THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES 17 e a SIR EDWARD CLARKE (HER MAJESTY'S SOLICITOR GENERAL) PUBLIC SPEECHES 188O 189O LONDON GEORGE ROUTLEDGE AND SONS, LIMITED BROADWAY, LUDGATE HILL GLASGOW, MANCHESTER, AND NEW YORK 1890 ITICAL KY shown a great and sustained confidence in >_ my capacity for public service, by four times returning DC ^ ; /0 Parliament as their Representative, I dedicate this B _j selection from the Speeches made by me during the last O ten years, trusting that it will serve as an expression of gratitude for their favour, and of my hope that for _H many years to come I may be allowed to represent them uj in the House of Commons. EDWARD CLARKE, y 37 Russell Square, Feb. 4, 1890. Ob Be a; 3C V 410351 PREFACE. Address to the Electors of the Borough of Southwark, FEBRUARY 4, 1880. GENTLEMEN, The death of the senior member for your Borough, my old friend Mr. John Locke, who had for many years been held in deserved esteem by all classes among his constituents, affords you an opportunity of expressing your opinion upon the conduct of public affairs. The questions before you for consideration are of national importance ; and the judgment which shall be expressed by the great constituency of Southwark will materially influence the opinion and the action of the country at large. During the last six years a Conservative Government has directed the policy, and conducted the administration, of Great Britain, under the accumulated difficulties of foreign war, depressed commerce, failing harvests, and the most malicious and unscrupulous Opposition which the history of this country records. As a Conservative, I ask you fairly to con- sider the title which that Government has established to your confidence and support. In Eastern Europe the policy of Her Majesty's Government has received the justification -of complete success. The Berlin Treaty has not only for the past eighteen months secured the peace of Europe, but has dissolved the formidable triple alliance, which hindered the progress of Constitutional freedom, and menaced the independence of the smaller States. At the great council which gathered at Berlin, the representatives of Great Britain spoke in the name of a people who were anxious for honourable peace, but had shown themselves ready to bear the burdens and anxieties of war. The firm and resolute will of Lord Beaconsfield was shared and sustained by the great majority of his countrymen, and the jealousies and ambitions which had threatened Europe with the horrors of wide-spreading war dis- appeared before the peaceful and unselfish but unwavering policy of the people of Great Britain. In Afghanistan the Liberal Government of 1868-74 na ^ succeeded in dis- turbing and alienating the Ameer, and in providing for Russia an oppor- tunity for unofficial war against this country, of which, in the crisis of the European difficulties, she gladly ava'led herself. To have remained quiescent would have been to expose ouf Indian Empire to the danger of an invasion, of whose time and place we should have had no warning, of whose strength we could make no estimate, and whose retreat we could not follow. The emergency was firmly met, the passes of the North-Western frontier are now in our hands ; and the thief danger which threatened the safety of our empire in India is finally dispelled. In South Africa a war, for which the^Home Government was in no way responsible, has ended in the destruction of a barbaric military organization which disturbed the peace and hindered the progress of our colonies. vi PREFACE. The Government has been called upon to provide for large and excep- tional expenditure, while the depression of commerce, and the failure of recent harvests have checked, for a time, the natural tendency of the revenue to increase. Yet they have neither imposed heavier burdens on the people, nor increased the national debt. The Liberal Government of 1868-74 had five complete years of office ; of the Conservative administra- tion only five years have yet been completed. It is fair to compare these terms. In the five years of Conservative rule the amount paid in taxation was less per head than it was in the five years of Mr. Gladstone ; the Income Tax, which in the same period amounted under Mr. Gladstone to is. lod. in the^, in the five years of the Conservatives was only is. 3d.; and, at the end of the five years, the Conservative Government had effected a real reduction in the debt of the country of no less than seventeen millions and a half. It has been the fashion of late for Radical speakers to declare that domestic legislation has been neglected. The accusation comes from those who, by abetting a system of mere obstruction, have done their best to bring Parliamentary Government to inefficiency and disrepute. And the accusation is not true. During the last six sessions between twenty and thirty Acts have been passed into law by the exertions of the Ministry, which have directly and substantially contributed to the health, education, and social welfare of the people. The administration of the law has been rendered more simple and more speedy ; the prosecution of criminals has been assumed as the duty of the State instead of being left to the revenge of the victim of the crime ; the right to a trial by jury has been widely extended : the unnecessary and costly imprisonment for small offences has been greatly lessened ; the treat- ment of criminals undergoing imprisonment has been rendered uniform. The laws relating to Public Health have been consolidated and improved ; municipalities have received powers to remove unhealthy dwellings. Rivers have been protected from pollution, and Commons from enclosure ; and the Factories Act of 1874, and the Factories and Workshops Act of 1878, com- pleted a series of Acts which have given comfort to the homes of work- ing men, and saved their children from the evils of premature toil. The relations between employers and employed have been improved by the Acts of 1875, an< ^ * ne real grievance which working men suffered under the law of i conspiracy, as then expounded, was removed in that year ; in the same session the statute was passed under which Friendly Societies have been enabled to re-organize themselves on a safer basis than before ; and the Agricultural Holdings Act secured to every tenant, who had no written contract with his landlord, compensation for what he had put upon the farm, and an ample term of notice before he could be made to quit possession. I have not attempted to summarize the who'e of the legislation of these years, but the measures I have named do, in themselves, constitute a body of social reform of which the Ministry may be proud. Of a ministry which has thus worthily upheld the influences of Great Britain, wisely administered the national resources, and diligently applied itself to useful legislation, I avow myself a firm and earnest supporter, and I appeal to all among you who value our good name abroad and good government at home to give me your votes in this contest. The condition of Ireland has again become a question of serious difficulty. Bad harvests have checked the steady advance in material prosperity which she has now enjoyed for many years, and to add to her misfortune an agitation has been raging among her people which must inevitably tend to drive away the capital which she so sorely needs. The first duty of the PREFACE. vii nation is clear ; to relieve by voluntary subscription, or, if needful, by the application of public funds, the real want which is undoubtedly felt in certain parts of Ireland. The second duty is equally clear ; to uphold the authority of the law and to protect with impartial firmness, order, property, and freedom. I hope that any inequalities before the law which may exist may speedily be redressed ; that municipal institutions in Ireland may be extended ; that the measures recently passed to aid the intermediate and higher education of Irishmen may receive full development ; and that the purely administrative business of the country may be carried out by local inquiries and provisional orders, instead of the costly and tedious process of committees and bills in the Imperial Parliament. But I distrust the legisla- tion of panic or of passion, and the statesmanship which allows a political murder or a street outrage to prompt the overthrow of a church, and the confiscation of its property ; or which offers to the starving peasants of Connaught the barren gift of a scheme by which the Imperial Government may become an improvident money-lender, to enable thriving tenants to purchase the fee-simple of the lands they farm. And I would defend the integrity of the Empire as resolutely against a domestic faction as against a foreign foe. In the field of practical legislation there is plenty of work for Parliament to do. The codification of the Criminal Law : the establishment of a reasonable and uniform system of valuation for rating purposes ; the amendment of the law of Bankruptcy ; the simplification of the title to land ; the removal of the rule which prevents a person charged with crime from giving evidence on his own behalf, and will not permit his wife to be called as a witness ; the abolition of the rule by which the eldest son in the case of an intestacy takes the whole of the landed property ; these are among the matters upon which I hope I might usefully assist in the work of legislation. I am by education and by conviction a Churchman, and I believe that the maintenance of the Church of England, and her continued devotion to the work of religious education, are the surest guarantees of the happiness and true prosperity of the country. The schemes of the Liberation Society, now for party purposes discreetly suppressed, to be again brought forward if the confederacy of 1868 is again found possible, will find in me a resolute opponent. I have never been able to persuade myself that voluntary abstinence from any luxury entitles me to prohibit other people from enjoying it, and I oppose the Permissive Bill agitation in all its forms. I have lived many years in the South of London, and am thoroughly acquainted with the local interests of Southwark ; and during the last eighteen months I have taken every opportunity of making myself known among you. In so large a borough a personal canvass is, of course, impossible, but I ask you to read my speeches, to come, if you can, to hear me, and then to judge if I am fit to be your member. I have no ambition which is in conflict with your interests , and if you honour me with the proud position of your representative in Parliament I will strive with all my powers to prove myself worthy of your trust. I am, Gentlemen, Your most obedient Servant, EDWARD CLARKE. HUNTINGDON LODGE, PECKHAM, February 4, 1880. CONTENTS. SPEECHES TO THE ELECTORS OF PL YMOUTH. PAGE SPEECH AT THE ASSEMBLY ROOMS, l88o I SPEECH AT THE DINNER OF THE JUNIOR CONSERVA- TIVE ASSOCIATION AT SAINT ANDREW'S HALL, 1881 12 ANNUAL ADDRESSES . . 24, 40, 60, 78, IO6, 1 19, 130, 144 ELECTION SPEECH, 1 886 94 SPEECHES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. LOCAL OPTION, 1880 156 PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE, 1882 162 MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER, 1884 . i;i EGYPT (VOTE OF CENSURE), 1885 176 HOME RULE BILL (SECOND READING), 1 886 . . . l8o PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE, 1887 189 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE LICENSING QUESTION, 1888 207 MISCELLANEOUS SPEECHES. SPEECH AT BANQUET ON APPOINTMENT AS SOLICITOR GENERAL, l886 2l6 THE FUTURE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION, 1888 . .221 NEWSPAPER PRESS FUND DINNER, 1888 .... 2JO SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE DINNER OF THE EXETER WORKING-MEN'S CONSERVATIVE UNION, 1889 . . 234 INDEX 245 SPEECHES TO THE ELECTORS OF PLYiMOUTH. Speeck at the Assembly Rooms, Plymouth. JUNE 28, 1880. [In June, 1880, Sir Edward Bates, Bart., who had been returned for Plymouth for the third time, at the General Election was unseated on petition, and Mr. Clarke became the Conservative candidate for the vacancy. He was returned by a majority of 144, the numbers being : Mr. Edward Clarke, 2449 ; Sir George Young, Bart., 2305. The follow- ing speech was delivered at the beginning of the contest.] MY first duty, speaking in Plymouth as a candidate for your suffrages, is to acknowledge, which I do most heartily, the generous warmth with which I have been treated in the town, and the personal kindness which my friend, Sir Edward Bates, has shown me during the past few days. I little thought when I was talking to him some weeks ago as to the prospects of the election petition nay, I thought as little when I came into the town on Wednesday in last week to take my part in defending the seat which he had so worthily won, that within a week I should be here as a candidate before the constituency of Ply- mouth, and he introducing me to those who had trusted him for nine years, and I hope may learn to trust me hereafter. I am infinitely sorry that after nine years' service to this town he has been, through no fault whatever of his own, deprived of that which I know he prized as an honour, a position in which I believe he did this town good service in Parliament. Gentle- men, this is a time of trial for him, of trial which I know has A 2 PLYMOUTH, TUNE 28, 1880. been tempered by the enthusiasm and kindness of those for whom he has striven during those years. It is a time of trial for the party to which he belongs, because it finds itself at this moment deprived of the representative in whom it would place most undeviating confidence. It is a time of trial for Plymouth itself, because the attack which has been made within the last week was not an attack th t was ievelled solely at my friend Sir Edward Bates, nor even levell d only at the few individuals who were mentioned by name in the course of the pro eedings. The charge which was made in this town was a charge that Plymouth a- a town had been corrupted and been bought. And it is a source of satisfaction to every man who values that free- dom of election, without which our Parliamentary institutions would themselves become of little value, that that charge has been emphatically rejected by the judges b fore whose decision it was placed. I am not surprised to see in the columns of a local paper an attempt made to show the Plymouth people that the el ction petition was one from beginning to end, that it either stood altogether or fell altogether. Gentlemen, if that were so Plymouth would to-day have cause to be humiliated. Plymouth men would have cause to be ashamed that there had been attached to their old town the evil reputation of being a venal and corrupt borough. But it- is not so, and the judges said it was not, and they, with expressions of real sympathy with the man against whom they were obliged by law to pro- nounce, expressed their satisfaction at the purity of election which they found had existed in the borough of Plymouth. Gentlemen, you have been told I have had a short experience of Parliamentary life. That is true. I think that my experience of Parliament has been as remarkable as that of any one who has lately been a candidate for Parliamentary honours. After eighteen months' of working in that great borough of South- wark, wnere there are twenty-four thousand electors, I found my opportunity of measuring the strength of the Conservative party with the strength of the Liberal party in that borough, and after the polling I found I had nearly 3500 more votes than any Conservative had polled before in that borough. I defeated both my opponents put together, and I had the great satisfac- tion of going to the House of Commons as Conservative member for the borough of Southwark. Gentlemen, my membership la ted seven weeks. Seven w eks from the day on which the polling had taken place which sent me to the House of Com- mons member for Southwark I was standing again at the Vestry Hall in Southwark to acknowledge that I had been defeated in a second contest. It was not altogether the fault of the electors of Southwark. It was the one crowning success, as I had thought it, of my life, the thing I had looked forward to SOUTHWARD. 3 for twenty years, the boy's fancy, the youth's hope, the young man's ambition the ambi ion of standing in the House of Commons ; but it came at a time when I was heavily burdened in different ways with work and trouble, and the work of the House of Commons during those few weeks broke me down, and I was obliged to leave London to seek absolute rest at the seaside the very day or within a day or two of the announce- ment of the dissolution. In my absence these mysterious rumours which float about with regard to a man were put about in all directions. Assertions were made as to my votes in the House of Commons which had not the semblance of truth. Every sort of weapon was used against me, and I came back as soon as possible, some thirty-six hours before the election on the second occasion, early enough to make a great fight and to poll 500 votes more than at the previous contest, but not early enough to save the seat, which I believe I should have done had 1 been well. And now, gentlemen, I have been asked by the leaders of the party here, I believe unanimously asked, to come down to you, and here I am, and with your good leave during the next week or two we will fight this contest fairly and above-board as men who mean to win, and who know they can do it if they choose. Let us condescend to nothing in the nature of smallness or personality, but determine that the result of this contest shall not only send to Parliament a man who represents your views, but shall show to the world that Plymouth men can fight an election with absolute purity. Gentlemen, on coming into the town, I find an address has been issued by my opponent, whom I desire to mention now by name with all the respect that is owing from me to one with whom I took part in political discussion a good many years ago. Sir George Young and I are friends of a good many years' standing. I am going to fight and fight him hard, and I hope to beat him. But I shall fight him as an Englishman fights, with perfect good humour, shaking hands with him before 1 fight and shaking hands with him after. But I must say, I think Sir George Young fancies you live a little out of the knowledge of political history. I am not clear that he thinks you know anything about politics at all, for I find a statement published throughout the town that the present Government, since it has come into power, has reversed the foreign policy of the late Administiation. I was astounded when I read the statement. Gentlemen, three months ago a great issue was being fought out before the people of this country. For six years an Administration had been in power, which, like all Administrations, had in the course of those six years offended a good many people. It had lasted as long as almost any Administration during the last 70 years, and three months ago the question of whether it did or did not deserve 4 PL YMOUTH, JUNE 28, 1880. the confidence of the country was fought out before the con- stituences. The verdict was distinctly given. There was no disputing that the great majority of the constituencies decided against the Conservative administration. Gentlemen, they had been led to make that decision by a series of the most violent attacks upon the Government of Lord Beaconsfield. That Government had been denounced before the country as one which had wantonly endeavoured to foment war and invasions throughout the world ; which had embarked upon a foreign policy that was dangerous and discreditable to this country. That was the sort of thing that was spread up and down the land. Gentlemen, the Liberal Government came into office, and in the speech which had been prepared for her Gracious Majesty to utter at the beginning of the session, they caused her to say that her Government was devoting itself to the carrying out of the Berlin Treaty. The Berlin Treaty was one of the instruments that had been denounced all over the country. It was for making that Berlin Treaty, which was called a sham, that the Conservative Government was denounced, and the present Government, instead of reversing that policy, has been upholding the Berlin Treaty, and has been striving to render still more effective the convention of Cyprus, while at this moment, on their proposal, delegates are sitting at Berlin in order to carry out one of the provisions of the Berlin Treaty. So far from reversing the foreign policy of her Majesty's late Government, the Liberal Ministry which is at present in office have accepted it with almost slavish humility. The policy they so denounced they are now endeavouring to carry into effect. Gentlemen, these things are matters which do concern, and concern very deeply, the honour and interests of the country. I do not attach very much importance myself I am not party man enough for that to the question of whether the party I belong to is in power or out of power. There is sometimes a position out of office which is more independent and even more powerful, and it may be more honourable, than power or office itself. But there is one thing a great deal more important to this country than the question which set of men are to sit on the right or the left of the Speaker, and that is whether gentlemen are to be perfectly straightforward and honourable before the constituencies or not ; if when the opinion of the constituencies is asked that opinion shall be asked fairly and honourably, and upon grounds which men can stand by when in office. But I am afraid the history of the last few months has made us almost to doubt the absolute integrity of public men. The Prime Minister has apologized to a foreign Sovereign. At the election of Midlothian he went so far as to suggest, in the course of a most violent attack upon Austria, that the Austrian flag should be hung out POLEMICAL LANGUAGE. 5 of his opponent's window, in order to identify the Conservative candidate with the policy the mischevious policy as he called it of that foreign Power which he had denounced. Gentlemen, in that way he wins his victory at Midlothian, and he wins his victory through England, and when the victory is won and the office is obtained, and the power and the emoluments have come to his followers, what does he do ? He apologizes most humbly to the foreign Sovereign, and says not a word of what he had said should have been spoken. " My dear Count Karolyi, if you will convey my apologies to your Sovereign and ask him to look over it, I shall be most thankful." But where is the apology to Lord Dalkeith? to the electors of Midlothian ? or to the electors of England ? for they had given their decision on account of state- ments on the part of the present Prime Minister which are afterwards disavowed by him. Gentlemen, if he had but said fairly, "Well, I am very sorry ; I apologize all round. It is not to be expected that I should resign the office I have ; because you know the old saying, 'That people may bear misfortune with fortitude, but never with resignation,' " but when he was called to account for this he said he would not attempt to defend the polemical language which he had been induced to use during the elections. Now, gentlemen, of all convenient theories this is the most convenient. Lord Beaconsfield and his colleagues were reviled and abused as no set of public men have been reviled and abused in England for many years. It was not sufficient to accuse them of being weak, of being incapable, of being misguided, of anything that was consistent with moral rectitude. Not a bit of it ; moral character was the very thing they wanted to attack ; and so we were told by Mr. John Bright that it was not only an incapable but a guilty Administration. I do not think the history of the last few months has tended to raise the tone of public life. I don't understand any distinction between the honour of a man in his private relations and the honour of a man when he stands on a public platform. If I say anything here I am as responsible for every syllable as if I were sitting at my own table, and to indulge in reckless assertions, and then to decline to defend or discuss them on the ground that they are what is called polemical language, is to invent a sort of third conscience for the use of politicians, which would enable them to make any assertion, and enable them, when they have to account for that assertion, simply to refuse to carry on the discussion. There are one or two things the Government have behaved in the same way about. You remember the South African troubles, and the great anxiety felt in England with regard to them. I am not one of those who thought that Sir Bartle Frere was altogether justified in the course he took. I must say I myself formed an opinion on that question, which 6 PLYMOUTH, JUNE zS, i88o. was somewhat different from that of those whom I am in the habit of meeting, and having formed that opinion I expressed it. That being so, you will remember this matter came to the question whether Sir Birtle Frere, who was censured by Lord Beaconsfield's Administration, should be at once recalled. The Ministry took a line in that quarter which offered most success ; and I venture to think it was the right line. They said, "Sir Bartle Frere has gone beyond our instructions in such a manner that he has launched us into war in Zululand. That war is raging ; it lias been going on for three weeks before we hear the news, and it must go on three weeks more before any message from us can reach that place. We don't know what the stale of things in Zululand will be when our message goes out. We know that in Sir Bartle Frere we have a man of sterling honour and good intentions, and one who will do his heartiest to bring things through the difficulties." The Government, therefore, said, " The best thing for us to do is to tell Sir Bartle Frere we do not approve of what he has done, but will leave upon him the responsibility of carrying these matters to a conclusion." If a captain gets his ship in an awkward place, the best thing you can do is to leave him to get it out. He is the man who will have the discredit if anything happens ; and Government, acting upon that, censured Sir Bartle Frere, but they s;iid "We will leave upon him the responsibility of bringing this matter to a right conclusion." But thereupon our opponents made Eng- land ring from end to end. There was an outcry, and for the most part a conscientious outcry, because it was made by persons who were not party politicians. "Sir Bartle Frere has plunged us into a war, your duty is to recall him." That was declared all over the country, and the Government were censured in Parliament again and again by speakers, because they would not recall him. If there w..s one thing to which Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues were more pledged to than another, it was that they would at once recall Sir Bartle Frere. What is the state of things now ? Sir Bartle Frere still remains there, and remains there in an authority and position of trust, although the dangerous moment is past. There is not that absolute necessity for him at this moment that there was when Lord Beaconsfield's Government were challenged to recall him, and yet the Ministry that hounded down the Beaconsfield Administration for this very thing leaves Sir Bartle Frere in his position, because you know they are arranging about a confederation of the South African States, and it will be exceed- ingly desirable he should remain. Gentlemen, all who at the late election were defeated have a right to complain of these things, and to insist upon it that there has not been fair deal- ing, and that the people of England have not been treated with fairness in the discussion, and in the settlement of these THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 7 questions. I have told you of one part of the personal history of my political life with regard to Southwark. I turn back for a moment from the discussion of these foreign politics, because there are one or two words I want to say to you, and I am not at all sure, if I may judge from an echo outside (referring to the cheers of the crowd without the hotel), that when I finish addressing you I shall finish my work of speaking this evening; for it seems to me quite possible that some one will want speaking to somewhere else. But I wish to say that I come before you at Plymouth after the experience I have had at Southwark, and ask you to accept me as one who really is anxious to serve his country and his fellow-countrymen in the House of Commons. I told you it had been the dream of my boyhood and the hope of my youth that I should some day get into the House of Commons. 1 still entertain the conviction that the finest thing an English- man can do is to be in the House of Commons and to speak in the House of Commons, to make his opinions if he has formed any opinions upon important subjects felt there, and so to contribute by his personal voice and vote to the settlement of the great questions which affect the interests of the people of this country. I have been told though I observe it is a matter which touches my opponent as well as myself that my profession is not a very good introduction to the constituency of Plymouth. But Sir George Young and myself are both on a level in that respect. But, gentlemen, there is a word or two I should like to say upon that matter upon this occasion of the first time of our meeting. If it were true that I was coming to Plymouth only to endeavour to get a seat in Parliament for the gratification of my personal or professional desires, I confess I should be ashamed to come here and ask for your suffrages. But it does so happen that I have, as I think, given some proof, and I gave it last year, that that is not my object in coming to this place. In the middle of last year a talented man of the Western Circuit, my good friend Charles Bowen, was raised to the bench, and when he was made a judge the office which he had previously occupied, and which is recognized as the regular introduction to a judgeship, was offered to me by the learned Attorney-General. Sir John Holker told me he should be very glad for me to take the office, and although to me it was a distinct promise, knowing very well that those who filled that office did after a time obtain an appointment to the bench Lord Justice Hannan, Mr. Justice Archibald, and Mr. Justice Bowen having each filled the office, and passed through it to the Bench after five minutes' hesitation I declined that office, because, although it opened to me as a lawyer the prospect of a judgeship, I con- fess my ambition was even larger than that. I do want, if it please God to give me a few years of health and strength, to 8 PLYMOUTH, JUNE 28, rSSo. speak before my countrymen and on behalf of my countrymen on the questions which affect your interests. Politics to me is no study of yesterday, is no fancy of a leisure hour, is no ex- pedient for advancing in professional life. I believe in politics, have thought of them, have worked for them, and am prepared still to work for them. It may be that from time to time in the clash and jar of party which exists in the House of Commons personal interests come to the top, personal questions occupy the time, you lose sometimes a sense of the great and over- mastering interest in political questions ; but after all if an Englishman sits down and thinks to himself what it is to be an Englishman, what the English Parliament is, what are its responsibilities, and what are its powers, there is no task greater or nobler for an Englishman to undertake than the duty of representing a large constituency in Parliament. My creed is a very simple one. I think I may sum it up in two or three words the honour of the empire, justice to the people, freedom for the people. I believe, if we, like men, set to work with these for our objects, we may all do great service in political life. Every voter does a service in political life when he goes and records his vote for the man whom he believes to be the best adapted to represent him. It may be the smaller service, but it helps to promote the larger service of the man who goes to the House of Commons and devotes himself to the work of the House of Commons. And what is it we have to deal with ? The Treaty of Berlin did not put an end to all the difficulties of European politics. There are still a hundred difficulties on every hand, any one of which may start up this next day or next week to tax the patience and almost defy the ingenuity of statesmen. The honour of the country has to be maintained. It has to be maintained, not merely against those who would desire to pledge us too rashly to ambitious schemes, but it has to be maintained against those who would wrap themselves up in their ideas of universal peace, and would be prepared to allow England to suffer her forces to fa 1 into decay and so disable herself from taking part in the councils of Europe. A true Englishman does not want to embark in contests with his neighbours, he doesn't want to fight, but he is always ready to fight if occasion imposes the duty, and it may be that circumstances may yet press upon the nation, as it may upon you or me, the duty any day of standing up and fighting for the rights which have been infringed. That is the case with regard to foreign countries, and we have seen within the last few years how amazing is the power of England, if only there is the strong will. When a few days ago I looked from the window of my hotel and saw that magnificent ship, the Achilles, lying in your Sound, she brought back to my mind the time POPULAR FREEDOM. g when the mere presence of the English fleet in the Turkish waters was sufficient to avert the greatest danger that has be- fallen us this present century. And although I hope we shall always scrupulously respect the rights of other nations, and shall never attempt to impose upon them our rule simply because it is our will, still I do maintain for the sake of every member of ihe community that the rulers of England are bound to stand firm in defence of the name and the reputation of our country, and to insist that the voice of England shall be heard, and respectfully heard. There is another point, and that is freedom the freedom of the people. And by the freedom of the people I will tell you distinctly what I mean. I mean freedom, not only from oppression on the part of the Crown or on the part of the aristocracy, but I mean personal freedom which is not limited by the rule of the majority, wherever that majority may lie. I do not believe in personal freedom which simply means the rule of the majority. I believe in individual freedom. So long as the individual acts within those limits of order which it is necessary should be observed in every State, so long is it not the right of the State as a State, or the majority as a majority, to curb his will, or rule his inclinations or desires. Next, I say justice is another of the great things which ought to be obsen ed in a community. You cannot have freedom which shall make people happy and contented and prosperous unless you have a firm and equal administration based on just and equal laws. Now I turn to another aspect of the professional experience I have gained. I told you before that I was not coming to ask your suffrages, because from professional ambition 1 might get you to help me, but I tell you that professional experience does teach one a good deal of the operations of the laws which govern the people of this country, and may, I believe, enable me to deal" better on your behalf in the House of Commons with those questions which are- of importance to you. To-morrow morning I believe you will see all over the town and in the newspapers the address which I have issued asking for your suffrages. I think you will see to-night that I have spoken to you only on topics we have to deal with, and I will refrain until other occasions to enter more minutely into general matters. (Cries of " Go on.") I think you will easily understand that upon a first acquaintance one is a little reluctant to trespass upon your time. (Cries of " No.") I am not at all sure that you are not taking a dangerous course in inviting me to go further. The time may come when you may have to put your invitation in another form, and request me to leave off. But if it be your desire that I should say more, I am bound to say this, that the amplitude of subjects one has to deal with makes it no to PLYMOUTH, JUNE 28, i8So. difficulty to speak. You know I have spoken now on one or two topics that affected the state of Europe during the time of the last Administration. But just let me turn to another class of subject, and an entirely different class of subject. I turn to it at once because it is possible there may be some here who are interested in these subjects, and whom I may not have the opportunity of addressing again. During the last ?ix years in my belief the late Government upheld, and very wisely and steadily and firmly upheld, the honour of this country in regard to foreign affairs. But it did something else. It did pay attention to the domestic wants of the people of this country. It passed a long series of measures which were ignored, and the actual existence of which was absolutely denied by our opponents in the last contest, measures which were nevertheless of substantial value to the welfare of the people. I have never spoken to workmen on political subjects without asking the question with regard to the Acts that were passed in 1875 respecting employers and workmen. When the late Govern- ment came into power the condition of affairs between masters and workmen was difficult and dangerous. You remember the excitement there was throughout the country after the gas- stokers' strike in London, the heavy punishment inflicted upon the ringleaders, and the sense of bitterness and anger felt by many of the working-men with regard to those sentences. In 1872 the Liberal Government had a chance of dealing with the matter, and it passed an Act of Parliament. Ask the leaders of any of the great trade organizati ns of the country, and they will tell you that the Act of 1872 altered for the worse and not for the better the relations between the employer and the employed. It introduced new terms which were the subject of dispute and discussions in courts of law, and created difficulties instead of removing them. What was done by the Conserva- tives in the year 187 $? Mr. Cross passed an Act of Parliament for which he received the thanks of the members of the trade organizations of this country. It set the laws affecting em- ployers and employed upon a fair and equal footing, and since the year 1875 there has, as far as I know, been no single case in which a real grievance has been found on the part of the working-men with regard to the laws relating to them. Take another thing. I noticed somewhere to-day among the periodi- cals I saw coming down an assertion that the Tories were all against education. Well, it has always seemed to me one of the most ill-founded assertions ever made, for before Mr. Forster took in charge the Bill which was passed in 1870, known as the Education Act, two of the members of the Conservative party, Lord Stanley and the late Sir John Packington, again and again called the attention of the House of Commons to the THE TORY PAR7 Y AND EDUCA 7 ION. 1 1 state of education, and suggested the passing of an Educa- tion Act. And in 1870, when Mr. Forster passed his Bill, if you refer to the debates of that time you will see that it was only by the assistance of the Conservative party that Mr. Forster was enabled to pass it through the House of Commons. More than that, Lord George Hamilton, amongst others, has been entrusted with the duty of dealing with the education question since 1874, an d no complaint has been made that he and his coadjutors have been lacking in diligence to extend the advan- tages of the Act to the people. Again, the Education Act originally dealt chiefly with large towns where a School Board could be formed. But there were large portions of the country where the rural population was found to be too small and scattered to form School Boards, but with Boards of Guardians and other authorities among them who were well able to deal with school questions. It was the Conservative Government which in 1877 brought in and passed through Parliament the Act which extended the benefits of the School Board system to the country districts by giving Boards of Guardians the authority to frame rules for attendance at school. It is idle and ground- less, then, to say that the Tory party have been opposed to the education of the people. I said a word just now which reminds me of another class of subjects upon which I will say what shall be my last few sentences to-night. I believe, and am glad to believe, that Plymouth is to a great extent a working-class constituency, because I come from a place Southwark which is almost entirely a working-class constituency. It is among the men in the docks, in the tanneries, and in the hop ware- houses that I have seen the hundreds and thousands of working- men who voted for me at the election, who founded working- men's clubs immediately after my defeat, in the hope of retrieving it at a future time, and who, I am afraid, have been struck with what is disappointment to them, when, in the midst of their preparations for giving me a working-man's testimonial, that I am fighting here at Plymouth. But I think, when they come to consider it, if they find any disappointment in losing me, they will not regret that I should come and fight a great constituency like this. As I told them, I tell you, I want to have a substantial constituency. I do not want to go into Par- liament as the nominee of any person, or any clique of persons. I want to get a large constituency of my fellow-cauntrymen to put myself before them, and ask for their confidence and sympathy. And there is one reason why I at once felt I should like to come and fight Plymouth. It is that I am perfectly satisfied this is a pure constituency. I daresay many of you know it has been my lot during the last six weeks to hear a great deal of the conduct of elections in different parts of the 12 PL YMOUTff, JANUAR Y 4, /f their favourite policy of coercion, and my unwillingness to resort to it while it could possibly be avoided, B 34 PL YMOUTI1, JANUAR Y 2, and without, at least, accompanying it by remedial legislation which alone could remove the cause and origin of disorder." Now, I read that sentence as to the accustomed habit of misre- presentation of the Tory party. You know, one doesn't expect courtesy or manners from Mr. Chamberlain. And so when he says the Tories have an accustomed habit of misrepresentation one can pass it by, only regretting that a man who occupies the conspicuous position he does in public life should be obviously wanting in the ordinary courtesies by which public as well as private life ought to be guided. But when Mr. Chamberlain denounces the Tories for quoting statements he never made, it makes it essential that one who is a Tory, as I am, and who intends to quote Mr. Chamberlain, should give in Mr. Chamber- lain's own words the statements that lie has made. On the 25111 of October last year he made a speech at Liverpool in which i e was meeting the charge then made, and which I make now, that the Government having the Coercion Bill passed, and powers of repression committed to their hand, refrained from using the powers they had only persuaded the House to grant by representing that there was an immediate necessity for their use, and refrained from using them in order to promote the r party purposes. Mr. Chamberlain, then is reported to have said at Liverpool, "To stifle agitation at that time would have been to have prevented reform ; would have been also to have brought ruin upon thousands and tens of thousands of innocent people who are now protected by the Land Act. If the Land League had then been suppressed, the tenants of Ireland would have had no organization to fall back upon." Now, whatever Mr. Chamberlain's other deficiencies may be, he understands the use of the English language, and there is no meaning attributable to those two sentences but this, that they refrained from suppressing the Land League at that time and "stifling the agitation," because they were desirous that reform should not be prevented. " To stifle agitation at that time would have been to prevent reform." Why ? Was it that Mr. Chamberlain's Ministry was not in earnest about reform, and that Mr. Cham- berlain and one of his colleagues in the Cabinet found it necessary to threaten their other colleagues with the result < f this disorder in Ireland in order to spur them up to measures of reform ? I think there may be something in that. Was it that they thought the House of Commons would not accept those measures of reform unless they saw that there was disorder and rebellion threatening the very existence of civilized society in Ireland ? It may have been that. But whichever it was ; whether Mr. Chamberlain wanted the weapon of disorder in Ireland to stir up the unwilling spirits in his own Cabinet, or whether the Cabinet at large wanted it for the purpose of en- A/& PARNELL. 35 forcing their plans upon the House of Commons, either way they perpetrated a fraud upon the House of Commons. This power which was given them to meet an immediate and over- whelming necessity was practically unused for months. The leaders of the agitation went on making their mischievous speeches at meetings in Ireland as well as in the House of Commons itself. But they were not touched. Things were allowed to go on, only a few obscure persons whose names nobody had ever heard of being arrested here and there, I suppose by way of practising upon the Act, just to see how it would work. It was not until the Land Act had been passed, and Mr. Parnell made the mistake of denouncing Mr. Gladstone personally, that Mr. Parnell was put into prison. He had in his speeches stated most frankly the objects of his agitation, and the way in which he proposed to work it. On the 25th of Septem- ber he made a speech in Dublin which one would have thought any Government would have been bound to take immediate cognizance of. For he said, " Believe me, the spirit which is alive in Ireland to-day, the spirit of old as exhibited by the silent martyrs in Kilmainham and other gaols, the spirit which is exhibited by Michael Davitt far off in Portland prison, willing to suffer five more long years of penal servitude provided you on your side do your duty ; the spirit which has been shown in every quarter and corner of Ireland, that spirit will never die until it sweeps that detested alien rule, with its buckshot and bayonets, clear away over the Channel whence it came, never to return." That speech was made in Dublin on the 25th of Sep- tember. But even that did not rouse the Government, and it was not until Mr. Parnell had the inconceivable folly to reply to a speech which Mr. Gladstone made at Leeds that he was shut up in gaol. Gentlemen, the blow fell too late. I have no doubt myself that if, when that Act was first passed, and power was given to the Government, they had struck at once at the known and avowed leaders of this most treasonous agitation, the sud- denness of the blow might have broken the power of the Land League. But they allowed months to go by, from March to October, during the whole of which time the leaders, whose liberty was in danger, were providing themselves with succes- sors and substitutes who could carry on their work if they were removed or obliged to fly. Although the Land League has now been declared to be an illegal assembly it was not one whit more illegal in October, 1881, than in October, 1880 what do we find ? Why, that things have gone too far. The spirit of resistance and the spirit of rebellion have penetrated too deeply among the people to be affected by the arrests of some of the leaders of the agitation, and the last thing the Government has done has been to appoint five resident magis- 36 PL YMOUTH, JANUAK Y 2, iSS*. trates in different parts of the disturbed portions of the country, with almost absolute powers. These magistrates, among their other duties, have to report if it is necessary to increase the military or police force ; and so, after two years of this precious Cabinet trying to frame plans for the pacification of Ireland, we find them appointing magistrates to report to them if they want any more soldiers or any more police. Gentlemen, it is a melancholy state of things ; but, let us try if we cannot get any lesson out of it. I have said that I thought the passing of the Irish Land Bill was the gravest misfortune of the year 1881, because it breaks with all the traditions of our national habits, and is the first direct interference by the State with freedom of contract. It is a ridiculous and inefficacious sort of law. What will become of the Land Act I do not know. There are, I be- lieve, 50,000 applications for fixing rents. The Commissioners have been at work for three months and have dealt with 505 cases, of which 300 are appealed against. At what rate we are to deal with Ireland in this fashion it is impossible to say ; but my objection to the Act is not because the process is a clumsy one, or that it injures a particular class of people. It does a great deal more than that, for it strikes a blow against the principle of freedom of action as between man and man, and is, therefore, calculated to do a great deal of mischief to other sets of people besides landlords. The mischief and evils of the Land Act have been pointed out most clearly by a man who is to be honoured in a day or two by a banquet to be given him by the Liberals of Liverpool I mean Lord Derby. Lord Derby, I am very glad to say, has finally broken with the Conservative party. I think it must be a source of great satisfaction to any one \\lio remembers the course he took when he was Foreign Secretary under Lord Beaconsfie'.d, that no Tory Ministry is likely to be hampered in future by so inconvenient and so un- trustworthy a colleague as Lord Derby proved himself to be. But his lordship has written an article in the Nineteenth Century on the Irish Land Act. In that article he points out that the economic results of the Irish Land Act must in every respect be mischievous. What Ireland wants is the presence of land- lords who can do good in the place by the employment of labour. But what is happening there to-day? Landlords are leaving Ireland, driven out because they feel they have no security in that country. Ireland chiefly wants industrial capital, which shall l)e brought there to find its home there, and to give oc- cupation to its people. And Lord Derby points out that the inevitable result of what has taken place in Ireland is to drive capital away from the soil, and he also points out that the effect of this Act will be to increase absenteeism, to diminish the capital which is available for the industrial occupation of the OF CIVILIZATION. $ people of Ireland, and to withdraw from Ireland those people who alone could prevent our having hereafter to engage in a struggle to put down a subject people ; and he winds up that article by warning Englishmen that they are brought face to face with a problem which has perplexed continental nations the problem of keeping down by force a subject race which has determined if possible to throw off its allegiance to the sovereign of the country. There is one other matter in which I believe the Liberals will feel as strongly as I do, and that is with reference to the Act which is now in force under which persons are arrested on reasonable suspicion. There are now nearly four hundred people in Ireland who have been arrested upon a complaint to which no name has been attached, and which is not vouched for by any person whom they could trace or challenge ; and they are sent to prison upon the warrant of the Lord-Lieutenant, a war- rant which cannot be examined or attacked in any court, and at the option of the Lord-Lieutenant these people may be either let out of prison to-morrow or kept there until next September. I believe this is one of the things Mr. Gladstone calls the "resources of civilization." It strikes me, however, as being the most grotesque phrase that was ever applied to misrepresent one of the resources of barbarism and despotism. Arbitrary imprisonment is a resource of despotism, and of despotism only ; and a free people, if they have any capacity for statesmanship at all, although they may have at a moment of great national peril to resort to arbitrary imprisonment, just as they may have to resort to the use of arms, yet a free people, jealous f their freedom, are bound to take the earliest possible opportunity ot reconsidering the step they have taken, and of endeavouring to bring the people back within the current of the ordinary law. Any sort of trial would be preferable to imprisonment upon the mere edict of an official connected with the Government of the time, and it seems to me that the gravest question before the country at the present time is how are we to deal with the state of things, or how the Governhient is to be allowed to deal with the state of things, that exists in Ireland. About four hundred people are in prison, and they may be there until next Septem- ber. I doubt if they will be. I doubt very much whether the Government will venture to meet Parliament whilst members of Parliament are still imprisoned under that sort of authority. But suppose they do, and suppose they keep these men in prison until September, what will happen? In September, if the Act is not renewed, why from Kilmainham, Armagh, and those other places of confinement must come forth triumphal proces- sions. The funds collected throughout Ireland will be lavished in demonstrations of honour upon these men ; you will find in 38 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 2, 1882. every part of Ireland a hero to be worshipped by his friends and neighbours, one who will be to them the visible representative not only of the spirit of rebellion against English rule, but of a protest against what they will call the arbitrary and despotic character of the British Government. That is if you wait until September. But, suppose >ou let them out stealthily, one by one, or by twos and threes, so as to prevent this demonstration, you get the same result by sending out these men who have it all their own way in denouncing the Government, because there is no sort of answer to their complaint, no sort of evidence that they have been guilty of any crime. Suppose Government comes to the House of Commons, and asks for a prolongation of this Act, I, for one, will vote and speak steadily against it, whatever the result may be. A Government which has so mis- used the power which was given into its hands last February, and has not in the time which has elapsed since then contrived some mode of governing more congenial to the minds of the people used to constitutional freedom, that Government does not deserve, and cannot safely be trusted with such a weapon. It is not, after all, a party question. I hope and believe I should feel just as strongly if it were proposed to continue that power in the hands of men of our own side. I should not, of course, have so much anxiety, because these people have misused, and deliberately misused, the power given them upon the represen- tation that they wanted it for immediate action, and I do not believe it would have been so misused by anyone belonging to the Tory party. But, whichever party it is which is governing, it is a great deal too serious a thing for Englishmen to get into the habit of playing with edged tools. This power of arbitrary imprisonment is an extreme power which freedom-loving people should reserve for use only in those exigencies when the rights of classes and of people must be sacrificed to preserve the freedom of the State. I hope we may look forward to a better state of things. I hope Government will have taken warning by what has passed during this autumn ; I hope they will have taken warning by the current of Conservative successes which has altered the majority of the Government in the House, which has diminished by no less than eighteen the majority the Government could have counted upon at the beginning of this Parliament. We have won a balance of nine seats, eleven against two, and that makes a difference of eighteen upon a division. I am not arxious to see this Go\emment at this moment ejected from office, because I believe the Government may be reconstructed in a way which will leave the members of it who are responsible for the existing state of things in Ireland responsible also for dealing with the disorder which they have set on foot. Mr. Chamberlain, in that letter of his, says the THE LIBERAL PARTY AND COERCION. 39 policy of coercion is the policy of the Tories. But what are the facts ? During the last fifty years fiity Coercion Acts have been passed with regard to Ireland. During those fifty years the Liberals were in power thirty-four years, and the Conservatives sixteen years ; and whereas during the sixteen years of Conservative Government we only passed eleven Coercion Acts, the other thirty-nine were passed in the thirty- four years of Liberal Government. And of those Acts which were passed by the Conservatives more than one-half were Continuation Acts of the Coercion Acts passed by the Liberals, which were, as in the year 1875, mitigated by the Continuation Act passed by the Conservative Government. I have dealt thus fully with the question with regard to Ireland, because I am certain you would all feel that that was the immediate question which would have to be dealt with in Parliament. It is desirable that a member who has taken some part in the discussion of Irish affairs in the House of Commons, and who certainly hopes to take some part in their future discussion in the coming session, should come before his constituents and tell them frankly what he thinks. I believe the state of Ireland to be full of danger. I am sure it has been made worse by the adoption of that kind of legislation which is contained in the Irish Land Act, and which must necessarily lead to confusion. I am sure it will be made worse if we are to continue to depend as an habitual weapon upon that power of arbitrary imprisonment which should be reserved for extreme exigencies. I hope we may see a better state of things in Ireland. We dare not despair, for we cannot let Ireland go ; we cannot lose the responsibility of governing Ireland, and so we must try, again and again, to bring to it peace and contentment. I believe our true course with Ireland will be to adhere as far as possible to those principles of freedom of contract which there and here I believe to be the safeguard of the industrial community. I believe the next thing we have to do is this, to take care that the Government is obeyed. It must be at any cost, for the most expensive thing in this world is a Government that is only partially successful. You must take care that Government is obeyed, and that the measures adopted for the security of life and property, and the preservation of peace and order in that country, are measures as nearly akin as circumstances will permit them to be to those measures under which we have the happiness to live, and under which we enjoy our present liberties. ^'*j?P REFERENCE AND JULf926 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY j, 1883. Annual Address to the Electors of Plymouth at the Guildhall. JANUARY 3, 1883. MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, The chairman has said that this is a meeting of the whole constituency. I heartily wish that it were, and that I could make my voice heard in this address to-night by all those whose interests I have the honour and the privilege to represent in the House of Commons. But we have, at all events, got the largest place in the borough. I think we have it pretty well filled, and to this substantial repre- sentation of the constituency of Plymouth I am anxious to address some observations upon the present condition of public affairs. At the beginning of last year I addressed four meetings of my constituents in different parts of the town, for I desired that after a large accession to the number of the constituency I should as far as possible make myself personally known to those who h >d not shared in returning me to Parliament, but whose confidence I hoped to earn and whose support I hoped to enjoy at the next election. It is not necessary, for two or thiee reasons, that I should at the beginning of 1883 address four meetings of my constituents. For one reason it is not necessary, because I ;im glad to say that I have found the opportunity from time to time of taking part in important debates in the House of Commons itself, and I hope that every- thing I say in the House of Commons is considered by those constituents whose interests I am there to represent. I am glad to know that everything I say in the House of Commons is faithfully reported to my constituents by one of the newspapers of this town. And I must make acknowledgment, at the same time, of the energy and the courtesy of the conductors of the Western Morning News in reporting fully for this constituency speeches that I have made in other parts of the country'. I have he ird it said that I make a great many speeches in other parts of the country. I do. I do not make one-tenth as many as I am asked, and those who support me here in Ply- mouth, and support me because they are in earnest in their political views and believe that I am in earnest, will not, I think, grudge my speaking to large assemblies of my fellow- countrymen in different parts of the country when they them- selves at the same time, through the energy and the courtesy to which I have referred, have the opportunity of reading those speeches in the paper here. One other reason exists why I A BARREN SESSION. 41 need not address four meetings at this time. A great part of the addresses which I delivered at the beginning 01 last January were occupied in the discussion of legislation which I sincerely hoped would have been effected in the course of the then coming session. Unfortunately, what was in the future then, is in the future now. We are still looking forward to the measures with regard 10 bankruptcy, with regard to corrupt practices, with regard to the amendment of the administration of the law, and, in fact, to all the measures which were then considered to be necessary for the welfare of the people of this part of the kingdom. It has been a bare and meagre tale of achievement during the past session. There was but one measure of considerable importance passed with reference to the interests of England, and that was a measure of very great advantage, dealing with the difficult subject of settled lands, lands which were held in settlement, and the country is indebted for it, not to Her Majesty's Government, but to the ex- Lord Chancellor, Lord Cairns. I think almost the only measure that the Government themselves can claim to have originated and pas:ed is the measure for allowing the Post- office to issue reply post-cards. So far as the Government are concerned the history of the last year has been tha history, in the first place, of an unnecessary war in Egypt ; in the next place, of a discreditable compact with rebels at home ; in the third place, the passing of the measure that allowed the reply post-cards ; and in the fourth place, the raising of the taxation of this country to very nearly 90,000,000 of money. I am going to speak to-night with regard to the unnecessary war, and with regard to the discredit- able compact. You do not want much said on the question of reply post-cards. I find that will be supplemented shortly by the carrying into full effect of a provision for sending parcels by post, the principal effect of which, so far as I can make out, will be to enable people who live in the .provinces to deal with co-operative stores in London instead of dealing with tradesmen in the towns they live in. As to the taxation question, we shall have something more to say about that when poor Mr. Childers, who has deserved better things of his asso- ciates, is put forward in April to tell the melancholy tale that the national expenditure has increased to six and a half millions more than the expenditure of the Conservative Government in its last year. Now, I will ask you to consider for a short time the charge I make against the present Government of having waged an un- necessary war. The story of the war in Egypt is remarkable and interesting. It has never, to my very great regret, been fully discussed in the House of Commons, and I say here I can- 42 PLYMOUTH, jAtiUARV 3, 1883. not understand for what reason th-- leaders of a political party, who out of the House of Commons have declared that that war was unjust and unneccessary, did not bring these allegations to the test of a debate in the House of Commons. But it has not been discussed in the House of Commons yet, and it is a very curious and most remarkable episode in the history of this country. The whole story of the inception of the war and its conclusion has been confined in the compass of a year. I am afraid the history of its results may be a difficult history to deal with for some years to come. But on the last day of the year 1 88 1 the Ministry in Egypt presented a project which was to be brought before the Chamber of Notables in Egypt for an organic law, which should control and regulate the proceedings of the Chamber of Notables. Unfortunately before the text of that law had reached England, Earl Granville was influenced by that re- markable but somewhat dangerous man who has just passed away, a man of great personal capacity and power, a man of great and unquestioned service to his country in the hour of her danger and distress, but still a statesman who was a dangerous and disturbing power in European politics Monsieur Gambetta. Unfortunately Lord Granville was persuaded by that Minister to send what is known as the Dual Note to the Khedive of Egypt. That note was sent by France and England, and it assured the Khedive of support if the Chamber should make any attack upon his authority. I do not understand what business a Minister of this country had to make any such declaration to the Khedive at all. There would have been time to wait and see what the Parliament of that country proposed to do before any such de- claration had been made, but in spite of the urgent request of the Turkish Ambassador in this country, who called three suc- cessive days on Lord Granville, the joint note of England and France was forwarded to Egypt. The object of the organic law was not a new object. It had been considered for two years ; two years earlier than the law for the regulation of the Chamber of Notables in Egypt, and a declaration of its powers had been framed by that remarkable man who has since been the leader of what is called the Egyptian Revolt. At the beginning of the year the project was presented to the Chamber of Notables for the acceptance of this organic law. What do you think they claimed ? Egypt is a small country, so far as its population is concerned, and it is a poor country, but it is terribly burdened with taxation. From five and a half millions of people nearly nine millions of money is raised in taxes, and this is a heavy burden to be borne by people so poor, so scanty in resources as these. But there is a more serious business. One-half of the taxation put upon the Egyptian people goes to different countries of Europe to pay interest on money lent to former Khedives who EGYPT AND THE BONDHOLDERS. 