (1) a new Scale of Salaries for the Assistant Masters in the Nautical School of the Royal Naval Hospital at Greenwich; (2) the payment of an allowance of £25 a year to a Master acting for the Head Master in his absence; and (3) the grant of a pension of £234 5s. 4d. to the Storekeeper and Cashier at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education in Scotland, dated 31st January 1893, providing for the distribution of the slim available for Secondary Education under-section 2 (1) (b) of "The Education and Local Taxation Account, (Scotland) Act, 1892" [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
THE PARLIAMENT,which had been prorogued successively front Thursday, the 18th day of August 1892, to Friday, the 4th day of November next, thence to Tuesday, the 13th day of December, and thence to Tuesday, the 31st day of January 1893, 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 it fit to be present here this day, has been pleased to cause a Commission to be issued under the Great Seal, in order to the opening amt holding of this Parliament."
2
Then Five of the LORDS COMMISSIONERS—namely, The Lord Chancellor, The Earl Spencer, The Earl of Kimberley, The Marquess of Breadal-bane, and Lord Carrington—being in their robes, and seated on a form placed between the Throne and the Woolsack—commanded the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod to let the Commons know,
"The Lords Commissioners desire their immediate attendance in this House to hear the Commissions read."
Who being at the Bar, with their Speaker:—
The Commission was read by the Clerk:—Then

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
THE LORD CHANCELLORdelivered HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"I continue to hold friendly and harmonious relations with all foreign Powers.
Their declarations in every quarter are favourable to the maintenance of European peace.
In connection with the approaching evacuation of Uganda by the British East Africa Company, I have deemed it expedient to authorise a Commissioner of experience and ability to examine on the spot, with adequate provisions for his safety, into the best means of dealing with the country, and to report to my Government upon the subject.
In view of recent occurrences in Egypt, I have determined on making a slight augmentation in the number of British troops there stationed. This measure does not indicate any change of policy, or any modification of the assurances which my Government have given from time to time respecting the occupation of that country.
The Khedive has declared, in terms satisfactory to me, his intention to follow henceforward the established practice of previous consultation with my Government in political affairs, and his desire to act in cordial co-operation with it.
In relation both to Egypt and Uganda, papers in continuation of those heretofore presented will at once be laid before you.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
The Estimates of Charge necessary for the Public Service in the coming financial year have been framed, and will be laid before you at an early date.
My Lords, and Gentlemen,
I have observed with concern a wide prevalence of agricultural distress in many parts of the country. It is to be hoped that, among the causes of the present depression, some may be temporary in their nature. But I do not doubt that you will take this grave matter into your consideration, and make it a subject of careful inquiry.
The Proclamations recently in force, which placed Ireland under exceptional provisions of law, have been revoked; and I have the satisfaction of informing you that the condition of that country
4
with respect to agrarian crime continues to improve.
A Bill will be submitted to you, on the earliest available occasion, to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland. It has been prepared with the desire to afford contentment to the Irish people, important relief to Parliament, and additional securities for the strength and union of the Empire.
Bills will be promptly laid before you for the amendment of the system of registration in Great Britain; for shortening the duration of Parliaments; anti for establishing the equality of the franchise by the limitation of each elector to a single vote.
There will also be proposed to you various Bills bearing on the condition of labour, among which are measures in relation to the liability of employers, the hours of labour for railway servants, and a Bill to amend the Law of Conspiracy.
Your attention will likewise be invited to measures for the further improvement of Local Government, including the creation of Parish Councils; for the enlargement of the powers of the London County Council; for the prevention of the growth of new vested interests in the Ecclesiastical Establishments in Scotland and in Wales; and for direct local control over the liquor traffic; together with other measures of public utility.
I humbly commend your labours upon these and upon all other subjects to the guidance of Almighty God."
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-fifth Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

NEW PEERS.
The Earl of Zetland, having been created Earl of Ronaldshay in the county of Orkney and Zetland, and Marquess of Zetland — Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Viscount Cranbrook, having been created Baron Medway of Hemsted in the county of Kent, and Earl of Cranbrook in the said county—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Lord Willoughby de Eresby, having been created Earl of Ancaster in the county of Lincoln—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable George Cubitt, having been created Baron Ashcombe of Dorking in the county of Surrey, and of Bodiam Castle in the county of Sussex —Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Sir Thomas Brooks, Baronet, having been created Baron Crawshaw of Crawshaw in the county palatine of Lancaster, and of Whatton in the county of Leicester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
William Amhurst Tyssen Amherst, of Amherst in the county of Kent, Diddling-ton Hall in the county of Norfolk, and of Hackney in the county of London, Esquire, having been created Baron Amherst of Hackney in the county of London—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
John Allan Rolls, Esquire, having been created Baron Llangattock of the Hendre in the county of Monmouth—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The Right Honourable Sir John Lyon Mayfair, K.C.B., having been created Baron Playfair of Saint Andrews in the county of Fife—Was (in the usual nurturer) introduced.
Cyril Flower, Esquire, having been created Baron Battersea of Battersea in the county of London, and Overstrand in the county of Norfolk—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT.
The Earl of Essex—After the death of his grandfather.
The Earl of Harewood—After the death of his father.
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales—Singly took the Oath.
His Royal Highness the Duke of York—Singly took the Oath.

SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro forma, read 1a.
THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.

  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  The QUEEN'S SPEECH reported by the LORD CHANCELLOR.
  LORD BRASSEY (who wore the uniform of an officer of the Royal Naval Reserve) said: My Lords, I rise to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in reply to the gracious speech from the Throne. The task which has been assigned to me is usually allotted to one of the younger Members of your Lordships' House. It affords an opportunity, and it will be remembered how well that opportunity was used last year. My Lords, I deeply regret that among the independent sup-porters of Her Majesty's Government in this House I see so few young men coming forward. To express regret is not to lay all the blame and all the responsibility upon those who have left us. Reconciliation is mulch to be desired not upon the narrow grounds of Party advantage, but in the public interest. We need on both sides of politics, and in both Houses of Parliament, an adequate-representation of all orders, all classes, and all interests. And now, my Lords, I turn to the subjects more directly connected with Her Majesty's gracious Speech. The Irish question stands foremost in the scheme of legislative labour proposed for the ensuing Session. The wisdom of Parliament has never yet failed to grapple with any of the tasks which the progress of events has from time to time imposed upon us. Are we now to confess before time whole civilised world that it is impossible to make Ireland at once contented and orderly? Two alternatives are before us: There is the present system which I may de-

  7
  scribe as democracy, tempered or qualified by coercion, and there is the alternative of concession within the limits of prudence to the demand of Ireland for local self-government. Local self-government has been tried in many parts of the Empire, and nowhere yet has it failed to give contentment to the people and a sense of responsibility to the rulers. In the hands of so able a statesman as Mr. Balfour, of whose services in maintaining law and order in Ireland a political opponent may speak with acknowledgment, it might not be impossible, by the Jinn exercise of authority, to secure many of the objects of good government; but if you fail to lessen the burden of the people, how can you reconcile your system with those democratic institutions which you are not prepared to give up even in Ireland? With a free Press, with a full—nay, an excessive representation in Parliament, and with household suffrage, how is it possible to carry on for a long period of years a mode of government against that local opinion and sentiment to which you allow such full and unchecked liberty of expression? It seems to me it is inconsistent with the representative institutions which you have given to Ireland to conduct the Government in total disregard of the opinions of the great majority of the people constitutionally expressed. It was a wise saying of Marcus Aurelius—
  "A prudent ruler will not offend the prejudices of his people. He may well wish that they were wiser."
  There have been occasions when the truth of this maxim might have found its application near at hand. My Lords, does not the main objection to any plan of Home Rule he in a deep-rooted distrust of the political capacities of the Irish people; and may it not be pleaded in their Poverty that they have suffered from more miserable than have perhaps befallen any people? They have suffered from miserable poverty; they have suffered from much oppression; they have suffered from uncertainty of purpose on the part of their rulers. In the hands of every writer, whether a Froude or a Lecky, a Burke or a Swift, the history of Ireland contains more dark pages than are to be found in the history of any nation within the pale of civilisation. The faults of the Irish people are the faults of a nation which has lived in serfdom. The first stage
  8
  of emancipation may be difficult. We are passing through that stage now: let us not despair of the future. My Lords, these are the considerations—they are only some of the considerations—which have induced those sitting in this circumscribed quarter of the House to follow Mr. Gladstone in the adoption of the principle of local self-government for Ireland. Of the statesmanship with which that principle has been applied we shall be in a position to judge when the Bill of the Government has been placed before Parliament. I trust that my right hon. Friend will have prepared a plan which prudent followers may cordially accept, and which even the Opposition may be able to entertain. It would he idle to expect that any plan on a question bristling with difficulties, coming front one side only, can he so perfect as not to he susceptible of improvement by the patriotic labours of the other. My Lords, with a sense of relief I turn to subjects in wit happily Party divisions are little felt. The country will learn with satisfaction from the assurances conveyed in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech that we hold friendly relations with all foreign Powers. The able administration of foreign affairs by the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Salisbury) has been acknowledged by both sides. I am not in the confidence of the successor of the noble Marquess; but when my noble Friend was called to the Foreign Office, not only by the Party with which he acts, but by an unanimous public opinion, it was anticipated that he would go there to preserve the continuity of our foreign policy. And what is that policy? We cherish no designs of aggression or annexation. An Empire upon which the sun never sets is vast enough to satisfy the widest and loftiest ambition. The maim aim and concern of every foreign Minister of England must he to preserve the links which hind the Mother Country to her sons and daughters in her colonies, and to her noble dependencies in every quarter of the globe. We are bound to keep in view at all times the defence of India, and the defence of our line of communications with the East. In war the safer and surer route to the East must be by the Cape; but our interests in India gave us an interest in Egypt, which eventually, on the refusal of other Powers to act, imposed upon us

