Second Session, 1892 (Complete).




24 and 25, Old Jewry, London, E.C.,






4 August. Page 5, line 29, should read "To-morrow at Twelve."

8 August. Page 156, line 26, should read "it was opposed."


At the Court at Windsor, the 28th day of June, 1892.


The QUEEN'S Most Excellent Majesty in Council.

IT is this day ordered by Her Majesty in Council that the Parliament be prorogued from Tuesday, the twenty-eighth day of June instant, to Friday, the fifteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, and that the Right Honourable the Lord High Chancellor of that part of the United Kingdom called Great Britain do cause a Commission to be prepared and issued in the usual manner for proroguing the Parliament accordingly.




For Dissolving the present Parliament, and declaring the calling of another.

Victoria, R.

WHEREAS We have thought fit, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council, to dissolve this present Parliament which stands prorogued to Friday, the fifteenth day of July next: We do, for that end, publish this Our Royal Proclamation, and do hereby dissolve the said Parliament accordingly; and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, and the Commissioners for shires and burghs, of the House of Commons, are discharged from their meeting and attendance on the said Friday, the fifteenth day of July next: And We, being desirous and resolved, as soon as may be, to meet Our people, and to have their advice in Parliament, do hereby make known to all Our loving subjects Our Royal Will and Pleasure to call a new Parliament; and do hereby further declare, that, with the advice of Our Privy Council, We have given order that Our Chancellor of that part of Our United Kingdom called Great Britain and Our Chancellor of Ireland do respectively, upon notice thereof, forthwith issue out writs, in due form and according to law, for calling a new Parliament. And We do hereby also, by this Our Royal Proclamation under Our Great Seal of Our United Kingdom, require writs forthwith to be issued accordingly by Our said Chancellors respectively, for causing the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons who are to serve in the said Parliament to be duly returned to, and give their attendance in, Our said Parliament on the fourth day of August next, which writs are to be returnable in due course of law.

Given at Our Court at Windsor, this twenty-eighth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, and in the fifty-sixth year of Our Reign.

GOD save the QUEEN.




In order to the Electing and Summoning the Sixteen Peers of Scotland.

Victoria, R.

WHEREAS We have in Our Council thought fit to declare Our pleasure for summoning and holding a Parliament of Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, on Thursday, the fourth day of August next ensuing the date hereof; in order, therefore, to the electing and summoning the Sixteen Peers of Scotland who are to sit in the House of Peers in the said Parliament, We do, by the advice of Our Privy Council, issue forth this Our Royal Proclamation, strictly charging and commanding all the Peers of Scotland to assemble and meet at Holyrood House, in Edinburgh, on Thursday, the fourteenth day of July next, between the hours of twelve and two in the afternoon, to nominate and choose the Sixteen Peers to sit and vote in the House of Peers in the said ensuing Parliament by open election and plurality of voices of the Peers that shall be then present, and of the proxies of such as shall be absent (such proxies being Peers, and producing a mandate in writing duly signed before witnesses, and both the constituent and proxy being qualified according to law); and the Lord Clerk Register, or the two Principal Clerks of the Session appointed by him to officiate in his name, are hereby respectively required to attend such meeting, and to administer the oaths required by law to be taken there by the said Peers, and to take their votes, and immediately after such election made and duly examined to certify the names of the Sixteen Peers so elected, and to sign and attest the same in the presence of the said Peers the Electors, and return such certificate into Our High Court of Chancery of Great Britain. And We do, by this Our Royal Proclamation, strictly command and require the Provost of Edinburgh, and all other the Magistrates of the said city, to take especial care to preserve the peace thereof during the time of the said election, and to prevent all manner of riots, tumults, disorders, and violence whatsoever. And We strictly charge and command that this Our Royal Proclamation be duly published at the Market-Cross at Edinburgh, and in all the county towns of Scotland, ten days at least before the time hereby appointed for the meeting of the said Peers to proceed to such election.

Witness Ourselves at Windsor, this twenty-eighth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, and in the fifty-sixth year of Our Reign.

GOD save the QUEEN.




Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Most Hon. Marquess of SALISBURY, K.G.
First Lord of the Treasury Right Hon. ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR.
Lord Chancellor of England Right Hon. Lord HALSBURY.
Lord Chancellor of Ireland Right Hon. Lord ASHBOURNE.
Lord President of the Council Right Hon. Viscount CRANBROOK, G.C.S.I.
Lord Privy Seal Right Hon. Earl CADOGAN.
Secretary of State, Home Department Right Hon. HENRY MATTHEWS.
Secretary of State for the Colonies Right Hon. Lord KNUTSFORD, G.C.M.G.
Secretary of State for War Right Hon. EDWARD STANHOPE.
Secretary of State for India Right Hon. Viscount CROSS, G.C.B., G.C.S.I.
Chancellor of the Exchequer Right Hon. GEORGE JOACHIM GOSCHEN.
First Lord of the Admiralty Right Hon. Lord GEORGE FRANCIS HAMILTON.
President of the Board of Trade Right Hon. Sir M. E. HICKS BEACH, Bart.
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster His Grace the Duke of RUTLAND, G.C.B.
Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant Right Hon. WILLIAM LAWIES JACKSON.
President of the Local Government Board Right Hon. CHARLES THOMSON RITCHIE.
President of the Board of Agriculture Right Hon. HENRY CHAPLIN.
Field Marshal Commanding in Chief H.R.H. the Duke of CAMBRIDGE, K.G.
Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education Right Hon. Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE, Bart.
Secretary for Scotland and Vice President of the Scotch Education Department Most Hon. Marquess of LOTHIAN, K.T.
First Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings Right Hon. DAVID ROBERT PLUNKEY.
Lords of the Treasury Hon. SIDNEY HERBERT.
Lords of the Admiralty Admiral Sir A. H. HOSKINS, K.C.B., Vice Admirs
Sir F. W. RICHARDS, K.C.B., Rear Admiral JOHN
A. FISHER, C.B., Rear Admiral F. G.D. BEDFORD,
Joint Secretaries to the Treasury Right Hon. ARETAS AKERS-DOUGLAS.
Secretary to the Admiralty Right Hon. ARTHUR BOWER FORWOOD.
Secretary to the Board of Trade Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH.
Secretary to the Local Government Board WALTER H. LONG, Esq.
Under Secretary, Home Department CHARLES BEILBY STUART WORTLEY, Esq.
Under Secretary, Foreign Department JAMES WILLIAM LOWTHER, Esq.
Under Secretary for Colonies Right Hon. Baron HENRY DE WORMS.
Under Secretary for War Right Hon. Earl BROWNLOW.
Under Secretary for India Hon. GEORGE N. CURZON.
Paymaster General Right Hon. Lord WINDSOR.
Postmaster General Right Hon. Sir JAMES FERGUSSON, Bart, G.C.S.I.
Financial Secretary to the War Department Hon. W. St. JOHN BRODRICK.
Judge Advocate General Right Hon. Sir WILLIAM THACKERAY MARRIOTT.
Solicitor General Sir EDWARD GEORGE CLARKE, Q.C.
Lord Advocate Right Hon. Sir C. J. PEARSON.
Solicitor General ANDREW GRAHAM MURRAY, Esq.
Lord Lieutenant Right Hon. Earl of ZETLAND.
Lord Chancellor Right Hon. Lord ASHBOURNE.
Attorney General Right Hon. J. ATKINSON.
Solicitor General EDWARD CARSON, Esq.
Lord Steward Right Hon. Earl of MOUNT-EDGOUMBE.
Lord Chamberlain Right Hon. Earl of LATHOM.
Master of the Horse His Grace the Duke of PORTLAND.
Treasurer of the Household Right Hon. Lord WALTER GORDON-LENNOX.
Comptroller of the Household Right Hon. Lord ARTHUR HILL.
Vice Chamberlain of the Household Right Hon. Lord BURGHLEY.
Captain of the Corps of Gentlemen at Arms Right Hon. Earl of YARBOROUGH.
Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard Right Hon. Earl of LIMERICK.
Master of the Buckhounds Right Hon. Earl of COVENTRY.
Chief Equerry and Clerk Marshal Colonel Sir G. A. MAUDE, V. C. K.C.B.
Mistress of the Robes Her Grace the Duchess of BUCCLEUCH.







56° VICTORIÆ, 1892.

MEM—According to the Usage of Parliament, when the House appoints a Select Committee, the Lords appointed to serve upon it are named in the Order of their Rank, beginning with the Highest; and so, when the House sends a Committee to a Conference with the Commons the Lord highest in Rank is called first, and the rest go forth in like Order: But when the Whole House is called over for any Purpose within the House, or for the Purpose of proceeding forth to Westminster Hall, or upon any public Solemnity, the Call begins invariably with the Junior Baron.

His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales.

His Royal Highness Alfred Ernest Albert Duke of Edinburgh.

His Royal Highness Arthur William Patrick Albert Duke of Connaught and Strathearn.

His Royal Highness George Frederick Ernest Albert, Duke of York.

His Royal Highness Leopold Charles Edward George Albert Duke of Albany.

His Royal Highness George William Frederick Charles Duke of Cambridge.

Edward White Archbishop of Canterbury.

Hardinge Stanley Lord Halsbury, Lord High Chancellor.

William Dalrymple Archbishop of York.

Gathorne Viscount Cranbrook, Lord President of the Council.

George Henry Earl Cadogan, Lord Privy Seal.

Henry Duke of Norfolk, Earl Marshal of England.

Algernon Percy Banks Duke of Somerset.

Charles Henry Duke of Richmond.

Augustus Charles Lennox Duke of Grafton.

Henry Charles Fitzroy Duke of Beaufort.

William Amelius Aubrey de Vere Duke of Saint Albans.

George Godolphin Duke of Leeds.

George William Francis Sackville Duke of Bedford.

Spencer Compton Duke of Devonshire.

George Charles Duke of Marlborough.

John James Robert Duke of Rutland.

William Alexander Louis Stephen Duke of Brandon. (Duke of Hamilton.)

William John Arthur Charles James Duke of Portland.

George Victor Drogo Duke of Manchester.

Henry Pelham Archibald Douglas Duke of Newcastle.

Algernon George Duke of Northumberland.

His Royal Highness Ernest Augustus William Adolphus George Frederick

Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale.

Henry Duke of Wellington.

George Granville William Duke of Sutherland.

Hugh Lupus Duke of Westminster.

Alexander William George Duke of Fife.

George Douglas Duke of Argyll.

Augustus John Henry Beaumont Marquess of Winchester.

Henry Charles Keith Marquess of Lansdowne.

John Villiers Stuart Marquess Townshend.

Robert Arthur Talbot Marquess of Salisbury.

John Alexander Marquess of Bath.

James Marquess of Abercorn. (Duke of Abercorn.)

Hugh de Grey Marquess of Hertford.

John Patrick Marquess of Bute.

William Alleyne Marquess of Exeter.

William Marquess of Northampton.

John Charles Marquess Camden.

Henry Marquess of Anglesey.

George Henry Hugh Marquess of Cholmondeley.

George William Thomas Marquess of Ailesbury.

Frederick William John Marquess of Bristol.

Archibald Marquess of Ailsa.

Constantine Charles Henry Marquess of Normanby.

George Frederick Samuel Marquess of Ripon.

William Marquess of Abergavenny.

Gavin Marquess of Breadalbane.

Frederick Temple Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.

William Henry Earl of Mount Edgcumbe, Lord Steward of the Household.

Edward Earl of Lathom, Lord Chamberlain of the Household.

Charles Henry John Earl of Shrewsbury.

Edward Henry Earl of Derby.

Warner Francis John Plantagenet Earl of Huntingdon.

George Robert Charles Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery.

Henry Hugh Earl of Devon.

Henry Charles Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire.

Rudolph Robert Basil Earl of Denbigh.

Anthony Mildmay Julian Earl of Westmorland.

Montague Earl of Lindsey.

— Earl of Stamford.

Murray Edward Gordon Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham.

Edwyn Francis Earl of Chesterfield.

Edward George Henry Earl of Sandwich.

Arthur Algernon Earl of Essex.

George James Earl of Carlisle.

William Henry Walter Earl of Doncaster. (Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Anthony Earl of Shaftesbury.

Randal Mowbray Thomas Earl of Berkeley.

Montagu Arthur Earl of Abingdon.

Aldred Frederick George Beresford Earl of Scarbrough.

William Coutts Earl of Albemarle.

George William Earl of Coventry.

Victor Albert George Earl of Jersey.

William Henry Earl Poulett.

John Francis Erskine Earl of Mar. (Elected for Scotland.)

Sholto George Watson Earl of Morton. (Elected for Scotland.)

Walter John Francis Earl of Mar and Kellie. (Elected for Scotland.)

George Earl of Haddington. (Elected for Scotland.)

Frederick Henry Earl of Lauderdale. (Elected for Scotland.)

John Trotter Earl of Lindsay. (Elected for Scotland.)

David Stanley William Earl of Airlie. (Elected for Scotland.)

Robert Harris Earl of Carnwath.

Ronald Ruthven Earl of Leven and Melville. (Elected for Scotland.)

Douglas Mackinnon Baillie Hamilton Earl of Dundonald. (Elected for Scotland.)

Sewallis Edward Earl Ferrers.

William Heneage Earl of Dartmouth.

Charles Earl of Tankerville.

Charles Wightwick Earl of Aylesford.

Francis Thomas De Grey Earl Cowper.

Arthur Philip Earl Stanhope.

Thomas Augustus Wolstenholme Earl of Macclesfield.

Douglas Beresford Malise Ronald Earl Graham. (Duke of Montrose.)

William Frederick Earl Waldegrave.

Bertram Earl of Ashburnham.

Charles Augustus Earl of Harrington.

Newton Earl of Portsmouth.

George Guy Earl Brooke and Earl of Warwick.

Sidney Carr Earl of Buckinghamshire.

William Thomas Spencer Earl Fitzwilliam.

Frederick George Earl of Guilford.

Charles Philip Earl of Hardwicke.

Henry Edward Earl of Ilchester.

Reginald Windsor Earl De La Warr.

William Earl of Radnor.

John Poyntz Earl Spencer.

Allen Alexander Earl Bathurst.

Arthur Wills John Wellington Blundell Trumbull Earl of Hillsborough. (Marquess of Downshire.)

Edward Hyde Earl of Clarendon.

William David Earl of Mansfield.

John James Hugh Henry Earl Strange. (Duke of Athole.)

William Henry Earl of Mount Edgcumbe. (In another Place as Lord Steward of the Household.)

Hugh Earl Fortescue.

George Edward Stanhope Molyneux Earl of Carnarvon.

George Henry Earl Cadogan. (In another Place as Lord Privy Seal)

Edward James Earl of Malmesbury.

John Vansittart Danvers Earl of Lanesborough. (Elected for Ireland.)

Henry Ernest Newcomen Earl of Kingston. (Elected for Ireland.)

Dermot Robert Wyndham Earl of Mayo. (Elected for Ireland.)

Hugh Earl Annesley. (Elected for Ireland.)

George Earl of Lucan. (Elected for Ireland.)

Somerset Richard Earl of Belmore. (Elected for Ireland.)

James Francis Earl of Bandon. (Elected for Ireland.)

James Earl of Caledon. (Elected for Ireland.)

James Francis Harry Earl of Rosslyn.

William George Robert Earl of Craven.

William Hillier Earl of Onslow.

Charles Earl of Romney.

Walter John Earl of Chichester.

Seymour John Grey Earl of Wilton.

George Charles Earl of Powis.

Horatio Earl Nelson.

Lawrence Earl of Rosse. Ireland.

Sydney William Herbert Earl Manvers.

Horatio Earl of Orford.

Henry Earl Grey.

Hugh Cecil Earl of Lonsdale.

Dudley Francis Stuart Earl of Harrowby.

Henry Ulick Earl of Harewood.

Gilbert John Earl of Minto.

Alan Frederick Earl Cathcart.

James Walter Earl of Vernlana.

Adelbert Wellington Brownlow Earl Brownlow.

Henry Cornwallis Earl of St. Germans.

Albert Edmund Earl of Morley.

Orlando George Charles Earl of Bradford.

William Earl Beauchamp.

John Earl of Eldon.

Richard William Penn Earl Howe.

George Edward John Mowbray Earl of Stradbroke.

William Stephen Earl Temple of Stowe.

Francis Charles Earl of Kilmorey. (Elected for Ireland.)

Charles Stewart Earl Vane. (Marquess of Londonderry.)

William Archer Earl Amherst.

John Frederick Vaughan Earl Cawdor.

William George Earl of Munster.

Robert Adam Philips Haldane Earl of Camperdown.

Thomas Francis Earl of Lichfield.

John George Earl of Durham.

Granville George Earl Granville.

Henry Earl of Effingham.

Henry John Earl of Ducie.

Charles Alfred Worsley Earl of Yarborough.

James Henry Robert Earl Innes. (Duke of Roxburghe.)

Thomas William Earl of Leicester.

William Earl of Lovelace.

Lawrence Earl of Zetland.

Charles William Francis Earl of Gains-borough.

Francis Charles Granville Earl of Ellesmere.

George Henry Charles Earl of Strafford.

Kenelm Charles Edward Earl of Cottenham.

William Henry Earl Cowley.

Archibald William Earl of Winton. (Earl of Eglintoun.)

William Humble Earl of Dudley.

John Francis Stanley Earl Russell.

Francis Earl of Cromartie.

John Earl of Kimberley.

Richard Earl of Dartrey.

William Ernest Earl of Feversham.

Henry George Earl of Ravensworth.

Edward Montagu Stuart Granville Earl of Wharncliffe.

Thomas George Earl of Northbrook.

Herbert John Earl Cairns.

Victor Alexander George Robert Earl of Lytton.

Edward Earl of Lathom. (In another Place as Lord Chamberlain of the Household.)

George Watson Earl Sondes.

Roundell Earl of Selborne.

Walter Stafford Earl of Iddesleigh.

Cornwallis Earl de Montalt.

William Henry Forester Earl of Londesborough.

Robert Viscount Hereford.

James David Viscount Strathallan. (Elected for Scotland.)

Henry Viscount Bolingbroke and St. John.

Charles George Viscount Cobham.

Evelyn Edward Thomas Viscount Falmouth.

George Master Viscount Torrington.

Gerald Viscount Leinster. (Duke of Leinster.)

Francis Whaler Viscount Hood.

Mervyn Edward Viscount Powerscourt. (Elected for Ireland.)

Henry William Crosbie Viscount Bangor. (Elected for Ireland.)

Cornwallis Viscount Hawarden. (Elected for Ireland.) (In another Place as Earl de Montalt.)

Carnegie Parker Viscount St. Vincent.

Henry Viscount Melville.

William Wells Viscount Sidmouth.

John Campbell Viscount Gordon. (Earl of Aberdeen)

Edward Fleetwood John Viscount Exmouth.

John Luke George Viscount Hutchinson (Earl of Donoughmore.)

William Frederick Viscount Clancarty. (Earl of Clancarty.)

Robert Wellington Viscount Combermere.

Henry Charles Viscount Canterbury.

Rowland Clegg Viscount Hill.

Charles Stewart Viscount Hardinge.

George Stephens Viscount Gough.

Charles Lindley Viscount Halifax.

Alexander Nelson Viscount Bridport.

William Henry Berkeley Viscount Portman.

Gathorne Viscount Cranbrook. (In another Place as Lord President of the Council.)

Henry Robert Viscount Hampden.

Garnet Joseph Viscount Wolseley.

William John Viscount Oxenbridge.

Richard Assheton Viscount Cross.

Frederick Bishop of London.

Brooke Foss Bishop of Durham.

Anthony Wilson Bishop of Winchester.

John Thomas Bishop of Norwich.

Charles John Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol.

James Bishop of Hereford.

Arthur Charles Bishop of Bath and Wells.

Richard Bishop of Chichester.

William Basil Bishop of St. David's.

Charles John Bishop of Liverpool.

Ernest Roland Bishop of Newcastle.

Richard Bishop of Llandaff.

William Bishop of Oxford.

George Bishop of Southwell.

William Boyd Bishop of Ripon.

Edward Bishop of Lincoln.

Edward Henry Bishop of Exeter.

John Bishop of Salisbury.

Alwyne Bishop of Ely.

James Bishop of Manchester.

William Walsham Bishop of Wakefield.

Francis John Bishop of Chester.

Alfred George Bishop of St. Asaph.

Daniel Lewis Bishop of Bangor.

Henry Thurstan Lord Knutsford, One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.

Dudley Charles Lord de Ros.

Alfred Joseph Lord Mowbray.

George Manners Lord Hastings.

Edward Southwell Lord de Clifford.

Gilbert Henry Lord Willoughby de Eresby.

Charles Henry Rolle Lord Clinton.

Robert Nathaniel Cecil George Lord Zouche of Haryngworth.

Rawdon George Grey Lord Grey de Ruthyn.

Charles Edward Hastings Lord Botreaux. (Earl of Loudoun.)

Francis Robert Lord Camoys.

Miles Lord Beaumont.

Henry Lord Willoughby de Broke.

Hubert George Charles Lord Vaux Harrowden.

Ralph Gordon Lord Wentworth.

Alfred Thomas Townshend Lord Braye.

Robert George Lord Windsor.

William Henry John Lord North.

Beauchamp Mowbray Lord St. John of Bletso.

Frederick George Lord Howard de Walden.

William Joseph Lord Petre.

John Fiennes Lord Saye and Sele.

John Francis Lord Arundell of War-dour.

John Stuart Lord Clifton. (Earl of Darnley.)

John Baptist Joseph Lord Dormer.

Henry John Lord Teynham.

FitzOsbert Edward Lord Stafford.

George Frederick William Lord Byron.

Lewis Henry Hugh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.

Horace Courtenay Gammell Lord Forbes. (Elected for Scotland.)

Alexander William Frederick Lord Saltoun. (Elected for Scotland.)

Charles William Lord Sinclair. (Elected for Scotland.)

Alexander Hugh Lord Balfour of Burley. (Elected for Scotland.)

Walter Hugh Lord Polwarth. (Elected for Scotland.)

Henry Lord Barnard.

Richard Edmund Saint Lawrence Lord Boyle. (Earl of Cork and Orrery.)

George Lord Hay. (Earl of Kinnoul.)

Digby Wentworth Bayard Lord Middleton.

Frederick George Brabazon Lord Ponsonby. (Earl of Bessborough.)

Alfred Nathaniel Holden Lord Scarsdale.

George Florance Lord Boston.

Charles George Lord Lovell and Holland. (Earl of Egmont.)

George William Henry Lord Vernon.

Edward Henry Trafalgar Lord Digby.

Martin Bladen Lord Hawke.

Henry Thomas Lord Foley.

Arthur de Cardonnel Lord Dinevor.

Thomas Lord Walsingham.

William Lord Bagot.

Charles Henry Lord Southampton.

John Richard Brinsley Lord Grantley.

George Bridges Harley Dennett Lord Rodney.

Henry George Lord Lovaine.

Philip Reginald Lord Somers.

Richard Henry Lord Berwick.

Edward Lennox Lord Sherborne.

Job Henry De La Poer Lord Tyrone. (Marquess of Waterford.)

Richard Henry Lord Carleton. (Earl of Shannon.)

Charles Lord Suffield.

Dudley Wilmot Lord Dorchester.

Lloyd Lord Kenyon.

Charles Cornwallis Lord Braybrooke.

George Augustus Hamilton Lord Fisher wick. (Marquess of Donegall.)

Henry Charles Lord Gage. (Viscount Gage.)

Thomas John Lord Thurlow

William Morton Lord Auckland.

Henry George Lord Mendip. (Viscount Clifden.)

George Lord Stuart of Castle Stuart. (Earl of Moray.)

Alan Plantagenet Lord Stewart of Garlies. (Earl of Galloway.)

James George Henry Lord Saltersford. (Earl of Courtown.)

William Lord Brodrick. (Viscount Midleton.)

Frederick Henry William Lord Calthorpe.

Robert Peter Lord Gwydir.

Charles Robert Lord Carrington.

William Henry Lord Bolton.

Thomas Lyttleton Lord Lilford.

Thomas Lord Ribblesdale.

Edward Donough Lord Inchiquin. (Elected for Ireland.)

William Charles Lord Carbery. (Elected for Ireland.)

John Thomas William Lord Massy. (Elected for Ireland.)

Hamilton Lord Muskerry.

Francis William Lord Kilmaine. (Elected for Ireland.)

Robert Lord Clonbrock. (Elected for Ireland.)

Charles Mark Lord Headley. (Elected for Ireland.)

Edward Henry Churchill Lord Crofton. (Elected for Ireland.)

Hercules Edward Lord Langford. (Elected for Ireland.)

Dayrolles Blakeney Lord Ventry. (Elected for Ireland.)

Henry O'Callaghan Lord Dunalley. (Elected for Ireland.)

Eyre Challoner Henry Lard Clarina. (Elected for Ireland.)

John Henry Lord Loftus. (Marquess of Ely.)

William Lord Carysfort. (Earl of Carysfort..)

George Ralph Lord Abercromby.

Charles Towry Hamilton Lord Ellen-borough.

August us Frederick Arthur Lord Sandys.

Henry North Lord Sheffield. (Earl of Sheffield.)

William Macnaghten Lord Erskine.

George John Lord Monteagle. (Marquess of Sligo.)

Bernard Arthur William Patrick Hastings Lord Granard. (Earl of Granard.)

Hungerford Lord Crewe.

—Lord Gardner.

John Thomas Lord Manners.

John Adrian Louis Lord Hopetoun. (Earl of Hepetoun.)

Charles Lord Meldrum. (Marquess of Huntly.)

Lowry Egerton Lord Grinstead. (Earl of Enniskillen.)

William Hale John Charles Lord Fox-ford. (Earl of Limerick.)

Victor Albert Francis Charles Lord Churchill.

George Robert Canning Lord Harris.

Reginald Charles Edward Lord Colchester.

Schomberg Henry Lord Ker. (Marquess of Lothian.)

Henry Francis Lord Minster. (Marquess Conyngham.)