43 were the rulers of Egypt. No less than four and a half millions of money are taken from the Egyptian people to pay interest on the debt, and this is secured by provisions with regard to the revenues in Egypt, which put these revenues in the hands of the bondholders to ensure payment of the receipts from these revenues for interest on the debt. Payment of that interest is secured. The Chamber of Notables wanted to be allowed freely to deal with the other half of the revenue of that country, and the one reason why England went to war with Egypt was to pre- vent the Egyptian people in the only Parliamentary representa- tion which they possess dealing with the half of the revenue which had nothing to do with the payment of the debt. It stands perfectly clear and plain upon the official papers of the time. Let me read to you a few words from the declaration of the Egyptian Minister made on the 8th of February, 1882. He said : " The Controllers-General retain the most extensive powers of investigation and the right of communicating, either to his Highness or his Ministers, the observations arising from their investigations, but the Government never undertook to exclude the country from that discussion. Can it fairly be blamed for admitting the taxpayers to examine the use of the public funds devoted to administrative expenses ? Is it not a right common to all countries, a primordial right which cannot seriously be denied to the Government of his Highness the Khedive, without at the same time denying to it the essential prerogative con- ferred by the firmans of internal administration for Egypt ? However, in view of the misgivings which have been manifested, it has been conceded that the Budget before becoming executory, shall be discussed by the Ministerial Council, with the assistance of a delegation from the Chamber of Notables. The Chamber of Delegates has been assembled six weeks ; it is eager to enter on a normal procedure, and impatiently awaits the promulgation of its Organic Statute, which the Ministry can- not further d; lay. None of the provisions of that Statute infringe the International Conventions in force. The Govern- ment of his Highness hopes that that very promulgation will tend to remove all misgivings, and will, by the absolute reserva- tion of all questions relative to the Public Debt, furnish the Governments of France and Great Britain with a fresh proof of its firm determination loyally to observe all its engagements. It relies on the equity and constant goodwill of the two Govern- ments ensuring a favourable reception for the preceding explan- ations. MOUSTAPHA FEHMY." That was the declaration of the Egyptian Ministry on the 8th of February in the new Government that had come into existence 44 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY j, / mistake was made I quite agree, and the fatal consequences of that mistake followed in quick succession. It was difficult afterwards to withdraw, and so we acknowledged ourselves committed to that war which, as I believe, was a war against all that there was of freedom or the promise of freedom in Egyptian institutions. In the end we came out of that war with great credit. Our soldiers and sailors, and our marines especially, did nobly in that war. Our generals distinguished themselves by their great power of combination, and by the skilful execution of plans well contrived, and our administrators did well in the dispatch of so great a force. It was remarkable to hear Her Majesty's Ministers celebrate that great success in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister told the country, speaking from his place in the House of Commons, how in the course of a month we had sent out some 200 ships ; how we had sent out 30,000 troops ; how we had effected a vast success ; and he spoke of the great resources of the country which alone would enable it to achieve such a success ; and it occurred to me, when listening to that great speech, that the truest conden- sation of it would be " We've got the ships, we've got the men, We've got the money too." But, gentlenvn, after all, it is not a mntter, this Egyptian war, of which, as a nation, we may be very proud. We sent out a body of men twice in number the whole standing army of Egypt. At the time when the war broke out there were only 14,000 men under the colours of Egypt, and we sent out 30,000 48 PL YMO UTH, JANUAR Y j, men to fight them ; and although the country was all on Arabi's side you know it is a very different matter meeting recruits a fortnight or three weeks under colours to meeting a formed and disciplined European army. But let us see what the future is with regard to Egypt ? We are in Ejjypt, and we shall have to stay there whatever diffi- culty there may be in reconciling ourselves to that state of things. It is idle to talk of retiring from Egypt and leaving the Khedive to establish a Government. If British troops were withdrawn from the country Tewfik would not be in the country a week, and you might as well take away your hand from the egg you have balanced on its end on the table and expect it to stand, as expect the Khedive to stand without British support. It is perfectly clear we shall have to deal with Egyptian affairs for some time to come,- but I hope we shall deal with them by diminishing the grievances of that country. Jus: imagine the state of things. What would be our feelings if we had to pay forty-five millions every year in interest to foreign bondholders upon loans which practically had never come to benefit the people of this country ? Suppose we had 12,000 foreigners here filling all the well paid public offices, and taking four millions from the taxation of the country ; suppose we had a French- man and a German entitled to sit in tlie Cabinet with our Ministers and deal with all questions the Cabinet had to deal with, or interfere at every turn with regird to financial affairs do you think we should be content to bear it? Well, that was the case with Egypt. Of the nine millions they paid in tax.i- tion, four and a half went to pay interest on debt, and at the time the war broke out there were more than 1,200 European officials taking ,400,000 a year in salaries. Now, I turn from that question to the other question of which I spoke. I said we had made an unnecessary war, and I said that a discreditable contract had been made with rebels. And I pass on to S' eak of that which, although all the resources of equivocation have been used with regard to it, is known and will be known as the treaty of Kilmainham. In October, 1881, Mr. Parnell was arrested and sent to Kilmainham Gaol under the Coercion Act then in force. He was rightly arrested, because a fortnight before he had made a speech in Ireland in which he incited his countrymen to drive back the accursed alien rule over the Channel whence it came, never to return. That speech, however it may be explained or justified, was the speech of a rebel, and no Government which had the right to call itself a Government at all, could afford to allow that speech to be made with impunity and repeated with impunity. Mr. Parnell was sent to Kilmainham, and it was loudly proclaimed in the Guildhall that by his arrest the first step had been taken ARtiEAXS 3 ILL 1882. & towards the re-establishment of law and order in Ireland. Some people wondered that first step had n-t been taken before. We had seen that from May, 1880, until October, 1881, this strong Ministry had been unable to take e' en the feeblest and most faltering step towards the re-establishment of good government in Ireland. So it was proclaimed that the first step was taken, and then for some months Mr. Parnell was in Kilmainham Gaol. But the time came when Parliament was meeting, and Mr. Redmond in the House of Commons pro- posed a bill by which he asked that the British taxpayers should p.iy the rent for the tenants who had been either per- suaded by the Land League not to pay their rent, or had been terrorised over. Now, I shall not make too great an accusa- tion against the tenant farmers of Ireland when I say that if you take the condition of Ireland in 1880 you will see it required as much resolution to pay your just delrs as if the doing so was an act of perfectly exceptional virtue. One can easily forgive a tenant farmer who was to a certain extent pinched by the dis- tress of a few bad seasons, who would have found a difficulty in paying his rent, and to whom the evil agitator came and said, "If you pay your rent you are an enemy to your country." When you persuade a man that a breach of his obligations to his creditors is in itself a patriotic act, and when he remembers, also, that the fulfilment of his duty may be the murder of himself and his children, the maiming of his cattle, and the firing of his ricks when that state of things exists you cannot be very much surprised that, partly from cupidity, partly from fear, partly from some notion of patriotism, a very great many refused to pay their rent. But afterwards a proposal was made in the House of Commons by Mr. Redmond that a gift of money should be made from the English people to pay their rents for them, and Mr. Redmond in his speech said that that Bill had been formulated. by Mr. Parnell. Now, what took place? On the 8th of April Captain O'Shea, who was member for Clare, wrote to Mr. Gladstone as it appears there are some in this room to whom a quotation from the words of Mr. Gladstone would be welcome, I will read them a quotation at once, and I beg them to mark every word and every syllable of it, for I shall show them before ten minutes have passed that I had not exaggerated in the slightest when I said that with regard to this unwise treaty all the resources of equivocation had been used in the House of Commons. Now for the quotation. This was said on the 4th of May, in the House of Commons, by the leader of the Government : " There is no bargain, no arrange- ment, no negotiation ; for nothing has been asked and nothing taken." And on the. 1 5th of May he added, " I did say, and I re- peat now, that there never was the slightest understanding of any So PLYMOUTH, JANUARY j, 1883. kind between Her Majesty's Government and the hon. member for the city of Cork. The hon. member for the city of Cork has asked nothing and got nothing from us ; on our side we asked nothing and got nothing from him." Now that was the statement, and when I have finished what I am going to tell you, and the extracts I am going to read from statements made in the House of Commons and from letters, I will just read that extract again. On the 8th of April Captain O'Shea -sked by letter if Mr. Gladstone would accept a statement on Irish affairs as they presented themselves to him. Three days after that a very curious incident happened, Mr. Parnell being released from gaol, not for any definite time although it was understood that he might take a fortnight, and he was released in order that he might attend the funeral of a nephew in the city of Paris. Well, he did not attend that funeral for he got there too late, but he stayed his full fortnight out of Kilmainham Gaol, and during the latter part of that fortnight communications took place between Captain O'Shea and the Government. Let me tell you this : Mr. Parnell did go to Paris, and it was because he went to Paris and there had the opportunity of seeing Patrick Egan that he was able to make the offer to Mr. Forster and the Government which he afterwards made. On the I3th of April Captain O'Shea wrote a letter which he sent in duplicate one to Mr. Gladstone and one to Mr. Chamberlain containing Mr. Parnell's proposals. The principal proposal you now know was the bringing into Parliament of an Arrears Bill, which was to get an amount from the English people for the purpose of paying the back rents of the Irish tenantry. The answers to that letter were written on the I5th of April. Mr. Gladstone said, "I have this day received your letter of the I3th, and will communicate with Mr. Forster on the important and varied matter which it contains." But Mr. Chamberlain was not so practised in this kind of diplomacy, and he w rote : " I am really very much obliged to \ou for your letter, and especially for a copy of your important and interesting communication to Mr. Gladstone. I am not in a position, as you will understand, to write you fully on the subject, but I think I may s^y there appears to me nothing in your proposals which does not deserve consideration." So they proceeded to consider it. And as Mr. Gladstone said he would refer the matter to Mr. Forster, the next thing done was to put Captain O'Shea into communication with Mr. Forster. It appeared from what Sir William Harcourt afterwards said that they were n-t satisfied with the state- ment made by Captain O'Shen. They wanted something in Mr. Parnell's handwriting, and I will lead you what Sir William Harcourt said on the matter in the House of Com- THE KILMAINHAM TREATY. 51 mons. He said, "The solution we had to arrive at was Was this a bona fide statement that these gentlemen would be the friends of law and order in Ireland ? We were bound to satisfy ourselves upon that subject as well as we could, and we did satisfy ourselves, and we did desire to know from the member for Clare that it did not pass in mere loose conversa- tion, but th.it the member for Cork should distinctly make that statement. And he did make it in the letter which he handed to the hon. member for Cln re, and which was placed before us." Mr. Forster suggested to Captain O'Shea an easy way in which he could go to Kilm.iinham without attracting attention. The rules of Kilmainham Gaol were suspended, and he was allowed to have an interview of six hours with Mr. Parnell on the agth of April. And on the evening of the 29th of April Captain O'Shea, with a letter from Mr. Parnell, came over to see the Govern- ment. There was a remarkable sentence in that letter which Mr. Parnell sent over. It was thi> : " It would, I feel sure, enable us to co-operate cordially for the future with the Liberal party in forwarding Liberal principles." Now, after that inter- view of six hours at Kilmainham on a Saturday, Captain O'Shea hurried back to London on Sunday morning, the 3Oth of April. He went to see Mr. Forster at his house at 30, Eccleston-square, and there made his proposals, and Mr. Forster, with a prudence which I should think he has greatly rejoiced at ever since, noted down directly after it happened what took place at that interview. Listen to his account: "After telling me that he had been from eleven to five o'clock with Mr. Parnell yesterday, Captain O'Shea gave me his letter to him, saying that he hoped it would be a satisfactory expression of union with the Liberal party. After carefully reading it I said to him, ' Is that all, do you think, that Parn. 11 would be inclined to say?' He said, ' What more do you want ? Doubtless I could supplement it.' I said, ' It comes to this, that upon our doing certain things he would help us to prevent outrages,' or words to that effect. He again said, ' How can I supplement it ?' referring, I imagined, to different measures. I did not feel justified in giving him my own opinion, which might be interpreted to be that of the Cabinet, so I said I had better show the letter to Mr. Gladstone and one or two others. He said, ' If these words won't do I must get others.' " And then, in discussion with Mr. Forster, he said that the organi- zation used to procure " Boycotting" would be used for the pre- vention of outrage, and he suggested that a man named Sheridan, against whom warrants were then out, and who had been an insti- gator of crime, should be allowed to come back and take part in putting down outrages and boycotting. Mr. Forster then felt sorry he had entered upon the negotiation. When the Cabinet met on Monday they had before them the letter of Mr. Parnell, 52 PLYMOUTH, fANUARY 3, /SSj. and they had Mr. Forster's note of what had taken place between him and Captain O'Shea ; but an extraordinary thing had happened in the meantime. Captain O'Shea had not only sent to Mr. Forster, but also to that other Minister with whom such frequent negotiations took place, Mr. Chamberlain, the letter Mr. Parnell had written, and somethmgwas said about that unfor- tunate sentence as to union with the Liberal party. It was part of the bargain, and meant to be part of the bargain, but they didn't like it to appear in the papers. It was suggested at that interview between Captain O'Shea and Mr. Chamberlain that that sentence should be struck out, and Captain O'Shea after- wards said that he struck out that sentence because he thought there might be a difficulty with regard to the release of Mr. Parnell. The sentence was struck out, and the difficulty was thus removed. The interview had taken place on the Sunday ; on Monday the Cabinet met, and they gave orders for the release of Mr. Parnell. Mr. Forster and Earl Cowper resigned the great offices which they held in Ireland rather than be parties to such a transaction ; and Sir William Harcourt said in the House of Commons, "We parted company simply because out of fourteen gentlemen one gentleman thought the assurance was not suffi- cient and the other thirteen thought it was." Now, gentlemen, I have read to you an outline of what took place then. The quotations I have read to you are quotations which are from speeches and letters of the Cabinet Ministers themselves. I have shown to you how a Cabinet Minister opened the door of Kilmainham in order that Captain O'Shea should go to Mr. Parnell and get the written document, without which the Cabinet did not feel safe in acting. He went there, and he got it, he discussed other matters, and he came back with the assurance that the "no-rent" manifesto was withdrawn, and at the same time he mentioned to Mr. Forster, as a stipulation, that Michael Davitt should be released from prison. All this discussion having taken place, the order was given on the 1st of May for the release. Now listen to what was said by the Prime Minister, for I will read the sentences again. "There was no bargain, no arrangement, no negotiations ; for nothing has been asked and nothing taken I did say, and I repeat now, that there never was the slightest understanding of any kind between Her Majesty's Government and the hon. member for the city of Cork. The hon. member for the city of Cork has aski d for nothing an 1 got nothing " remember that he was out of prison at that time " and we on our side asked nothing and got nothing from him : ' though that letter contained the promise of co-operation with the Liberal party. Gentlemen, I was bound to deal at some length with this matter here, for this reason, We made every possible effort in CLOTURE. 53 the House of Commons during the autumn session to bring the matter to the test of debate and discussion. The Prime Minister rashly one night in the House of Commons ventured to throw out the challenge that if Mr. Yorke would move for an inquiry he would consent to the motion. But he acted after- wards very much in the style of Bob Acres. I think you will re- member that that worthy gentleman sends a most valiant challenge, but when he comes to the place to fight he says, " I feel my valour going ; it is going fast. Valour will come and go ; it is oozing out, as it were, at the palms of my hands." And this heroic duellist in the House of Commons is just like the duellist who goes about looking for a second. He says, "My dear fellow, will you second me ? If you have any objection to the shedding of blood, I would not for the world persuade you to bloodguiltiness, but if you have no regard for any life do second me." And so one night, when the adjournment of the debate was moved at ten minutes past twelve in order that this matter should be discussed, good friends of Mr. Gladstone Mr. Labouchere one of them and one or two gentlemen who are very seldom heard of in the House of Commons, such as Mr. Mellor, the member for Grantham ; Mr. Courtauld, the member for Maldon, and one or two other gentlemen whose voices were unfamiliar, rendered valuable service to the Government by talking until half-past twelve had come, and then, according to the rules of the House, the motion could not be brought on. But we did have an opportunity, by forty members rising in their places, of getting some debate upon the matter ; and I said in the House of Commons at the close of that debate that I declared it was a discreditable and a disgraceful transaction, that I meant to say so elsewhere I was think- ing of my constituents at the time and that because I was going to say it elsewhere I got up and said it then, in the face of the Ministers whose conduct I was condemning in their presence. Well now, gentlemen, my friend Mr. Hawker said at the beginning of the meeting that no doubt I should deal at length with the question of cloture. But I do not propose to do so for this reason. At the beginning of last year 1 discussed that question in my speeches. I said then what I had to say, and I hope that some of those who are here may have read the very excellent report that appeared in a Plymouth pap: r of the speech I made on that subject in the House of Commons itself. It is not now necessary to say much about it, for this reason. Really we had a perfectly unnecessary autumn session. The whole fight was with regard to the first resolution of the cloture. It was forced upon a reluctant House of Commons by the use of every instrument, of authority which belongs to the Ministry of 54 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 3, iSSj. the day, and in favour of it the Ministry, after all, got but a very scanty and unsatisfactory majority. I hope it may always be left to the credit if they choose to think it a credit of the Liberal party that they put that rule on the order-book of the House of Commons, and I hope it will be some day, and that soon, the credit of the Conservative party to erase it from the book. Gentlemen, with regard to the other resolutions, they were matters almost of detail ; and if the leader of the Government, or the member of the Government who was entrusted with those resolutions, had in the ordinary session of Parliament communicated with the leaders of the Opposition with a view of arranging practical measures, if the communica- tion had been made in a friendly spirit of co-operation in order to facilitate the work of the House of Commons, all those reso- lutions, except the cloture resolution, might have been disposed of in a single week. I hope they will work well. But to one of them I have a very strong objection. I entirely object to the House of Commons relegating its duty to a Grand Committee. I think it would have been much better to have saved its time by the proposal which I myself made in the House of Commons of carrying bills on from one session to another if there had not been time to pass them, and I believe if that had been adopted there would have been no necessity for Grand Committees. Of course, when the House of Commons has devoted a special session to arranging the business of the House it would be no use to make further proposals on that subject, probably for some years to come ; but I have a firm conviction that before many years pass it will be the duty of some one, my own duty, I hope, in the House of Commons to again bring forward and press upon the House the proposal which I made, and which is one that in practice has been found to work well in the majority of the legislative assemblies of Europe. Now, gentlemen, what have I to say with regard to the pros- pects of the coming session ? There is not much to say, because, as I have already remarked to you, that which is in the future now is precisely that which we thought was in the immediate future years ago. Sir Charles Dilke has just told his con- stituents that the Government have not yet made up their minds whether they will have a Redistribution Bill with a Franchise Bill, or separately ; and until they have settled that important question possibly we need not begin to discuss the measure. It may be well, however, to re- member that the nobleman whose accession to the Liberal Government I expressed a strong wish for twelve months ago has now, I am glad to say, joined them. I could have wished nothing worse for the Liberal Government than that Lord Derby should become a member of it. I have not the CORK UPT pit A CTICES. s 3 smallest doubt when they are discussing the question of redis- tribution, and whether they are to have a Franchise Bill and a Redistribution Bill separately, Lord Derby will remind them that he, from the Conservative side of the House, in 1866, seconded the resolution, which nearly drove out the Gladstone Government, and compelled them to put franchise and redis- tribution into the compass of a single measure. If he will remind them of that we shall be very glad that he recollects some of his former Conservatism. There are two other matters with regard to which I am desirous of saying a word. One is the Corrupt Practices Bill, which was brought in last session, and which I believe might easily have been passed that session if the Government had not chosen to waste a considerable number of valuable nights over that ridiculous attack upon the House of Lords for an investigation into the Irish Land Act. However, the Corrupt Practices Bill will come forward again, and the consequence will be for I understand they are going to relegate it to one of those Grand Committees that the measure will be chiefly discussed by business men who have no business, and lawyers who have no practice. And it may possibly be necessary for the House of Commons, when it is fully formed in the evening, and when the people who are com- petent to do the work are there to assist, to look pretty sharply on that which has been done in the Grand Committee. With regard to the Corrupt Practices Bill I took a great interest in that measure, and I put down a series of amendments, consisting of some ten or twelve clauses, which I shall certainly move when the House of Commons has the measure before it again, with the view of securing a cheaper and more thorough investigation with reference to corrupt practices. I told you a year ago that I believed the real reason why you were not able in a great many places to deal with corrupt practices was this, that directly the judges are appointed to come down to a town the thing is turned into a lawsuit between the two political parties, and each has the object of preventing a knowledge of as much as they can possibly conceal. And the consequence is, that if it is clear that ;in election is to be voided as the result of some corrupt practice, the inquiry is at an end, and the real state of things does not in all cases come out. I told you a year ago that I thought the real remedy for that was that which was proposed by Mr. Disraeli many years since. He proposed, in brief, that, after an election, Commissioners should be sent down, with power to call before them such witnesses as they thought could give them information, and the power to insist upon the production of documents which they thought might reveal the truth. Now, I have translated that suggestion into a full plan of some eight or ten clauses, which I certainly propose to ask 56 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 3, 1883. the House of Commons to consider even if they do not adopt when the Corrupt Practices Bill is again before them. There are just two other amendments with regard t > that bill which I intend to propose. One of them is not, perhaps, a very obvious one, but it is one which I think will be of great value. It is, that from the day the Corrupt Practices Bill passes no investigation upon any election petition shall go back to anything before the date of the passing of that bill. We know there are certain boroughs in this country where corrupt practices do exist, and where people dare not petition against the return because they know if an investigation takes place into the electoral history of the borough it will be disfranchised in consequence of the corruption which has taken place in past times. We know of boroughs in this country where there are, on both sides of political parties, earnest and resolute men, determined, as far as may be, to make elections pure, but who yet are fettered by this difficulty with regard to the past history of their borough. Well, then, let us draw a line, and let us start a fresh system, and then I believe we shall find that, this difficulty being got out of the way, some of those boroughs whose electoral history has not been pure, will be for the future places where Parliamentary elections are properly and purely conducted. There is one other amendment which I am going to try to introduce into the bill. There ought to be some equitable power in the judges : if they find that the act which is charged as being a violation of the Act of Parliament is a single act, entirely contrary to the will of the candidate, and entirely contrary also to the instructions which he has given, they ought not to allow that one single instance, where it does not affect the result of the election, to deprive a man of his seat. I think if the judges should say, "We find that there was a single act of bribery, but the member did all he could to prevent bribery, and that its commission was distinctly contrary to his instructions and to his efforts, and it was a single act which did not affect the result of the election," then, I say, if the judges so determine they ought to be permitted to say that the member shall keep his seat in the House of Commons. Well, now, gentlemen, so far with regard to the Corrupt Practices Bill. My friend, the chairman, has referred to the matter of the Lankruptcy Bill, which was the subject ot" a curious incident in the House of Commons last year. I think you will remember in the autumn of 1881 a very successful meeting of the Asso- ciated Chambers of Commerce was held in this town. They were well received, and it was in all respects, I think, a satis- factory and successful meeting. At that meeting it was decided to introduce a Bankruptcy Bill in the House of Commons, and that bill I had the opportunity of going over clause by clause. A BANKRUPTCY BILL. 57 I went over a draft of it with Mr. Barran, of Leeds, and upon that bill were four names. Mine was the only Conservative name ; the other three were Mr. Norwood, of Hull ; Mr. Barran, of Leeds ; and Mr. Monk, of Gloucester. It was a bill which I believe would have done an enormous deal of good to the commercial community. It represented the considered experi- ence and opinion of the Associated Chambers of Commerce ; certainly my three colleagues in that bill are men of large commercial experience, and I know something about law. We did our best to make it a useful bill. It would have prevented that "liquidation by arrangement" which is, to a great extent the serious defect of the bankruptcy law at the present time. Whatever the merits of the bill were, its history was a curious one. No member put down his name to oppose the second reading, so one night, rather late, the bill came on. But Mr. Chamberlain moved that the debate be adjourned. We divided on the motion, and we beat the Government. Although all the members of the Government voted for Mr. Chamberlain's resolution, fourteen Liberal members were with us, and we had a majority against the Government. Now, gentlemen, what happened ? One would have thought that the President of the Board of Trade would have said, "Here is a bill pro- moted by the Associated Chambers of Commerce throughout the country, after the consideration of their members, and which has been approved by the House of Commons ; let us take it up and see if we can make a satisfactory bill of it." Instead of that, however, he put a block against the bill in his own name, and told Mr. Barran he would take the block off only if he (Mr. Barran) promised not to bring the bill on until his (Mr. Cham- berlain's) bill was before the House of Commons. Mr. Barran gave the promise, and the block was removed, but Mr. Cham- berlain's bill was never before the House, and in consequence of his conduct the bankruptcy law remains unchanged. This is one of the matters we are going to deal with next session, and I do most sincerely hope in that session, to be commenced on the 1 5th of February, we shall have an opportunity of doing some work which ought to be done by the goodwill and good work of the best men of both sides, whichever party is in power to have the credit of the legislative result. I think I have touched upon the principal measures with which we have to deal. I am speaking here to the whole constituency, and not, of course, to an assembly of my political friends ; but, at the same time, as a great many of my political friends are here, I should like to say I hope there is every prospect of the Conser- vative party in the Hou ; e of Commons taking a firm and commanding attitude during the coming session. You have heard a good deal lately, and the world has heard a good deal 58 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY j, 1883. of criticism from one side or the other, with regard to the leadership of the Conservative party. I have said my say with regard to that at Durham ; I have said deliberately what I think, and I have not one syllable to alter or retract. A "dual control " will not do for any political party. It must have one head, and that head and leader should be in the House of Commons, because it is in the House of Commons that sudden resolutions have to be taken which may affect the fortunes of a political party for years to come. I think some of the criticism which is now being exchanged, with what I look upon as a little want of dignity, by members of the Conservative party, in the pages of monthly magazines, might be spared, for this reason that it has now become clear that some of that hesitation and ap- parent weakness which has discouraged the Conservative party throughout the country, and has, to a certain extent, also dis- tressed the Conservative party in the House of Commons, was owing to illness. That most kindly and accomplished Devon- shire gentleman who has hitherto led the Conservative party in the House of Commons, has had his health broken down under the tremendous strain of Parliamentary responsibility and work which have been thrown upon him as the head of a political party. We are not, however, in either party, certainly not on the Conservative side, obliged to talk and discuss as to the present leadership or rival claims for the leadership at every turn. Principles must be held firmly before the country, and when the time comes there is always a man to take the lead. No political party has ever wanted in the hour of its difficulty or of its responsibility a man to meet the one or to bear, and worthily to bear, the other. But to principles we are bound to stand firmly, and especially so when we bear witness to prin- ciples which, I am sorry to say, we cannot enforce upon the Government. I was looking back the other day with some interest upon a volume in which the kindness of some dear to me had preserved reports of the first speeches I made here when I came among you in June, 1880. You have known me for two years and a half, and I hope those two years and a half have not been discouraging to those who have the interest of the Conservative party at heart in this borough, or to those, and there are many of them in Plymouth, who feel kindly interested in my personal fortunes and prospects. Gentlemen, I find that in that first speech I proclaimed the three great principles of my political faith freedom and justice at home, honour abroad. By those principles we are bound to stand, unmoved by the provocation of passion or the tempting convenience of the hour. Freedom is the absolute right of every man to regulate his life and conduct as he chooses, and enter into any contracts he may NATIONAL think fit, so long as he does not interfere with public order or imperil public health. Justice we are bound to enforce. It is the duty of the State by speedy, impartial, and competent tribunals to administer justice among all people, binding them to the observance not only of their public duties, but of the contracts which in the ordinary course of their lives they have entered into. And while the State enforces justice the State itself must be just. We have no right to take from the pockets of one class to satisfy the discontent of another, however loud and threatening that discontent may be. Nor is it just to take from the taxation which you and I bear in order to subsidize the Irish Land League by paying Irish rents. And, gentlemen, we are bound to uphold our honour abroad. Honour do.s not rest merely upon the prestige of military success. It rests on something better than that. It rests upon the clear, and intel- ligible, and honest purposes of the statesmen who represent this Empire. If the clear purpose is backed by a resolute will, small as these islands are, great as are the exertions we have to make to put large armies in the field, you need not think any nation in the world will hold us cheap or lightly venture to challenge the interests of the Empire. But, with the clear pur- pose and the resolute will at the back of it, there must be the discharge of those obligations that are imposed upon us, and a firm fulfilment of the duties we have accepted, wherever those duties have been undertaken and wherever they are to be per- formed. Things look black in South Africa at the present moment. We have abandoned 700,000 negroes in the Transvaal to whom we had pledged the faith of this country that they should be protected from the Boers, by whom they are now deprived of what they hold dear deprived by the Boers whom we fought, and from whom, unfortunately, we were content to accept defeat. The Afghan tribes whom we assured of our protection, and then deserted, now form a hostile zone, which may constitute what we may hereafter find to be a serious danger. Gentlemen, it is not by scuttling out of one country and running away from another, or by setting up the pretence of a phantom authority in this place or that, that our authority will be upheld. We want no wars of conquest or annexation. Thank God, we can do without them. We alone among the nations of the modern world have capacity for the peaceful conquests of colonization. And in such measure as we at home stand fast by the traditions of liberty and justice may we expect those principles to flourish and abide in communities which the overflowing life and energy of our people have estab- lished on every distant shore. There is no need for wars of conquest and annexation. But when England has spoken she 60 PL y MOUTH, JAGUAR y 4 , 1884. should stand to her word ; and thus clear in her purpose, firm in her resolve, true to the fulfilment of her duties, she will find that honour will give her repute and credit throughout the world, and bring peace and safety to the vast Empire to which we belong. Annual Address to the Electors of Plymouth in the Guildhall. JANUARY 4, 1884. MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GKNTLKMEN, I suppose it is part of one's training that one should feel inclined always to quarrel with the last speaker. And there is one point upon which I should almost feel inclined to quarrel with my most admirable and excellent friend who occupies the chair to-night. He has appealed on my behalf to you to give me a fair and a patient hearing. Gentlemen, three years ago or more that appeal might have had to be made. I have been member for Plymouth now for three years and a half, or nearly so, and I have learned to value in Plymouth not only the steady support of my political friends, but the general courtesy and fairness of those who belong to the Liberal party in this borough. And if ever such an appeal were necessary as that which the chairman has made to you, I believe that it is not necessary now, when a member comes to address you upon public topics, and a member with regard to whom, I think, however widely you may differ, some of you, from some parts of his political creed, you will do him the justice to believe that he has done the best he could during the last three years to serve your interests and the interests of the country. My friend, the chairman, has referred to the fact that I have made many speeches in and near the borough which I represent. Ladies and gentlemen, I am not only a speaker myself, I am the cause of much speaking in others. And it appears that whenever I have made an appearance, whenever I have given an address to an audience in Plymouth, or, for the matter of that, anywhere in the western counties, the Liberal Club in this borough finds it necessary at once to give a congratulatory dinner to somebody. A year ago a congratulatory dinner was given to the member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Coilings), and much more recently a congratulatory dinner was given to Mr. Medley. And Mr. Medley was candid enough in his speech to let the LIBERAL FINANCE. 61 cat out of the bag. He explained that he had had a letter from the secretary of the Liberal Club, who told him that I had been making a good many speeches in this part of the country, and that it was necessary somebody should deliver a counterblast, and the usual congratulatory dinner was arranged in order that Mr. Medley might demolish me. Now, gentlemen, after that exordium, Mr. Medley went on with a speech which dealt a great deal more with Lord Henry Lennox and Lord George Hamilton than it did with myself, and the only observation I can find in it that directly refers to me was, that Mr. Gibson and I were travelling as the bagmen of finance. Well, I confess to some difficulty in understanding the meaning of that sentence. I am not very well acquainted with bagmen, and I do not quite understand what "bagmen of finance" means. I am quite sure that Mr. Medley never travelled in that article, or he would probably have more acquaintance with it. But, inasmuch as that was the sole reference that was made to my speeches in this answer of Mr. Medley, I have just one word or two to say with regard to the subject of finance. Whatever Plymouth electors may think of the inferences which I draw from figures, they may always be certain that my figures are correct. Sir, I do not quote these figures from the pamphlets of political associations. I take my figures only from the authentic Govern- ment returns with regard to public income and public expen- diture, and it would be well if my critics were to follow the same course. They would find themselves safer on the subject of finance if they purchased the Blue-books which are issued by Government offices, and did not go to Liverpool for partizan pamphlets. It will be remembered that on a previous occasion in Ply- mouth I made some statements with regard to the comparative expenditure of the Liberal and Conservative Governments. Now, gentlemen, in the month of June, 1883, a return was pub- lished by the Board of Trade, showing the national income and the national expenditure during the last fifteen years. These are figures with whose authority no one can quarrel. They were not even issued by a wicked Tory Government. They are issued by the Liberal Government with which the country at present is blessed. And, gentlemen, there is a table of figures, the results of which I have already made known to a Plymouth audience, and the results of which I do not intend Plymouth to forget. There is one curious alteration which has lately taken place in keeping the national accounts, which should be borne in mind by those who are comparing the expenditure of one Government with the expenditure of those that have gone before. Until last year's accounts the system adopted was, that not only the money voted by Parliament should be debited to 6i PL YMO V'TH, JANUAR Y 4, 1884. the Government, so that they should have to account for its expenditure ; but that receipts from the army and navy, called " extra receipts," should be brought into income and counted in expenditure. That is the proper cours?, because if a Govern- ment receives stores or value at the beginning of the year, and expends them in the course of that year, the country is just as much poorer at the end of the year as if it had had to buy those stores in the course of the twelve months. But in the year 1881 this Government made an order that for the future those extra receipts should not come into the account on either side should neither be counted as income nor be reckoned as expenditure. Whether the order was right or wrong you will all see this that if you are comparing the expenditure of 1882- 83 with the expenditure of any year that went before you must, to make the comparison fair, include all the amounts which would have been included in the manner to which I havj alluded. By that means you equalize the sum. Now, gentlemen, in the last complete year of our national financial life the amount of these extra receipts was ,800,000, and if you add that to the accounts which are given by the Board of Trade and again I may explain that I am using official figures of the finance of the last year, this is the result: In the six years of the Conservative Government the expenditure of the country amounted to ^480,000,000 neatly .481,000,000; that is to say, an average of ^80,165,000 per annum. We have had three years of Liber.il Government, and in the course of those three years the national exp- nditure has been 258 millions and a quirter, or an annual expenditure of .86,093,000. From figures which no fair man can challenge or dispute I have proved to you that the average expenditure of the Conservative years of Government was ,80,165,000 and the average expendi- ture of the Liberal three years has been ,86,093,000. But I have not quite done with my assailants. It was said after the last speech I made on finance that in the six years of the Conservative Government they only paid off ,1,974,000 of the National Debt. Gentlemen, I did not blame the people who have said this, for they did not know they were wrong ; but I do blame those who, after I have in the columns of the papers and from the public platform demonstrated from official figures that that statement is not true I do complain of their repeating it then as if it were to be accepted as a fact. I can tell you why I did not blame them. It is because it appears the obscure and anonymous people who are dealing with these matters at Ply- mouth have one respectable authority, at least, for their asser- tion. On October 30 last year two speeches were reported in the Times newspaper, both of which were delivered on the pre- vious evening. They both dealt with the question of finance. , A LORD OF THE TREASURY. 63 One was delivered by Lord Richard Grosvenor at Carnarvon. Lord Richard Grosvenor is called a Lord of the Treasury. He has not much to do with the Treasury ; he has more to do with the door of the lobby of the House of Commons. But he made a speech at Carnarvon, and he said that " during the six years the late Government were in power they paid off ,1,974,000 of debt." Sir, I am afraid even Lords of the Treasury condescend to waste their time in reading Financial Reform Almanacks, or else they would never go so hopelessly wrong. On the same page in the same newspaper was to be found a speech made by the Attorney-General, Sir Henry James (applause) a very able man, deserving applause, who had had the advantage of being coached at Hawarden for the delivery of that essay, and I quote from his speech, which has since been quoted as the official statement of statistics. He said, " The Tory Government paid off ; 1 7,300,000 in six years or about .3,000,000 in each year. Now that is the statement of the representative of the Govern- ment, who had been in communication with Mr. Gladstone before he delivered his speech. And what do you think, now, of the people who here in Plymouth, and elsewhere, are repeating again and again the shameless untruth "(oh! oh!)" the shameless untruth which is directly contradicted by the Attorney-General of the present Government, speaking as the official expounder of their financial policy. Let me say but one word more before I pass from this subject of finance. If in the future you have figures flung before you which profess to tell a different story ask the people where they got them ? If they got them from the Financial Reform Almanack or a Cobden Club pamphlet, you may dismiss them at once. They are unworthy of notice. Now last year when I spoke in this place, I adverted to some measures coming before the House of Commons, and I then ex- pressed my sincere regret that the measures we were then con- templating the Bankruptcy Act, the Corrupt Practices Act, and the Patents Act had not been passed in'the previous sessions. I am glad to think that these three matters have now been dealt with in the House of Commons. They were dealt with with the concurrence of both parties, and both parties assisted in passinj them. The official representatives of the Government, the President of the Board of Trade and Attorney-General, acknow- ledged the assistance they received from the Conservative side in these matters. I do not now intend to say much with regard to the Bankruptcy Act, I am afraid there is one matter with regard to that Act upon which discussions may take place in the House of Commons, and for special and obvious reasons I do not refer to it to-night. But with regard to the Corrupt Practices Bill I should like to say I took a very earnest and active part in the 64 PL YAfOUTH, JANUAR Y 4, 1884. discussion of that measure. I was very anxious that two things should be done. First, that you should secure purity of election ; secondly, that you should try to avoid the hardships which had borne upon innocent candidates in times gone by. And when I was here on the 3rd of January last year speaking in this Guildhall I used some sentences with regard to that Bill, to which I will ask you now to listen. I said : " There are two other amendments with regard to that Bill which I intend to propose. One of them is not, perhaps, a very obvious one, but it is one which I think will be of great value. It is that from the day the Corrupt Practices Bill passes no investigation upon any election petition shall go back to anything before the date of the p .ssing of that Bill. We know there are certain boroughs in this country where corrupt practices do exist, and where people dare not petition against the return, because they know if an investigation takes place into the electoral history of that borough it will be disfranchised in consequence of the corruption which has taken place in past times. We know of boroughs in this country where there are on both sides of political parties earnest and iresolute men, determined, as :ar as may be, to make elections ptire, but who yet are fettered by this difficulty with regard to the past history of their borough. Well, then, let us draw a line, and let us start a fresh system, and then I belkve we shail find ttiat, this difficulty being got out of the way, some of those boroughs whose electoral history has not been pure, will be for the future places where Parliamentary elections are properly and purely conducted." I further said " There ought to be some equitable power in the judges, if they find that the act which is charged as being a violation of the Act of Parliament is a single act, entirely contrary to the will of the candidate, and entirely contrary, also, to the instructions which he has given, they ought not to allow that one single inst nee, where it does not affect the result of the election, to deprive a man of his seat. I think if the judges should say, ' We find that there was a single act of bribery, but the member did all he could to prevent bribery, and that its commission was distinctly contrary to his in- structions and to his efforts, and it was a single act which did not affect the result of the election' then I say, if the judges so determine, they ought to be permitted to say that the member shall keep his seat in the House of Commons." I am reading from the report of the Western Morning News of the 4th of January last. These are the two amendments which on the 3rd of January last I said I should try and introduce into the Corrupt Practices Bill. They are b >th parts of that Act. I am glad to say that I was joined by others on the opposite side of the House in the effort to j;et those two amendments into the Bill, and especially I was joined by one of the ablest men on the THE SUEZ CANAL CONVENTION. 65 other side, by one who, for the sake of the Liberals and I con- gratulate them I am glad to see is coming down to Plymouth soon ; I mean my friend Mr. Fowler, of Wolverhampton. We did not succeed to the full extent with regard to the equitable power of the judges. We obtained it in cases of treating and everything but bribery, and I believe the result of that will be found most beneficial. Now, so far for the legislation of last session. The two most remarkable incidents of the session were incidents upon which the Conservative party can thoroughly congratulate themselves. The first was the defeat of the Affirmation Bill. The second was the abandonment by the Government of the Suez Canal Convention. Upon the first matter I believe that the majority of the country were steadily on our side. The House of Commons has again and again had that question before it, and the constituencies have had the opportunity of making their opinions felt both by Conservative members and Liberal members. There is not a single Conservative member who finds himself in fear of losing support because he opposed that Bill, and the only explanation of our majority is this, that numbers of the Liberal members thought they would lose their seats if they dared to support it. As to the Suez Canal, the his- tory of that transaction is a most complete proof of the incapacity in matters of business that characterizes the present Government. Why, gentlemen, the Suez Canal Convention was not defeated by the Conservative party in the House of Commons. The country kicked it out. The opposition came from every side, and it did not need a division in the House of Commons. Notice of amendment was given by Sir Stafford Northcote, and in face of that amendment, and on a day that will be memorable to one political party in Plymouth for it was the date of the opening of the Conservative Club on that day I had the pleasure of telegraphing to the members of the new club my congratulations on the fact that the Government had not been beaten, because they had run away. Now, last year I spoke to you on two very important topics. I spoke to you on the topic of Ireland and the topic of Egypt. Both these questions are pressing upon public attention now, but I do not propose to speak at great length upon them. I do not know that there is anything to add to what I said here a year ago. During that time Ireland has been governed in a state of siege. Somebody has said it is easy to govern in a state of siege. I give all credit to those two distinguished Whigs Lord Spencer and Mr. Trevelyan who are now endeavouring to enforce law and order in Ireland. But the terrible problem re- mains. What are you to do with Ireland when Coercion Acts are withdrawn ? You cannot always govern a people by a state C 66 PL YMOUTH, JANUAR Y 4, 1884. of siege. It is only, I believe, by recasting the tone and purpose of our legislation with regard to that country that we shall secure what we all desire to secure in the end the peaceable and happy alliance of the peoples of the two Islands. I shall have a word to say about Ireland presently when I speak on the question of the Reform Bill ; but there is one thing you must remember, because it is month by month becoming one of the most important factors in our political life. You must remember that next year some Government will have to face the question of the renewal or abandonment of the Coercion Act We must hope and pray (A VOICE : "Ah ! " and laughter). If there is one man in this place who thinks the happiness of a nation is not an object and a fitting object for hope and for prayer I pity him. We have not all of us abandoned our belief in the Almighty guidance which works in all the ways of this world, and which, as we believe and trust, will in the end, out of con- tending creeds, and angry sects, and political rivalries, and class and national hatreds, work out for us the happy result of a peaceful and contented nation. I say again, we must hope and pray that during the time that elapses before it has to be done, Ireland may have come into a condition more peaceful, making it possible for us to restore to it those blessings of equal laws with ours that we desire to see accomplished. But it is a grave and serious question, a question not to be scoffed at or jeered at, a question to be carefully thought out by those who are respon- sible for political affairs in this country. Now, with regard to Egypt, there is a word or two I want to say. On the 3rd of January last year when I spoke here we were full of prophecy that we were soon going to leave Egypt. You will remember that it was on the 1 5th of September in the year 1882 that the battle of Tel-el- Kebir was fought. After that time no armed opposition was found by us in Egypt. The only question was the consolidation of the authority which we had established, and the restoring of peace to the districts of which we were then the military masters ; and we were told that six months would be sufficient for the purpose, and that in six months British troops might be withdrawn from Egypt. Gentle- men, I will read you a few words I said last year, and ask you whether you do not think they have been justified by the events. I said, " Let us see what the future is with regard to Egypt. We are in Egypt, and we shall have to stay there what- ever difficulty there maybe in reconciling ourselves to that state of things. It is idle to talk of retiring from Egypt and leaving the Khedive to establish a Government. If British troops were withdrawn from the country Tewfik would not be in the country a week, and you might as well take away your hand from the egg you have balanced on its end on the table and expect it to BRITISH CONTROL IN EGYPT. 67 stand as expect the Khedive to stand without British support. It is perfectly clear we shall have to deal with Egyptian affairs for some time to come, but I hope we shall deal with them by diminishing the grievances of that country." Those are the words I used. And what are the facts to-day ? Those words are justified by the event. We are in Egypt, and even less able to leave it than we were twelve months ago. The Khedive is still as absolutely dependent upon our support, and our papers to-day are discussing whether or not he is going to abdicate in order to let another creature of ours be put upon the throne instead of him. There is one thing I am afraid we have not done. We have stayed there, as I expected and believed we should have to do, but I am afraid we have not done much to diminish the grievances of the people of that country. If it be true, as I saw stated a day or two ago in the papers, that a sum of four millions and a quarter is to be the compensation paid by the Egyptians for the damage done in the riots of Alexandria, what do you think the effect will be in taxation upon the over- burdened people of that country ? We have added a debt of seven or eight millions to the debt which long pressed so heavily upon those people. We have not, I do not complain of it, because I think it was impossible but we have not given them any sort of Representative Government. Have we done away with one of their great grievances the number of foreigners in the country? Gentlemen, the foreigners are there now, not merely in the Administrative departments, but as masters of the country, and practically we are at this moment administering Egypt. We have Sir Evelyn Wood in command of the army. General Baker is in command of the gendarmerie. Sir Auckland Colville, I think, is in control of the finances. Sir Evelyn Baring, with a large salary, is a sort of Consul-General, with great powers of general control. There is not a post of authority in that country which is not either filled by an Englishman or filled by some native who knows perfectly well that it is his duty to obey the instructions an Englishman gives him. And that being so, is it not time to have done with the hypocrisy ? We are there and we must stay there. It would be the greatest cruelty in the world for us to withdraw and leave the native people in that country to be made the prey of those political adventurers who would at once strive to turn the opportunity to their purpose. Whether we like it -or not we must stay there. We have wasted a great deal of money in going ; we have waged a war which was perfectly unnecessary, because we might without any war at all, but practically with the consent of the European Powers, including Turkey, have stepped into the position we now occupy, without inflicting the distress upon Egypt of that war, and without discouraging all there was of 68 PL YMO UTH, JANUAR Y 4, 1884. promising national life in Egypt by the course we took with regard to Arabi and his followers. However, the mischief has been done, the money has been wasted, the lives have been thrown away, and being there, I trust that our Government may to- day have the sensible resolution to adopt candidly and straight- forwardly before the country the position which they must, in fact, occupy, and make us in avowal, as well as in fact, the responsible masters of the Egyptian Government. Now, gentlemen, I generally desire in addressing you from time to time in Plymouth to occupy the time, nfter a few casual observations, upon some specially important topic. You will find as year after year goes by, and you and I become friends of older standing, you will find that many topics, such as that of Ireland for instance, treated and treated fully in one year, becomes a subject which it is not necessary to discuss at large in the following year ; and so I propose to turn at once to a question which is coming upon us now, apparently very promptly, the question of the reform of the Parliament of this country. Gentlemen, reform is a large question and a very complex question. It consists of three parts if it is to be dealt with thoroughly first, the extension of the franchise ; secondly, redistribution of political power ; and thirdly and I put it separately because it is a matter of some complication and has been a great difficulty in Reform Bills the question of the enlargement of the boundaries of boroughs. That is a matter not so often mentioned as the other two, but those who are familiar with the history of the Reform question will know it is a very important matter indeed. Now it is said that this question is to be thrown upon the House of Commons next session. I am very sorry for it. I am sorry not as a party man, because I can tell you this I believe there is no subject which is more likely to lead to the disintegration and defeat of the Liberal party than the question of Reform. It was so before, and it will, I believe, be so again. But I will tell you why I am sorry for it. I believe that the present Parliament, if it have measures brought before it, such as those we have had to deal with in the past session of Parliament, is perfectly capable of dealing with those questions to the satisfaction of the country. Take those three questions which have been settled in the past session Corrupt Practices, Bankruptcy, Patents. Will any Liberal here say that he thinks that those matters would have been better dealt with in another Parliament than they have been in this ? Is it possible that any alteration in the franchise or any redistribution of seats could give you a Parliament more capable of dealing with practical legislation of that kind than the Parliament you have at present ? Well, gentlemen, have PRACTICAL LEGISLATION. 69 we exhausted this matter of practical legislation ? Why, surely not. We have been told by the members of the Ministry again and again that their portfolios are full of the most valuable bills upon all sorts of public subjects which they do not put before the House of Commons, simply because they are sure there is not time to pass them. But, gentlemen, why should there not be time to pass them ? (A VOICE : " Obstruction.") Oh ! it is rather too funny to hear that parrot cry of obstruction raised again. No Minister, no prominent man on the Liberal side of the House of Commons, will venture to get up in that House and charge the Tory party with obstruction. They have been challenged to do it again and again, and they dare not face the challenge, but they slink away to provincial platforms, and there they mouth the charge which they dare not whisper in the House of Commons. And they teach their followers to echo their foolish phrase. We may begin this next session of Parlia- ment, if the Ministry so choose, by having three or four measures of practical importance put before the country. Does the country want county government amendment ? Perhaps it does. If so let us have a measure submitted to Parliament. Does the country want a reform, as it is called, of the municipal government of London ? Then let us have a measure submitted to the House of Commons. Does it want measures for dealing with local option ? If it does, why is not such a measure sub- mitted to the House of Commons ? I will tell you why these measures are not submitted. It is because the Ministers now in power desire to shuffle off to another time and to other authorities all great public questions which they are not prepared to deal with themselves. And so, gentlemen, this is to be the order of things. Advocates of local option are anxious to have their measure introduced into the House of Commons. Well and good. But what say Ministers ? They say, " We cannot bring it in ; we are going to leave this to the County Govern- ment Boards." Well, but you have not got County Govern- ment Boards. Then we must wait until we have created them. Then why don't you create them ? Because we want another Parliament to create them. Well, but if you cannot do it, why don't you stand out of the way and let somebody else do it ? Because we want to have a Reform Bill passed before we begin them. Now, I understand the feelings ot those who put the franchise before everything. I understand it even though I may not agree with it. J3ut the fact is that you are about to ask the House of Commons to engage upon a discussion of the most elaborate and most difficult of political questions, and you insist upon their discussing and settling that before they begin to create County Boards, which, when they are created, are to begin to legislate for local option. 