  9
  the responsibility of restoring and maintaining order after the suppression of the rebellion of Arabi. Before retiring from Egypt we are pledged to establish a firm and stable Government in that country. The capacity of Englishmen for such a task has been once more illustrated in the success which has been achieved by Lord Cromer and those acting under his directions. The Government may be congratulated on the results which have followed his prompt action taken to prevent the good work begun in Egypt being undone by hasty and ill-considered changes in the local administration. Passing from foreign policy to colonial affairs, we in the Mother Country are watching with the deepest interest the progress of the great work of Australian federation. We look forward to the completion of the task by the able statesmen engaged in its consideration as tending not to draw us further apart, but to Lind its closer together. Pride in the colonies and affection for them are growing sentiments in this country. I will now turn to the paragraphs in the Speech dealing with those social and economic questions on which the piddle interest is, happily, firmly fixed, and which deeply affect the interests of those whose lot it is to labour. The prevention of conflicts between capital and labour; the relaxation, within the limits of prudence, of the conditions under which the bounty of the State is administered to the poor; age pensions, State colonisation, regulation of the hours of labour, popular control of the liquor traffic, bi-metallism, Protection, Fair Trade, Free Trade within the Empire, with differential duties on foreign importations —those are some, anti only some, of the questions which are now being debated. Most of these questions have been, or are now being, considered by Select Committees and Royal Commissions. It is an obvious remark upon all these questions that it would be fatal to the interests of labour to do anything by meddlesome legislation to weaken that spirit of self-reliance which is a characteristic virtue of the British workman; lout whenever the State can with advantage interfere, the Government have shown themselves ready to assist in the development of trade and the improvement in the condition of the workers. For the mass of
  10
  the population it must be the main concern to obtain good wages and regular work. These are blessings only to be enjoyed when trade is prosperous. Unfortunately, in late years, demand has not kept pace with the extraordinary development in our power of production. The best remedy for congestion in the old markets through over-production is to be found in the opening of new outlets; and in the pioneering stage the Government can render valuable aid. Attention has of late been specially directed to Africa, as a new outlet for our enterprise and trade, and au agreement has been authorised by which a subsidy would be given by the Crown to the colony of Bechuanaland in aid of the construction of railways. Sir Gerald Portal has been sent on au arduous mission to Uganda. The action taken by the Government in both these cases will command general approval. It is an appropriate exercise of the functions of the State to see that due regard is paid in all factories and workshops to sanitation and the safety of life. The Employers' Liability Act, which it is proposed to extend during the coming Session, rests on that principle. On the same ground the State may most properly interfere, as it is proposed to do in one of the Bills mentioned in the Speech, to Inuit the hours of duty-of railway servants. Much evidence has been given before the Royal Commission on Labour with reference to the insufficiency of inspection in factories, and especially in small workshops. The staff of Inspectors under the Home Office has been recently reinforced, and operatives, both men and women, have been appointed to posts for which they are The collection and distribution of information bearing on the prospects of trade and the state of thee labour market is one of the best services which a Trade Union can perform for its members. In this useful work the State may lend valuable co-operation. A beginning, and more than a beginning, has been made by the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade, under Mr. Giffen, and by that distinguished representative of our cultivated working men, Mr. Burnett, the Labour Correspondent. The work will be extended, and the results more widely made known, through the Labour De-

  11
  partment now being established under Mr. Mundella. Much loss and much suffering, borne with unavailing fortitude during prolonged strikes, would have been spared to the working people if they had been more amply possessed of that essential information, as to the state of the trade in which they are employed, which it is the business of the new Department to get together, and to diffuse. It would be ungracious to pass from this subject without acknowledging the painstaking labours of the members of the Diplomatic Service in gathering information on the trade of the countries in which they reside. It may be possible for the new Labour Department to supplement the admirable work done by the Boards of Arbitration and Courts of Conciliation which are now being established in every centre of business and every branch of industry. Witness after witness before the Royal Commission on Labour has borne test-money to the value of Courts of Conciliation. Employers and employed are brought face to face, and each side learns better to appreciate the circumstances and the difficulties of the other. My Lords, we are passing through a time of extreme depression for the agricultural interests. Occupiers and owners alike deserve and will receive the sympathy of the country, and the fullest consideration at the hands of Parliament. Landlords have furnished with a generous and even with a lavish hand capital for improvement of the soil. The skill and enterprise of our farmers are attested by the high quality of their stock, unsurpassed in any other country, and by the excellent cultivation of the soil. It may be safely affirmed that little has been left undone in this country to bring arable cultivation to perfection; but we can not compete at present prices against growers of wheat who have the advantage of a virgin soil of exuberant fertility and a certain climate. The recent fall in prices was mainly due to a reduction in the cost of transport, amounting to 20s. a quarter, between London and Chicago. We cannot look to Protection for a remedy. We may, perhaps, be able to lighten the burden of taxation; and Parliament has a right to insist that railways shall not by undue inequality of rates give an
  12
  unfair advantage over the British farmer to the importer of foreign produce. The Government will see justice done in this respect, and other remedial measures may doubtless be considered. Remedies for the present depression may be found in a return in many districts to smaller holdings, in increasing the area under pasture, in securing for the farmer a larger share of the price paid for his produce by the consumer, and in the extension of the factory system to dairy farming. The country will be glad to learn that a Parliamentary inquiry is to be held into the causes and the remedies for the present state of agricultural distress. My Lords, as an old Admiralty official, I cannot conclude without reference to the Navy. Public opinion in this country is firmly resolved that our maritime supremacy shall be maintained. The important part which the Navy has filled in building up the Empire, and the extent of our dependence on the Navy for our influence abroad and our safety at home, has been lately set forth in the able writings of Captain Mahan, of the United States Navy. The work of reinforcement was begun under Lord Northbrook, it was vigorously carried on by the late Government, and they may rest assured that the interests of the Navy will not suffer under Lord Spencer. Whenever naval questions are again debated in this House we shall deeply feel the loss of my lamented friend, Lord Elphinstone, who, under the late Government, so ably represented the noble profession to which he belonged. I must not trespass longer on your Lordships' indulgence, and I will leave to my noble Friend who will follow me many interesting questions suggested by Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:—
  Most Gracious Sovereign,—
  "We, your most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer you our humble Thanks for the Gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(The Lord Brassey.)
  Loup THRING (who wore Court uniform) said: My Lords, I must, like the Mover of the Address, begin by expressing my extreme regret that the

  13
  duty of seconding the Address has fallen on an old man like myself rather than on a younger and more vigorous Member of your Lordships' House. I have no plea to advance but one in extenuation of my offence, and I have only one suggestion to make why I have been selected. I suppose that I have been selected to discharge this duty because circumstances have compelled me to study, more closely perhaps than any other Member of your Lordships' House, the vexed question of Home Rule. Forty years ago I began to give attention to the subject, for it then became my duty to plan a scheme of self-government for some of our colonies, and it was I who drafted the Home Rule Bill of 1886. During the whole time I was in office I had to consider Irish affairs over and over again, and I had to learn every detail both of Irish law and of Irish administration, and to deal with what I cannot help but think are dark scenes of Irish politics. Therefore I assume that I have been selected on account of my knowledge of the subject. Then, besides that, I have the merit, or perhaps some of your Lordships may think the demerit, that I had arrived at the conclusion, before I received instructions to prepare that measure, that Home Rule is the only remedy that can be applied with success to Ireland. And now, my Lords, I do not pretend that I can say anything new upon this subject, and I am quite sure it is the case that I cannot say anything old which has not been suggested by abler men; but I cannot help saying in a few words what are the reasons which, to my mind, have carried the conviction that Home Rule is the only remedy for Ireland. Consider the case of Ireland; it is, happily, unique in the history of nations. She has possessed a monopoly of misery, and has known a continuity of restlessness and discontent such as it has not fallen to the lot of any other nation to know. What is the cause of this? In advocating the Union, Lord Clare pointed out that Ireland had been three times conquered: by Elizabeth, by Cromwell, by William III., and it is a fact that her lands have been confiscated three times; indeed, in some parts the land has been confiscated over and over again. Such treatment was hardly likely to make the conquered very willing to submit to the conquerors, and naturally fostered that noblest of all
  14
  aspirations—a general desire for self-government. Ninety years have passed away since the Union; of the first thirty of those years only three were free from restrictive legislation or coercion, and of the remaining sixty there was hardly one in which such legislation has not been passed. It has been said over and over again that the day had come when Ireland was happy and contented, and the statement has been falsified every time. Ireland's discontent is in the main caused by her wish to govern her own affairs, as far as is consistent with the maintenance of the unity of the Empire. Let us remember that Canada, at one time in a rebellious state, was quieted by the granting of Home Rule, and that a similar policy brought peace and contentment to Hungary, thirty years ago. What are the objections to the policy of Home Rule for Ireland? In my opinion, the views of the opponents of that policy are exaggerated beyond all measure. They first say that the gift of local self-government to Ireland will not satisfy her aspirations; but what shadow of proof is there that it will not? In every other country where the policy has been tried the gift of responsible government has resulted satisfactorily. Then it is said that the majority will oppress the minority; but there are no grounds upon which to found that charge. Why impute to the majority in Ireland conduct which no one has ever dreamed of imputing to majorities in our colonial dependencies? The last of the chief objections to the Home Rule policy is the objection that it will lead to the disintegration of the Empire; and the followers of the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Salisbury) declare that the supporters of the Government are hostile to Imperial unity. This is the wildest supposition, for the policy of the Liberal Party has always been to preserve the Imperial powers of England intact. Precisely in the same way as the Imperial powers in the United States are vested in the Federal Government. How, under any circumstances whatever, the Empire can be injured when all the Imperial powers remain precisely the same I cannot understand, and I would venture to recommend noble Lords who wish to study the question to be good enough to refer to the American Constitution—to read through the Federalist and other books on that subject, and