James Edward William Theobald Lord Ormonde. (Mr. Margaess of Ormonde.)

Francis Richard Lord Wemyss. (Earl of Wemyss.)

John Strange Lord Clanbrassill. (Earl of Roden.)

Thomas Lord Silchester. (Earl of Longford.)

Clotworthy John Eyre Lord Oriel. (Viscount Massereene.)

Hugh Lord Delamere.

Orlando Watkin Weld Lord Forester.

John William Lord Rayleigh.

Edric Frederic Lord Gifford.

Hubert George Lord Somerhill. (Marquess of Clauricarde.)

James Ludovic Lord Wigan. (Earl of Crawford and Balcarres.)

Uchter John Mark Lord Ranfurly. (Earl of Ranfurly.)

John Byrne Leicester Lord De Tabley.

Charles Stuart Henry Lord Tenterden.

William Conyngham Lord Plunket.

William Frederick Lord Heytesbury.

Archibald Philip Lord Rosebery. (Earl of Rosebery.)

Richard James Lord Clanwilliam. (Earl of Clanwilliam.)

William Draper Mortimer Lord Wynford.

Charles Gore Lord Kilmarnock. (Earl of Errol.)

Arthur James Francis Lord Fingall. (Earl of Fingall.)

William Philip Lord Sefton. (Earl of Sefton.)

Charles Lord Clements. (Earl of Leitrim.)

Thomas Lord Kenlis. (Marquess of Headfort.)

Reginald Lord Chaworth. (Earl of Meath.)

Charles Adolphus Lord Dunmore. (Earl. of Dunmore.)

Augustus Frederick George Warwick Lord Poltimore.

Llewelyn Nevill Vaughan Lord Mostyn.

Henry Spencer Lord Templemore.

Valentine Frederick Lord Cloncurry.

James St. Vincent Lord De Saumarez.

Thomas Lord Denman.

James Yorke MacGregor Lord Abinger.

Philip Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.

Francis Denzil Edward Lord Ashburton.

Edward George Percy Lord Hatherton.

Archibald Brabazon Sparrow Lord Worlingham. (Earl of Gosford.)

William Frederick Lord Stratheden.

Geoffrey Dominick Augustus Frederick Lord Oranmore and Browne. (Elected for Ireland.)

Simon Joseph Lord Lovat.

William Bateman Lord Bateman.

Algernon Hawkins Thomond Lord Kintore. (Earl of Kintore.)

George Ponsonby Lord Lismore. (Viscount Lismore.)

Derrick Warner William Lord Ross-more.

Robert Shapland George Julian Lord Carew.

Charles Frederick Ashley Cooper Lord De Mauley.

Arthur Lord Wrottesley.

Charles Douglas Richard Lord Sudeley.

Paul Sanford Lord Methuen.

Henry Edward John Lord Stanley of Alderley.

William Henry Lord Leigh.

Beilby Lord Wenlock.

William Lord Lurgan.

Thomas Spring Lord Monteagle of Brandon.

John Reginald Upton Lord Seaton.

John Manley Arbuthnot Lord Keane.

John Lord Oxenfoord. (Earl of Stair.)

Hussey Crespigny Lord Vivian.

Henry William Lord Congleton.

Denis St. George Lord Dunsandle and Clanconal. (Elected for Ireland.)

Victor Alexander Lord Elgin, (Earl of Elgin and Kincardine.)

Thomas Montague Morrison Lord Truro.

Arthur Lord De Freyne.

Edward Burtenshaw Lord Saint Leonards.

George Fitz-Roy Henry Lord Raglan.

Valentine Augustus Lord Kenmare. (Earl of Kenmare.)

Henry Lord Belper.

Richard Wogan Lord Talbot de Malahide.

Robert Lord Ebury.

Charles Compton William Lord Chesham.

Frederic Augustus Lord Chelmsford.

John Lord Churston.

Henry Lord Leconfield.

Wilbraham Lord Egerton.

Godfrey Charles Lord Tred gar.

Fitz Patrick Henry Lord Lyveden.

Henry Charles Lord Brougham and Vaux.

Arthur Fitz-Gerald Lord Kinnaird.

Richard Luttrell Pilkington Lord Westbury.

Francis William Fitzhardinge Lord Fitzhardinge.

Luke Lord Annaly.

Robert Offley Ashburton Lord Houghton.

John Gaspard Le Marchant Lord Romilly.

James Herbert Gustavus Meredyth Lord Meredyth. (Lord Athlumney.)

Windham Thomas Lord Kenry. (Earl of Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)

Charles Stanley Lord Monck. (Viscount Monck.)

John Major Lord Hartismere. (Lord Henniker.)

Hedworth Hylton Lord Hylton.

George Sholto Gordon Lord Penrhyn.

Gustavus Russell Lord Brancepeth. (Viscount Boyne.)

John Henry Lord Kesteven.

Arthur Lord Ormathwaite.

Edward Lord O'Neill.

Robert William Lord Napier.

Jenico William Joseph Lord Gormanston. (Viscount Gormanston.)

Thomas Kane Lord Rathdonnell. (Elected for Ireland.)

John Hamilton Lord Lawrence.

James Plaisted Lord Penzance.

John Lord Dunning. (Lord Rollo.)

James Lord Balinhard. (Earl of Southesk.)

William Lord Hare. (Earl of Listowel.)

Francis Edward Lord Howard of Glossop.

Bernard Edward Barnaby Lord Castle-town.

John Emerich Edward Lord Acton.

Thomas Charles Lord Robartes.

Frederick Lord Wolverton.

Algernon William Fulke Lord Greville.

Thomas Towneley Lord O'Hagan.

William Lord Sandhurst.

Francis Lord Ettrick. (Lord Napier.)

James Charles Herbert Welbore Ellis Lord Somerton. (Earl of Normanton.)

Henry Austin Lord Aberdare.

James Lord Moncreiff.

John Duke Lord Coleridge.

William Lord Emly.

Chichester Samuel Lord Carlingford. (Lord Clermont.)

Thomas Francis Lord Cottesloe.

John Slaney Lord Hampton.

Charles Alexander Lord Douglas. (Earl of home.)

Arthur George Maule Lord Ramsay. (Earl of Dathousie.)

John Henry Lord Fermanagh. (Earl Erne.)

William Richard Lord Harlech.

Henry Gerard Lord Alington.

Wilbraham Frederic Lord Tollemach

William Cansfield Lord Gerard.

Lionel Sackville Lord Sackville.

Colin Lord Blackburn

Charles Bowyer Lord Norton.

Percy Lord Shute. (Viscount Barrington.)

William Lord Watson. (A Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.)

Lawrence Hesketh Lord Haldo

Ivor Bettie Lord Wimborne.

Arthur Edward Lord Ardilaun.

Charles Wallace Alexander Napier Lord Lamington.

Charles Frederick Lord Donington.

Arthur Edwin Lord Trevor.

Montagu William Lord Rowton.

Edward Hugessen Lord Brabourne.

Arthur Oliver Villiers Lord Ampthill.

William Montagu Lord Tweeddale. (Marquess of Tweeddale.)

William Ulick Tristram Lord Howth. (Earl of Howth.)

Donald James Lord Reay.

Harcourt Lord Derwent.

Henry James Lord Hothfield.

Dudley Coutts Lord Tweedmouth.

Frederick Beauchamp Paget Lord Alcester.

Alfred Lord Tennyson.

James Lord Strathspey. (Earl of Sea-field.)

John George Lord Monk Bretton.

Walter Charles Lord Northbourne.

Arthur Saunders William Charles Fox Lord Sudley. (Earl of Arran.)

John Robert William Lord de Vesci. (Viscount de Vesci.)

Marmaduke Francis Lord Herries.

Hardinge Stanley Lord Halsbury. (In another Place as Lord High Chancellor.)

Mervyn Edward Lord Powerscourt. (In another Place as Viscount Powerscourt.)

Anthony Henley Lord Northington. (Lord Henley.)

Nathaniel Mayer Lord Rothschild.

Edward Charles Lord Revelstoke.

Robert Lord Monkswell.

Arthur Lord Hobhouse.

Ralph Robert Wheeler Lord Lingen.

Edward Lord Ashbourne.

Rowland Lord Saint Oswald.

Robert James Lord Wantage.

William Baliol Lord Esher.

George William Lord Deramore.

Henry John Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.

William Buller Fullerton Lord Elphinstone.

Charles John Lord Colville of Culross.

Farrer Lord Herschel.

Charles Henry Lord Hillingdon.

Samuel Charles Lord Hindlip.

Edmund Lord Grimthorpe.

Richard de Aquila Lord Stalbridge.

William Lord Kensington.

Michael Arthur Lord Burton.

John Glencairn Carter Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.

Thomas Lord Brassey.

Henry Lord Thring.

Frederick Arthur Lord Stanley of Preston.

Edward Lord Macnaghten. (A Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.)

Robert Lord Connemara.

Claude Lord Bowes. (In another Place as Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorn.)

George Edmund Milnes Lord Monckton. (Viscount Galway.)

John Lord Saint Levan.

James Douglas Lord Magheramorne.

William George Lord Armstrong.

George Lord Basing.

William Henry Lord De Ramsey.

William Meriton Lord Cheylesmore.

Egerton Lord Addington.

Henry Thurstan Lord Knutsford. (In another Place as one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State.)

John Lord Savile.

Michael Lord Morris. (A Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.)

William Ventris Lord Field.

Francis Richard Lord Sandford.

Edward Cecil Lord Iveagh.

James Lord Hannen. (A Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.)

George Lord Mount Stephen.

Samuel Lord Masham.

Frederick Lord Roberts.

Arthur Lord Hood.

William Lord Kelvin.

Henry John Lord Rookwood.

Evelyn Lord Cromer.





George William Erskine Russell.


Cyril Flower.


Samuel Whitbread.



Philip Wroughton.


William George Mount.


Sir George Russell, bt.


George William Palmer.


Francis Tress Barry.



Herbert Samuel Leon.


Baron Ferdinand James de Rothschild.


Viscount Curzon.



Hon. Arthur George Brand.


Hugh Edward Hoare.


George Newnes.


Richard Claverhouse Jebb.

Right Hon. Sir John Eldon Gorst.


Robert Uniacke Penrose FitzGerald.



Lt.-Colonel Edward Thomas Davenant Cotton-Jodrell.


Henry James Tollemache.


William Bromley-Davenport.


Walter Stowe Bright McLaren.


John Tomlinson Brunner.


Coningsby Ralph Disraeli.


Joseph Watson Sidebotham.


Hon. Alan de Tatton Egerton.


Viscount Bury.


Robert Armstrong Yerburgh.


Joseph Leigh,

Louis John Jennings.



Thomas Bedford Bolitho.


Charles Augustus Vansittart Conybeare.


John Charles Williams.


William Alexander McArthur.


Rt. Hon. Leonard Henry Courtney.


Thomas Owen.


William George Cavendish-Bentinck.



Robert Andrew Allison.


James William Lowther.


Sir Wilfrid Lawson, bt.


David Ainsworth.


William Court Gully.


Thomas Shepherd Little.



Captain William Sidebottom.


Thomas Dolling Bolton.


Thomas Bayley.


Victor Christian William Cavendish.


James Alfred Jacoby.


Sir Balthazar Walter Foster.


Harrington Evans Broad.


Rt. Hon. Sir William George Granville Venables Vernon Harcourt, kt.,

Thomas Roe.



Sir John Henry Kennaway, bt.


Colonel Sir William Hood Walrond, bt.


George Lambert.


Alfred Billson.


Hugh Courtenay Fownes Luttrell.


Francis Bingham Mildmay.


Richard Mallock.


Charles Seale-Hayne.


Hudson E. Kearley.

Edward J. C. Morton.


Hon. Sir Henry Stafford Northcote, bt., C.B.


Sir Edward George Clarke, kt.,

Sir William George Pearce.



John Kenelm Digby Wingfield-Digby.


Hon. Humphrey Napier Sturt.


William Ernest Brymer.


Henry Richard Farquharson.



Sir Charles Mark Palmer, bt.


Captain Henry Thomas Fenwick.


James Joicey.


Llewellyn Archer Atherley-Jones.


John Wilson.


Joseph Richardson.


James Mellor Paulton.


Sir Joseph Whitwell Pease, bt.


Theodore Fry.


Matthew A. Fowler.


Hon. Walter Henry James.


Christopher Furness.


James Cochran Stevenson.


Thomas Wrightson.


Samuel Storey,

Edward Temperley Gourley.



Edmund Widdrington Byrne.


James Theobald.


Lt.-Col. Amelius Richard Mark Lockwood.


Herbert Colstoun Gardner.


James Round.


Cyril Joseph Settle Dodd.


Thomas Usborne.


Major Frederic Carne Rasch.


Captain Herbert S. Naylor-Leyland.


North Division,

Thomas Newcomen Archibald Grove.

South Division,

James Keir Hardie.



David Brynmor Jones.


Sir John Edward Dorington, bt.


Arthur Brend Winterbotham.


Rt. hon. Sir Charles Wentworth Dilke, bt.


Charles Edward Hungerford Athole Colston.


West Division,

Rt. hon. Sir Michael Edward Hicks Beach, bt.

North Division,

Charles Townsend.

East Division,

Sir Joseph Dodge Weston.

South Division,

Colonel Sir Edward Stock Hill, K.C.B.


James Tynte Agg-Gardner.


Thomas Robinson.



Arthur Frederick Jeffreys.


William Wither Bramston Beach.


William Wickham.


General Sir Frederick Wellington John Fitz Wygram, bt.


Hon. John Walter Edward D. Scott-Montagu.


Abel Henry Smith.


John Baker,

Walter Owen Clou


Tankerville Chamberlayne,

Francis Henry Evans.


William Henry Myers.



James Rankin.


Michael Biddulph.


William Henry Grenfell.



George Bickersteth Hudson.


Abel Smith.


Vicary Gibbs.


Thomas Frederick Halsey.



Arthur Hugh Smith-Barry.


Hon. Ailwyn Edward Fellowes.


Sir Richard Everard Webster, kt.



Henry William Forster.


Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart Dyke, bt.


Arthur S. T. Griffith-Boscawen.


Major Charles Edward Warde.


Hon. Herbert Thomas Knatchbull-Hugessen.


Laurence Hardy.


Rt. Hon. Aretas Akers-Douglas.


Rt. Hon. James Lowther.


John Henniker Heaton.


Colonel Lewis Vivian Loyd.


Charles John Darling.


George Wyndham.


James Dampier Palmer.


Thomas William Boord.


Sir Edward William Watkin, bt.


John Penn.


Francis Stanley Wykeham Cornwallis.


Horatio David Davies.


Colonel Edwin Hughes.


North Lancashire.


William Smith.


James Williamson.


Sir Matthew White Ridley, bt.


Lieut.-General Randle Joseph Feilden, C.M.G.

North-East Lancashire.


Charles Philip Huntington.


Rt. Hon. Sir Ughtred James Kay-Shuttleworth, bt.


Joseph Francis Leese.


John Henry Maden.

South-East Lancashire.


Hon. Edward George Villiers Stanley.


Thomas Snape.


Charles Henry Hopwood.


Robert Leake.


Henry John Roby.


John William Maclure.


William Mather.


Robert Gray Cornish Mowbray.

South-West Lancashire.


Hon. George Nathaniel Curzon.


Right Hon. Arthur Bower Forwood.


Colonel Thomas Myles Sandys.


John Saunders Gilliat.


Thomas Wodehouse Leg)


Samuel Woods.


Caleb Wright.


John Edmund Wentworth Addison.


Charles William Cayzer.


William Henry Hornby,

William Coddington.


Herbert Shepherd-Cross,

Colonel Hon. Francis Charles Bridge-man.


Jabez Spencer Balfour.


Right Hon. Sir Henry James, kt.


Kirkdale Division,

Sir George Smyth Baden-Powell, K.C M.G.

Walton Division,

James Henry Stock.

Everton Division,

John Archibald Willox.

West Derby Division,

Hon. William Henry Cross.

Scotland Division,

Thomas Power O'Connor.

Exchange Division,

Ralph Neville.

Abercromby Division,

William Frederick Lawrence.

East Toxteth, Division,

Rt. Hon. Baron Henry de Worms.

West Toxteth Division,

R. P. Houston.


North-West Division,

Sir William Henry Houldsworth, bt.

North Division,

Charles Ernest Schwann.

North-East Division,

Right Hon. Sir James Fergusson, bt., G.C.S.I.

East Division,

Right Hon. Arthur James Balfour.

South Division,

Sir Henry Enfield Roscoe, kt.

South-West Division,

Jacob Bright.


Joshua Milne Cheetham,

Rt. Hon. John Tomlinson Hibbert.


Robert William Hanbury,

William Edward Murray Tomlinson.


Thomas Bayley Potter.


North Division,

William H. Holland.

West Division,

Lees Knowles.

South Division,

Sir Henry Hoyle Howorth.


Henry Seton-Karr.


Tom Harrop Sidebottom.


Robert Pierpoint.


Sir Francis Sharp Powell, bt.



Marquess of Granby.


Jabez Edward Johnson-Ferguson.


Charles Benjamin Bright McLaren.


John William Logan.


James Allanson Picton,

Sir James Whitehead, bt.



Joseph Bennett.


Samuel Danks Waddy.


Robert William Perks.


Right Hon. Edward Stanhope.


Right Hon. Henry Chaplin.


Henry John Cokayne Cust.


Halley Stewar.


William James Ingram.


Henry Yarde Buller Lopes.


Henri Josse.


William Crostield.



Captain Henry Ferryman Bowles.


Joseph Howard.


Henry Charles Stephens.


William Ambrose.


Rt. Hon. Lord George Francis Hamilton.


James Bigwood.


Frederick Dixon Dixon-Hartland.


North-East Division,

George Howell.

South-West Division,

Edward Hare Pickersgill.


Charles Algernon Whitmore.


Holborn Division,

Sir Charles Hall.

Central Division,

Dadabhai Naoroji.

East Division,

James Rowlands.


William Hayes Fisher.


North Division,

William Robert Bousfield.

Central Division,

Sir Andrew Richard Scoble, K.C.S.I.

South Division,

Sir Charles Russell, kt.


Major-General Walter Tuckfield Goldsworthy.


Edward Brodie Hoare.


North Division,

George Christopher Trout Bartley.

West Division,

Thomas Lough.

East Division,

Benjamin Louis Cohen.

South Division,

Sir Albert Kaye Rollit, kt.


North Division,

Frederick Charlwood Frye.

South Division,

Sir Algernon Borthwick, bt.


Rt. Hon. Sir John Lubbock, bt.


East Division,

Edmund Boulnois.

West Division,

Frederick Seager Hunt.


North Division,

John Aird:

South Division,

Rt. Hon. Lord Randolph Henry Spencer Churchill.


Rt. Hon. George Joachim Goschen.


North Division,

Thomas Henry Bolton.

East Division,

Robert Grant Webster.

West Division,

Henry Robert Graham.

South Division,

Sir Julian Goldsmid, bt.


Hoxton Division,

James Stuart.

Haggerston Division,

William Randal Cremer.


Hon. William Frederick Danvers Smith.


Whitechapel Division,

Samuel Montagu.

St. George's Division,

John Williams Benn.

Limehouse Division,

John Stewart Wallace.

Mile End Division,

Spencer Charrington.

Stepney Division,

Frederick Wootton Isaacson.

Bow and Bromley Division,

John Archibald Murray Macdonald.

Poplar Division,

Sydney Charles Buxton.


William Lehmann Ashmead-Bartlett Burdett-Coutts.


Sir Reginald Hanson, bt.,

Alban George Henry Gibbs.



Captain Thomas Phillips Price.


Cornelius Marshall Warmington.


Col. Hon. Frederick Courtenay Morgan.


Albert Spicer.



Joseph Arch.


Thomas Leigh Hare.


Herbert Hardy Cozens-Hardy.


Robert John Price.




Francis Taylor.


James Marshall Moorsom.


Thomas Gibson Bowles.


Samuel Hoare,

Jeremiah James Colman.



Rt. Hon. Lord Burghley.


Francis Allston Channing.


Hon. Charles Robert Spencer.


David C. Guthrie.


Henry Labouchere,

Moses Philip Manfield.


Alpheus Cleophas Morton.



Charles Fenwick.


Joseph Albert Pease.


Nathaniel George Clayton.


Sir Edward Grey, bt.


Thomas Burt.


Charles Frederick Hamond,

Right Hon. John Morley.


Richard Sim Donkin.



Sir Frederick George Milner, bt.


Viscount Newark.


John Edward Ellis.


John Carvell Williams.


West Division,

Colonel Charles Seely.

East Division,

Arnold Morley.

South Division,

Henry Smith Wright.



Sir Bernhard Samuelson, bt.


Godfrey Rathbone Benson.


Hon. Francis Parker.


Rt. Hon. Sir John Robert Mowbray, bt., D.C.L.

John Gilbert Talbot, D.C.L.


Lieut.-General Sir George T. Chesney, K.C.B., C.S.I., C.I.E., R.E.


George Henry Finch.



Stanley Leighton.


Col. William Slaney Kenyon-Slaney.


Alexander Hargreaves Brown.


Robert Jasper More.


Henry David Greene.



Thomas Courtenay T. Warner.


Colonel Sir Richard Horner Paget, bt.


John Emmott Barlow.


Henry Hobhouse.


Edward Strachey.


Edward James Stanley.


Capt. Sir Alexander F. Acland-Hood, bt.


Colonel Charles Wyndham Murray,

Edmond Robert Wodehouse.


Hon. Alfred Percy Allsopp.



Charles Bill.


Sydney Evershed.


Hamar Alfred Bass.


James Heath.


Major Leonard Darwin.


Alexander Staveley Hill.


Sir Henry Meysey Meysey-Thompson, bt.


William Woodall.


William S. Allen.


Charles Edward Shaw.


Hon. George Granville Leveson-Gower.


Frank James.


Wilson Lloyd.


James Ernest Spencer.


West Division,

Sir Alfred Hickman.

East Division,

Rt. Hon. Henry Hartley Fowler.

South Division,

Rt. Hon. Charles Pelham Villiers.



Harry Seymour Foster.


Francis Seymour Stevenson.


Sydney James Stern.


William Cuthbert Quilter.


Robert Lacey Everett.


Lord Francis Hervey.


Sir Charles Dalrymple, bt.,

Lord Elcho.



Charles Harvey Combe.


Hon. William St. John Fremantle Brodrick.


Henry Cubitt.


Thomas Townsend Bucknill.


Sir Richard Temple, bt., G.C.S.I.


Henry Cosmo Orme Bonsor.


Battersea Division,

John Burns.

Clapham Division,

Percy M. Thornton.


North, Division,

Edward Hodson Bayley.

Peckham Division,

Frederick George Banbury.

Dulwich Division,

John Blundell Maple.


Hon. Sidney Herbert.


North Division,

Francis Moses Coldwells.

Kennington Division,

Mark Hanbury Beaufoy.

Brixton Division,

Marquess of Carmarthen.

Norwood Division,

Charles Ernest Tritton.


West Division,

Captain Cecil William Norton.

Walworth Division,

William Saunders.


West Division,

Richard Knight Causton.

Rotherhithe Division,

John Cumming Macdona.

Bermondsey Division,

Reuben V. Barrow.


Henry Kimber.



Right Hon. Sir Walter Barttelot Barttelot, bt., C.B.


Rt. Hon. Lord Walter C. Gordon Lennox.


Hon. Alfred Erskine Gathorne-Hardy.


Sir Henry Fletcher, bt.


Admiral Edward Field.


Arthur Montagu Brookfield.


Gerald Walter Erskine Loder,

Rt. Hon. Sir William Thackeray Marriott, kt.


Wilson Noble.



Philip Albert Muntz.


Francis Alexander Newdigate.


Algernon Bertram Freeman-Mitford.


Henry Peyton Cobb.


Captain George William Grice-Hutchinson.


Edgbaston Division,

George Dixon.

West Division,

Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain.

Central Division,

John Albert Bright.

North Division,

William Kenrick.

East Division,

Right Hon. Henry Matthews.

Bordesley Division,

Jesse Collings.

South Division,

Joseph Powell-Williams.


William Henry Walter Ballantine.


Rt. Hon. Arthur Wellesley Peel.



Sir Joseph Savory, bt.


Captain Josceline FitzRoy Bagot.



John Husband.


Sir John Poynder Dickson-Poynder, bt.


George Pargiter Fuller.


Charles Edward Henry Hobhouse.


Viscount Folkestone.


Edward Henry Hulse.



Alfred Baldwin.


Sir Edmund Anthony Harley Lechmere, bt.


Richard Biddulph Martin.


Benjamin Hingley.


J. Austen Chamberlain.


Brooke Robinson.


Augustus Frederick Godson.


Hon. George Higginson Allsopp.


North Riding,


John Grant Lawson.


George William Elliot.


Henry Fell Pease.


Ernest William Beckett.

East Riding,


Commander George Richard Bethell, R.N.


Angus Holden.


Colonel William H. Wilson-Todd.

West Riding, Northern Part,


Charles Savile Roundell.


Isaac Holden.


William Pollard Byles.


Right Hon. John William Mellor.


Thomas Wayman.

West Riding, Southern Part,


Alfred Eddison Hutton.


Benjamin Pickard.


Sir James B. Kitson, bt.


Henry Joseph Wilson.


Earl Compton.


Sir Frederick Thorpe Mappin, bt.


Arthur Herbert Dyke Acland.


Charles James Fleming.

West Riding, Eastern Part,


John Lloyd Wharton.


John Barran.


Colonel Robert Gunter.


John Austin.


Briggs Priestley.


Thomas Palmer Whittaker.


West Division,

Alfred Illingworth.

Central Division,

Right Hon. John George Shaw Lefevre

East Division,

William Sproston Caine.


Mark Oldroyd.


Thomas Shaw,

Rt. Hon. James Stansfeld.


William Summers.


East Division,

Clarence Smith.

Central Division,

Henry Seymour King.