70 PL y MOUTH, IANUAR y 4, Now, gentlemen, I do not think that is business. I think the House of Commons had better address itself to practical tasks. But I go on to say this. If the leaders of my opponents' party insist upon bringing this question of Reform before the House of Commons, I am not in the least unready to meet it, or un- willing to discuss it. I need scarcely remind you that it is a large question. It involves not only the extension of the franchise, but it involves also the alteration of the distribution of political power. If you asked the most vigorous Liberal here in Plymouth I will not mention him, but I know him if you asked him whether he would be content with the passing of a Franchise Bill and then not have a Redistribution Bill for ten years, I think he would go back to his calculations and consider very carefully what the effect of that would be. It is not so simple a question as those think who have put the franchise question to the front. And now let me tell you one or two facts with regard to this question. It is generally supposed that what is desired is to give the franchise to agricultural labourers. By all means. I have not, and I never had, the smallest objection to give the franchise to any class of persons in the community with regard to whom there was reason to believe that they would be able intelligently to use that trust. That is obviously a necessary qualification, because no man would be so idiotic as to give the control, or even a share of the control of the great political system of this country to people whom he believed not to be intelligent enough to exercise so important a trust. Do you happen to know how many agricultural labourers there are in this country ? I take England and Wales. We are told that the effect of the Franchise Bill is to be to enfranchise the agricultural labourers, and it is at the same time proposed to strike off the votes of freeholders unless they reside upon their holdings. But, gentlemen, do you know the proportion between the agricultural labourers of England and the freeholders ? In England and Wales there are only altogether 870,000 agricul- tural labourers. That is by far the largest industry in the country. The cotton industry, which comes next to it, is scarcely half so large, and that great industry of agriculture I quite agree ought to be largely and fully represented. But there are in England and Wales 970,000 freeholders, and when you are going to deal with the question of the franchise, and propose to strike off the freeholders who do not reside upon their holdings, you will find that you are making an attack upon a body of voters in this country so large in number that the boldest Minister this country has seen for the last fifty years may well pause before putting such a proposition before the constituencies. There are four county constituencies in this county the names of THE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND. 71 which I could give you in which the proposition which has been made to strike off the names of freeholders who do not reside upon their holdings would mean the disfranchisement, in those four counties together, of 25,000 voters. Do you think if that ques- tion went to the constituencies at the General Election that those 25,000 voters would vote for their own extinction ? The true think- ing leaders of the Liberal party know better than to believe that this is a simple question, and you may possibly find that there is a good deal more hesitation as to the details of a Franchise Bill than a host of not very well thought-over resolutions of a Leeds Conference would induce you to believe. Now, there are two matters which I desire to mention here to- night with regard to the Reform Bill. In the first place it has been said by two distinguished members of the Government one of them being my friend, Mr. Leonard Courtney, who first made the statement at Liskeard, which was afterwards quoted by another member of the Government that when anybody pro- posed to deal with the question of Reform they should stop for a moment and mention the word Ireland. Now, Mr. Courtney indicated a very serious difficulty indeed in making that obser- vation. If you are going to deal with the franchise in Ireland, as well as in this country, and to extend it in Ireland in the same way that it is extended here, you will multiply the constituencies of Ireland by either four or five times their pre- sent number. The effect of that will be to increase the power of the Irreconcilable party who represent certain Irish con- stituencies in the House of Commons, so as to give them alto- gether some eighty or ninety votes. At this moment the leaders of that party are declaring that in the next Parliament they will hold the balance between the two parties, and will put either Liberals or Tories into power according to the best bargain which they can make. Now, that is enough to indicate a great difficulty. But in spite of the danger and difficulty that I have indi- cated I am in favour of including Ireland in any measure for the extension of the franchise. I am not insensible of the effect of including Ireland in the Franchise Bill, yet there are two things that seem to me to be conclusive on the point. The first is, that upon the present constituencies, so far as I can see, the Irrecon- cileable party will be largely increased in the next House of Commons. Whether you extend the franchise in Ireland or do not extend it, I believe there will be a large increase of the Irish party in that House. And, mind you, it will not gain by repre- senting a large number of voters ; it gains not by the number of voters it represents, but by the number of interminable speakers it can throw into the debates in the House of Commons. But there is another and very much stronger objection that I have to leaving Ireland outside this Reform Bill, and it is this. If you 72 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 4, 1884. leave Ireland outside the Bill, and if, after wasting several sessions in which, observe, the Irishmen not being immediately interested in the Bill, would be absolutely free to sell their Parlia- mentary support to either party during the varying fortunes of the reform conflict if, after those varying fortunes have lasted some sessions, you were to succeed in passing your Reform Bill and getting your new Parliament, the Irish difficulty would then start up ; it would be one of the first questions that would be brought into prominence, the new Parliament would again have to address itself to the Irish franchise, and you would be left in this most serious difficulty, that you would have kept, both during the reform contest and after the reform contest, the Irish vote as a power in the House of Commons, for which the leaders of both parties were tempted to bid. That support has been bid for in the House of Commons ; it has been bought in the House of Commons and it could be bought again. We know the terms of the written agreement upon which the doors of Kil- mainham Gaol were opened the agreement which the Ministry insisted on having put in writing before they would act upon it. The words of that agreement were that the Irish party would find itself able to support the Liberal party in future legislation. Gentlemen, I am anxious to save both parties from such temptations as these. Those who know the pressure that is brought to bear upon candidates at the time of a close election, when a particular section of a constituency can give its votes one way or the way, and perhaps turn the fortunes of the day, may estimate the pressure that is brought upon members of political parties in the House of Commons when you have a separate body of votes, whether it numbers 60 or 90, which may turn the fortunes of a political conflict, and determine the success or failure of a great political undertaking. Do let us, of all things, try and keep our political life clear from influences so mean and degrading as that. I care much less about personal victory or about party success than I do about the success of the Parliament of England in dealing with the great questions with which it has to deal. You may defeat a statesman, but other statesmen will come, for England is rich in capacity for public life. You may destroy a Coalition or a Ministry ; but as time goes on, and the interests of the people dictate, a new Ministry will spring up and will be able to act on the traditions, aye, and be warned by the failures, of its predecessors. But if you lower the tone of your public life, and let the great parties in the State be bidding against each other for the support of a faction, which is hostile, not to either of them, but to the cause which both together represent, then you will have struck a blow at the Parliamentary institutions of this country from which it may not recover for many years. REDISTRIBUTION, 73 Now, gentlemen, I say for that reason, whatever the difficulties may be, I hope Ireland will be included in the Reform Bill. I must mention another reason. It is this. I believe in any proper Reform Bill Ireland will be called upon to surrender some of its members. If Ireland now, upon population only, were to have its allotted share of members, it would have 97 instead of 103, and these six members would be valuable for the great com- munities we have now wanting representation in this country. But that is not all. One of the members of the Ministry came down a minor member indeed, Mr. Evelyn Ashley the other day to Torquay, and he seemed to have a very simple and happy way of solving the redistribution question. He said, take ten members from Ireland, and give them to Scotland, and the thing is done. It is not quite so simple as that after all. If you took the population only, this country would have its representation increased by six. Scotland would remain as it is ; Ireland would be reduced six. But it is scarcely fair to consider the popula- tion only ; you must have also some regard to the revenue which is drawn from the different countries. If you were to put it on revenue only, Ireland, instead of having 103 members, would have only 60. Well, now, I agree that just as on one side it would be unreasonable to consider the population only, so, on the other, it would be unreasonable to consider the revenue only. If you took the mean between the two you would find that Ireland ought to have properly eighty-four members that is to say, nineteen or twenty members would be taken from Ireland in dealing with the redistribution question, and of these nineteen members taken from Ireland eight would be given to Scotland and the remainder would be properly allotted to England and Wales. Well, now, is not that a very strong reason for including Ireland in the Bill ? Observe, if you deal with the English and Scotch franchise, and then with English and Scotch redistribution, leaving Ireland out of the question, you cannot take members from Ireland. You cannot take members from Ireland when you are only dealing with the redistribution of England, Wales, and Scotland. Are you going to keep your redistribution back until after you have passed the Franchise Bill for England, Scotland, and Wales, and until you have also, and as a separate measure, passed a Franchise Bill for Ireland ? If so, your redistribution is postponed, I won't say to the Greek Kalends, but at all events for some years to come. And so I think it is obvious that while, on the one hand, you must in order to have any certainty and safety about the matter include Ireland in the Franchise Bill, it is also obvious if you do include Ireland you must also include that country in the Redistribution Bill, because a great part of any efficient redistribution scheme must have direct reference to the representation of Ireland. 74 PL YMO UTff, JANUARY 4, 1884. There is one other point upon which I feel strongly, and upon which I want to say a word. When you are carrying out your redistribution and giving several members to the large towns in the community, I say you ought to have some representation of minorities. It has always appeared to me that directly you come to a three member constituency the representation of minorities is obviously just. Suppose you have a constituency in which we will say the electors were 45,000 in number. There are, you know, constituencies larger than that : Lambeth at the present time has 65,000 electors certainly. However, supposing you had 45,000 voters and three members, and 25,000 of these voter?, let me say for the sake of hypothesis, were Conservatives and 20,000 were Liberals. (A VOICE : " Impossible," and laughter.) Well, I don't mind ; let us try the other way. Let us assume the improbable and let us take it as 25,000 Liberals and 20,000 Conservatives. Ought these 25,000 Liberals to return all three members. (A VOICE : " Yes.") But why ? Has anybody in- vented a reason which would hold water for a moment ? Is it not a great deal more fair that the 25,000 should send two mem- bers, and the 20,000 should send one? The only answer to that is, that if the Liberals sent two members and the Conserva- tives one, it is said the constituency has practically only one member. (A VOICE: "That's right.") But you must know that is absurd. (" No.") My good friends, if that were true, you in Plymouth at this moment would have no member at all. I do not hear anybody say that Plymouth has not a member. But now the real thing is that that answer is based upon an entire misconception of the duty and the work of a member of Parliament. The duty and the work of a member of Parliament is not to be perpetually fighting as to which Ministry shall be in power. I have said elsewhere, and I say again, if that were the work and duty of a member of Parliament, I would not go to Parliament. I would not condescend to sacrifice time and leisure and the many enjoyments of life in order to go to Parlia- ment simply to fight whether A or B shall be in power or in a particular office. The work of Parliament is much higher, and better, and more worthy work than that ; and the man who goes to Parliament representing a large section of his fellow-citizens or fellow-countrymen, who goes to Parliament to do his work there, finds that nine-tenths of his time is taken up with matters which practically do not concern the transfer of political power from one side to another. It is really practical legislation we want. We do not want too much legislation, because in a great and old country like this we have a great mass of law which has through the centuries been steadily moulding and readjusting itself to the wants of tlie people, and you do not want to be always breaking it up as if your law were simply an old road, PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. 75 which you were always to go at with pick-axe and hammer. But you do want laws modified as the circumstances of the people alter, as the duties of the nation enlarge, and as the capacities of our people increase. And for this purpose and not for mere party purposes you want the best representatives you can get in the House of Commons. Now, I hope and believe there will be some provision for the representation of minorities in the House of Commons. There was a very remarkable and most valuable speech delivered at Devonport not very long ago by Mr. W. E. Forster and I should be glad if all would read and re-read that thoughtful speech, because Mr. Forster pointed out that we had not in this country the securities against sudden and hasty changes in policy which they have in the United States of America. And he went on to say and in this I most cordially and heartily agree with him that the securities against sudden and violent changes cannot properly be looked for in the House of Lords, but should be looked for and established in the House of Com- mons itself. Mr. Forster, for reasons which he specified, and which I do not discuss at this moment, expressed his preference for the establishment of single constituencies throughout the v\hole kingdom. The one objection to that is this, that it would involve the breaking up of, I will not say nine-tenths, but of five-sixths of all the constituencies in the kingdom, which would be a disturbance involving the whole country in consider- able difficulty. You must do not only what you think is theo- retically best, but what is most easily practicable ; and the most easily practicable thing is to add a third member to the great constituencies and give the minority vote. You may depend upon it you will gain one great advantage from that vote. There is a virtue on the part of members of Parliament which I am afraid is somewhat diminished by the very close contests that for the most part take place, and that is the virtue of indepen- dence. Now, unless a constituency sends a man to Parliament ho is to speak and to be independent, I think it had better not send anybody at all. A man who is worthy the suffrage of a great constituency, who is worthy, for instance, for you to say to him, " We will trust you to speak in our name in the House of Commons,'' that man must have strong and definite opinions of his own, and opinions which, being honestly and con- scientiously formed, he would not waive or give up for the sake of the votes of any constituency. But it is often said minorities in this country already have a great power. In one respect it is certainly true, and last session gave, and gave to the sad injury of this constituency, the most remarkable illustration that I think ever has been given of the enormous power that a small and determined minority in the 76 PL YMO UTff, JA NUAK Y 4, 1884. constituencies holds. I dare say you will guess to what I allude. It is a matter which one does not discuss at large in this room, but a motion was carried in the House of Commons, by a sudden and a snatched vote, which had the effect of practically repealing laws which I believe were of great and substantial benefit to this community.* Now, how was it that that strange division came about? I am quite satisfied that if you went to each member of the House of Commons and talked over the subject, and found out the members' opinions, you would find a large majority who agreed fully in opinion with Lord Northbrook, Sir William Harcourt, and Lord Hartington, the persons immediately responsible, that the laws ought to be maintained. How was it that vote took place ? Because there had been for sometime in the constituencies for the most part not subject to these laws, and knowing nothing of their operation there had been a vigorous party of energetic, but to their credit be it said ignorant, women, who have agitated this matter, and brought pressure to bear upon the electors ; and a large number of members had promised either to vote in accordance with their wishes or not vote upon the subject at all and so the disaster occurred. But it is a terrible thing that the decisions of Parliament should be governed by what is a very small minority indeed, but is through the con- stituencies very energetic and vigorous. How is the extension of that evil to be avoided ? Why, by having three members and the minority vote. If you had three members now and had the minority vote the best Liberal and the best Conservative would be safe of their seats. Nothing could prevent their getting in. The fight would be between the other Liberal and the other Conservative for the third seat, and the moment you establish that state of things \ou take away the power of a small band of electors, who may, by bargaining with candidates at close elections, induce them to accept or reject some particular crotchet. Gentlemen, I say this quite candidly and with satisfac- tion, although I hardly know it is necessary for me to say it I am one who has formed his own opinion, and in answering any question you have never found me reluctant to give a plain and straightforward answer. And dearly as I love my opportunities for public service, which a membeiship of Parliament affords to one, I would not sell myself to the advocacy of a particular motion or to its support by my vote for the honour of representing any constituency in this country. Now, I trust we shall have the minority vote. There are many members of the present Government who have at one time or another recorded their votes in its favour. Lord Spencer, Lord Derby, Lord Morley, Mr. Fawcett, Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Courtney, and, with the * The Contagious Diseases Acts. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION. 77 qualifications I have mentioned, Mr. Forster. They have all been at one time or another supporters of the representation of minorities. I notice to-day a statement of the Pall Mall Gazette, with regard to a circular it has sent out to Liberal members, asking their opinion on some questions of reform. They gave a statement of the number of those in favour of the Franchise Bill coming first or the Local Government Bill coming first, and they say the majority are against proportional representation. But they don't give the figures, and they say the numbers in favour of proportional representation have exceeded their ex- pectation. I hope that is an augury that when the Reform Bill is dealt with completely we shall have some proportional repre- sentation. I had not expected to occupy so much time in this address, as you know I have been blamed over and over again for making long speeches (cries of " Go on ") but I have said to my constituents that if I do make long speeches to them it is because they make it so pleasant to speak. I come down here just before entering upon the work of a new session, to meet those whose confidence gives me my place in Parliament, and whose confidence is a strong support. Gentlemen, any man may be proud to sit in the House of Commons as the representative of Plymouth, not only because it is one of the twenty large cities of this country, but because of its history, because of its situation, which must always make it of im- portance in this country. Now, I have spoken to you on one or two topics with re- gard to the future session. What sort of a session it is to be we can none of us forecast. It may be a short one. It may be that before the session has run its course, we shall be back here again, not as members but as candidates. I think nobody imagines that I am afraid to come down in that capacity. And most of you know the confident hope I have that when next I go from Plymouth to Parliament I shall go with Sir Edward Bates. Gentlemen, whether another session should run its allotted course or not, at all events one is going to Parliament to embark upon its work, and before embarking upon that work, I desired to see, and to meet face to face, my constituents in the town. You know the principles on which I asked for your support when I came here first, and you have had every means of knowing how far I have been able to work in your behalf since I have been in Parliament. Again I renew the personal acquaintance with you which this meeting once a year gives me the opportunity and the pleasure of doing, and again I ask you to let me go from this meeting back to the House of Commons, when it shall meet, as your representative, and, I hope, as your trusted representative again to do what I 78 PLYMOUTH, FEBRUARY 6, 1883. can in Parliament to support those principles by the avowal of which I earned your suffrages, and by maintaining which I hope to retain them, and to represent also the varied interests of this borough, of the people who are here, and who are to be affected by the legislation of Parliament. These are matters to which my duties refer, and in the discharge of those duties I shall be stimulated and encouraged by the expression of your feelings with regard to me to-night. Annual Address to the Electors of Plymouth^ at the Guildhall. FEBRUARY 6, 1885. MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN The chairman has truly said that there is one subject which at this moment presses so heavily upon the minds of Englishmen, that it is one which must take an unchallenged pre-eminence among those which are to be discussed by a public speaker. And if I were simply addressing a political audience at an ordinary political gathering I should address myself at once to the question so vital to the interests and to the honour of this country the question, what is to be done in Egypt ? But though, of course, I shall have to deal with that subject later in the evening, I am here as a member of Parliament meeting his constituents and speaking to them of the public matters which have taken place within the past year, and speaking to them of the action which he himself has taken with regard to those matters. And, therefore, all engrossing as our interest in Egypt is at this moment, I shall ask you to let me, before I deal with that subject, refer to what has happened in our political history during the past year and to one or two matters of special importance to this constituency. The legislative history of the year has contained but one measure, but that measure is one of very great importance. The Franchise Bill is now upon the Statute Book, the Redistri- bution Bill is, I believe, beyond the reach of harm. When I was speaking in this hall about a year ago to my constituents I laid down four propositions with regard to the treatment of the question of Reform. I mentioned four propositions, upon which I said I thought it was of vital importance to the country that THE REFORM BILLS. 79 we should steadily insist. The first was that the new franchise should not be allowed to come into operation until the redistri- bution of the constituencies had taken place. My second proposition was that the freeholders' vote, which was then being greatly attacked throughout the country, ought not to be abolished. The third was that Ireland ought to be included within the scope of any Reform Bill. The fourth was that as far as possible, there should be a proportional representation in Parliament of the opinions of the people of this country. Now that a twelvemonth later in the same place I speak of that which then was matter of speculation, but now has become matter of history, I think I for one have no reason to regret the course which events have taken. The enlarged franchise and the redistributed constituencies will both come into operation at the same moment. With respect to the freeholders' vote, not only has that been retained, but the effect of the division of the counties into small areas and single-member constituencies will be largely to increase the influence of that vote in the country I believe will at the very least double it in its numerical strength. Ireland has been included in the Franchise Bill which has been passed, and, with regard to proportional representation, although that has not been done which I had hoped to see, at all events some advance has been made towards proportional representation. Sir, I said that Ireland had been included within the scope of this bill, and I must say the one thing which I regret most in the measure as it now stands is that the two political parties, by a fortunate concurrence of events brought into joint authority and joint action upon the reform question, had not the courage to treat Ireland upon the same principle as they treated England and the rest of the empire. If the numerical rule is to be adopted with regard to the representation of other parts of the empire, if Scotland is to have members added to it because of its numbers, I do not understand why that rule should not have been observed in regard to Ireland, and why Ireland should be allowed to retain a larger number of members than she is entitled to, either by her population or by the share which she bears of the national burdens. And I think there has been a regrettable want of courage on the part of the political leaders in not dealing with Ireland precisely in the same way, and precisely upon the same principles as have been applied to the rest of the Empire. With regard to proportional representation, I think it is known to most of those here that I have striven and am striving now to secure what I think would be an improvement of the sys- tem which is at present devised. When the question of redistribution was before the House of Commons the Prime 8o PLYMOUTH, FEBRUARY 6, 1883. Minister stated that single member constituencies would give, to some extent, a representation of minorities in this country ; and, of course, it is obvious that if you are to rest upon the chance that a minority in one place will be a majority in the other, the smaller the areas are, and the more the country is cut up, the more likelihood there is that that sort of rough com- pensation will come into operation. Indeed, fifteen months ago, speaking at Brighton, before any plan of representation was before the country, I said that 1 would desire to have, if possible, three-member constituencies, with a minority vote, but that if one could not have that, the next best thing to it was the single-member constituencies. Some of my friends have asked me why, if I think single-member constituencies the next best thing, I am not satisfied with it now, but am trying to prevent its adoption. Why, simply for this reason : I hope that this settlement of the reform controversy may be the settlement of a quarter of a century. I hope that it may be possible for a quarter of century that Parliament with its enlarged franchise and its redistributed power may address itself without interrup- tion to the practical business which is always ready for its hand, and if that is so, and I see the way by which something better can be obtained without imperilling the Bill, then I am ready to strive for that something better and to endeavour to secure it for the benefit of the country. I do not propose to argue that question at any length here. I have been, as many of you probably know, during the past few weeks, upon public platforms with those who from time to time have been, and are likely to be, among my strongest political opponents advocating the cause of proportional repre- sentation. I do not want to leave people at the mercy of chance for the expression of their opinions in Parliament. I do not want to rely upon the chance that a minority in one place may be the majority in the other. I would rather adopt that system and a system exists, and is perfectly plain and simple and applicable to the purpose which would give to every section of the community its true expression in Parliament, neither more nor less, but the full expression of the opinion of every class of the people of this country. Sir, I do not know what the result may be of the exertions which are being made by the society to which I belong, and which is being advocated in all parts of the country by Sir John Lubbock and Mr. Leonard Courtney, but, whatever the result of our work may be, this I am sure of, it will not in the least degree imperil the carrying through of that redistribution bill which has been agreed upon and is now before the Houses of Parliament. Now, sir, this, as I have said, has been the one contribution we have had to the legislation of the country during the past A FUTILE AGITATION. 81 year, but the history of that measure is, in my judgment and belief, of more importance and more value to the country than even the placing upon the Statute Book of the measure itself. Let us for a moment recollect what has taken place, because in that struggle, which may become historic and which will be marked in history, the people of Plymouth played no unim- portant part. In that struggle we have secured not only the result which we of the Conservative party hoped for, with respect to the union of franchise and redistribution, but we have got another of at least equal importance to the country that is, the vindication of the authority of the House of Lords the establish- ment beyond challenge and dispute of its right to take free and equal share in the deliberations of the Imperial Parliament. Just let us recall for it will be instructive the outline of the history of that conflict. We knew early in June that the Franchise Bill would pass through the House of Commons with large majorities, and the question of its reception by the House of Lords was then being actively discussed, and Liberal speakers in all directions were threatening the House of Lords as the Prime Minister threatened them afterwards as to what would happen to them if they ventured for a moment to interfere with the passing of that Bill into law. At that crisis it was the good fortune of the people of the Western Counties that the leader of the Conservative party in the House of Lords came among them. And I know that, when Lord Salisbury went back to London after the two meetings that took place in this hall, he went back satisfied from what he had seen that he could rely upon the loyal and unwavering support of his party in the line which he advised the House of Lords to take. Now, what was the line that Lord Salisbury laid down in this hall on June 5th last ? He said he did not object, and the House of Lords did not object, to the extension of the franchise ; that they were not, it was true, entitled to set up a claim for the dissolution of Parliament, but that this they were entitled to say, that no such measure should pass into law except by the will of the people expressed at a dissolution without a Redistribution Bill being attached to it. Now, when the measure came before the House of Lords an amendment proposed by Lord Cairns was carried which, in promise, accepted the principle of the Franchise Bill, but declared the House of Lords was not prepared to pass it unless accompanied by a large and full measure of redistribution. Directly the resolution was passed by the House cf Lords the floodgates of Radical indignation were opened all over the country. Hop-poles were hired by hundreds. A Cabinet Minister declared that it would be to betray the Liberal cause if the Government yielded one inch to the pretensions of the House of Lords. ' All sorts of prescriptions were offered by all 82 PL YMOVTH, FEBR UAR Y 6, 1883. sorts of men. Some orators wanted to abolish the House of Lords ; some orators wanted to add largely to its numbers ; some orators proposed to stop the supplies altogether ; but I think Mr. Jesse Collings was satisfied with suggesting that they should refuse to pay the salaries of the doorkeepers of the House of Lords. And so the tumult went on for three or four months, and every Radical paper was continually declaring that the people had risen in their might, and the House of Lords must bend or be broken. But the leaders of the Liberal party knew better what the spirit and temper of the people was, so that at the very time when the Radical papers had worked themselves up to the very topmost height of their anger a change took place. Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote were invited to Downing Street. The Ministers of the Crown laid before Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote the proposals they were going to make for redistribution. They submitted them to the approval and correction of Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote and when the Conservative leaders had corrected and approved them and not until they had corrected and approved them, and when the Government had pledged its existence as a Govern- ment upon the passing of the Bill which Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote had approved then, and not until then, the Franchise Bill passed the House of Lords. It was a time of great excitement ; it has been a time of great results. We have got as a result that Reform will come into operation as a whole and not piecemeal that it shall not be manipulated for the advantage of one political party. We have the advantage that we have tested and proved the strength of the Conservative party. We have the advantage that we have established the authority of the House of Lords. Well, now, passing away from that, I pass away from the legislative measures of the past session, for that was practically the only one. It is not, as a rule, very useful to discuss the his- tory of Bills which have been withdrawn from the House of Commons ; but there was one Bill brought in which was after- wards withdrawn, which was of so great an interest to this con- stituency, and which had so remarkable a history, that I think you will allow me to dwell a little while upon it. I allude to the Merchant Shipping Bill introduced by Mr. Chamberlain. Now, Mr. Chamberlain has never been very successful as an adminis- trator. He was successful as a mutineer, but never as an adminis- trator. But some time ago, in the year 1883, Mr. Chamberlain conceived the idea of dealing with the laws which related to Merchant Shipping. That these laws require amendment no one denies. In the year 1876 the late Conservative Government brought forward a Bill for the amendment of the laws relating MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL. 83 to Maritime Contracts, which was prevented from passing in great measure through the success of certain efforts at obstruc- tion which were then being imde by Mr. Chamberlain. But in 1883 Mr. Chamberlain determined to try his hand at a measure. He began in a way which would have made one think it was his fixed intention from the very beginning not to succeed. In November, 1883, a circular was issued with reference to the proposals about to be made by the Board of Trade, and that circular was a wanton and unjust attack upon the body of the shipowners of this country. It stated that the loss of life had been increasing, and it said that this loss of life arose in a very great degree from preventible causes with which the Bill to be proposed would have to deal. It was not a fact that the loss of life had been increasing. The year 1881-82 was a year during which there was a terrible loss of life, especially among fisher- men. Very nearly 600 fishermen lost their lives in the gales of 1 88 r, and that number raised very largely the average of the loss upon merchant shipping services. Raised as it was by the loss among fishing-boats, the average of the loss during that year was smaller than the average of the years before ; and it is to be remarked that, although this disastrous loss of life in fishing- boats was brought in to swell the statistics to be used in support of the Bill, the Bill would have had no reference to the fishing- boats. But between November, 1884, and February, 1885, no opportunity was lost of exciting the public mind against the shipowners, who were denounced in the speeches of the President of the Board of Trade as men who were in the pursuit of unholy gains, and then on the 6th of February the Bill was introduced. That Bill was full of the most serious difficulties. It proposed that any person who was interested in the insurance of a vessel should have the right of opening the question of whether that vessel was over-insured or not when the insurance was claimed. It left out, curiously enough, after what had been stated, all reference to the insurance of cargo, and I believe there is good reason to say that the loss of life happening either intentionally or through wanton carelessness, happens more often from the over-insurance of cargo than the over-insurance of the hull. But that Bill proposed to do a number of other things not in the least necessary for the protection of the lives of our sailors. For instance, it proposed to do away altogether with compulsory pilotage. I had the pleasure of coming down very soon after the Bill was introduced to meet the pilots here, and hear them upon that clause, and anybody would have been fully convinced who heard the pilots and knew the way in which they were engaged. All must feel that the abolition of com- pulsory pilotage, whatever might be stated in its favour, would certainly rather imperil than tend to save the lives of the British 84 PL YMO UTff, FEBRUAR Y 6, r$Sj. seamen. But there was another proposal in that Bill. It was proposed that when companies had been formed and we know that companies had been largely formed for the purpose of owning the ships that the law of limited liability should be abolished, and that all the members of these companies should be liable, if anything happened, to the full extent of their for- tunes without the interference of any Limited Liability Act Bill. That was the most gross interference with the ordinary course and rule of law, and an interference entirely unjustified. Well, before that Bill was on the table of the House of Com- mons the Minister who brought it forward had succeeded in creating so strong a feeling of antagonism against him among those concerned in the shipping trade that under any circum- stances it would have required the greatest possible tact on his part to have passed that Bill. I go through this history, because I am satisfied that Bill was a sham altogether, from beginning to end. It was never meant to pass it was meant as a cry for the constituencies. On the 6th of February that Bill was read a first time. It was put down again for second reading on the I7th of May, but during that lime negotiations had taken place not between Mr. Chamb.rlain and the shipowners, because the shipowners declined to meet him but between the Solicitor- General (Sir Farrer Herschell), acting for Mr. Chamberlain, and the shipowners. I was present upon the evening of the second reading, listening to the whole debate. Mr. Chamberlain opened it, and he spoke within a few minutes of four hours. The debate began about six or seven o'clock in the evening, and I stayed there listening to every word of Mr. Chamberlain's speech and took notes of it, and there were not twenty sentences in that speech which were necessary for the support of the Bill, which he was then putting forward. The Bill had been pulled all to pieces. The section against compulsory pilotage had been given up, the section abolishing limited liability had been given up. The Bill had been brought back to such a form that it was not as good a Bill for the benefit of the seamen as the Maritime Contracts Bill of 1 876 would have been. But what was the meaning of that four hours' speech? I can tell you exactly. It was not only that that speech should occupy a very considerable time of the evening, but that in it should be repeated accusations against the shipowners which they should never have the opportunity of answering. At the end of that debate I moved the adjournment, and, of course, the four hours' speech of Mr. Chamberlain had left very little room for any other speaking. Week after week went by and the Bill was never put down again. At last, about the 2oth of June, I asked Mr. Gladstone when the Merchant Shipping Bill would be put down again for discussion, and Mr. Gladstone's answer MERCHANT SHIPPING INSURANCE BILL. 85 was that he had received no communication from the right honourable gentleman in charge of the Bill, which led him to think it desirable to fix the date for the resumed debate. That Bill was never again put down for second reading. It was put down on the 9th of July for the purpose of being withdrawn. No opportunity was ever given in the House of Commons of discussing the question and of answering the speeches which Mr. Chamberlain had made. And now what is the result of the whole thing? Instead of a debate in the House of Commons a Royal Commission has been appointed ; but Mr. Chamberlain did not have his own way in appointing that Commission, for when the Commission was nominated a movement against it as unfairly constituted was led by Mr. Cowen, and when it actually came to the day for discussion the Government knew they would be beaten, and so they gave in, and allowed the Commis- sion to be reconstituted. But the result of the whole business and the mischievous result is that now, in consequence of this manipulation of the question by Mr. Chamberlain, a Royal Commission will be appointed, which will probably take two, if not three, years to report, and then the whole matter will have to be dealt with again. I was not myself idle with regard to the matter. It appeared quite possible when this Bill had been read a first time con- sidering the attack made upon it that it would not pass through the House of Commons, so I joined Mr. Norwood, who is known by name to many of you, and I hold in my hand a copy of a Bill bearing his name and mine which we introduced on the Qth of March, called the Merchant Shipping Insurance Bill. I believe that Bill contains within a small compass all the provisions that are necessary for securing the results we all desire to secure, and I would have been content to pass that Bill, or the remnants of Mr. Chamberlain's Bill, or any Bill that seriously or modestly attempted to deal with the question. But it is trifling with the constituencies and the interests of the people, if Bills are brought forward and the fashion of them is changed in the House of Commons through the action of the very man who was seek- ing to make capital by bringing them in. I have heard lately that Mr. Chamberlain is likely to be promoted, either up or down. I think that for the benefit of fishermen and of those in- terested in shipping it would be a very good thing if he found some other sphere for his energies than the Board of Trade. Now, let me pass to another question upon which I want to say a few words to you before I come to speak of what has occurred in Egypt. It is a question of finance. Now, ladies and gentlemen, do not be afraid that I am going to trouble you again with all the figures with which I have been dealing here and elsewhere during the past few months. I think 86 PLYMOUTH, FEBRUARY 6, 1883. you will remember that in September last, addressing the Conservative Association here I made some statements with regard to Mr. Gladstone's figures, which some of his industrious friends in Cornwall immediately called his attention to. Well, I said when I made those statements at the Assembly Rooms that I should be very happy to repeat them in the House of Commons, and when they were challenged I took every means I could to get an opportunity of repeating them in the House of Commons, and of making Mr. Gladstone answer them there. I wrote to him directly the session began, and told him that I would move an amendment to the Address simply for the pur- pose of bringing forward my attack upon his figures, and giving him an opportunity of answering them. He wrote to me and suggested it would be better if I put it off to a later stage. I adopted the suggestion at once. I put it off to a later stage. When the later stage came I succeeded at last in getting a good opportunity. The ballot at the House of Commons for places on any Tuesday or Friday is a ballot which one may try over and over again without getting a chance in the course of a session of bringing one's motion forward ; but I was fortunate in getting a second place for the 2ist of November last, and then I went down to the House of Commons certainly expecting that I should have it out with Mr. Gladstone there, and that there, where, at least, he would not have to complain of not getting an impartial audience, and where we should have been heard and reported, so that there could be no mistake about it, I hoped we should have had the controversy out. Well, he sent rne a letter and a memorandum, and told me that if I did make my speech he should not make any answer to it. So that I think I may at all events claim this, that I was not satisfied with making my attack upon his figures here in Plymouth, but took every opportunity of making it to his face in the House of Commons, and I was determined that it should not be said that I was making it unexpectedly and without notice. I g.ive the fullest notice, and consulted his convenience as to the time the attack should be made, and if he does not choose to answer it, I don't think it is so much the worse for me. However, there is one respect in which, perhaps, it was not an unsatis- factory thing that he should shrink from a discussion in the House of Commons, and that is that it is rather difficult even for the most highly-trained audience to hear figures dis- cussed and to follow them with perfect exactness in the course of discussion. It is much better to have them down in type, so that you may turn backwards and forwards and compare them, and Mr. Gladstone gave me a very good reason for adopting that plan. When I got his letter I told the House of Commons I was not going to occupy its time by making a speech to which LIBERAL EXTRAVAGANCE. 87 no answer would be given, but that I would put that speech into print and would print with it the memorandum Mr. Gladstone had sent by way of answer, and would take care that every member had a copy of it. That pamphlet was only actually completed by the printer yesterday, but before the end of next week every member of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords will have an opportunity of forming a judgment upon the controversy between myself and Mr. Gladstone by a perusal of that pamphlet. Now, I am not going over again here the exposure of the most fantastic and delusive figures in which Mr. Gladstone chose to indulge. But there is one matter connected with the financial history of this country which at this moment and in the light of the news which we have had yesterday and to-day is of supreme importance. I have said again and again here and elsewhere that while I think that a great increase of expenditure should be most jealously watched, the fact that a Government are spending more money is no reason for censuring them until you have examined to see how they are spending it. I quite agree that a Ministry is fully entitled to spend is bound to spend more money year by year, if by the expenditure of more money it can give greater security to our interests and to our commerce, and strengthen the resources we have for the protec- tion of the country. But the terrible fact and the main fact in my charge against this Government is that, while they have raised our expenditure from the average of a little over 80 millions to an average of 86| millions, they have not increased the strength of the country for defence they have not spent that money upon the efficient service of the army or the navy, but, on the contrary, they have allowed our strength in the army and in the navy to decrease instead of increasing it. There are some here who do not feel inclined to believe that at the first moment. Just let me tell you a few facts with regard to it. Our expenditure upon the army has considerably increased. But if you take the six years of Lord Beaconsfield's Government and compare them with the first four years of this Government, you will find that during the first four years of this Government the number of soldiers serving with the colours averaged 2500 less than it did during the Conservative Govern- ment. But that is not all. During those six years they were a great and glorious six years of Lord Beaconsfield the spirit of the country was such that the volunteer force of this country increased by not less than 34,300 men. During the first four years of this Government it only increased 3000. Under the late Government the yeomanry force of this country averaged 12,200 men. Under the present Government it has averaged only 11,150. When the late Government left office the militia and 88 PLYMOUTH, FEBRUARY 6, iSSj. militia reserve numbered 130,000. It lias fallen to 116,000. When the late Government left office the army reserve was left at 38,000 men. It has fallen from 38,000 to 26,000, and upon every branch of our national army defence, while there has been a steady increase in expenditure, there has been a steady diminu- tion in the strength of the country. It is not easy to follow figures, so let me put this fact before you in another way which, I think, illustrates more clearly what I mean. I take the fourth year of each Govern- ment, and I think I fairly take it because when a Government has been four years in office it has had time to put its principles of administration into practice. Wt 11, I take the fourth year of the late Government, the year 1878, and I take the fourth year of the present Government, the year ending March, 1884. In 1878 the country spent upon the army fourteen millions and a half of money. In 1884 it spent sixteen millions a million and a half more. Now what do you think the strength was ? The army of this country in 1884 was 19,000 men weaker that it was in 1878, the army reserve was 9000 fewer, and the yeomanry 1000 fewer, so that with an increased expenditure of a million and a half a year, in the event of war we have 30,000 fewer men for the defence of the country. Now, how is this ? (A VOICE : " More pay.") I assure you it is nothing of the kind. If it were a question of better pay there would be something to be said for it, but I will tell you where the alteration is. In 1884 and now I take two other years for comparison the expenditure upon the army was three-quarters of a million more than it had been in the previous year, but the expenditure upon army pensions was a million more. That is to say, that though three-quarters of a million more was spent upon the army there was a quarter of a million less spent upon the efficient force. All the rest had gone into the pension list and in the payments which fell upon the country in consequence of the abolition of the purchase system. With respect to the navy the case is substantially the same. But there is this very remarkable thing about the present Government, that while it has increased its total expenditure to this enormous extent it has actually decreased its expenditure upon the navy of this country. If you take the four years of this Government and compare them with the four last years of the late Government, you will find that the present Government has spent a million and a quarter less upon the navy than the late Government did in the corresponding period. The interests of the country are enlarging, and her responsi- bilities are increasing every year. The wages of the men and the cost of materials are all increasing from year to year, and the natural course of things would be that a Government would THE NILE EXPEDITION. 89 steadily it need not be largely, but steadily increase the expen- diture upon the naval resources of the country, and I do not believe you would find in this hall a dozen men who would grumble at an increase in expenditure upon the navy if that increase brought and added security to our shores. But what have we got ? After this Government has been in office four and a half years all at once we find out the navy is falling far below the requirements of the country ; that so far from being in advance of other countries we are perilously near to the position at which we should not be able to hold our own. There is a sudden excitement, newspaper articles written, speeches made on public platforms and the like, and what is the nett result of it all Lord Northbrook makes a. speech in one House, Sir Thomas Brassey makes one in the other, and so far as I can see the department settles down in its ordinary quiet, and there, I suppose, they will stop until some disaster brings upon the country a sense of the mischief that has been done. Now, I said these were matters which were of great import- ance in view of the tidings which came to us yesterday and have come to us to-day, and I ask you to consider their enormous importance. We have sustained a great and most grievous disaster. I do not speak only of the man with regard to whose fate we are yet in doubt, who, we hope and trust, is living, al- though a prisoner, and who, we hope and trust, is in a position where we shall be able either by force of arms or by diplomacy, if need be, to secure his safe return to this country. But when we have expressed our sympathy with General Gordon when we have spoken with the pride which Englishmen cannot help feeling of the way in which he has maintained his position at Khartoum for the last year, we turn aside to consider other questions, which are very serious questions indeed. We have had great reason during the last few weeks to feel proud of the bravery of that little force which went out from Korti and made a dash across the desert, and at a time when men were faint with long toil and marching, were so tired that they were falling from their places with fatigue, was obliged to fight with a host of enemies, and to fight against men of whose courage we cannot but speak with terms of great respect. But while we are proud of these men and Englishmen have never had greater cause to be proud of the valour of those who wore the English uni- form and fought under the English colours the terrible thought comes upon us how many have we like them. It was a small force that was with Sir Herbert Stewart in the desert, but we are painfully conscious that it was not a force which repre- sented the army of this country. It was a picked force from our best regiments. The best 40 men had been picked from each, and they were set together and sent upon that expedition. 90 PL YMOUTH, FEBR UARY 6, 1883. They were men who had been together for weeks, had been toiling together, and had got to know each other, and it is terrible to think how scanty are the battalions we have in this country now, and how ill-prepared our regiments would be to go abroad to face the perils and toils which may be before them in the immediate future. It will be absolutely necessary that there should be a revision of our military system, and that an attempt should be made to introduce some plan, at all events, which will enable us to do better when we are called to meet emergencies of this kind than simply to pick out our best men from several regiments and put them together in the column that goes forth. But there are other questions with regard to Gordon and to Egypt. If this disaster has fallen upon us, and I feel little doubt it has, whose fault is it ? It is the fault of that long course of cowardice and imbecility which has continued in spite of warnings at home, in spite of entreaties from Gordon himself, and which has left him for a year to face these dangers and difficulties alone. Why, it was on the 8th of the month of February in last year that Gordon went to Khartoum, and he had not been at Khartoum a fortnight when he sent home this mes- sage to this country, and it is one which has a strange and pathetic interest now that this disaster has happened. On the 2/th of February last year Gordon telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Baring to say : " The evacuation of Khartoum is impossible until the Government asserts its authority. We can hold out, and force back the revolt, but the position will not ameliorate by time, and our money must come to an end. You have to say whether this partial evacuation of the Soudan fulfils your desires. If it does not, then you must act by Indian Moslem troops from Wady Haifa ; and do so at once by sending de- tachments of troops to Wady Haifa." That was not a single expression contained in a long despatch which might have been overlooked or forgotten. It was so peremptory that on the 29th of February last year Gordon wrote these words : " There is not much chance of improving, and every chance of it getting worse, for we have nothing to rely on to make it better. You must therefore decide whether you will or will not make an attempt to save two-thirds of the population who are well affected before these two-thirds retreat. Should you wish to intervene, send 200 British troops to Wady Haifa, and adjutants to inspect Dongola, and then open up Suakim- Berber road by Indian Moslem troops. This will cause an immediate collapse of the revolt." Well, from day to day Gordon went on sending these urgent despatches. Again, on the 2nd March he tele- graphed. He was afraid the Government might be waiting to organize a large force, and that they might be in doubt as to TtiE BETRAYAL OF GORDON. 9! whether we could send a great expedition ; so Gordon sent these words by telegraph : " I have no option about staying at Khartoum ; it has passed out of my hands, and as to sending a larger force than 200 I do not think it necessary to Wady Haifa. It is not the number, but the prestige which I need. I am sure the revolt will collapse if I can say that I have British troops at my back." These were messages which Gordon was sending from Khartoum nearly twelve months ago. There was for a moment apparently a chance of his wish being fulfilled. We sent out an expedition to Suakim under General Graham ; we fought two bloody battles there ; we defeated the enemy with great slaughter, and there was hope that the force might be told to open the road from Suakim to Berber which Gordon had said it was necessary should be opened. All that bloodshed came to nothing. The force was brought back to this country, and at this very moment, where General Graham fought those battles in the month of March last, our troops are so beleagured in Suakim itself that they cannot ride ten miles out without being liable to be cut off by the enemy. And so month after month went on. Everything was tried in Parliament until the Prime Minister complained that they were having votes of censure every six weeks, because the Opposition was doing its best to force the Government into doing something to relieve this state of things at Khartoum. In the Prime Minister we have the greatest talker since the world began. During those three months of May, June, and July he was exhausting the most copious vocabulary that a human creature ever possessed, in explaining that warlike preparations did not mean warlike operations, and that warlike operations did not necessarily mean war, and that there was a very clear distinction between General Gordon being surrounded and General Gordon being hemmed in. And so month after month went on. At last, on the 5th of August, Mr. Gladstone came down to the House and asked for a vote, not for operations, but for preparations. The vote w.is granted without hesitation ; but it was not until eighteen days later that any orders were give for those preparations, and then no boats were in readiness, the camels were not purchased, and long arrangements had to be gone through. And now what state of things do we find ourselves in ? Why, British troops get to Khartoum too late to rescue Gordon, and only this afternoon the following announcement is made : "The Cabinet at the meet- ing to-day decided to give carte blanche to Lord Wolseley with regard to the measures which he may consider it necessary to adopt with reference to the rescue of Gordon, if alive, and such military operations as his lordship advises for the recovery of the lost ground in the Soudan by the fall of Khartoum. Amongst 92 PLYMOUTH, FEBRUARY 6, f&Sg. the alternatives in view are immediate measures for retaking Khartoum by the employment, if necessary, of Indian troops to re-open the Berber route." Not only too late, ten months too late this has to be done ; but Gordon has been sacrificed from the most puerile vacillation that a Cabinet was ever guilty of. And I believe it will be said of us all over the world there never was a nation that had a braver soldier, and that there never was a nation that so basely deserted him. We hear an outcry now for vigorous measures. Vigorous measures ought always to be adopted in times of war and in times of danger ; but if we want vigorous measures we must get other men into the Govern- ment I do not believe that from this Government, which has disgraced itself, we ever shall get a policy worthy of England's honour. Now, sir, there are just a few words I want to say upon another topic before I conclude. We hear a great deal about measures to be proposed in the next Parliament. I do not pro- pose to discuss these measures now. I shall be here again before the new Parliament assembles, and when the new Parlia- ment has been elected I daresay I shall be able to take counsel with my constituents. I do not think we shall hear much in the new Parliament of many of these measures which are now being so loudly discussed. They are not meant for Parliament ; they are meant for the constituencies. These political " cheap- jacks," from Birmingham and elsewhere, who are shouting their wares at every street corner gentlemen, they have razors made to sell, but nut to use and when their loud-voiced promises have got these men into Parliament, and perhaps into the Cabinet, they will be the first people to explain and apologize for the badness of their wares. While I do not propose to discuss the measures that will be brought before the new Par- liament, there are two observations I would like to make. The first is, that we have abundant proof that whatever the new Parliament will be it will not be a Radical Parliament. Gentlemen, we have perfect assurance upon that point. The disestablishment of the Church has been postponed by Mr. Bright himself to the Parliament after next. Local Option has disappeared, it is to be tacked on to the Local Government Bill ; and as to the Landlords, why half your Liberal candidates are only advocating what I have always advocated myself that is to say, the register of titles and the cheap transfer of land. Sir, it is the most Conservative proposition in the world. It would give the seller a high price for his land, while it would give the buyer a cheaper purchase, by relieving both from the burden of costly expenditure, and it would do that which I believe would be of enormous benefit to this country. It would increase the number of freeholders in the kingdom, THE NEW VOTERS. 93 and, sir, I have this reason for desiring that while freeholders are always independent they are always Conservative. If I wanted any further assurance of the innoxious character of the legislation of the new Parliament I should find it in the new Liberal candidates for the county of Devon. The Constitution will not have much to fear, nor the ardent Radicals much to hope for, so long as they find candidates in Lord Lymington, Lord Ebrington, and Mr. Mildmay. As to the character of the new constituencies, a good many people are asking, "What will they do ?" I do not think, and I never have thought, there need be any doubt or despondency in the answer. They will do what the real leaders of public opinion show them to be most to the interest and honour of the country. There will be a larger number of them, but they will have no new problems to deal with ; and if the old problems are differently stated they must be solved upon the old principles, or not at all. We have ripe experience in Constitutional Govern- ment. For over six hundred years this country has been learn- ing how to reconcile liberty with order, how to reconcile respect for the individual judgment of every man with the respect they ought to feel for the organized government of the State. We have learnt, I believe, some lessons we shall not easily let go. We have learnt that, upon the whole, the free action of the nation and the interest of the people are the best guide and the best rule to the prosperity of the country, and that it would be a disaster for the country if you subjected the free opinion and the free action of the nation to the arbitrary rule laid down by any political party whatsoever. There is no danger in regard to our home affairs ; but with regard to foreign affairs there is, perhaps, a danger. There is a danger always inherent in a democracy, which is as passionate and as changeful as a woman. And a democracy, vigorous as it is in its action when its feelings are once excited and its determination is formed, is liable to heat and cold, to rits of passion and indifference which do not give it the same steadfastness of action which belongs to a despotism or an aristocracy. That is simply the result of the history of the world as it has shown itself wherever a Democratic Constitution has existed. And what is the moral ? That we should distrust the people ? or live in fear of them ? Surely not. The moral is that we should try to guide them. And those who have the responsibility of taking a leading part in political life should recognise the responsibility and be true to it ; that they should never be afraid to say what they think will be unpopular if they know it to be true and that it is essential the people should be told it. It has been my great privilege now for several years to have been member for this constituency. As it has been my pride, 94 PLYMOUTH, fUNE 28, 1886. so it is my chiefest hope, that, as long as I may take any part in public affairs, I may take that part as representing the constituency of Plymouth. And I hope that when from time to time I come before you, while I shall not shrink, as I have not shrunk, from expressing my opinion upon matters in which I differ strongly from some of my best supporters, at least they will give me the credit of believing that I address myself to the consideration of public affairs and to their discussions with a real respect for the opinions of the people, and with the deepest, the most profound attachment to the Constitution, which I believe secures the happiness of this country. Election Speech at the Guildhall, Plymouth. JUNE 28, 1886. [On the yth June, 1886, Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill was defeated upon the Second Reading by a majority of thirty. Parliament was at once dissolved ; and at Plymouth Sir Edward Bates and Mr. Edward Clarke were opposed by Mr. F. R. Stephens and Mr. E. Strachey. The polling took place on 3rd July, and the numbers were : Mr. E. Clarke, 4137 ; Sir E. Bates, 4133. Mr. Stephens, 3255 ; Mr. Strachey, 3175. The following speech was delivered at the opening meeting of the contest : ] I CANNOT claim the long friendship with the people of Ply- mouth that has been enjoyed by my friend, Sir Edward Bates, and of which he has spoken with pardonable pride. But my acquaintance with Plymouth is not an acquaintance of yesterday. It was on Monday, the 28th of June, in the year 1880, six years ago to the day, that I came down among you, very little known, to receive from you a most generous welcome, and obtain elec- tion as member for the borough of Plymouth. During those six years, whatever may have been my shortcomings in the performance of public duty, at least I have valued as the greatest privilege of my life the right of going to the House of Commons as the representative of this great constituency. I have tried to do my duty to the constituency in all its parts ; I have endeavoured as far as I could in the House of Commons to take a worthy place in the deliberations of that House upon great public questions, and I think I may say that I have not been indifferent or idle with regard to any of the local or special obligations which lie upon the member for the borough of Ply- mouth. Sir, even if this were an ordinary election I should have THE GENERAL ELECTION, 1886. 