  15
  then tell me how it is within the sphere of human probability that the Empire will be endangered or disintegrated? The Act of 1888 disintegrated the Local Government of England, but nobody has been injured by it. If Home Rule is granted to Ireland the Imperial power in this country will not be affected. My argument, shortly put, is this: I believe that the history of the past, the experience of the present, and the probabilities of the future warrant the expectation that the measure proposed by the Government will promote the tranquility of Ireland, the honour of England, and the consolidation of the Empire. And now, my Lords, I come to a much plainer subject, and one which has this great recommendation: that noble Lords opposite are quite as anxious to amend the Registration Laws as noble Lords on this side of the House. I am told that there is a keen sense of wrong entertained by the working man because he never knows how he is to be put on or taken off the register. The truth is, there is a sort of struggle which goes on between the registration agents and the several officers who are engaged in registration. I am not in the least suggesting that they are fraudulent or careless; but the fact is that no one knows how the register is made up. Many of our working population are very nomad in their habits. They migrate from one constituency to another, and they get disfranchised by change of residence, though they have all along held the proper qualification. That is an obvious defect and injustice which ought to be remedied. Then, owing to the curious mode in which the Registration Acts are worked, the period of residence requires to be dealt with. Though the law requires a years residence only, practically a man very often cannot get his vote under two years or 18 months. Those, of course, are not great constitutional defects, but they are defects which our working men feel very keenly, and which I trust will be removed. Another matter in which I take the keenest possible interest is the question of Parish or Village Councils. I can only regret that Mr. Goschen's Bill of 1871 was not carried. I believe that the parish in which he lives is the one spot in the world about which the labourer cares. Everyone is now lamenting that the
  16
  labourer is leaving the country and going into the towns. Why is that? It is because he finds that in the towns he forms a part of society and obtains a social status. If he could find the status in the country, it would induce him to take an interest in the things going on around him and to remain upon the soil. I am convinced that one of the most potent reasons why the labourer leaves the country is that he has no social status there. It is said by some that the labourer is a stupid man, and would not be able to carry on the business of the village. Gentlemen go down and talk to Hodge in a language he does not understand, and Hodge answers them in a language they do not understand, and then they declare he is stupid. Hodge is not always willing to open his mouth; but if once his affections are attached, he will be found, as a general rule, a keen-witted man perfectly alive to what is going on in the world around him, and fully capable of conducting the affairs of his parish. I look with great joy upon the announcement of a proposed measure on this subject, and to the return of the days when village communities had power to make themselves by their own efforts comfortable and happy. Then there is the question of local option. The Liquor Law is the most defective law we have. It is a case of tot homines quot sententiœ but I think one principle is perfectly clear, and that is, that the man who is the most intimately concerned in the liquor traffic is the working man. It is the working man who desires to see the law regulated, and it is only right that he should be allowed to have a voice in regulating the traffic. I beg to thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have heard me, and I will now second the Motion for the Address.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, in yielding the customary tribute of admiration to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address, which in this instance I can do with the most perfect sincerity and justice, I cannot fail to take notice of the circumstance to which they have both alluded, that they are not of the standing of those whom we usually find performing this somewhat nervous duty. Though the pleasure which their eloquence gave us was considerable, it was not novel, as we have

  17
  often had the opportunity of admiring it before. With respect to the noble Lord who moved the Address, I think I may say what I believe all your Lordships will agree with, that we have seldom heard a more temperate, moderate, forcible statement of opinion in this House. With respect to the noble Lord who spoke second I feel great delicacy in venturing to offer any observations. I feel there is a certain presumption on my part in tendering to him any eulogy. I have been hitherto more accustomed to look upon hint with veneration as the father of that copious, abundant, and vet abstruse vocabulary in which our Statutes are written. I therefore feel a delicacy in dealing with him upon a lower platform; but yet he has a right to those good wishes which we always tender on these occasions, and I hope this will be the beginning of a brilliant oratorical career, and that we shall hear his voice in our Debates more often than we have done hitherto. My Lords, the noble Lords who moved and seconded the Address have not followed strictly the order of the Speech. I think perhaps it will be more convenient that I should do so, and therefore my first remarks must apply to the questions of foreign affairs with which the Speech commences. But in doing so I would say at once that in respect to both the matters mentioned it appears to me that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government has been founded upon sound principles and carried out with judgment and with skill. I am speaking, of course, only of what I know. No Papers have yet been laid before us, and everything must be said with reserve. I only make this observation to show that in what I am going to say I do not wish in the slightest degree to question any of the acts of the Government in this respect. I desire to make one observation in regard to each of the important subjects to which this part of the Speech relates. My Lords, with respect to Uganda, I do not think it is sufficiently appreciated how closely our future efforts for the suppression of the Slave Trade are mixed up with our treatment of the territory of Uganda. We do not sufficiently recognise the change that has come over the condition of that great enterprise in which this nation has been so long engaged—namely, the extermination of the terrible trade in men. The
  18
  maritime blockade has been only partially successful, and its success does not seem to me to increase. And there is a good reason for this; a reason which operates even now, which will operate more as time goes on, and which to some extent weakens the hands and frustrates the efforts of our gallant commanders on that coast. It is well-known that we have Treaties with till the nations of the world except one, by which there is a mutual right of search—that is to say, we can go into their vessels and they can come into ours in order to see that this trade is not carried on in any vessel sailing under their flags or under ours. The French Government, for reasons which I do not wish to comment on or to examine into—I have no right to assume that attitude —I am merely dealing with a historical fact—have always refused to allow this examination, and therefore in the case of any vessel sailing under the French flag—if any Arab dhow, any native Arab vessel can float the French flag—no English officer can go into the hold of that ship to see whether any slaves are there or not. Of course, if French men-of-war be on the station, they will exercise that police search themselves, but it is not necessary to say that that is not at all so effective a security as if the power were given to other nations to do it. There is no doubt that French trade is increasing in those seas, and, as French trade increases, I fear that this abuse of the French flag, at all events, is a danger to which we must look. This consideration leads me, as I think it has led many people, to believe that the maritime repression of the Slave Trade will not in the end enable us to put a stop to the hateful traffic. If we wish to grapple with it we must take it by the throat. We must go to it in the country where it arises; and if we are able, as I trust we shall he, to establish our beneficent sway and influence in these great districts which have come legally under our rule, I believe that one of the first and greatest results will be the accomplishment of that grand task to which England, now for a century, has devoted all her energies. With reference to Egypt I will only say this: I quite concur in the observation that is made in the Speech that the measures which have been taken do not indicate any modification of the assurances

  19
  given by the Government. Undoubtedly these assurances retain all their strength. But the situation is very different from what it was. The state of things to which these assurances apply has been materially altered by the events which have taken place. The assurance we have given is that we do not desire to remain in Egypt longer than is necessary in order to secure it against certain dangers; but what has happened shows us that those dangers are more numerous, more lively, more difficult to deal with than some years back we had a right to believe. I think, therefore, that what has taken place, though it does not modify the assurances of Great Britain, has made the prospect of early evacuation much more difficult and hazardous. My Lords, the next subject to which the Speech refers is the question of agricultural distress. I confess I do not quite understand the proposal which is made, that this should be the subject of Parliamentary inquiry. There was a very exhaustive inquiry conducted under the auspices of my noble Friend behind me not many years ago, and I much doubt whether any 'further inquiry will reveal any new facts for our guidance. But when it is said that it is hoped that among the causes of the present depression some may be temporary in their nature, I do not quite follow the idea which dictated that sentiment, at all events in connection with an examination into the best means of getting rid of it. I take it agricultural depression is due to two causes; bad weather and low prices; and the Government cannot get rid of the one if they would, and would not get rid of the other if they could. I think they are quite right not to attempt to interfere with prices, but it is quite true that that division disposes of what may be called the causes of agricultural distress. Yet I should be sorry to say a single word to discourage the Government in an attempt to palliate that distress by removing some of the evils under which agriculture labours. I hope they will devote themselves to that task. I believe that in the burdens which are now imposed upon land there are circumstances of extreme injustice; and though I cannot believe that to that unjust taxation agricultural depression is due, there is no doubt it aggravates the condition both of the and of the occupier of land,
  20
  and as a matter of justice those grievances ought to be removed. I am very glad, therefore, to hear that the matter is occupying the attention of the Government. Then we come to the question which is in all our thoughts—the question of Ireland. It is very difficult, until we have heard the explanation of the Government on the subject, to comment on the conduct which they have pursued, but it appears to me that during the last winter the fault of Mr. Morley, of the Irish Government, has been an attempt to cast too widely for the sources of political support. They have aimed at getting the support of a class of men whom hitherto no politicians have thought it necessary or possible to conciliate. We know that politicians will do a great deal in order to get support. We know that they will conciliate anti-vaccinationists or teetotalers, or any other extreme body of that kind; but nobody has yet thought of politically capturing the class in Ireland who sympathise with crime. And that appears to me to be the keynote of Mr. Morley's policy during the last five months. A circumstance stated in this Speech is an instance. He has paralyzed the Crimes Act by withdrawing the proclamation which put it in force. But the only part of the Crimes Act which was in force was that part winch gave the power of secret inquiry into crime, which exists in Scotland, and the power of changing the venue, and those are the things which noble Lords opposite have constantly declared to be very reasonable measure,—but for the purpose of obtaining the support of those men whose excesses the Crimes Act was intended to control, they have repealed useful and necessary provisions which were required for the administration of the law. And now at this moment, though it is quite true that agrarian crime is not generally prevalent, where it is prevalent, as in Clare and Kerry, their hands are paralyzed because they do not possess this power of which they deliberately divested themselves. Then we come to the Evicted Tenants Commission. The great object was to show the sympathy of the Government with persons who had combined together to defraud their creditors. The evicted tenants—the tenants on the Campaign estates—were simply people who could pay their debts,