West Division,

Charles Henry Wilson.


North Division,

Right Hon. William Lawies Jackson.

Central Division,

Gerald William Balfour.

East Division,

John Lawrence Gane.

West Division,

Herbert John Gladstone.

South Division,

Rt. Hon. Sir Lyon Playfair, K.C.B.


Joseph Havelock Wilson.


Hon. Rowland Winn.


Sir George Reresby Sitwell, bt.


Attercliffe Division,

Hon. Bernard John Seymour Coleridge.

Brightside Division,

Rt. Hon. Anthony John Mundella.

Central Division,

Colonel Charles Edward Howard Vincent, C.B.

Hallam Division,

Charles Beilby Stuart-Wortley.

Ecclesall Division,

Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett.


Albany H. Charlesworth.


John George Butcher,

Frank Lockwood.



Thomas P. Lewis.


William Fuller Maitland.


William Bowen Rowlands.



Abel Thomas.


John Lloyd Morgan.


Major Evan Rowland Jones.



John Bryn Roberts.


William Rathbone.


David Lloyd-George.



Rt. Hon. George Osborne Morgan.


John Herbert Roberts.


Hon. George Thomas Kenyon.


Samuel Smith.


John Herbert Lewis.



Alfred Thomas.


William Abraham.


Daniel David Randell.


Samuel Thomas Evans.


Arthur John Williams.


Sir Edward James Reed, K.C.B.


David Alfred Thomas,

William Pritchard Morgan.


Swansea, Town,

Robert John Dickson Burnie.

Swansea, District,

Sir Henry Hussey Vivian, bt.


Thomas Edward Ellis.


Stuart Rendel.


Sir Pryce Pryce-Jones.


William Rees Morgan Davies.


Charles Francis Egerton Allen.


Frank Edwards.



Peter Esslemont.


Robert Farquharson, M,D.


North Division,

William Alexander Hunter.

South Division,

James Bryce.


Donald Horne Macfarlane.



Hon. Thomas Horatio Arthur Ernest Cochrane.


Eugene Wason.


William Birkmyre.


Stephen Williamson.


Robert William Duff.


Right Hon. Edward Marjoribanks.


Andrew Graham Murray.


Gavin Brown Clark, M.D.


Sir John Fender.


Rt. Hon. John Blair Balfour.


Captain John Sinclair.


William Jardine Maxwell.


Robert Threshie Reid.


Rt. Hon. William Ewart Gladstone.


East Division,

Robert Wallace.

West Division,

Viscount Wolmer.

Central Division,

William McEwan.

South, Division,

Herbert Woodfield Paul.


Rt. Hon. Sir Charles John Pearson, kt.


Ronald Crawfurd Munro Ferguson.


John Seymour Keay.


Alexander Asher.



Herbert Henry Asquith.


Augustine Birrell.


James Henry Dalziel.


Henry Torrens Anstruther.


John Rigby.


John Leng,

Edmund Robertson.


John Shiress Will.


Richard Burden Haldane.


Donald Macgregor, M.D.


Gilbert Beith.


John William Crombie.


Mark John Stewart.



John Wilson.


James Parker Smith.


Graeme Alexander Whitelaw.


Donald Crawford.


John Wynford Philipps.


James Henry Cecil Hozier.


Bridgeton Division.

Rt. Hon. Sir George Otto Trevelyan, bt.

Camlachie Division,

Alexander Cross.

St. Roller Division,

Sir James M. Carmichael, bt.

Central Division,

John George Alexander Baird.

College Division,

Charles Cameron, M.D., LL.D.

Tradeston Division,

Archibald Cameron Corbett.

Blackfriars and Hutchesontown Division,

Andrew Dryburgh Provand.


James Alexander Campbell, LL.D.


Peter McLagan.


Leonard Lyell.


Walter Thorburn.



Sir John George Smyth Kinloch, bt.


Sir Donald Currie, K.C.M.G.


William Whitelaw.



Michael Hugh Shaw-Stewart.


Charles Bine Renshaw.


Sir Thomas Sutherland, K.C.M.G.


William Dunn.


John Galloway Weir.


Hon. Mark Francis Napier.


Thomas Shaw.


William Jacks.


Harry Smith.


Right Hon. Henry Campbell-Bannerman.


Angus Sutherland.


Sir Herbert Eustace Maxwell, bt.



Charles Cunningham Connor.


Hon. Robert Torrens O'Neill.


Captain James Martin M'Calmont.


William Grey Ellison Macartney.


North Belfast Division,

Sir Edward James Harland, bt.

East Belfast Division,

Gustav Wilhelm Wolff.

South Belfast Division,

William Johnston.

West Belfast Division,

Hugh O. Arnold-Foster.



Colonel Edward James Saunderson.


Dunbar Plunket barton.


E. McHugh.


John Hammond.



Edmund Francis Vesey Knox.


Samuel Young.



William Hoey Kearney Redmond.


J. Rochefort Maguire.



James Christopher Flynn.


William O'Brien.


Charles Kearns Deane Tanner, M.D.


Captain A. J. C. Donelan.


James Gilhooly.


Edward Barry.


John Morrogh.


William O'Brien,

Maurice Healy.



John Mains.


Timothy Daniel Sullivan.


Arthur O'Connor.


John Gordon Swift Mac Neill.



Colonel Thomas Waring.


James Alexander Rentoul, LL.D.


Right Hon. Lord Arthur W. Hill.


Michael McCartan.


Patrick George Hamilton Carvill.



John Joseph Clancy, M.A.


Hon. Horace C. Plunkett.


College Green Division,

Dr. Joseph E. Kenny.

Harbour Division,

Timothy Charles Harrington.

St. Stephen's Green Division,

William Kenny.

St. Patrick's Division,

William Field.


Rt. Hon. David Robert Plunket, LL.D.,

Edward Carson.



Richard Martin Dane.


P. Magilligan.



Patrick James Foley.


Colonel John Philip Nolan.


John Roche.


David Sheehy.


John Pinkerton.



Thomas Sexton.


Sir Thomas Henry Grattan Esmonde, bt.


Denis Kilbride.


Jeremiah Daniel Sheehan



Patrick James Kennedy.


Matthew J. Minch.



Patrick McDermott.


Patrick Alexander Chance.


Thomas B. Curran.



Bernard Charles Molloy.


Dr. Joseph Francis Fox.



Patrick A. McHugh.


Jasper Tully.



M. Austin.


John Finucane.


Francis Arthur O'Keefe.



Henry Lyle Mulholland.


Thomas Lea.


John Ross.



Justin McCarthy.


Edward Blake.



Timothy Michael Healy.


Daniel Ambrose, M.D.



Daniel Crilly.


John Deasy.


John Dillon.


James Francis Xavier O'Brien.



Michael Davitt.


Patrick Fullam,



Charles Diamond.


Florence O'Driscoll.



Eugene Crean.


Mark Antony MacDonnell, M.D.



Matthias McDonnell Bodkin.


Luke Patrick Hayden.



Bernard Collery.


Thomas Curran.



Patrick Joseph O'Brien.


John W. McCarthy.


Francis Mandeville.


Thomas Joseph Condon.



Lord Frederick Spencer Hamilton.


Matthew Joseph Kenny.


William James Reynolds.


Thomas Wallace Russell.



Alfred Webb.


Patrick Joseph Power.


John Edward Redmond.



James Tuite.


Donal Sullivan.



Thomas J. Healy.


John Barry.



James O'Connor.


John Sweetman.





THE TWENTY-FOURTH PARLIAMENT of the United Kingdom—which had met for the despatch of Business on Thursday, the 5th day of August, 1886—was prorogued and dissolved by Proclamation on Tuesday, the 28th day of June, 1892:—And Her Majesty thereon declaring Her pleasure to call a new Parliament, directed Writs to be issued accordingly; which Writs were made returnable on Thursday, the 4th day of August.

The PARLIAMENT was opened by Commission.

Thursday, 4th August, 1892.

THE HOUSE of PEERS being met,

THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House,

"That Her Majesty, not thinking fit to be personally present here this day, has been pleased to cause a Commission to be issued under the Great Seal, in order to the opening and holding of this Parliament."


Then Five of the LORDS COMMISSIONERS—namely, The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Halsbury); The CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (The Duke of Rutland); The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount Cross); The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord Knutsford); The LORD CHAMBERLAIN (The Earl of Lathom)—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 Commission read."

Who being come;


"My Lords, and Gentlemen of the House of Commons,

"We are commanded by HER MAJESTY to let you know, it not being convenient for Her to be present here this day in Her Royal Person, that she has thought fit, in order to the opening and holding of this Parliament, to cause Letters Patent to be issued under the Great Seal, empowering His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and several other Lords therein named Her Commissioners, to do all things in Her Majesty's name, on Her part necessary to be performed in this Parliament, and this will more fully appear by the Letters Patent themselves, which will now be read.

Then the said Letters Patent were read by the Clerk. And then


"My Lords, and Gentlemen,

"We have it in command from Her Majesty to let you know that as soon as the Members of your House shall be sworn, Her Majesty will declare the causes of Her calling this Parliament; and, it being necessary that a Speaker of the House of Commons shall be first chosen, it is Her Majesty's Pleasure that you, Gentlemen of the House of Commons, repair to the Place where you are to sit, and there proceed to the Choice of some proper Person to be your Speaker; and that you present such Person whom you shall so choose here, to-morrow, at Twelve o'clock, for Her Majesty's Royal approbation."

Then the Commons withdrew.


The Lord Chancellor—Singly, in the first place, took the Oath at the Table.

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 First Session of the Twenty-fifth Parliament of the United Kingdom: The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

Certificate of the Election of Sixteen Representative Peers for Scotland—Delivered, and read as follows:—

  • Earl of Mar.
  • Earl of Morton.
  • Earl of Mar and Kellie.
  • Earl of Haddington.
  • Earl of Lauderdale.
  • Earl of Lindsay.
  • Earl of Airlie.
  • Earl of Carnwath.
  • Earl of Leven and Melville.
  • Earl of Dundonald.
  • Viscount Strathallan.
  • Lord Forbes.
  • Lord Saltoun.
  • Lord Sinclair.
  • Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
  • Lord Polwarth.

Several Lords—Took the Oath.

House adjourned at Four o'clock, till Tomorrow, Twelve o'clock.

Thursday, 4th August, 1892.

The House met at Two of the clock; and, it being the first day of the meeting of this Parliament, pursuant to Proclamation, Reginald Francis Douce Palgrave, esquire, Clerk of the House of Commons, Archibald John Scott Milman, and Francis Broxholme Grey

Jenkinson, esquires, Clerks Assistant, attending in the House, and the other Clerks attending, according to their duty, Kenneth Augustus Muir Mackenzie, esquire, Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in Great Britain, delivered to the said Reginald Francis Douce Palgrave a Book, containing a List of the Names of the Members returned to serve in this Parliament.

Several of the Members repaired to their Seats.

A Message was delivered by Thomas Dacres Butler, esquire, Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod:


"The Lords, authorized by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission to open this Parliament, desire the immediate attendance of this Honourable House in the House of Peers, to hear the Commission read."

Accordingly, the House went up to the House of Peers;—And a Commission having been read for opening and holding the Parliament, the Lords Commissioners directed the House to proceed to the Election of a Speaker, and present him To-morrow, at Two of the clock, in the House of Peers for the Royal Approbation.

And the House being returned;—



SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY (Lancashire, N., Blackpool)
: Mr. Palgrave, in accordance with the gracious communication we have just received from Her Majesty, it becomes the first duty of the House of Common as it is our ancient and undoubted privilege, to proceed to the election of a Speaker. I hope I may be allowed to express my own personal feeling that no greater pleasure, no greater honour, could have been conferred on me than that I should be invited to propose for re-election to that high office my right hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Warwick and Leamington. I do not doubt that the name of Mr. Peel will be accepted by the House with unanimous, nay, I may say with enthusiastic, approval. I am convinced that all Members of this House, old Members and new Members alike, will feel—the old ones from long experience of him, the new Members from that general public repute which my right hon. Friend has earned—that this House will be indeed fortunate if able again to secure the services of a Speaker so well tried and so successful. We have been accustomed to look to our Speakers to uphold the honour and dignity, and to maintain the privileges of this great Assembly, which is the guardian of the liberties of the people. We have looked to them to enforce with rigid and severe impartiality the rules of order and debate, so that there may be in this House perfect freedom of speech and due regard paid to the privileges of majorities and minorities alike. We have looked to them, perhaps above all, to erect a high standard of public honour, and to promote and carry on those unwritten laws of mutual courtesy and good feeling which ought assuredly to be the key-note of all our proceedings, and which are among the most revered and most valued traditions of this House. In the past we have never looked in vain for men of high and independent character, and of pre-eminent ability, to carry out these duties; and at the present moment I am sure I shall carry with me the whole feeling of the House when I say that Mr. Peel, during his long service in that Chair to which he was elected by a happy choice some eight years ago, has maintained to the utmost the noble traditions of his distinguished predecessors, and I will venture to say has added additional lustre even to the honoured name he bears. The authority of the Chair is based upon, and is derived from, the confidence of the House. Without that confidence no Standing Orders, no powers, however conferred upon the occupant of the Chair, can be, or ever will be, of the slightest avail. If we have been accustomed to expect from our Speakers—as we have expected from them—great capacity, great
abilities, and power to perform the most important functions, we have at the same time on our side, we, the House of Commons, always given them our confidence—always have we reposed confidence in them. The occasions are frequent, and they occur most unexpectedly, when the Speaker is called upon, unaided and alone and at once, to decide upon difficult points which may have most supreme consequences—points which require not only accurate knowledge of the forms and precedents of the House, but which demand the greatest courage and firmness to apply those precedents to the exigencies of the moment. The voice of the Chair is the voice of the House, and it is of the supremest importance that every individual Member of this House should, from his inmost convictions, feel that confidence in the Chair without which, I will venture to say, there can be no security for order or adequate protection for liberty of debate. I am sure that I carry with me the conviction of the whole House when I say that in this respect also Mr. Peel has pre-eminently shown qualities which have, during his tenure of office, added to the due authority and efficiency of the Chair, and have in the most marked manner earned the approval and confidence of the House. I hope I may be permitted to add that there is no Member in any quarter of the House who has had occasion for the advice and assistance of Mr. Peel, as Speaker, who has not experienced at his hands the most kindly attention and the most unwearied courtesy. I am confident that I am right in saying there are in every quarter of the House the most strong feelings of personal regard and friendship for him. I feel, therefore, the most profound belief that when I am proposing the re-election of our tried and honoured Speaker of now three Parliaments there will be no discordant note whatever in the House; but, on the contrary, there will be an unanimous feeling that the House will be wise if it again puts faith in a man so well qualified to guide its deliberations and to maintain its dignity. The demands upon the physical strength of our Speaker are,
as we all know, serious; and I rejoice—we all rejoice—that in the case of my right hon. Friend that strength, however at times it has been sorely tried, has proved itself adequate. I heartily trust that we may congratulate him, with truth, upon health unimpaired, and I express the hope, on behalf of the whole House, that he may be long spared to fulfil those honourable and arduous duties to which I now propose the House should again call him. I move—"That the right honourable Arthur Wellesley Peel do take the Chair of this House as Speaker."


MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Midlothian)
: Mr. Palgrave, the hon. Baronet (Sir Matthew White Ridley) who has just sat down has expressed, in the course of his speech, a hope well warranted, I think, by the circumstances of the case, that on the occasion with which we have now to deal there will be no discordant note in the proceedings or in the discussions of this House. Sir, I rise to meet, so far as. depends upon me, the expression of that hope; and I feel confident that with regard to all for whom, or in whose name I may even in the slightest degree be entitled, presumably, to speak, that I can echo back in their fulness the just encomiums which the hon. Baronet has pronounced upon the character, and the conduct, and the proceedings of the late Speaker of the House. Sir, the hon. Baronet himself has dealt with this subject in a manner as just as it was ample; and I have the satisfaction of thinking that while I am able to adopt, I think, every expression that fell from the lips of the hon. Baronet, he has left me little indeed to add. There is one word that perhaps I may say. I may anticipate, without the slightest doubt, in reliance upon what has already taken place, the unanimity of these proceedings, and I venture to anticipate the compliments which, had there been an uncertain issue before us,
it might have been wiser to reserve—the compliments and congratulations which I may offer to my right hon. Friend, with whom, in addition to my experience of him in the Chair, I have enjoyed the privilege of a long friendship, dating perhaps from the middle part of my life, and from an early period indeed in his. Within these recent years, and especially within the period of my Parliamentary life, great changes have taken place in regard to the Chair. At all times, I apprehend, the Speaker—although he may be regarded only as a single individual, yet as representing a position, and an influence, and a power so great—forms an integral and essential part of the existence of the House of Commons. The Speaker ceases in a manner to be an individual when he takes the Chair, and the House of Commons never can be well unless the Speaker is firmly lodged in the Chair, not only by the vote of the House, but by the unquestioning confidence of its Members. But, Sir, the change of which I speak is this—that although that great office has always been an office of very high elevation and demanding qualifications of no uncommon order, unquestionably one of the most marked among the changes that time has brought with it in respect to the Chair—so far as my own experience is concerned—has been the extraordinary increase in the demand made upon the Speaker of the House. I do not mean in formal additions to his duty—I do not mean in those additions which the increase of the volume of business naturally and necessarily brings with it; but I do not hesitate to say that great as was this office in the time of men like Mr. Manners Sutton—afterwards Lord Canterbury—it was an office comparatively small in regard to what it now is, and in regard to the calls that are made upon its occupant. Undoubtedly the activity of political life in the nation, its energy and vitality and the rapidity of its movements, are thoroughly reflected in the proceedings of this House. There is, I believe I may say, according to my experience and my conviction, not the smallest
tendency to a diminution in the minds of Members of the House of the respect and authority due to the Chair. I am fully convinced that whatever changes may take place, the practical good sense of the people of this country will continue to keep alive, and to keep high in the mind and conviction of every Member of the House, a sense of the necessity of the deference due to the Chair. But that deference may be paid with a greater or less degree of willingness according to the manner in which the power is exercised. And undoubtedly, Sir, I may offer to the gentleman whose name is now before the House this congratulatory expression—that as it appears to me, great as was the honour always conferred upon the Speaker of the House by his selection for so important a position, that honour has undergone an aggrandisement—a real and a true aggrandisement—in proportion to the increase in the difficulties as well as in the increase of the volume of the duties imposed upon him. Sir, we do not expect infallibility from our Speakers; that is beyond the claims we are entitled to ask; but we expect from them much—great acuteness, wide knowledge, great patience, and the disposition and capacity to acquire a thorough mastery of all questions, however difficult they may be, that may arise in the course of the proceedings of this House. We expect from them—in a degree unusual with respect to high offices of this kind—that readiness of mind which, as the hon. Baronet has well said, is essential to the Speaker on a multitude of occasions with regard to which you cannot tell when they will arise, but you know they must arise frequently, and the Speaker must act upon the moment, and act without assistance. Sir, all these things we have found in the mind and character of my right hon. Friend. But we have found beyond them all this—a sense of personal honour and a knowledge of the duty of absolute and, if possible, more than judicial impartiality, and these so deeply impressed upon the mind as to form a leading characteristic of the individual and of his character. The Speaker of the House must, as the hon. Baronet has well said, possess the
confidence of the entire House. This is a proposition which cannot be too often repeated and too deeply felt. If our debates from period to period come to be of more and more interest, and there be more and more difficulty in maintaining the line of absolute and unswerving rectitude, it is more and more important that that sense of honour and impartiality should be raised to the very highest point of which the human mind is capable. The Speaker of the House of Commons must stand not only beyond complaint, but beyond the faintest breath of suspicion. For that breath of suspicion falling upon his reputation it is too possible might not require to be embodied in a complaint, so subtle would be its agency and so fatally and surely it might underwork his influence. Sir, these are the demands which I have endeavoured to state without diminution or extenuation, and which I have so stated in the strongest terms, because I am able confidently to add that the whole of those demands have been satisfied in yourself, Mr. Peel. I believe I have deviated unconsciously in making by a single word a reference to my right hon. Friend. He will, however, understand how I was led into that error. But, addressing the House, I repeat that, in my opinion, it is impossible to deny that on all these points which I have named, and some of which undoubtedly involve questions of the utmost difficulty, and questions involving much more than an ordinary sense and an ordinary standard of honour and integrity—on all these points, essential points, on which the dignity and authority of the office depend, even more than upon the formal vote of the House of Commons, we have looked to the late Speaker for satisfaction, and we have obtained that satisfaction entire and unqualified. I, therefore, Sir, with most lively pleasure on my own part, and, I believe, on the part of all those who have had on this side of the House an opportunity of forming judgment for themselves, take upon me to second the Motion that has been made—"That the Right Honourable Arthur Wellesley Peel do take the Chair as Speaker of the House of Commons."


The House then unanimously calling Mr. PEEL to the Chair,


MR. A. W. PEEL (Warwick and Leamington)
: Mr. Palgrave, I am very keenly and deeply sensible of the honour and favour which have been conferred upon me by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Blackpool Division (Sir Matthew White Ridley), and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), in respectively moving and seconding my nomination to the Chair of this House. I very deeply appreciate, moreover, the honour which the House appears to do me by ratifying the remarks that have been made. I cannot appropriate those expressions to myself, but I am none the less grateful to those gentlemen for having presented me in so favourable a light. I cannot also forget, Sir, that I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) for having first presented me to this House in the year 1884. I cannot forget that twice during the year 1886 the right hon. Gentleman once made what is called the congratulatory speech to me after I had assumed the Chair, and on the second occasion, in August, 1886, seconded my nomination to that office. I do not propose to say much on the present occasion. I cannot bring before the new Members of this House—who constitute a large proportion of it—I cannot produce before them any qualifications for the Chair; and to the House at large I cannot say anything that is novel or interesting, the less so, perhaps, because this is the fourth occasion on which it has been my honour to be placed in the position which I now occupy. I hope the House will pardon me making what I confess is, almost a strictly personal observation. If it be the pleasure of the House again to elect me to that Chair, it will be the fourth occasion on which I have been called upon to fulfil the duty.
For a Member of this House to be called four times to that Chair is an unusual circumstance. It is certainly not unprecedented, for Mr. Speaker Denison and Mr. Speaker Shaw Lefevre both were called four times to fill the Chair; and going back to an earlier period, one Member of this House, Mr. Speaker Onslow, was certainly elected five times to fill the duties of the Chair. I hope, as I said, the House will pardon this personal consideration. It is not, however, a question how often a Member of this House is called to that Chair; it is a question how he fulfils the duties when he is placed there. It may be a small thing to say, but I hope it may count for something, that if I am placed there it will be my endeavour to discharge, to the best of my abilities, the duties, the ever increasing duties—increasing in their onerousness and responsibility—which attach to the occupant of that Chair. If I fill the Chair again I shall be attached to the House by a lengthening chain of obligation for having elected me so often, but I shall look for any success that may be achieved, not to myself or to any personal efforts of my own; I shall look to the support of every man in this House. Without that support a Speaker can do nothing; with that support there is little that he cannot do. I shall ask then the support of every hon. Member, old and new, on whatever side of the House he sits, to whatever Party he may belong. That support I ask for in endeavouring to uphold the traditions which, in the course of centuries, have grown around the history of this House. That support I ask for in applying those rules which from time to time the House has been pleased to make for the enforcement of order, and for what is saving the same thing—the freedom of debate. Lastly, Sir, I shall look to the House at large for this purpose especially. The Speaker, without the support, as I have said, of the House can do nothing; but when he sits in that Chair with the support of hon. 'Members, he will be able to do something to sustain the character of the House—a character which I hope has lost nothing of its true meaning
and importance in the eyes of this country, the deep importance of which I hope has not been impaired. He will look to the House to support him in maintaining those high attributes which have attached to this House, and which have from year to year given to it a special value and a peculiar character, and which have raised it to so high—I may be pardoned here for saying, so commanding a position—amongst the great Legislative Assemblies of the world. And now, Sir, I thank the House very humbly and very respectfully for the honour they have done me in receiving the few remarks I have made in the way they have. I submit myself to the House, and I am conscious, indeed, of many imperfections which the kindness of the House has overlooked. I now place myself unreservedly in the hands of the House, and await its judgment.

The House then again unanimously calling Mr. PEEL to the Chair; he was taken out of his place by the said Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY, and the said Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, and conducted to the Chair.

And then the Mace, which before lay under the Table, was now laid upon the Table. Then—


: In accordance with the immemorial custom of this House, it now falls to me to offer you the congratulations of the House upon your election to the Chair. Under any circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that to have that honour conferred upon you must be a subject of congratulation. But that it should be conferred for the fourth time gives it a significance which only those acquainted with the course of our Debates can fully appreciate or understand. It is, perhaps, inevitable, human nature being what it is, that we look with somewhat different eyes upon the rights of the majority and the privileges of
the minority in this House, according as we sit upon your right hand or your left. But most of those who now hear me have been in this House under your Speakership, both as members of a minority and members of a majority; and, Sir, the unanimous decision which has just been come to is conclusive evidence—looked at from either point of view—that Members of the House, after a long experience, are of opinion that there is no man among their ranks so worthy to be entrusted with the responsibility they have just conferred upon you. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, there is another ground of congratulation on this occasion. I think if there is any man who ought to be congratulated it is he who undertakes duties of very great difficulty and very great onerousness and very great responsibility, and who knows himself, and is known by all, to be equal to every call and every demand which those duties can possibly make upon him. The occupants of your Chair, Sir, have from time immemorial had very important duties to perform. They have had, in times now long gone by, to protect the interests of this House from external aggression. They now have duties cast upon them very different in kind, and, if I may venture to say so, far more weighty and important. We ask from our Speaker not merely a great knowledge of the traditions and precedents of this House, not merely kindliness and courtesy, not merely an impartiality which is above suspicion, but we ask from him also tact and rapidity of decision under circumstances often of great difficulty; we ask from him great Parliamentary courage; and we ask from him, above all, those qualities which can only be described as the qualities of personality, without which the most profound knowledge of Parliamentary precedents would be absolutely useless and inoperative in the occupant of that Chair. Sir, you in some respects may be said to embody not only the traditions of the House, but the public conscience of the House, so far as the conduct of Debate is concerned; and on you, therefore, rests, more than on any other single Member of this House, responsibilities in connection with the traditions of this
House, and with the continuation of its reputation, which are indeed of the most serious character. If I consider the whole hierarchy of the responsible officials of this great community, none appears to me to have in his keeping interests of greater magnitude than, Sir, have been entrusted to you; and assuredly it is a matter of congratulation to every Member of this House, that every single one of us believes that in your keeping, Sir, those great interests are secure.