95 no fear of the result of a contest. If there are any of pur Liberal friends in the hall to-night, I think they will agree with me that last November we fought out in good temper, and with perfect fairness, a straight, upright fight between two political parties in this borough. The Liberal party had then as a candidate a man who had served them well, and who was as strong a candidate as they could possibly bring down to this borough. I am not sure that the Liberal party served him very gratefully, for he went away after his defeat with scarcely a single word of " good bye," and no expression was given by the Liberals of Plymouth to the gratitude, which I am sure they felt, though they did not express it, for the services he had done them. And, sir, in any case, if this were an ordinary contest, I should feel the greater confidence in its issue from this fact that where Mr. Macliver did not think it good enough to try other people are not very likely to succeed. But, sir, it is not an ordinary contest of party against party. It is a struggle here, as in other parts of the country, which will not result in a party triumph, which is a struggle between Unionists and Separatists upon a great, a clear, and a definite issue, for the election of a Parliament which shall have as its chief and almost its only duty the final solution of the question of the relations between Great Britain and Ireland ; and, sir, it is for that reason that Sir Edward Bates and I have an exceptional right to look for- ward with confidence to triumph in this election. The Liberal party in this borough is hopelessly divided. There are men in Plymouth who have for many years stood in the forefront of the Liberal ranks, men who have served the highest offices in this community which their fellow-citizens can elect them to, men who have been the known and deservedly trusted champions of the political cause which they had espoused there is not one of them, so far as I know, who is going against us in this contest. The extent of the change that has taken place with regard to the Liberal party is to be measured by what took place last night in a hall not many yards from this place, where there was upon the platform a pitiful parade of the residuum of the Liberal party of Plymouth. And, while they are thus disorgan- ized, while we have not to meet now as we had in November, the firm and serried and united ranks of the historic Liberal party, we have the satisfaction of knowing that the principles which we are now announcing, and which we appeal to you to give us your authority to vindicate and declare in your name, are principles as closely and as truly held by many of the leaders of the Liberal party as by any of those who sit on this platform to-night. Now, sir, what is it that has brought about this great change, and enabled us, without abating one jot of the characteristic 96 PL YMOUTH, JUNE 28, 1886. principles of our party, to fight in cordial amity with those who nave hitherto been opposed to us ? It is because at this election the people of the Three Kingdoms have to decide whether Ire- land is or is not to be governed by a separate Parliament. The proposal before them is that Ireland shall have a separate Parliament ; that it shall have a separate Executive Government; and that the landowners of Ireland shall be protected from the spoliation of that Government by a large resort to the public money and the public credit of this country. This is the pro- posal before the country, and it is a proposal which is perfectly intelligible. There are some words which are cast about from place to place in platform speeches and election addresses for the purpose of deceiving and deluding those who do not, as wise men do, insist upon an exact examination of the meaning of words. You hear, I say, talk of Home Rule, of autonomy which means, if possible, even less than Home Rule and of self- government, which may mean nothing whatever. There is self-government in the Parish Vestry, there is self-government in a Town Council, there is self-government among the rulers of a university, there is self-government among the benchers of an Inn of Court. Any sort of authority that exists in this country, or any country, for the administration of purely local affairs may be called self-government, but a Parliament is an intelligible thing. A Parliament is an actual, executive, opera- tive Government by Queen, Lords, and Commons, or by some throne or president, with a Parliament, whether in two Chambers or in one Chamber, and that is the proposal which has been put before the country, and upon which it is to give its verdict. I venture to say one thing with regard to the bill which has lately been proposed, which perhaps will somewhat startle some of this audience. I believe that bill was an ably constructed bill. I think if the thing had to be done the mode that was adopted for doing it marked high political genius, and the reason that that bill has failed, and will in my belief fail, is this : that it attempted to do a thing no political genius could do at all. Now, sir, we are told that the bill is dead. We are told that the principle survives, but people are going about trying to influence doubting and timid Liberals by telling them the Prime Minister has said the bill is dead. Why, sir, the bill is dead only in the sense in which the snake is dead when it lies like a piece of stick by the road in the winter, but the warmth of an election success would rouse it from its torpidity, would bring it back to mischievous existence and activity, and there would be no difficulty in finding out, in the long ambigui- ties of many columns of Gladstonese, explanations for any mode of dealing with that bill. A great many of the Liberal party EXCLUSION OF IRISH MEMBERS. 97 has said this bill would be a better bill if the Irish members were allowed still to sit in the Imperial Parliament if they were allowed to sit in their own Parliament for the discharge of local duties, but had the right to come to the Imperial Parliament to deal with Imperial matters. Well, sir, I do not wonder that there has been a revolt on the part of the people of England and Scotland against the idea of banishing the Irishmen altogether from that Imperial assembly in which the great questions of national importance must be discussed. But just let me ask you to consider what is the line taken with regard to this by the Prime Minister and those at his back. I will show you what that line is, and then I will tell why I think they were right, and why I think they could not depart from their proposals without destroying the bill which they brought in. Mr. Morley, who is undoubtedly one of the most powerful of the agents in putting forward this bill to the country, has pledged himself in unequivocal terms to the necessity of removing the Irish members from the Parliament at Westminster. He said, on the gih of April, 1886, "I have always thought it a cardinal point of policy since this movement began that Irish members should cease to sit in this Parliament." But, sir, Mr. Gladstone himself gave the most distinct pledge on this question when he introduced this bill to the House of Com- mons. He said : " There cannot be a domestic Legislature in Ireland dealing with Irish affairs, and Irish peers and Irish representatives sitting in Parliament at Westminster to take part in English and Scotch affairs." Now, sir, these declarations are perfectly clear, but there is another party to the bargain which has resulted in bringing forward this bill, and that is the Irish party, and the Irish party has spoken on this matter with perfect distinctness. Mr. T. P. O'Connor, who is well known as the member of the Irish party who at the election in November last drew up and issued a circular denouncing the Liberals, said, " The retention of the Irish members especially in their full numbers is merely the mask for reducing the Irish Legislature to the position of a Vestry or Town Council. I very much mistake the temper of my colleagues if that be a proposal they will not consider it their duty to resist by every means in their power." If Mr. Gladstone makes it a cardinal point of policy that the Irish members shall not sit in the Imperial Parliament, and if the Irish party themselves, by whose aid alone the Ministry can hope to carry any sort of measure, make it a cardinal point of their policy that they shall not sit in the Imperial Parliament, there is no chance of any such modification of the bill as has been accepted by some of the Liberals as an excuse for supporting it. It has been said, let the Irishmen sit in their own Parliament D 98 PLYMOUTH, JUNE 28, 1886. to deal with local affairs, and let them come over to the Imperial Parliament when it is going to deal with matters that concern them. Sir, that proposal was made at an early period, and Mr. Gladstone expressed his distinct opinion upon it. " Well," said Mr. Gladstone, " I have thought much, reasoned much, and inquired much with regard to that distinction. I had hoped it might be possible to draw a distinction, and I have arrived at the conclusion that it cannot be drawn. I believe it passes the wit of man ; at any rate, it passes not my wit alone, but the wit of many with whom I have consulted ;" and the inevitable result is that the only way you can get your Irish Parliament is by banishing the Irish members from the Imperial Parliament and from all consideration of Imperial questions. But if this be done let the Liberal party and Englishmen of all parties think for a moment what that means. It means that Ireland is to become a subject country, paying a yearly tribute to the support of the army and navy, over whose direction she has no authority whatever, of whose achievements she will have no reason to be proud, from the result of whose deeds she will be absolutely alienated by her position, and I think it is impossible to believe that the Irishmen of our day a high-spirited and courageous race would long sit down under the ignominy of being treated as a vassal country, paying its tribute to a sovereign State, with every fort within its circuit and with every ship of war upon its coasts garrisoned with soldiers or manned by sailors for whom its people paid but over whom it exercised no authority whatever. But suppose this problem, which Mr. Gladstone declares passes the wit of men, to be solved, and suppose we could have the Irish members over to the Parliament of Westminster whenever Imperial affairs were being discussed, don't you see that would destroy the authority of Parliament itself? The real secret of the enormous strength and influence of our House of Commons is that when we meet at half-past four of the after- noon everything that has happened in the habitable globe during the last twenty-four hours may become the subject of immediate discussion ? There are things happening in all parts of our great empire with regard to which our Ministers have to take sudden and important decision. In the House of Commons now a ques- tion is asked, and the Minister tells us what he is going to do, and if the instinct of the House is against it, the proposed course is challenged, a discussion takes place and the opinion of Parlia- ment is expressed. Suppose we had this new-fangled system of bringing over the Irishmen from Dublin, whenever the House discussed Imperial affairs, it would be an absolute prohibition of the House of Commons from the discussion of Imperial affairs unless you had a week's notice. And, whereas, now, the Minister holds his course from day to day subject to the inquiry LAND PURCHASE. 99 and the check of the great council of the nation, then his position would be that if he had taken a step which Parliament was inclined to challenge, he would say, "Wait a bit ; there are 103 members in Ireland who have never been consulted about this, and they shall come over and give their opinion." And observe what would follow? Those 103 men who came over would be men who were habitually dissociated from the political life of this country. They would have their own special interests and their own special desires, and every time that their assistance was invited they would be able to make their bargain with the Minister of the day, as the price of the support they would give him. And so I venture to say that Mr. Gladstone is riyht in thinking that if you have a Parliament in Ireland the representa- tives of Ireland must be excluded from the Imperial Parliament ; what I think he is wrong in is in his belief if he entertains it that either England, Scotland, or Ireland will consent to so monstrous a proposition. There is another part of this controversy upon which much conflict has arisen. A great many Liberal candidates are going about and saying : " We approve of Mr. Gladstone's plan of Home Rule, but we disapprove of his plan for land purchase." I find in one of the addresses to the people of Plymouth, pub- lished by those hastily-chosen Liberals, this passage : " I did not approve of the Land Purchase Bill, which formed part of the late plan of the Government, and I rejoice that Mr. Gladstone now recognizes in the coming appeal to the people an oppor- tunity of withdrawing the proposal." Well, I am very sorry that the gentleman should offer himself to a constituency and be so badly informed as to what Mr. Gladstone means. It is not correct that Mr. Gladstone ever said he would withdraw the Land Purchase Bill. So far from that his course with regard to that bill has been a clear, systematic course. I do not say his explanations have been clear, because, of course, they have been couched in the language I mentioned a little while ago. But his course has been clear in this respect. When he brought this bill before the House of Commons he stated it was an obligation of duty, as well as a matter of policy, to make provision for the Land question. He has never gone away from that declaration. If he had gone away from it he would have lost Lord Spencer and Mr. Morley, as well as the rest. And what did he say in his last speech upon the matter ? So far from saying that the Land Purchase Bill was to be abandoned, he said the Land Purchase scheme must be looked upon as part of the machinery for the settlement he desired to be carried out ; and although he has not said he will reconstruct the bill, he has not promised he will not reconstruct, and so now you know all about it. loo PLYMOUTH, JUNE 28, 1886. Now, allow me just a word or two about this Land Purchase scheme. Mr. Motley has declared that he never would leave the Irish landlords to the uncovenanted mercies of the Irish Parliament. Why not ? Why, because every man knows, who knows the history of the National League, that the first thing the National League would be called upon to do by the people through whom it has got its living, and by whose support it has existed at all, would be to make the tenants the owners of the land which they now rent. How is that to be done? There are only two ways. There is the way of robbery, and there is the way of purchase. I don't believe that any member of the present Cabinet though I cannot say I think particularly well of them would propose the scheme of leaving all the land- owners of Ireland to the tender mercies of the National League Parliament. That would be the most scandalous abandonment of the duty of this country to protect those, who, in reliance upon our laws and upon the protection of their fair administra- tion, have invested capital and become the owners of the soil in Ireland. But if you are not to rob you must purchase, and to purchase you must either have the money in cash, or you must have the credit of a great country at your back. The land pur- chase scheme is a scheme which pledges the credit of this country, and the result of it would be this that the tenants of Ireland who now are rebelling at paying rent to these land- lords would be called upon to pay for 49 years a commuted rent, not to the landlords, whom they in many instances know, near whose houses they live, and between whom and themselves there is the remains at all events of an old friendship, but to the receiver of a foreign Government. And it is idle to suppose that for 49 years, or 49 months, that payment would go on without so much difficulty in the exaction of the tribute that we should have face to face with us in Ireland a complica- tion and responsibility heavier even than this we have at present. I have asked more than once, why is it that this has been put before the nation ? It is not what the Irishmen asked for. They asked for something very different. They asked for Ireland to be free to take her place among the nations of the earth, which is a very different thing from a subordinate Parliament and a foreign garrison and a foreign fleet. Why should we give it ? There is one reason, and one only, for changing the political institutions of any country, and that reason is that under your changed institutions the people will be happier, and will obtain measures of justice and of freedom which they otherwise have not. Let us try it by this test. In 1871 Mr. Gladstone himself spoke with regard to the position of Ireland, and although Sir E. Bates has quoted one sentence from that speech he has not THE IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT AND IRELAND. lot quoted the sentence to which I wish to call attention. In 1871 Mr. Gladstone said : "Has Ireland great grievances? What is it that Ireland has demanded from the Imperial Parliament, and that the Imperial Parliament has refused ? It will not do to deal with this matter in vague and shadowy assertions. I have looked in vain for the setting forth of any practical scheme of policy which the Imperial Parliament is not equal to deal with, or which it refused to deal with, and which is to be brought about by Home Rule. You would expect when it is said that the Imperial Parliament is to be broken up you would expect that at the very least a case should be made out, showing that there were great subjects of policy and great demands necessary for the welfare of Ireland, which the representatives of Ireland had united to ask, and which the representatives of England, Scotland, and Wales had united to refuse. There is no such statement. There is nothing that Ireland has asked and that this Parliament has refused. This Parliament has done for Ireland what it would have scrupled to do for England or for Scotland." Now, that was the declaration in 1871 made by Mr. Gladstone himself, and since that time he has had the opportunity of passing another Land measure. But in the House of Commons in this session I threw out precisely the same challenge to the representatives of Ireland. I spoke on the second night of the debate upon the second reading of this bill, and I asked the members of the Parnellite party to mention anything for the benefit of Ireland which they hoped to get from an Irish Parliament, and which they could not expect to get from the Imperial Parliament. That challenge was never answered. Not one member of those eighty-six, though some of the most able of them spoke afterwards, took up that challenge ; so long as they can make out no claim on that ground, so long I use for my words those weighty and im- pressive words in which Mr. Bright has vindicated at once the consistency of his long career, and the independence of his character. He says : " No Irish Parliament can be so powerful or so just in Ireland as the United Parliament sitting in Westminster. I cannot trust the peace and the interests of Ireland, north or south, to the Irish Parliamentary party, to whom the Government now propose to make a general surrender. My six years' experience of them, of their language in the House of Commons, and of their deeds in Ireland, makes it impossible for me to consent to hand over to them the industry, the property, and the rights of the five millions of the Queen's subjects, our countrymen, in Ireland. At least two millions of them are as loyal as the population of your town, and I will be no party to a measure 102 PL y MOUTH, JUNE 28, 1886. which will thrust them from the generosity and the justice of the United and Imperial Parliament." Well, if in the scheme which has been prepared by the keenest intellect and the greatest political experience of our time, we find there are great and cardinal defects defects which the Liberal party would willingly remove, but which I think I have shown cannot be removed without destroying the scheme altogether if we find that the representatives of Ireland cannot show us any good reason for hoping that the grant of this Parliament would give a larger measure of freedom and happi- ness to her people what is our inducement to give it ? We have been told within the last few days, within this town, by a great authority, Mr. Parnell, that we are a strong people and that Ireland is weak, and that if in three ye >rs we find that Ireland misused the boon that had been granted we should have the strength to take it away. That is true. We should have the strength to take it away. Our ships would be on all her coasts, our troops would be all in her fortresses, and this country could, by the exercise of its power, reconquer Ireland. But we are asked to put in operation a scheme which we see beforehand must be wholly fruitless of any good ; which we know may in its operation bring the curse of civil war upon Ireland ; and we are told by the very people who are inviting us to give this boon, that if they misuse it we shall have upon our hands the sad, the awful responsibility of putting forth our power to reconquer Ireland. Such a proposal may be a Parliamentary expedient in a time of difficulty, but it is not statesmanship. Statesmanship works upon tried and safe lines taking advantage of machinery and power that exist, and working step by step, with patient hope, towards the fruition of its proposals. Statesmanship does not indulge in reckless experiments which may, in the course of a few years, oblige a country like Britain to reconquer by arms the people of that island with which we have so long lived in unity. Now, I have said so much with regard to the great question with which we have to deal, and you will observe I have not condescended to any criticism of detail. I have dwelt upon great principles and great issues, and pointed out to you that the grant of this boon, as it is called, would certainly be destructive of the integrity and efficiency of your Parliamentary system, while we could not hope that it would be of any advan- tage to the people to whom it is given. But there is another topic upon which I wish to say a few words. I spoke of the peculiar circumstances of this election. Now, what is the position of the two great parties with regard to this contest. I think I have especial responsibility with regard to this matter. In the late division ninety-five members of the LIBERAL UNIONISTS. 103 Liberal party voted against the Liberal Government, and the question at once arose what should be done by the Conservatives in the constituencies to which those members belonged ? I had, before that vote was taken, spoken in this hall with regard to the course that should be followed, and I hope you will allow me to recall the words I used on the 2Qth April last. I had spoken of the improbability of an election and, to tell you the truth, I never believed Mr. Gladstone would do us the great kindness to help us to a general election at a time when his own party was so hopelessly split to pieces, and then I went on to say : " But, sir, I think that if that election by any chance should come upon us, our duty is perfectly clear as far as Plymouth is concerned. We know perfectly well that there would go back from Plymouth the two members who represent the whole of the Conservative party, and who upon this subject would represent the most important and enlightened section of the Liberal party. But how about other constituencies ? Now, I take two, in both of which I keenly interested myself at the last election. I was very anxious to win the constituency of West Cornwall, and I was very anxious that there should be a good fight made for the constituency of Tavistock. And I am very hopeful that my two personal friends, Mr. Ross and Mr. Imbert- Terry, may before long obtain seats in the House of Commons. But I say this for myself that I will do all that lies in my power, if that general election should come, to prevent, or if possible by personal exertions to combat, any attack upon the seats of Sir John St. Aubyn or Lord Ebrington. The distinction between our political parties is one that has lived throughout the course of Parliamentary Government and will still live. I do not want to ignore it. I do not want to forget our differences. There are many things upon which hereafter we shall be fighting each other just as keenly as we have fought in times past, but so long as the question before the country is a clear and distinct issue of the maintenance or the overthrow of the unimpaired authority of the Imperial Parliament, so long I will gladly go upon a plat- form to speak for any Liberal who has had the courage to im- peril his whole political career by taking up a course of patriotic duty." Now, I was fully conscious of the responsibility that a public speaker took upon him in making such a statement, but I do not regret having made it. I am glad to say that there is no Con- servative candidate assailing Sir John St. Aubyn or Lord Ebrington. It has needed a great deal of discipline and self- denial on the part of the Conservatives. Ninety-five Liberals voted against the Government. By that vote they set up a mass of disturbance and disunion in their own constituencies which would have made it almost certain that if the Conserva- 104 PL YMOUTH, JUNE 38, 2886. tives had taken strictly party lines and put forward party candi- dates they would have won at least 40 or 50 seats. I knew how great would be the strain on old Conservative politician?, but I had faith in the patriotism of the Conservative party. And now, thanks to the patriotism of that party, out of those 95 seats I think there are 91 or 92, where no Conservative is assailing them. I am quite sure that any one who is well acquainted with the political feeling in different parts of the country will say that for Lord Salisbury, and the leaders of our party to have succeeded in evoking that spirit in so many constituencies, is one of the greatest triumphs of patriotism that the Conservative party have to show. But, sir, there is another side to the question. We are going to fight for Liberal candidates. I have but one county vote. It is in the county of Essex, and I hope to go up there in time to vote for a Liberal, whom I might almost call a Radical, and who is one of our strongest opponents on ordinary occasions. I shall cordially give him my vote, as I have striven with all the influence in my power to prevent his seat being attacked by a Conservative. What about the other side ? If the Conserva- tives make this effort of self-denial they have the right to claim from the Liberals who agree with them that they should give us their support. This action of the Conservative party leaves to the Liberals at least forty or fifty seats which might have been obtained by the Conservatives if they had chosen to take advan- tage of the disunion of the constituencies. I shall do my best, as I have done my best, to bring about this union on the Con- servative side. It was for the leaders of the Liberal party to speak in their turn in strong and emphatic language to their followers, and I am very glad to see that great leader of true Liberal opinion, Lord Hartington whose manliness and courtesy in the conduct of this great controversy it is impossible to over- praise has spoken out in definite words as to the duty of Liberals at this crisis. Sir, he said this " The single question which we have to ask ourselves is this what are Liberal Unionists to do in a constituency where they cannot give expression to their own opinion by supporting a Liberal Unionist, and where a Conservative Unionist and a Ministerialist are the only candidates in the field? Will they fulfil their duty by abstention from the poll ? I confess that, in my judgment, they would not so fulfil their duty. If this were a minor issue, if it were not the greatest issue that can be sub- mitted to the country, I should say that it would not be the duty of the Liberals to subordinate their opinions upon any question to the interest of the Home Rule party ; but if you honestly believe, as I believe, the majority of those whom I am address- ing believe, that this is, at all events at the present time, the MR. PARNELL. 105 greatest political question which can be submitted to the coun- try, then I say, in my humble judgment and without seeking to dictate the course which any man's conscience tells him to take, I believe that we shall best consult our interests and the in- terests of our country by not abstaining from the poll but by giving our vote to the Unionist candidates irrespective of any other political consideration." These are clear, and definite, and manly words. If Lord Hartington were here he would, upon that principle, fight for Sir Edward Bates and for me exactly as, if I were in the Rossendale Division, I should be one of the hardest workers in Lord Hartington's cause. I am glad to believe that the voice of Lord Hartington may be actually heard here within this week, but if it be not so heard we have the echo of that voice which spoke at Glasgow, and which I believe points out to the Liberals of this borough, the course which their patriotism should induce them to take. In my last few words let me point out to this great assembly what are the issues involved in the result of the conflict we are now engaged in. If we have a decisive voice from the people of this country, a distinct and definite declaration that they will not have a separate Parliament, that they will give to Ireland all that justice demands or requires, and that the interests of her people measured and limited by considerations of policy and justice can enable her to ask, but that they will not have the empire broken up or the seeds of disintegration sown sir, what will be the result of that great declaration ? We have had near this place within the last few days the leader of the Irish party in the House of Commons addressing a very large meeting of his fellow-countrymen and others at the Drill Hall. Now, there is no man in the House of Commons who has a clearer and a calmer judgment than Mr. Parnell. There is no man in the House of Commons who more quickly measures the possi- bilities of a situation and adjusts his requirements to that situa- tion. The requirements of America have, well, we will say, have been adjusted to the atmosphere of the House of Com- mons and once let Great Britain show by a clear and resolute decision that it is no use talking about separate Parliaments, and that we mean to keep our united Parliament as it is, depend upon it Mr. Parnell is a great deal too shrewd and careful a man to waste his breath like a child in crying after impossi- bilities. He will see that his interest and duty lead him to con- sider what requirements, what boons, for Ireland within that definite limit can be asked from Parliament for those whom he represents. Let us pass to the discussion of those questions. They will be fairly discussed in the House of Commons. No one need 106 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY IT, 1887. fear that Ireland in the House of Commons will get less than her fair share of discussion and indulgence. So far as legisla- tion is concerned the only thing that can save this country from the folly and mischief of long debate and discussion and dis- union, the splitting up of political parties, and the sowing of the seed of civil discord here as well as in Ireland, the only thing that can save it will be a clear and resolute declaration by the people of this country that they will not have disunion. It will not be a party triumph if, as we feel sure, that declaration is firmly made. It will be a triumph of a national party, and a triumph which will clear the air, will sweep away many of the difficulties that beset and endanger our path, and which, by removing this great subject of controversy out of the arena of practical debate, will allow Parliament with exceptional efficiency and reasserted freedom to discuss those questions of political and national importance with which all agree it ought to deal, to proceed in its true course of promulgating and passing useful legislation for the benefit of all parts of the empire, and seeing that equal laws are established, and that those equal laws are justly and equally enforced. Annual Address to the Electors in the Guildhall ', Plymouth. JANUARY 11, 1887. MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, Before I Address myself to the discussion of political topics, I must, in two or three words, echo the remarks which fell from my colleague, Sir Edward Br.tes as to the loss which he and I and the Conser- vative party in Plymouth sustained only a few months ago. Mr. William Foster Moore was my proposer when I came to Plymouth and met the Conservatives of this borough with a view to my becoming their candidate for Parliament. From that day to the last day of his life he gave to me a most cordial and most active friendship and support. He was a man of whom Plymouth might well be proud, a man of firm, and reso- lute, and unwavering character, never afraid or unwilling to speak out what he believed to be the truth upon public questions. I think iiis memory is honoured and regarded by all the inhabi- tants it will certainly be to me a memory that I am always bound to respect and to cherish. Sir, you have truly said that the time which has passed since last I met the constituency of Plymouth in this hall has been a AN UNSUCCESSFUL BARGAIN. 107 very remarkable and very interesting time. During the last twelve months the country has passed through a crisis which has tested the patriotism of all its citizens, and it is, I think, to be congratulated on the fact that that crisis, sudden and unex- pected, and perplexing as it was, has been faced with resolution and with decision, and has resulted in the establishment of a firm principle of national action. It will be a year to-morrow since the Parliament of 1886 met. That Parliament met at a time when the Conservatives had been assailed on every Radical platform by the most violent attacks because of their supposed alliance with the Parnellite party. But before that Parliament was three weeks old, by a sudden manoeuvre, the leader of the Radical party joined hands with the Parnellites, obtained their aid in his attack upon the Treasury Bench, and succeeded by their help and as their servant in again getting into power. Sir, he tried to carry out the bargain by which he had obtained his reappointment to public office. But the nation was before him, and against him, and refused to be a party to his scheme for the disruption of the empire. In a Parliament in which there were only 250 Conservatives the leader of the Liberal party was defeated at a crowning division, and when the appeal was made to the country as to whether it would accept, and ratify, and en- dorse the shameful bargain which he had made with the Irish faction, the country emphatically refused its consent. Apart from its result upon the fortunes of political parties or political individuals this year has been a great and a memor- able year. It has shown that with a free people the most popu- lar political leader is the leader only and not the master of his party. It has shown that the associations of political life are not strong enough to warp men from the consciousness of their duty and their resolve to do their duty to their country, and has enabled Englishmen in all parts of the land to show that there is a public spirit superior to the bonds of party asserting itself in defiance, in disregard of political and personal interests, and securing for the voice of the people and the consciences of the people upon a great question of Imperial politics, an authorita- tive and an emphatic expression in Parliament. Sir, we had a time of great anxiety throughout the country. Some of us took a tolerably active part in the campaign in the West of Eng- land and there is no part of the country where the result was so satisfactory as in the two counties of Devon and Cornwall. Here in Plymouth we found that the oldest and most trusted leaders of the Liberal party refused to be dragged into com- plicity with schemes which they believed to be hostile to the interests of the country. The Liberal Unionists of Plymouth stood well together, and when the election came they turned that which was alre idy an assured victory into a splendid and 108 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY //, 1887. overwhelming triumph. And I am glad to believe that the ser- vices which they rendered to the Conservative Unionists here we, the Conservatives, were able in full measure to return to the Liberal Unionists in other parts of this county. No question of personal claim, no matter of political prejudice, no desire to snatch a party advantage, was allowed for one moment to dis- turb the loyalty of the Conservative party to those whose voices and votes were felt to be firmly given to the cause of the Union. Men laid aside the associations of their political life. Mr. Henry Lopes spoke for Mr. Mildmay ; Mr. Imbert-Terry worked for Lord Ebrington ; Colonel Edgcumbe worked for Mr Leonard Courtney. In the West of Cornwall Mr. Charles Ross worked for Sir John St. Aubyn ; and Devon and Cornwall did their duty. In this county of Devon all the thirteen members, with one single and personally insignificant exception went to the House of Commons pledged to the support of the Union ; and when we went back to that House it was perfectly clear that in the Parliament as it is now constituted, there was a force in support of the Unionist cause which no intrigue on the part of the most ambitious of the Radical leaders could hope to disturb or overthrow. We have had some interesting events during the last few weeks. I do not mean to comment in detail this evening upon that which has been called the political crisis that is to say, the rearrangement of the Government which has recently taken place. But I cannot help saying this, that however great was my regret at losing from the front rank of the Conservative party the keen intellect, the prompt and ready ability, and the unfailing courage of Lord Randolph Churchill, I am far more grieved to believe for it may not yet be absolutely certain that one of the consequences of his leaving the Government would be the loss to that Covernment of the Earl of Iddesleigh. Sir, that is a more serious tiling to the Conservate party than the loss of Lord Randolph Churchill. Lord Iddesleigh has for very many years occupied an honoured place in the councils of the Conservative party. He is a man of the highest training in departmental and in official work, a man of scrupulous honour, of upright and blameless life, a man who has unshrinkingly given himself at all times to the service of our cause. And 1 most sincerely hope that if it be true that circumstances have caused Lord Iddesleigh for a time to leave the active work of the Conservative party it will only be for a very short time, and that Devonshire, at all events, will know, as I am sure it will be glad to know, that he will soon return to take his place in the councils of that party. Sir, the changes that have taken place in the Conservative Government have of late started a new undertaking. It is pro- THE ROUND TABLE CONFERENCE. 109 posed, as we understand, to hold a conference of five persons in order to endeavour to re-arrange the forces of the Liberal party. And I believe that on the i3th instant four gentlemen, two from each side Mr. John Morley and Sir William Harcourt on the one side, and Mr. Chamberlain and Sir George Trevelyan on the other are to meet under the experienced presidency of Lord Herschell, who, I suppose, is to represent with regard to them the spirit, the guiding spirit, of judicious compromise and they are to endeavour to find for the Liberal party not, sir, a policy for that is hopeless ; not a principle for they have not one in common but in default of either principle or policy they are to endeavour to find something which is disguised in Latin phrase and called a modus vivendi. Now, a modus vivendi, when it is applied to domestic life, means just a way of getting on without absolutely quarrelling, and I suppose that is the idea with which the modus vivendi is to be arranged for the Liberal party. It is not that there is likely to be, or can be, any very pleasant common action between them, but only that for certain reasons which are becoming day by day increasingly plain to the unfortunate Liberals who find themselves out of office, it is desir- able to find some way, if possible, of arranging that they shall try and get back together. Now, sir, it is not a very hopeful task. Mr. Chamberlain has laid down very distinctly his terms with regard to the Irish question. He has said that he would give to Ireland, as he would give to Scotland and to England, ample measures of self-government but that he insists upon the absolute and complete supremacy of the Imperial Parlia- ment of this country. Sir George Trevelyan has made his line no less clear. He has said that while giving a full measure of local self-government to Ireland he insists that the effective forces in Ireland the army, the navy, and the governing forces shall be directly under the control of the Imperial Parliament. And inasmuch as both Mr. Chamberlain and Sir George Trevelyan have sacrificed to the firmness of their opinions upon that point their alliance with the Liberal party and their present hope of taking any effective part in public affairs, I am not one of those who think that Mr. Chamberlain and Sir George Trevelyan are going to meet at the round table in order to allow themselves at once to be coaxed over into a repentant submission to Mr. John Morley and Sir William Harcourt. Sir, the proba- bilities are distinctly the other way. There have been a good many indications that Sir William Harcourt has already come to the conclusion that he made a mistake when he took the Parnellite side. It was only in September, 1885, that Sir William Harcourt said : " It had now become perfectly plain from the declarations of Mr. Parnell and his friends what the policy was which Mr. Parnell and his party had adopted. It was 1 10 PL YMOUTH, JANUAR Y //, 1887. policy of the absolute separation of the two countries." (No.) That proposition may not have been true, but it was Sir William Harcourt who said it. In an evil hour he allowed himself to be induced not to follow the great leaders of the Liberal party, Lord Hartington and Mr. Bright : but he allowed himself to become an accomplice of the Home Rule adventure in the House of Commons. But there have been several indications of late that he is a little tired of the position he occupies now. I think the fact is that Sir William Harcourt has now been fora-twelve- month, to use his own most delicate and beautiful phrase, stew- ing in the Parnellite juice. And he does not seem to like it. I think he would be extremely grateful to anybody who would hook him put. And if this conference of five men at the table can give Sir William Harcourt the opportunity for a respectable conversion I think it is an opportunity he will very gladly seize. But, sir, I do not myself understand why people are making such a pother about these five men at the table, because when all is said and done, it matters very little what decision they come to. They cannot get a majority of the House of Commons ; and until they get a majority of the House of Commons they may be pretty sure that the policy which the people have approved at the polls will be stoutly maintained by the Government which is in power. It seems to be forgotten that there are in the House of Commons at the present time four distinct groups. Mr. Gladstone leads about 190 members of the House. As against those 190 members who follow Mr. Gladstone, there are 316 who sit on the Conservative side, and the rest of the House consists of the 84 Nationalist members from Ireland more than there ought to be and about 80 members who are Liberal Unionists, following the lead of Lord Hartington and Mr. Chamberlain. Now, sir, if at this conference of five men round a table, Mr. John Morley and Sir William Harcourt, in defiance of all known physical laws, were to succeed in dragging over to their side Mr. Chamberlain and Sir George Trevelyan, they would still not have a majority of the House of Commons. Mr. Labouchere is always telling us that Mr. Chamberlain represents only the Chamberlain family and a very faithful henchman, one Jesse Collings. Sir George Trevelyan does not happen to be in the House of Commons, so that, according to Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Chamberlain would not bring half a dozen people with him on the Liberal side if Sir William Harcourt succeeded in convert- ing him. But if that were so, what would be the numbers ? There would be 190 Gladstonians, let us say 10 Chamberlain- ites in order to put it handsomely and 84 Parnellites. That gives you 284, as against 316 Conservatives ; and if Lord MR. PARNELVS SERVICE TO UNIONISTS. in Hartington and every Liberal Unionist stayed out of the House altogether there would still be a majority of thirty against Mr. Gladstone and the Parnellites. But we know that the Liberal Unionists would not stay out of the House altogether. We know that Lord Hartington is as true as steel, and that those who are with him and I read an admirable letter on the sub- ject a day or two ago, in one of your Western papers, from Mr. Pitt-Lewis count the cost, and know that they are working for a great cause, and are clearly determined that whatever may happen with regard to other matters in this Parliament, this Parliament shall last long enough to stamp out this claim for Hoir.e Rule in Ireland, and that they will not tolerate any alliance or intrigues that can imperil the cause for which they have risked so much and fought so nobly. Sir, we have representatives of the Home Rule agitation down in this part, and here, by the way, I should like to say a word about Mr. Parnell, and there may be some here to whom I may address my reproach. At the last election Mr. Parnell cams down here and made a speech in the Volunteer Drill-hall, and I saw a week or two ago that some of his friends at Ply- mouth had sent an illuminated address thanking him for coming dovn on that occasion. Sir, I feel that I have a right to re- proach them. Of all men in Plymouth who have reason to thank Mr. Parnell for coming here I have the most reason. He was good enough to travel about in different parts of the country, and, with one exception Cardiff he lost the seat wherever he went, and I am very much obliged to Mr. Parnell for having paid that visit to Plymouth, and for having done, not so much as Lord Hartington did in this hall, but very nearly as much, to steady and strengthen the ranks of the Liberal Unionists and force them into direct alliance with, and support of, the Conservative party at thejast election. I noticed a few days ago that one of the representatives of the Irish party, Mr. John Redmond, addressed an assembly at Torquay on the Irish question. I was a good deal interested in the report of some observations made by Mr. Redmond at the end of that meeting, when Mr. Terry had called his atten- tion to the report of a speech made by Mr. Parnell at Cincinnati. The incident is so important, and these words of Mr. Redmond at Torquay are so deserving of full report and circulation, that I pause for a moment upon this subject. In the year 1880 Mr. Parnell said this at Cincinnati : " None of us, whether we are in America or in Ireland, or wherever we may be, will be satisfied until we have destroyed the last link which keeps Ireland bound to England." I have quoted these words in the House of Commons, and others have quoted them. They have not been denied, and cannot be denied. There was an attempt ii2 PL YMO UTH, JANUAR Y //, 1887. at a denial, but it was met at once by the production of the American papers which gave the words I have just read. At Torquay the other evening Mr. Redmond was trying, for hone consumption, to limit, as closely and tenderly as he could, the scope of the Home Rule claim, and he was challenged with that speech at Cincinnati. And I sincerely wish I could secure ihat every London newspaper should to-morrow reprint the words I am going to read to you, because, being met by that quotation, Mr. Redmond said this: "With reference to the quotation from an alleged speech by Mr. Parnell, that gentleman bad said in the House of Commons that he did not remember kav- ing used the words which he was reported to have done, and that if he did use them they did not represent his feelings either then or now." I am very much mistaken if those words of Mr. Redmond, reported in America, would not very seriously check the sub- scriptions that come from across the water. They were not accurate. Mr. Parnell has never repudiated those words, and he could not do so, because there are others, which I will read directly, that are quite as strong, and which were uttered five years later. Speaking at Mayo, on the 3rd November, 1885, Mr. Parnell said this : " Speaking for myself, and I believe for the Irish people, and for all my colleagues, I have to declare that we will never accept, either expressly or implied, anything but the full and complete right to arrange our own affairs and make our land a nation, to secure for her, free from outside con- trol, the right to direct her own course among the peoples of the world." That has been the claim which Mr. Parnell has made : but what did Mr. Redmond say at Torquay the other day ? Let me read you his definition of the Irish claim. He said : "Mr Chamberlain had quite rightly defined the claim of the Irish party to be a Local Parliament for purely domestic affairs, maintaining the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament." Why, sir, that is not what they have asked in Ireland, or in America, or in the House of Commons. It is not what Mr. Redmond has asked, for I have here a quotation from a speech which that same Mr. Redmond made at Chicago in the autumn of 1886. When Mr. Gladstone's Bill was defeated a deputation, consisting of Mr. Redmond and Mr. O'Brien, and one or two others, went over to America to help to raise funds in that country for the agitation. Mr. Redmond made a speech in Chicago in August 1886, and this is what he said : " It was no question of a Local Parliament for purely domestic affairs, maintaining the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament." These are his words : " The one great principle of any settlement of the Irish question must be the recognition of the Divine right of Irishmen, and Irishmen alone, to rule Ireland." Where is the FRESH PO WERS MA Y BE NEEDED. \ 1 3 supremacy of the Imperial Parliament an Imperial Parlia- ment containing Englishmen and Scotchmen as well if it is the divine right of Irishmen and Irishmen alone to govern Ireland and direct her course? And then Mr. Redmond, who comes down to Torquay and talks about local government and the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, when at Chicago, and describing Mr. Gladstone's bill, described that bill as being " cramped and deformed by humiliating safeguards and un- necessary limitations." We shall, of course, have this question before the House of Commons again, and we shall have brought before the House of Commons the state of things which is a very serious and sad state of things in Ireland at this time. It is impossible for one, looking on from a distance, to know how the battle between order and disorder is going in Ireland. It is a battle which has to be fought out. and the Government cannot afford to allow itself to be beaten in the conflict. We have hoped, and we still hope, that the administration of the ordinary law may be sufficient to restore peace, and to restore the observance of duty as between man and man in that country. But it may not be so, and it may be necessary for the Government, however composed, to come to Parliament and ask for further powers to deal with the forces of disorder in Ireland. I am quite sure that the new member of the Government who has come to the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer will have no hesitation in joining his colleagues in asking for that if it be necessary. There is no man who has spoken more courageously and more firmly than Mr. Goschen has with regard to the maintenance of law in Ireland, and if it be necessary I hope it may not but if it be necessary that the Government should come to Parlia- ment for further powers, I have not the slightest doubt that, upon being satisfied that every effort has been made to use with its full authority the existing law, and that that effort has failed, Parlia- ment will grant, reluctantly perhaps, but still will certainly grant, further powers to the administrators of the law in Ireland. The fact is that we are face to face with great difficulties in Ireland. One of the leaders of the Irish party the other day said that he should not admit that his action in the plan of campaign was illegal until a jury had declared it to be illegal. Sir, it is not the province of a jury to declare the law. The judge declares the law ; it is for the jury to find the facts. And the great trouble we have to deal with in Ireland is this, that the population of that^country from which the jury panels are drawn, is either so corrupted or so terrorized that it is scarcely possible to have jury trial in its full and fair meaning in that country. But we ought to remember that trial by jury is only a means to an end. It is adopted and I am glad to say that it 1 14 PL 1 'MOUTH, JANUARY //, 1887. s sufficient in this country in almost all cases to secure the fair enforcement of the law. But if it be found that jurymen are terrorized, that they dare not as in many parts of Ireland they dare not give a fair and impartial verdict, because they will be followed after the verdict, and dogged and persecuted for having given a verdict according to their oaths ; if that state of things exists, the remedy must be faced and adopted trial by jury must be abolished if its use has disappeared. I know there are other means which men have been anxious to resort to the change of venue for trial from one country to another, the challenge of a certain number of jurymen to make them stand aside. These are means towards the same end, but I, for one, say that I would have much more faith in a trial conducted by two judges sworn to the discharge of their duties, and responsi- ble to the country in the face of the publicity of the Press, than I would in the packing of a jury or the changing of a venue from one country to another. Now, sir, I turn to another subject. There has been a good deal of excitement of late in connection with the resignation of Lord Randolph Churchill, and I, of course, listened with interest and with much sympathy to what my colleague has said with regard to the action of the Government with respect to the Dockyards and the Dockyard establishments in this place. Sir, we have been warned, and rightly warned, that the time has not yet come when the full discussion can take place with regard to Lord Randolph Churchill's conduct in leaving the Government. But I should like to say this : that if it be true, as I believe it is, that he left the Government because he could not secure an immediate and a considerable reduction in the estimates for the army and navy, I venture to think if that be true, his action will not be approved by the people of this country. Sir, economy is an exceedingly good thing. Every adminis- trator has it as part of his duty to watch the expenditure and the growth of public expenditure, and as far as he can to check any extravagance. But to come down and say that at any given moment the expenditure on the army and navy must be reduced by an arbitrary and considerable sum is not practical administration, and would never be suggested by any one who had experience of departmental work. By far the larger amount of the cost which goes out year by year to the army and navy is cost of a character with which no administrator at a moment can deal. It consists of expenditure upon works which have been erected and cannot be abandoned, and expenditure upon ships which, when once they are afloat and are in commission, must be kept up from year to year ; of expenditure upon pensions which have been earned in past times, and now have to be paid from year to year in fulfilment of public obligations. If you EXTRA VA GANT RE TRENCHMENT. 1 1 5 wanted to cut down at this moment the expenditure on the army and navy by two or three millions a year there would be only one way of doing it, and that is by getting rid of men from your arsenals and dockyards, by discharging them, by making still worse that pressure which, to our great regret, has been brought upon the dockyard and arsenal towns in recent times by the com- pulsory discharge of persons who were there employed. But what would the result of it be ? If you think your army is too strong, if you think your navy is too well equipped, then let the supplies be refused, and let the extravagance be retrenched. But unhappily we know that is not the state of things. We know the condition of our army is not such as to indicate an extravagant and unnecessary expenditure, but is rather one which indicates in some directions too great a parsimony in past years. And unfortunately we know this, that not very long ago, in Mr. Gladstone's time, there was what was called the Russian scare, and we seemed to be upon the eve of a European war. The defects that were found in our dockyards, in the stores, in the furniture for our ships of war, were so large and so various that they compelled immediate attention and a large vote of Parliament. If now, for the sake of producing a popular budget, two or three millions were retrenched from the public expenditure, and the stores were allowed to go down, and the trained artificers were allowed to drift away into other employ- ment, the time would come when we might have to face national danger with national reserves absolutely insufficient for our needs, and we should have to spend ten millions in the time of trouble and danger for every million we had been extravagant enough to retrench in time of peace. Apart from the question of the reasons for which Lord Randolph Churchill left the Government, there is one observa- tion upon that resignation which I should like to make. I have been a little surprised to see within the last few days a speech by a Conservative member of Parliament in which he spoke of his regret that Lord Randolph had left the Government, because it took away from the Government, as he appeared to suggest, the progressive character which he believed that Government had. If there were any foundation for that statement it would be a very serious one, but nobody who looks back upon the history of the last Conservative Administration can fail to see that twelve years ago there was just as much energy in dealing with, and endeavouring to remedy, admitted mischiefs, and to meet the wants of the people as, even if Lord Randolph Churchill had stayed in the Government, that Government could now have shown. Have our friends forgotten so soon the great Beaconsfield Administration from 1874 to 1880? When that Administration 1 1 6 PL YMO UTff, JANUAR Y //, 1887. came into power in 1874 it was taunted because it had a "policy of sewage." It was taunted because it was said that it was addressing itself not to great questions but to small matters which did not concern questions of high policy. Sir, in 1874 the Conservative Ministry took its place on the front bench. Mr. Disraeli led it, and his two trusted lieutenants were Sir Stafford Northcote and the then Mr. Cross, the Home Secretary. We have never had a more conscientious Chancellor of the Exchequer than Sir Stafford Northcote ; I believe this country had no more competent Home Secretary than Mr. Cross. During the first three years of that Government measures were passed affecting the social interests of the people in almost every direction. That Government came in to find great diffi- culties existing with regard to the relations of master and servant. Those difficulties were all solved. The Employers' and Workmen's Act, which was passed by that Government in 1875 ; the Conspiracy Act, which was passed in the same year, put an end to all difficulties between employers and workmen, by changing that which had been the subject of criminal procedure into being the subject of civil procedure between master and man. They did away with the hardship under which workmen had felt that they were labouring by being made the subjects of criminal prosecution for the violation of their con- tracts, and settled the matter so satisfactorily that no one has ever complained, or raised the question since of the relations existing between employers and workmen. We did more than that. The Factory Acts were completed ; further protection was given to the women and young persons who were labouring in our factories, and in 1878, by the consolidation of the Factory Acts, the completion and crown was given to thr.t great mass of most useful legislation which the Conservatives had for years pressed upon the acceptance of Parliament against the bitterest opposition from the Radical party. Friendly societies were dealt with and established on a satisfactory basis. Laws were made for the erection of artisans' dwellings, laws for the protection of the purity of rivers, laws for the protection of open spaces valuable to the people of great towns. Within the four years that followed the accession of that Ministry to power twenty-two Acts were put upon the statute-book, not one of which had ever been put forward as the great party cry of a Ministry or of an Opposition, but every one of which was directed simply and straightforwardly towards improving the welfare of the people. Sir, with such a record as that, and such a recent record because that was the very last Conservative Government which had really power and authority in the House of Commons who shall say that useful legislation began to be considered when Lord Randolph Churchill joined the Conservative party ? We WORK FOR THE TORY PARTY. 117 happen for the time to have lost him from the front fighting rank of the Conservative party, but I do not doubt that he will be in sympathy and fellowship with us in the work we have to do. I do not doubt, even, that without his official aid and counsel the leaders of the Conservative party will find real and good work to do for the people in the sessions which now lie before us. Of course, there is a disappointment in the incident to which I have been now referring. Changes in the constitution of a Ministry just before the beginning of a session undoubtedly cripple and weaken it for the purpose of effective legislation, and I deeply regret that any such weakening has happened. But no one can doubt that when we are able to address ourselves to the real dis- cussion and treatment of public questions, there are manymatters on which the Conservative party is quite prepared to offer to the people legislation which will be of immediate and enduring benefit. Sir, it is not for me to sketch the programme of the Conserva- tive party, but it may be allowed to me to say this : If I could look forward over four or five years, during which years Parlia- ment had a real opportunity, under the guidance of a Conservative Government, of addressing itself to the practical discussion of matters of great public import, I could think of things which I hope by the end of that period of four or five years would have been dealt with, and dealt with for the benefit of all. The procedure of our Parliament should have been altered, and improved. We would have lessened the cruel strain that is now brought upon the energies and endurance of those who go to work in Parliament, and while diminishing that strain upon the energy and endurance of its members, we would have increased by the abolition of some of its most technical and silly rules its practical power for helping the people ; and, sir, while increasing the power of the House of Commons, we would have increased in the best possible way the usefulness of the House of Lords, by enabling it to come into constant and concurrent action with the House of Commons, carrying on with it side by side not checked by prorogations or adjournments the work of beneficent legislation. I hope we should have done something more. I hope we should have rearranged the local administration of the country in a way which would have simplified and made it more intelligible to the people, and enabled them to have a more direct control over the expenditure of the funds they were called upon to contribute. I hope we should have altered the law with regard to the transfer of land ; that we should have accompanied a complete and authoritative survey of the whole kingdom \\ith a law making compulsory a registration of title, so as to give to the dealings in land and in its passing liS PLYMOUTH, JANUARY //, 1887. from man to man, greater freedom than it ever can have so long as it is burdened with the complicated arrangements which beset it now. I hope we should have done something to regulate railway companies, so as to prevent a monopoly which Parlia- ment has given for public purposes being exercised for purposes injurious to the true interests of the people of this country. I hope we should have done something to protect the lives and interests of the seafaring portion of our population something to guard the merchant sailors of this country from those evils which were admitted many years ago, but which, as yet, there has been no practical and real attempt to deal with. I hope we should have been able to do something to clear and free our Church of the many defects and mischiefs which now afflict and weaken her ; that we should peremptorily abolish the shameful traffic in presentations to livings ; that we should have ensured to the people of a district some means of objecting to and repel- ling the intrusion upon their parish of a clergyman not fitted for his work and that we should have given to the authorities of the Church itself some power of removing from his post a clergyman who, from want of capacity or want of will, had ceased properly to discharge his sacred duties. Sir, these matters which I have just enumerated are matters which, when I first stood as a candidate for Parliament, in the beginning of the year 1880, appeared to press upon the attention of the people, and to demand legislative action. Not one of them has been touched since. There is not one of them which a Con- servative Government cannot deal with with perfect freedom and perfect courage, and upon which it would not have the capacity and the will to pass legislation of benefit to the people. We know not what may be the result of the incidents of the last few weeks. We know not how the new session of Parliament may be perplexed and disturbed by intrigue, or by attacks from the Irish party, but this I do hope and believe that, if it is given to us to take for some years yet an official share in directing the councils and assisting in the plans of Parliament, we may do something in each one of these subjects to meet the requirements of the people, and to justify the claim I have always made and do make for the party to which I belong, that it is the party which holds most dearly, and which seeks with the strongest earnestness, the real welfare and prosperity of the people. Annual Address to the Electors of Plymouth, at the Guildhall, JANUARY 3, 1888. MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I rise to discharge what has always been a pleasant duty to me, the duty of coming once in the year before my constituents in this hall to speak to them of the work of the past twelve months. And to-day I have two reasons for feeling a special interest and pleasure in being here. In the first place I have now served my apprentice- ship in your service. I have filled my seven years of work ; have entered, I think, on another seven years' term, and I have some reason to believe that those seven years of work have not been unacceptable to, or unapproved by, the people of Plymouth. But in the next place, sir, I have to-night for the first time to make answer for the year that has gone by in the capacity of a member of her Majesty's Government a member of the Government which during that period has been charged with the responsibility of directing the political fortunes of this country. Sir, the people of Plymouth, when they elected me to Parlia- ment, took upon themselves, as they now see, a serious re- sponsibility. They not only contributed a member to the House of Commons, but they have contributed a Solicitor-General to it also. Not for the first time in the history of Plymouth has it been represented by a legal member of the Govern- ment, and I hope, and I have every reason to believe, that those who seven years ago worked hard to make me member for Plymouth, are gratified that at the end of the seven years they have seen me take my place on the Ministerial bench of the House of Commons. And so, sir, I have to-night not only to make answer as a private member of Parliament doing his work in the House of Commons, but I have also the privilege of making answer here for the Government of which I am a member. Sir, the session has been a very trying session ; but when we got to the end of it we felt that it had been a very gratifying session. It was a very trying session ; it was the longest single ses- sion of the House of Commons that has been known during the reign of her Majesty. We have not had for fifty years so long a continuous session of the House of Commons. There has never been a single session of Parliament which has occupied so many hours ; there has never been a session which has placed upon the members of the House of Commons so terrible a burden of sittings 120 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY j, f$88. after midnight. I think, sir, sometimes, when our constituents look at the morning papers and see there the reports of what has taken place in the House of Commons down to the close of the sitting, it does not occur to them very often to notice at what time the House of Commons adjourned. But we had during the last session of Parliament 160 sittings. Of that number, 130 were evening sittings beginning at four o'clock in the afternoon, and in those 130 evening sittings the House of Commons sat for 280 hours after midnight, so that the average time for the rising of the House from an evening sitting was about a quarter-past two in the morning. Of course, we had early nights sometimes, and were able to get to bed by about one o'clock, but as a rule it was a good deal the other way, and week after week one went home from House of Commons' work at three or four o'clock in the morning for three or four mornings a \\eek, and I need scarcely say that, especially to those who have to do the whole of their professional work before they go to the House of Commons at four o'clock in the afternoon, to spend ten hours in the House of Commons after that time must, of course, be a serious burden. During the last six weeks of that session I believe that members spent on an average ten hours out of the twenty-four of each working day in the House of Commons, and that such a thing should be possible is a discredit to the House of Commons itself. It is not the fault of the people, it is the fault of the House of Commons ; and when the House of Commons chooses to address itself steadily and vigorously to the work, it will make an end of those nonsensical rules which permit or encourage such a waste of time, and such a senseless drain upon the energies of the public men of this country. But, sir, if from the point of view of a private member of the House of Commons that session was a very trying and fatiguing one, from the point of view of a member of her Majesty's Government it was an eminently satisfactory session. When editorial comments were being made last year upon the speeches which we then delivered at the Guildhall, a local prophet of some pretensions, but of limited circulation, foretold that at the end ot twelve months the people of Plymouth would see another Solicitor-General. Well, the prophecy has come as near to the truth as we might have expected. The same Solicitor-General is here again to-night, speaking of the history of the past session. From the Government point of view it was, I say, an extremely satisfactory session. We had to endure obstruction, and we had to suffer from the senseless waste of time of which I have spoken ; but we endured it, and we conquered. In spite of all the obstruction, and although that obstruction was suggested, was encouraged, and was taken part in, by leaders of the Glad- PARLIAMENTAR Y PR1 VILEGE. 