  21
  but who would not, and who preferred to combine together to defraud those who had a right to the money which was due to them. The way in which those people were to be dealt with was a legitimate matter for consideration, but unless they wished to obtain the sympathy of the criminal classes, I can see no advantage whatever in proposing a Commission of which the main object was to force the landlords to forego the debts which those persons had conspired not to pay. Then we come to the murderers of Inspector Martin. Was it, except on the assumption that you desire the sympathy and support of that sort of people—was it a wise thing the moment the Liberal Government comes into power to announce by political acts that the murder of a policeman employed by a Tory Government was not such a great crime after all, and that the prerogative of the Crown would be used to shield the men who had been guilty of this very modified kind of offence? I will not go further into the question of the dynamiters who have been released. I do not know precisely what the facts are with respect to their crimes, but the point on which I wish to insist is that all these separate acts must not be taken or judged of by themselves. They are part of a policy, they interpret each other, they reflect light on each other, and taken together they indicate one settled aim and intention. The measures which a Government takes on corning into office, where they differ from the measures of the Government that precedes them, are an announcement of their policy. They are the stamp of the principles on which they desire to act and the measures which they desire to pursue; and the result of this steady favouring of all who have broken the law is to impress on the minds of the people of Ireland that whatever other merits or demerits the Government of Mr. Morley may have, at all events it has much more sympathy with criminals than the Government which went before it. Now I come to certainly one of the oddest announcements of revolution I have ever seen in a public document—
  "A Bill will be submitted to you, on the earliest available occasion, to amend the provision for the government of Ireland."
  In the first place, what does "the earliest available occasion" mean? It does not
  22
  mean immediately or promptly. Does it mean the first occasion after everything else has been done—after all they have promised has been fulfilled and all other measures have been gone through? But, then, what is the meaning of that very mild expression—"to amend the provision for the government of Ireland"? That is a description which would adequately indicate a proposal for abolishing the Lord Lieutenancy. And I am rather led to believe that the forthcoming measure is something of that very mild character by the speech of the noble Lord who moved this Address. The noble Lord (Lord Brassey) who moved the Address, among other merits which ought to be noted in the eloquent speech which he made, spoke under the gravest personal difficulty. It is all advantage which a young man has in making the Motion for the Address that he has not pledged himself beforehand, and is not in danger of having former speeches brought tip against him. But Lord Brassey had been led into eloquence on the Irish question no further back than last July, and he expressed himself with his usual calmness and moderation. Some great change must have come over the spirit of his dream, or else the Bill must be something very different from what any of us expect. He dealt with the question of how far it was possible to make so large a change without adequate popular public support, and said—
  "It is a very difficult question. No great change can be attempted by the Liberal Party without a commanding majority on this side St. George's Channel."
  Your Lordships will observe that the two quantities are balanced; "a great change" is to be supported by a "commanding majority." If there is only a small majority. of course there is to be only a small change. But what is to happen if there is no majority at all?—Because that is the circumstance with which we are confronted now. Then I presume the Bill must be reduced to something very like zero. No doubt we have not to complain of any similar contraction or restriction in the views of the noble Lord who seconded the Address. He went in for pure federation. He quoted to us Austria, Canada, and the United states; and if there were any persons who were so obstinate or so blind as not to see the force of his argument, he told them to

  23
  go and read the American Constitution. But is it the American Constitution which is to appear in this measure "to amend the provision for the government of Ireland"? My Lords, I will not attempt to discuss that of whose nature I am absolutely ignorant; nor is it worth while to go through the arguments the two noble Lords adduced upon the subject of Home Rule. Both the noble Lords seemed to have forgotten the existence of the Ulster mid Protestant minority. (No, no!) Yes, the noble Lord spoke of the minority, but he spoke of it as if it was like no other minority, as if there was no particular reason why it should differ from the majority. He seems never to have heard of the Meath elections, and to have no notion that the real question in issue in Ireland is whether you are to give the party which dominated the Meath election the right to put its foot on the Protestant population of Ireland. That is the real Irish question with which we have to deal. The whole question really turns upon this; it is not only coloured by, but it is absolutely conditioned by and entirely consists in the fact that Irish society is divided to its base; and the differences between the two sections—differences of race, tradition, long history, and mutual ill-will—remove them from the category of those other populations where the majority and the minority alter in their constitution with each passing question of the day. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the very large number of measures which are mentioned at the end of the Queen's Speech. Nobody believes that a half or a tenth of them will ever find their way to the Table of this House. They constitute the Newcastle Programme; they are the whole Newcastle Programme. What is the Newcastle Programme; what amount of time ought it to fill ill the probable activity of Parliament? I will again appeal to the high authority I have already cited. The noble Lord who moved the Address said of the Newcastle programme—"That programme gives a sketch of work which will occupy at least a generation." Well, of course, if the question were one, I will not say between Philip drunk and Philip sober, but between the noble Lord speaking in uniform in the somewhat perverted atmosphere of the House of Lords and the noble
  24
  Lord speaking on the breezy beach of Hastings, I prefer him in the more healthy circumstances in which he stood last summer, and I believe we can better trust his judgment then than now. If these measures are to occupy a generation, I do not feel much interest in discussing matters which some of the younger Members of the House when they are grey-headed old men will probably be fighting over. Therefore I will not follow the observations of the noble Lord opposite with respect to the charms of parish councils and local option. My impression is that if you adopt both those measures, the results will be very different from what the devisers of them expect. If you adopt parish councils, the result will be nobody will attend them; if you adopt local option, the result will be the brewers will have it all their own way. But it is not worth while dwelling upon these subjects more fully. I was disappointed that, in speaking of registration, the noble Lord seemed entirely to fail to see what in our present state of society the real object of the registration law is. Some residence—I do not say how much—but some considerable residence is absolutely necessary in order to prevent that which is a rapidly-growing evil in our constituencies, the evil of personation. It is only when people are known to their neighbours that it is possible to guard against the dangers of personation. I believe it is well known that in those constituencies which enjoy a large Irish element every Irishman on the register is always polled out, no matter how many may have died or gone away. I think that Ireland already enjoys an excessive weight in our Parliamentary system; and I should be very sorry to give that additional weight which would be furnished by an ineffective registration system. There are two matters mentioned by the noble Lord the mover of the Address that are not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, on which I should like to say a word. The noble Lord dwelt upon agricultural depression, and insisted upon the application of capital to the land in a variety of ways which he indicated. I believe he is right, and that if it were possible to insure a large application of capital to the laud very many of the effects of agricultural depression might be averted.