*MR. SPEAKER-ELECT, standing on the upper step, said
: Standing in this place, I have to make my acknowledgments to the House for having again elected me to the Chair. As I perfectly recognise the great responsibility I have undertaken, and with which you have entrusted me, I can only say that I place such abilities as I possess at your command, and as your servant, your officer, I hope to discharge those duties to your satisfaction, and in some measure justify the choice you have now made.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour).

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at five minutes before Three o'clock.

Friday, 5th August, 1892.

The House met at Twelve of the clock.

The Lords Commissioners—namely, The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Halsbury); The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (The Duke of Rutland); The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Viscount Cross); The SECRETARY

OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Lord Knutsford); The SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Lord Balfour of Burleigh)—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."

And the Commons being at the Bar;




"I have to acquaint your Lordships that, in obedience to Her Majesty's commands, and in the exercise of their undoubted rights and privileges, Her Majesty's faithful Commons have proceeded to the election of a Speaker, and that their choice has fallen upon myself. I now present myself at your Lordships' Bar, and submit myself, in all humility, for Her Majesty's gracious approbation."



"We are commanded to assure you that Her Majesty is so fully sensible of your zeal in the public service, and of your ample sufficiency to exercise the arduous duties which Her Majesty's faithful Commons have selected you to discharge, that she doth most readily approve and confirm you as their Speaker."

Then MR. SPEAKER said—


"I submit myself, with all humility, to Her Majesty's gracious commands. It is now my duty, in the name and on behalf of the Commons of the United

Kingdom, in obedience to Her Majesty's commands, to lay claim, by humble petition to Her Majesty, for the right of access to Her Majesty at all times, for the right of freedom of speech in Debate, and for the right of freedom from arrest of the persons of Her Majesty's Commons. I lay claim to these privileges in accordance with the usual custom, and. I beg that the most favourable construction should be put upon all the proceedings of the House of Commons. As for me, if any error should be committed, I pray that it nay be imputed to me alone, and not to Her Majesty's faithful Commons."



"We have it further in command to inform you that Her Majesty doth most readily confirm all the rights and privileges which have ever been granted to or conferred upon the Commons by any of Her Majesty's royal predecessors With respect to yourself, Sir, although Her Majesty is sensible that you stand in no need of such assurance, Her Majesty will ever place the most favourable construction upon your words and actions."

Then the Commons withdrew.

Several Lords—Took the Oath.

House adjourned at Four o'clock.

Friday, 5th August, 1892.

The House met at Twelve of the clock.

The House being met, and Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT having taken the Chair,

a Message was delivered by the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod:


"The Lords, authorised by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission, desire the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the House of Peers."

Accordingly, Mr. SPEAKER-ELECT, with the House, went up to the House of Peers, when he was presented to the said Lords Commissioners for the Royal Approbation.

Then THE LORD CHANCELLOR, one of the said Lords Commissioners, signified Her Majesty's Approbation of Mr. Speaker-Elect.

The House being returned:—

MR. SPEAKER (standing in his usual place)
: I have to acquaint the House that, in the House of Peers, Her Majesty, through Her Royal Commissioners, has been pleased to approve of the choice that you have made of me as your Speaker, and that I have, in your name and on your behalf, laid claim by humble Petition to Her Majesty to all your ancient Rights and Privileges—freedom of speech in debate, freedom from arrest of your persons and servants, and freedom of access at all times when opportunity offers to Her Majesty, and that the most favourable construction may be placed on all your proceedings. All these privileges, Her Majesty, through Her Commissioners, has approved and confirmed in as ample a manner as any of Her Royal Predecessors.
It is my duty once more to thank the House for the honour done to me in placing me here, and I have now to ask hon. Members to follow me in taking the Oath at the Table. It may be for the convenience of the House if I state what has already been stated in printed papers circulated among Mem-
bers, that Privy Councillors and those who have been in the Ministry should in the first place take the Oath at the Table. It has been thought convenient to follow a precedent in this, which seemed to meet with the approval of the House: that not more than five Members at a time should present themselves at the Table to take the Oath, and if hon. Members will kindly not present themselves when they see five Members at the Table, I think it will conduce to the regularity of our proceeding and the despatch of the duty of taking the Oath.
Mr. SPEAKER then took and subscribed the Oath first alone; and after him several other Members took and subscribed the Oath; and several other Members made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.

House adjourned at a quarter after Four o'clock.

Saturday, 6th August, 1892.

The House met at Twelve of the clock.

Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath; and one other Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.


Resolved, That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Monday next, at One of the clock.

House adjourned at half after Two o'clock till Monday next, at One of the clock.

Monday, 8th August, 1892.

The House met at Two of the clock.


Then Five of the LORDS COMMISSIONERS—namely, The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Halsbury); The Duke of PORTLAND (Master of the Horse); The Earl of COVENTRY (Master of the Buck-hounds); The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Earl Brownlow); The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lord Knutsford)— 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 Commission read."

Who being at the Bar, with their Speaker:—The Commission was read by the Clerk:—Then


delivered HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—

"My Lords, and Gentlemen,

"We have to inform you by the command of Her Majesty that the present Parliament has been assembled in obedience to the terms of Her Majesty's Proclamation of the 28th June 1892, by which the late Parliament was dissolved.

"Previous to that Dissolution the business of the Session was completed; and it is therefore not necessary that Parliament should now continue in session at an unusual period of the year for the transaction of financial or legislative business.

"It is Her Majesty's hope that when you meet again at the customary season you will again direct your attention to measures of social and domestic improvement, and that you will continue to advance in the path of useful and beneficent legislation, which

has been so judiciously followed in previous Sessions.

Then the Commons withdrew.

House adjourned during pleasure.

House resumed.


acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had received (by post) from the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland, Minutes of the meeting held on the 14th of July last of the Peers of Scotland for the election of their representatives to sit and vote in the ensuing Parliament of the United Kingdom; and also, Return by the Lord Clerk Register of Scotland concerning Titles of Peerages called at the said meeting, in right of which respectively no vote had been received and counted for fifty years last past as at the date of the said meeting; Ordered that the said Minutes of Election, &c. be printed. [No. 1.]

Several Lords—Took the Oath.


The Duke of Somerset, after the death of his brother.


Bill, pro formâ, read 1a.



*THE EARL OF DENBIGH (who wore the uniform of an officer of the Royal Artillery)
: My Lords, in rising to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to thank her for her Gracious Speech from the Throne, I hope I may remind your Lordships that the duty of moving and seconding this Address is, I believe, almost invariably entrusted to two of the more junior Members of your Lordships' House who cannot claim to have any, or at all events but little, experience in the matter of addressing this august assembly; and consequently, my Lords, your indulgence is always
asked for, and is always as readily conceded. But, my Lords, I feel that to-day I have perhaps a somewhat extra claim upon your generous consideration, because on ordinary occasions the Mover and Seconder of the Address to Her Majesty are able to apply their remarks to the future policy of the Government as foreshadowed in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech; but unfortunately on this occasion, as your Lordships will have perceived, I am afraid that course is open neither to me nor to the noble Earl who follows me. And perhaps I may ask your Lordships' permission to depart therefore from the usual precedent which has generally been followed, and, instead of applying myself entirely to prospective issues, to cast more retrospective glances at what has been done in the past history of the Government. My Lords, looking back at the last Session of Parliament I think that we who sit on this side of the House and support the Government of the noble Marquess may lay just claim to the fact that there has been a steady continuance of that policy of wise and beneficent legislation which has distinguished this Government during the last six years of its holding office. Perhaps, my Lords, one of the most important Acts which was passed during the last Session of Parliament—at all events, an Act which may be described as striking out an almost entirely new line of legislation—was that important Act for the purpose of facilitating the creation of small agricultural holdings. My Lords, we cannot claim for this Act, as can be claimed for many other important Parliamentary Acts, that there will at once be seen far-reaching and important changes throughout the country as a consequence of the Act. We may rather say that its results, which we hope will be effectual, cannot be other than very gradual; and it is quite possible that to mere casual observers its effects will not be very patent for some time to come; but still, at the same time, we regard it as an honest and conscientious experiment in the direction of endeavouring to solve a difficulty and of supplying a want which is very considerably felt by a large section of Her Majesty's subjects. I
am afraid, my Lords, that the success of this measure may be said to be somewhat in danger, both from the action of its opponents and the action of its too zealous friends. I am afraid there are in the country, at least if we may judge from their speeches, some who would not perhaps be sorry to see it fail in order that they might be able to have a stone to fling at its authors. But there are its more zealous friends who persuade themselves that there will be an immediate considerable reduction, and a very palpable reduction, in the number of those who forsake the rural districts and crowd into our manufacturing centres. I am very much afraid that those zealous friends are doomed to a certain amount of disappointment. We hope that there will be a good many who will stay in the country and devote themselves to agricultural pursuits as a consequence of this Act of Parliament; but, still, I am afraid that the natural increase of the population of the country will so far outstrip any number of small holdings which could be artificially created by this or any other Act, that the number of those who are prevented from going into the towns will be as it were but a drop in the ocean. It has been complained, my Lords, that no principle of compulsion was embodied in this Act, and that question was very fully argued both in your Lordships' House and in another place; but I am certain that your Lordships will be strongly of opinion that it is wiser to walk before we attempt to run; and surely it is better to prove the success or even the failure of these artificially created small holdings before introducing any system of compulsion which, if it is not a sham, must inevitably do a great deal to unsettle the agricultural interest and to cause a considerable amount of insecurity of tenure in the minds of the occupiers of large farms at the present moment. My Lords, there are many other Acts of Parliament which I will not weary your Lordships by detailing at the present moment, as I have no doubt the noble Earl who follows me will apply himself to some of them; but apart from those, and apart from actual Acts of Parliament which have been dealt with by this House, I think, my Lords,
we can fairly also congratulate ourselves upon that great and wise policy, to which this Government devoted itself, having been continued of doing its utmost to popularise and to strengthen our Army, and to improve the condition of our soldiers; and also to add efficiently to the strength of our Navy. My Lords, I have seen a criticism on that policy of the Government which I must say I think a most unworthy one. I have seen it stated both on political platforms and in the columns of important journals that although the Government presided over by the noble Marquess can certainly say that they have not spent a penny in actual warfare since they came into office, yet they cannot deny that they have spent very large sums of money upon preparations for war in the time of peace. I said, my Lords, that I think that is an unworthy criticism—I will go further, and I say I think it is a most short-sighted and mischievous criticism. My Lords, which nation is it that would be most exposed to attack in modern days—the nation that is prepared for war, or the nation that is not? And which section of the population is it which would first feel the dire effects of such a calamity as the defeat of our Navy on the high seas? My Lords, you know very well it would not be the rich in this country, it would not he the capitalists, or the landowners, or the employers of labour, nor would it be those who have got money in the Bank; but it would be the working classes of this country, who would most assuredly be the first to feel that rise in the price of provisions and that dearth of employment which could be the only result of such a calamity as I have mentioned. My Lords, in these days of great democratic power, when the wrath of the masses is perhaps more easily aroused than it is allayed, I would not envy the feelings of any Minister at whose door it could fairly be laid that he had contributed to the defeat of the Navy by starving that Navy and by practising a false economy in order to win some cheap popularity by the introduction of what are called "popular Budgets." My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will consider that this is neither the proper time nor the proper place to make any
remarks about the political situation in another place; but yet I would submit to your Lordships that the prospect of future legislation which is mentioned in the third paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech is so intimately bound up with the present political situation that it is almost impossible to deal with the one and to ignore the other. I noticed the other day, my Lords, that a prominent Member of the Irish Party, speaking in Ireland, said—
"We have the whole strength and power of Great Britain pledged to our cause."
And then he said—
"After six years' reflection the electorate of Great Britain has deliberately elected a majority to Parliament pledged to the demands of the Irish nation."
My Lords, all I can say to that is that unless the hon. Gentleman places on geographical expressions a somewhat different interpretation from that in common use in our elementary schools, I think it is a somewhat novel way for Great Britain to show her determination to grant Home Rule by returning a majority of about fifteen against it. My Lords, there is certainly a majority of the United Kingdom returned against the policy of the present Government, and that majority is called a majority strongly in favour of Home Rule; but I think, my Lords, it is a matter of common observation how that majority has been obtained. I would submit to your Lordships that it has been obtained mainly through appealing to individual and particular classes of the electorate, and by giving those classes to understand that the particular legislation which they most desire, and which they believe will do them the most good, will forthwith be adopted and placed in the forefront of national politics. Well, my Lords, for this reason the future policy which is mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech will be watched with a considerable amount of interest, and we shall be able to judge for ourselves as to whether performance in office bears any resemblance to criticism in Opposition. I venture to say, my Lords, that there will be some considerable disappointments expressed in the various sections of the electorate. I should say that most certainly there will be very considerable disappointment in the minds
of those agricultural voters who have contributed so largely to the return of that gallant forty, unless they see a very speedy approach of that millennium of excellent cottages and high wages, coupled with unlimited quantities of the best land held at the minimum of rent, which is to be established by the installation of practically omnipotent parish councils. My Lords, I am not here to-day to attempt to speak against the question of what is called Home Rule for Ireland; but still I would, with your Lordships' permission, before I sit down, like just to refer to one aspect of that question. Attempts have been made, as your Lordships well know, up and down the country to try and prove to the people that the noble Marquess levelled insults at, and maligned wilfully, the Roman Catholic body of the United Kingdom. I am certain that your Lordships would consider it gross presumption on my part to attempt, in the presence of the noble Marquess, any sort of explanation of his words; but still I should like to say that I can only regard the interpretation which has been placed upon those words as very little short of a most gross calumny. I think, my Lords, that if a certain section of the Irish clergy, by certain acts and by a certain abuse of their position, have brought down upon themselves some rather sharp criticism from this side of the House they have only got themselves to blame. Then, my Lords, we have been told that one of the principal arguments against Home Rule is the fear of religious persecution. I was glad to see that the noble Duke, who sits above the Gangway opposite, (the Duke of Argyll), in one of his vigorous and eloquent addresses some two or three months ago, stated that in his opinion the talk of religious persecution was all humbug. My Lords, I venture to agree with him. I think that religious persecution in the sense in which that term was known many years ago is now-a-days impossible. It is not religious persecution that we fear; it is intolerance, not necessarily religious, hut certainly political. We do not fear intolerance against a man necessarily because he is a Catholic or a Protestant,
but from what we have seen in years gone by from the action of the Nationalist Party in Ireland we do fear very great intolerance against those who wish to be honest and to pay their way, and who are likely to oppose what is known as the Nationalist policy. My Lords, I am certain that everybody in your Lordships' House, and I believe nearly everybody in the country, is now willing to admit that the Catholics of Ireland in days gone by were subject to a most unjust and most cruel persecution; and, my Lords, we must remember that the memory of that persecution remains in the minds of the Irish people, and I think it is only just to make a certain amount of allowance in that regard. But still, at the same time, we must remember that we live in the nineteenth century, and not in the eighteenth or the seventeenth. We have got to look at things as they are, and are likely to be in the immediate future; we have not so much to take into consideration what they were or were not some 150 years ago; and I do most distinctly feel that, even after making all allowances that can possibly be made, it is impossible to deny that the polling-booth and the vanguard of an election mob are not the places where the clergy of any denomination can add to their self-respect, or to that esteem and power for good which by the nature of their calling should be theirs. In conclusion, my Lords, I would with all respect venture to bring before you an opinion which I can only claim as my own humble one. I certainly do feel that there is a very large section of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland who still have a great right to claim additional advantages and additional freedom in the matter of higher education, and in the matter of removing vexatious and irritating restrictions in the conduct of the management of the elementary schools. But, my Lords, I do not by any means despair of these matters being dealt with and of these boons being conceded through the generosity and the broadminded liberality of the Parliament at Westminster; and, looking to the fact how Ireland has been torn and sundered by political and religious jealousies in days gone by, and how at the present moment there are all the
elements for a renewal of those jealousies, I do strongly feel that in the interest of religious peace, and liberty in Ireland it would be far better for those matters to be dealt with by an independent Parliament at Westminster than by any Parliament that could be instituted at Dublin. My Lords, I have now, in conclusion, to thank your Lordships for your most kind indulgence and your kind reception of me to-day. I could not help remembering the other day a speech that was made by a noble Earl who sits on the Front Bench opposite, the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs, when he stated that it required, I think he said, a considerable amount of courage to address your Lordships' House. If my memory serves me aright, he said that your Lordships rarely applaud and never smile. Perhaps, my Lords, I may therefore be excused for having approached my task to-day with a certain amount of trepidation, and I can only thank your Lordships for having made that task so much easier than I had dared to anticipate. My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.

Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Speech from the Throne, as follows:—


We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.' "—(The Earl of Denbigh).

*THE EARL OF POWIS (who wore the uniform of a Deputy Lieutenant)
: My Lords, in rising to second the Motion which has been so ably proposed by my noble Friend, I would say that it is a curious circumstance that in the year 1859, which is 33 years ago, my predecessor moved in this House the Address in reply to the Queen's Speech under circumstances almost identical with the present. My Lords, I would ask you, therefore, to accord to me that attention which you always so kindly extended to him on the few and rare occasions on which he spoke; and I would ask that it should be tempered with indulgence,
inasmuch as I am unable to bring to bear any of that scholastic knowledge with which he was able to amuse and interest your Lordships' House. With reference to the Gracious Speech from the Throne, I am sure that it is a source of the greatest satisfaction, not only to your Lordships' House but also to all the people of this country, to ascertain that the Parliamentary business has been so successfully completed that it will not now be necessary to detain Parliament at this unusual season of the year, and that Members of both Houses will be able to take that rest and recreation which is so necessary, not only for their health, but also for the further prosecution of their duties. My Lords, with reference to some of the beneficent legislation which has been referred to in the third paragraph of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, I would ask you to pardon me if I give precedence to some of those measures which more closely interest the Principality in which it is both my pleasure and my privilege to dwell. By the passing of a measure, which has amply justified the hopes of its creators, the disgraceful scenes which at one time characterised the collection of tithes have been done away with, and I hope the question has now been laid to rest by the Tithe Act of 1891 once and for ever, to the satisfaction of all interested parties. I have further to congratulate Her Majesty's Government, if they will not think it presumptuous of me in doing so, upon the success which has already attended the measures which they have introduced bearing upon technical and elementary education. It is, indeed, a source of great satisfaction to the dwellers in the rural districts to observe the efforts which have been made by Her Majesty's Government to assist them in obtaining a better knowledge of those handicrafts by which they obtain their livelihood; and also to the poorer classes to find that they are now able to save the money which was formerly paid for the education of their children, either for the better clothing of their children or for their better food—or still more, for laying by a sum to start their children, when they leave school, in some trade or business. And, my Lords, this measure should largely
encourage thrift, inasmuch as the Post Office Savings Bank has come to its assistance. And now that I have mentioned the Postal Department, I would ask your Lordships to pardon me for an instant if I congratulate Her Majesty's Government upon having seen their way to introducing a universal and reduced rate of imperial and national postage. That subject brings me to the question of Imperial Defence; but I will not detain your Lordships long upon this subject, for the noble Lord who has just sat down has already mentioned it. I think it is a source of great satisfaction to us to know that the coaling stations and harbours of all Her Majesty's dominions have been strengthened, and also to remember that an Australian squadron has been established in southern waters with the assistance of the Colonies. I am sure that the noble Lord who rules over the destinies of our Navy in another House will allow me to congratulate him upon the efficiency of the Navy and the almost superhuman change which has been worked, not only in the number of the ships, but in their readiness to meet a foreign enemy. And as regards our Army, I am sure nothing can be more satisfactory to your Lordships than to know that every effort is being made to insure healthy quarters for the men, for, deeply as we deplore the loss of gallant soldiers in the field, it is far more terrible to hear that one of Britain's sons has perished from some malignant fever, from the fact that in time of peace an ungrateful country would not provide him with accommodation such as a man would think suitable for his dog. And I would not wish to convey the impression to your Lordships that I consider that England has been obtaining the entire advantage of the beneficent legislation which has been mentioned in the Speech from the Throne; but, my Lords, Ireland also has had a large measure of beneficent legislation, and I would ask your Lordships, therefore, to pardon me if for a few moments I dwell upon the Irish question. My Lords, we are told that a majority of the British people have demanded Home Rule. I would ask you to consider for a few moments who are the majority that have demanded
Home Rule. My Lords, is it in Great Britain, as the noble Lord who has just sat down asked, that we find a majority in favour of Home Rule? No, my Lords. If we look at the Sister Island, is it in the North of Ireland, amongst the educated portion of the population,—amongst the law-abiding inhabitants of the North—is it there that we find the demand for Home Rule? No, my Lords, most emphatically no. We have to look to the South of Ireland before we can find a majority in favour of that measure; amongst the population where till recently murder and outrage walked hand in hand, and where the law was of no avail; in a district where the population were accustomed to wreak their petty spite against their neighbours by torturing dumb beasts in a manner that would have disgraced a barbarous nation. Of such, my Lords, is the majority composed who are in favour of Home Rule, and who are dictating to Great Britain as to a revision of the Constitution. The majority is composed of those who have already declared their hatred, not only of England, but also of their brethren in the North. And what hope, I would ask your Lordships, would Ulster have of justice, let alone of safety, if a hostile majority of this description sat upon College Green? My Lords, you have heard much of Ulster's appeal to England. Ulster has appealed to England, because she knew it was useless to appeal to Ireland; but I am sure that the British people have not sunk so low that they will hand over the just to the unjust. I say the just unto the unjust, because it is well known that only a few years ago justice was impossible in the three Southern Provinces of Ireland. My Lords, we are told that the Union is intolerable to Ireland, that it stinks in her nostrils. I would ask you to review the condition of Ireland, only for a few seconds, previous and subsequent to the Union. We are told now that Ulster is the garden of Ireland. Well, my Lords, you well know that a 'garden can be formed almost anywhere if there is a judicious mixture put into the 'soil. That has been the case in Ulster. Previous to the Union, Ulster was the most barren and the most desolate of all the Provinces of Ireland; the inhabitants were the most
squalid and the most wretched of any in that country. But, by a judicious administration of the Union, upon those barren hill-sides a garden has arisen in Ireland. My Lords, I ask you whether you would destroy that garden and render it a waste once more? My Lords, we are told that Ulster demands ascendancy. That ascendancy, I conclude, is a religious ascendancy. Ulster has no such ascendancy, and it claims no such ascendancy. Its people live under the same laws under which your Lordships live. Your Lordships—at any rate Irish Lords—have no such ascendancy. My Lords, the lawless inhabitants of Ireland demand that you will change your Constitution—that you will give them a Parliament to sit upon College Green. These are not small demands. But, my Lords, what does Ulster demand? We have heard much of the demands of Ulster; but I fail to remember any demand on the part of Ulster. My Lords, I think you will remember that Ulster asks you for nothing. The only thing that Ulster asks you for is that you will leave her as she is at present, with the same protection which is given to every subject of Her Majesty's dominions. And now, with your Lordships' permission, I will, for a few moments, review the change which has taken place in the last six years in Ireland during the Government of the right hon. Gentleman who, if he will pardon my presumption in saying so, now so ably leads the other House. When the late Chief Secretary first went to Ireland we were told that his rule was "base, brutal, and bloody"; but whether it were base, or whether it were brutal, I think your Lordships cannot fail to see that a marvellous change has taken place in the condition of Ireland; crime has diminished, outrage has diminished, boycotting has disappeared, and the law has been re-established; and, if your Lordships require any proof of that, all that it is necessary to do is to point to two Charges given to the Grand Jury by Mr. Justice O'Brien, in one of which he says on the 10th of March, 1887—
"These Returns present a picture of County Kerry, such as could hardly be found in any country that has passed the confines of natural society."
And he proceeds—
"The law is defeated; perhaps I should say it has ceased to exist."
And then he concludes—
"A state of terror and lawlessness prevails everywhere."
But in 1892 the same Judge, addressing the Grand Jury at Cork Assizes, said—
"He was very much pleased, indeed, to be able to state that the county was in a most satisfactory condition. The offences reported for the corresponding period last year were 94, while for the present period they amounted to only 31. All trace of any kinds of offences indicating a state of disorder or agrarian disturbance was entirely wanting; boycotting was at au end; and the attention of the people generally was found to be turned to questions that affected their material prosperity."
All this has taken place, my Lords; and the stringent measures which were necessary previously have been abolished. My Lords, I would say that the reign of the Unionist Government has been bloodless in Ireland, for crime has almost ceased, and not only that, but a dangerous famine, which at one time threatened the inhabitants of Ireland, has been averted by the quick intervention of the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant. In those districts where there was danger of famine the people were provided with food and with employment; and the very means which were taken for the averting of the disaster have proved a source of permanent prosperity to the country. Your Lordships will, no doubt, know that I am referring to the Congested Districts and the Light Railways Acts. And now, if your Lordships desire any further proofs before I sit down of the prosperity which has come to Ireland during the last six years, I would ask you to remember that the prices of produce have risen; that Railway receipts have increased 14 per cent.; that deposits in Joint Stock Banks have increased 18 per cent., and in savings banks 53 per cent.; and, side by side with this, pauperism has decreased 13 per cent., emigration 18 per cent., indictable offences 28 per cent., and evictions 79 per cent. Well, my Lords, I will not detain you longer; but I think it has been abundantly proved that not only is the government of Ireland by England possible, but that it is absolutely necessary to its happiness. I think
it is proved that the rule of the Union is beneficial to Ireland, and that all that is necessary for that country is a firm administration of the law. My Lords, I thank you for your courtesy in having listened to me so long, and for your indulgence; and I have very great pleasure in seconding the Motion which has been already so ably moved by the noble Earl.