121 stonian party, in spite of that obstruction we carried our work through Parliament. The Ministry placed its measures before the House of Commons, and the House of Commons approved and adopted those measures. It is true, we had to sit until late in September in order to do the work ; but the work was done. Measures were passed not only those measures which it was the main purpose and duty of this Parliament to pass, measures which should restore order and contentment to Ireland but many other measures were passed which to every class of the people of this country brought an alleviation of the troubles under which they laboured, and brought relief from some of the difficulties of their daily lives. Now, sir, in the course of that session there is but one special matter to which I wish to refer ; and it is a matter to which, I confess, I myself look back with considerable satisfaction. You are aware that in the course of our discussions in the House of Commons during the last session we had to deal at one time quite suddenly with the very grave and important question of the privilege of Parliament. There had been an accusation of falsehood brought in public, in the columns of the Times news- paper, against a member of the House of Commons, and an injudicious person on the Conservative side of the House pro- posed a motion that this should be treated as a matter of privilege, and that the editor of the Times should be called upon to appear at the bar of the House. It was thereupon suggested that the House of Commons might appoint a com- mittee to discuss and decide whether the accusation so made by the Times newspaper against that member of the House of Commons was or was not true. Sir, if I could have no other recollection of service done in the House of Commons, and if I were to-night to cease my con- nection with that House, I confess I should feel great satisfaction and some pride in remembering that my friend, Sir Richard Web- ster, and I, had the opportunity of advising the Government upon the question, and of taking a prominent part in the debate that arose upon it. We regarded with great respect, and with great anxiety to preserve them, all the just and traditional privileges of the House of Commons. But there is no aristocracy in this country that is above the law, and the House of Commons must not be permitted to make itself one. A committee of the House of Commons is a good place for considering questions which are connected with bills brought before that House for discussion ; but it is not a good place for deciding legal questions and con- troversies such as then arose. If that committee had been appointed the House of Commons would have committed itself to a precedent of a most dangerous character ; it would have embarked on an inquiry for which a committee of the 122 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 3, 1888. House of Commons is not a competent or a right tribunal. While it is important to the people of this country to guard, and jealously guard, and preserve with resolute energy, all the privileges of free speech which belong to the House of Commons, they must preserve with at least as resolute a determination the right of free speech outside the House of Commons. A member of the House of Commons has no privilege before the law because he happens to be a member of that House. If his character be unjustly assailed he can go into a court of law and clear it before his countrymen, and by the verdict of a jury of those countrymen ; and it is, I submit, a great service that the Government and the House of Commons did to the country during the last session of Parliament in refusing to allow a question properly belonging to the tribunal of a court of law to be transferred to the unsatisfactory arbitrament of a committee of the House of Commons nominated by the political leaders or the political managers of that House. Sir, that is the only incident in the history of the past session upon which at this moment I desire to dwell, because I wish to treat of that which I think was the great result of the last session of Parliament. It was not the passing of a particular measure, or the maintenance of a particular policy, but it was the consolidation of a national party. That is a much more im- portant thing than the question of whether a particular measure should pass this year or next year. When last year began we were entering upon a session of Parliament in which parties were very strangely broken up and divided. We on our side had 315 or 316 members of the Conservative party. But those 316 did not constitute a majority of the House of Commons. There sat on the other side of the House three parties. There was the Gladstonian party perhaps respectable, but certainly small for they were only 190 in number. There was a Par- nellite party I will not say of that w hat I said of the other. That party numbered 86. And then there was the Liberal party led by Lord Hartington, that staunch and steadfast band of representatives of the oldest and best traditions of the Liberal party, who had pledged themselves to support even a Conserva- tive Government rather than allow the Empire to be broken up. That was the condition of parties, but it was quite clear to any one who saw the arrangements of the House of Commons itself that there must be serious difficulties in the action of Lord Hartington and his followers with the Conservatives. They were sitting by men with whom they had been in the habit of working for years. Lord Hartington himself in years not long ago, when the leadership of the Liberal party had been deserted by another, led that party in a manner which was worthy of the best traditions of English Parliamentary life. Of course there A FIRM ALLIANCE. 123 were difficulties in the action of a mixed and combined party in the House of Commons during the last session, and it remained to be seen whether under the stress of the difficult questions which from time to time arise in the House of Commons, which disturb party calculations, and disorder party arrange- ments, the alliance between the Government and Lord Har- tington and his followers might not be imperilled or broken. I know there was great hope in the minority in the House of Commons that somehow or other the majority would be dis- solved by the accidents and troubles that came in the session. The great result of this last session of Parliament is this, that now the country is secure that, as long as this Parliament lasts, no terms or compromises of any kind will be made with the party of disruption and disunion. It may be that some strange and unexpected event may cause a difficulty in the House of Commons and may cause the dissolution of this present House of Commons. But it is not in the least likely to happen, because, when the majority in the House of Commons has got its own way, and has got it by virtue of having a majority of nearly one hundred over its opponents, its leaders are not very likely to be so foolish as to throw things into the cauldron of a general election again. I have the firmest belief that if we were to have a general election to-morrow the country would stand firm and steadfast to the judgment which it expressed two years ago. But there would be no sense in trying the experiment of a general election simply in order to prove thnt you would suc- ceed ; and, as we know that we should succeed, we will go steadily on without troubling with the experiment. The country has come to recognise, and it does recognise, with great satis- faction, I think, the fact that during the continuance of this Parliament the legislative union between Great Britain and Ireland is absolutely safe. There is no friction, there is no difference existing between the Liberal party who follow Lord Hartington and the Conservative Government. (Interruption.) I can quite imagine that this tone of observation is not alto- gether cheering to some of our friends. If they can only restrain the expression of their unhappiness I will go on with the exposition. This is the great result of the session. The alliance has been un- broken ; there has been no cleft, no difference at all between the two parties who joined together inmaintaining the Unionist cause. And what havewe been able to do inconsequence of that alliance? Now, I am not going again over the list of the minor measures which were passed during the last session of Parliament, and to my enumeration of which last October our chairman this evening referred. It is sufficient for me to say that by common acknowledgment a great many of those measures were of sub- 124 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 3, /m. stantial advantage to different classes of people in this country. But the real work that we had to do was work in regard to Ire- land, and that work has been done, and effectually done. The remedial work that had to be done in Ireland had two parts. In the first place the law-abiding and loyal people of that country had to be protected against crime and outrage, and in the next place the suffering tenants of that country had to be considered, and, as far as legislation could do it, their circumstances had to be ameliorated. I have more than once, here and elsewhere, pointed out that these peripatetic advocates of separation (voices, " No, no ") it appears to me that some one is putting the cap on very quickly these gentlemen going about the country, have steadily refrained from saying a word to their audiences, either in Plymouth or elsewhere, as to the remedial measure passed by the Government during the last session of Parliament. You will not find in any of their speeches the smallest reference, whether in criticism or eulogium, to the measure that was passed for the benefit of the tenants in Ireland. What was that measure ? Why, only last week, or the week before last, the Land Commissioners in Ireland issued an order made under the Act which was passed during the last session of Parliament. By this order the rents which had been fixed by the Land Commissioners in 1881, 1882, 1883, and 1884 were further reduced to a very considerable extent, and by that deci- sion the rent of the tenants of Ireland was reduced by no less a sum than at least ,300,000 a year. There are two sides from which an attack has been made on the policy which caused the passing of that bill. It has, on the one hand, been said that Parliament had no right to tell landlords that they must reduce rents. It has been said, on the other side, that this reduction was not sufficient, that a larger reduction ought to have been made. I want now, as speaking to men who, what- ever opinion they have hitherto formed upon it, are at all events desirous of seeing what the truth is with regard to the Govern- ment policy in Ireland, to discuss the question for a few minutes. The original policy of bringing in a legal tribunal to decide the amount of rent, I am glad to say, was not a Conservative policy. It was a wrong and mischievous policy, just as it would be wrong and mischievous for Parliament to-morrow to pass a law that men should get so much a day for their work, or that they should not make things but of a particular shape or size. Parlia- ment has no business to meddle with matters of that kind ; these should be left to the requirements of a free people, and to the actual woiking of the commercial laws and the laws of supply and demand among us. I believe that Parliament had much better leave alone the question of settling the rent of houses or of land in any way. But just observe what the state JUDICIAL RENTS. 14$ of things was. A bill had been passed seven or eight years ago by which a legal tribunal was established to fix the rents for tenants in Ireland. A great many of the tenants went in at once to have their rents fixed. In the year 1881 a great many of these rents were fixed, and by the Act of Parliament were binding upon both tenant and landlord until the year 1896. In 1882 a number more tenants got their rents fixed, in 1883 a number more, while in 1884 others came in and had their rents fixed. During all this time the value of the produce of Ireland had been falling, and the men who got their rents fixed in 1881 found that, as compared with those who had their rents fixed in 1885, the man who was holding the same quality of land, taking the same area of it, was standing at a larger rent than his neighbour who was in exactly the same circumstances. Parlia- ment had to deal with that fact. If it was right for a legal tribunal to fix rents for the tenantry of Ireland, it surely was right to step in and redress that inequality. As it stood the tenant who had his rent fixed in 1881 was paying perhaps 12 per cent, more than the tenant who had his rent fixed in 1884, and of course he said, "This is a hardship ; if you are going by law to fix my rent, fix a fair rent, review it and fix it again." Well it was impossible to ask all individual tenants to go back into the land courts in Ireland to get their rents ascertained again. So this bill was passed in the last session of Parliament, by which the Land Commissioners were empowered to do this. They were empowered to divide Ireland into districts, and, having done so, they were to consider how far the value of the produce which these tenants grew upon their farms had been reduced during these years, and then they were entitled to make an order, and say that in the year 1887 the tenant, instead of paying the rent which had been fixed as fair in 1882, should pay a certain smaller percentage of rent. They have done it. They have reduced the rent for 1887 to something like 22 per cent, below the rents which were fixed in 1881. They have also reduced rents something like 2-| per cent, and from that to 4 per cent, below the rents fixed in 1884. The consequence is that, taking the tenants of Ireland who had had their rents fixed in these years, all round there has been a reduction in the rental of Ireland of about ^300,000. Before I absolutely leave that subject I want to point out one other very important thing. It is sometimes said that all the difficulties and troubles of Ireland arose because landlords fixed exorbitant rents, and that is the reason why tenants are in lifficulties. These rents, which have just been reduced by from to 22 per cent, were not fixed by the landlords at all, but by the Land Court itself in 1881 and 1882, and fixed then in the belief that they represented the rent that might be properly 1 26 PL YMOUTff, JANUAR Y 3, / not satisfactory that even a good Bill should pass without the knowledge and discussion and approval of the representatives sent here by the constituencies to discuss and decide these matters. Again, there was the Registration of Voters^Bill of 1878, which in its practical result has been of immense importance. It has largely increased a great many of the constituencies of the country. My own con- stituency, which was last year 5,600 in number, is now, since last year's revision, 13,600, showing a greater increase than that made by the Reform Act of 1867. What, sir, happened with icgard to the passing of that Bill ? In 1878 the Bill had been before a committee, and it came for report before this House. Sections i to 21 were gone through without any opposition or comment. Sir William Charley, then a memb.r of the House, objected that the Bill h?d only just been printed, and asked that there might be some delay before its discussion was continued. He interposed exactly at the right point, for sections 22 and 23 were those which have given so much difficulty to the courts, and have, under the interpretation now given to them, so materially affected the constituencies. The then member for Cambridge (Mr. Martin), on the one side, and the hon. baronet, the member PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE. 165 for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), on the other, assured Sir William Cnarley that no co 'siderable change was made by the provisions of the Bill. Their appeal was listened to ; the whole of the sections were gone through that evening ; the third reading was taken on the following night ; the Bill went up to the House of Lords, where, as it dealt w.th tue registration of voters for members of the House of Commons, no great amount of attention was paid to it ; and the result h is been an entirely unexpected extension of the franchise, which, whatever its merits, o.ight not to have been made in that way, but, if made at all, should have been made deliberately by Parliament, with a full consciousness of what it was doing. But, sir, there is another, and a very serious mischief in our present system, and that is the tremendous strain that is thrown upon the members of the House themselves. A great many of them are acively engaged in commercial and professional life, and to them, of course, the strain of the long hours the House is kept sitting, night after night, is enormous. But that is almost insignificant compared with the mischief of the burden upon ministers of the crown. Is it not a monstrous thing that Her Majesty's ministers, who are expected to perform the responsible duties of their offices during the day, should be expected to attend this House from four o'clock in the afternoon until three or four in the following morning ? The marvel is that anyone should be endowed with vitality and energy sufficient to enable him to continue for years in this splendid slavery. One of the great advantages which would be likely to follow from the adoption by the House of the resolution I am offering to its acceptance is that there would be no necessity for the House to continue sitting after 12 or half-past 12 at night, which would be a reasonable time for the limit of our debates. Moreover, sir, not only do our present late hours heavily tax the endurance of ministers and private members, but they cause business to be done badly, and in a manner which is by no means creditable to a legislative assembly. At 2 or 3 in the morning there is no pretence of adequate discussion of the questions that come before the House ; and, worse than all, our debates are almost wholly unreported. Practically, the proceedings of the House cannot now be reported after one in the morning, and within the last few days, as we have seen, it was only owing to the enter- prise of one great newspaper (the Times) that we were able to have a full report a day later of the speech delivered by the leader of the Opposition, and the reply of the noble Marquis the Secretary of State for India at the close of the debate on the Address. Now, sir, my proposal would deal practically with all the mischiefs that I have indicated. The real difficulty of the House is that we are all, whether ministers or private members, 166 HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 21, 1882. competing just to get past a certain point. If that point is passed, the Bill in which we are interested becomes law. If we come short of that point, the whole of our labour has to begin over again. There is one indefensible but very common species of obstruction to which the Prime Minister did not advert last evening namely, the persistent discussion of matters which nobody cares ai;out, in order to prevent other matters which it is desired to impede from coming on. Valuable time is deli- berately and purposely wasted in order to keep up a debate until a quarter to six on a Wednesday, when no decision can be come to ; and on many a dreary evening speakers go on repeat- ing themselves again and again, until the magic hour of half- past twelve arrives, when nothing fresh can be entered upon. We should put an end to that kind of obstruction by doing away with the temptation to practise it. If we once provided that the House should be free to deal with a Bill so obstructed when Parliament met again in Februarv, this kind of obstruction would practically be destroyed. For conduct such as I have described excuse may in some circumstances be found, but, sir, I see no defence for the action of those who deliberately waste the time of the House for the purpose of preventing Parliament passing any measure at all. And I venture to urge upon the House that these are valid reasons for adopting a substantial reform. I would also call the attention of the House to the fact that every Parliament proceeds by jerks ; that it is cut up into separate sessions, as though when we have finished our work in July we had done with the whole matter. So long as the machinery of legislation goes on in that s-pasmodic, jerky way, a very great waste of time is inevitable. I will take, by way of example, the Bankruptcy Bill, to the repeated promise and postponement of which I have before referred. There is the Bankruptcy Bill which the President of the Board of Trade introduced 1 st session, and which we expected this session. There is no security whatever that his present Bill will be in the form which it took last year, and I will point out to the House this most inconvenient result. Seme two or three months ajjo, the Associated Chambers of Commerce held their meeting, and one of the subjects they discussed was the Bankruptcy Bill. If it had been known that we would have the same Bill before us as in the previous year, the Associated Chambers of Com- merce would, no doubt, have discussed the measure and proposed amendments which would have been of great service to us in framing that enactment. But the President of the Board of Trade said that he knew the Bill going to be intro- duced would differ in some respects from the last one, and thus the whole of what I might call the consultative power of the country was thrown away. That was the case with the Asso- PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE. 167 elated Chambers of Commerce. But let us take another instance the Rivers Conservancy Bill. That is a measure of very great interest to the Chambers of Agriculture, and county members of this House going back in the autumn to their places in the country would have the advantage of hearing the opinion of their neighbours on the subject ; but, although I believe that the proposed Bill is to b> the same as that formerly introduced, we have no assurance of that, and without such assurance we never can obtain that advantage of local dis- cussion and popular opinion. I think, sir, it would be a very good thing if any Bill d.aling with a subject of general import- ance were brought in in one session and passed in the next, for then hon. members would have an opportunity of conferring with their constituents, and in the following session they would be enabled to bring their ripened opinion their completed knowledge to the discussion of the measure. The proposal that Bills should not require to be introduced afresh each session is not a new one, or one for which I am originally responsible. In 1848, and again in 1861, this question came before the House and before a Committee of the House of Commons, as well as before the House of Lords. And here I would venture for a moment to digress in order to say that, in ray belief, it is of the greatest moment to the country that the position of the House of Lords should be properly appreciated as an integral p-irt of the legislative body. I do not understand the jealousy which exists between the two Houses, or why there should be jealousy at all. It is perfectly well known that the House of Lords contains men who have served their apprenticeship in the House of Commons ; but the House of Lords is discouraged, systematically discouraged, by the action of the House of Com- mons towards it. Take the course pursued by the Government with respect to the Rivers Conservancy Bill, upon which the other House bestowed a great deal of trouble. This complaint has been made and repeated over and over again, and tne other House is deterred from beginning legislation, because ii is prob- able that in the helter-skelter of July their labours will be sacrificed ; while, on the other hand, in July, Bills are sent up to them by dozens when it is impossible for them to give them proper attention. Well, in 1848, a Bill was introduced in terms somewhat similar to my own resolutions, enabling Bills dis- cussed in one session to be proceeded with in the next by the other House, subject always to this restriction that when a measure had passed both Chambers it should be sent back to that from which it originated, so that if opinion respecting it had changed in the meantime that Chamber might have an opportunity of recording that change. That Bill received the support of the late Lord Derby ; on the $th of July, 1848, it was 168 HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 21, 1882. read a second time in the House of Commons, and Lord John Russell, who was then the leader of the Liberal Party in this House, suggested that the Bill should only be n temporary one, because in case it did not prove effectual for the purpose desired, it would otherwise be impossible to rescind the Rule without the assent of both Houses of Parliament. The Com- mittee reported as late as the i ith of August that they did not advise the acceptance of that Bill ; but they put their advice on this ground that it would introduce a material change, and, as the session was drawing to a close, they had not time to consider the effect of material changes in the procedure of the House. Again, in 1869, a proposal on the subject was made in " another place." On that occasion the Marquis of Salisbury made a s eech to an extract from which I invite the attention of the House. " Owing," said he, " to a rule of the Constitution, the origin of which nobody can discover, and of which it is impossible to say more than that we find it here, if when August comes your labours have not advanced beyond a certain point, those labours must be abandoned as far as legislation is concerned. All that you have done goes for nothing. If a Bill has been considered in great detail by a Select Committee, the Committee must sit and go through the details again ; if it had to face a power- ful opposition, all that opposition must be faced again. All the works, all the debates, all the enormous labour which attends the passing of any change, however small, in the laws which govern us must be gone through again, in order to reach the goal which you had nearly reached when the prorogation arrived. Now is there in the nature of things any reason for this practice ? Does it commend itself to any man's common sense? Do we act in this marner in any other department of life ? Supposing you made it a lule to give up writing letters at a certain hour, would you throw all unfinished ones into the fire, or begin next morning at the point where you left off? Is there anybody of men, in any kind of business, that adopt what I must call this senseless practice, that whatever you have not finished by a certain time you must begin again next year? I have never heard any reason for such a rule. There is nothing but the bare inert weight of unmeaning custom to justify a principle which wastes so much of the labour and utility of Parliament." Sir, the plan which I put before the House is already in operation in France. It is subject to certain conditions there, and perhaps limitations may also be required here, though I confess I do not perceive any necessity for them. My plan is that a Parliament should be treated in all its sessions as one Parliament ; and not as a series of separate Parliaments, or as if the sessions were water-tight compartments, designed to pre- vent Bills getting from one to the other. PA RLIAMENTAR Y PROCED URE. \ 69 I think, sir, that the Bills which this House has to deal with may be divided into three classes, first, there are the political Bills ; secondly, the Departmental Bills ; and, thirdly, private Members' Bills. Political Bills, like the Irish Church Bill, for example, are usually introduced by a Government with a strong majority at their back, and, consequently, such measures can be forced through Parliament in the course of a single session. My proposal would therefore not affect in the least degree measures with which the existence of the Government of the day was bound up. Departmental Bills are for the most part independent of Parly considerations, and they are, in point of fact, practically prepared for the most part by the permanent officials of the various departments. These bills would be assisted most substantially by the adoption of my proposal. At present we are reduced to the necessity of putting on the Statute Book a series of fragme itary Acts of Parliament. We are obliged to do so, because if the Minister were to consolidate the laws on any subject into a n -w Statute he would have a Bill so considerable in its dimensions and giving rise to so much debate that there would be very little chance of squeezing it through in a single session. As an instance of this, I may advert to the criminal code, although that cannot properly be styled a departmental measure. The late Attorney General (Sir John Holker) took a great interest in it ; three of the best lawyers in England were for a long time engaged in getting it into shape ; but it is almost hopeless to expect that any measure of that importance and magnitude can be passed through the House of Commons unless there is a power of con- tinuing legislation from session to session. With regard to the Bills of private members, no doubt many of them are trivial, and ought never to be entertained by the House. I hope, there- fore, that if my proposal were adopted the Hou : e would revert to the old practice of considering very carefully whether leave should be given to a private member to introduce a Bill. There would be no hardship in requiring a member to explain the provisions of his Bill in the first instance. One objection urged against my plan is that it would cause a great number of Bills to be introduced, and that there would be a great deal too much legislation. My answer to that objection is that I do not think there need be any fear of that result. The English people are not likely to submit to too much legislation. We had a remarkable proof of this at the election, which changed for a time the position of political parties, in the year 1874. It was the impatience of legislation which sapped, undermined, and eventually destroyed, the power of a Government which came into office with so great a majority in 1868. I do not think it has ever been suggested that there was any real reason for the withdrawal of the confidence of the country from that Govern- 1 70 HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY at, 1882. ment except the rapidity with which it had proceeded with legis- lation. The legislation required by the country is really Con- servative in its tendency ; but, as matters now stand, people are irritated at the defective machinery which delays legislation on questions that ought to have been dealt with long ago. I will not particularize any Bills which have been so delayed, because it would divert the discussion from the general issue. But of this I am quite certain, that there are at least half a dozen Bills which have been accepted by the House in principle over and over again, and which some day must become law, but the delay in the passing of which is causing gieat irritation to the country, and is a source of weakness to the Conservative party. It would be desirable, as well in the interest of political parties as in that of the country, that those Bills should be passed, and come into operation with the least possible delay. It so happens that I am submitting my proposal immediately after the discussion of other resolutions with regard to procedure. I must not, of course, revert to arguments which have been used in that discus- sion but 1 believe that if my resolution were adopted it would make quite needless the more stringent measures which are now proposed. Private Bill legislation is included within the terms of this motion, but I am aware that there are difficulties with regard to that. My experience of Private Bill legislation is that it is extremely well done, and that the tribunals which deal with Private Bills are quite competent and decide with great fairness and promptitude. But instances are constantly occurring in which promoters are obliged to submit to clauses, and make compromises, enormously expensive, and which seriously interfere with the benefit of the works proposed, in consequence of the knowledge that a few days' delay would destroy the benefit of all the work done during the session. However, sir, for the moment I wish to rest this proposition on the largi r issue, that it would be of benefit to public legisla- tion. One great merit it has is its simplicity. If it should become necessary to fight the question of Parliamentary Pro- cedure before the constituencies, there is no qu- stion upon which I would more gladly challenge their judgment than upon the merits of the proposal I now make. It possesses the great advantage of neither disturbing nor interfering with the traditions of the House. It would not require that the Govern- ment, or any other authority, should be entrusted with any ex- treme or exceptional powers ; and, above all, it has that merit which cannot justly be attributed to the other proposals vhich have been submitted to the House, that it is pre-eminently simple and intelligible. I beg, sir, now to move the re-olution which stands in my name. Marriage with a Deceased Wifes Sister. MAY 6, 1884. [On the 6th of May, 1884, the following resolution was~moved in the House of Commons by Mr. Broadhurst, and seconded by Mr. Heneage : " That in view of the painful and un- necessary hardships inflicted upon large numbers of people in this country by the law prohibiting marriage with a deceased wife's sister, it is the opinion of this House that a measure of relief is urgently called for." To this an amendment was moved by Colonel Makins, and seconded by Colonel Milne Holme, in the following terms : " That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to appoint a Royal Com- mission to inquire into the laws relating to marriages within the prohibited degrees." The following speech was delivered in support of the reso- lution, which was carried upon a division by a majority of 1 1 1, the numbers being, for the resolution 238, against 127.] SIR, I suppose it is not expected that we should discuss in detail the amendment which my hon. and gallant friend has proposed, It is an evasive and dilatory amendment asking the House to decline to pass an opinion on the main subject of discussion, and an amendment which I think he would be the very last man to put forward as a substantive motion for its acceptance. I do not think there is anyone in the House who would be more reluctant than he to throw open the whole question of the prohibited degrees in the marriage law. I turn at once from that large subject to the single question contained in the resolution. With the indulgence of the House I will give a few reasons why I intend to vote in support of that resolution. It has been practi- cally conceded that so far as the maintenance of this restriction finds its authority in an appeal to Scriptural rules, there is no ground for the restriction. (" No, no.") It is of no use to contradict me by " No, no." It was practically conceded by the mover of the amendment, and it is conceded in terms by the hon. and gallant member for Berwick. I think there is no more remarkable example of the slavery into which the intellect is sometimes brought by the will and the sentiment than the fact that there are people to be found in this country, honest and in- telligent people, who contend that these marriages are forbidden by Holy Scripture. There is no difficulty with regard to the argument. The prohibition is generally supposed to be found 172 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 6, 1884. in a single verse of Leviticus. As to that verse there is no material discrepancy or dispute respecting translation, and there is no ambiguity in its phrases. If it be interpreted by those rules which all men, with one accord, would apply to the construction of any oiher authority in any other verse, it clearly gives, not a prohibition, but a permission of these marriages. A marriage is not to be contracted during the lifetime of the sister, and it follows that such a marriage is permissible when that life is at an end. But, sir, my hon. friends around me rather rely upon the interpretation of another text to be found in the Old Te-tament, and to be found twire in the New Testa- ment, a text in metaphorical language, which speaks of the twain being one flesh. It is scarcely possible, sir, with due reverence and propriety, to discuss and point out the consequences of such a construction as is put upon that text, and I would content myself with this answer, which I confess appears to me over- whelming, that to say that text was meant to convey a prohi- bition of a marriage of this kind is to be guilty of the gr< ssest disrespect and irreverence to the writer of the sacred book ; it is to contend that a prohibition was intended to be conveyed to the world, tut that the inspired v\ riter so ill set down the command which it was his duty to convey that for two thousand years the people to whom the command was supposed to be addressed unanimously misunderstood it and disobeyed it. It is impos- sible to find any other texts than these. But, sir, we are told that we find further prohibition in the social conditions of life, and in the mischief that would follow from permission of these marriages. I think it is forgotten that the existence of this prohibition is a cause of very serious social mischief. When my hon. and gallant friend behind me quotes a return as speaking of sixteen hundred marriages of this class in a certain time amongst wealthy persons, while there were only forty amongst the poorer classes of the community, I want to know what is the explanation of that ? Is it supposed that in the class where the reasons for such a union are far stronger than they are in the classes to which hon. members of this House belong, is it to be supp; sed that where circumstances press most strongly in support of such marriages the alliances are not made ? The explanation is, I fear, a different one. The wealthy man can take the second wife of his choice to be married to her abroad, and, as one knows in the circle of one's own ac- quaii tance, he brings her back to undiminished respect. I do not believe there is a member of this House who does not know, within the circle of his own acquaintance, at least two or three instances in which such maniages have taken place. The rich man can do that, but the poor man cannot. I believe the result is too often, not that the union does not take place, MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIPES SISTER. 173 but that the union takes place unhallowed by any ceremony of marriage whatever. Now, it is said there will be serious social mischiefs if this alteration is made. Sir, I confess it seems to me that my hon. friends who are putting this argument forward are giving a most strange and grotesque representation of the social and domestic life of the English people. The ideal state of things seems to be this : that the wife throughout the marriage life is anxious and suspicious, watching any woman who comes into the circle of the home life with a fear, not that the affection of the husband may presently go out to her and result in unfaith- fulness, but that at some future time, when the wife herself has gone, he may contract with her a second marriage ; that the wife is so keenly jealous and suspicious, and has so little con- fidence in her husband's lo\ e, that she cannot reconcile herself to the presence of her own sister in the home, but for the con- solation that she finds in the fact that in 1835, almost by an accident, this prohibition was put upon the Statute Book. I say, sir, almost by an accident, for in Committee of the House in 1835 the only division which took place on the subject was one in which the majority was against the prohibition of these marriages ; but those who were then pressing forward the Bill pleaded that the clause might be allowed to pass in the form which had been arranged, and suggested that an amending Bill permitting these marriages should be brought in the follow- ing year. Sir, it seems to me that the view which has been taken in- volves an entire misapprehension of the conditions of domestic life among us. We should be in pitiful case indeed if that life of suspicion and jealousy were the life of the English home. " In love, if love be love, if love be ours, Faith and unfaith can ne'er be equal powers. Unfaith in aught is want of faith in all." I do not believe there is this constant haunting suspicion on the wife's part that at some future day, when she is dead, the husband will marry another. There is a time when feeling be- comes deeper. There comes a time to many women when they know their sentence, when they know that they are going from the husband they love and the children they have taken care of, and when there comes an interval between the season of active joyous interest in life and the time when the final parting is made. What is the feeling of a woman at that time ? I do not believe it is jealousy of the sister who may take her place. Women are not so selfish as men are. A woman would not do the cruel and wicked acts that men are every day com- mitting when they, by the terms of their wills, endeavour ^o 174 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA Y 6, 1884. prevent the wife from ever being happy again in married life. I believe to the woman it would be a consolation, and not an affliction or sorrow, to think the children she has loved would find their most appropriate protector and the husband find his best companion in one who should bring back to husband and to children the memories of her who had gone. Well, sir, on this question I should like to say a word on an allusion which was made to the question of the Canons of the Church, and on the observations made by my hon. and gallant friend as to the retrospective effect it is proposed to give to the Bill. Assuming it is intended by Parliament to pass this Bill, it will be on this only ground, that the prohibition ought never to have existed. If Parliament found the prohibition should never have existed, and ought to be removed, it would be a monstrous thing to leave the stain of illegitimacy upon hundreds and thousands of persons with regard to whose parents we should ourselves have to admit that their marriage was not for- bidden by the law of God. It is said it is forbidden by the Canons of the Church, and no doubt one of the Canons Ecclesiastical does contain a prohibition in a very peculiar form. It declares that these marriages are forbidden by the word of God, and declares that, as I believe, without the smallest foundation. The Canons are orders issued by authority of the Crown, with the concurrence and advice of the Convo- cations of Canterbury and York, and they are not binding by law upon the laity of England at all. They are constantly and habitually disregarded by the bishops and clergy themselves. The 99th Canon, which is referred to, comes in the middle of a number of others which are simply concerned with the pro- cedure of the Ecclesiastical Courts ; and the only reason why these Canons have been allowed to exist to this day, and to re- main in what I suppose I must call the rule of the Church of England, is that the clergy have habitually disobeyt d the Royal Order which was made when these Canons were promulgated, namely, that every minister is to read them once a year at the afternoon service, one half of them on one day and the other half on the next. If, sir, the clergy obeyed that rule, I undertake to say these Canons would not remain in existence twelve months. There is one other point on which I ask the House to allow me to say a word, and it touches a part of the question which seems to me of most serious importance. I have been reminded, sitting here and seeing the Prime Minister in his place, of a very remarkable letter he wrote in (he year 1863 to the late Bishop of Winchester, in winch he spoke at some length to that illustrious prelate of the portion the Church of Engl.nd ought to take with reference to matters which affect Nonconformists in this country. I have always thought the right hon. gentle- MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER, 175 man gave counsel so wise that that letter, if it stood alone, would justify the confidence habitually placed in hirn by large bodies of Churchmen. Sir, I am very anxious now with re- gard to the relations of this Motion to the character and posi- tion of the Church of England. I am a Churcl man, a Church- man bound to that Church by ties of allegiance a great deal deeper and a great deal stronger than those which attach me to my political party. The Church is the greatest institution we have in this country. It is higher in authority than parliaments or thrones, and it will survive them all. 1 think with great anxiety of the future of the Church, and its relations to the State. I believe that disestablishment would be a national disaster, and disendowment a national crime. But there is one event possible, which would be far worse for the nation and for the Church than disestablishment, however complete, and dis- endowment, however rapacious ; and that is for the Church to be degraded into a department of the State, to be subject to the control of Parliament, and to be under the supervision of an Erastian Home Secretary. I confess I think that is the direction in which those who are professing to lead Churchmen on this matter are, without knowing it, steadily going, when they assert a claim to make the law of the Church the law of the land, and when they claim that those who do not belong to the Church shall yield obedience to that law simply because it is the Church's law, and because in theory every man in the nation is a member of the Church. They forget that the natural and necessary consequence and corollary of that claim on their part is that the people over whose unwilling consciences they are attempting to place this yoke are entitled to turn round, and will turn round, and say : " You insist that we in theory are members of the Church, and because you insist upon that, and that we are bound by this law, we in our Parliament will regulate the rules, the ritual, and the doctrine of the Church itself:" and in attempting to stretch the authority of its own rules over the people at large the Church will have succeeded in reducing itself to a position which I think will be disastrous to both the nation and the Church. Now, sir, I have not made these observations without a feeling of deep responsibility. There has been no personal interest or private influence pressing me in the direction in which I am going. On the other hand, I have been warned by those whom I count among my best friends, and who are perfectly capable, if they choose, of giving effect to the warning, that the action I am about to take will be perilous to my future political career. (Ministerial cries of " No.") Well, I say that this is what I have been warned, and hon. gentleman on that side of the House may not be as well able to judge of the force of that 176 HOUSE OF COMMONS, FERKUARY 27, 1883. warning as hon. gentlemen on this but a matter of that kind H one with which I have nothing whatever to do. Whatever may happen with regard to that, I have striven to study the question, and to come to a clear and conscientious result upon it. I have come to a definite determination. When I give my vote in support of the Motion, I shall do so believing that I shall do nothing to derogate from the authority of the Divine law among the people of this country, that I shall assist in the social purity and domestic happiness of the people, and still more, that I shall be rendering true and loyal service to that Church which I desire most faithfully to serve, and whose works and whose influence are in my belief the most precious of our national possessions. Egypt ( Vote of Censure]. FEBRUARY 27, 1885. [On February 23, 1885, Sir Stafford Northcote moved the follow- ing resolution : " That an humble address be presented to the Queen, humbly representing to Her Majesty that the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the affairs of Egypt and the Soudan, has involved a great sacrifice of valuable lives and a heavy expenditure without any beneficial result and has rendered it imperatively necessary in the interests of the British Empire and of the Egyptian people that Her Majesty's Government should distinctly recognize and take decided measures to fulfil the special responsib'lities now incumbent upon them to assure a good and stable Government to Egypt and to those parts of the Soudan which are necessary to its security." To this resolution Mr. John Morley, M. P., for Newcastle, moved the following amendment : " That this House while refraining from expressing an opinion on the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the affairs of Egypt and the Soudan regrets the decision of Her Majesty's Government to employ the forces of the Crown for the over- throw of the power of the Mahdi." The following speech was delivered on the fourth and last night of the Debate which resulted in the rejection of the motion by 302-288, majority for the Government 14.] SIR, It is making a great claim on the indulgence of the House to address it on a night of this kind and at this hour, but I assure the House I will not interpose longer than ten minutes between EGYPT. 177 it and the member for Bradford. I do not know if any serious answer ought to be given to the speech which has been delivered to the House by that very impracticable politician, the member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). It was supposed to be a speech in defence of Her Majesty's Government, but it has been a characteristic of this debate that the only difference between us on this side and those who sit below the gangway on the other side is this, whereas we attack Her Majesty's Government, those who sit below the gangway on that side reserve all their attacks for the Prime Minister himself. We have heard speech after speech in which the Prime Minister has been denounced as a man who might, if he chose, have saved the country from a policy of wickedness and disgrace, and has not used his power to save the people from the wickedness and shame of this policy. The fact that there are four amendments in the name of hon. gentlemen below the gangway shews that there is not one of the Liberal party sitting there who can formulate a motion with which his neighbours will agree. With all the comment that is made upon the resolution of the leader of the Opposition, there is this about the resolution. It is accurate, it is intelligible, and it will serve its purpose if it be passed. Her Majesty's Government could not continue to sit upon those benches and still enjoy the respect of the only body of people who now re- spect them I mean of course themselves. As to the amend- ment of the member for Newcastle it is a sham amendment. He knows perfectly well the sort of people among whom he is sitting. He knows they have not the courage for a real rebellion, so he proposes an amendment in which he says : " We will refrain from expressing an opinion on the conduct of Her Majesty's Government." Why does he refrain from expressing that opinion if he can express an opinion in favour of the Govern- ment ? Sir, if he thought there were fifty menbers of this House who would support him in that opinion he would be delighted to recognize those public and private ties of which he spoke so feelingly on Monday last. It may be that he does not himself approve of the conduct of the Government ; but if he does not approve it, why does he not say so ? Because he knows the sort of party by whom he is surrounded. The fact is, this is a sham amendment. It is said, and I believe with some truth, that the intention of some members of the Radical section is to vote for this amendment, which they are quite sure will be defeated, and then to vote for the Government against the reso- lution of the right hon. baronet one vote for their consciences, which they take care shall have no effect, and one for their party ; so that they will secure the continuance in power of a Government which, so far as we know, is committed to a course of wanton and objectless bloodshed and having by their votes 178 HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 27, 1883. made it possible that this course should be pursued, they can go down to their country constituents proudly claiming to be the friends of peace and freedom, and appeal for their justifica- tion to the division list which records their votes on this futile amendment. I said that if they take this course they will leave the Government to pursue a course of wanton bloodshed. I mean these words in the fullest extent. I believe that the course which has been indicated in the speech of the right hon. gentleman, the Home Secretary, would be a most disastrous, and, I think, a wicked course. If we are going to Khartoum, there to do the work of civilization and put some government there which will utilize the magnificent position and oppor- tunities of that city, and establish an outwork of western civilization if you can do that without too great a sacrifice and expenditure, then do it. But to go to Khartoum to fight the Mahdi if he be there, and if he be not there, then to abandon Khartoum to some imitation king that you may set up, whether in the person of an Egyptian Prince or anyone else, is a wild and wicked enterprise, and one to which I believe the country will never consent. Sir, this debate was relieved the night before last by a most interesting account by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir G. Trevelyan) of his studies in military science. He told us about the retreat of Sir John Moore, about the retreat of the Duke of Wellington on the lines of Torres Vedras, and he told us nobody should leave any position he was in until he had a perfectly safe place to fall back upon. Sir, he has taught a lesson to his predecessor in one of the offices he has occupied. The moral is that when a man is Chief Secretary to the Lord- Lieutenant of Ireland he should not leave that post unless he has the Chancellorship of the Duchy to fall back upon. Sir, it is not here possible that we can discuss the question of military strategy. The con- clusive condemnation of the Government on this matter is this : They have declared that they are going to Khartoum for mili- tary objects, and they have not produced a syllable of evidence that either Lord Wolseley, or anyone else of capacity to judge military matters, has shown th .t that movement is necessary ; and not having done that, I say that the movement upon Khartoum, unless they pledge themselves to utilize it for the establishment of a government, is a movement nothing can justify. We have been told by the Prime Minister that great difficulties have been in the way of the Government. Well, sir, to the feeble knees every hill is steep, and these difficulties which have existed have been made by the Government. They have never had a policy with regard to Egypt since the death of M. Gambetta. They put in a joint note by advice of M. Gambetta, which was a fatal step and the next step was that EGYPT, 179 which led them into this mischief a step which Lord Granville declared in his own name, and that of the Prime Minister, when the fleets were going to Alexandria, he believed to be a mistake. On the 1 5th of May, 1881, Lord Granville wrote a despatch to our representatives abroad announcing that the fleets were going to Alexandria ; and a curious departure was adopted from the ordinary practice in diplomatic documents. He men- tioned the name of the Prime Minister. He said he and Mr. Gladstone alike thought it would have been desirable to have h id the concert of the other powers, but as France had gone so far with us in other matters this was not pressed. From that time to this it has been a course abounding in difficulties, which if Ministers had gone forward with a clear eye and resolute step, I believe they would have trodden down ; but they have been stumbling forward on the path, always with their eyes turned back to see if a majority of the House of Commons was being led in a web behind them, following and supporting them. Sir, as I listened to the right hon. gentleman on Monday evening I wondered if his memory reminded him that it was the anniversary of a notable event in his life. On the 23rd of February^ 1855, the right hon. gentleman announced in the House of Commons the reason for which he had left the Cabinet of which he had been a member. It was a Cabinet that is now remembered by Englishmen with neither gratitude nor respect. In the year 1854 the weakness of the Government led us into a wholly unnecessary war, and the mismanagement of the Government almost destroyed an English army. And now I think there is no division of opinion among Englishmen as to the merits of that Government. All Englishmen reproach it for the feebleness and incompetence which involved us in such heavy sacrifices. Sir, I believe that thirty years hence all Englishmen, without distinction of party, will look back with re- proach and indignation upon the Cabinet of 1884, which used a brilliant soldier that his name might cover and shield an im- perilled Ministry, and directly he had served that party "purpose refused his appeals, neglected his counsels, and left him aban- doned to perish. Sir, there is one man and one man alone upon whom the reproach of both these Ministries will fall. The Prime Minister shared the weakness of 1854. To him I believe are in the main attributable the disasters which we now deplore. But there is one thing more, and it is the darkest line that can be added to this picture. The Prime Minister has more than once, here in this House endeavoured to palliate the conduct of the M'nistry Dy sugges ing that the officer who at their request accepted the post of honourable danger might, if he had so pleased, have found an opportunity to run away. Sir, in the debate of the 2jrd of February 1855, the right hon. gentle- I So HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 13, 1886. man used these words : " The fault of our Constitution now, if it be a fault, is this, that public seivants are, perhaps, not called to account with sufficient strictness." I agree with those words. Loss of office is too small a punishment for the betrayal or the neglect of public duty, and even that penalty may be evaded. The trained fidelity of partv, personal combinations, of which we have heard something in a whisper to-night, the subtle instruments of Parliamentary influence, in the use of which the present Government is experienced and skilled, may to- night prevent the expression by this House of the unhesitating condemnation which their fellow-countrymen have pronounced. But though they may cling to the office of which they are proved unworthy, they will not be unpunished. Personal humiliation, the discredit of their party, the indignation, and scorn of the people, will be a sure and severe, but still an inadequate punishment. Home Rule Bill (Second Reading}* MAY 13, 1886. [The debate upon the second reading of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill commenced on May 10, 1886, and continued for twelve nights. Eventually the motion for the rejection of the Bill, made by the Marquis of Hartington, was cat ried on June 7, by 341 to 311. The following speech was made on the second night of the debate.] SIR, The House has listened with much interest to the speech of the tight hon. gentleman (Mr. Campbell Bannerman). No one expected from him that he should make a formal answer to the elaborate argument of my right hon. friend the member for Bury (Sir H. James). That argument dealt with questions of Constitutional law, which undoubtedly require very careful examination and consideration. The speech of the right hon. gentleman, the Secretary of State for War, has been looked for- ward to because of the peculiar character of the interests which at the present moment are centred in this Bill. The members of the Government know perfectly well that of that great Liberal party they are supposed to lead they have scarcely a bare majority who will support the enactment of the Bill as it was laid before the House of Commons. And they know perfectly well that, outside the House, the educated nnd intelligent opinion of the country has, by the Prime Minister's own confession, SECOND READING OF THE HOME RULE BILL. 181 expressed a distinct and definite judgment against the proposals which he has made to Parliament a judgment so distinct and so definite that the right hon. gentleman has made a sort of appeal from the educated judgment of the country to those masses who may the more easily be moved by passion and by prejudice because they have less knowledge of the past and less power to judge of the probabilities of the future, and who, as they are more easily moved by passion and by prejudice, are so much the more easily manipulated by the machinists of a Parlia- mentary party. But the real interest in the speech to which we have just listened arose from the expectation that some sop might be offered to the defaulters of the Liberal party, that some expe- dient might be found by which the support of all sections of the party might be brought together in aid of the Ministry, and un- doubtedly hints had been thrown out that the right hon. gentle- man was going to make some statement which would reconcile the Prime Minister with some of his defaulting followers. What did it come to? It came to an ingenuous confession of an open mind, a mind so open that it had nothing in it at all. It had no constructive capacity, it received no help or instruction from any- one else, and was unable to contribute to the discussion of the Bill one single important fact. The only thing Parliament was told was that the Government had come to a definite conclusion to propose that whenever it is suggested that increased taxation should be pi ced upon Ireland her representatives should be invited into this House in order to resist it. One listened with interest to the delivery of that speech to notice whether there was any reproduction of the suggestions made by the Prime Minister on Monday about a Joint Commission, and I suppose they have finally disappeared, because the right hon. gentleman has said that the Government is not prepared to adopt any proposal which it is not itself in a condition to put into definite shape. He has put into shape one proposal, but with regard to the others, he says that if anyone will be good enough to put them into definite shape for the Government, before the time of the committee stage, then the open mind will be perfectlv ready to consider them. Well, perhaps those suggestions about the Joint Commission have become a historic curiosity. Certainly they were curious. To establish a Joint Commission to decide whether Irishmen were to be invited to the House to take part in certain debates was surely one of the oddest suggestions that ever occurred to a minister. Who was to nominate the com- mission ? I presume the Prime Minister would have consider- able voice in the selection. The result would be that if the ministry found itself in difficulties, and in want of 103 votes, the Commission would be called together to invite the Irish members over to its assistance, and the committee 1 82 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA Y 13, 1886. would become a piece of machinery by which a falling minister might attempt to save himself. The right hon. gentle- man says it has been the custom of those who have discussed this matter to deal with details, and not with the main principle of the measure, and he tells us the main principle of the measure is that a legislative body shall be established in Ireland upon which the Irish executive shall rest. I think that is a reasonable definition of the proposal which I believe the country has examined, and considered, and decisively rejected. The principle of this Bill is to be found in its first clause, which is to the effect that on and after an appointed day the Legislature of Ireland shall consist of Her Majesty the Queen and an Irish legislative body. That, sir, is the proposal of the Bill, and I hope and believe it will be rejected by a decisive majority in this House. We have heard from the right hon. gentleman, the Prime Minister, some observations in support of the principle. He began by a very curious confession, namely, that this Bill was proposed because the Government could not defeat the National League. Because the Government of the Queen cannot put down the National League, or hesitates to put down the crime that has followed the action of that body, the National League must be accepted as having put down the Government of the Queen, and must be installed in Dublin under the title of a Legislative Council. The right hon. gentleman said the imme- diate necessity and the cause of the Bill was to satisfy the national sentiment of Ireland. Sir, this Bill would not do it. Nothing that is consistent with the interest and the honour and the indepen- dence of this country can satisfy the national sentiment. But, in the next place, surely to talk of satisfying a national sentiment as an imperative rule for legislation, is to mistake the object and the purpose of legislation altogether. We have to deal with the good government of Ireland, and the security and good government of all portions of that people, and all sections of that community. It may be, and I think it is, a fact that the indulgence and satisfaction of that national sentiment would lead, not to good government, but bad government of the most important parts of that country ; and if we find that the national sentiment could not be