  25
  But in respect to that and all other depression I Only entreat your Lordships to beware of remedies which affect to deal with depression, but only do so by shaking the belief of men in the sanctity of contracts and the security of property. What we really suffer under is want of confidence. I do not say that most of it comes from political causes; it comes from causes of great variety; but one of the elements, and one which I fear will last the longest, is the apprehensions which are being caused in the minds of the owners of capital and the owners of property, partly by legislation which has been already adopted, and very much more from doctrines which are freely published by the partisans of those who have rule in this country at this time. There is no country in the world where property is now so insecure against legislative attack as it is in England; and depend upon it you will feel the evil results of such a state of things in a gradual diminution of confidence and in a gradual withdrawal of capital producing an aggravation of the depression under which we labour. I am sorry the Government did not notice in the Queen's Speech a step for which I gave them great credit, and that is the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the working of the Poor Law. They were quite justified in taking that step. The Poor Law has now been in operation some 60 years. When it was passed it was by no means welcomed by the Conservative opinion of that day. It was strongly opposed by many Conservatives, partly on account of the great severity of its provisions and still more on account of the severity which was to be expected from those philosophers in whose hands the administration of the law was placed. Well, the Poor Law was a great success; there is no doubt about it. It remedied tremendous evils which were bringing the prosperity of the country to the ground. But it is a very fair question for doubt whether there was not something in the protests that were made in this House and elsewhere at the time that the severity was carried to an excessive point. The Government have wisely limited their investigation in the first instance to the question of dealing with old and infirm people in workhouses. I believe that is the first question that ought to be examined.
  26
  I am not sure that it is the whole. I think there are other parts of the Poor Law which are more severe than it is necessary they should be, and that they may with advantage be modified. It would be a tremendous evil if by maintaining provisions of undue severity we were to disgust our people with a system which undoubtedly has contributed to the security and prosperity we have hitherto enjoyed. There can be no doubt that some of the dangers which in 1834 were menacing and real have ceased to have the same character at present. In 1834 you had the terrible fact to deal with that the masses of the population felt it no disgrace to receive the aid of the Poor Law; rather they thought it the natural end and condition of their being. An enormous change has taken place in the opinions of the working classes on that point. Their sense of self-respect and their dislike to receiving parochial relief have greatly increased, and thus the dangers of an abusive use of Poor Law relief have in that proportion diminished. We had to escape from enormous evils in 1834. I hope we shall run no risk of incurring those evils again; and after due consideration of the need for this dominant caution there is much in the present Poor Law the alteration of which may well be the subject of investigation. I do not enter upon further questions that are mentioned in the Queen's Speech. I do not know how many of these Bills we shall have to deal with. My impression is that many of them have been put upon the paper with a very moderate amount of belief on the part of the Government that they will come to any practical end at all. Therefore I prefer to wait until they have been introduced and come practically before us, before offering any remarks upon them.
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, before I address a few observations upon what has fallen from the noble Marquess, I wish to tender to my noble Friends behind me my thanks for the very able manner in which they have executed the task they have undertaken. I really can add nothing to what has been said on that subject by the noble Marquess opposite, but I think the circumstances are such

  27
  that we must feel a great amount of gratitude to my noble Friends for having undertaken to perform that duty. My Lords, I have nothing to complain of in the tone of the speech of the noble Marquess. He has agreed upon some of the topics, and on others he has expressed in temperate terms the disagreement which we know he feels from our policy. The first point to which the noble Marquess referred, and upon which he expressed his entire approval, is the course taken by Her Majesty's Government in foreign affairs. It is a source, I am sure, of great satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government and to my noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) behind me to know that in his administration of the Foreign Office during the time he has held time Seals, that in the conduct of that difficult and delicate business he has shown an ability which demands and has received time respect and confidence of the country. It is no small advantage, not merely to the Government but to the nation at large, when Ministers are able to continue the foreign policy of their predecessors, and that questions of foreign affairs should not be used for Party purposes. There may be occasions when differences may be acute, but it is a great matter of congratulation when we find ourselves upon the same ground. I have only to remark upon two of the topics referred to in his speech that I agree with the noble Marquess opposite that the suppression of the Slave Trade by measures taken in East Africa is certainly one of the objects which should be most clear to the English people. Our long course of exertion in the cause of humanity must convince everyone that this nation feels keenly upon that subject, and I therefore wish to re-echo the opinions which have been expressed by the noble Marquess. With regard to another and very important matter—the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne referring to Egypt. I think it will be agreed on all sides that any Government which holds office in this country should have no hesitation whatever in maintaining our power and the position we have taken up in that country for insuring the safety of our troops and securing peace and order in Egypt. That is a practical and paramount duty which no Govern-
  28
  ment could for one moment neglect to perform. The noble Marquess has commented, and I was not sorry to hear his remark, upon that portion of the Speech which speaks of the augmentation in the number of British troops stationed in Egypt, and states that—
  "This measure does not indicate any change of policy or any modification of the assurances which my Government have given from time to time respecting the occupation of that country."
  He remarked with, as I thought, great force, that whilst the assurances remain the same no change of policy can be indicated by what has been done. So far I re-echo what the noble Marquess stated, and I cannot but hope that the Khedive of Egypt, who is young and inexperienced in government, and who may on that occasion have been moved by unwise advisers, will take to heart what has happened and will see that such aspirations as he is supposed to entertain will not be furthered by any course which may cause disorder in Egypt, or cause in the minds of the European Powers a doubt whether the Egyptian Government has made much progress towards maintaining itself alone. We have in no respect changed the position by sending a reinforcement of troops, and we feel that we shall have the universal support of the country as long as the occupation continues in doing all that is necessary for maintaining our authority, with due regard to the interests of this country and of Egypt. My Lords, time other point referred to by time noble Marquess is one of great interest to us all, and is a matter of universal regret—I mean the depression under which our agricultural classes stiffer. The noble Marquess has approved of our announcement, that there should be au inquiry upon this subject, although he said he did not anticipate any large results from it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hardly went so far as that—as to approve of it. I cannot approve of an inquiry until I know what it is to be. What I said I approved of was that Her Majesty's Government should have the matter under its consideration.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The noble Marquess approved of our drawing attention in the Speech from the Throne to time state of agricultural, affairs. More than that I do not wish to impute. It

  29
  is not in a matter of this kind necessary to consider only whether you have immediate measures to propose; but when so great an interest as that of agriculture is suffering severly, I think it is right and due to that interest, even if you have no specific measure to propose at once, that it should have mention on an occasion like the present in order that the country may know that the Government is sensible of the state of affairs, and is anxious to pass the necessary measures, if there be such possible, for dealing with the depression. The noble Marquess alluded to temporary causes and to the weather; and, with regard to that, I sincerely trust that the very bad weather from which agriculturists suffer is temporary. There may be other causes which are temporary also, but undoubtedly some of the causes wear the appearance of permanence. But, though we are suffering from some causes which it is impossible to hope may be quickly removed, there is no reason why we should not take some notice of the matter. The late Government proposed a measure for increasing small tenancies with that view. I will say at once that I have no belief in heroic measures for the relief of agriculture. Measures for enhancing the price of food in this country, I believe with the noble Marquess, do not come within the bounds of practical politics. For my own part, I sympathise deeply with the distresses which have befallen our agricultural friends; and, if any inquiry takes place, I shall welcome with the greatest satisfaction the suggestion of any method by which they may be palliated or removed. I now come to matters of a more controversial kind, and upon which the noble Marquess did not, as might have been expected, express agreement with Her Majesty's Government. The first point to which the noble Marquess referred was with regard to the measures taken by the Government in Ireland during the last five months. He enumerated the prominent measures which have been taken by my right hon. Friend, Mr. Morley, and he came to the conclusion that we were endeavouring to obtain the support of the criminal population. I think that was the phrase. Now, my Lords, I wish to put the matter front a very different point of view. We are accused by the noble Marquess of having lightly put
  30
  aside what remains of the Crimes Act. He referred to the Proclamations, and said that we had without sufficient cause released the Gweedore murderers; that we had issued a Commission with regard to the evicted tenants, of which he does not approve; and there was a fourth matter, which I do not remember at the moment. I think noble Lords on the other side cannot be ignorant of the fact that we have consistently opposed the policy of coercion pursued by the late Government; and is it surprising, therefore, that having throughout the country stated that we disapprove that policy, the policy pursued by a former Parliament under the auspices of the late Government, we should take the earliest opportunity of showing that we are preparing to carry into effect the policy which we believe to be the best, and that our disapproval is not confined to mere speech? That is the keynote of my right hon. Friend's (Mr. Morley's) policy. It is not the need of support front, or sympathy with, the criminal population. It is a policy which does not sympathise with, but condemns, and wishes to reverse, the coercion policy of the late Government. But I ant not prepared to say that we are not bound to justify every particular measure which we may take. The noble Marquess did not go into particular cases, and, therefore, I will not attempt to justify them now. Whenever our acts are condemned and attacked, we shall be perfectly prepared to meet the attack upon us, and to state the reasons why we believe we are thoroughly justified in the course we have pursued. My Lords, the next point is the cardinal point upon which I say at once the policy of the Government hinges, and upon which our fate no doubt will depend. I mean the measure which, as you all know, is the measure which will in a certain form give Home Rule to Ireland. The noble Marquess was dissatisfied with the description given of it in the Speech from the Throne. But it has, at all events, this merit: that it follows the description of the Bill brought in in 1886, and, so far it may be taken to indicate, the continuity of our policy. With regard to the measure itself, the noble Marquess does not anticipate, no doubt, that I should describe it. But it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring it at the earliest opportunity—and by