: My Lords, I am not at all surprised that the noble Earl who moved the Address felt some difficulty as to what he should say upon such an occasion as this; but I am bound to say that both the noble Earls who moved the Address and seconded it have managed to give us two very interesting speeches, and found a variety of topics with which they could entertain the House. My Lords, for my part I felt very great doubt whether I ought to say anything to your Lordships on the occasion of the consideration of this Gracious Speech of Her Majesty. I am, however, very conservative in my instincts, and I wish, therefore, to adhere to the ordinary practice. And perhaps I am rather more conservative in this respect and on this occasion than Her Majesty's Government have been, because I think I am right in saying that this is the first occasion when a Speech of this kind has been delivered, on the advice of Her Ministers, by the Queen to a Parliament after a Dissolution. On the occasion which is historical, when Lord Melbourne advised the Dissolution of Parliament in 1841, and the result was a very large majority against his Government, the Government of the day in meeting Parliament made a full statement of their policy in the Speech which they advised Her Majesty to deliver from the Throne; and I do not think that any example can be found where a Speech of this colourless description has been delivered. However, my Lords, I do not complain of that; I merely make the remark in order that I may excuse myself for making very few observations indeed to the House on this occasion. I apprehend we are here to consider the Speech which has been delivered to us by the Queen's command, and when we find in such a Speech, as we ordinarily do, a statement of the policy of Her Majesty's advisers, it is natural
that we should take the opportunity in some sense to criticise that policy, and express our views with regard to the measures which maybe promised in the Speech. But here we have nothing of the kind. The words are certainly most unobjectionable; but I wish to comment upon the words themselves in order to show that it is impossible, upon this side of the House at all events, that we could have the smallest objection to the expressions used. The hope is expressed that Parliament will again direct its attention to measures of social and domestic improvement, and that it will continue to advance in the path of useful and beneficent legislation, which has been so judiciously followed in previous Sessions. I have not a word to say against that. In previous Sessions it has happened that those who sit on this side of the House have been responsible for measures, and we are quite entitled to consider that the path of useful and beneficent legislation which has been followed in previous Sessions may apply to Sessions when Her Majesty was advised by Gentlemen who sit now on the Opposition side of the House as well as by those on that side. Therefore, there is nothing in the words of the Speech upon which any criticism can be grafted. The noble Lords, the Mover and Seconder of the Address, have most naturally applied the sentence to the legislation advised by the Government now in office. For my part, I am quite willing to say that some of that legislation was such that we had very great satisfaction in giving our support to the measures which were proposed; and I hope that it will be felt that in those measures which were not of a contentious kind—such a one as that to which the noble Earl opposite alluded, the measure for the creation of Small Holdings—we did not show the smallest disposition to throw any kind of obstacle in the way of the Government. On the contrary, we were very glad to give them all the assistance in our power, and to make suggestions which we think might have improved and carried further the legislation proposed. I can only say that if in the chances of political life before very long it should happen that we who sit on this side of the House should become responsible for
the proposal of measures to Parliament, I hope in such measures for social improvement as we may suggest we shall meet with the same spirit, and shall find noble Lords on the other side of the House as willing to co-operate with us in such measures as we have been to co-operate with them during the last Parliament. My Lords, with regard to all that interesting review of the measures of the Government, as to which we were not in agreement, and as to the present state of England and Ireland, and a variety of other topics, our opinions upon the measures have been expressed on every occasion when they were brought before us, and I am certain that no one in this House is ignorant of our opinions upon the general policy pursued by the late Government; and I should regard it as entirely out of place on an occasion of this kind, when no Amendment has been moved to the Address, and when there is no question before the House of a contentious kind, to enter into any discussion of that policy. My Lords, the Government now in power have thought proper to present us with a Speech to which I make no objection, in terms which raise no questions of policy of a contentious kind; and, for my part, I believe that the wisest and most proper course I can pursue under the circumstances is to say no more on the subject than that I fully concur in the Address that has been moved.

: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down, generally so eloquent and able, and capable of making a long and powerful speech, has only said a few words. I think he never showed his ability more than by doing so. I can quite understand that he should wish not to have a division in this House, because I think that would show rather the small extent of his following. I can also understand that he is not very anxious that this House should come very prominently before the public; because, among other things, it is possible that he and his Party may before very long come into serious conflict with this House, and it would, perhaps, be better that the less this House is thought of in the meantime, and the less the real ability which is contained within its walls is displayed, the better it may be. My Lords, I can
also understand that the noble Marquess, who, if I had not ventured to intervene, would probably have followed, will not think it necessary to say much. If he had been seriously attacked, or was actuated by motives of vanity and self-love, or if he thought it was an occasion to make a great and elaborate defence of his policy during the last six years, I venture to say that no Minister ever stood in a position so able to make a brilliant and eloquent vindication. Peace preserved abroad, under what people are beginning to find out have not after all been very easy and exceptionally favourable circumstances, and which I am afraid when his strong hand is removed from the helm will be found to be even less favourable and less easy than we have hitherto imagined them to be; financial policy, which has relieved the burdens of the people in a marked degree, and, at the same time, has added to the strength of our defences, particularly our Navy; Ireland, which when he came to the Government was in a state of outrage and intimidation on the one hand, and fear and discomfort on the other, now perfectly calm and quiet, not a single district being proclaimed; besides all this, numerous truly liberal and useful measures for the benefit of the people, conceived in the most statesmanlike spirit, Local Government, Free Education, the Allotments Bill, and the Small Holdings Act, and numerous other small ones, very good and very useful, which I need not go into; all these might make the foundation, as I say, if there had been any attack, of a most brilliant vindication. But, my Lords, there has not been any attack, and I think, unless somebody intervened, in a very few minutes our Debate would have come to an end. Now, my Lords, considering the exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves, I cannot, for one, think that that would have been advisable or creditable to this House. I only venture to rise, not of course because I think that anything I myself may say would be such as to demand any very great attention from your Lordships, but because I feel that under these circumstances the only person who could rise must be a man independent, who did not himself hold office at this moment and is not
aspiring to do so; perhaps it should be one who is not an immediate supporter of those who are holding office at this moment, or of the other side. I do so because I think that one thing that the present Government and all who support them are most anxious, and most justly anxious, for, is that they should not for one moment be supposed to have any desire to cling to office after there has been a majority declared against them in the country, however small, compared with what it has been at the beginning of last Parliament, which we lately remember, and however mixed the character of that majority may be. My Lords, I hope I may be followed by others who will perhaps speak with greater weight than myself; there are plenty of people of ability and willingness to address your Lordships; but there is, unfortunately, a sort of nightmare feeling which oppresses every individual who ventures to rise, which, I believe, is totally unfounded, but which nevertheless exists—I do not know why—but which I very often suffer from myself, that this House, from the moment of its assembling, is anxiously and impatiently looking forward to the time when it may break up, and is very impatient of anybody who stands, even for a few minutes, in the way of its doing so. But I hope that that will not deter people on this occasion. Now, my Lords, in what circumstances are we placed? They are certainly most unusual, and, as I shall venture to show by-and-bye, altogether unprecedented. We are likely, as we all know, very shortly to have a change of Government, and the result of that will be the introduction of measures which deeply affect us all in this House, on which we, most of us, either here or elsewhere have expressed a most decided opinion. We all of us hold a great stake in the country which is likely to be affected by these measures—I do not only mean Ireland, but Great Britain also. Our natural vent for the expression of our opinions, when we feel strongly, is within these walls; it is because we have that vent for the expression of our opinions—it is this fact which is the excuse, and the only excuse, for our not being allowed to take any part in General Elections in
this country. I say, therefore, we ought to make use, and are justified in making use, of the natural vent which is afforded to us of expressing our opinions, and if we shrink from doing so we shall injure our position in the country. Now, my Lords, as I say, there is very likely to be a change of Government. It is not, of course, for us here to do more than to glance lightly at the circumstances which have occasioned that; as I say, I do no more than glance at the strange state of that majority which will shortly enable other people to assume the reins, resting as it practically does entirely upon the Irish Nationalists, who have declared over and over again that they intend to hold themselves aloof as a separate Party, and to watch their opportunity and only give a limited support to any Party in this country, whichever it may be, as long as it suits their own purposes. Nor will I do more than glance at the incidents of the last Election. We, as your Lordships know, and as was eloquently pointed out to us by Mr. Gladstone some years ago, are living in a balloon; we are not supposed to have any cognisance of those struggles and contests, although accompanied very often with great excitement, that have been going on below us during the last few weeks. I myself have sometimes felt inclined to have a glance over the car of the balloon to see what was going on; and I think probably some of your Lordships have done the same; and you could not help seeing, particularly in the rural districts, by what means that majority was too often got together—those disgraceful false promises about a cheap loaf, when those who made them must have known they could never be fulfilled. How could we have a cheaper loaf than at present except by subsidising the bakers? Can anybody imagine that to be possible? Then, as Lord Denbigh has pointed out, the promises about having land for next to nothing what can they mean but either confiscation from those from whom the land is to be compulsorily bought, or the difference of rent being paid by the ratepayers?—neither of which I think any Government would venture to propose. I only allude to this to show that the majority is not formed in such a way or of such materials
as to command very great consideration on our part; though, of course, we are bound to admit it as it stands. Now I have said that the circumstances in which we find ourselves are, or will be, altogether unprecedented. I will tell you why. This mixed mass of people holding different opinions, of different nationalities and of different feelings, is to be got together to propose a vote of want of confidence in the present Government. Well, it will probably carry that vote, and the present Government will retire. What then happens? Another Government will take the reins. Will it have any opportunity of seeing whether it has the confidence of the House of Commons? It does not always follow that because a vote against Lord Salisbury has been passed there is also a feeling of confidence in Mr. Gladstone. Will they have any opportunity of showing whether they can carry one single measure through the House of Commons, to say nothing of this House, which of course they consider out of the question? I say there would be no chance of this—when they have formed a Government Parliament will disappear, and they will be left for six months in absolute unrestrained possession of the field, without anybody knowing the least in the world whether they command the confidence of the House or not; they may bring us into every kind of difficulty abroad and at home, and when they come back in January or February, or whenever it may be, they may perhaps find after all that Parliament is not inclined to support them, and not inclined to carry them through. On no previous occasion, I believe, has such a state of things happened. On no previous occasion has Parliament separated without some interval, long or short, in which the new Government could show the public that it had the confidence of the other House and command over it. This is why I consider our circumstances thoroughly unprecedented. Now, my Lords, with regard to some of the evils that may happen during the approaching winter, I may perhaps allude shortly to them. I will not allude to the question of Foreign Affairs, though things grave enough may happen with regard to them; but
there are many in this House more conversant with that subject than I am. I will take the case of Ireland. If any people ever were pledged, to the very eyes, irrevocably pledged against anything like Coercion, it is the Members of the Government which will be likely to succeed the present one. I think that they have shown great adroitness and great facility in explaining pledges away and in changing their views; but I do not think they could have recourse to Coercion under any circumstances. Therefore, we may assume that, whatever happens in that country during the winter, no use will be made of the Coercion Act, so-called, and that no single district will be proclaimed. But will those districts be quiet? We hope so. Have we reason to hope so with any confidence? Already I see that Mr. Gladstone has been assailed with demands on behalf of the evicted tenants, that they should be put back. Of course this does not mean put back after paying their rent; it means put back without paying their rent; because there are very few of them who, if they had been willing to pay their rent, would not have been put back long ago. I believe there has been a very wide feeling amongst the tenants in Ireland, encouraged very often by those who ought not to have done so, that when Mr. Gladstone comes in there will be either no rent at all or very little, and they need not trouble themselves about it. I say if these men act upon this idea, if there is a general strike against rent—which I think not improbable—and outrage following when there is an attempt to collect that rent, what will happen? I say anything in the shape of Coercion will be out of the question. The ordinary law has been proved in a state of great national excitement to be altogether useless. Will they trust to the National League to keep the peace for them? I believe there was a time, when the National League was united and strong under the iron hand of Mr. Parnell, that the League could do something in that way; but look at it now! It is broken to pieces; it is in two parties, to begin with; and the bigger party is virtually without a leader. I do not think even the miserable expedient of keeping order through the National League can be successful;
and I look with great apprehension to what may happen in Ireland during the coming winter. I will not allude to other matters that may occur; perhaps it may be said that a good deal of what I have discussed is matter for the other House and not for this House. I have explained that I do not think so. I have been a Member of this House for many years now, and in my recollection, and I think in that of most of my contemporaries, in former days we were in the habit of discussing great public questions far more copiously than we do now; and I think there was some advantage in doing so. There were a certain number of independent men, who had filled high places in the State and were generally looked up to—men like Lord Grey, who, I am happy to say, is still alive, though old age prevents him coming among us; like the late Duke of Somerset and many others; and later on Lord Carnarvon, who have disappeared from among us and have left no successors in the same sort of position. The result of this was that there was hardly an important public question of any kind that was not fully, elaborately, and ably discussed within these walls. I think it is a very great mistake to have debating-club speeches here, or anything of the kind. I think, also, it is a great thing, no doubt, that we should only speak and keep the reputation of speaking purely with regard to matters of business and the subject on hand; but I think this may be carried too far. I think we ought occasionally to have broad discussions about things of universal interest, and which keenly interest the nation. I think this is an occasion on which this House ought not to have separated without something of the kind. I am not vain enough to think that I personally have contributed anything to the discussion; I have risen simply in the hope that I may be backed up and followed by others; and if I am able to secure that this Debate shall not immediately collapse, and that this august, able, and great Assembly shall show that it is not indifferent to the great crisis in which we stand, but takes the keenest interest in it, my object will have been successfully accomplished.

: My Lords, I certainly expected, after the
speech which has been delivered by my noble Friend, that some Member of the Treasury Bench would have replied to the remarks that he has made. I particularly expected my noble Friend Earl Spencer, after the very grave words used by his predecessor in the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, would at once have risen to his feet and explained to this House what the policy of those who desire to overturn Her Majesty's Government is with respect to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. Can any man say that the question is not one of the gravest consequence? Does my noble Friend Earl Spencer recollect, on the occasion of the Queen's Speech in the year 1886, when it was notorious that the Government could last but a very few days, that he thought it was his duty in this House to put pointed questions to the Government in respect to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland? I cannot believe that, feeling as he does, and as I know he does, the grave consequence of this question, and that he personally will be held responsible for the maintenance of law and order in that country, he will refuse, on the present occasion, to answer the challenge of my noble Friend behind me. I said, my Lords, that surely this is a proper question to be put on the present occasion. I certainly congratulate my noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley on the adroitness of the course which he has taken on the present occasion. Whether that course is for the honour of the House of Lords is another question. Whether it is right that this House of Parliament, on the verge of a great crisis, should be debarred from the power of expressing any opinion, either upon the reasons why it is hold that no confidence should be placed in Her Majesty's Government, or upon the policy which is to be pursued by those who expect to take their places, is, I think, a very doubtful question indeed; and I cannot think that my noble Friend is right to have taken shelter under the technical plea that there was no Amendment to the Address, to avoid discussion in this House. Look at the position that that gives to the Leader of the Opposition in this House! He has simply to say that no Vote of Want of Confidence is to be moved, no Amendment made on the
Address, to prevent this House from entering into any discussion, except within the mere four corners of that Address. My Lords, I cannot think, as I said before, that that is a position which can commend itself to those who have far greater experience in this House than I have. And, certainly, I must say it is not a position tending to support the dignity and importance of this House; neither, moreover, is it, in my opinion, a position for the advantage of the country. My Lords, I said just now that the question put by the noble Earl behind me to the Government cannot but be considered to be a proper question. Will this House have any other opportunity but this of discussing this question? Will my noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley rise in his place and say that, supposing the Government is in a minority in the other House of Parliament, he, on behalf of the new Government, will, in his place in Parliament, give expression to the views and policy of the Government before we separate? If so, we shall have a legitimate opportunity of discussing these questions. If he does not intend to do so, what will be the result? The result will be that we shall have no power whatever of discussing these important matters. With respect to the question that has been put as to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, I hold that tins House should receive some explanation from my noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley, or from one of those who sit on the Bench beside him. What has happened during the last six years in regard to that matter? My noble Friend Earl Spencer especially, and my noble and learned Friend Lord Herschell again, on many occasions have been making speeches on different platforms in every part of the country; I should think Lord Spencer has made at least seven or eight speeches a year in different parts of the country, something like fifty speeches on the whole; and in those speeches they have attacked the administration of the Government in Ireland. My noble Friend the Earl of Kimberley said just now that he and his friends had always expressed their opinions in this House upon the policy of the Government. I venture with great
deference to my noble Friend to object to that statement. It has always been to me a matter of surprise that Lord Spencer and Lord Herschell, in both their great positions, one having been Lord Lieutenant and the other having been Lord Chancellor, should have been all over the country making speeches against the administration of the law in Ireland; and never, to the best of my recollection, on any one occasion have they brought forward their objections in this House, where there sit no less than five Lords who have been or are Lords Lieutenant of Ireland; four, I think, who have been and one who now holds that office, where the Lord Chancellor for Ireland sits, and where these questions could have been discussed with a weight, and with a dignity, and with an absence of Party feeling, which would have been very greatly to the advantage of the general interests of the country. That being so, my Lords, I think it is still more necessary for them at the present time to express what their views are as to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. There is, my Lords, another question of quite as great importance, which I venture to add to the question which has been addressed by my noble Friend behind me to noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench, and that is, what is the real policy of Mr. Gladstone with respect to Home Rule? It has been put forward as the first plank of the platform. No doubt there has been adhesion to the platform generally by the majority of those who have been returned to Parliament; but, my Lords, it has never been clearly explained I think to anyone what Home Rule really means. Whenever questions are put in this House noble Lords on that Bench, I am sorry to say, get rather angry at the question being put to them. One noble Lord told me once—"You might as well ask me how much stands to my credit at my banking account." That is the sort of answer that we receive. But I wish to say that the difficulty of explaining what Home Rule means is not a difficulty of a stupid Liberal Unionist like myself, or anybody on the Opposition side of the House at all; it is a difficulty which has been felt and has been expressed by the strongest
supporters of Mr. Gladstone himself. At this present moment, I suppose, a distinguished Member of the other House of Parliament (Mr. Asquith) is moving a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government. My Lords, Mr. Asquith made a speech, in 1886 I think it was, in which he said—I should like to use his own words—
"The Leaders of the Liberal Party would be acting wisely if they were to take the country a little more into their confidence. There ought to be a broad general outline on which the opinion of the country should be taken. If they went to the country with the vague formula of Home Rule or Local Self-Government and obtained a majority and introduced a Bill, some of their own followers would say: 'Our electorate sent us to support Home Rule; but this is not the kind of thing they intended.' "
That is the opinion of a very distinguished lawyer, one of the keenest supporters of Mr. Gladstone; and I suppose may be taken to represent to a great extent the cultivated intelligence of the Gladstonian Party. My Lords, there is another branch of the Gladstonian Party—namely, the Labour branch. I suppose we may say that Mr. Davitt, who has been returned to Parliament, is one of the most distinguished Members of the Labour Party in the country, and is also not unconnected with Ireland. What were his views upon the subject? He wrote an article in one of the Reviews immediately after one of the Midlothian campaigns, in which he expressed the greatest dissatisfaction at the reticence in regard to the Home Rule measure of Mr. Gladstone, and he said—
"The Bill of 1886 was anti-democratic and a retrograde measure. It was a fair question for the British working men to ask Mr. Gladstone before they gave him the power of framing the next Home Rule Constitution for Ireland, what he intended to do as respects the land in that country."
There we have a representative of the Gladstonian Party in England, and a representative of the Labour Party. Now as regards the Irish Nationalists, I presume nobody can deny that they are not aware what the Home Rule proposed by Mr. Gladstone is—at any rate not publicly. Perhaps the most able and most liberal-minded and moderate member of the Nationalist Party of Ireland is Sir Gavan Duffy, who, as
your Lordships know very well, was one of the Leaders in 1848 of the Revolutionary Party, who has since had a distinguished career in the Colonies, and has now come back and is taking an active interest in the furtherance of the Nationalist Party at the present time. He again complained in the strongest terms of the reticence of Mr. Gladstone in respect to the Home Rule measure. He called his complaint "The humble remonstrance of an Irish Nationalist," and he said
"that the original plan of 1886 had been cast to the winds five years ago. It was a great mistake that Mr. Gladstone did not publish his revised scheme of Home Rule."
He said
"that the principles and details cannot be made too plain for the encouragement of its friends and the confusion of its opponents. Nobody would think of omitting this kind of precaution in framing an agreement for the expenditure of £100. Is there any sufficient reason for omitting them in an agreement involving, not a handful of coin, but the peace and prosperity of two neighbouring nations?"
Then Sir Gavan Duffy proceeded to give seven different heads of questions to which he would like to have an answer. Not one of those questions has been answered up to the present time. He is representing the Nationalist Party; and I may sum up what I am about to say on this subject with what he ends with. We have had the representative of the English or Scotch Gladstonian Party; we have had the representative of the Labour Party; we have had the representative of the Nationalist Party; and he ends with these words—
"The House of Lords would be justified in refusing to adopt a constitutional change which has not received the sanction of the people, unless full explanations of this kind have been given."
Now, my Lords, are we never in this House to be taken into the confidence of the Leaders of the Opposition? After five or six years have they not now made up their minds upon what Home Rule is to be, and are they not able to explain it to us at the present time? My Lords, I am not going to argue the question of Home Rule now; but I think it is as well to recollect what kind of questions
those are to which we have had no answers.
"Is the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament to consist merely in the power of repealing a law which creates Home Rule in Ireland; or is that supremacy to confer some power to the Imperial Parliament to remedy what the Imperial Parliament may consider to be an injustice, either legislative or executive, in Ireland?"
We have had no answer to that question. That question is by no means a question of detail; it is a question of principle.
"Is Home Rule to be confined to Ireland, or is it to be extended to the other side of St. George's Channel?"
Many supporters of Home Rule in the country who have advocated a federal system have advised the establishment of separate Legislative Assemblies and separate Executive Governments for Scotland, for Wales, and even for England, and the setting up of a new Imperial Parliament with some powers over the whole. Is that the plan of Home Rule at the present time? There have been indications in its favour, and there have been indications against it. Then, again, what will be the position of the Irish Representatives in the Imperial Parliament if Home Rule is passed? We know that they are in some way to be represented. What powers are they to have? Are they to have a power of voting upon English and Scotch measures, or not? That is a question of the greatest importance; and I may observe that it is particularly important and most interesting to the Government of Mr. Gladstone, if he comes into Office in a few days from this time, because your Lordships will observe that if, as I believe, there is a majority of forty in favour of Mr. Gladstone, and if the number of Irish Members is to be considerably diminished, that majority must at once vanish, and, therefore, the whole foundation upon which the measure was introduced would be taken away. I will not dwell upon any other of these matters. The problem as to what protection is to be given to the minorities with regard to land is one that is most interesting; and I should think here again my noble Friend Earl Spencer, ought to feel it his duty to explain to your Lordships before we separate what his view is as
to the protection of the minority of landed interests in Ireland. He has said over and over again that he considers that it would be extremely wrong to hand over the power over the land to a Home Rule Parliament. Is that my noble Friend's opinion now? Is that the basis upon which, if he joins it, he will join a Home Rule Government? That is a question upon which I think my noble Friend should certainly feel himself in some degree bound to give an explanation to your Lordships. My Lords, these difficulties and these objections which I have endeavoured to express are not, as I said before, the opinions of Liberal Unionists or the opinions of Conservatives; they are the opinions which have been expressed by very important Members of the Party who have confidence in Mr. Gladstone. Is this system of reticence in this House to continue? Are we the only people in this country who are to be debarred from discussing these questions? They have been discussed on the public platforms; they are being discussed now in the other House of Parliament; but your Lordships, by the adroitness of the Leader of the Opposition in this House, appear to be about to be debarred from entering into any discussion of the kind. I myself feel that it is totally against the interest of Gladstonian Peers in this House to continue this conspiracy of silence upon this matter. I think so, because I am one of those who believe that free public discussion is a safety to any Ministry who have to introduce a great and important measure. Surely it is better that the objections to that measure should be discussed beforehand rather than, as happened in 1886, a measure prepared in secrecy should be introduced, and the faults only found in it after it had been actually introduced into Parliament. If the objections which can be raised by those who are against the measure are sound ones, let them prevail. If they are weak ones, if an answer can be given to those objections, surely it is to the advantage of the Government, and to the advantage of the cause they advocate, that they should be able to give such answers without delay. All that I can say in conclusion is, that no doubt my noble Friends have the right to remain silent
on the present occasion; they have a right to decline to discuss anything in this House; no one can force them to open their mouths upon the subject; but, if they decline any discussion, I am sure your Lordships will feel that the responsibility of declining it rests upon them, and that their so declining it may possibly be a great injury to the interests of the country.