satisfied by this Bill, and that the enact- ing of the measure would lead almost of necessity to disorder and disunion instead of good government, surely the plea of national sentiment is the least substantial claim the measure could have upon the House. It would be, in fact, a great experiment, which in this form would be made for the first time. The right hon. gentleman, when he addressed the House at the opening of the debate, spoke of Ireland as having had a Parlia- ment before Grattan's time. Previous to 1782 Ireland never had a body that deserved the name of Parliament at all. It SECOND READING OF THE HOME RULE BILL. 183 was an assembly which was a mere creature of the executive Government of this country. It had no power to originate Bills. If it passed what it called measures it had to send them to England, where they were handed over to the English Attorney- General for him to examine and advise the Crown as to whether it should allow them to be treated as part of the laws of Ireland or not ; but undoubtedly there was a Parliament in Ireland after 1782, and if the right hon. gentleman wanted to satisfy national sentiment he would try to give to Ireland something like that Parliament a Parliament equal in authority and in the scope of its work to the Parliament of 1 782. But this Parliament, as defined and limited by the Bill before the House, would be altogether unlike the Parliament of Grattan, and I will prove this to the House in a few minutes by statements of Mr. Grattan himself. Sir, the Parliament of Grattan was a dismal and disastrous failure. It was a surrender to Ireland, as Grattan himself boasted, because, at the time, the Irish Volunteers were armed, and the English Government was afraid to face them. It existed for a few years ; it checked the material prosperity of Ireland. During that Parliament not only was the material prosperity of Ireland checked, but the relations between the two countries became of so anxious, so delicate, and so dangerous a character, that it was by the concurrence of all the statesmen of this country that the step was afterwards taken which resulted in the Union between the two countries and the abolition of the Irish Parlia- ment. It has been said over and over again that the abolition of that Parliament was obtained by deplorable and disgraceful means. Well, there is another side to that question, as was pointed out by Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who said that what was done in the way of buying seats in the Irish Parliament made that Parliament more, and not less, the popular assembly. The seats that were bought, with money voted in open Parliament for the purpose, were the seats of the borough-mongers of Ireland; and the purchase of those seats made the Irish Parliament at the time it accepted the Union more and not less representa- tive of the people than before the purchase was effected. In the next place there was nothing underground about the trans- action, but the bargain was made in Parliament in the open day, and there was this absolute justification so plain that if the operation had to take place over again it would be the duty of the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues to do it in the same way that there was only one alternative, and one which would have been far worse, and that was the reconquest of Ireland by force. From the time of the union of the two countries Ireland has prospered. She has gone on steadily of late years in the course of advancing prosperity, and on what reasonable ground can she now ask to have her Parliament 1 84 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA Y fj, 1886. restored to her? Is it because there is any doubt of Parlia- mentanything that an Irish Legislature could do which would be for the benefit of Ireland which this Parliament is unwilling to do? Is there one member of that body which calls itself the Nationalist party, who will get up and state what there is desirable for the advantage of the people of Ireland, which he has no hope of getting from this Parliament? They know perfectly well they cannot mention one such legislative proposal in this House. They know perfectly well that if any one spokesman from among them were to get up and state to the House some definite proposal to which legislative form could be given, and which he could show would be beneficial to the people of Ireland, there would not only be willingness, but eager competition amongst all English parties in this House to have an opportunity of testifying to its goodwill towards Ireland. Let the Irish party state for what purpose they desire a Parlia- ment in Dublin, and what it is they want to create that Parlia- ment for, and I venture to say that if their demand has anything of sound and abiding principle in it, dictated by justice and whether in the English Parliament or in the Irish Parliament those are the limitations within which useful legislation must travel let them only mention a measure having these character- istics, and there will be a cordial acceptance of that measure and a desire to give it prompt effect. Sir, the legislature shadowed in the Government Bill is not the Parliament which has been asked for by the Irish people or the Irish leaders, and it would differ from Grattan's Parliament in some very important particulars. Mr. Grattan, speaking in the Parliament which his genius had done so much to win for his countrymen, said : " What is your claim of right ? That you are the only body competent to make law for this realm in any case whatsoever." That was Grattan's claim. How does it compare with the miserable stunted sort of Parliament created by this Bill ; limited in its functions, and from whose operations and whose judgment the most important matters of legislative activity are entirely excluded ; a Parliament which is to be kept in check at every turn by the English Privy Council, if it presumes to travel beyond the limits of the Statute. Here, again, I will quote Grattan's words: "Thus have you sealed the treaty with Great Britain. On the one side the restoration of the final judicature, the extinction of the legislative claim, of her Privy Council, of her Perpetual Mutiny Bill, the repeal of the Act of Legislative Supremacy ; on your side satisfaction ; and thus are the two nations compacted for ever in freedom and peace." There is not one of these items, of which Mr. Grattan spoke, which would be given to the Irish people by this Bill, the restoration of the final judicature. There is a special SECOND READING OF THE HOME RULE BILL. 185 clause which provides that nothing is to interfere with the judicial supremacy of the House of Lords. Then, there is the extinction of the authority of the Privy Council. The Bill expressly provides that the Irish Parliament is to be subject to the check of the Privy Council. It is true, they may get rid of their judges, but these judges then become members of the Privy Council, whose duty it will be to decide whether Irish measures are within the scope of the legislative powers of the Irish Parliament. Further, the Perpetual Mutiny Bill is not conceded, because the Army and Navy are to be independent altogether of the Irish Parliament (Home Rule cheers and "Hear, hear" from Mr. Gladstone). I am glad, sir, to hear so much cheerful satisfaction with my exposition of the differences between Grattan : s Parliament and that which is to be given by the Bill, and I do not wonder that the Prime Minister makes vocal his delight at the way in which that satisfaction has been expressed. But if the question is put whether this concession is likely to be a final measure or not, I doubt whether we shall find quite so pleasant a harmony. Are the Irish people going to accept something much smaller than Grattan's Parliament ? We have heard much about passing an Act of Indemnity. By all means. But not an Act of Oblivion. Let us deal kindly, let us deal generously, with those who may have spoken strongly, or those who have acted violently, in past times ; but if we are going to embark on a great political experiment, it is absolutely essential we should see what they have said, at whose re- quest we are going to make it, and how far they are likely to be satisfied. I wish to call the attention of the House to what has been said on this point by the leader of the Irish party. The hon. member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has spoken several times upon the question of the limits of the concessions he was willing or mtitled to make to the English peop'e. vSpeaking at Castlebar so lately as November 3 of last year, he said, " Speaking for myself, and I believe for the Irish people, and for all my colleagues, I have to declare that we will never accept, either expressly or impliedly, anything but the full and complete right to arrange our own affairs and make our land a nation ; to secure for her, free from outside contiol, the right to direct her own course amongst the peoples of the world." I will read a few words more. Speaking at Cork on the 2ist of January 1885, the hon. member for Cork said, "We cannot ask for less than the restitution of Grattan's Parli. ment, with its important privileges and far-reaching constitution." Sir, I have just shown that every one of the most important privileges given to the Irish Parliament by the Act of 1782 would be denied to the Irish people by the Bill now before us. Again, sir, speaking 1 86 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY /?, 1886. at Clonmel on the o,th of January 1885 the hon. member for Cork said : " We claim for Ireland and for the masses of the people the restitution of her Parliament, her independent Parlia- ment, of which she was cheated and deprived towards the close of the last century." There are two or three other words I pro- pose to read, not from the member for Cork, but from one of the youngest members of the National party (Air. J. H. McCarthy) at Newry. " We will," he said, " have no contemptible National Council, no small local boards, such as Mr. Chamberlain suggested, to govern us. We will have Grattan's Parliament, and we will have more than Grattan's Parliament. We will be as free as a State in the great American Union is free, to make our own laws for our own people in our own way." (Irish cheers.) Those expressions are received with cheers from below the gangway, and the representatives of the Nationalist party, just re-inforced by their deputy-leader, accept them as the state- ments of what they desired. Do they abide by those declara- tions now ? If they do, then they fling to the winds the statement of the Prime Minister that this is to be the final measure. It is one of two things : either they are attempting now by very mild pacificatory language to induce the House of Commons to grant something which hereafter will be used for purposes, now con- cealed, which it would be dangerous to the Bill to avow, or they did not mean all those fine things they have told the people of Ireland about the restoration of Grattan's Parliament. I think better of them than to suppose they are going to run away from these declarations. I think they look forward to try and carry them into effect ; but I am sure that if they tried to back out of these declarations there will be a power behind them which would make short work of them, either as members of this Parliament or of an Irish Parliament. They will not be allowed to betray the hopes they have raised, and to falsify the promises they have made. There was an interesting little incident at the beginning of Grattan's Parliament which it will not be useless to recall to the recollection of the House. The first thing that Parliament did was to vote a sum of ,50,000 to Henry Grattan, and that proceeding has remained on record since, and has been a great encouragement to pure-minded patriots. Within three months of that vote, Mr. Flood was denouncing Mr. Grattan in the Irish House of Commons as a mendicant patriot who had sold his country for prompt payment ; and Irishmen would know pretty well how to deal with those who betrayed the interests of the Irish people now, and accepted at the hands of the Prime Minister a measure which they had declared would never satisfy their desire. I think the Irish people would be quite right. They would be worthy of contempt if they were to s>t quiet, and take the Bill which is proposed, and ask for no SECOND READING OF THE HOME RULE BILL, 187 more. To call into existence a legislative body which is to have the opportunity of passing measures which would only come into force by the approval of the Crown given under the advice of the English Prime Minister ; to have no authority over the great national forces of the army and navy ; to have no part in foreign affairs, or in treaties of commerce ; to find itself simply a limited assembly in Dublin, with only the precious privilege of appointing a few ornamental personages who would furnish forth the appearance of a legislative assembly the Irish people are far too high spirited to sit content under such a state of things as that, and the claim they will make upon this country, either to give them real independence, or to let them come back in full fellowship to the privileges and rights of a portion of the United Kingdom, will, I think, be irresistible. It has, sir, been said in the course of this debate that it is unadvis- able to put down the National League, because it is better to have to do with a public body acting in the light of day than to have to do with secret societies. I, for one, do not think so. A secret society is not nearly so formidable as one which, in its career of intimidation, adds to the authority which it naturally gains from the unstinted publicity of its proceedings the fact that the Legislature does not interfere with its work. I believe that the police authorities would know how to deal with a secret society, but it is essential that those authorities should be allowed to act. Sir, if this Irish Parliament were established, it would clearly be only a starting-place for further agitation and further claims. It has been said that the position of Parliament in regard to the question of Home Rule was largely and irrevocably altered by the course pursued by the Conservative Government last year in allowing the Crimes Act to lapse. I think that a much more elaborate explanation of that course has been given, and a much larger inference is drawn from it, than the facts really require or justify. The real fact is, that at that time and in that Parliament, it had become an absolute impossibility for either a Liberal Government or a Conservative Government to renew that Act. The impossibility had been brought about by two members of this House. One was the Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) and the other the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley). The Prime Minister had from time to time postponed announcing what parts of the Act he proposed to continue. He told us nothing except a few words about the most equitable clauses of the Act being renewed, but refused to say anything definite. Then came an evening when the Prime Minister said distinctly that he proposed to introduce a bill to renew some of the clauses, and within an hour after that announcement the i88 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA Y /?, r886. present Chief Secretary rose below the gangway and read out an amendment, which he had prepared in the interval, to the effect that the then condition of Ireland did not justify any such measure. The resolute resistance to the proposal by the right hon. gentleman made it absolutely impossible to any Government to re-enact the Crimes Act at that time. How far the consequences have been serious only those who have been intimately acquainted with the affairs of the Irish Government are able to judge. But those transactions pledge neither party at the present time, and bind none of us to any particular course of action. The Con- servative party is perfectly free to deal as it thinks right with the state of things now existing in Ireland, unfettered by any memories of what happened six months ago. It was stated over and over again by the right hon. gentleman who spoke last that the mere proposal of this Bill has had very serious consequences. With the most candid accuracy he described it as having been the most startling event which has happened in the political memory of anybody in this House. That was a strong descrip- tion, but it was perfectly true. We know from the revelations that have been made that this was the Prime Minister's own Bill. Mr. GLADSTONE : You know nothing of the kind. Mr.EDWARDCLARKE: Sir,althoughhesi:okeunderrestrictions, severely enforced, a late Minister (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has been able to tell the House what occurred. He told us that until the 1 3th of March the Cabinet had no idea of what sort of bill was going to be laid before them, and he himself declared that he understood, when he joined the Cabinet, that the inquiry which was to take place into Irish affairs was to be an inquiry conducted by the Cabinet, and it was this disappointment at finding that that inquiry was not to be conducted by the Cabinet, but was to be conducted by the light hon. gentleman himself, without, so far as he knew, the assistance of his colleagues, that struck him with surprise, and he immediately tendered his resignation. I quite agree that the introduction of the Bill has been a great event. The rejection of the Bill will be a most useful event. And it will not easily be forgotten. Where the Prime Minister has failed no future leader of the Liberal party is likely to make a similar proposal. We know perfectly well that from the Tory party no such proposal will come. I do not believe there is one gentleman sitting on the front Opposition bench of the House who would ever commit himself to such a proposal ; but I know this, that if one were to do so he would shatter his party in exactly the same way as the proposal of the right hon. gentleman has cloven and shattered the Liberal party. We have the great satisfaction of knowing that, this Bill once defeated on the second reading, it is not in the PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. 189 least likely that any leader of political opinion in this country will embark on the dangerous enterprise of trying to conciliate I would almost add to dupe the representatives of the Nation- alist party in this House. The gain will, indeed, be a great one, if Parliament asserts itself, and distinctly and definitely refuses to embark on such a course as that proposed. Then Parliament will address itself to another task. That task, sir, may be slow and may be painful ; it may involve, as the noble lord (Hartington) has said, the rise and fall of several Ministers ; and may weaken those party ties which,! believe, have done very much in their operation to preserve the purity of public life in this country, and to provide a number of men capable of serving Her Majesty in offices of State ; but at least it will be a plain and honourable task. We have no right to shatter the Empire. We have no right to call upon the people of Ulster to come under an authority which was no part of our Constitution as they have known and prized it. It is our bounden duty, by all means that may be devised by the experience and wisdom of statesmen, to go forward in patient faith and resolute determination, to sacrifice ease and convenience to secure the fultilment of good government for the whole of an United Kingdom. If this course be consistently pursued we cannot fail of ultimate success. Parliamentary Privilege. MAY 3 AND 4, 1887. [On the 3rd of May, Sir Charles Lewis (North Antrim) as a matter of privilege, and without notice, made complaint of certain passages in the Times newspaper of the previous day and, the paper being handed in and such passages read by the Clerk at the Table, moved " That the publication in the Times newspaper of the 2nd of May of the article headed ' Parnellism and Crime,' constitutes a breach of the privi- leges of this House." After some conversation, Mr. W. H. Smith, on behalf of the Government, moved that the debate be adjourned. Upon this motion the following speech was made. The motion was eventually carried by 213 to 174, and the debate was ad- journed until the following day, Wednesday, at 12 o'clock.] THE SOLICITOR GENERAL. Mr. Speaker, Of course it is with great diffidence that I venture to address the House on a matter of this kind after -the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), who 190 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA Y j, /Afr. has had so long an experience of the conduct and business of the House, but I do, notwithstanding the right hon. gentleman's speech, ask the House to consider whether he has not himself stated ample reasons for having an adjournment, in order that the question, the gravity of which he pointed out, may receive some further consideration. There is not the smallest desire on this bench, or on this side of the House, to refuse hon. gentlemen below the gangway opposite the fullest opportunity of meeting in this House the damaging accusations which have been made against them. I do not think there is anyone on this side of the House who has not listened with sympathy to some of the expressions which have been used by members below the gang- way on that side of the House. The motion did not proceed from the Government, nor was it brought before the House by any supporter of theirs in concert with the Government. The ques- tion now is whether the House shall at once proceed to say that it is a breach of privilege, or whether the discussion shall take place on Thursday next. If this had been a technical or an unimportant question the Government would have been glad to get rid of it, instead of resuming it on another night. But it is a question of the utmost possible seriousness. My right hon. friend the member for the Bodmin division of Cornwall (Mr. Courtney), has pointed out that although it is usual for the House to deal with these matters promptly, yet in this case the House is called upon to deal with it when hon. members have not an ac- curate knowledge of the subject under debate. The motion for adjournment was made upon an understanding that it was the desire of the hon. member for East Mayo. That has since turned out to be erroneous ; but is that fact a justification for refusing to adjourn ? The House is dealing with an important question of law, and cannot be governed either by the desire of the hon. member or by the desire of the hon. bart. the member for North Antrim (Sir C. Lewis). There is one matter which has never been referred to in the course of this discussion. The statement in the Times which has been read and upon which this motion is founded, pur- ports to be an answer to something which was stated in the House by the hon. member for East Mayo. In the House of Commons the hon. member said that a statement which had appeared in the Times was afalse statement. The TY/wjrepeats the statement, and retorts the charge of falsehood. This is suggested to be a breach of the privileges of this House. The right hon. gentleman said he thought this was a question to be dealt with at once. I think, however, there is very grave doubt indeed whether this is a breach of the privileges of the House, and it is most important that those who are called upon to assist the judgment of the House in deciding so grave a question as this, should have time to con- sider, and to prepare themselves to discuss, this very important PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. 191 matter. The assertion of power on the part of the House is limited as compared with what it was formerly, and it is a most serious thing for the House to take upon itself to declare that whenever a member denies the truth of a statement in a news- paper, if that paper reasserts its statement any member may bring that before the House as a matter which affects its privi- leges. There is another reason which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Courtney) has given to the House for not dealing hastily with the matter. It has been pointed out that, according to the ordinary course of proceedings in this matter, the printer of the Times would be brought to the bar of the House, not to enter into the question whether his statement was true or not because the House would have already decided that whether it was true or not, the making of that statement was a breach of privilege but he would be brought to the bar to receive sen- tence for the offence which the House had already adjudged him to have committed. The hon. member for Northampton spoke of the case when a member of the late Government was brought to the bar in consequence of a letter or pamphlet he had written with regard to the naval administration. I remember the cir- cumstances of that case well, though I witnessed the scene from another part of the House from that in which I am now. No justification was made on that occasion. The hon. gentleman now the member for Cardiff stood at the bar and apologized humbly to the House for his offence, and then withdrew in order that the House might pronounce its judgment. But, that being the case, the right hon. gentleman has made another suggestion as to further action of the House in this matter. He has sug- gested that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the matter. That suggestion makes the matter still more serious and still more deserving of deliberation. Mr. GLADSTONE. That would be a later stage. I simply read from Sir Erskine May's book. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I know it is a later stage. I can read Sir Ersuine May's book as well as the right hon. gentleman. I had the page before me as he read the passage. His sugges- tion is in answer to the statement of my hon. and learned friend the Attorney General, who pointed out that the appearance of the printer of the Times at the bar of the House would be an appearance to receive sentence and not to contest the facts in question. In answer to that the right hon. gentleman says "You can appoint a committee." A committee of the House of Com- mons to consider this matter would be as inadequate a tribunal in its powers, in its results and action, and in the conduct of its proceedings, as could possibly be appointed to examine a charge of this gravity ; and it would, in my opinion, be a serious error in judgment on the part of the House to look forward to any ig2 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA Y 4, 1887. such discussion of a question with which other tribunals are far more competent to deal than the House of Commons. I wish to point out that those considerations with which the right hon. gentleman dealt show the great gravity of the matter with which the House is dealing now, and I therefore submit make it only reasonable that an adjournment should take place for a day or two, in order that we may examine that question which must at some time be discussed fully namely, the question whether in fact there has been a breach of the privileges of the House. [Upon the resumption of the debate Sir Edward Clarke in the following speech moved an amendment : " That this House declines to treat the publication of the article headed ' Parnellism and Crime,' in the Times of the 2nd of May as a breach of the privileges of the House." To this amendment Mr. Gladstone moved as a further amendment : " That this House is of opinion that an in- quiry should be made by a Select Committee into the charge of wilful falsehood in a speech delivered in this House, brought in an article published in the Times news- paper of the 2nd of May against John Dillon, Esquire, mem- ber for East Mayo." Mr. Gladstone's amendment was defeated by 31 7-233, majority 84, and the Solicitor General's motion was accepted without further division.] The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to move an amendment to the motion now before the House, namely, " That this House declines to treat the publication of the article headed ' Parnellism and Crime,' in the Times of the 2nd of May, as a breach of the privileges of this House." I shall endeavour, sir, to support that amendment by some reasons which I hope, whether they commend themselves to the acceptance of right hon. and hon. gentlemen opposite or not, will at all events be acknowledged to deserve the consideration of the House. I am sure it will be understood that I speak upon this matter with a feeling of very deep personal responsibility. My hon. and learned friend the Attorney General and I, holding the positions we now occupy, are responsible for our advice on matters of law, including the rules and practice of Parliament, to that Government as members of which we have the honour to serve, and we are bound when a question of this kind arises to address ourselves to it with reference strictly to legal considerations, and I now say for myself, and I am sure I can say so for my hon. and learned friend, that in the opinion which we intimated early- last evening to the leader of the House, and which after very careful consideration we definitely gave to the Government some PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. 193 hours later, we have been utterly careless of party or political results. Now, sir, there is only one observation I should like to make on the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) who has just addressed us. I shall deal presently with the question of the character of the prosecution which it has been suggested might be instituted, and with the difficulties of the management and conduct of such a prosecution. But at the present moment I wish to refer to a sentence in which the right hon. gentleman said that this proposal resembled the "trans- action " of yesterday, and that the country and the House would understand the nature of the proceeding. I quite agree in hoping that the House and the country will thoroughly under- stand it, but I do not think the right hon. gentleman ought to have used the word " transaction," as if for the purpose of point- ing to some contract or arrangement ; when that was absolutely repudiated by the right hon. gentleman the leader of the House, in terms which were accepted at once by right hon. gentlemen opposite. I think he might have refrained from using a word which carries with it the imputation which that word implies. Sir W. HARCOURT. I did not use the word in that sense. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I am glad it. was not intended to use the word " transaction " in the sense I have referred to, for everyone well knows that no arrangement was made. As to the country and the House understanding the real meaning of the motion of yesterday, I think we most of us understood it, and regretted that such a motion should have been made. There was not a syllable of applause or cheering from these benches when the hon. baronet made his motion. So far as I know it was made by him without the consent of any other member on this side of the House, and he will excuse me if I say frankly that I deeply regretted at the time that such a motion had been made, because I did not think that it was in accordance with Parliamentary precedent, nor with the fair exercise of the rights of a member in matters of this kind, that a motion should be made which in form was an attack on the writer in the Times, but which in substance appeared to be an attack in the House of Commons, not on the Times, but on the hon. member for East Mayo. I thought that upon that ground the motion was objectionable, and upon that ground I regretted it ; but with regard to the political or party aspect of the matter, we have entirely neglected what the results of it may be. I am quite sensible of the weight of the observations which have been presented to the House by hon. members below the gangway opposite, and I am quite aware of the use they will make, and are entitled to make, of this incident ; but that has nothing whatever to do with the responsibility of the law officers of the G 194 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA Y 4, 1887. Crown when yesterday evening they were asked to express an opinion on this motion. Yesterday, speaking for the Govern- ment, I expressed grave doubt as to whether what had taken place was, according to the custom and practice of the House a breach of privilege of the House, upon which we ought to exer- cise the exceptional power of bringing to the bar of the House, and sending to imprisonment, those who offend against our privileges. I am glad that the adjournment has given me an opportunity of going through, as far as time permitted, every reference and precedent I could find with regard to this matter. I have carefully searched the precedents, and if the right hon. gentleman the member for Derby is right in saying that there is a long and constant and unbroken line of precedents in favour of the appointment of a Committee to consider the truth of matters of this kind Sir W. HARCOURT. I said recent practice was in favour of that course. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I thought that the right hon. gentleman had given a larger scope to his words ; but if there is a recent practice to that effect by which we ought to be bound, and from which our present action may be denounced as an unwarrantable departure, all I can say is that I have been extremely unfortunate in finding no record of that practice. My belief that no such practice exists is strengthened by the fact that the right hon. gentleman after making that statement to the House did not condescend to support it in any way by precedents. But before I address myself to the serious question here involved, I would ask the indulgence of the House while I refer to the last debate that took place on the question of privilege. It was in the month of February, 1880, when Sir Charles Russell (not the Sir Charles Russell whom we now all know and respect so well), who used to sit for Westminster, complained that in a placard published and signed by Mr. Plimsoll he had been denounced as guilty of inhuman and degrading conduct in blocking a bill in this House. The motion that this placard was a breach of privilege was made on the Tuesday evening, February 17, and with the full concurrence of the members of the Liberal party, who were then led by the noble marquis, the member for Rossendale (the Marquis of Hartington), the debate was adjourned from Tuesday to Friday in order that the House might have time to consider the matter. (Sir W. Harcourt expressed disagreement.) The right hon. gentleman had better not disagree with me, because I have the book before me, and I am going to quote some of his own words. On Friday, the 2oth, a most valuable speech was made by^the right hon. gentleman the member for Derby, who had in'the interval prepared himself to discuss the question, and he PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. 195 alluded to a complaint made by the hon. member for West Norfolk that the consideration of the question before the House had been delayed by the adjournment. The right hon. gentle- man defended that delay, and quoted a precedent in favour of it. He said : " He would next call the attention of the House to another case of very great importance which occurred in 1844, when a charge of a most odious character was brought by Mr. Ferrand against Sir James Graham a charge which was unquestionably and undeniably false that of using his influence with other members of the House to obtain from an election committee a false and fraudulent report. It was impossible to make an accusation more odious or unfounded, and he should like to observe, in reply to the hon. member for West Norfolk, who complained that the consideration of the question before the House had been delayed, that that was precisely the course which had been advocated by Sir Robert Peel in 1844. Sir Robert Peel then said that the case was one which ought not to be disposed of in a hurry, ridiculous as the charge was, and unanimous though the feeling of the House might be that it was without foundation. A decision, Sir Robert Peel who was in favour of the public discussion of the conduct of members of Parliament, and even of Cabinet Ministers contended, could not be arrived at on the question without establishing an im- portant precedent, and therefore it was desirable, before coming to any such decision, to look back at the records which were within reach of the House. Considering the great Constitutional question involved, Sir Robert Peel went on to urge the necessity of perfectly free discussion and the risk that a feeling of indig- nation might prompt the House to adopt some sudden course which it might afterwards regret. Hon. members in their individual capacity ought to have the means of seeing what had in similar circumstances been done in past times and be afforded an opportunity of deliberating as to what ought to be done in the present. That, he thought, was a sufficient answer to what had fallen from the hon. member for West Norfolk." That opportunity for deliberation is precisely what we asked for, and what the House granted yesterday afternoon, and I have tried to do what the right hon. gentleman did with great success and great effect upon the House in 1880 namely, to look back to the precedents with which the House had to deal. On February 17 Sir Charles Russell had moved that the words constituted a breach of privileges of the House. On February 20 (Friday), Mr. Plimsoll apologized for the use of the words, and thereupon Sir Stafford Northcote, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, proposed a resolution which declared the words to be a breach of the privileges of the House. The resolution pro- 196 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA Y 4, 1887. ceeded to say that, considering the accusation had been with- drawn, the House did not think it necessary to proceed further in the matter. But the right hon. gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) in his speech resisted the declaration that it was a breach of the privileges of the House ; and he quoted three precedents in support of the protest he made against the House passing a resolution which declared that proceeding to be a breach of privilege. The right hon. gentleman referred to the question in 1844, when Mr. Ferrand made the charge against Sir James Graham. He said : "But did the House of Commons, he would ask, in 1844 decide that a breach of privilege had been committed? No, although the charge brought against Sir James Graham had neither been proved nor withdrawn, Sir Robert Peel would not allow so dangerous a precedent to be set ; but he made a motion to the effect that Sir James Graham and the other members named having denied in their places the truth of the allegations made against them, and Mr. Ferrand having declined to sub- stantiate his charges, the House was of opinion that those charges were wholly unfounded and calumnious, and did not affect in the slightest degree the honour or the characters of the members in question. There was in all that not a word about privilege, for Sir Robert Peel was alive to the danger of passing such a resolution as that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed. He would not permit the House of Commons to set so mischievous an example, and put such a restraint on the public discussion of the conduct of members of Parliament. There was also another case the Abercromby case to which he might refer, which occurred in 1824, when Lord Eldon de- nounced in the Court of Chancery a member of the House as having been guilty of falsehood. The matter was brought before the House as a question of privilege, and was debated at great length. Some very eminent persons were in favour of pro- nouncing the language df Lord Eldon a breach of privilege, but Mr. Canning and Mr. Peel were opposed to that course, and a majority of the House supported the view which they took." Now I ask the House to notice this, and I beg that I may be understood as adopting the language of the right hon. gentleman and incorporating it in my speech. " Those were the three great precedents on the subject ; and it was clear from them that in recent times the House of Com- mons had not shown itself willing to invoke the shield of privilege for the purpose of defending its members from public criticism. If he were to quote ancient precedents, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had very wisely declined to entertain, a rule would no doubt be found to the effect that there could be no PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. 197 criticism upon any act of a member of Parliament in reference to his Parliamentary conduct ; and if they chose to act upon the principle of privilege as laid down in Parliamentary precedent, to speak of a man's vote, even to publish his speech or his vote, or to criticize his vote, was a breach of privilege. That was the only principle, if a rigorous course was to be adopted, on which the House could stand. All the rest was a question of degree. It was a question of adjectives, and as regarded the adjectives of the hon. member for Derby" there seems to have been a former member for Derby who used adjectives "they were withdrawn, and they had no place in the resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What they were asked to affirm was that criticizing and condemning the conduct of an hon. member of that House was a breach of privilege. That was how he understood the resolution." That was how the House understood the resolution, and how the noble marquis the member for Rossendale understood it, and all the Liberal members who were then in the House went into the Lobby to the number of 116. I think it was against that resolution. Though I do not follow at length this most valuable speech, which I respectfully commend to the perusal and attention of the House, I should like to refer to one more passage. Mr. ILLINGWORTH. Will the hon. and learned gentleman give the numbers on the other side ? The SOLICITOR GENERAL. Certainly ; I did not conceive that it was relevant. One hundred and eighty-two voted in favour of it. I do not misapprehend the question as to whether this binds us in the case or not ; I only refer to it in order to get the valuable authority on some of the propositions in this matter of the right hon. gentleman the member for Derby. He went on to say : " The question was whether the House was to declare that printed placards nothing was said about the character of the language of them, which might be the most respectable reflect- ing upon the conduct of an hon. member of that House, con- stituted a breach of the privileges of Parliament. It seemed to him that, in passing such a resolution as that before them, the House would be striking a fatal blow at liberty of speech. If, for instance, an hon. member were to make a speech denouncing another hon. member for obstruction, was the member so de- nounced to come forward and to appeal, under the protection of the Chancellor's resolution, to the protection of the House ? It was too late in the day for the House of Commons to employ the engine of privilege to smother public criticism upon the conduct of hon. members. He did not say the Chancellor of the Exchequer had such an intention ; but that would be the 198 HOUSE Of COMMONS, MA Y 4, 1887. effect of his resolution. If a member of the House used language offensive to another member, there were other ways of obtaining a withdrawal of, and redress for, the language. If he refused to withdraw that language, as in the case of Mr. Ferrand, then the member whose conduct was impugned might be vindicated by the unanimous opinion of the members of the House. But when they drew this old and rusty sword of privilege for pur- poses of this character, then he believed the House would be embarking in a course which would land it in immense embarrass- ment, and in which he saw no end of difficulty. There would be nothing to prevent its enforcing the new doctrine of privilege against every newspaper and every election placard." I am sure the House will not think that I require to make an apology for having quoted from this speech. But now let me turn to the question that the law officers advising the Govern- ment had to consider, and upon which, having advised the Government, they are prepared very respectfully to advise the House. The fact is that what the right hon. gentleman called the doctrine of privilege is a doctrine that the House of Commons is a court, that is like other courts of justice, and that it has the same power of compelling regularity, order, and decency in its proceedings as other courts of justice have, and that it has power of taking up and dealing with accusations made against hon. members of this House when they are acting in the service of the House. Let hon. members suppose that a chairman of a Committee of this House a committee to which the House had delegated some of its judicial functions was charged with corruption in his office, there is no doubt whatever that that would be a contempt of the House, and would be a breach of privilege. If an attack be made on the Speaker of the House, who represents the highest authority here, the House has not been in the habit of leaving it to the Speaker by personal action to vindicate himself from the charge, but the House has some- times punished by its own action the offence which has been committed, and has sometimes, and I think more often, referred the subject to the tribunals, where alone a question of this kind can properly be dealt with. I am sure that hon. gentlemen will make allowance for the shortness of time for considering the long range of precedents referred to ; but since the last sitting of the House I have done my best, and I have not found, and I do not believe anyone can find, an instance of the House of Commons exercising this power of punishment by com- mittal to prison of a person for an accusation made by him against a member of the House of Commons which was not directly an accusation of corruption or of misfeasance in a vote given, or which was not an attempt to coerce and intimidate him in his action in the House of Commons. I ask the House, I PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. 199 ask the hon. member for East Mayo himself, to look frankly at the case which we have here. There is no accusation here against an hon. member of the House for corruption, or that any act he has done, as a representative in this House, is in any way tainted ; but what happened was this. Accusations of personal misconduct if I may be allowed to use that general phrase not in the House, but outside the House, were made against the hon. member for East Mayo. In the course of debate in this House the noble marquis the member for Rossendale quoted state- ments which had been made with regard to the hon. member, and upon being asked to substantiate those statements, he said that he had obtained those statements from the Times, but that he did not put his own authority at the back of them. Thereupon the hon. member for East Ma\o denounces the Times in unmeasured language, and I do not say that that language was not entirely justified by the feel- ing which possessed him at the time, for having told a falsehood about him. Upon this the Times says that the falsehood is not with the Times but with the hon. member. That is what the House has now to deal with. Mr. DILLON. While I do not intend or think it proper to enter into the debate, I think it right, in justice to myself, to state that I consider the hon. and learned gentleman's statement of the case to be extremely inaccurate. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I am very sorry that it should be so. I was endeavouring, at all events, to state fairly what had taken place ; and I really think that if the hon. member for East Mayo will follow me step by step he will admit that there is no in- accuracy. Let me just put the case again. The statements which appeared in the Times with regard to the hon. member were not as to something he had done in the House, but, it was alleged, at particular times some years ago, he was in communication in habitual and constant connection I think the words were with persons whose character was bad, and it was suggested that he must have known this to be the case. The noble lord the member for Rossendale quoted some statements on the subject in a speech in the course of debate, and the hon. member for East Mayo got up I think the next day and gave a most positive denial to the statements which had been made. Thereupon followed this article in the Times. Sir, it may be that I have by accident I do think it has been by carelessness overlooked some precedent which may be found in the books, and which justifies taking immediate action by the House of Commons, in the sense of punishment by imprisonment of the person who has made a libellous statement. That is the question. If the House of Com- mons decides that this matter is a breach of privilege the person guilty would be brought to the bar of the House of Commons, 200 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA Y 4, 1887. and unless apology or retractation were made, and satisfac- tion given to the House, the person would be ordered into custody. (Cries of " No.") That is the only power that the House of Commons has exercised beyond the power of repri- mand, and there is no case in which any power whatever has been exercised by the House of Commons for a very long time past except that of ordering the person into custody. An Hon. Member. A Committee. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. A Committee? When yester- day afternoon I said a word about a Committee the member for Midlothian quite justifiably interrupted me by saying " Oh 1 that is an ulterior step." It is an ulterior step, and I will come to it. In the meantime I venture to say that I believe no case is to be found in the records of Parliament in which the House of Commons has committed a man to custody, as being guilty of breach of privilege, for such a statement or such an act as is now alleged. Now, then, let me say this. The foundation of the jurisdiction of this House in regard to breach of privilege is that it is an open interference with the House, or with the con- duct and action of a member of the House, as a member of the House. Of course hon. gentlemen know that this question of the right of the House of Commons to commit for contempt has been brought under judicial decision, and in the case of " Burdett v. Abbot" the matter was largely discussed, and judgment given by Lord Ellenborough and the other Judges. In that case it was decided that the House of Commons was entitled to commit for breach of privilege, because it was a Court ; and it was further decided that the House of Commons was entitled to judge of its own privileges, and that if it judged of its own privileges, and committed a person to prison for breach of privilege, no Court existing in this country could inquire whether that jurisdiction had been properly exercised or not. And I submit to the hon. gentlemen opposite, who, though they may be deeply interested in the political issue which is connected with this matter, are yet, I hope, far more deeply interested in the position of the House of Commons, and the attitude which the House of Com- mons shall take with regard to a question of this kind, that this is an occasion on which they will do well to remember and give great weight to the v\ ords of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir W. Harcourt) which I have read to them. I will not trouble the House by reading extracts from the law books, but the early precedents all put the matter on the ground that breach of privilege must be for contempt of the House, or inter- ference with the action of a member of the House as a member of the House. There has been no such interference here. There is an allegation that the hon. member for East Mayo has been guilty of falsehood, but no corruption is alleged, nor is anything PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. 201 alleged which has in past cases been considered by the House to be a breach of privilege justifying the exercise of its own authority. Now there are some cases in which the House of Commons has taken another course. In the case of Sir Francis Burdett a Committee was appointed to consider the privileges of the House of Commons, and the course which ought to be taken in regard to them. That Committee sat in 1810, and presented a report which will be found in the first volume of " Hatsell's Precedents." In their report that Committee, speaking of com- mitment for libel, said that such a course " tends to excite public misapprehension and disaffection, endangers the freedom of debates and proceedings in Parliament, and requires most prompt interposition and restraint. The effect of immediate punishment and example is required to prevent the evils neces- sarily arising from this offence, which evil would be much less effectually guarded against by the more dilatory proceedings of the ordinary Courts of law. Nevertheless upon some occasions the House of Commons has proceeded against persons commit- ing such an offence by direct prosecution or by addressing His Majesty to direct them, as appears by the precedents collected in the appendices." Now, in the appendices there is a list of the cases in which the House of Commons has dealt with the question of libel upon its members. These cases run down to about the year 1810. Turning to Appendix B I find that since 1697 there have been twelve cases in which the House of Commons has dealt with libels upon the House of Commons or one of its members by ordering a prosecution in a Court of law. Sir CHARLES RUSSELL. By address. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. It is the same thing, it is an address for a prosecution. These cases come down to the year 1810, and I am unable to find examples since 1810 in matters of this kind at all. There are very few cases of newspaper libel upon members of the House of Commons. There appear to have been three in 1821, which will be found in the i I2th volume of the " Commons' Journals," and it is interesting to notice what became of those three cases. The first was the case of \heMorning Chronicle, which was brought before the House in February, 1821, as a breach of privilege, for a false statement as to the wayin which members gave their votes. A motion was made that Lambert, the printer, should attend at the bar. An adjournment was moved and defeated ; the previous question was moved, and the previous question and the motion were both withdrawn, and the House took no steps in the matter whatever. On the 8th of May in the same year the publisher of John Bull was charged with having published a false and scandalous libel on a member of the House, and in breach of the privileges of the House ; and the statement was that a member of the House had under a threat 202 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA V 4, 1887. made by the son of a person whom he had attacked, made a speech and apologized, but in an intentionally low tone, so that it should not be heard. In that case proceedings were taken. The printer attended at the bar, and eventually Henry Fox Cooper and, looking to the date of 1821 and that name, I think that probably there was a great deal of strong feeling in the House and the printer were committed to Newgate. But I find no record of what was done afterwards. On the loth of May in the same year the Times was attacked, and a motion was made that an article in the Times was a breach of the privileges of of the House, as a misrepresentation of what passed in the House, during the speech of a member of the House. A motion was made that the printer, Bell, should attend at the bar of the House ; and in that case, as in the case of the Morning Chronicle, the House took no action. And now I have given to the House my judgment, and the result of my examinations for precedents. Now Sir, it has been suggested that a Committee is the ordi- nary and proper course of dealing with the question of privilege. Upon that point I should like to refer to an authority which hon. gentlemen below the gangway opposite will at once recognize. In the case of "Grissell and Ward," in 1879, in connection with the Tower High-level Bridge, some statements were made to a Committee of this House as to the position of certain persons who were interested in the proceedings of that Committee, containing a suggestion of possible corruption against some members of that Committee. The Committee came to the House and asked that an inquiry should be made. There was no inquiry after the persons were brought to the bar of the House. The inquiry took place before the persons were brought to the bar. That is as different as possible from this case. But in the course of the debate objection was taken to the appoint- ment of a Committee, and that objection was taken by the hon. member who now sits for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and he said : " There are just two precedents for referring a question of privi- lege to a Committee, and only two precedents as far I can discover, and they are not precedents which govern the present case. On the i8th of February, 1575, a Committee was appointed to examine the matter touching the case of Hall's servant. That matter was treated as a question of privilege. Also on the 3rd of December, 1601, a complaint was made to the House of an information having been exhibited by the Earl of Huntingdon in the Star Chamber against Mr. Belgrave a mem- ber. The matter was referred to a Committee of Privileges, who reported upon the I7th of December. Hut we have no pre- cedent at all for the report of a Select Committee which com- plains to the House of a breach of privilege against itself of a most offensive character there is no precedent whatever for PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. 203 sending such a report to a Select Committee. On'the contrary, all the precedents go in the direction of showing that these matters have always been considered by the House at once, and decided upon as a matter of privilege." I believe the hon. mem- ber was quite right in stating that since 1601 there has been no precedent for a committee on a question of privilege of this kind. Now let me go to a further point. The committee that we are now asked to appoint would be one entirely new, and unsupported by any precedent given in the book we regard as authoritative. In that book, which I remember Mr. Disraeli telling me to study very carefully and constantly, Sir Erskine May's, there appears a passage to which the right hon. gentleman the member for Midlothian yesterday referred in suggesting that a committee might be appointed. But that passage only has two references to instances in which a committee was appointed one being a case in regard to an election petition, and the other the case of Mr. Grissell, which I have shown to be a case of an entirely different character from this. The House will search its records in vain to find a case in which a committee was appointed to inquire, as between an hon. member of the House and his accuser outside, whether the hon. member or his accuser had or had not been guilty of falsehood. And let me point out why it is that Parliament would have been most unwise in adopting any such course. The suggestion is that the House should summon some one to the bar of the House for a breach of privilege. The question is whether an hon. member of the House has told a falsehood (an hon. member. "In the House") yes, in the House, but in reference to his personal conduct, not within the House, and unconnected with his position as a member. The suggestion appears to be that having brought a person to the bar a committee of the House should be appointed which would, in a judicial capacity, enter upon the question which, if it is to be decided at all, ought to be decided by the calmest and most impartial tribunal which it is possible to procure. If I wanted demonstration of the monstrous character of this pro- posal I should find it in the language of the right hon. gentleman the member for Derby, who said that no doubt hon. members on the Ministerial side of the House had already formed an opinion as to whether the charge against the hon. member was true, and the right hon. gentleman added that the Government would be able to name the majority of the committee. I am not challenging the fact, but what does that statement come to ? It comes to this, that at the very outset of the proceedings, while the House is considering how best to secure a fair and impartial arbitrament of this matter, the suggested tribunal is denounced beforehand by the right hon. gentleman who supports its appointment, on the ground that it will be nominated by those 204 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA Y 4, 1887. who have pledged themselves in advance to one conclusion. Sir I would appeal to all members of this House who are desirous of dealing justly and calmly with a serious question, whether what has occurred in this House to-day, and the cheers we have heard from different parts of the House, are not a demonstration that the appointment of a committee by this House would be a means absolutely insufficient for dealing with this question ? Just see what would happen. This committee would be sitting : it would not have all the opportunity and all the powers possessed by a court of law. ("Yes!") Those gentlemen who say "yes" are not very familiar with courts of law. There would be no control over a committee of the House of Commons a com- mittee composed of ardent partizans. (Mr. Healy. The Government would have a majority). In making that observa- tion thehon. member strengthens my argument. (Mr. Healy. But we are not afraid.) We know now by the declarations that have come from the front Opposition bench, and from below the gangway opposite, that if the committee were to arrive at a decision hostile to the hon. member for East Mayo it would at once be denounced as a packed committee. Suppose the com- mittee appointed, and the long squabbles as to what was relevant and irrelevant to be decided, and all the evidence to have been taken, and the committee to come to consider its decision. Does any one doubt that there would be a division of opinion, and that there would be a report of the majority and of the minority ? It is obvious that that would be the probable con- clusion. It is clear that hon. members below the gangway opposite do not trust the members on this side of the House. Mr. T. HEALY. We have said directly the contrary. (Home Rule cheers.) The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I think no one can doubt who has heard the speeches delivered that at the end of the investigation such would be the case. Mr. DILLON. I rise to order. The hon. and learned gentle- man is attributing to us a statement that both I and my friends utterly repudiate. I understand that it is customary for hon. members to be allowed to repudiate statements attributed to them. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. If these are really the sentiments of hon. gentlemen below the gangway, it is a pity that the obser- vations to which I refer were made. Mr. T. HEALY. Who made them ? Who made them ? The SPEAKER. I must call on the hon. member for Longford not to interrupt. Mr. T. HEALY. The hon. and learned gentleman has stated that we have said that we would not trust a committee selected from hon. gentlemen opposite. We ask him, and we are entitled to ask him, who said this ? PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. 205 The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I think it was the hon. member for West Belfast, who a few moments ago interrupted me by calling out " You would have a majority." Mr. SEXTON. I claim the right to explain. I did not use those words, and if I had they would not have affected my posi- tion. I said distinctly yesterday that, although the Government would have a majority on the committee, yet I would have confi- dence in that tribunal. The SOLICITOR GENERAL. I would recall the recollection of the House to the observations of the hon. member for the Scotland division of Liverpool. In that speech he, in very strong language, assailed the Government, and denounced its action in this matter of taking proceedings against the Times, and suggested that nobody could trust to a prosecution conducted by the Government. I am very glad to know that that speech has already been sent to the printer, and that hon. gentlemen can refer to it for themselves if they did not hear it. If hon. members will refer to it they will find that it is a denunciation of the Govern- ment for making a dishonest proposal with regard to the prose- cution of a writer in the Times, or the printer, and a suggestion that nobody could trust to a prosecution conducted under the circumstances. Sir, I think I have now pointed out that procedure by committee would be absolutely contrary to the whole course of Parliamentary precedents ; that it would be to invent a totally new procedure ; and that the proceedings of the com- mittee, and the result, could hardly be considered satisfactory. I should now like to say a few words as to the question of prosecution, and as to the suggestion of the leader of the House. What we find in " Hansard " is that there have been twelve cases during a certain number of years in which the House has ordered a prosecution. Of course, directly that question of pro- secution was raised, we knew perfectly well that hon. members below the gangway opposite would not be satisfied with a pro- secution conducted exclusively by the present Attorney General and Solicitor General, and they are perfectly justified in taking up that position. I agree that they ought to be represented in the prosecution by persons in whom they have entire confidence, not only in the sense of believing that those persons have some acquaintance with the law, and will try to do their duty in the case, but also in the sense of believing that those persons have some sympathy with them in the action which they are taking. Hon. members may be certain that there is no desire on the part of the Attorney General or myself to interpose as the instruments of the prosecution in this matter. There was a case not long ago in which a similar but not so great a difficulty arose. The junior member for Northampton, in the last Parliament but one, was ordered by the House to be prosecuted, notwithstanding 206 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 4, 1887. the fact that the Government had taken his part in the pro- ceedings that led to the prosecution, and it was felt that the hon. member for Bury (Sir H. James), who had been supporting the hon. member for Northampton in his action, ought not alone to conduct that prosecution, and accordingly the present Lord Chancellor, then sitting on the front Opposition bench, was associated with him in the conduct of the case, and took a very active and diligent part in the framing of the indictment and in the subsequent proceedings. Hon. members below the gangway will, perhaps, allow me to say that I do not think that this pro- posal for a prosecution by the House, or under the order of the House, is one that can fairly or properly be entertained, except on the motion of the hon. member for East Mayo. But if he or any friend of his, with regard to these circumstances, which are exceptionally grave, moves that the House should order that a prosecution be instituted, although I think that in accordance with the rules and precedents of the House it would be right that the Attorney General should be nominally asso- ciated with the prosecution, hon. members may be quite certain that the whole conduct of that prosecution would be left to such persons as they might nominate ; and I am not speaking merely of the Counsel who would appear in Court, but also of the solici- tors with whom they would communicate in preparation for the trial. If hon. members ask the House of Commons that the proceedings may be of this nature, the Government will place no difficulties in their way. I hope the House will forgive me for having trespassed so long upon its attention. Even if I strain its indulgence, I wish to say two or three words upon the general subject. The question of the privileges of the House of Com- mons, and the right of the House of Commons to exercise its own power for the punishment of persons who have assailed members of Parliament is an extremely serious one. In 1880 the noble lord the member for Rossendale, who then led the Liberal party, said the whole course of the House of Commons in recent times had been in the direction of relaxing and not of straining the rules of privilege. We live in times when a ques- tion of this kind is extremely serious, and I hope that, disentang- ling it from the immediate excitement and passion of the day, we may be able to consider calmly what the position is which the House of Commons is called upon to take up. If an hon. mem- ber were to say that an attack had been made upon him in such a manner or in such circumstances that it could not be met in the ordinary way in which an attack would be met by a gentle- man who was not a member of this House, there might be some ground for the appeal made by hon. members opposite. But that has never been said by hon. members below the gangway ("Yes"); no appeal has been made to the House (renewed Home Rule cries of " Yes "), no spontaneous appeal the inter- THE LICENSING QUESTION. 