  31
  that I mean the first opportunity that may be available for the Government in the House of Commons. I think when it is brought in the noble Marquess will find that it is by no means of a milk-and water description. The other matters of the Speech are not of a very controversial kind. I will not follow the noble Marquess into the dry question of registration; all I will say is, that I believe in both Houses, on both sides, there is a general desire that our system of registration should be simplified and improved. All who know anything of its working must feel that it is extremely defective; and I fully believe that when the measure is produced, though there may be differences of opinion upon particular clauses, both Parties will co-operate to place our legislation in regard to that system upon a more sound and satisfactory footing. Reverting to Home Rule, I am reminded of au observation which was made by the noble Lord behind me (Lord Thring)— and which before I leave the subject of Ireland I ought to notice. The noble Marquess hardly appreciated the argument of my noble Friend. He referred to the American publications on the subject of Federation, and brought forward Canada and Austro-Hungary as examples which might be taken as precedents in the Irish case. I think the noble Marquess hardly gave fair weight to what my noble Friend added: that he did not pretend that there was any precise analogy between the two cases, and that he only quoted them to show that in cases where local self-government hail been granted it had led to popular content. Further than that he did not desire the argument to be pushed. I think it right, in fairness to my noble Friend, to refer to that matter. Then the noble Marquess made another observation. He said—
  "When you talk of the minority you speak of the majority not oppressing the minority, but you forget it is a question between the priests in Ireland and the Protestant population."
  Now, I maintain that if this country is going to govern Ireland upon the principle that it is our duty to maintain the Protestant population against supposed aggression on the part of the priests and the Roman Catholic population, then we should He going back upon the principles which dictated the Act of 1829, and we should be introducing into
  32
  our policy towards Ireland the most fatal of all principles—namely, that we are to base our policy upon the perpetuation and strengthening of the bitterest religious dissensions. It is because we believe that by the policy we advocate we can pave the way towards healing all those dissensions, and it is because we believe that until that bitter antagonism ceases to exist between the different sections of the population Ireland will never be content, that we propose that the Local Government of the country should be placed in the hands of the Irish themselves. I had some experience in the government of Ireland some time ago, and I do not believe that the Roman Catholic population will oppress the Protestant population. Even if it has the desire to do so, the Protestant minority is, I think, well able to take care of itself; and although I quite admit that the priestly influence is too great at elections, I believe there is no reason for saying that there will be any general oppression of the Protestant population by the Roman Catholic majority. That feeling has grown up year after year out of political conditions and from political reasons; but after the political reasons have disappeared, that bitterness will disappear with them. Now, my Lords, I turn to much less exciting topics, and I wish to notice some remarks which the noble Marquess made about the number of Bills. He will forgive me for saying, in the time of the late Government, it not unfrequently happened there was a large programme of Bills which did not always pass into law. I can quote an occasion when there were some six of these promised in the Speech, which did not even see the light. That was in 1887; and there were some four others which did not pass into law. Therefore, the example of promising measures and not passing them has not been set by Her Majesty's Government. But I indulge in the sanguine anticipation that, whit the assistance of the noble Marquess opposite, we may reap a goodly crop from the measures we now propose. One of them, I think, the noble Marquess treated rather too cavalierly. I mean that relating to Parish Councils. I do not look upon them as a very extraordinary expedient, but as a simple matter of local government. It seems me that

  33
  will not he complete until you have a scheme for District Councils, and also a system of Parish Councils. There is nothing so very new in the matter; for the old system of parish government by the Parish Vestry was, in fact, a system of Parish Councils; and I believe the time has come when it will be of advantage to strengthen our system—when that old system should be revivified, and that there should be a real and active scheme of parish government which may give a certain amount of contentment to the labourers in the parish. As my noble Friend behind me has said, it would be in consonance with the principles of our Government, and would tend to give the villagers an interest in their affairs—affairs which they are able to conduct without any injury whatever to anybody, and with advantage to themselves. Then the last topic which was alluded to by the noble Marquess, in, I think, unduly solemn tones, was the agricultural depression. He warned us that one great cause of the agricultural depression, and of the depression generally throughout the country, was a feeling of insecurity. My Lords, I do not deny that some people do entertain a feeling of that kind. But I confess I have more confidence in my fellow-countrymen than the noble Marquess appears to have. It has always been the case in this country that all kinds of changes have been advocated —some of them of an extreme kind. But we have not therefore been alarmed, or imagined that every extreme proposal put forward on the platform in loud tones would necessarily pass into law. It is the nature of our people; and it is only natural that after having given a large extension of the franchise, enabling them to exercise a direct influence on the Government of the country, that a greater number of questions should he put forward and discussed than formerly. I myself believe that schemes will be adopted by the country where sound, and rejected where unsound; and that the result will be that property will be even more secure than before, because I conceive that the security of property depends upon a feeling of general contentment among the people. The noble Marquess made one further observation which I was extremely glad to hear. He concurred with us with regard to the Poor Law;
  34
  and I do not think there was anything that he said in which I do not agree. I believe that the general principles of the Poor Law are sound, and that the measure when introduced conferred great benefits upon the country. I agree with the noble Marquess that it would be a great misfortune if, by pushing sound logical principles too far, you were to cause general discontent in the administration of the Poor Law, which would prevent you maintaining its main principles intact. But I think it is extremely desirable that we should have a thorough examination of the present Poor Law system, with a view of seeing whether there cannot be some amelioration made in the lot of those who are obliged to have recourse to State assistance without weakening the sound principles on which the Poor Law rests. I think the noble Marquess will agree with me, that in any inquiry of this kind, which is one of the most important nature, and of great difficulty, it is not desirable to make it too extensive. In the first instance, the Government limit the inquiry to old age. But I agree with the noble Marquess that there are other points which will have to be considered; and that it may be found necessary to extend the inquiry to further subjects. I do not know that there is any other point touched upon by the noble Marquess which needs observation; and I can only say if there is any point upon which I have not touched, my colleagues will be able to answer it.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I have listened with some curiosity, and I am bound to say w some disappointment, to the answer which has just been given by the noble Earl the Leader of the Government as to the multiplicity of measures which have been referred to in Her Majesty's Speech. I understood the noble Lord's answer to be that on former occasions a considerable number of Bills had been promised which had never been passed, and many of which had not even been introduced. I ant perfectly aware that all Governments are in this matter inclined to take a rather sanguine view, and to exaggerate their powers of legislation in any particular Session; but I do not think that it has ever been the practice of any Government to introduce in Her Majesty's Speech a list of measures

  35
  which they must know, judging by past experience and by the character of those measures themselves, it is absolutely impossible under the most favourable circumstances which can be conceived that they should be submitted for the consideration of Parliament. I was astonished to hear the noble Earl express a confident hope that any considerable number of those measures could by any possibility be passed into law during the present year. A great many of them relate to subjects of a highly controversial character, and though it is possible that one or more of them may make their appearance again in this House, I think we may say with absolute certainty that if they do make their way up to this House they will not be in the company of the Irish Home Rule Bill. They relate to subjects of the most controversial character, and every hour which is devoted to the debates to which they will inevitably give rise in any place will be subtracted from the not excessive amount of time which can under any circumstances exist for the discussion of a Bill so complicated as the Irish Home Rule Bill must be. I admit I have not looked upon this list as a practical programme of legislation at all. I have regarded it rather in the light of perhaps a necessary and certainly a frank recognition of the tenure under which the present Government holds office. This list, including every part of the Newcastle programme, is a sort of homage to the various sections by the combination of which the present Government have been placed in power. What remains to be seen is whether this act of homage and tender of allegiance will be accepted by the Members who represent those sections in another place in full satisfaction of their claims; and what remains still further to be seen is whether the electors who have returned those representatives to Parliament on the face of promises that the Liberal Party would devote its most strenuous efforts to carry into law the particular project in which they are interested—whether they will find their claims altogether satisfied by the inclusion of a similar measure in the list which it certainly will take several Sessions, mid probably will take several Parliaments, to consider and discuss. Well, my Lords, under those circumstances I think it is not necessary to spend any time in the
  36
  consideration of the other paragraphs of the Speech which contain an enumeration of the various other measures which are proposed to be introduced. I will, with your Lordships' permission, devote a little more time to that paragraph in the Speech which refers to the legislation on the Government of Ireland. I am bound to say that the tone of the Speech upon that subject is such as almost to disarm criticism from its modesty and from the extreme moderation of its language. "This is not a great measure," it seems to say; "it is only a measure to amend the provisions "—whatever that may mean—" for the Government of Ireland." No one can complain of the recital of the desires which have inspired Her Majesty's Government in its preparation; but I venture to think that great constitutional changes such as we have been led to expect have not been very much influenced by the desires however humble of whatever body of men, however respectable. Those desires are not the elements with which we have to deal in the consideration of the question of Irish Government. The elements with which we have to deal are, on the one hand, no doubt discontent, which has extended over a long period, and which is not due altogether to disorder, and on the other the presence in the other House of Parliament of a large body of irreconcilable Members who have made both administration and legislation nearly, if not altogether, impossible. We have also to deal with an agrarian agitation which has from time to time broken out into outbursts of crime, and we have to deal with a powerful priesthood, who desire to make themselves dominant in the government of the country. We have further to deal with a sympathy which no doubt is felt for a national movement by large masses of Irish people in many parts of the world. On the other hand, we have to deal with the feelings and passions of a not inconsiderable minority in Ireland, who are bitterly opposed to any considerable disturbance of the relations at present existing between Ireland and this country and between Ireland and this Parliament. We have to deal with a deep-rooted distrust on the part of the majority of the people of this country as to the justice or expediency of intrusting the lives and fortunes of the minority in Ireland to the control of an Irish Parliament, and we