: My Lords, I desire to say one or two words to the House, owing to the very deep interest which I take in the present political situation. We are not all of us so deficient in imagination as the noble Earl who leads the Opposition has declared himself to be to-night; we can see a little beyond the four corners of the Queen's Speech, and we know its purpose; we know that it was designed with regard to events which have happened elsewhere, and with the purpose and the intention of giving an opportunity to the Opposition to challenge the policy and the existence of Her Majesty's Government. It is quite true that it may be right not to take any step of that kind in this House. I am not altogether certain though whether, if the battalions behind the noble Earl were a little more numerous than they are at present, we should not have seen Her Majesty's Speech approached and treated in a somewhat different way. My Lords, if it were in our power to look through these walls into another place, we should discover I think a very different state of things. We should find that there it is found easy, and not only easy but profitable, to move an Amendment; and there it is found possible and profitable to discuss the policy of Her Majesty's Government. Now, my Lords, it is a fact which none of us dispute that in this House there are very few who are in favour of the policy of Home Rule, and the reason is not that there has been any change of opinion on our part, but because only a few Peers have followed noble Lords who sit on the front Bench in changing all their opinions and sentiments with regard to this question of Home Rule, which, up to a few years ago, had been the opinions of all responsible politicians of every kind and sort. Now, my
Lords, to-night we are treated to a continuance of the policy of silence. It is a policy to which we have become accustomed; it is the policy which has been observed carefully during the whole of the last six years. It is quite true that outside this House noble Lords have expressed their opinion very freely with regard to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and with regard to the administration of that Act by the Government. From a public point of view it appears to me that it would have been advantageous if they had brought before this House, for examination and discussion, some of the Acts of the Government to which they have so much objected in other places. My Lords, there is no better place than this House for the consideration of matters of that kind. It is not a question of minorities here; but, if any Member of the House has facts and arguments which carry with them any force, there is no assembly which is more ready to listen to him than this House. My Lords, this Government's policy, to which they have taken exception, holds the field; it has disappointed all the prophecies which were whispered in this House, and which were repeated much more loudly in the country. I know it has been said that there was no exceptional state of crime in Ireland in 1887. I never was able to understand how those who made that statement justified it. This I do know: that in 1887 there were nearly five thousand persons who were wholly or partially boycotted in Ireland, which I suppose everyone in this House will admit to be a crime, and that at the present time, owing to the administration of that Act, there is not a single person in that condition in Ireland. But that is not all, my Lords. The Act is not at the present time in operation in any part of Ireland; there is not a district in Ireland which is proclaimed; there is not a person in prison under those clauses of the Act. And that is the state of things which Her Majesty's Government will hand over to their successors when they follow them. And there the Act remains. It has been effectual in the hands of the present Government; it is now upon the shelf; but it remains a weapon
ready for use if any future Government should find that they are unable to preserve peace and order in Ireland by ordinary means. My Lords, the noble Earl has told us that they have often stated in this House their general opinions of Home Rule, and that it is needless to repeat them. They may have stated their opinions in a very general way, but they have done nothing else; and until February next, under the most favourable circumstances, supposing that this Government leaves Office, Parliament will have no means whatsoever of knowing what the policy of Home Rule is which is to be substituted for the present policy; nor will they know whether Mr. Gladstone commands a majority in Parliament upon this question. Hitherto all statements have been made in vague and general terms. Well, the time will come when in February next it must be embodied in a Bill, and that Bill will have to satisfy men belonging to different Parties and holding the most different opinions. Reference has been made to-night to a gentleman who we have reason to suppose is, in another place, moving an Amendment expressing no confidence in Her Majesty's Government—Mr. Asquith; he represents a Scottish constituency, and, as an illustration of what I was saying, I may adduce his name. He and Mr. T. P. O'Connor appeared on a platform together to make speeches with regard to Home Rule, and they were asked, each of them separately, to define what were to be the powers of the Imperial Parliament. Mr. Asquith said
"that the Imperial Parliament is to retain absolute and paramount powers of legislating for the Irish Parliament if necessary."
And Mr. O'Connor, when he was asked, said
"the Imperial Parliament is to have full control, so far as Imperial affairs are concerned."
A countryman of mine, who was heckling them, pointed out to them the difference between these two answers, and Mr. Asquith's reply was that he was not responsible for Mr. O'Connor's opinions. Yes, my Lords, but the time will come when both of those gentlemen will be responsible for the measure of
Home Rule which is to be submitted to Parliament. They entertain entirely different views no doubt at the present tone, and the question is, how are their views going to be reconciled, and can they be put in such a shape as not to interfere with the supremacy of Parliament? My Lords, it is almost unnecessary to glance at the present state of political Parties. Mr. Gladstone leads, not a Party but a collection of Parties; those who advocate an eight-hours day, those who are in favour of Disestablishment, those who are extreme supporters of temperance; and what they are looking to is their own views in the first instance, and Home Rule only to some extent in the second; and what may be the effect of the policy of Home Rule upon the country they appear, judging from their utterances, to care very little. My Lords, we know there is no majority in Great Britain in favour of Home Rule; we know that the opposition in Ireland is strong and is every day growing; and, moreover, we know that the strength of that opposition is not to be measured by the number of Members of Parliament whom even at the present time they return. Now, my Lords, this is all I propose to say on the present occasion. I do not think it is a time for going deeply into these matters; but, if nothing were said, it might be supposed in the country that this House does not take a very deep interest in a question which is of the most vital importance to the British Empire. It has been sufficient, I think, to point out, so far as I have done, some of the anomalies of the present position. It is sufficient now merely to glance at the vague responsibility which noble Lords on the Front Benches are prepared to take; and it is only necessary to add that the measure which they have in contemplation is one of extreme gravity and importance; it amounts to nothing less than a re-casting of our Constitution; and it is quite right that the body of this House—that we the ordinary Members of the House—should represent that, if at any time that measure should be produced in this House, it will be our duty to submit it to the most careful and searching examination.


: I rise, my Lords, in the first instance to perform the grateful task of thanking the two noble Lords behind me for the manner in which they have performed a duty which the noble Earl opposite is perfectly right in designating as one of unusual difficulty. Especially my noble Friend who moved the Address gave us ground for hoping that there is added to this House one who in future discussions will illustrate the eloquence for which it is well known. But, my Lords, I feel that I owe almost an apology to my noble Friends for the difficulty which they have encountered in the task they have had to perform. It is said that when a great King of Prussia wished to test the ability of a new clergyman he gave him the text from which he was to preach wrapped up in an envelope, to be opened in the pulpit, and, when he came to open it, he found there was nothing inside. I feel that there was something, perhaps, of that difficulty in the task which it was my duty to set my noble Friends; but the skill with which they extricated themselves from that difficulty, and the interesting manner in which they surveyed the political situation in which we find ourselves, deserves, I think, more than the ordinary perfunctory acknowledgments that we pay. But I cannot agree with the noble Earl opposite that I have departed from the precedents which have been set. There is no precedent for the present occasion. In 1841, the precedent to which the noble Earl alluded, it is perfectly true that the Speech did go into the measures which it was proposed that Parliament should discuss, but it did it for the very good reason that there were some measures which it was proposed Parliament should discuss. In consequence of the state of foreign affairs and operations that had been going on, the Government was in considerable financial difficulty, and it was necessary that ways and means should be found for defraying the expenses that had been incurred. Finding ways and means at that juncture was not a very easy matter, and the proposal naturally lea Ministers, through the mouth of
the Sovereign, to discuss those difficult questions of fiscal adjustment which were then coming up for arrangement, and the Speech went largely into the question of fiscal policy. It did so because there were measures of fiscal policy to be passed; and, if the noble Lord really thinks that that occasion was a precedent, I would ask him to remember that in the Debate which followed Members who were then in Opposition were not at all chary of giving at great length and with perfect clearness their opinions as to the burning questions of the day. My Lords, I confess that, as we have no measures to recommend to Parliament at this moment, and as, if it had not been for the necessity of allowing the other House to pronounce its opinion on the question of Confidence, Parliament would have been immediately prorogued, I should have been disposed, on the whole, to advise the abandonment of the formality of the Queen's Speech altogether; but the rugged Conservatism of noble Lords opposite, I found, was opposed to any such deviation from precedent, and, of course, it could only be done by general consent. My Lords, I do not think I can very properly defend the policy of the Government, because it has not been attacked, and if I were to select any particular part for defence people would say, "You show that you think that is the part that most requires it," because there has been no attack in order to guide the course which the defence should take; and, therefore, I shall not enter upon any such defence. Though I quite understand that independent Peers should survey the situation, should express their opinions, and should urge the course which they think ought to be adopted by the Opposition in the present instance, I do not think that the Government would be acting according to the duty that would be expected of them in entering upon a detailed vindication of the policy which the authorised opponents of that policy, who are called further south the advocates of the devil, have not themselves thought it necessary to attack. I would, at the same time, express some little surprise at the reticence which noble Lords have thought it necessary to practise.
That is a matter for their own judgment, and I do not in the least complain of it; but I am surprised at it, because I should have thought they would have wished to defend opinions to which they are deeply attached before a body representing, as this does, the opinion of the island in which we live. It is quite true the House of Commons represents the opinion of the United Kingdom, but we live in days when matters are viewed separately from the standpoints of Great Britain and Ireland, and, adopting that current tone, I am forced to call attention to the fact that, while the House of Commons represents the opinion of the United Kingdom, the House of Lords represents the opinion of Great Britain a great deal better than the House of Commons. Therefore, before such a tribunal, I should have thought noble Lords would have wished to vindicate their opinions. They do not do so. I do not say that this is an occasion on which they can be forced by any process of pressure or torture known to Parliamentary law to express their opinions; but we are now met in this building in order that the House of Commons may exercise a prerogative which is exclusively its own. The House of Commons, under our Constitution, as it is practised, has the exclusive determination with respect to men. When the men have been selected, afterwards will come the measures. I hope the men will be found who can agree upon the measures. But, when the measures are adopted, then the exclusive position of the House of Commons ceases, and, with respect to all matters not financial, the share which your Lordships must bear in legislation is as large as that of the House of Commons. When that comes forward there will then, I think, be no difficulty in finding occasion for debate; and, when the measures are presented to us, I presume even noble Lords opposite must abandon the conspiracy of silence. I do not expect to see them moving the First, Second, and Third Readings of their future measures in dumb-show. Therefore I quite admit that they have a right, if they will, to dam up the full tide of their eloquence until that time; I have no
doubt it will then flow with a devastating force. But I do not think that the apprehensions, which I thought seemed to glimmer through the speeches of some of my noble Friends, that the part taken by this House in these matters might become unimportant and uninteresting, are in any danger of being fulfilled. It is more likely to prophesy that in the year that is coming the centre of interest and the centre of action will be found within these walls. I hope that to that serious task and to those grave duties this House will bring the wisdom and decision to which in the past it has established a title. I trust that it will feel the enormous responsibility that it has imposed upon it by a crisis of affairs that is absolutely unexampled in this country—in a year which, whether you consider it from the point of view of the career and the character and the present position of the distinguished statesman who is leading the attack, or whether you consider it with respect to the composite and unstable nature of the majority which supports him, or whether you consider it—most important of all—with respect to the vital and fundamental nature of the changes which are shadowed forth for our acceptance, will be one of the most momentous years that has ever passed over the history of this country. We are dealing, my Lords, with a great Empire, but it is a great Empire that has not grown by natural force or in obedience to the necessary dictates of the circumstances and conditions under which it was found. It is rather an artificial fabric that has been reared by the devotion and the commanding qualities of the race which inhabits this island, and I pray that in the future we may allow no glimmer of new-found theories, no imaginary or speculative doctrines, to lead us from those great principles of thought and action by which this Empire was framed and by which alone it can he sustained.

: My Lords, it may seem somewhat presumptuous on my part to attempt to address your Lordships after the Leader of the House has addressed you, and when it might be expected that this short discussion would come to a close;
but I think that there are still some things that ought to be said, and, perhaps, may be said, better by one who is in an independent position than by any Member of Her Majesty's Government or by any immediate supporter of that Government. I must acknowledge that I have observed with some surprise the apparently willing acquiescence which Her Majesty's Ministers and their supporters have given to the policy of silence which has been adopted by the Opposition. It appears to me, in view of the events that have recently taken place, and which are taking place at this moment, that the course which has been taken on this occasion is not in accordance with the precedents and traditions of Parliament, and that it is not a course which is likely to conduce to the benefit of the country. The noble Earl who leads the Opposition has said that in Her Majesty's Speech he finds nothing to criticise; but the occasion of an Address to the Crown in answer to Her Majesty's Speech is usually an occasion not merely for criticism on the Speech itself, but is also a fitting opportunity for criticism upon the policy of the Government; and I presume that, when my noble Friend says that he finds nothing to criticise in the Speech, we may also assume from his silence that he finds nothing to criticise in the policy of the Government. The noble Earl said that the opinions which are held by himself and his friends as to the policy of the Government are well known; but the time has arrived when effect is about to be given to those opinions in another place, and I presume that there, at all events, some reasons will be given for the Vote of Want of Confidence which is going to be moved; and it appears to me to be a mark of some disrespect to this House that reasons which are to be alleged in another place to show why the country has no confidence, or ought to have no confidence, in the Government, are to be entirely withheld here from our discussion. My Lords, everyone who has spoken in this extremely brief discussion has referred to the fact that we stand in a position which is without any precedent; but that position has been brought about in a great degree in
consequence of the exertions of my noble Friends behind me and their friends in the other House of Parliament; and it does appear to me that this occasion is one on which it would have been desirable that some explanation should have been given by them as to the course which they have thought fit to take in the country, and that some indication should be given as to the policy which will be adopted in the event, as is probable, of their friends coming into power. It seems to be assumed very generally that two facts have been established by the General Election—first, that Her Majesty's Government does not possess the confidence of the country or of the House of Commons, who represent it; and next, that Mr. Gladstone does possess that confidence. It is possible—in fact, it is very probable—that the first of these propositions will very shortly be conclusively proved by the Debate and Division in the House of Commons; but the second of those propositions, which is also apparently so calmly assumed, does not in any degree follow. It is possible and probable that the various sections which compose the majority in the House of Commons may combine in order to vote a want of confidence in the present Government; but it is not by any means a matter of course that they will combine also and give their support and confidence to the Government which may be formed to take its place. As a matter of fact, I believe it is the case that the present Government is supported in the House of Commons itself by a much larger number of Members than are prepared to give a constant or unconditional support to any other political Leader. Under these circumstances it would appear natural that Her Majesty's Government, being supported by a larger number of the Representatives of the people than any other section, should continue to bold Office until it has been proved that one or more sections of the House of Commons will not only combine for the purpose of turning out the present Administration, but for the purpose of supporting the new one. No one, I suppose, will contend for a moment that either the Labour Members
or the Irish Members—Parnellite or Anti-Parnellite—not to speak of the Scotch and English Members, have been elected on any understanding or on any pledge of giving an unconditional support to the policy of Mr. Gladstone. It is only by a combination of those Parties that a new Government can be formed and can remain in Office, and it is only by such a combination that a permanent Government can be secured. I think we are entitled under these circumstances to ask, in the first place—I think the question has been already suggested by one of my noble Friends behind me—whether, in the event of the present Administration being displaced and a new one formed by Mr. Gladstone, Parliament will be immediately summoned in order to hear a full statement of the views of the new Government, and to take measures to ascertain whether that Government possesses the confidence of the House of Commons. If that course should not be taken the country and Parliament may be placed in this position, as has already been pointed out—that the affairs of the country may for a period of five or six months be conducted by an Administration which, when the question is brought to the test, will be found not to possess, and not to have possessed at any time, the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons. I suppose it would be considered a very unconstitutional act for Her Majesty's Government to remain in Office after a Vote of Want of Confidence had been carried; there is, I believe, no Constitutional principle which would compel them to abandon Office under such circumstances until they found it impossible to obtain from Parliament the necessary Supplies for carrying on the Government; I conceive that if Her Majesty's Government were to take that course, we should hear a good deal of the unconstitutional nature of the proceeding; but the state of things which may arise, if Parliament is not going to be summoned to meet again for five or six months, may be a state of things not very unlike that which would arise under the circumstances that I have suggested. The only difference would that Her Majesty's Government would have been made aware that they do
not possess the confidence of the majority of the House; but in the other case Mr. Gladstone will not be able to give any proof, until Parliament has assembled, that he does possess that confidence. Well, my Lords, if, as I presume, there is no intention of giving any pledge that Parliament will be summoned at an early date to place these facts in a position of certainty, I fully admit that we are not, in this House or in the other House, in a position to exact such a pledge; but it follows that there is all the more reason why, at the present time, before a decisive vote upon this question is taken, the fullest explanation should be given, both, in my opinion, to this House and to the other, of the reasons which induce the Members of the Opposition to think it necessary to turn out the Government, and the fullest indications possible should be given of the policy they intend to pursue in the event of their succeeding the present Government in Office. I cannot doubt, my Lords, that such explanations and such indications will be given in the other House. If they are to be given in the other House, I ask, why are they not to be given in this House? I was surprised to hear my noble Friend explain his reticence and that of his friends by the plea that no action was being taken in this House. My noble Friends are not acting in accordance with the precedents of their own Party. I believe the nearest, the most recent, and the closest precedent for that which is taking place at present occurred in 1859. I had the honour of being selected to move a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government in the other House of Parliament. On that occasion no such Motion was moved in this House.

: Hear, hear!

: My noble Friend says "Hear, hear!" but the course which was taken by his predecessor in the Leadership, Lord Granville, was not the course which he is taking on this occasion. In this House, Lord Granville, as the Leader of the Opposition, arraigned the conduct of the Government in a speech precisely similar to that which would have been made if he and his friends had thought it expedient to move a
Vote of Want of Confidence in this House. A Debate followed, and every charge which could be made against the then existing Administration was made in this House as fully as it was made in the other House. Every question which could be asked as to the possibility of forming a stable Government to succeed that which was being ejected was replied to and discussed as fully in this House as if a Vote of Want of Confidence had been before it. Well, my Lords, I do not understand why this precedent should not have been followed on this occasion. I do not understand, unless my noble Friends are prepared to recognise in this House no Constitutional authority, unless in their opinion the time has come when it is hereafter to take no effective part in the government of the country, how they can reconcile it with their duty to pursue the policy of silence which they have pursued in this House—a policy which is altogether different from that which we have reason to believe is being pursued in another place. My noble Friend says that no action is being taken in this House. I do not suppose he and those who act with him will deny that the action which is being taken in the other House is being taken with their advice and on their counsel. They will not deny that they are prepared to take advantage of anything that may result from that action. They will not deny that they are prepared to accept such offices as may be assigned in a future Government to Members of the House of Lords; and, as they have in these ways made themselves responsible for the action which is being taken at the present moment in the House of Commons, I do not understand how they can reconcile to themselves the absolute silence which they have observed in this House as to the reasons which have induced them to give that advice and to take that course. My Lords, in this total absence of any information on the part of the Opposition, we can only endeavour to ascertain for ourselves from their previous declarations and from previous discussions what are the grounds upon which Parliament is going to be asked to displace the present Government, and to gather some indications of the policy which their
successors are likely to pursue. I will not take up your Lordships' time by discussing the grounds on which it is possible, though I do not think probable, that any Vote of Want of Confidence will be demanded. I do not think it likely that the grounds which will be brought forward will rest upon a condemnation of the general policy of the Government. I do not anticipate that either the foreign, colonial, or Indian policy of the Government will be impugned, or that it will be alleged that it has been weak, unwise, or unsuccessful. I do not conceive it likely that the administration of any of the great Departments of the State will be impugned. If any of these allegations are now to be made they will be made for the first time in a period of six years, for I believe that neither in this House nor the other House has any Motion involving confidence in the Government upon questions of general policy been as much as moved or suggested. But, my Lords, I think, when we are on the eve of a change of Government, there is one question which we have a right to ask from those who acknowledge that they are prepared to accept the responsibilities of Office, relating to foreign affairs. Although the conduct of foreign affairs by the Government has not been attacked, yet we have heard from time to time hints more or less obscure, more or less clear, that the time has come when a different policy is to be pursued in Egypt from that which has hitherto been pursued. We have had from not unimportant authorities suggestions that the time has arrived, if it has not already passed, when the evacuation of Egypt by Her Majesty's Forces ought to take place. Now, at the time when a new Government is about to take Office, and when it is probable that Parliament may not meet for five or six months, I think we have a right to know whether the Members of the Opposition, on whom the real responsibility for the government of this country is about to rest, have as yet formed an opinion that the time has come for the evacuation of Egypt; and whether any undertaking will be given that no steps will be taken which will irrevocably and irretrievably pledge the honour of
this country on that subject, until Parliament shall have had some opportunity of expressing its opinion either upon the subject of evacuation or the conditions under which that evacuation is to be carried out. My Lords, if it is unlikely, as I think it is, that the general policy of the Government is going to be impugned, is their administration of the government of Ireland going to be impugned? If these events had taken place two or three years ago, I think there is little doubt that the administration of the government of Ireland would have been the main if not the only ground on which the House of Commons would have been asked to vote the condemnation of the Government. The severity, the rigour, the alleged injustice and cruelty with which the Crimes Act was administered formed the perpetual subject of Resolutions of Want of Confidence in the other House; and if a great and remarkable change had not taken place in that country since that time, I have no doubt that a similar Resolution would have formed the ground of the action of the Opposition on this occasion. If your Lordships will allow me, I will read one specimen of the numerous Motions of Censure upon that subject which were moved in the other House. In 1888 Mr. John Morley moved—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the operation of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, and the manner of its administration undermine respect for law, estrange the minds of the people of Ireland, and are deeply injurious to the interests of the United Kingdom."
Your Lordships will observe that that Resolution was aimed not merely at the existence on the Statute Book of that Act, but at its operation and the manner of its administration. I will read one or two sentences from the speech of Mr. John Morley supporting that Resolution—
"How long, I ask, is this to go on? Under such a system as this, a system which has alienated and is alienating the minds of the people from the law and throwing all their sympathies on the side of the offenders against the law, under that system no civil virtue can ever grow or ever thrive.… I say that the state of Ireland is becoming, not better from day to-day, but is becoming worse. I think that before many months arc passed, if
you test those propositions by all that comes up from Ireland, you will see the necessity for doing away with a system which is deepening the confusion in Ireland, and which tarnishes the credit, the honour, and the renown of this Parliament and of the people of this country."
I should like to ask whether such a Resolution as that, supported by such assertions and such prophecies, does not, in the light of our present knowledge of the condition of Ireland, appear to be something more than unfounded, and to be almost absurd and ridiculous? Is there any reason why we should feel confidence in placing the administration of Ireland in the hands of men who have proved what is their knowledge of the condition of Ireland, and of the influences which have sway in Ireland, by committing themselves to phophecies which have been so completely and so utterly falsified? My Lords, I think upon this subject also we are entitled to some little information. Ireland, as we have been reminded already, is at the present moment governed under no coercion at all. The mere existence of a permanent, instead of a temporary and exceptional law, has produced the effect which those who supported it always anticipated that it would produce. It has proved so efficient that it has been possible to lay aside that weapon in the armoury, and to trust to the ordinary law, which has, by its agency, been restored to the efficiency it had once lost, for the preservation of order and for the good government of Ireland. But, my Lords, if we are to judge by the perpetual denunciations of the Crimes Act which we have heard from the Members of the Opposition, one of the first Acts which they will ask Parliament to sanction will be the repeal of that law. The denunciations in which they have indulged make that almost a necessity, even if they are not bound by any understanding with the Nationalist Members, whose support is essential to the permanence of the existence of their Government. There are many noble Lords in this House who have had great experience of the government of Ireland. There is one noble Lord who sits behind me who has had greater experience in the administration of Coercion Acts probably than any other person. I should like to ask my noble Friend to whom I refer
(Earl Spencer) whether he will deliberately get up in this House and say that he prefers the existence in Ireland of such a state of crime, anarchy, and disorder as he has himself on former occasions had to cope with; whether he prefers the existence of such a paralysis of the law before and after periods of exceptional legislation, too late resorted to and too soon abandoned; whether he deliberately prefers the possibility of the existence of such a state of things in Ireland to the mere existence on the Statute Book of a law, the efficiency of which has been proved by the fact that it is no longer necessary to put it in force? There is a further question which we are entitled to ask of the noble Lords who are ready to assume the responsibility of Office: in what spirit is the ordinary law going to be administered in Ireland? During the last five or six years the Government have been constantly attacked, not only by the Irish Members, but by English Members of the Opposition, because they have not refused to give the support of the forces which the Crown can control to the officers of the law in the execution of their duty in a certain class of cases. Now we have a right to know whether or not effect is to be given to those denunciations. We have a right to know whether the law is not going to be supported if the execution of the law relates to any matter connected with the land, or whether, in spite of all they have said during the last four or five years, they are now prepared to say that, while the law remains unaltered, the law shall be obeyed, and that disobedience to the law shall not be condoned any more in agrarian than in any other class of offences or of lawlessness? We have a right to ask whether they are prepared to look on quietly while the National League revives, or attempts to revive, that agrarian war which was the curse of Ireland not long ago—whether they are prepared to take a side in that war which is not the side of law, or whether they are prepared calmly to look on while Ireland is once more reduced to that state of anarchy and disorder which had the effect of converting, first Mr. Morley, and subsequently Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues, to the
necessity of Home Rule? My Lords, if neither the general policy of the administration of the Government nor their Irish administration is likely to be made the ground on which the Government are to be condemned, I would ask whether it is their failure to meet the necessities of the country either in their past or their prospective legislation? As to their past legislation, such measures as the Local Government Act, the Free Education Act, and many others which I need not enumerate, have been admitted even by Members of the Opposition to be measures of a useful and progressive character, though, no doubt, it has been open to them to think that they would have been far better if they had been passed by other hands. As to prospective legislation, it is a matter of opinion whether the legislative policy which has been frequently indicated by the Government, and which, if they had obtained the support of a majority in the country, they would have been prepared to continue in another Session of Parliament, is a more useful, more timely legislative policy than that which is embodied in the Newcastle programme. I should be very much surprised, if we could induce some of my noble Friends who sit behind me to enter into a perfectly confidential and unofficial discussion on these subjects, to find that they are very strongly convinced of the superiority of the legislative programme which embraces a new Reform Bill, Disestablishment, and the other miscellaneous items of the Newcastle Programme, the London Programme, and the agricultural labourers' programme. I should be much surprised to find that they have any enthusiastic preference for those measures of legislation over the continuation of local government reform, the establishment of local government in Ireland, and the other social reforms which have been promised by Her Majesty's Government. But I do not entertain the slightest doubt that the Elections have been influenced to some, perhaps to a considerable, extent by promises of extensive and far-reaching legislation on a variety of subjects; and it would be interesting to know, now that the time for making promises has passed, when nothing more is to be
gained by promises, but when the time for performance is approaching rather more closely, whether, either in the form of Resolutions to be moved in the other House, or in the form of declarations by responsible Members of the Opposition, those pledges are going now to be renewed which they have been so freely making for themselves in the country, and which their followers and supporters have been undertaking in their name to a still greater degree? But, my Lords, whatever may be the pledges which the Opposition are going to give on the subject of their future legislation, there are none of them relating to Imperial legislation affecting the three kingdoms which will be able to maintain them in power for a single clay, after once they have met Parliament, unless they are prepared, at the same time, to redeem the pledges which they have given to the Irish Members for the establishment of an Irish Parliament and an Irish Parliamentary Government. The Members of the Opposition are deeply pledged to the Irish people and the Irish Members, but they are not less pledged to the people of Great Britain. They have pledged themselves that any Parliamentary form of government which they will concede to Ireland shall he one which shall in no degree impair the authority of the Imperial Parliament. I am not going to waste your Lordships' time by asking for any assurance from my noble Friends as to the nature of the Home Rule measure which they contemplate introducing. I refrain from asking these questions, not because I think we have not a perfect right to ask them, but because I feel perfectly certain that they will obtain no answer. I think we have a right to ask a good deal more. I think we have a right to ask how the pledges to which I have referred, pledges which seem to me to he absolutely incompatible, are to be reconciled. We have a right to be told whether the Government which it is proposed to establish in Ireland is to be a sort of dual independence, or a system of federal or colonial autonomy. We have a right to know whether they adhere to the opinion which they held six years ago, that to deal simultaneously with the Irish law and with
the position of Irish landlords is an obligation of honour and of justice. We have a right, above all, to know in what manner the claims of the Protestants of Ulster—claims which six years ago were admitted to exist, and which in the present year have been put forward with far greater distinctness and clearness than in any previous period—are going to be recognised. But, as I have said, I refrain from putting these questions, not in the belief that we have not a perfect right to demand explanations upon them before the Government of this country is placed in other hands, but because I know that it is absolutely impossible to obtain information upon them. We have done our best to induce the people of this country to require that no Minister shall receive authority to reopen the question of Irish Government until he has made some more explicit declarations as to the nature of the Government which he proposes to set up. I regret that we have failed in those endeavours. I regret it, because I believe that to re-open the question of Irish Government will have the effect of unsettling Ireland, of delaying the progress which is going on, and of checking the prosperity which is beginning to appear. I regret it, because I believe that to re-open the question of Irish Government will bring back the disorder and perhaps the misery which has been undergone in that country within the last few years. I regret it, because I think that such an attempt, in the absence of the explicit declarations for which we have asked in vain, cannot in its nature be a final settlement of the question. It can only have the effect of wasting the time of Parliament, and of preventing it from paying attention to those other matters of social reform with which otherwise it would be able to deal. But, my Lords, these are the only reasons for which I regret that failure of our endeavours to elicit some more explicit pledges from the Members of the Opposition. If they had had more courage—if they had been willing to risk more—it is possible that they might have gained more. If they had thought fit to take the people of this country into their confidence, and had given the general principles and outlines of the measure they proposed to intro-
duce, and after this had defeated us, it would have been possible for them to say that they had obtained something like an expression of the feeling of the people upon this subject. Now they have obtained nothing except leave to attempt again to do that which they have already attempted once and have conspicuously failed in doing. No Irish Representative sits in the House of Commons who is pledged to his constituents to accept any measure which may be offered to him. No Member for any British constituency is pledged to his constituents to offer anything which may be asked. It will be the right and it will be the duty of every Member of Parliament, of either House, to form his own independent judgment on any measure which may be submitted to him and, what is more, he has no authority from his constituents either to accept or offer any measure of Irish Government in their name. The measure which will come before this Parliament can by no possibility bear upon its face the stamp of the deliberate approval or judgment of the people. It will be the duty of this House, as well as of the other House, to form its own judgment on such a measure when it comes before it, not only upon its merits, but upon the extent to which it deserves or is likely to obtain the deliberate acceptance of this nation. My Lords, these are subjects upon which the members of the Opposition would, I think, have lost nothing if they had thought fit to give us some explanation of their views upon the present occasion. They have not thought fit to do so, and in the omission of the discharge of that duty, which will no doubt be effectually discharged in another place, I humbly submit to your Lordships that they have been wanting in that respect which is due to the Assembly of which we are members.