267 ruptions of hon. members again bring me into conflict with them. In this case the accusation which is made is made by a res- ponsible person, by a person who can be dealt with in the ordinary Courts of law. The machinery of the law is at the disposal of hon. members, and I venture to say that, after what has taken place, if one of these hon. members would go into a Court of law to complain of and seek redress for an attack of this kind, it would be the defendant and not the plaintiff who would have to fear the prejudice and sentiment of a jury. But the House of Commons is asked to extend its practice with reference to this matter, to extend it in a dangerous direction, to institute a form of proceedings hitherto unknown in its history, and to do this when a prompt and far more effectual remedy can be obtained in those Courts of law which are open to all the subjects of the Queen. It is my sincere hope that the House of Commons will never stretch the law of privilege one inch beyond its established limit. Its extension may have been necessary in other times and circumstances ; but situated as we are I fear that such an extension would be a dangerous one, and I feel that it would not be justified by the circumstances which the House has now before it. Local Government and the Licensing Question. APRIL 17, 1888. DELIVERED IN THE DEBATE UPON THE SECOND READING OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL : Sir, there is in one respect, at all events, an agreeable contrast between the speech which we have just heard and that delivered last night by the hon. baronet the member for Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), because the hon. baronet attacked Her Majesty's Government very bitterly upon the licensing propo?als they now make, and said that the shame of those proposals must rest on them, and he wound up by alleging that the policy embodied in the licensing clauses was never exceeded in the meanness of its conception, the injustice of its scope, or the cruelty it inflicted on the industrial classes. The hon. member who has just sat down, who is equally en- titled to claim to be an ardent supporter of the temperance cause, has, on the other hand, dealt fairly with the proposals of the Government, and recognized that in the licensing clauses of the Bill there is a real attempt to deal with a difficulty that has baffled Parliament for many years past. I do not propose to enter into all the details of the speech which has just been de- 208 HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 17, 1888. livered. No doubt some points of detail have been raised by my hon. friend which could most properly be treated in committee, and which are matters of fair discussion and argument. The point referred to by the hon. gentleman as to the numerical limit of populaticn of towns which are to be allowed to remain licensing areas is one that may very well be dealt with in that way ; but, taking the licensing clauses as a whole, the Govern- ment has proposed them deliberately and carefully, with a re- gard, on the one hand, to that which it believes to be fair and right to the interest of those engaged in that trade ; and, on the other hand, to the desire which Parliament has expressed very often that there should in some way be given to the people them- selves a power of dealing in their localities with the granting of licences. I wish to show how the Government has tried to deal with the various difficulties that have arisen in connection with this matter. But first I will answer the challenge which has been thrown out by my hon. friend who has just spoken as to the opinions of those who are responsible for advising the Govern- ment on matters of law, in regard to any vested interests on the part of the licensed victuallers. When the right hon. gentleman the member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was Home Secre- tary I expressed the opinion which I now repeat, and which represents the advice on which the Government has acted and is prepared to act. It is that under the licensing statutes justices are not justified in refusing to renew a public-house licence simply upon the ground that there is no need for it, or that there are too many public-houses in the neighbourhood. Mr. R. T. REID (Dumfries, &c.) : Will the hon. and learned gentleman state under what Act of Parliament that power exists ? The SOLICITOR GENERAL : My hon. and learned friend does not usually find itnecessary to interrupt me in the middle of a speech to put such a question. I should not have made such a statement if I had not been prepared to go into the matter. I listened last night with great interest to the speech of the hon. baronet the member for Cumberland, who argued against the idea that there was a vested right or interest on the part of those licensed to keep public-houses. The hon. baronet founded his proposition chiefly on a sentence which he quoted, and which I myself have seen quoted in a number of temperance publications ; and he said that Mr. Justice Field, in the Court of Queen's ' Bench, in the month of November, 1882, stated that " the Legis- lature recognized no vested interest at all in any holder of the icence." I have seen that sentence before in inverted commas, and the hon. baronet quoted it last night. The case referred to was dealt with by Mr. Justice Field, and decided in the Queen's Bench in November 1882. In the first place, I have carefully THE LICENSING QUESTION. 200 gone through the five different reports of the decision, and the judgment in the case, and in no one of the reports will the sen- tence which the hon. baronet quoted to the House last night be found. In the next place, the decision was not a decision on this point at all, but on a different Act of Parliament. Anybody who refers to any of the reports of the case will find that the judges laid great stress upon the words of the Act which had quite recently been passed, and upon which they were called to put judicial construction. The Act related to beer dealers and retail licences. The words inserted in that Act were these : " Notwithstanding anything in Section 8 of the Wine and Beerhouse Act of 1 869, or in any other Act now in force, the licensing justices shall be at libery, in their free and unqualified discretion, either to refuse the certificate for the sale of beer," and so on, or to grant the same. Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Stephen had to deal with the case in question under the Act of 1882, and having before them the words, "in their free and unqualified discretion," said that those words indicated exactly what they stated namely, that there was to be no sug- gestion of any kind as to the limit of their unqualified discretion. That is being quoted in every circular sent out by the United Kingdom Alliance and other temperance bodies ; but I am afraid that the hon. baronet has been misled into attributing to Mr. Justice Field an expression which that learned judge never used. So much for the authority which the hon. baronet quoted last night. The question now before us arises on the Act of 1828, as dealt with in the Acts of 1872 and 1874. The Act of 1872 established a clear distinction between the granting of a new licence and the renewal of an old licence. The provisions of the Act were that where a licensed person applied for renewal (1) he need not attend at the annual licensing meeting unless required by the justices. In ordinary cases, licences which are upon the register are to be renewed as a matter of course. Not only need not the licensed person attend unless required, but (2) the justices are not to entertain any objection unless written notice of intention to oppose has been served upon the licensed person seven days previous to the meeting ; and (3) the justices are not to receive evidence except on oath. Those were the pro- visions in the Act of 1872. The Act of 1874 went still further, and provided that the notice to the licensed person to attend, without the service of which the justices had no right to enter- tain an objection at all, could only be given to the licensed person on some ground personal to himself. The state of things stands thus. Suppose the justices were to make up their minds -be-fore the Licensing Sessions were held that they would not grant a renewal of any of the licences, the Court of Queen's 2io HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 77, 1888. Bench would interfere on a mandamus and compel them to deal with the licences separately, and they cannot refuse any licence to a person already licensed unless they call the person before them. The Act of 1874 said : " Whereas by Section 42 of the principal Act it is enacted that a licensed person applying for a renewal of his licence need not attend in person at the general annual licensing meeting unless he is required by the Licensing Justices so to attend, be it enacted that such requisition shall not be made save for some special cause personal to the licensed fperson, to whom such requisition be sent." Sir WILLTAM HARCOURT (Derby) asked whether the hon. and learned gentleman held that the words " some special cause personal to the licensed person " meant " personal misconduct " on the part of the licencee ? The SOLICITOR GENERAL : Sir, in my opinion, the words, " some special cause personal to the licensed person," would mean some cause such as personal misconduct, or the permission of conduct in the house which could be made a subject of com- plaint against himself. It is impossible to contend that if there were 50 licences and the justices came to the conclusion that 48 were sufficient, notice to the other two to attend would be for a special cause personal to them. I say that, taking these statutes altogether, it is not competent to the magistrates to refuse the renewal of licences which have been previously granted except on some special cause personal to the holder of licence. The hon. baronet last night asked whether any lawyer would venture to contend that there was a vested interest in licensed premises ? I answer that there is, and I believe that the Acts, properly read, do give to the licensed victualler a vested interest in the continuous enjoyment of his licence. The condition of the property, moreover, I should think, was a per- sonal cause, as the licensed person had to keep it in good order. At Common Law anybody who chose had a right to keep a public-house. There have been restrictions imposed by statute, partly for the sake of good order and partly for the benefit of the revenue ; and ever since the time of Henry VII., when the provisions were first introduced with regard to the power of the justices to licence, this trade has always been considered and dealt with by the legislature as a lawful trade. I submit to the House that it would be impossible for the legislature, with any fairness and honesty, substantially to confiscate the property of a very large number of persons carrying on a lawful trade with- out giving compensation. It has never been suggested or main- tained by any responsible leader or party in the House that that course would be a fair course. But, sir, this is not a mere THE LICENSING QUESTION-. 211 question of legal right, upon which lawyers may, and very likely, will, differ. It is also a question of what is fair and just. It ought to be borne in mind that, besides publican's licences, there are beer-houses, which were licensed before the ist of May, 1869. It is impossible to contend that the owners of these beer-houses have not a vested interest, for the magistrates have no power of refusing a renewal of such licences, except on four specified grounds. When this question is being considered there is also another class of licences that ought to be borne in mind namely, provisional licences, granted in respect of premises not already erected. By the Act passed in 1872 these most salutary licences were provided for. Before that specu- lative persons used to take corner plots and build houses in the hope of getting a licence when the houses were completed, and used to go on applying year after year, till at last, out of sheer pity, a licence was not unfrequently granted. Since the passing of that Act, however, very few houses have been built as a matter of speculation, and in the mere hope of getting a licence. Now, the custom is to apply for a provisional licence, which is granted upon the plans being submitted to the magistrates, and it is confirmed when a certificate is presented to the magistrates signed by the architect, and testifying that the building has been completed according to the plans. Can anyone say that it would be fair or honest that when a man had gone to the ex- pense of building a house according to plans approved by the magistrates the licence should, after a year or two, be taken away without compensation ? There is a deliberate invitation by Parliament to people before they build public-houses to go and consult the magistrates as to the position of the houses and the arrangements they propose to make, and an implied pledge is given that they will be continued in the enjoyment of these premises. The very illustrations given by the hon. member for Barrow in regard to the value of licences show how unfair it would be to cancel them without compensation. It would be outrageous that a man who has purchased a licensed house, and paid many thousands of pounds upon the generally prevailing idea as to the right to a continuance of a licence, and its value based upon that right, should suddenly find himself mulcted in ^8,000 or ^9,000, by being deprived of the licence which he bought. I do not think that is a policy which would be likely to be accepted by the House, and I do not know of any person occupying a prominent position in any Government who has supported it. It has always been hoped that this question would be, in some way or other, dealt with in a Local Govern- ment Bill, when brought in. The suggestion of the temperance reformers has always been that, there not being an elected body to grant licences, it was desirable occasionally to have 212 HOUSE UF COMMONS, APRIL 77, iSSS. plebiscite on the subject to enable the ratepayers to say whether they would have any more licences granted in the district. The whole question has always been beset with difficulties, and no one has ever defined the area in which each plebiscite should take place. So long as the justices were the licensing autho- rity there was, perhaps, a scintilla of reason at the back of the appeal that an occasional plebiscite should be taken ; but if the House should find itself fortunate enough to be able to deal with the whole question of local government, and if it should establish for the purpose County Councils, which will be directly elected by the people to represent them in local matters, it would be sheer absurdity to have an occasional plebiscite of the people to say whether they disagree with the Board they them- selves have elected. The right hon. gentleman the member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) and the right hon. gentleman the member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) are both, I am glad to say, of opinion that this question ought to be dealt with by the Local Government Authority. The hon. member for Barrow said he hoped the Government would abandon the proposals in regard to licencing, except those transferring the licensing authority from the justices to the County Council. But the mere transfer of authority, without safeguards, from the justices to the local governing body would do a great injustice, against which I have been, and am now, protesting. The justices are bound by the law to which I have referred, and they have to deal with persons to whom they or their predecessors have given a privilege, and over the exercise of which privilege it is their duty to watch. But if the power were transferred from the justices, who are governed by these Acts of Parliament, and have to exercise judicial functions, and who would be compelled by a mandamus to deal with each separate case, and not make a rule to govern a set of cases if these justices were to be re- placed by an elected body without judicial functions, but with absolute capacity to deal with the matter just as it liked, and if no provision were made for compensation, we should have done the mischief of handing over the interests of those who had embarked in a lawful trade to the tender mercies of a chance majority in any particular district in any particular year. Sup- pose that absolute authority were handed over to the local governing body without any check upon the cancelling of licences, and this power were to be largely used, great agitation and excitement would prevail. We might have all the houses in a particular district shut up at a particular time by a local authority, with the smallest amount of real knowledge of the wants of the neighbourhood, or consideration for the wishes of the minority of the people. What would be the result? I venture to say it would be quite intolerable. It would be diffi- cult even to keep public order where the public-houses were THE LICENSING QUESTION. 213 shut up in this way, unless the sense of the people was very strongly in favour of such a step, in which case such a drastic measure would be quite unnecessary, as the public-houses would be starved out. In ordinary cases the inevitable result would be that a club would start up in almost every public-house that had been closed, and the wishes of the people would be strong enough to prevent any adequate check being placed upon the multiplication of clubs. I think the question of clubs is, after all, most important. A very poor service, indeed, would be done by the Temperance party to the cause they have so long and ardently advocated, if, by a despotic act, they succeeded in shutting up the whole of the public-houses in a particular dis- trict, unless they had previously prepared themselves to deal with the difficult question of clubs. Then it is necessary, I submit, to make some provision with regard to compensation. The hon. baronet, no doubt, remembers the year 1880. It was an epoch in the temperance agitation, which had been going on for many years before that. Before 1880 there had been almost from year to year a proposal of a definite character put before the House of Commons. The Permissive Prohibitory Bill provided that a certain majority should have the power of closing public- houses altogether. That Bill was before the House with vary- ing fortunes for a considerable number of years before 1880, but it was killed in 1880, when the senior member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) declared that though the Bill had received large support, he did not know five members who really believed in its provisions and desired to support it. There was in those days a weakness in regard to the second reading, and many members voted in its favour who would have voted against it if they thought it was likely to pass. After the election of 1880 there came a Parliament of temperance proclivities, and the hon. baronet opposite enjoyed his golden hour. The resolu- tion which was rejected by 100 votes in March, 1880, was carried by a substantial majority three months later ; but in the hour of his triumph the hon. baronet heard the right hon. mem- ber for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) complaining that in the resolution the question of equitable compensation found no place. . Sir WILFRID LAWSON (Cumberland, Cockermouth) : The House passed it, though. The SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes, Sir : if the right hon. member for Midlothian voted for the resolution, he voted for it with that reservation, and it was accepted by other members of the House, with the knowledge that in the mind of him who would be the chief authority in that Parliament, the question of com- pensation was closely and inextricably connected with the ques- tion of putting an end to the liquor traffic. Five years passed and nothing was done, and from 1880 until the present time no 214 HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 77, iSS8. one has ventured to bring forward a positive proposal for intro- ducing Local Option in the sense in which the hon. baronet uses that expression. I appeal to the hon. baronet to look back upon that history, and say if it is fair for him to attack the Government in the terms he used last night for attempt- ing to deal with the matter? It has been complained that licences are dealt \\ith by an authority irresponsible to the people. The Government says " Let them be dealt with by an authority created by the people, and directly responsible to the people." There has been a very ardent combat over this question of compensation. Reference has been made in the debate to the defeat of the Bill of 1871, and the hon. member who spoke last repudiated the idea that the temperance advo- cates in the House had defeated that Bill. The hon. member is justified in his repudiation, because the temperance advocates in this House have never defeated anything except a Liberal Government. All those abstract resolutions, which may mean anything or nothing, and which half a dozen different people interpret in half a dozen different ways, are all very well ; but as soon as the question of compensation was approached, it was always found that among those who knew most about the cir- cumstances of the case there was a unanimous opinion that some provision with regard to compensation must be made. The Bill of 1871 proposed to give compensation in the shape of a fixed tenure of 10 years. Sir WILFRID LAWSON : That was withdrawn. The SOLICITOR GENERAL: I am aware of that ; but I do not know how the hon. baronet and his friends can reconcile this with a profession of no compensation. Yet it is now put as an alternative suggestion from the other side as something better than that which the Government now proposes. Surely, sir, the hon. baronet and his friends could not accept that sugges- tion. Every week of every year they are making speeches in which they declare that it is an intolerable grievance that there should be so many public-houses as now exist, and if they con- sented that all these public-houses should continue for another ten years, they would be guilty of something very like an in- fringement of the great principle which is the basis of their agitation. Well, they may not be able to accept a proposal of that kind ; but that is no reason why they should not accept the proposal of the Government. The Government propose that, after the passing of the Bill, no new interest should be created in a licensed house. As to the existing houses, in respect of which, according to all equitable considerations, a vested in- terest does exist, surely the fairest thing is to say that there shall be an additional tax upon those who are carrying on the business, and that when a public-house is put an end to, com- THE LICENSING QUESTION. 215 pensation shall be paid in respect of it, out of that tax, or from the general funds of the county. The hon. member for Barrow seems to have a very feeble faith in the principles which he advocates. He warned the House not to accept the proposals of the Government, on the ground that the tax on licences would constitute an overwhelming temptation for localities, and that these would be prepared to favour the existence of licensed houses, in order not to lose the contributions derived from them for the relief of local burdens. That is a very feeble faith indeed. I have always thought the hon. baronet and his friends had an unlimited belief in their own power to convert the people. I am not going to minimize the evils of excessive drinking. I know too much of the effects of excessive drinking upon the classes low down in the social scale : but, as far as the great majority of the working classes are concerned, I believe if we took an assembly of men, as numerous as that which the House of Commons contains, and these men were met together at a Trade Congress or a Trade Association of any kind, we should find at least as strong a repugnance on their part as a body, to excess in intoxicating drinks, as we find among members of this House. I believe it is in that direction that the true work of the hon. baronet lies, and if he can but succeed in spreading that feeling still more widely there will soon be no ground at all for hesitating to award compensation to the publicans. If the public-houses ceased to be used by the people they would cease to be valuable property, and it would become possible to deal with the publicans on very easy terms. If the great temperance associations had confined themselves to the propagation of the principle of abstinence, and had not indulged so much in the Christian virtue of finding fault with other people, the attain- ment of this condition of things would be still nearer than it is. There are some other matters which have been referred to, but which will more properly be dealt with in Committee. I hope I have shown the House, at all events, that the Government have dealt with this question with an honest desire to put an end to a controversy which has affected, and sometimes determined, political struggles for twenty years, without any really satisfactory result in legislation. Stopping, with the passing of this Bill, the creation of any new interest ; making arrangements whereby partly, if not wholly, from the contributions of the trade itself, compensation shall be paid when the property is taken away without any fault on the part of the man who had enjoyed it ; I hope it will be found on consideration that the proposals of the Government are fair and reasonable proposals, and that the House may well accept them as the solution and termination of a very difficult controversy. MISCELLANEOUS SPEECHES. Speech at Banquet on Appointment as Solicitor General. OCTOBER 19, 1886. [Upon the occasion of his appointment as Solicitor General, Sir Edward Clarke was entertained by his constituents, without distinction of political party, at a banquet at the Plymouth Guildhall ; the Mayor (Mr. W. H. Alger) presiding.] MR. MAYOR, MY LORD MOUNT EDGCUMBE, AND GENTLE- MEN, I have to acknowledge, as best I can, the compli- ment which you are paying me to-night, and which is a compliment higher than I could have ventured to expect, a com- pliment which I believe to be unprecedented in the political life of this borough. There have been many occasions when constituencies have done honour to those who they think have served them well as members of Parliament ; but the compli- ment has usually been paid at the end of that service, when the public work has been done, and when the man so honoured is passing away from active political life to other spheres where his labours will excite less of antagonism or criticism. I do not know that there has ever been an instance where such an honour has been paid by the people of a great town, without distinction of party, to one of their members while he was in the midst of a political career, and while he was still actively engaged in political controversy. And it is my great happiness to-night to feel and I hope I may be allowed to feel it that if I persevere in my public career, in the course which I have hitherto adopted, I may be assured beforehand that when that PL YMO UTH BANQUET. 217 career closes its record will be approved by my fellow country- men. One of the sweetest of our poets has said that the greatest incentive to all exertion is " To see the laurel wreath on high suspended, That is to crown our name when life is ended." And it is a great satisfaction, and not a satisfaction merely, but encouragement and strength, to one working as I am and in my position, to believe that in the tribute which you are paying to me to-night I can read an approval which will continue so long as I continue the course which hitherto I have led before you. Mr. Mayor and gentlemen, I cannot be insensible to the fact that there must have been something in my career which has attracted the interest and sympathy not of my constituents only but of my fellow countrymen. I have been working hard in a difficult profession not propped by ancestry, not assisted by connection and there has been an amount of personal sym- pathy with me displayed in all quarters for a long time past, which has helped me, has strengthened me, and has given me very great happiness. It is well for us to know, and for all to know, that, in this land of freedom, to industry and to courage the avenues of fame and fortune are ever open, and I hope that my career may not have been without its encouragement to those who have been ambitious, as I was years ago, and who hope and I think may reasonably hope with industry and with courage, to enjoy the success which you are crowning here to- night. Mr. Mayor, the office to which I have been lately appointed is not in itself an essentially political office. Its duties are very varied and are very important. The law officers of the Crown have to advise the Government of the day upon the interpretation of treaties ; they have to advise upon the Acts which regulate the powers and authority of municipal bodies and bodies of local government in this country. They are con- stantly consulted with regard to the rights of English subjects in foreign lands, and the rights of foreign subjects who come within our territories. In Parliament they have action not of a distinctly political kind. It is their duty to advise the Govern- ment of the day with regard to all measures which deal with the administration or the improvement of the law, and to take charge and conduct of those measures in the House of Com- mons. It is their duty to acquaint themselves with all the proposals that are made by private members in the House, and to advise the Government with regard to the effect of those bills upon the law, and as to their compatibility with the system of legislation and the policy which has been adopted. And I am very glad to believe that in Parliament my work will be but little connected with the controversies of political parties. Unfortunately, for years past, measures which involve no party 218 PLYMOUTH, OCTOBER / ou now to manifest in the acceptance ot this toast. I have said nothing as to the working of the fund. If that is to be spoken of, I will leave it to the friend who worthily occupies the position of President Sir Algernon Borthvvick and whom I call upon to respond to the toast. I now ask you, my lords and gentlemen, to join me in drinking, with all sincerity, " Prosperity to the Newspaper Press Fund." Speech delivered at the Dinner of the Exeter Working-men s Conservative Union, IN RESPONSE TO THE TOAST OF "THE GUEST OF THE EVENING." NOVEMBER 20, 1889. MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES, MY LORDS, AND GENTLEMEN, It is not quite usual to me, but I confess I feel some embarrassment in re- sponding to the toast you have just so cordially honoured. I did not expect that it could ever be my lot again to be the guest of the evening at a "coming of age" gathering. (Laughter.) You must not be deceived by my appearance. I am more than twenty-one (laughter) and if I can claim, as I can claim, that this is in some sense a coming of age to me, it is tome a coming of age in exactly the same sense as it is that of the Working-men's Conservative Union and organization in Exeter. We both entered political life together, for you ha-e now reached the REFORM BILLS AND THEIR RESULTS. 235 twenty first year of the existence of your organization, and my first public speech upon politics was made in the year 1868, and the first speech that I made upon a political platform was printed as the first pamphlet of the National Union of Conserva- tive Associations which in that year began the work that was so splendidly successful in the course of the few years that followed. Now, gentlemen, those twenty-one years have been an interest- ing time, and when I speak on this occasion, and look back to the time at which your Association was founded, 1 remember that in the autumn of 1868 the country was finishing the long and hotly contested General Election, which was the first General Election that followed on the Enfranchising Bill of the Conservative Government in 1867. The result of that General Election, like the result of each General Election which has taken place immediately after a great enlargement of the franchise, was disastrous to the Tory party. It was believed at the time by sanguine Radicals and by despondent Tories that it was not only disastrous, but fatal. And I well remember how towards the close of the year 1868, when we saw the new Parliament assemble with Mr. Gladstone at the head of a compact party not an alliance, but a compact and single party, with a majority of eighty or ninety in the House of Commons I well remember the despondent Tories and enthusiastic Radicals declaring that the Tory party must abandon for ever its hope of success and of power in this country. They could not imagine at that time of great Radical success that there could be any causes which would bring back the Tory party into a majority in Parliament and an ascendency in the country. I ventured to remonstrate with my despondent friends. I remember making a speech towards the end of 1868 to protest against the abandonment of hope by those who had been so defeated at the polls. And what happened ? That happened which has happened in each case. of a great enlargement of the franchise that where the first election gave a great majority to the Radicals the second election gave a great majority to the Tories. Well, gentlemen, an unchecked Radical misdoing was enough to disgust the country, and in 1874 the Tories came back for the first time since their betrayal and disorganization in 1846, to a position of ascendency and power. But that is not all. If we look back from now to the time when the Reform Bill of 1867 was passed we shall find that there is a period of twenty-two years and a half. Of those twenty-two years and a half the Tory party has been in power for eleven years and a half, and the Radical party only for eleven years. There is no need, then, to speak with anything but satisfaction of the history of these twenty-one or twenty-two years. They have been marked by great events. They were marked by an event in 1884 the dealing with the 236 EXETER, NOVEMBER 20, i88q. question of the franchise and the redistribution of political power which was one of the most conspicuous successes that the leader of our party ever achieved. It had been hoped by Mr. Gladstone and his lieutenants that they would be allowed again to deal with the question of our representative institutions and of the distribution of political power in a way which would suit their party, and they were checked ; they were checked by the resolute action of Lord Salisbury and by the resolution of the great assembly in which he sits, and for which Lord Sidmouth has to-night claimed, and claimed with full justification, the regard and the respect of the people of this country. I only stop for a moment to make an observation upon one thing which Lord Sidmouth said. He told us that he thought I should acknow- ledge that the House of Lords had done its duty to the country well. I think it has, indeed, done its duty to the country well. And he went on to say that he believed there were a good many members of the House of Commons who would be conten't to exchange the seats they hold in that Assembly for seats in the calmer atmosphere of the House of Lords. (Lord Sidmouth. I did not say that.) I thought he did, and I was going to say I agree with him. I think there are many members in the House of Commons who would be very happy to ha\e seats in the House of Lords, and although they are warned by Lord Sidmouth that the actual benches are not quite so comfortable as the benches on which they now sit, they would be content to put up with that small discomfort in consideration, at any rate, that they would never find themselves without any seat at all. Well, I have mentioned one great event that has happened in the course of these twenty-one years. There was another, and to my thinking a still more important and dangerous crisis, and that was when the constituencies were asked by Mr. Gladstone to accept at his hands the ill-considered scheme of Home Rule which was thrown before the country at the end of 1885. We can give credit to the constituencies of the country for the way in which that proposal was received. They met it with a sense on the part of the whole of our people of the gravity of the issue, and the responsibility of the decision which then was to be taken, which showed that the enlarged constituencies, enlarged evtn beyond the enlargement of 1867, by the operation of the Bill of 1884, were perfectly capable of bearing the responsibility of dealing with a sudden and difficult question. And now, at the end of twenty-one years, we have many things upon which to congratulate ourselves. We have, in the first place, a Govern- ment in power in which those who are allied to us in political opinion have, I believe, the fullest confidence. We have a Government in power which has during three years achieved THE QUESTIONS OF TO-DAY. 237 I claim for it a great success in all departments of administra- tion, and signally in that most difficult department, the difficul- ties of which have been enormously increased by the proposals of the Home Rule scheme of Mr. Gladstone. We have not only a Government in power, but we have what scarcely existed twenty-one years ago a Conservative Government, an assembly of experienced administrators pledged to act together in the public service, and able at any moment to accept the responsi- bilities of dealing in Parliament with the affairs of the State. And, sir, we have ;ilso a very widely extended and popular organiza- tion of the Conservative party. I believe you are well served in Exeter. I know that we are well organized in my borough of Plymouth, and we have been steadily making strides through all parts of the country with respect to organization, which twenty years ago was only to be found in some exceptional boroughs in the north of England the organization which, while it does not diminish in the least the influence and authority of those who are the natural leaders of the Constitutional cause, at the same time brings home to every part of the constituency, and every individual in it, the sense of personal responsibility for the result of the contest. And now, with these conditions, with these leaders, and with these organizations, we have to face a new set of questions. I am not going to discuss in detail this evening the course of legislation during the past three years. I shall have to indicate to you something of its character, but there is a special reason why I should not care to dwell upon the Parliamentary history of the last three years, but why I should address myself to other topics, speaking to you here to-night. This is a Working-men's Conservative Union, and we are faced by, and I am very glad to say we are beginning seriously to discuss, questions more associated with the interests of the working classes of this country. We have great questions to consider. We have to see how far the party to which we belong is capable of dealing with, and prepared to deal with, these great questions. Sir, we are to some extent by our success as a Gov- ernment the cause of these questions coining to the front. It is really partly because the Government has been so successful in its administration of foreign affairs and in its dealing with domestic difficulties, that questions of the kind to which I refer have forced themselves upon the attention of politicians. Dur- ing the last three years there has been maintained peace, and that peace which alone the Tory party glories in a peace with unstained honour, a peace \\ hich is not purchased by yielding in difficult questions to claims which we ought to have with- stood, or to pretensions which might hereafter prove to be fruitful in injury to our people or commerce but a peace which 238 EXETER, NOVEMBER 20, 1889. is maintained by a firm and courteous assertion of the rights of England, and a firm protection of the interests of her people ; a peace which gives security and courage to her enterprises, and under which the industries of our people expand and flourish, and bring advantage and comfort to all classes of our community. Sir, that is the sort of peace we have succeeded in maintaining during these three years, and the natural result is that the wage- earning classes among us are claiming to have their share in the prosperity of the country. They are putting forward a fair and reasonable claim that capital shall not get all the benefits, but that labour shall get some immediate and tangible reward and have its share in the national prosperity ; and it is partly because of the great success which the Government has achieved, and of the great prosperity which is beginning to show itself in all the industries of our country, that we are brought face to face with problems which are alarming, and, I am afraid, are demoralizing some of our friends. Now, sir, what are these problems ? I am going to speak with perfect frankness upon them to-night. If you are good enough to attribute to me a youthful age you must expect from me some of the indiscretions of a boyhood just passed. We have a claim from the wage- earning classes of this country, a claim for larger and more steady wages, a claim for better and healthier homes, a claim for shorter hours of labour, a claim for larger means of occupying and enjoying the hours of relaxation that may be left to them. Sir, in a great measure these are fair and reasonable claims, claims to be admitted and to be satisfied, if satisfied they can be and I believe they can without injury to any class of the community, and without breaking any of the rules which ought to guide the legislation of an honourable State. Let me say at once I am not in the least afraid effacing problems of this kind, and I cannot understand why a Tory should be. Sir, I am making an observation which has its limits, which might be qualified by reference to circumstances which I am not to-night dealing with ; but, sir, with regard to problems of this kind, there is no room for a new party, and there is no need for a new name. The old party under the old name has shown it is perfectly able to cope with questions such as these, and to render good service to the country in matters of this kind. Sir, I am amazed sometimes to hear persons who have authority in the Tory party speaking with horror of the advance of Socialism, and speaking of Socialists as if they were a body of people who were unpatriotic to a degree and almost hostile to the human race. I do not understand it, sir. There is a Socialism that is false. There is a Socialism that would disregard the rights of property ; there is a Socialism that would disregard the rights of TRUE SOCIALISM. 239 labour ; would leave no man free in the enjoyment of his own, and would leave no workman free in the direction of his course in life. That Socialism is mischievous. But no one can deny that there is a Socialism that is true. There is a Christian Socialism which guides our conduct to our fellous and should and must guide the conduct of every Christian State, and in that sense it is too late to protest against the introduction of Socialism into our legislation. Not only has Socialist principle, looked at in its true sense, been long ago accepted in this country, but it is the great pride and boast that I make on behalf of the Tory party that it is that party which has recognized the guides and limits of true Socialism in this country, and has put its principles upon that subject into legislation of the deepest advantage to the people. Sir, let me just for a moment refer to its advocacy of principles, which might to some seem startling. Socialism, rightly understod, is that a State should not only have reference to the individual, but should have reference to the general welfare of the whole people should look upon the condition of the people as gathered together in a State or in a city ; should be prepared to do for the people from the funds which they themselves provide things which can be better done by the State than by the individual. How far have we gone on that principle ? Why, sir, the greatest Socialist (in its true sense) of this century was that great and illustrious leader to whom our party must always feel in bonds of deepest gratitude Mr. Disraeli. And when I hear our opponents put forth claims to be the originators and the patentees of new projects of social improvement I think they presume too much upon the forgetfulness of the people with regard to the great speeches and writings of Mr. Disraeli. Forty years ago he taught lessons of the duty of the State with regard to its work- ing population. At that time his ideas were unfashionable. He was jested at, sneered at, and derided. But the day came when the long hope that he had cherished was fulfilled, when he stood in the House of Commons the leader of the Tory majority in that House, and at once he set his hand to the work which during those years he had looked forward to, and placed upon the Statute-book measures which now we are entitled to rest upon as the claim of the Tory party to the confidence of the people of this country. Let me examine one step further. The working-man of this country asks that his home shall be healthy. He asks that his wife and his children shall not be forced by unchecked competition to hours of labour which destroy at once the home and the health. He asks that there shall be, even for the town-living artisan, some open space where he may breathe the fresh air. He asks that his savings 240 EXETER, NOVEMBER, 20, 1889. shall be made the subject of a special and careful protection by the State. He asks that he shall be free, and protected in his freedom to combine with his fellow-workmen, in order to make terms with their employer as to the wages which their labour is to receive. And he asks that when he differs with an employer as to the reward of his work he and the employer shall be on equal terms before the law when their question comes to be debated. I have put these as claims on behalf of the working-man. They are not claims, they are facts. He has those rights now, and there is not a clause of the sentence I have just uttered which does not point to a statute put upon the Statute-book by a Tory Government in which the people of this country find security for their interests. The working-man desires that his home should be healthy. The Artisans and Labourers' Dwellings Act of the Tory Government has done more than any other statute for that purpose taken with the Public Health Act, which is also the work of the Tory Govern- ment. He asks that his wife and children should not be, by the unchecked competition of labour, forced to excessive toil. (I shall have a word to say upon that in a moment when I quote some one else.) He asks for open spaces. They were saved to him by the legislation of a Tory Government. He asks that he maybe free to combine with his fellow working-men in order to discu-s with their employers the wages they are to have for their labour. That was secured to him by a Tory Government. He asks that if he and his employers differ they shall be absolutely equal before the law in the discussion of his claims. That was done for him by a Tory Government. Before 1875 if the workman broke his contract he was a criminal before a magistrate ; if an employer broke his contract he was a litigant in the County Court. That Tory Government passed an Act which put employer and workman on absolutely the same level in those matters. Sir, I pass for a moment to the question of the claim of the workman that his wife and children shall not be forced into the labour market and so destroy home and health, and I turn aside to read three or four lines from a very interesting speech which was made last night a speech which I should very much like to have heard, and which I should have still more liked to have followed the speech which Mr. John Morley made at the Eighty Club. I do not stop to discuss that speech. It will want analysis, and more cntical analysis than I have time for to-night. But I quote these words : " I have always regarded, and I always shall regard, factory legislation as one of the most blessed chapters in our Statute-book. It has saved our working population, and by saving them it has enabled us though we work shorter THE TORY PARTY AND THE FACTORY ACTS. 241 hours, to command the industrial supremacy of the world." Sir, I wonder when Mr. John Morley spoke these words, with every syllable of which I cordially agree I wonder when he spoke these words if he remembered the history of the Factory Acts. The old fighters in that great struggle have almost all gone. There is one stately figure left, the Duke of Rutland, who, as Lord John Manners, many and many years ago pleaded the cause of the factory operatives. And those Factory Acts, of which now the chief champions of the Liberal party and the Radical party speak in such well-deserved terms of enthusiastic eulogium, were only passed by the persistent efforts of the members of the Tory party after the bitterest and most prolonged struggle against some of the then leaders of the Radical organization in this country. And they were com- pleted, and it remained, happily indeed, for a Tory Government to finish the work, when in the year 1875 the Government of which I have spoken completed the whole series of the Factory Acts in this country. Sir, I have almost gone far enough in pointing out the claim of the Tory pirty to be listened to on this subject, but let me mention one thing more. It was when Mr. Disraeli was out of office, before the year 1874, that he spoke in the great towns of this country upon the question of the dwellings of the working-man and the importance of a healthy home as the foundation of national happiness and prosperity and, sir, it was ridiculed by his opponents as a policy of sewage. They looked with contempt upon the man who could devote his attention to things so common and so humble as to bring before the public the question of the drainage of towns, and the rendering wholesome the houses of the working-man. And these very people, whose party fifteen years ago derided Mr. Disraeli for taking up the question of the homes of the working-men, are now trying to masquerade upon political platforms as being the only true friends the working-man ever had. Sir, we despise their pre- tensions. We challenge them to point out in any part of the Statute-book the work which has been done by a Liberal or Radical Government in this direction. And when they say, as I notice Mr. John Morley said, that they were the persons who had trust in the people, and wanted to extend and increase the local self-government of this country, I wonder he did not stop to mention that while they, after their fashion, had chattered about it for many years, and would have gone on chattering for another quarter of a century if they had been allowed to, the work was taken in hand and done by the Government the Session before last, and there has been established all over the country a system of local self-government which , with these 242 EXETER, NOVEMBER 20, 1889. developments which were contemplated as part of the original scheme, will, I believe, satisfy the just claims of the people of this country for a direct influence upon their local affairs. Well now, sir, having done so much as this, what is there to prevent our dealing with these questions of the condition of the people ? I believe the Tory party is in an excellent position for dealing with these questions. We are not likely to again have any great shifting of political power, any great enlargement of the enfranchised body. I hope we shall have some enlargement- I hope we shall have an opportunity of making some amendment in the registration laws which will prevent the unnecessary and vexatious exclusion from the franchise of these who belong to the classes to which Parlia- ment has intended to give the vote, but who, by some accidental circumstance, find themselves excluded from the register. I am satisfied that an amendment of the registration laws would do good and no harm to the party prospects of the Tory party, and at all events I am anxious to sweep away some of the vexatious matters with regard to them. But I do not think there will be any very large extension of the franchise. And speaking now, if you will allow me, for myself, and for myself alone, I would say that one of the greatest services that have been rendered to the country by that most excellent and deserving body, the Primrose League, has been that it has put the proposal for women's franchise (cheers) you should have heard what I was going to say first (laughter) one of its greatest services has been that it has put the proposal for women's franchise out of the field of practical politics. Therefore, I do not think there will be any great modification of the electoral body with which we have to deal. There can be electorally no step by step alteration which can again purchase for the Radical party a succession of friendships of those whom they are going to introduce to the franchise. And further, with this body to work upon, with this experience and this tradition in respect of our work, surely we can face those questions which are coming to the front. It is a good thing that full advantage should be taken by the working-people of this country of the measure passed in 1875 by a Tory Government, which allowed them to combine without interference for the purpose of deciding their trade affairs with their employers. It is a good thing, and not a bad thing, that instead of having the terrible experience of forty years ago, burnt ricks, ruined mansions, and fights in our towns, we now have organizations of working-men in Trades Unions and other bodies, which, although they may be mistaken or misguided in some particular question in the dis- pute, at any rate have the feeling of responsibility and self- OUR NEW RECRUITS. 243 restraint, which is most important in the settlement of our affairs. And we have men by whom these questions can be properly faced and dealt with. If you want to forecast the future of political parties do not look only at the programmes they send out with the idea that at a particular moment a particular set of words will catch votes. Look at the men who have to carry them into effect. If I wanted to show you how utterly baseless is the idea that Mr. Parnell and his party would ever succeed in the adventure they have undertaken I should find it in this fact, that Mr. Parnell, after years of undisputed supremacy over what calls itself the National party, cannot get men of position and repute to join him ; he is obliged to fill the benches of the House of Commons which belong to the National party with men against whom I say nothing personally. Indeed, if I had anything to say against them personally it is in the House of Commons that I should say it. I make no accusation against them personally, but nobody imagines that Mr. ParnelPs obedient followers in the House of Commons are representatives of the Irish people. I believe no one ever perpetrated such a gross libel on the Irish nation as to say that it was fairly represented by the people who follow Mr. Parnell. Now, gentlemen, let us apply the same test to other parties. Gentlemen, we have to see who are the new recruits in one party and in the other, and I should be quite contented to compare the two new recruits on the Gladstonian side with the two latest recruits on the Tory side. The Gladstonians sent to Parliament Mr. Keay and Mr. Morton, while our Tory party sent to Parliament, from Dover and from Brighton, Mr. Wyndham and Mr. Loder. We have, sir, not only the old traditions, we have not only the leaders with experience, but we have the young men with courage, energy, and ability to deal with the problems which are coming to the front. Looking back over these twenty-one years, I congratulate you in Exeter on the work which you, in company with many other Associations in other p irts of the country, have so worthily done. And looking forward to the future, which I do without any fear at all, I am persuaded in that the future we shall find our principles take a stronger root, and that our doctrines will be still more courageously upheld by the people. Every day the people of this country are becoming more thrifty, more sober, more educated, more intelligent, and more conscious of the privileges and responsibilities of free men, and there is no danger to the great institutions we are pledged to defend. This change that has taken place, this acceptance of stronger will and larger mind of the whole people of the country, will strengthen an honourable throne ; it will extend 244 EXETER, NOVEMBER 20, 1889. and deepen the authority of an aristocracy which is wortny of its traditions ; will offer a wider and more fruitful field to the energies of our great Church, and to its labours, and to its teachings ; and I look forward with this confidence because I am sure that no privilege, no technical rule, will half so well guard the Throne, the Monarchy, and the Church as they will be guarded by the intelligent and loyal devotion of a people who have been trusted, and who are worthy of trust INDEX. Affirmation Bill, 65 Agricultural Distress, 126 Arabi Bey, 45 Austria, Mr. Gladstone's apology to, 4 B Balfour, Mr. 143 Bankruptcy Bill, 56 Banquet at Plymouth, 216-221 Bar, Rewards open to the, 226 Failures at the, 227 Bartle Frere, Sir, 6 Beaconsfield, Lord, 26 Administration, 115 Berlin Treaty, 4 Boycotting, 17 Briefs, The making of, 223 Bye Elections, 38 Canvassing, 25 Capital, accumulation of, 151 and Labour, 152 Chamberlain, Mr., 34, 82 Church Reform, 118 Defence, 149 Church Canons of, 174 and State, 175 Churchill, Lord Randolph, 108 C16ture, 53 Club, The Rich Man's Public House, 1 60 Coercion and the Liberal party, 33-39 Committee of Supply, 135 Commons, Membership of the House of, 7, 155 House of, and Expenditure, 135 Length of Sittings of House of, 120 Conservative Party and Education, 10 and The Factory Acts, 241 and Progress, 115 Work for the, 118, 242 Patriotism of, 104 Constituencies, Extension of in 1881, 24 Constitution, British, 93 Conversion of Consols, 151 Corrupt Practices, 12, 55, 63, 144 County Councils, 133, 145 D Daily Paper, The, 233 Deceased Wife's Sister, Marriage with, 171 246 INDEX. Derby, Lord, 36 Devon and Cornwall, 108 Dockyard Administration, 114 Education and the Tory party, 10 Egypt, an unnecessary War in, 41- 48 Foreign Officials in, 48 British Control in, 66, 147 The Nile Expedition, 89-92 Vote of Censure, 176 180 Employers' Liability, 139 Emin Pasha, 147 Exeter, Speech at, 234 Finance, 61 Freedom, Popular, 9 Forster, Mr., 50 Resignation of, 52 on Reform, 75 Fowler, Mr. H. H., 64 Franchise Question, 70, 93 Freehold Voters, 70 Fusion of the Legal Profession, 221-230 Gladstone, Mr., Apology of, to Austria, 4 and polemical language, 5 and the resources of civiliza- tion, 37 and General Gordon, 179 Controversy with, on finance, 86 Gordon, General, 89-92, 147, 179 Gospel of Wealth, 154 Gratton's Parliament, 146, 186 Granville, Lord, 44 Greece, 15 H Hartington, Lord, 31, 104, 122 Home Rule, 96, 101, 180-189 House of Commons, Membership of the, 7, 155 Length of Sittings, 120 and Expenditure, 135 House of Lords, 13, 149 1 Iddesleigh, Lord, 108 Imperial Parliament, Irishmen in, 97 Inns of Court, The, 229 Insurance of Shipping, 83 Ireland and the Land League, 15- 21 Condition of, 27-39, IT 3' J 4 T 146 and the Reform Bill, 71, 79 Home Rule in, 96, 101, 180- 189 Land Purchase Bill, 99 Rents in, 124, 142 J Judicial Rents, 125 James, Sir Henry, on Finance, 63 and Corrupt Practices Bill, 145 Jury, Trial by, 19 and Trial by Judges, 114 K Khartoum Expedition, 91, 178 Kilmainham Treaty, 48-53 Land League and Boycotting, 17 Land Purchase Bill, 99 INDEX. 247 Land Transfer, 92, 117, 128 Legal Profession, The future of the, 221-230 Libel, The Law of, 231 Liberal Party and Coercion, 33-39 and Finance, 61, 87 division of, 95 and the Round Table, 109 Liberal Unionism, 103, 122, 130 131 Licensing Question, 207-215 Local Government Act, 133, 145 and the Licensing Question, 207-21 15 Local Option, 156, 162 Lords, House of, 13, 149 M Maiden Speech in House of Com- mons, 156 Marriage with Deceased Wife's Sister, 171 Merchant Shipping Bills, 83 Merchant Shipping Insurance Bill, 1884, 85 Minority Representation, 74-77, 80 Moderate Liberals, 93 N National Honour, 59 Newspaper Press Fund, 230-234 Parliament, Essential character of a, 96 Parliamentary Life, 7, 155 Procedure, 22, 128, 134, 137, 162-170 Privilege, 121, 189-207 Obstruction, 137 Parnell, Mr., Imprisonmen of, 35, 48 Estimate of, 105 Service to Unionists, in Speech of, at Cincinnati, in Speech of, at Mayo, 112 On the demands of Ireland, 185 Peace Preservation Acts, 32 Permissive Bill, 159 Personal Canvassing, 25 Pilotage, Compulsory, 83 Plymouth Banquet, 216-221 Polemical Language, 5 Popular Freedom, 9 Press, The Newspaper, 230 Prisoners, Evidence by, 138 Proportional Representation, 75 Public House, The Poor Man's Club, 160 Q Questions of to-day, 237 R Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 132 Redistribution, 73 Redmond, Mr. J., Speech of, at Chicago, 112 Redmond, Mr. J., Speech of, at Torquay, 112 Reform, 70-82, 93, 235 Representation of Minorities, 74-77, 80 Rhetoric, The Study of, 225 Round Table Conference, 109 Salisbury, Lord, at Plymouth, 81 Social and Industrial Questions, 150-155, 238 2 4 8 INDEX. Socialism, True, 238 Southwark, 2, 7, 13 Speeches, Proposal to limit, House of Commons, 134 Strikes, 152 Suez Canal Convention, 65 Sunday Prize Fights, 149 Supply, Committee of, 135 Three Great Events in 1881, 26 Times Newspaper and Privilege, 121 Tory Party and Education, 10 and The Factory Acts, 241 and Progress, 115 Tory Work for the, 118, 242 Patriotism of, 104 Trades Unions, 152 Treaty of Berlin, 4 Trial by Jury, 19 and Trial by Judges, 114 Transvaal, Surrender of, 26, 59 True Socialism, 238 u Unionist Alliance, 103, 122, 131 W Working Classes and the Tory Party, 239 PRINTED I1Y BALLANTYNE, HANSON AND CO. LONDON AND EDINBURGH From a photograph by Heath, of Plymouth. SIR EDWARD CLARKE (HER MAJESTY'S SOLICITOR-GENERAL, 1886-1892) PUBLIC SPEECHES 189O 19OO LONDON GEORGE ROUTLEDGE AND SONS, LIMITED BROADWAY, LUDGATE HILL 1900 Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & Co. At the Ballantyne Press TO % THE ELECTORS OF THE BOROUGH OF PLYMOUTH. GENTLEMEN, In the year 1890 I offered to your acceptance a volume of speeches which included all the annual addresses which I had delivered at Plymouth during the previous ten years, and some of the principal speeches which I had made in the House of Commons as your representative. In the latest of those annual addresses, spoken on the 6th Jamiary 1890, I used these words : " If I had to choose now what my lot should be during the next ten years, I should elect to sit a member of the House of Commons. I see no higher sphere of public duty. I know no place in which I could hope better to render pttblic service" The wish so expressed was by your confidence and favour com- pletely fulfilled. Grateful for that favour, and sincerely proud of that long-continued confidence, I dedicate to you this selection of speeches made to you, or as your representative, during the second decade of my service to Plymouth. Believe me, Genth- men, always your faithful friend, EDWARD CLARKE. j/ Russell Square, Feb. 13, 1900. CONTENTS. SPEECHES TO THE ELECTORS OF PLYMOUTH. PAGE ANNUAL ADDRESSES . I, l6, 29, 42, 56, 70, 84, IOI, IIO EXTRACT FROM A SPEECH AT THE ANNUAL DINNER OF THE PLYMOUTH WORKING-MEN'S CONSTITU- TIONAL CLUB, 1897 97 THE CZAR'S RESCRIPT, 1898 123 WAR FOR COMMERCE, 1899 131 THE DISPUTE WITH THE TRANSVAAL, 1899 . . .136 SPEECHES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. THE CHURCH IN WALES, 1892 148 THE HOME RULE BILL, 1893 l6 3 PERIOD OF QUALIFICATIONS AND ELECTIONS BILL, 1894 175 ESTABLISHED CHURCH (WALES) BILL, 1895 . . -193 LOCAL VETO, 1895 2I FINANCIAL RELATIONS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, 1897 223 LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL, 1899 244 THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA, 1899 257 THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA, 1900 271 vii viii CONTENTS, MISCELLANEOUS SPEECHES. PAGE THE PRIMROSE LEAGUE AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS, 1894 278 THE EDUCATION QUESTION, 1896 . . . .282 LORD BEACONSFIELD AND THE TORY PARTY, 1899 . 288 THE CHURCH AND ITS WORK, 1899 .... 2Q2 INDEX 299 SPEECHES TO THE ELECTORS OF PLYMOUTH. Annual Address to the Electors of Plymouth at the Guildhall. JANUARY 5, 1891. MR. HAWKER, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I take my place to-night for the first time since the beginning of 1885 upon the chairman's right ; and I am very sorry for the illness of Sir Edward Bates, which prevents me on this occasion having the pleasure of doing as I have done for several years past yield to him the seniority as member for the borough of Plymouth. And I am sorry that the announcement has to be made that the state of Sir Edward Bates's health will prevent his again contesting the constituency of Plymouth. That resolution I know has not been arrived at by him without much thought and pain, and I know that his decision is a final one. Presently a resolution will be proposed which will express the feelings of the constituency upon the decision which he has arrived at ; but I must be allowed to take this opportunity of saying something as to the relations which have existed between myself and Sir Edward Bates from the day in 1880 when I came down to be a candidate for the suffrages of the electors of Plymouth. It is not now, I am glad to say, that we have to say good-bye. The letter which he has written contains a promise upon which I am sure we may depend, that during the rest of this Parliament his faithful service will as heretofore be given to Plymouth ; and when an election comes, and another and younger candidate shall come before the constituency to ask to fill the place which Sir Edward Bates has filled for so many years to the satisfaction of this constituency, .Sir Edward Bates himself will be among us, A 2 PL YMOUTH, JANUA R Y 5, 1891. I hope with other members of his family, to help in the work of the contest. I know it is a painful thing to him to have to ask the electors of Plymouth to relieve him from the promise which he made some years ago. When, not through his fault, he was unseated after the election of 1880, he made the promise to the electors of Plymouth that as long as he was able to continue Parliamentary life he would put his services at their disposal. He has faithfully and well kept that promise. In November 1885, and in the middle of the year 1886, he was here as a candidate for your suffrages ; and, elected on both those occa- sions, his work in the House of Commons has well borne com- parison with the work of many, indeed of most, of the members of that House much younger than himself. There has never, as I know, been an important division in which his vote has not been recorded, or an important evening on committee work on which he was not present in his usual place. No fatigue has led him to leave the House of Commons before the labours of the evening were over ; and if you look at the record of the number of divisions in which he has voted, you will find that he has voted in far more than the average of the members of the House of Commons. But his constituents very well know that that is not the only way in which he has done them service. In the lobbies, in the work which could be done for those whom he re- presented with the great departments of the State, Sir Edward Bates has been the faithful servant of his constituents. And I am quite sure that the resolution which will presently be pro- posed will meet with a very warm and hearty response from those whom he has served for the last nineteen years. For myself I can say that Sir Edward Bates and I, since 1880, have been the best of friends, and I think the happiest of colleagues in our political work. I owed much to him when I came to this con- stituency. I was introduced by him to those who had been his friends for many years. I hope I have to some extent repaid the confidence which he showed in me in 1880, by assisting him as his colleague in representing this constituency, and by doing the best it was in my power to do for the interest of the people who have kept me as their representative. It was essential that I should say these few words as I have said they are not words of farewell, for the Parliament is not yet at its end, and in the House of Commons, and out of the House of Commons, the people of Plymouth have the right to count, and may safely count, upon Sir Edward Bates's faithful services so long as this Parliament shall last ; but I had the right to say these few words upon the first occasion when it was made known to the people of Plymouth that the representative who has served them well, and who has been returned on every occasion that he has sought the suffrages of this constituency, will be obliged to THE IRISH MEMBERS. 