  37
  have a not less deep-rooted distrust on the part of the same majority in this country to any disturbance of the sovereign power of Parliament, or of the Parliamentary Constitution under which we live. These are some of the elements with which we shall have to deal when we come to consider this question. I enumerate the desires which have prompted Her Majesty's Government in the preparation of this measure which take no account of any of those fundamental problems which ought never to be ignored in the discussion of the question which we are invited to discuss. But, my Lords, we are told so much that we arc naturally inspired with a desire to know more. We are informed that this measure
  "has been prepared with the desire to afford contentment to the Irish people, important relief to Parliament, and additional securities for the strength and union or the Empire."
  That is a statement which can hardly be held to apply to the people of Ulster. While we are told so much it should have been possible to give us some indication of how this measure will afford contentment and protection to the people of that and the other parts of Ireland. There are other points also upon which we should have desired information to be given. No doubt we shall be told that on such au occasion as this we should disregard details, but there is one point which I think in every previous declaration on the subject has occupied a conspicuous place, but which is now conspicuous by its absence. We are told that the measure has been prepared "to afford general relief to Parliament." We have in every former official declaration on this subject been assured that it has been prepared and inspired with a desire of maintaining intact and unimpaired the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. I cannot revert at the present moment to what has occurred in the past, but I have a strong recollection that in one of the earlier speeches of the Prime Minister, in opposition to a Motion brought forward by Mr. Butt, he laid it down that before Parliament ought even to be invited to consider this question, it ought to be made clear in what way the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was to be maintained. It seems to me that this is not a detail of a legislative measure for which we have no right to ask, it is a
  38
  declaration of policy as to which we have a right to expect information. Let Inc suggest to your Lordships a not dissimilar case. If this were the case of a colony demanding separation from Great Britain — absolute independence—and supposing there was at the same time a strong party at home which denied the existence in the colony of any genuine demand for separation, which contended that every difficulty might be met by some readjustment of the constitutional relation. Supposing that the Members of the Government had never had an opportunity of making any official or responsible declaration upon the subject, but were strongly suspected from some of their previous declarations and actions of leaning to a policy of complete separation. Supposing them on the occasion, of the meeting of Parliament to announce their intention of dealing with the question, would any Member of your Lordships' House say that the Government would be discharging its duty to the House by withholding from it that information Which the House is entitled to demand? In such a case I say that every Member of this House and the other House of Parliament would have the right to demand at the earliest moment a statement of policy from the Government on such a cardinal and vital question. I ask, is that not the case with Ireland? We demand to know, not the details of the measure, but one of the main principles on which it is founded—whether the Government intend to establish in Ireland a body which shall be absolutely independent of, and not subject to, the control of the Parliament sitting here, or whether they intend, as on a previous Occasion they said they did, to maintain intact and unimpaired the power of the Imperial Parliament over every person, matter, or thing throughout the whole breadth of the United Kingdom. This is a matter of great importance, which we may not have an early opportunity of discussing. I will read to your Lordships one or two passages which were read in the other House last August in the presence of the Members by whom they had been spoken, who did not then take any notice of them. Mr. Chamberlain referred to the authority of one of the legal advisers of the Government. The present Attorney General, speaking

  39
  only in the previous month of July, had said—
  "What would be the checks upon this Parliament? First, the veto of the Crown in cases of importance or grave impolicy; secondly, the fact that as the Imperial Parliament had made this other, so it could unmake or modify it; and, thirdly, the inherent right of the Imperial Parliament to legislate directly for any portion of the Queen's Empire. It was not contemplated that any of those checks should be used except in case of dire necessity, and he wished to point out the enormous force which would still remain in the Imperial Parliament,"
  I will next refer to a declaration of a right hon. Gentleman, a Member of the Government, who at a previous period was not satisfied with the provisions made for the maintenance of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, and left the Government of that day for that reason. He is a Member of the Government now, and apparently, therefore, satisfied on the point. His definition of Imperial supremacy was—
  "If the Imperial Parliament does not continue Imperial I shall never care to sit in it again. By Imperial Parliament I mean, and we all mean, a Parliament which represents in equal proportions all parts of the United Kingdom. We mean a Parliament that is not only nominal or theoretical, but also real, practical, and genuine, controlling every other body and authority whatsoever—a Parliament to which every citizen may look for the safety of his life and for the maintenance of Ins personal rights."
  Another Member of the Government (Mr. Morley) has referred to this subject in language equally strong, and directly pointing to the possibility in certain cases of actual interference by the Imperial Parliament with the subordinate Parliament to be established in Dublin. In replying to me, he says—
  "But does Lord Hartington men n—I hope this may be the case—that, if the Parliament at Dublin passed unjust, tyrannical, vindictive, oppressive measures against any section of the Irish population, the Parliament of 'Westminster shall be free promptly, by some means or other, direct or indirect, to overrule and so forbid such a law? If this is what Lord Hartington means, there is no difference of opinion ant no difference of aim. I hope we shall not interfere to prevent mere un wisdom and mere mistakes, for the mischief has come because Ireland has not had the responsibility of her own acts. We should not interfere to prevent mere un wisdom; but we should interfere, I suppose and I hope, to prevent injustice and wrong."
  The last extract with which I will trouble your Lordships is in the words of the present Prime Minister himself—
  40
  "Will not the Crown, in a system of Home Government in Ireland, be the Lord Lieutenant? Will not the appointment of the Lord Lieutenant, who must be the head of the Irish executive, effectually afford to the British Crown, and through the British Crown to the British Ministry, and through the British Ministry to the British Parliament, the power of interfering, of which I can only say that. I am certain of its sufficiency for any purpose whatever?"
  The Prime Minister has also contemplated the necessity of interference under certain circumstances. Now, my Lords, let us see, that being the view up to, a recent date of Her Majesty's Ministers, what, I would ask, is the view of the Nationalist Party upon this subject? In the same Debate to which I have referred, which took place last August, Mr. Redmond quoted the declaration made by Mr. Parnell in January, 1891—
  "There can be no mistake about it, we want a Parliament with full power to manage the affairs of Ireland, mill with no English veto, whether on the appointment of your Leader or the laws you shall make. A veto of that kind would break down ant destroy your Parliament-before it had been two years in existence. There must be no veto other than the Constitutional veto of the Crown, as it is exercised by the Crown on the Imperial Parliament."
  That, Mr. Redmond said, is a definition which' holds good to this day. He said—
  "I assert that no Nationalist in Ireland, or in this House, or elsewhere, will venture to say that the Irish National claims will be satisfied by a scheme one whit less extreme than that which is shadowed forth in the quotation L have read."
  He went on to explain in more detail what it was, and how this could be carried out. He said—
  "It comes to this—What we ask is that in this Home Rule Bill there shall be a clause specially undertaking that, while the Irish Parliament continues in existence, the power to legislate should never be used; in point of fact, we should require a formal compact with them to the effect that, while that Legislature lasted, it should have a free and unfettered control of Irish affairs."
  Now, these declarations are irreconcilable, and I assert that in the circumstances we have a right to know now what the intentions of the Government are. We do not ask to be told the details of the measure, but we claim that we have a right to know whether the Government adhere to the pledges which they have given as to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. I think we call see

  41
  already some inclination and tendency to reduce and whittle away the effect of such declarations as those to which I have referred. Mr. Asquith, the present Home Secretary, in it letter which he wrote some time ago, declared himself in favour of—
  "The maintenance, intact and unimpaired, of the unquestioned and unquestionable sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament over all persons and in all matters local and Imperial."
  That was the declaration made by Mr. Asquith as a mere supporter of Mr. Gladstone. But as Home Secretary, Mr. Asquith, speaking at Liverpool on January 20, this year, used language which shows, I think, some falling away front the width and breadth of the declaration in his letter. He said—
  "In the next place, the ultimate supremacy of the Imperial Parliament must be visibly and effectually maintained."
  And he went on to say—
  "It is very easy to prove upon paper that it is impossible to reconcile the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament upon the one hand with the autonomy of a subordinate Legislature on the other. It could be proved with equal ease in the case of Canada, in the case of the Australian Colonies, and in the case of every one of the Queen's dominions to which in turn self-government has been granted. Nay, I will go further, and I will say that there is not a Constitution in the civilised world which could not be wrecked in a week if all the parties in it were to act upon every occasion to the extreme limit of their legal powers."
  Now, I would ask whether we are not to read that later declaration of the Home Secretary as an admission that he is now prepared, instead of claiming the unquestioned sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament over all matters local and Imperial, for merely a recognition of the supremacy such as exists in relation to the Government of Canada, to which he refers? I think that the Home Secretary's language justifies that supposition. I think we shall obtain some practical advantage, in the first place, if we can obtain a declaration from any of Her Majesty's Ministers that we have here the whole width and breadth and spirit of this measure, a declaration which will help to draw the attention of the population of this country and the Members of the Legislature to one or two cardinal points which ought never to be forgotten in ensuing discussions on this subject. There is a danger, in my opinion, that in the multiplicity of details and side
  42
  issues in which we shall be involved when we come to the discussion of the Home Rule Bill, the attention of both the Legislature and the public may be drawn from some of the main, and to ourselves some of the most important, issues. There is a fear that the English people, trusting to the continued validity of such declarations as I have quoted, and finding in this proposed measure some recognition of the principle of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, such as exists in the case of Canada or other of our self-governing Colonies, may be lulled into a sense of security, while the Irish Members, with better reason, trust to the assurance or to the conviction that this nominal supremacy, although it may exist will never be enforced, and never can be enforced. My Lords, it seems to me these are questions which the people in this country ought not to lose sight of, and that their attention cannot be called to them a day too soon, even before the introduction of this measure. I might argue that the problem which this Government has undertaken to solve is one which is insoluble. I do not believe it is to be proved, as Mr. Asquith says it can be proved, upon paper, having reference to the practical working of Government, that it is possible to recognise Imperial supremacy with an autonomous Parliament in Ireland. But I ant not justified in entering into that point now. We are bound to believe that Her Majesty's Government have discovered, or think they have discovered, some solution of the question; but in my opinion we have a right to know whether they still adhere to these declarations, which have been made in terms of equal strength and width by the most responsible among them, and whether they are content, when their measure is produced, to stand or fall by the test of whether it does satisfy, or fails to satisfy, the conditions which they themselves have laid down as essential to any measure which ought to receive the assent of the Parliament of this country.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA AND NOTTINGHAMsaid, he trusted that the progress of a movement out of doors which might escape the attention of some of their Lordships would excuse his dealing with those portions of the