: My Lords, although I propose to address a few observations to your Lordships, I am afraid they will not afford any satisfaction to the noble Duke who has just sat down. I only rise to assure your Lordships, if you need such assurance—to assure the noble Duke that it is from no want of respect to this House that we have taken the course which
we have thought it right to adopt. No doubt that course is open to such criticism as the noble Duke or anyone else may please to pass upon it, and, so far as that criticism is just and wise either in this House or outside of it, we shall no doubt reap the disadvantage which we may incur by having taken the course which we have done and which we propose to take. But I entirely deny that the noble Duke has been able to allude to any precedent which justifies the observation that we arc departing from the course which has been taken on previous occasions. The noble Duke alludes to 1859 and to the discussion which took place on that occasion. But he did not call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Queen's Speech at that time bore no sort of resemblance to the Queen's Speech to which we have listened to-day. I suppose he read the speech made on that occasion by the late Lord Granville as leading the Opposition; and if he read it he would have seen how the observations which were made by the noble Earl were largely dictated by the situation which then existed, and to which allusion was made in the Speech of Her Majesty on that occasion, and that the speech was one which naturally followed the declaration of policy on the part of the then Government—a declaration which is entirely wanting on the present occasion. But where, I should like to know, is the noble Duke's precedent for questions put, as questions have been put to-day, not to those who are in Office and have the responsibility of Office upon them, but to those who are under no responsibility at this moment? We, my Lords, are private members of your Lordships' House, and are no more subject to be criticised than the noble Duke or any other member of this House who may be sitting on these Benches. The noble Duke has alluded to a variety of questions. I have observed that every one of the noble Lords who has touched upon this question of Home Rule, and who has invited us to make full declarations upon it, has said that he was not about to do so, and that this was not the time to discuss the matter.

: I did not say so.


: The noble Duke says he did not say so, but all those who preceded him did.

: I did not say so.

: I heard the noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Camperdown, say so. About the other two I am not sure; but that is two out of four.

: I said that this was not the time to enter upon a discussion of the whole question of Home Rule; but I did not say that it was not the time for the noble Lords to make a declaration.

: No doubt; and anything more mischievous, anything more misleading, and anything more likely to do injury to the country than partial declarations upon a great question it is impossible to conceive. If we could go into the whole question it would be intelligible that we should be asked to do so. But when it is admitted that we cannot, and when we are invited to make declarations upon the explicit parts selected by noble Lords themselves, I say that we have a duty which we must discharge as best we may. I observe that the noble Lord (Lord Northbrook) constantly spoke of "those on the Treasury Bench." He was under the supposition that we had already changed sides. I quite admit that then his questions would have been pertinent and just; but he has forgotten the not immaterial fact that at present we are sitting on this Bench and are under no such responsibilities as those with which he has invested us. What course ought we to take under such circumstances as these? We must take that course which we think is least likely to create difficulties and to render us less able properly to discharge the duties which devolve upon us, if ever they should devolve upon us. The noble Duke says that they have a right to ask such questions as they please. No doubt they have. But I venture to suggest that there is a right which we possess equally with that right, a correlative right, and that is the right not to answer them, and that right is one which we are just as much justified in exercising, and just as much possessed
of, as those who put the questions. No doubt the noble Duke and noble Earls have dealt with questions of a very serious character. I do not deny their gravity for a moment. Who can doubt that anyone who may hereafter become Her Majesty's Ministers, and who have to deal with such subjects as the noble Lords have dwelt upon, must do so under the deepest possible sense of responsibility; and I have been asking myself, while this discussion has been going on, what object there was in view in making the speeches to which your Lordships have listened. Was it a solicitude for our interests, a desire to assist us in the task which they think we may hereafter be called upon to perform? Did they think that if they asked those questions, and dwelt upon those matters which they put as points of great difficulty, and as requiring much care and discrimination in their answers—did they think that if on the moment we were, as they proposed, to give them these answers, it would assist us, supposing that duty should devolve upon us which they seem to anticipate is likely? I cannot think so. I have no doubt that they are extremely solicitous for our welfare personally, but beyond that I doubt if they have any solicitude about us at all. I believe they would desire to throw every obstacle in our path, to make every difficulty that is going to rest upon our shoulders infinitely more difficult, and to render the task that they suggest is likely to devolve upon us as difficult of performance as possible. All that is right and fair enough, but if they have made these speeches in that spirit with that object in view, thinking that if they could induce us to answer to the call and make the declarations, not that the country would gain—I do not for a moment understand how that would be likely to be the case, and there was hardly a suggestion of it—but how we might be placed in a more difficult position, then it is obviously quite competent for us to think, and we do think, that the best way in which we can discharge our duty at the present time, and the duties that now devolve upon us, is not to enter upon these discussions and not to make declarations which might mislead
and which must mislead unless they can be much more full than would be at all possible on an occasion such as this. Now, my Lords, I confess I regretted to hear one or two things that were said by the noble Duke, and by the noble Earl who first took part in the discussion. I should hope that as regards the condition of Ireland, however much noble Lords may be opposed to our policy, at least they will not try to render our task in that respect more difficult than it necessarily will be. And I confess I regretted to hear those predictions of disturbances and out-rages and troubles in the winter of that description. According to my belief, nothing is less likely to conduce to the maintenance of order and peace and quietude than observations of that kind, and suggestions that if there is a change of Government such things are likely to take place. Our policy may be mistaken; it may be altogether wrong; but whatever advantage might be gained from a Party point of view, I do not think there would be any compensation which would justify the observations that have been made when you think of the grave danger of suggesting to the people of Ireland, or any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions, that those who may hereafter be called upon to take part in the Government of the country will be indifferent to the maintenance of order and the maintenance of the law. And there was one other observation of the noble Earl who first took part in this Debate which I heard with regret. He suggested that affairs abroad were somewhat critical, and indicated the fear that when foreign affairs passed out of the strong hands of the noble Marquess, and passed into other hands, the difficulties and dangers would be increased by that transference, and the outlook would be graver than it was before. There again, with all respect, I think that nothing but disadvantage can result from suggestions such as those. Before he even knows into whose hands they are to fall, or may fall, the suggestion—I am going to say nothing disparaging to the noble Marquess, but it amounts to state this, as I understand it: a suggestion to all foreign nations that there is no other person, at all events none in the
Party to which I belong, into whose hands the management of foreign affairs can come, who will bring to bear upon them the firmness, the skill, and the wisdom of the noble Marquess. Is it wise to preach a doctrine of that sort to foreign nations? It seems to me, my Lords, that no advantage is to be gained by it. I would only say this: that whatever may have been our short coming during the years we have been in Opposition, we have never done anything to embarrass the conduct of foreign affairs by the noble Marquess, either in this House or in the other. We have always done our best in this matter, whatever may have been our differences, to act loyally, and not even to put questions at critical moments which might have caused embarrassment. I trust that that may be a policy which will continue. It was not the policy which I recollect from 1880 to 1885—I am not speaking of this House, but of the other which I knew at that time, and I trust we shall have no recurrence of such discussions as were very common in those days. I am not speaking, of course, of the mass, probably, of those who were then in Opposition, but I am certainly speaking of many who seemed to take it as their mission in life to preach to foreign nations that the Government in power were indifferent whether they maintained the honour of the country, or its dignity, or its interests at all. My Lords, I do not think that any useful purpose is served by a discussion of legislation, or by the suggestion that, if there were a change from the present Government to another, foreign affairs would thereby necessarily fall into weaker hands and become a subject of graver concern to the nation. My Lords, I have said all I intended to say. One thing I may perhaps add. The noble Duke has dwelt upon the manner in which, as he says the majority which exists now in the other House was obtained. He has alluded to a variety of promises which, he says were made, in this quarter and it that. In order to ascertain at all accurately what was the state of things in that respect, it would be necessary to take a somewhat wide retrospect of the history of the late Election. I dare say there were indi-
viduals who made excessive promises; some people have temperaments extremely sanguine; but I should be very much surprised if, upon a review of the promises made, it was found that these sanguine temperaments have existence more amongst one set of politicians than another. I have read some very remarkable promises which have been made by those whose politics were not exactly mine. Indeed, if I remember rightly, there was a suggestion made to the Nonconformists of Wales by a distinguished politician that the best way to obtain Welsh Disestablishment was to vote for the Union and the Conservative and Liberal Unionist Members. That was the promise held out, no doubt, to Wales. It may not have succeeded in accomplishing the end for which it was made; but still I give it as an illustration. I could allude to a good many others. I see indeed that a very distinguished supporter of Her Majesty's Government suggests that the true policy of the Conservatives is to defend the Union, not by making promises which they believe will be beneficial to the country, but by making promises which they think will catch votes, whether they believe them to be beneficial to the country or not. I am alluding to an article by Mr. Edward Dicey, which, I dare say, many of your Lordships have read. That is another way in which votes may be obtained, and I am not quite sure that some of those with whom the noble Duke acts did not take counsel with Mr. Edward Dicey and follow the advice that he gave. But, my Lords, we can only deal with matters as they are, and it seems to me that to enter into a controversy after an election as to promises that one or other may have made which may have affected this election or that is a very idle controversy indeed. One other word only I will say with regard to the doctrine of the noble Marquess, that no policy with reference to legislative measures can be said to have the sanction of the country, though it has returned a majority of Members in support of that policy, unless the details of the measure are laid before it. That is an absolutely new doctrine. It is one that has not been sanctioned, so far as I know, on any previous occasion. When
the Irish Church was disestablished after the Election of 1868, and when the great Irish Land Bill was brought in after that Election, those measures were passed, and the Parliament was regarded as having been elected to support and pass those measures. But were the details of either of them put before the country, and were they asked to express an opinion upon them? Most assuredly not. And it seems to me that that would be impossible, because you would place yourselves in this position, so far as I understand my noble Friend: that if when Parliament came to deliberate they saw that some change had better be made, that the measure would be safer, wiser, better, if it were modified to some extent from that which was put before the country, the result would he that Parliament would not be competent to pass it into law; but Parliament would only be competent to pass into law just exactly that measure which had been put before the country, after which its discussion would necessarily be idle and useless. Therefore, I humbly enter my protest against that doctrine of the noble Duke, although I do not think it is a very practical matter on the present occasion. With regard to discussion by your Lordships of great questions, to which allusion has been made, they can only have any effect after they have been discussed in your Lordships' House; they can only be passed into law after they have been discussed in your Lordships' House. And, no doubt, when they come to be discussed here a full discussion will result as an absolute certainty. But, for the reasons which I have given, I do not think that there would be any advantage in a preliminary discussion of them on the present occasion; nor do I think there is any precedent for asking those who may be called upon hereafter to introduce measures to your Lordships, before they have had any opportunity of considering them and preparing them, to tell your Lordships what the details of them are to be.
Address agreed to, nemine dissentiente, and ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.


The Earl of MORLEY appointed, nemine dissentiente, to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.



STOPPAGES IN THE STREETS—Order to prevent, renewed.


House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow. Eleven o'clock.

Monday, 8th August, 1892.

The House met at One of the clock.

Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath; and one other Member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by Law.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—

The House went;—and being returned;—


For the Borough of Finsbury (Holborn Division), v. Gainsford Bruce, esquire, Q.C., one of the Justices of the High Court.


acquainted the House that he had received a Letter from Mr. William O'Brien, returned as Member for the City of Cork and also for the North East Division of Cork County, making his election to serve for the City of Cork, as followeth—


6th August, 1892.


Having been returned as Member of this House for two constituencies, namely,—Cork City and the North East Division of Cork County, I beg to inform you that I intend to take my seat for the City of Cork.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,


Right Hon. Arthur Peel, M.P.,



Ordered, That all Members who are returned for two or more places in any part of the United Kingdom do make their election for which of the places they will serve, within one week after it shall appear that there is no question upon the Return for that place; and if anything shall come in question touching the Return or Election of any Member, he is to withdraw during the time the matter is in debate; and that all Members returned upon double Returns do withdraw till their Returns are determined.
Resolved, That no Peer of the Realm, except such Peers of Ireland as shall for the time being be actually elected, and shall not have declined to serve, for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, bath any right to give his vote in the Election of any Member to serve in Parliament.

Resolution proposed,

"That it is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate, not being a Peer of Ireland at the time elected, and not having declined to serve for any county, city, or borough of Great Britain, to concern himself in the Election of Members to serve for the Commons in Parliament, except only any Peer of Ireland, at such Elections in Great Britain respectively where such Peer shall appear as a Candidate, or by himself, or any others, be proposed to be elected; or for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any county to avail himself of any authority derived from his Commission, to influence the Election of any Member to serve for the Commons in Parliament."

SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth)
: Before this is carried, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you whether the House has any means of enforcing this Resolution?

: It is scarcely a point of Order upon which the hon. Baronet asks me the question. No case has arisen; but if the hon. Baronet knows of any instance in which it is alleged such Order has been infringed it is for him to bring such case before
the House, and for the House to take such action as it may think proper.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by Bribery, or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such Bribery or other corrupt practices.


Rosolved, 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 bath endeavoured to defer or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence, the same is declared to he a high crime and misdemeanor; and this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.
Resolved, That if it shall appear that any person hath given false evidence in any case before this House, or any Committee thereof this House will proceed with the utmost severity against such offender.


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 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.


Ordered, That the Votes and Proceedings of this House be printed, being first perused by Mr. Speaker; and that he do appoint the printing thereof; and that no person but such as he shall appoint do presume to print the same.


Ordered, That a Committee of Privileges be appointed.


Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read the first time; to be read a second time.


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 Reginald Francis Douce Palgrave, esquire, C.B., the 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.


: I beg to move, as a matter of general convenience—
"That during the present sittings of the House no Notices be received of Motions for leave to bring in Bills."
Resolution agreed to.


reported Her Majesty's Speech delivered by Her CHANCELLOR, and read it to the House.—(See page 21.)



MR. BARTON (Armagh, Mid.) (who wore the Court Dress of an Irish Queen's Counsel, but without wig and gown)
: I rise to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in reply to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. In submitting the Motion, I cannot pretend to have any doubt as to the manner in which it will be received by those who claim to have achieved a Party majority at the recent General Election. We know that the Motion will not he received by the Opposition in the usual terms of formal compliment; on the contrary, it is to be met, as we have been made aware, by an Amendment to be proposed by two of the most distinguished and respected of hon. Members opposite, embodying a Vote of Censure on the Government, and a demand for their immediate dismissal from Office. I do not in the least complain of the proposed action of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, I venture to think, will find Her Majesty's Government ready to meet the attack and to await the judgment of the House. I shall still less
complain if they take the opportunity, as, I assume, they are prepared to do, of explaining to the House those benefits which the Party opposite are prepared to confer upon the country if placed in power. I think I may, under these exceptional circumstances, claim the special indulgence of the House while for a very brief period I stand between the House and the development of that attack, to which all Members look forward with such curiosity and interest. I cannot, under the circumstances, avoid all controversial matters, but it will be my duty, as Mover of the Address to Her Majesty, to observe the due limits of moderation, and to have regard to the general sentiments of the House. It has been said in some quarters that Her Majesty's Government ought immediately on the close of the General Election to have tendered their resignation without waiting for Debate and Division. It is not for me, though I approve of it, to justify the course Her Majesty's Ministers have taken, and I do not presume to do so; but I cannot help connecting with this suggestion reliable rumours which reach us through the same channel which suggest that while we on this side of the House approach this discussion with calmness and confidence there is not in other quarters that eagerness to develop and prolong discussion which we might expect from a triumphant majority. Such a strange and unusual situation requires explanation, and if I may venture without exceeding the limits of my task to offer an explanation, I think it is this—that there is in the breast of every hon. Member a still small voice which tells him, whether he likes it or not, that the result of the General Election is ineffective for any great legislative change, that it cannot have any permanent results, and that its mandate, if mandate there is, is confused and indistinct. Surely, then, it is fortunate that this Debate gives an opportunity to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, which should be eagerly and fully availed of by them, to clear up this confusion, to interpret the mandate, and before the House and the country to defend and justify their interpretation. In spite of the threatened attack upon the
Government, which, we are informed, is about to open, it is fortunate that there are some subjects referring to which in the discharge of my present duty it is a great satisfaction to me to know that I shall carry with me the unanimous concurrence of all Members in the House. For it must be matter of general congratulation that Her Majesty's relations with foreign Powers continue to be of a friendly character, and that satisfaction is not diminished when we remember that this state of affairs is the sequel and continuation of a long period of repose, during which Her Majesty's subjects have, to an almost unexampled degree, enjoyed the priceless blessings of peace. I think it will not be denied that the great Naval and Military Services are at this moment in a state of order and efficiency, which has not for many years, if it has ever, been surpassed or even equalled. I think also I may say for every Member of the House that we rejoice in the continuance of honourable and happy relations between this country and the Colonies, and the strengthening of the ties which bind them to the Mother Country. I cannot expect so large a measure of assent when I suggest that the other great Departments of the State are in an eminently satisfactory condition. I may, however, rely on the fact that there has been a singular lack of serious or detailed criticism of those Departments by the responsible Leaders of the Opposition, even in the stress and excitement of the General Election. No—it was not so much upon criticism of what present Ministers had performed that their opponents relied, as upon boundless promises of those still better things which they, as expectant successors, were prepared to carry out. I am precluded, by the conditions of the peculiar position in which I am speaking, from any analysis or comparison of those wonderful predictions. But I may, perhaps, remembering the multiplicity and variety of the promises that have been made by hon. Members opposite, be permitted to say that those sanguine prophets will be indeed fortunate if, at the end of the term of Office which they anticipate, be it short or long, they can point to a record equally successful, to the same freedom
from criticism and the same absence of disappointment on the score of broken pledges and promises which, as one of their humble supporters, I claim on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. But while I cannot enter upon this discussion, I can at least appeal to the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment as to the opinion, which they are so well qualified to form, as to the prospect of the realisation of all or any of those promises, on the strength of which so many victories were won. I appeal to the Seconder of the Amendment (Mr. Burt), who enjoys so large a measure of the respect and attention of this House, for Ins views on this subject. I remember that last Session, as a new Member, I had the pleasure of listening to his most clear and candid speech on the Eight Hours Bill for Miners, and that I gave my vote in unison with his arguments, which, resting on the principle of the protection of minorities, were to me unanswerable. I trust, therefore, that he will pardon me if I appeal to him with reference to those matters, which are regarded with an almost feverish interest by those classes which he so well and worthily represents, to tell the House what are the measures, for the sake of the speedy settlement of which he proposes to turn out Her Majesty's Government. I trust I may appeal, too, in a similar spirit to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Asquith) who will move the Amendment with reference to a subject which to me and my constituents is a matter of the deepest interest. The hon. and learned Member has often asked for light as to the leading principles and features which are to be embodied and reconciled in that Home Rule measure, for which some, though not all of our opponents, propose the foremost place. If that light has been vouchsafed to him, may we not ask him to "lighten our darkness"? And if his prayer has not been answered, may we not appeal to him to join with us in asking those, who must have these matters clearly in their minds, to disclose even now, at the eleventh hour, to Parliament and to the country those matters which so deeply concern the interests of the Empire? It is very easy to laugh at
such requests as these, but I do ask, in all seriousness, whether it is for the benefit of Great Britain and Ireland that the many months of the Recess that must elapse before Parliament reassembles should, for the purpose of this great argument, be wasted on hypothetical and, therefore, barren discussion? I feel that I must not pursue this subject further; but I may, at least, point out that even from a numerical point of view the lessons of this Election are not all on the side of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. I hope it is a matter upon which the Government may be fairly congratulated by all Members of this House that after its six years of administration it has received renewed expressions of confidence from the majority of the electors of Great Britain. While I should be the last to admit that an Irishman has less right to the value of his vote than any Englishman or Scotchman, I do say that the circumstance that Great Britain has declared its confidence in Her Majesty's Government has a serious bearing upon this Motion and Amendment; because it has been suggested—not from this side of the House, but front quarters closely associated with the Opposition—that the fact to which I have alluded throws a serious difficulty in the way of any effective legislation upon this great question. I feel sure I may be permitted, as it will not be a question of controversy, to quote a few words from a periodical, a new and successful periodical, which is conducted by one of the most distinguished Members of this House, and of whom I may be permitted to say, as a fellow-countryman, that he is one of the most picturesque writers among our leading journalists of to-day. In the Sunday Sun, on the 4th May, the writer, after contrasting the probability of a majority of a hundred with the possibility of a majority of thirty, used the following words, which I am inclined to adopt:—
"A majority of thirty would mean that the people of Great Britain were against Home Rule, and it is ridiculous to suppose that we can carry a measure against which the British majority is declared."
Lest it might be thought that I am mentioning a matter upon which there has been any serious disagreement, I
may, perhaps, be permitted to quote from the Independent, the organ of the extreme section of the Irish Nationalist Party after the Election, on 18th July, this singular sentence—
"He (the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition) has no more power to pass a measure granting Home Rule to Ireland than he has of establishing waterworks in the moon."
For my own part, I cannot on this occasion do more than call attention to the fact that the great majority of the electors of Great Britain have declared against any measure of Home Rule whatever; that the minority in Ireland have also declared against it with renewed and increased emphasis at those great and representative Conventions lately held in Belfast and in Dublin—Conventions composed of all classes and creeds in Ireland, and Conventions which have, as I believe, left a deep impression on the minds and consciences of men of all Parties throughout the three Kingdoms. I am prevented from entering more fully into a subject of such tremendous interest to myself and to those whom I represent; but I may surely say this—that whatever attempts were at first made to ridicule or minimise the importance of those solemn protests, their sincerity and reality have received practical woof and confirmation from the increased Unionist majority at the elections which followed so closely upon them, and which at once changed the balance of the representation of Ulster on the Home Rule question. The Home Rile question, if it is to defeat this Motion, therefore stands thus—the majority of the voters of Great Britain have declared against the introduction of any such Bill; a powerful and of determined minority of the voters in Ireland have declared that they will never submit to a Home Rule Parliament, if one be attempted; and we have these additional declarations from leading organs of both sections of the Nationalist Party that under the existing circumstances it is practically impossible to carry any such proposals through Parliament. I may say one more word with reference to Ireland, and I feel that what I say in this connection will meet with universal acceptance.
It is that we all rejoice at the social tranquillity and absence of crime which now prevail in that country. Upon the causes which have produced that I may not argue in my present position, although I hold my own opinion on that subject strongly and confidently. I may, however, give expression to the hope, though for myself it is hoping against hope, that whatever change of Government or of policy there may be, no principles or policy will be introduced which can in any degree, however remote, lead to the renewal of social strife or disorder in Ireland. There is one topic I will conclude with, and in this respect I have no fear of exciting Party feeling. I am sure that every Member of the House, whatever change of Party there may be, will desire that those useful influences, which are at work in Ireland as the result of the legislation of the present Government, should be permitted to continue and be further developed. I refer especially to the Education Bill, which I trust will open to the humblest classes of Ireland that career for which their natural gifts so eminently fit them. I refer also to the Land Purchase Act, which, in the opinion of many of us, tends, by increasing the number of occupying owners of land, to widen the basis of property and order, to remove the ancient motives to agrarian crime, and to encourage thrift and industry among the people. And last, but not least, I refer to those efforts, which I can claim have been successful, to develop the backward and afflicted parts of the country, and to bring them into easier and closer communication with the centres of commerce and of wealth. In this I feel sure everyone will agree with me. I sincerely thank the House for the forbearance with which it has listened to me. I feel that hon. Members will at least credit me with this—that I have exercised self-restraint, and have endeavoured to submit the question with due regard for the traditions of the House. And I feel sure that everyone will join with me in the hope that no change of policy will allow those influences to which I have referred, to cease, but, on the contrary, that they may meet their fulfilment and bear their fruit in the increased
prosperity and happiness of the people of Ireland. I beg to move, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth—


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. Barton.)