  43
  Speech which referred to agriculture. There were some points which appeared to him not to have received in the Speech from the Throne all the attention which they might. One was that in which Her Majesty's Government stated that they had determined upon making some alteration in the number of troops in Egypt in view of recent occurrences in that country. But ought it not rather to have been "in view of recent occurrences at Newcastle," because, was not this a measure which would result in weakening of the imperial power? He had read with great astonishment that Her Majesty's Government were going to send out a Commissioner to Uganda with adequate provision for his safety, but it should not be forgotten that no assurance was given that these provisions might not be made in vain. He had been led to that conclusion by the general benevolent attitude towards the British producer taken up in the Speech from the Throne, and he was glad to find that that benevolent attitude had been carried a step further by the speech of the noble Lord who had moved the Address in their Lordships' House. He was very glad to hear the Mover of the Address say there was an intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to look into the question of the readjustment of local taxation, and that was the more remarkable because it would not have escaped the recollection of their Lordships that not many months since, in the other House, on the Motion of Mr. Provand, the political supporters of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government committed themselves to exactly the opposite view—a statement that the taxation on land ought to be increased. He was very glad that that farce had been accomplished. There were other points in the speech of the Mover of the Address which demanded attention. It was satisfactory also to have the noble Lord's opinion that the railways ought no longer to be allowed to carry foreign produce at rates which were practically prohibitive to home pro-duce. The noble Lord had stated that one remedy for the agricultural distress would be found in laying down land in pasture. They were aware that for every 100 acres so laid down four labourers must be thrown out of employment. It was, therefore, a very serious
  44
  thing for the labourers of this country if a general policy was to be recommended, either from one side or the other, which would involve the laying down of large tracts of land in pasture. The only effect would be to send the labourers into the towns, where they would seek employment, but would not find it, and would only add to the great pressure already falling on the local rates. He must take this opportunity of referring to the sudden conversion of the other side of the House to measures. which they had often heard advocated before, but which had never been received with favour. It was very like the National Agricultural Union casting its shadow before. None who lived in the country could doubt that landlords had lost their rents, tenants their profits, and the labourers were now in danger of losing their wages. When the noble Lord stated (and in that statement he himself fully concurred) that two of the causes of the agricultural depression were bad weather and low prices, he would ask leave to respectfully indicate a third, which he thought had had an equal effect upon the agricultural interest, namely, dis-organisation. If the agricultural interest had been organised the railway companies would never have dared to increase their rates as they had done. If they had an organised interest the middleman would never have been able to take not only his fair share of profits, but so unjust a share of them as to render it impossible to produce at a profit at all. Not only that, but local burdens had been placed one after another upon their shoulders, because they were not sufficiently organised to prevent that being done. He hoped they would be able to do something for themselves in the direction of organisation, and that they would be enabled to bring upon this question all the wisdom and experience which their members possessed, so that helped by themselves and helped by Parliament they might do something to rescue agriculture from the deplorable state into which it had fallen, a state which was not only dangerous, but was widening its influence to such an extent that it was affecting the income of everyone in the land. He would venture to promise Her Majesty's Government support for any measure of that kind which they might introduce, and no one had a

  45
  greater interest in these matters than the Members of their Lordships' House.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONthought that before the Debate closed they ought to know upon what grounds the remarks with regard to the steady decrease of crime in Ireland in the gracious Speech from the Throne had been based. He failed to understand where Her Majesty's Government could have obtained such information. There was no question that for the last six years under the late Administration there had been a steady progress in the establishment of law and order in Ireland. There could be no question that agrarian crime had been, for a time at all events, entirely extirpated in many parts of the country. There were, of course, exceptions to the rule, and to one of those exceptions he wished to draw their Lordships' attention—that was, the state of the County of Clare. At the time the lute Government quitted office the county of Clare was one of the few portions of Ireland still subject to the operation of the Crimes Act. The first thing that happened when Mr. Morley went to Ireland was that the provisions of the Crimes Act were suspended throughout the both and breadth of that county. What had been the result? It was perfectly true that crime had not been entirely extirpated by the Crimes Act; and it was perfectly true, because it very singular state of things existed in that county. Crime in Clare was not only agarian, it was a sort of internecine war or vendetta, carried on between rival factions representing secret societies, and perpetuating outrages upon each other. But what was the position now in Clare? Although it was stated there had been a steady progress in law and order, at a meeting of magistrates there, presided over by a Member of that House, as well acquit tired with the state of the country as any man in the three kingdoms, they had given their opinion that the state of the county was alarming in the extreme; that crime had steadily increased; that outrages were frequent; that fires were of constant occurrence; and more than that, that the number of crimes reported to the constabulary was not one-t hint of those which were to committed—sufferers front the outrages being afraid even to report to the police the treatment to which they had been subjected. A statement to that
  46
  effect was signed on behalf of the magistrates by the Lord Lieutenant of the county, and was forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and also to the Prime Minister. Any one who knew what the actual state of the County Clare was would know that there was no more chance of obtaining a conviction for an agrarian crime, or any crime of a serious character, than there would be of obtaining a conviction for high treason against the Prime Minister, with a jury of his own Cabinet trying him, and the Lord Chancellor sitting on the Woolsack to decide-the case. It was utterly impossible to obtain a conviction in that part of the country. Another part of Ireland which he would mention was West Kerry. Although he was not personally acquainted with it, he had the best means of knowing what was going on there. Castle Island, a name not unfamiliar to their Lordships, had been the centre of all that was turbulent in Kerry. He would ask any one to glance over the public papers, and see what was happening in Castle Island and its neighbourhood at the present moment. He believed the last occurrence that had happened there was entirely devoid of any agrarian character. The parish priest had appointed a very competent person to be teacher in the school. The friends of the former teacher had resented this. A number of houses were visited in the night, shots were fired, and the inhabitants were warned that if they continued to send their children to the school where the obnoxious teacher presided, serious consequences would happen to them. And yet Her Majesty's Government thought it right to put in the Speech from the Throne that there was a steady progress in Ireland towards a better state of things. He could not believe that the two noble Lords, who had each held the Government of Ireland in troublous times, and had done good service in the public interest, could have taken the trouble to look into statistics which they might have obtained from reliable sources before a statement of that kind was put into the Speech. He might say without fear of contradiction that if the state of the country was fairly examined by them, although it was very much better than it had been at many previous periods of its history, it would be found that during the last six months

  47
  there had been a steady retrogression in the state of the country, and that every month had made it more apparent that the laws which restrained crime in the disturbed districts of Ireland had been relaxed far too soon. Of course, the difficulty of obtaining such statistics was very great, because the moment anyone showed unusual activity in the suppression of crime, or had done so in the past, he was immediately removed by the present Chief Secretary, and, perhaps, relegated to some distant part of the country of which he had known nothing whatever before, and it was pretty generally understood that such persons were not popular under the present Castle régime, and that they would have to suffer for their temerity. That, at all events, was the impression among those who had the administration of law and order in Ireland. Another point was the extraordinary manner in which the Chief Secretary had acted with regard to the Judiciary. When a Judge felt it necessary in the execution of his duty to make a statement about the prevalence of crime in a particular locality he was immediately accused by the Chief Secretary of having spoken with the Parties opposite. That was not very encouraging. But what was still more extraordinary was that the Chief Secretary, who thought that the Irish people were to be trusted in every respect, had thought it necessary to subtract a Judge from the English Judiciary to carry out the investigations he required, because there was not to be found, forsooth, on the Irish Bench a Judge of sufficient impartiality to preside over such a Commission. He could hardly conceive how a greater insult coned be conveyed to a nation than to say that a body of men who had been appointed by Prime Ministers, taken from both sides of the House, who had discharged their duties faithfully for years, were to be held wholly incompetent to conduct any inquiry which the Government saw fit to institute. If there was any answer to all this he confessed he should like to hear it. He would like to hear from some Member of Her Majesty's Government upon what authority these things had been done, why these statements hail been made in the Speech from the Throne, and how they proposed to justify the line of
  48
  action they had taken in matters so seriously affecting the interests of the country. They had thought fit to issue a Fishing Commission which was more extraordinary than had ever been issued by the Crown before. He was not aware that any precedent existed for such a Commission except that created by Mr. Morley himself in the case of Belfast some six or seven years ago.
  THE MARQUES OF LONDONDERRYsaid that, as there were a number of Peers connected with Ireland, and well acquainted with the present state of affairs there, who were anxious to discuss this question, and to state their views upon it to the House, he would, in order to affairs them an opportunity of doing so, move the adjournment of the Debate until Thursday next.
  Moved, "That the Debate be adjourned to 'Thursday next."—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There is no objection to that course.
  Motion agreed to; Debate adjourned till Thursday next.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The EARL of MORLEY appointed, nemine dessentiente, to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session
COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES—Appointed.
SUB-COMMITTEE FOR THE JOURNALS —Appointed.
STOPPFAGES IN THE STREETS—Order to preven, renewed.
APPEAL COMMITTEE—Appointed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.