MR. WILLIAM H. CROSS (Liverpool, West Derby) (who wore a Court dress)
: I hope, on one ground at all events, that I may claim the indulgence of the House, rising, as I do, to second the Motion so ably made by my hon. and learned Friend. My claim is that in past Sessions of this House I have rarely intruded in the Debates; therefore I am, at all events, free from the reproach of having wasted the time of the House. Another reason is that, in seconding this Motion, I am confronted by one or two difficulties. The first is that tradition binds me to avoid controversial matter, and this at a time when the air is full of controversy, when we are fresh from a hotly-contested Election, when we are entering upon a bitter Party fight, and when we are looking forward in the next Session to a contest such as even the most experienced veteran in this House may not remember in his whole career. My second difficulty is this: Since I was invited to perform this duty a dismal thought has occurred to me. Recalling the names of my hon. Friends who in past years have discharged this duty, I remember the names of Mr. Milvain, Mr. Hermon-Hodge, Mr. Forrest Fulton, and Sir John Colomb. All these Gentlemen, who were, I believe, deservedly most popular in the House, are absent to-day. The thought that has occurred to me is this—that if these men, so popular and able, could not resist the fate that awaited them at the Election we have just passed through, surely the omen is unhappy for my learned Friend and myself. But on our behalf,
I say, may the gods avert the omen! On one ground, however, we may take courage, and it is this. My hon. and learned Friend represents that extraordinary accession of strength to the Unionist ranks in Ireland, that growing feeling which seems to have been the most striking feature of the whole Election; and I, for my own part, claim to be the Representative of a great mercantile and industrial community; and I do claim, on behalf of Liverpool, that her voice in the last Election was given with a decision and an emphasis second only to that wonderful demonstration the City of Birmingham has given. Therefore, so long as political issues remain as at present, my hon. and learned Friend and I take courage, and we hope that the omen may pass from us. If I may turn for one moment to the terms of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech, there is one paragraph which, at least, we shall all receive, on both sides of the House, with the most hearty welcome. I mean that which states that Parliament should not be asked to sit for the transaction of business this Session. I believe we are only here for a limited purpose, and that it is the unanimous wish of all Parties in the House that we should bring this present Session to a close, and arm ourselves during the Vacation for the great fight that is now before us. From that I pass to the third and concluding paragraph of the Speech, and we, at least, on this side of the House, will welcome that emphatic expression which sets, as it were, the official seal of Her Majesty's approval on the policy which our Government has initiated and adopted during the past six years, and which we, as their supporters, have enabled them to carry out. While endeavouring to avoid controversial matters, I cannot pass over this paragraph without referring to one or two points in which I think the legislation of the Government has emphatically been such as will meet with the approval even of its most determined opponents on the other side. There are, in my opinion, four measures which stand out in the Government record as measures of first-class importance. I would place first that Act which was passed in 1888, and which laid the foundation of the
policy of County Government in England and Wales. Here, again, we all regret that the author of the measure is not among us to-day. I express the unanimous feeling of this side when I express that regret, and I am sure his absence is personally regretted on the other side. What adds an even more bitter pang to the defeat of Mr. Ritchie is that he, who is the father of the London County Council, received the blow at the hand of a London constituency, one of his own children. I hope he will be again among us before long, but whether he is or not, his great work will survive, and he will have the proud distinction of being the author of that Act which has worked so smoothly, and worked a great Constitutional change in county government with so little friction, and with the assent of all classes of the community. I might mention also another leading point of the Government action—the re-construction of our Navy, and no one will object to our paying an increased premium on our increased trade. Then we can all recognise the skill and success with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer effected the conversion of the National Debt. Lastly, I will mention the grant of free education to all the children in our National schools. There were those on this side who doubted the expediency of that, but there is no Member who failed to recognise the fair spirit which animated the Bill, the care taken to avoid injury to any of the interests concerned in the Bill, and the financial skill which enabled us to take that burden on our shoulders without raising a penny more of taxation. We are prepared to go on, as we are invited to do in the Speech, in the path of useful social legislation; but unfortunately there is more than one way before us, and when we come to decide which is the path of useful social legislation the controversy begins, the distinction of Parties is before us. On the other side we are told there must first of all be radical changes in the Constitution before anything can be done—that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is to be split into two or more Parliaments—that there must be an alteration of the franchise, and that Members must
be paid for their services. On the other hand, there are some who think that Home Rule must come first, and who will give no quarter on that subject. On this side we take a totally different view. We do not propose any Constitutional change. We propose to take the weapons that we find ready to our hands, and make such good use of them as we have done in the past. We are prepared to go on in Ireland with the great scheme of local self-government which is before us. I think we might at once make some progress with the reform of the Poor Law, and it might be done without any opposition from either side. Further, we might attempt some scheme of national insurance, and amend the Employers Liability Act, so as to give the working men greater security, and yet to be perfectly just to the employers. We shall have the question of labour before us when the Commissions on Railway Hours and Labour report to us. I hope those Reports will contain some recommendations for the peaceful settlement of labour disputes which will put an end to the costly warfare of strikes. I am conscious that the Commissions must report much sooner than is expected, or this Parliament must last longer than is expected if they are to be dealt with by the present Parliament. These are a few of the items in our programme which I point to as useful social legislation. That is the path I should be prepared to follow if we remained in Office, but I am afraid there is no prospect of that. We frankly recognise that the Queen's Speech is not on this occasion a practical programme Speech. I recognise that the electors have voted for a change, and the Government are prepared to accept cheerfully the verdict. I think I may say that they can look back on their record with pride, and if any Government can claim a record of useful and beneficent legislation it is the Government at whose last hours we have now arrived. There are sonic cases when the beaten party has, perhaps, more reason to be pleased at the result of the strife than the so-called victors. If I had to write the epitaph of the Government I should say it had performed its promises, and had not promised what it knew it could
not perform. I recognise at once that the motive power of this Session must come from the other side, and we on this side have only a languid curiosity as to who is to strike the fatal blow, and what is the weapon he is going to use. We are told in the newspapers that the blow is to be struck by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Asquith). That hon. and learned Member is distinguished by ability and eloquence, but his special characteristic during the past few years has been a thirst for knowledge, a spirit of inquiry, an anxiety as to details. If we can get any indication from the selection of that hon. and learned Gentleman, I think I can interpret it. If it had been the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) who had been chosen we should have known that Home Rule was relegated to a second, third, or even fourth place in the programme. Had either Leader of the Irish Parties been selected we should have known that it was in the foreground, and should have known something of the nature of the Home Rule about to be proposed. If it had been the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Maden) we should have known accurately the character of the Home Rule Bill. We should have known that gas, water, and electricity were the leading features of it. The hon. and learned Member for East Fife has been selected. I believe that spirit of desire for knowledge still animates him, and I hope it will continue to do so. I believe his thirst for knowledge is shared by this side and by nearly all on that side, not even excluding the Front Opposition Bench. I wish the hon. and learned Gentleman good luck and a prosperous end to his inquiries. May he receive his answer to-day, and may it be such as will enlighten the constituencies as to what is about to happen. I thank the House for so courteously hearing me, and, in conclusion, second the Motion for an Address to the Crown in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, &c." [See page 89.]


MR. H. H. ASQUITH (Fife, E.)
: I rise, Sir, to move an Amendment to the proposed Address—namely,
to add at the end the following words:—
"That we feel it, however, to be our duty humbly to submit to Your Majesty that it is essential that Your Majesty's Government should possess the confidence of this House and of the Country, and respectfully to represent to Your Majesty that such confidence is not reposed in the present Advisers of Your Majesty."
I trust that I may, without undue presumption, venture to offer a word of congratulation to both the hon. Gentlemen who have just sat down on the skill and courage with which they have comported themselves in a novel and difficult situation. The Speech from the Throne on ordinary occasions provides the Mover and Seconder of the Address with a large variety of topics, and the Address itself is in the nature of a grace before meat, in which this House expresses in anticipation its gratitude for the legislative bounty of Her Majesty's Government. On the present occasion the cupboard is bare, and to these hon. Gentlemen has been entrusted the embarrassing task of formulating the thanks of the House for a perfectly empty table. I think they felt, as we all feel, that that, after all, is not the real business for which we are assembled here to-day. As my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down, in the course of his obituary notices, pointed out, we are met to take part in the obsequies of a dead majority. Both the hon. Gentlemen came to bury Cæsar, and we need not grudge them the licence of eulogy—of which my hon and learned Friend has taken full advantage—and which is always permitted in an epitaph. My hon. and learned Friend has been good enough to seek to wring my withers in reference to some appeals I once made for further information as to some of the main provisions of the Home Rule scheme. Whether or not those appeals of mine were wise and well-founded, and whether or not and to what extent they have been responded to by those to whom they were addressed, are topics I fear of limited interest, with which, however, at the proper time and place, I shall be perfectly ready to deal. But I decline to be drawn into a discussion of them on the present occasion, for the simple and sufficient reason that they have no
more to do with the question whether Her Majesty's present Advisers have lost the confidence of the country than have the speculations of astronomers as to the composition of the planet Mars. The Amendment brings us face to face with the practical aspect of the situation. We think it would be a futile proceeding if at the beginning of the first Session of a new Parliament we were to approach the Throne, as the Government wish us to do, with a barren formula of unmeaning gratitude. I propose to relieve them from that position by adding at the end of the Address words which, at any rate, will give it significance and adequacy. My Amendment consists of two propositions—One of them is an expression of opinion; the other an assertion of fact. As a matter of opinion, it asks the House to say that in its judgment Her Majesty's Government ought to possess the confidence of this House and the country. As a matter of fact, it alleges that Her Majesty's present Advisers possess the confidence neither of the one nor the other. Now, Sir, the first proposition, I am certain, will not be seriously traversed in the course of this debate, because it is a Constitutional commonplace which all Parties in the State are prepared to accept. If, therefore, this Amendment is to be controverted and opposed, it must be upon the ground that it is not true to assert that, in point of fact, the present Government have lost the confidence of the House of Commons and of the country. No other topic is relevant to the issue which the Amendment raises. Now, what are the facts? They are very plain, and beyond the region of controversy. Six years ago the Party now in power obtained a majority at the polls and in this House. Thereby it was recognised as having received a mandate to govern Ireland, and to govern Great Britain also, upon what were called Unionist principles. The years passed and they had to go back to the country for a renewal of their trust. Never in our political history was a proceeding more deliberately planned or more carefully carried out. They selected the tribunal; they drew the issue; they fixed even the day upon which their trial was to take place. An adverse verdict was given. The
majority of 1886 is gone. The mandate which you then received has been revoked by the same power that gave it. That being so, what cause can be shown why this House should not, as its first act, perform the duty freshly imposed upon it by the constituencies, and record and render effective the considered judgment of the country? In asking the House to take that step we are following with literal strictness the precedent set by the Conservative Party in 1841, and followed by the Liberal Party in 1859. I will venture to trouble the House with a few words from the speech made in 1859 by Mr. Disraeli, then Chancellor of the Exchequer and spokesman of the Government of that day, on a Motion similar to that which I am now asking the House to accept, and which was then introduced by the present Duke of Devonshire—
"It is of the highest importance," Mr. Disraeli said, "to the public interests that this question should be immediately decided, and I hope the House will be enabled to divide on it to-night"
—that was the first night of the debate—
"and thus settle at this momentous crisis which Party indeed possesses the confidence of Parliament. The decision," he went on to say, "ought not to be delayed for four-and-twenty hours."
That was the course which was then recommended; and if that was the principle of action laid down by such high authority in 1859, I confess I cannot see why there should be that anxiety, indications of which have been already manifested in the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address, not to come to an immediate decision upon the only issue which this Amendment raises, and which the country wants to have decided, but to drag the debate out over a wide field of irrelevant matter—matter which may become relevant when you have performed the preliminary process of entrusting responsibility as well as power to those who now sit on this side of the House, but which at this stage of the proceedings has nothing whatever to do with the issue raised in this Debater Now, Sir, what I want to know, and what I am
curious to learn is, upon what grounds—(Laughter)—if hon. Gentlemen will wait for a moment they will perceive that my curiosity is both legitimate and relevant—I am curious to learn upon what grounds they are going to allege that the verdict which the country has given at the polls ought not to be given effect to without delay by this House? I have searched, and searched in vain, for any intelligible proposition on which the argument upon the other side can be framed; but, so far as I have been able to find out anything in the matter, I judge that the validity of that verdict is to be impeached first of all by reference to the composition of the majority, and next by reference to the means through which it is suggested that that majority was obtained. As to the composition of the majority, what is the argument? It has been, I think, indicated in vague and general terms by my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Address. What is said, as I understand, is this—"True it is that you have an apparent numerical majority both at the polls and in the House of Commons; but when the composition of that majority comes to be analysed, you will find that if you subtract from it one of its constituent elements—namely, the votes of the Members for Ireland—the majority ceases to be a majority at all."

: Hear, hear!

: It seems that I have anticipated the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The proposition, therefore, as I understand it, is this—that although you have obtained a majority of the electors of the United Kingdom against the continuance in office and against the policy of the Government of the day, yet, if upon analysis you can prove that that majority would not exist if you were to take away from it the votes of a single member of the United Kingdom, the majority has no title to speak for the whole; and the House of Commons and Parliament is entitled to disregard and ignore it. If I am incorrect in attributing that argument to the hon. and gallant Gentleman or any Member of what is called the Unionist Party, it accords, at any rate,
with the words of so high an authority as the First Lord of the Treasury himself. I will venture to recall the right hon. Gentleman's attention to some remarkable words which he used in a speech at Glossop on the 14th July, when the result of the elections could be forecast with almost absolute accuracy. The right hon. Gentleman said—
"The House of Lords, with the people of this country behind it"—
"this country" means, as the context shows, England—
"is certainly in a position to see carried out Mr. Gladstone's own principles—namely, that each nationality should manage its own affairs as it likes, and if he"—
that is if my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian—
"should attempt to tyrannise, by means of the Irish brigade, over the declared will of the English constituencies, the House of Lords will have the duty imposed upon it, and will certainly have the courage to see that Mr. Gladstone's own principles are adequately carried out, so far as England and Scotland arc concerned."
What does the right hon. Gentleman mean? It is not disputed, as I have said, that we have a majority of the whole of the electors of the United Kingdom. It is not disputed that in three of the four component parts of the United Kingdom—namely, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales—we have a majority also. But, says the right hon. Gentleman, in effect, "Not with standing that majority of yours, I am entitled, speaking in the name of the people of England who have cast their votes the other way, to claim to ignore and override the opinion of the mass of the people of the United Kingdom, or even, if need be, to summon to my aid that pliable instrument which the Constitution has placed at my disposal, for the purpose of making the will of the English minority prevail." I protest in the name of sound Constitutional principle against this disintegrating and anarchical doctrine. I protest in the name of the unity of this still United Kingdom against this fantastic development of an abstract Separatist logic. So long as we have an Imperial Parliament, and so long as in that Imperial Parliament, as I trust and believe will always be the case, every part of the United Kingdom is represented, so long the Government
and the policy of the Government must be determined by the vote of the majority. Yes, by the vote of the majority; and by the vote of the majority I mean a majority of the whole. Under the right hon. Gentleman's theory England is to have all the advantages of the most extreme form of Home Rule without any of the counterbalancing checks and safeguards of Imperial control. If it is true to say that the majority depends on the Irish vote, it is equally true to say that it depends upon the Scotch and Welsh vote. If you subtract from the total majority the votes contributed by Scotland and Wales we are in a minority. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to apply his principle to that extent? May I paraphrase his language and say—"If he"—that is if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian—"should attempt to tyrannise by means of the Scotch and Welsh brigade over the declared will of the English constituencies, the House of Lords will have the duty imposed upon it, and will certainly have the courage to see that Mr. Gladstone's own principles are adequately carried out?" If not, why not? If your doctrine is good that the majority can be analysed into a majority contributed by Ireland, surely it must be equally good when it is analysed into a majority contributed by Scotland and Wales. I go further, and say it must be equally good when it can be analysed into a majority contributed by England. But the matter does not rest there. What is the real state of the case? At the General Election which has just taken place it is in Ireland, and in Ireland alone, that the Unionist Party have won seats. They have actually added five seats to their Irish representation. The majority at the time of the Dissolution was sixty-six. Having gained five seats, which count ten votes on a Division, the majority would, other things remaining the same, have risen to seventy-six. What has become of the majority of seventy-six? How has it been got rid of? Who has digged its grave? The answer is, the people of Great Britain. If the matter had rested with Ireland, English and Scotch and Welsh opinion remaining as it was, instead of your majority having disappeared it
would positively have been increased by ten. There has been a transfer of fifty-two seats in England, four seats in Scotland, and two seats in Wales. In other words, in Great Britain there has been a shifting from one side to the other of no less than fifty-eight seats. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, that Her Majesty's present Government find themselves in a minority. I venture, then, before I leave this part of the subject—summing up what I have said—to assert these three propositions: I say, in the first place, it is no more true to say of the present majority that it is contributed by Irish votes, than to say it is contributed by Scotch and Welsh votes; I say, in the second place, that the dominating factor in the whole situation is the shifting of English and Scotch opinion; and I say, in the third place, upon the principles of true Unionism, which hon. Members opposite profess, but which they seem very slow in crucial cases to put in practice, when you are considering upon what lines the government and the policy of the Kingdom as a whole should be conducted, you are bound to look to the majority of the whole of the electorate and to nothing else. I now pass from that, to say one or two words, and they shall be very brief, upon the other argument, the only other argument, so far as I am aware, by which it is sought to impeach the authority of the verdict of the country. It is said that the verdict has been obtained by illegitimate means. Well, we are all familiar with the ingenuity of disappointed politicians in the art of explaining away majorities. It reminds one of another figure one often meets with in a different walk of life. I mean the figure of the defeated litigant. When the verdict has gone against him, he goes about whining amongst his friends, complaining that the witnesses gave false evidence, that the jury were packed, that the advocate upon the other side made the most shocking appeals to passion and prejudice; and he forgets that which in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred is the only real explanation of what happened, that he had a bad case, and was beaten upon the merits. Well, it is said that there were several issues in the Election, and
that the opinion of different constituencies was determined by reference to different considerations. That is true in greater or less degree of all elections, but I assert that never in our Constitutional experience has there been a case where there was a large and general issue more plainly defined by both Parties in the State, and never was there a case in which the meaning of the verdict of the country as it has been recorded was more free from ambiguity or from possible mistake. That proposition does not, apparently, commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I therefore state the ground upon which I put it forward. I allege—and I speak subject to contradiction—that in every election address of every Unionist candidate, in every speech upon every Unionist platform, the issue submitted to the electors of the country was this—that the experiment of governing Ireland on Unionist principles had been proved to be a conspicuous and fruitful success. Is that denied? Was not that the ground on which every apologist and advocate of the Government, from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) on this side of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury on the other side, down to the humblest Member of the rank and file, appealed for the confidence of the electors? I am not going to argue the merits of that policy. Causa finita est; Roma locuta est. But I think it most relevant to recall the House to the point that, at any rate, the experiment was tried for a length of time, and under conditions which make it impossible for you to allege that the country did not thoroughly understand and appreciate it. The verdict of the country was directly invoked upon it, and it is not for you now to say that that verdict, under those circumstances, does not mean what it professed to mean. I say that the experiment was tried under the most favourable conditions. For six years you have practically had a free hand from the Imperial Parliament. Those Members who sit on this side of the House will acknowledge that in the then Chief Secretary, and now the First Lord of the Treasury, Her Majesty's
Government was fortunate in finding the very instrument they required. We thought his policy was a bad one, a barren one, and a hopeless one; but we recognise that they had in hire a man who, by his tenacity of purpose and mastery of Parliamentary arts, did everything for that policy which statesmanship could do. The right hon. Gentleman was supported as no Minister has ever been supported in this House. He could always rely upon the unswerving loyalty of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in certain quarters of this side of the House upon a perverted fidelity, which, I venture to think, is rare even in the annals of political apostacy. At the most critical moment, too, in the right hon. Gentleman's policy, when he was on the eve of imminent and certain failure, he was rescued by the great catastrophe, which for a moment split the Irish Party, and for a few short months staggered and almost paralyzed the energies of the Nationalist movement. Never, Sir, has an experiment in government been tried with such a concurrence of accidental and deliberate conditions in its favour. That is the policy which was put before the country for approval or disapproval. The electors voted with their eyes open, with their minds formed, with their judgment unclouded, and what has been the result? In England, Scotland, and Wales you have lost, as compared with 1886, no less than eighty-two seats; in Ireland you have won five seats—three of them by superhuman efforts, painfully, laboriously, and with difficulty, in the Province of Ulster—while of the remaining two, one was made a present to you by Nationalist divisions in the City of Dublin, and the other is a suburban constituency of Dublin in which Conservatism is a natural and growing force. But, Sir, outside the Province of Ulster, and outside the City and suburbs of Dublin, where can you show in the whole length and breadth of Ireland a freely elected Representative of the Irish people who is prepared to approve of your policy? The representation of Ireland remains substantially what it was. In the three great Provinces of Ireland where we have been told for months and for years that the people had been emancipated by the
right hon. Gentleman from the thraldom of agitators and Leagues, and were burning with the desire to show their gratitude to their benefactor and deliverer, in the whole of those Provinces, outside the City and County of Dublin, you have not been able to return a single Unionist Member to this Horse. Even in the very districts which the right hon. Gentleman has drenched with a golden shower of British beneficence—in Galway, in Sligo, and in Donegal—his nominees have cut the most sorry figure. I say, therefore, there can be no doubt, whether you look to Ireland, or to the change of opinion in Great Britain, that the constituencies of the United Kingdom have declared against your Irish policy. There is another aspect of the verdict of the country which it is impossible to ignore. It has condemned the Unionist policy in Ireland on the ground of failure and impotence; it has equally condemned Unionist legislation in Great Britain on the ground of imposture and pretence. The burden of the appeal made by Unionist candidates in Great Britain was always the same—"Who gave you free education? Who created the County Councils? Who passed the laws for Allotments and Small Holdings?" They did not know—they did not suspect—that the people of this country were shrewd enough to perceive that every one of those measures has two common characteristics. There is not one of them which was supported—there is hardly one that was not opposed—by the great bulk of the Unionist Party six years ago. There is not one of them which has not been carried into law in an incomplete and emasculated form. Sir, the Tory Party during the last six years has been engaged in abandoning the great historic position and compromising the traditions which, so long as they were maintained intact, always gave it a certain hold, not only over the respect of opponents, but over a, great mass of deeply-rooted sentiment in the British nation. You have given up that position—you have gone in for a course of peddling and huckstering in what you call progressive legislation. You have done so in order that you might keep step with a small but dwindling band of deserters from the
Liberal camp, an accidental and ephemeral combination, which was born the day before yesterday, which will be forgotten the day after to-morrow. Sir, in 1886, ninety-four Dissentient Liberals voted against the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill. The same Party has come back from the polls to-day with a total numerical strength of forty-seven. If six years have sufficed to reduce a body of ninety-four to a body of forty-seven, it is not a very difficult sum in political arithmetic to calculate with some degree of accuracy the date of the ultimate extinction of the species. In deference to this transient and precarious alliance, the Tory Party have gone in for a course of legislative experiments which were too liberal for their own consciences, but not liberal enough for the people of Great Britain. The result is to be seen in the General Election. Surely it ought to open their eyes. To angle in other people's waters for votes and yet not to catch them, to poach through the whole of Parliament and in the end to take nothing, but to be taken yourselves, to palter with principle, to betray your pledges, to be false to your past, and then to find that the wages of ignominy is a minority, that is to be guilty of one of those blunders which in politics are worse than a crime. Depend upon it, the people of this country, if they want Liberal legislation, will go to the Party which believes in it, which is not afraid of it, which will give it in a complete and effective form. During these si