3 retire from their service when the end of the Parliament shall come. Recent events of a political character may possibly have postponed the termination of that Parliament. We have had a remarkable series of occurrences in the course of a very short time which have altered the whole complexion of political affairs. It is seven weeks to-day since I heard, in a case in which I myself appeared as counsel, a verdict given which has materially and permanently affected the political fortunes of both parties in this country. It is hardly possible to realise the change that has passed over the prospects of English political parties in that short period of seven weeks. On the Saturday I had been called upon in the course of my professional duty to make a speech which was afterwards supported and proved by evidence only as much evidence as was necessary in the circumstances of the case and produced the result that, for the moment, the leader of the Gladstonian party has refused to have any political action in common with the leader of the Irish wing of the Home Rule party. The incidents that have passed in that short period of seven weeks are incidents upon which it is not undesirable that we should meditate and reflect this evening. Many of them have been of an extremely amusing character. The Irish party can never keep out entirely the involuntary Irish humour from the proceedings political or otherwise in which they are engaged, and when they began their proceedings in committee-room No. 15, by solemnly discussing whether they should resolve that the general meeting of the Irish party should be called for "last Friday," they started a series of incidents which maintained their char- acter to the very end of the chapter. They did not decide anything it was not to be expected that they should put that important question but, having broken up in disorder in the dusk of one December evening, they transferred themselves to Dublin and there started the Home Rule campaign in two different factions. They first started by way of showing what they expected from unity when Home Rule should be achieved two rival and opposition " United Irelands," and when the imitation "United Ireland" was put down by law, they started, again with true Irish humour, a paper which was published all over Dublin, and was called Suppressed United Ireland, and since then they have been indulging in a faction fight of the most charming character in Kilkenny ; and by way of showing their attachment to Mr. Gladstone, they have returned as member for Kilkenny a member of the Carlton Club. I don't say that we are very proud of him, but the irony of Irish affairs could hardly be carried further than by the selection of Sir John Pope Hennessy, who sat as a Conservative in the House of 4 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 5, / are evidently determined to endeavour to satisfy, or shall I say delude, their supporters in this matter. Whichever word is chosen may be appropriate ; but I am told that they are likely to bring in a measure which will establish local option after an interval of ten years, and that it is quite possible that they may satisfy some of their friends by passing local option in theory, whilst they may satisfy others of their friends by leaving to some one else, ten years hence, the difficulty of putting it into practice. But you may be assured that local option, for immediate application to this country, will not be the work of this Government, or Ministry, or Parliament. But if they will not do these things let us ask ourselves what they can do ? There are two measures which they may bring in, and which they may very probably pass. They are the measures for the payment of members, and for the payment by localities of returning officers' expenses (Cheers). I am person- ally very pleased indeed to hear those expressions of satisfaction. So far as payment of members is concerned, what I have said upon the subject often, and what I now say is, I certainly don't want to be paid, but if any one is very anxious to pay me I will submit, and I hope with no ungrateful reluctance. But it would be most foolish for a Radical party to carry that. It would have the effect of bringing into the political arena a number of candidates for membership, and for payment, who otherwise would not venture upon the political stage, and the multiplicity of candidates has, so far as I know, damaged my opponents' party and not mine. So that really I should with reluctance, but still philosophically, accept the severe burden of receiving payment for my services in Parliament. Then with regard to Returning Officers' expenses, my view has always been that, as a matter of theory, a constituency wants to send a representative to Parliament, and therefore it would be reasonable that the constituency should bear the expenses of ascertaining who the proper member is. I see no objection to that proposal at all, but I am not going to vote for a proposal which relieves me from a personal payment and throws it on the constituency, unless the constituency shows very clearly it wishes that to be done. If the returning officers' fees are to be paid, and the constituency agrees to a saving by me and my colleague every time the election comes round, we cannot complain of it, but I am not one of those who would urge it upon any constituency or any Parliament. So far as these two proposals are concerned, whilst I think them objectionable, and, knowing the feelings of my constituents, I should vote against them if they were brought into the House of Commons, I should not feel so strongly opposed to them as to try very strongly to prevent them being 40 PL YMOUTH, JANUAR Y 4, 1893. brought into law. But they would embarrass the political party to which I am opposed, and from that point of view I do not care to discuss them. Now, there are two or three things which I think the Govern- ment can do and ought to do, and in which I should like to help them. The first is the question of the registration of voters. Almost the last speech I had the opportunity of making as a member of the late Government was in favour of an amendment in the law with regard to registration. I have a strong opinion, which I know is shared by many of those who agree with me in political sentiment, that the present system of registration is unsatisfactory, that it makes it difficult for men to get on the register who are entitled to be there, and that it sometimes makes it difficult for a man to keep on the register even when he has a continuous right to the enjoyment of the franchise. I, in my political life, have never believed very much in machinery. I believe in principle, and in opinion ; and my idea of the machinery of registration is that it should be so adapted to the requirements of the constitution, that every man who comes within the class to which Parliament has given the right to vote should have it made as easy as possible for him to be put on, and to be kept on, the electoral register. That is a matter upon which I shall be glad to support the present Government in any well-considered scheme. I think it would be wise that any such bill should be referred to a strong select committee of the House of Commons, in order that all experience should be gained upon the matter, and in that direction I should be only too glad to help those who are proposing, among our opponents, to carry out the desired reforms. Next, I should like to help in an Employers' Liability Bill. We made our attempt to improve the law with regard to that in the year 1888. We were, from different causes, unsuccessful ; but the law remains requiring alteration, and serious alteration. I think that the amendments of the law may be carried further even than we proposed to carry them in 1888 ; but I am quite sure that the Employers' Liability Bill which was carried twelve years ago, and requires amendment, is not nearly so useful to the industrial classes as it ought to be, and I should like to be able to assist the present Government in carrying through a satisfactory measure. There is one other matter on which I have spoken over and over again, and with regard to which I hope the present Government will be able to move forward. It is that proposal which I have repeatedly advocated, and will never cease to advocate so long as I am in political life connected with the House of Commons, viz., the proposal that instead of the pre- posterous system of abandoning as useless all work that remains REFORM OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE. 41 unfinished at the end of a session, we should take up the unfinished work in the session that follows and go on with it to its completion. In the first address I issued twelve years ago, I advocated that alteration. In the first speech I made in this town, when I came as a candidate in 1880, I spoke in favour of that amendment, and I have urged it again and again since. Now I hope we are nearer to success, because, in the year 1890, there was a committee upon that subject, and the report of that committee, though it was opposed by Mr. Gladstone, by Sir William Harcourt, and others of their party, was proposed by Mr. Balfour, and that report proposed in substance the very amendments I advocated here ten or twelve years ago. Both parties, to a certain extent, are now committed to it, and if this Government should find in the course of the coming session as it most certainly will find that it has not time to carry to completion some of its legisla- tive proposals, some of them, it may be, upon which both sides of the House of Commons are practically in accord, then I sincerely hope that it will bring forward that proposal again ; and I am sure that from our side of the House the Government will have most energetic support in establishing the rule, the sensible rule, of public business, which exists in all other countries of Europe where a legislative body exists, and the want of which has proved such a hindrance and detriment to the conduct of public affairs in this country. Now, sir, I think I have gone over most of the topics upon which one can usefully speak at this time. I have spoken with some confidence as to matters which the present Government cannot deal with. It is not difficult to justify that confidence. The present Government has practically no majority at all. It absolutely depends upon the Nationalist members from Ireland, and if they chose to absent themselves for a single night from the House of Commons, the Government must fall because it could not continue to conduct the public business of the country. Therefore, it is obvious that this Government is in a position of helplessness. It cannot do anything, unless it is supported by the whole body of its followers, including the Irish Nationalist members ; and in that state of things I, as a representative of the party which does not believe in the necessity of organic change which believes in the firm, and sound, and just administration of the laws which we have ; which believes in the amendment of those laws from time to time to meet the changes of political or social life, to meet the requirements which arise, but does not believe that we are to turn over in every few years the whole of the constitu- tional machinery, which ought to be used and not altered I, as one of that party, can look forward with great cheerfulness 42 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 2, 1894. to the session which is about to begin. I do not think we shall be in any difficulty. There are no schisms and no divisions among us, and during the session which is coming we shall not only be able, in my belief, to defeat any pro- posal of Home Rule, if such a proposal should, indeed, be brought forward, but I believe we shall be able to make our opponents absolutely powerless for the mischief which they have threatened, but which we are endeavouring to prevent. I am quite sure that in that service in the House of Commons I shall have in my friend, Sir William Pearce, a warm and loyal supporter. I have learned the habit of a very constant attendance at the House of Commons during the past six years, and I am quite sure I shall inspire my colleague with the same habit of attendance there, and I hope that he and I together may have the opportunity not in this year only, but for many years to come, to do service to Plymouth. Annual Address to the Electors of Plymouth at the Guildhall. JANUARY 2, 1894. MY first words, Mr. Pethick, must be of congratulation to you on appearing with renewed health in the chair to-night, occupying a position which I hope you will occupy for years to come, a position which I am sure you will fill with credit to yourself and with advantage to the political party of which you are chairman. I ought especially to congratulate you on your restoration to health when we are regretting the absence of so many friends from the platform to-night, kept away from us by that wave of ill-health which 1 am sorry to say seems seriously to have affected Plymouth. I must express sincere regret that I stand alone on the plat- form to-night as representative of Plymouth. I had hoped that by my side here would have stood Sir William Pearce, my colleague in the representation of this great borough ; but as you have been made aware by the letter of Sir William Pearce which has been published, he has decided not to ask for the suffrages of this constituency at the next election. It is a great disappointment to me. I have done all that lay in my power to secure a different decision upon Sir William Pearce's part, and I should have been quite content to stand with him as a candidate for the suffrages of the electors HOME RULE. 43 at the next election. He is a man of great capacity, a man thoroughly acquainted with, and thoroughly in touch with, the commercial and naval interests of this port, and I have found in him a most courteous, pleasant, and valuable colleague. But upon such a question, of course, a man himself is the ultimate judge, without appeal, of his own position ; and I am sure that all here will hope that at some future time, perhaps in some other constituency, Sir William Pearce may have the opportunity of giving that public service which for the moment will be denied him by his resignation. You have, sir, suggested two topics, and very important topics, upon which you ask that I should address this meeting, and I had intended to deal with both of them. I will do so in the course of the observations that I have to make ; but the first question that ought to be mentioned and discussed at any political meeting when a member of Parliament meets his constituents, or intended constituents, is that question which has especially occupied the attention and the time of Parliament during the year 1893 I mean the Home Rule question. We have practically given two years of Parliamentary life at different times to the discussion of Home Rule. The year 1 886 was practically occupied in that discussion by Parliament, and so also was the year 1893. I do not know, it is impossible for any one to say with confidence, whether another year will not also be devoted to its discussion. I do not, however, believe it probable myself. I do not think that the leader of that party, which originally put forward a scheme of Home Rule, having failed in imposing it upon the country I said in 1886, and I say again, that if he fails no other man will succeed will repeat the experiment, and I have great doubts as to whether we shall have a Home Rule scheme again put forward in the House of Commons. But, sir, there is a danger to which the constituencies may not be sufficiently alive. It is not from fear of their judgment on the matter that we are disposed to speak doubtfully of the prospects of the Home Rule Bill being again introduced. I never had, and have not now, the slightest doubt as to what the judgment of the con- stituencies would be if the question was again put before them. It was the essential question on which they had to decide in 1886, and their decision was an emphatic one. Whenever it may be put before them again as an essential question, if it is ever so put, I am satisfied that their decision will be the same, and will be given with quite as much emphasis as in 1886. But there is no chance of that scheme being so put before the constituencies. The proposers of the scheme dare not put it before the constituencies, and stake their success as a party, upon the acceptance of that Home Rule scheme. They have 44 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 2, 1894. had the opportunity of doing so. We have heard for a long time that the whole heart of the country was set upon the passing of a measure of Home Rule. The time came when there was an opportunity of testing that, when the Home Rule Bill was thrown out by the House of Lords in accordance with the feelings and opinions of the majority of the people of Great Britain. There is no use in saying " No," because in the House of Commons itself the majority of the elected representatives of Great Britain voted against the bill ; so that in throwing that Bill out the House of Lords was endorsing the opinions of the majority of the electors of Great Britain. But there is always a court of appeal open to a defeated Ministry, and if the leader of our opponents had dared to appeal to the constituencies of this country there was not the slightest reason why he should not do so. I am sure there would not have been any objection to that appeal from any one on our side. But what was the fact ? If it had been true that the mind and heart of the people were set upon having Home Rule we all know what would have happened. That decision of the House of Lords would have been the signal for sending out the " fiery cross " from constituency to constituency, the signal for great meetings in England, Scotland, and Ireland, complaining of the action of the Lords. Well, sir, no such meetings have been held. Why not ? Why did not these defeated ministers carry their cause by way of appeal to the constituencies. If they were not going to have a general election, if that would have been inconvenient to them, and I think it would, they might, at all events, have gone to their constituencies, and gathered the people of the great towns together in large public meetings, and thus have shown what the feel- ings and opinions of these people were. Why, there were no meetings anywhere ? We were told that there was much excitement about Home Rule, and that the rejection of the Home Rule Bill would be the signal for disturbances. Well, there was one disturbance, and it arose out of a little fight that took place somewhere in Ireland on the occasion of the people burning a bonfire in celebration of the rejection of the Home Rule Bill. With that exception, I do not know of any demonstra- tion of popular opinion at all with regard to the rejection of the Home Rule Bill. But I will tell you another reason why that appeal was not made. It was this : that the Home Rule Bill for the purpose of Parliamentary management had been brought into such a condition that they dared not submit it to any constituency or meeting of people in this country. At this moment a Glad- stonian candidate is standing for a division of Lincolnshire. I am delighted that he has friends here for I have no doubt they will agree with him, as I certainly agree with him myself, that HOME RULE. 45 no Home Rule scheme could be accepted which allowed the Irish members not only to have a Parliament of their own at Dublin but to come here and take part in the affairs of our Parliament as well. Now there was one great mistake, to my thinking, made by some of the leaders of the party to which I belong in their atti- tude and contest against the Home Rule Bill. I thought it a mistake at the time. I am more confirmed in that opinion since. Some of our leaders, Lord Randolph Churchill especially, kept declaring that it did not matter what the House of Commons did on that subject, for the House of Lords would in any case throw the bill out. I thought at the time, and I think now, that that was a great tactical mistake. In the House of Commons we ought to have no consideration at all of what the House of Lords will or will not do with a measure when it has left our House. In the House of Commons it is our business to discuss the bill, and to frame it as we think it may best be framed, or to resist it to the utmost of our power if we think it is a mis- chievous measure. When we have done our duty in the House of Commons with regard to the matter, then, and then only, comes the responsibility of the House of Lords, and then only should commence the reference to the probable action of the House of Lords. But the mischief done was great. I am certain if there had been no House of Lords that Bill never would have passed the third reading in the House of Commons. It passed the third reading in the shape that it took because many of those who objected to some of its provisions, and who especially objected to that provision which Mr. Torr in Lincolnshire has declared himself hostile to, saw there was no chance of the Bill ever passing into law ; and they reconciled themselves to allow- ing it to pass in that form because they knew that the House of Lords would probably make an end of the Bill altogether. Now, I hope that blunder will not be repeated by any of the leaders of our party when again we are dealing with a question of great importance in the House of Commons. But the importance of mentioning and dwelling upon the Home Rule Bill is this. It is not practically put before the constituencies now as a measure with which Parliament is about to deal. There are no meetings about Home Rule anywhere. There is very little said about it. The members of the Nationalist party, or at least the Anti- Parnellite members, have become the tame cats of the House of Commons. They are at the House of Commons it is true ; but as far as Home Rule is concerned they seem to have dis- missed that subject for a very substantial time from their con- sideration. But the danger to the constituencies is this. If again an election were to take place, and our opponents had a majority in the House dependent upon the Irish members, they 46 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 2, r8<)j. must give Home Rule to them as the price of their Parliamentary support. Not because the people want it. Not because the people approve of it ; for by every means that is known to public and Parliamentary agitation we have tested and obtained the feeling of the people. But because that was true which was said in 1885 by Mr. Gladstone. When he was begging the country to give him a majority which should make him inde- pendent of the Irish vote, he said the Liberal party itself could not be trusted if it were dependent upon the votes of an Irish contingent, who might say to the Government, " If you do not give us what we want we will turn you out of power to-morrow." That is the position now. The Government have tried to give them Home Rule, and have failed. If unfortunately at any future election the Home Rule party should have a majority in the House of Commons dependent upon the Irish vote, then, whatever the constituencies of this country might think of it, that vote would have to be paid for by a Home Rule Bill. Now I think with these observations one may for the present dismiss the question of Home Rule. There is to be no Home Rule Bill in the year 1894. (A VOICE : "Yes," and laughter.) No, my friend is miles behind the times. There will be no Home Rule Bill again produced in the present House of Commons. What we have to do is to take care that the next House of Commons is so constituted that that most dangerous and most mischievous measure shall not again be introduced. Passing from the Home Rule Bill, upon which it is quite clear that the Ministry dare not challenge the opinion of the country, we turn to another set of questions upon which it is said that they are going to challenge the opinion of the country. We are told now that the issue at the next election is to be the great question of the people against the peers. The proposed abolition of the House of Lords, or, at all events, a material interference with the poWer of the House of Lords, is to be the platform of the Gladstonian party at the next election. Let us examine that for a moment ; I will give you some reasons for thinking the present Government will find it a very poor cry, indeed, to go to the country upon. In the first place, if a man announces beforehand that he is going to take an oppor- tunity to quarrel with another you may be pretty sure that before long he will put himself in the wrong. And the Govern- ment have put themselves in the wrong in the very first contest that is raised between them and the House of Lords. I allude to the Employers' Liability Bill. That is a very important measure, which I have endeavoured to support by all the means in my power in the House of Commons. Long ago I came to a clear conclusion upon the two main points, and I expressed that conclusion several years ago in this constituency. In the EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY. 47 first place, I agreed that when a new Employers' Liability Bill was brought in there must be an abolition of the doctrine of common employment. The doctrine of common employment was, I want to say, an unnatural one altogether. It was very mischievous in its operation, and the difficult questions of law which that doctrine raised took away from the industrial classes of this country the advantages which they ought to have got from the Employers' Liability Bill. I myself would have gone somewhat further. I think that all accidents that happen, whether through the negligence of the employer or his servants, or of the persons themselves who are engaged in the employ- ment so long as it is an accident and not the result of culpable negligence or misconduct may reasonably be treated as part of the expenses of the industry, and I believe it would be perfectly possible to do as was proposed by Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons, to arrange a scheme by which all the accidents which are incurred by workmen in the course of their employment should be made a matter for compensa- tion, and to do that without putting heavy burdens upon the employers of this country. I should like to go as far as that. But the Government would not take up that larger proposal, and so I am quite with them in abolishing the doctrine of common employment. In the next place I am with them in desiring to abolish the power of contracting-out. The general power of contracting-out of the Employers' Liability Act had practically made it worthless, because if any employer could contract out with his workmen, the time comes now and then when workmen are very hard put to get employment, and that would be the opportunity to make them abandon their rights under the Act. If it is, as I believe it to be, to the public advantage that a man injured in an industrial employment by the negligence either of the employer or his fellow-servants should be entitled to compensation for the loss he sustains if that is a matter of public importance, as I believe it to be, then I am against allowing any one to contract out of that obligation. But when this bill came before the House of Commons a very important question was raised with regard to certain large societies which are in existence, and which afford compensa- tion not only for accidents caused by negligence, but for all the accidents which occur in the course of an employment. Now, that is a much larger matter. Of all the accidents that occ"ur to workmen in industrial occupations not more than three out of ten are caused by the employers' negligence, or the negligence of their fellow-workmen. The other seven are real accidents things which cannot be avoided in the ordinary course of an industrial occupation, but which, of course have the same sad results to the health and capacity of the man, 48 PL YMOUTH, JANUARY 2, 1894. or to the family which his death may leave behind. In con- ne^tion with the London and North-Western Company there is in existence a society to which that railway company con- tributes a sum of 22,000 in the year, and that society pro- vides compensation for men injured on that railway, whatever the cause of that injury may be. Now, sir, no one can fail to see that is an immense boon to the working-men. Sup- posing there was no such society, but that the question whether he would get any compensation at all is depending on his showing that it was the negligence of some one else that caused the accident. What happens then ? Well, the man has, let us say, broken his leg, he is lying in bed for weeks, his wages are stopped, he has no means of subsistence, and less means still of employing lawyers and all the machinery of the law to enforce his right against his employer, and before his case can be taken up by anybody all sorts of questions have to be asked as to the exact circumstances under which the acci- dent happened. With societies like that of the L. and N.W. Railway Company there is no such difficulty at all. The man breaks his leg, let us say. His wife goes at once to the office of the society. There is a regular tariff of allowance which that man receives during the time he is ill for the mischief done to him. If the poor man is killed, the widow has not to go about seeking the charity of some friends to enable her to bring an action against the company, but goes and receives 100 for herself and ^30 or ^40 for the children, the sums provided by the rules of that society. Now, sir, that system has been in operation for years. It is in operation in one of the southern railways as well as the one I have already mentioned, and a similar system is found in part of our mining districts. In the House of Commons we made a struggle to allow these societies to continue to exist. While for the reasons I have stated I am opposed to general contracting out, where you have got an actual society consisting of thousands of men who by a majority of 95 per cent, of their number upon a ballot declared that they wanted to keep that society instead of coming under the Employers' Liability Act, then I say that to press a Bill through Parliament which will crush that society is not an act in favour of industrial freedom, but an act in favour of industrial tyranny. And so we made a great fight in the House of Commons in order to preserve these existing societies and to allow them to continue so long, and only so long, as the great majority of workmen belonging to them desire to keep up such societies. If the amendment of Mr. Maclaren had been accepted these societies would have continued to exist, subject to this qualification, that the members could at any time adopt the Employers' Liability Act if they found its provisions more advan- EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY. 49 tageous. I hope it is not too late to secure the attainment of that end. When the amendment subsequently introduced by the House of Lords came before the House of Commons a second time, the Government obtained a majority of 62 by the discreditable device of a snatch division on a Wednesday after- noon at 4.30, when it is generally known that a division is not likely to take place until between 5 and 5.30. My chief anxiety is that this Bill shall not be lost. I said in the House of Commons that with the amendment or without it I would vote for its passing, but I am quite sure that it will be better for the people of this country, and especially for those large classes of men on the North-Western Railway and elsewhere, that it should pass with an amendment such as Mr. Maclaren proposes. But I hope that it is not too late for a useful compromise to be made on this subject ; the bill ought not to be lost. There would be a great responsibility on those who destroyed the bill and said it should be lost. The House of Lords, I hope and believe, will not depart from the position that existing societies should be protected and retained. On the other hand it would be quite reasonable if the House of Commons would allow an amend- ment to be introduced similar to that which was only rejected by a majority of 19, the amendment of Mr. Maclaren, and if we did that we should secure this great advantage first, that for the general body of workmen a much improved Employers' Liability Bill would come into effect, a Bill which would give them compensation in more cases than it hitherto has done, and which reduces very much the number of actions at law which would have to be brought, and we should also have the satisfaction of keeping alive those great and most admirable societies which have for so long been in existence with such good results, and the members of which are so anxious to keep them in operation. This is the first matter on which there may be a dispute between the Government and the House of Lords, and if the Government had tried to find a question on which the action of the House of Lords would be approved by the country generally and the conduct of the Goverment con- demned, I don't think they could have found one better suited to their purpose. I trust that this Bill may pass. I am quite sure that when we come to deal with this question in the con- stituencies throughout the country, that they will accept, as I believe you will accept, the view which I have just been stating, and I believe that the workmen will be grateful to the House of Lords for having protected these societies. But the news we have from Westminster this morning is news which makes one doubt whether, after all, that attack upon the House of Lords is to be made. The Local Govern- ment Bill has now been before the House of Commons for D So PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 2, 1894. some considerable time. It has been discussed in great detail undoubtedly, but not with more care than deserves to be expended upon a great measure of local self-government. It is a Bill of serious importance, and was the natural and neces- sary complement of the measure which was passed in 1888, establishing County Councils for the whole of the country. We understood until a few days ago that the Government was prepared to force that bill through the House of Commons by resorting to the closure, or to the guillotine, or to any other of the new-fangled Liberal measures for the suppression of free speech in the House of Commons, and we understood that there would probably be a conflict on the question. But the news this morning put an entirely new complexion on the matter. The Government are not going to attempt to force that Bill through the House of Commons by the use of the closure. It appears that a compromise has been made between the Govern- ment and the leaders of the Opposition, and that the result will be that the Bill will go through the House of Commons by the end of the third week in this month, and that then the House of Commons will be in the ridiculous position a position brought about by the mismanagement of the present Government that it will have to adjourn for a month. While the House of Lords is discussing it, the House of Commons will have nothing to do ; just as the House of Lords is at this moment adjourned for a month because it has nothing to do. If that is the real outcome of the latest Parliamentary management, we may wish, I think, that those who have to manage Parliamentary affairs would manage them a little more sensibly, and get through a little more work in a little less time. What will become of the next session of Parliament nobody seems to know. This session of Parliament, which began before the end of January 1893, will not, it is confidently expected, come to an end before the end of February 1894, and having managed one session of thirteen months, we shall immediately start upon another session, which, so far as one can see, will probably occupy four or five months. Well, I commiserate in advance my confident Radical friends who think that great measures are to be brought in and passed in 1894. They slightly flatter themselves, as, I believe, they hold meetings. For instance, the Local Veto people. I instance them because they are the most credulous and misguided of the whole set. They hold meetings in which they say that they are deeply attached to that principle of Local Veto which has been introduced in the Government's Bill, and they get enthusiastic speeches in answer in Downing Street. But as to that Local Veto Bill being introduced in the year 1894 well, it is a compliment to a Bill to introduce it they may pay it NAVAL DEFENCES. 51 that compliment, but there will be nothing but introduction, you may be sure,* for there are other measures, and even more urgent measures, in the opinion of other friends, which are to be brought in at the beginning of 1894. I will not speculate as to what 1894 will do, but there is one thing that 1894 will probably have, and that is a general election, and I am in great hopes that that part of the year which is most convenient and pleasant to the party to which I belong, the middle of the year, the month of June, may be selected. If I had my own way, I think I should choose the third week in June for the general election, and I think it is very probable that at that convenient time we shall be again facing the electors and asking them to reverse that balance of parties which now un- fortunately exists to the mischief of the country in the House of Commons. You mentioned another subject upon which you asked me to say a word, and that is the very important one of our naval defences. It seems sometimes to be forgotten that there is an intimate connection between the adequacy of our forces for naval defence and other all-important questions which are interesting us now. You know that there is no set of questions more important than those called the labour questions. The remuneration of labour, the limitation of the hours of toil, and the possibility of finding work for the unemployed, are all questions which are being discussed, and deserve discussion in every constituency. These questions are very closely con- nected with the efficiency of our naval armaments, but the closeness of that connection is not always sufficiently realised. I am not speaking merely of the employment of labour in the shipbuilding trade, though that is not a small matter in itself, when we find such a statement as appears in the papers to-day about the tonnage of ships built in this country during the year 1893, an d find that the shipbuilding decreased principally be- cause no naval scheme of construction is going on. When we find that the amount of shipbuilding has been enormously reduced, we cannot help remembering that every ton less built in the course of the year means less employment for the in- dustrial population at the Dockyard towns, and at those great towns where private firms supply the needs of the Admiralty. But there is a larger scope still in which this question of naval defence touches the interests of the commercial classes of this country. It is truly said that we are dependent upon the com- mand of the seas even for the food of our people. If we lost * The Bill was introduced, but never put down for second reading. See post, p. 210. 52 />L YMOUTH, JANUARY 2, 1894. the command of the seas, in a very few weeks, one might almost say in a few days, the price of food would run up to famine price, and our people would be sorely pressed indeed to provide themselves with the necessaries of life. Unless we could promptly restore for ourselves such a command of the seas as would enable us to keep the routes of commerce free and open to the merchant shipping, our people would be subdued, not by force of arms, but by absolutely being starved out. When that is spoken of it is sometimes thought that one is imagining a state of things that never could happen. There is much to be said for the contention that this country would be capable of enormous efforts in order to protect its food supplies, and that, although there might be a great rise in the price of food, we should by some means or other, if not by our own strength, yet by the help of Canada and Australia, keep the food supplies open to this country. It would, of course, involve great sacrifices of all kinds. But there is another side to this question, which is even more important to our industrial classes. This country of ours is now a great workshop. We get the raw materials from all parts of the world, and upon those raw materials the labour of our people is expended, and they are sent out again to the different countries of the world as finished goods. And we depend for the employment of millions of our people upon the continued activity of each of our great industries. What was the state of things during those terrible weeks not long gone by when the coal strike, or rather coal lock-out, had reduced so many men to a condition of idleness ? Why the state of things was as terrible as if civil war had been going on in certain parts of the country. But suppose that did not happen to a single industry alone at a time when other industries were in full work, and were able to afford some relief to those who might have starved but for charitable help. Suppose the mischief affected all your industries ; and the textile industry and coal industry, and all the other great industries of the country, were interfered with because there was no free way for commercial vessels at sea. It would not be simply a question of the price of food ; but the workmen would have no money to buy food with, whatever its price ; for as soon as our command of the sea and the freedom of our mercantile marine are lost to us, our industries must be crippled, and in a short time stopped. There would be no wages to earn, even if there was food to buy at high prices, and so of all the people in this country who are closely and deeply interested in the maintenance of the naval supremacy of Great Britain, the industrial classes are more closely and immediately interested than any others. I am sorry to say that the state of things that we have now NAVAL DEFENCES. 53 is by no means satisfactory. It will be well remembered that in the year 1888 there was an alarm at the inadequate condition of our fleet, and in the year 1889 the Naval Defence Act was passed by the late Government, under which the country became pledged to go on steadily with a system of shipbuilding for five years. In those five years the country undertook to add seventy-four vessels to the British navy, and the then Conservative First Lord of the Admiralty promised that if that Naval Defence Act was accepted, and the scheme carried out, by the end of the financial year 1893-4 we should be in a position of equality with the French and the Russian fleets combined. I do not stay to consider whether that equality is sufficient or not. Great authorities are found to say it is not sufficient, and that we ought to have a strength of at least five to three against any attack which might be likely to be made upon us. But I prefer to keep the estimate as low as possible. In 1889 the country deliberately accepted the proposal that sufficient ships should be built to put us on a level in point of numbers with Russia and with France combined. The promise then made by the Conservative First Lord of the Admiralty has been kept ; and by the end of March next it is asserted by both sides in the House of Commons by the present Government as well as by the representatives of the late Government that we shall be in a position of equality with the Russian and French navies together. But a very serious state of things has now arisen. It is no use to build a good deal in one year, and build very little in another, because if you do there comes a year, three years later than the one with the lowest amount of construction, when you must be on an inequality with your opponents. And I am sorry to say that is the state of things we have to face at the present time. It has been admitted by the representatives of the present Government, by the Prime Minister himself, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We had an important debate not very long ago in the House of Commons upon this subject, and it will be remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of the debate, said the House might be satisfied that the superiority of the British fleet was being maintained. Well, he said he spoke upon the assurance of the naval advisers of the Admiralty, the Sea Lords. But he had to come to the House two days later and to read a recantation of that statement, and to admit, as the Prime Minister himself admitted in the course of that debate, that although it is true to say that at this moment we are equal to Russia and to France together, it would not be true to say that we have made such arrangements and such progress in shipbuilding as to secure our being equal to them in the years that are coming. 54 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 2, 1894. Why, sir, it is a lamentable thing that during the past ten months of this year no new ships of war have been laid down at all three ships of war, three first-class battle-ships, have been laid down within the past three weeks, but they cannot be ready for three years. It is agreed by all naval experts it is not denied by any representative of the Government that if a great effort is not made to add to the number of our ships of war, we shall be left behind the rest, but make what efforts we like we can never make up for the ten months which have been wasted in the present year. Now, sir, I think we see the justification of the plan which was put before the House of Commons in the year 1889 by the Conservative Government. That plan contem- plated a succession of shipbuilding for five years, and the main object of the plan was this, that the shipbuilding of this country should go on steadily year by year, and that it should not be left to the caprice or the necessities of a particular Minister to in- terfere with the programme of shipbuilding. We were attacked about that in the House of Commons. We were attacked be- cause it was said that if you got them to adopt a system of a five years' programme you were making the Government independent of the House of Commons during those five years. That was not the thing it was desired to do. It was simply desired to secure that during the five years there should be a steady series of additions to our fleet. I do hope that the present Government will accept the principle of planning a scheme of naval defence for a certain number of years ahead, and of making adequate and ample provision for that. It is a most unfortunate thing that scares should from time to time occur, and that we are obliged in discussing this matter to speak of France and Russia as if \ve were contemplating war between ourselves and those two countries. We are obliged to mention them, but I should not like to make a speech upon this subject without adding this I believe that we are now on tenns of peace and friendship with France and Russia. While we are obliged to quote the names of these countries when we are illustrating the necessities of our naval position, it is not with a view of probable hostilities between this country and those two Powers. France is making rapid progress in shipbuilding, and she has much smaller commercial and colonial interests to defend than we have. But France at this time is spending very nearly as much as England is spend- ing in shipbuilding, and Russia is spending about the same sum. Those Powers are spending about 5,400,000 upon the construc- tion of battleships, while this country has been only about ^3,000,000. If this proportion of expenditure continues this country will soon be left behind in the race and be inferior in strength to those two countries. I wish the Ministers of these countries would endeavour to limit or prevent this disastrous NAVAL DEFENCES. 55 rivalry of our navies. Useful as it is for many classes that we should spend large sums in this way, it would be better if we had occasion to spend less, and could devote the money to the production of implements of peace instead of costly im- plements of war. I should like to see some negotiation be- tween this country and the Governments of France and Russia, by which we could hope to put some limit to the terrible rivalry in naval armaments which is involving all the three countries in such enormous cost. But whatever it costs, the commerce of this country must be safe, and I sincerely hope that this Government will take prompt and effective steps in order to remedy as far as it is possible the great error made many months ago in not laying down armoured vessels for our navy. I do not know that there is any other great subject of dis- cussion before Parliament and the country at present, and I daresay that we shall before very long have an opportunity of taking the opinion of the constituencies upon the policy of the present Government. I do not suppose that the most ardent supporters of the Government can be satisfied with the results that have been achieved during the eighteen months that they have been in power. Certainly Parliament cannot be said to have done any mischief, because it has practically done nothing at all. But while I may say that I prefer doing nothing to doing mischief, I will also say that I think it is a lamentable thing that Parliament should have expended such an enormous amount of time, fettered and hampered as it is by antiquated and obstinate rules time which might be much lessened, much curtailed, in extent, and which might, as I think, be much more efficiently used. The fact is that we have, as I have said over and over again from this platform, rules of procedure in the House of Commons which tend to injure the discharge of public business and not to help it, and I trust that it may be given to some Ministry before long to suggest to the House of Commons and carry through an amendment in the procedure and rules of that House which may enable us to do a little more work, and not to waste quite so much time in doing it. At all events, under new rules or old rules, whatever the work of the House of Commons may be, and whatever problems it may have to face, I hope that for a good while yet I may be allowed to speak for Plymouth in that House. You, sir, a little understated the time that I have had the honour of serving Plymouth. It is about thirteen and a half years now that I have been a member for this constituency. The end of my first apprenticeship came about the time when I had the honour of becoming a member of the Government ; the end of my second apprenticeship I think is very likely to witness something of the same kipd. But 56 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 3, 1893. at all events, whatever may happen to me personally, I am glad at least that during the two apprenticeships now nearly closed I have been able to serve Plymouth honestly I know, diligently I know, and, I trust, not without satisfaction and advantage to the great constituency that has trusted me. Annual Address to the Electors of Plymouth at the Guildhall. JANUARY 3, 1895. MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I come to-night to discharge my annual and very pleasant duty of meet- ing the constituents who have trusted me so long, and of whose confidence I am so proud, and of speaking to them upon the general political topics of the year. I have always at these meetings avoided, as far as I can, the immediate con- troversies of the day, especially in their local character, and I have dealt more generally with political questions than one does when engaged in the heated contest of an election. But before I fulfil that duty, which you, sir, have suggested is mine, that of referring to what has taken place in Parliament during the past year, I should like to say a word or two upon another subject of perhaps even larger importance. We are, happily, beginning the new year with peace in Europe, a peace which is very precious to all of us, to secure and maintain which we ought to be prepared to make every effort in our power, and a peace which, so far as we can see, has no menace. But, unfortunately, in another distant part of the globe a war is raging, the importance of which to this country^has not, I think, yet been fully understood. I refer to the war between China and Japan, in which the smaller of the two countries, but a country of no mean significance in population or resources, has had what seems at this moment to be a tolerably complete and a somewhat easy victory over its antagonist. The events that take place there are so far away from us that they may seem to have little immediate concern to us. But I think that they are matters in which we should take a great and anxious interest. What judgment should be pronounced upon the war, and upon the conduct of the two combatants, is not very easy now to see. I have never seen any justification whatever for the course which Japan took in attacking the Chinese Power ; and if there were any justification, which so far as I know has NA VAL DEFENCES. 57 never been shown by any of the State papers of Japan, for the expedition which was sent to the capital of Corea, I know of no justification or excuse for the present conduct of that war, and for the aggression which Japan is carrying into the heart of the Chinese territory. But whether there is right or wrong on the side of Japan in this matter, the more important question is this : It threatens to carry the militarism, which is the curse of Europe, into our colonial possessions and into the Eastern seas. If the result of this war between China and Japan should be that a European Power should establish in that Eastern sea a strong fortress and a strong harbour for its navy; then un- doubtedly there will be a danger to our Australian possessions ; undoubtedly the course of trade in the Eastern seas will be subject to a new and serious menace, and I think it will involve this country in the end in bearing still heavier burdens of war- like preparations, in order to be able to defend our possessions in those distant regions. We have had a year of active construction of ships for our navy. It was necessary that there should be that activity. The year 1893 was almost a wasted year, so far as concerns the navy of this country ; and it is fortunate for us, undoubtedly, that during the last twelve months, partly in consequence of the Parliamentary pressure brought upon the Government by members of the party to which I belong, there has been an increased activity in equipping ships for our navy ; and the launch of the Magnificent a few days ago has been a splendid example of what the capacity and the industry of the men in our great national establishments are capable of achieving. I rejoice, of course, that there should be a steady attention paid to the naval defence of this country, as it is perfectly clear that our existence as a nation depends upon our obtaining and keeping the supremacy of the sea. But those events which are taking place in the eastern hemisphere suggest to one some very serious considerations. It has been laid down during recent years I might say months that our navy ought to be as large as the navies of Russia and France put together, they being our most formidable rivals in naval strength. I do not say that that proposition is wrong. I do not say or think, having regard to the extent of our commerce, and the immense territory we have to defend, that we have any too much of naval strength when we have a navy equal to that of Russia and France ; but it must be remembered that Russia and France have not accepted that position, and that directly we increase our naval strength so as to be equal to the combined navies of these two countries, our activity excites them to emulation, and they proceed to build vessels of increased strength, in order to bring themselves again to a condition more powerful than 58 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 3, 1893. ours. It is a serious question for the people and the statesmen of this country how long this rivalry is to go on. There can be no end to it except by some combination and understanding between European Powers. It is a senseless rivalry. It is a reproach to the statesmanship of Europe that all our nations are spending year after year these enormous sums which are burdening and crippling industry for keeping up great armies and navies. I hear sometimes that the very size of the armies and navies prevents war ; and that they are a force so enormous, so perilous, and so little understood, that their very size deters the statesmen of Europe from entering upon war. That seems to me a very poor sort of defence. You might as well store kegs of gunpowder about your house in order to make servants more careful about the matches. I do not believe in these extravagant armaments being guardians of European peace ; and at a time when we are threatened with an extension to our colonial empire of the same necessities of military and naval preparation it would be well that our statesmen should seriously consider whether it is not possible by some understanding and agreement between European States to put some check upon this senseless and most costly rivalry. It may be difficult ; it may not be possible to obtain a European agreement ; but if it is not possible, then those events now taking place in those distant parts should press upon us the performance of another duty. I have often said that in my belief the safeguarding of the interests of the prosperity of our country in the time to come must be found in the support and the loyalty of our colonial possessions. It is not here that we are developing and strengthening, sufficiently for our protection, the resources to which we may have to appeal it is in Canada, Australia, New- Zealand, and the scattered Colonies which now are under our sway on the African continent it is there we must evidently get our defence and strength in time of national danger ; and I think that should make us all look with very great interest to that colonial conference which took place in Canada not many months ago, where representatives of our colonies met to discuss matters in which they were interested along with the mother country. That conference made several suggestions. Some had to do with postal facilities ; one was for the establishment of a Pacific cable ; and many of the smaller suggestions had rather a commercial than an Imperial importance. But there was one suggestion made to which great importance was attached, and which I think should be seriously considered by any Government. At the present time there are laws which prevent the Australian colonies and some others from entering into commercial relations with each other, and the establish- ment of inter-colonial tariffs. Thev ask that they shall be free EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY. 59 to establish inter- colonial tariffs, and they desire also and I think we ought to desire that no treaties should be allowed to exist which interfere with the right and the power of Great Britain and her colonies to enter into special commercial relations with each other without regard to the interests and the claims of foreign nations. We must endeavour to secure to our- selves by the closest ties the loyalty and affection of our colonies. It is quite clear, from the history of these colonies, that it will be the ties of trade and commerce that bind them most closely to us. We must strengthen those ties, and if necessary show the colonies that we value our trade with them more than we value trade outside the Empire, and that we are prepared to give special advantage to the trade between different portions of the Empire and thus we shall inspire that feeling of solid- arity between the colonies and the mother country which will be our greatest strength if ever there comes to us a time of national danger. Now I turn to speak of the other important matter connected with the most curious Parliamentary history of the last twelve months. When I was here at the beginning of last January, we had not yet arrived at the end of the longest session of Parliament in Parliamentary history. The session of 1893 did not come to an end until March 1894. Now, when I was here the fate of the Employers' Liability Bill had not been settled, and I spoke here with a great and real anxiety that that bill should be allowed to be placed on the Statute-book. I need not say to those who have heard me in this hall many times with what interest I have always engaged in the discus- sion of the question of employers' liability. It is a matter upon which I have spoken over and over again, and have declared my desire to amend, and to substantially amend, the law of the employers' liability. Now, I am grieved to say that all the work which was done in 1893 and to the end of that session, has been wantonly thrown away by the Ministry, when they had the opportunity of putting upon the Statute-book a measure which, however imperfect, would have been an immense, real, and direct advantage to the whole of the industrial population of this country. They tore up that measure rather than let it pass into an Act of Parliament because they could not have their own way in destroying some of the arrangements which have been made by working-men with their employers. I think the working-men of this country have very little indeed to thank the present Government for, but if they had received from the Government any other measures of twenty times the advantage of those which, in fact, they have, all these advantages would be more than counterbalanced by the way in which the interests of the industrial classes were betrayed by the Ministry 60 PLYMOUTH. JANUARY 3, 1895. which gave up the Employers' Liability Bill, and did not pass it into law. I spoke freely here, and frankly in the House of Commons, with regard to my view as to the privilege of contracting-out under the Employers' Liability Bill. I said in the House of Commons I would gladly have had a bill either with or without the contracting-out clause rather than it should be lost altogother. But we were perfectly right, I am certain, in standing up in defence of those free combinations of employers and workmen which in so many parts of the country have secured to the workmen in the factory or the business advan- tages far larger than any Employers' Liability Act could ever give. It is said that the Employers' Liability Bill was lost because of an improper amendment introduced by the House of Lords. I am delighted to find there are some here who still require to know the truth upon this question. When that Bill was before the House of Commons in the first instance an amendment in favour of allowing the continuance of those mutual insurance societies which exist in the London and North-Western Railway and with other great employments of labour, was moved in the House of Commons by Mr. McLaren, the Gladstonian member for Crewe. It was supported by twenty of the best-known Radical members of the House of Commons acquainted with the wants and desires of the working- men. I know that Gladstonian members of Parliament came up to London at great inconvenience, in order to vote for that amendment against the Government, because their seats would not have been worth a year's purchase unless they had sup- ported this amendment, which was only defeated by eighteen votes. What was our duty in the House of Commons? We desired sincerely to improve the law of employers' liability. I have striven for it for years past. It is too complex, it costs too much to enforce it, the employer has to pay too much money, and the injured man gets too little money, because of the legal proceedings which are necessary. I have striven for years to make that law, as I said in 1880, very much simpler and a much easier one to enforce. We tried in 1888, and were not successful. This Government tried in 1893 and brought in a Bill which was a great improvement on the Employers' Liability Bill that is now law, but there came to us about 200,000 workmen who had made arrangements with their employers by which they got insurance, and they said, " This insurance is much better for us than the Employers' Liability Bill, and we want to keep it." The only reason why the Government tore up that bill, which would have been a direct and immediate advantage to the working-classes, was because they had been coerced by Parliamentary influences which they did not venture to disobey. I desire to say a word or two EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY. 61 about this bill, because there still seems to be a certain amount of misapprehension and want of information about it. I do not wonder at those gentlemen at the end of the hall having been ill informed, because I think it is very likely they went to some of the meetings held in this town early in December, when two gentlemen, one of whom has fought me before, and both of whom I believe will fight me and my colleague at the next election were making speeches. I wish those gentlemen had informed themselves of the truth of the matter before they made speeches on that bill. At Compton Gifford, on December 6th, Mr. Mendl said : " The Lords placed it in the power of employers to make it a condition of employment, that an employee should contract himself out of the privileges which it was proposed to give under the Act." I wonder whether anybody thinks that is true. I will read to you the exact words of the Lords' amendment which came down to the House of Commons for discussion : " Provided always that the employer shall not make it a condition of em- ployment with the workman that he shall enter into such agreement." Now, I will take my other opponent, who, I think, has had more experience, and should have been a little more careful. Speaking at Exeter Street on December 9th, Mr. Charles Harrison said: "There was the Employers' Liability Act. It was wished to make the general terms of the bill applicable to those on sea as well as on land. Seamen and firemen were to be equally protected under its provisions as all other em- ployees. When the bill went to the House of Lords, noble lords proposed to run the pen through this clause. The House of Commons disagreed, and said they would have none of it. He did not know whether the Tory representatives of Plymouth joined in that or not." There was a clause which provided that seamen and firemen should be protected under the bill. It came down to the House of Commons, by which it was thought undesirable to have any distinction between persons who came under the Act, and the clause was left out without any division. But the House of Lords never did propose to strike seamen and firemen out of the bill, and the cries of "shame" with which Mr. Harrison's friends greeted the mention of the House of Lords were entirely undeserved, and only owing to Mr. Harrison's own unacquaintance with what had really taken place in the House of Commons. Mr. Harrison might have had the fairness to say that it was the Ministry in which " the Tory representative of Plymouth" had the honour of having a place, which for the first time proposed to include seamen in the Employers' Liability Bill. But the present Government has torn up the 62 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY j, iS 95 . bill they brought in, and the consequence is that the workmen of this country are left under the expensive and troublesome' process of the bill of 1880 ; and I do not know when we are likely to have from the Government a revival of any Employers' Liability Bill. I hope when the time comes and it certainly will come immediately if the result of the next general election shall be as I hope and expect and the House of Commons is invited to address itself to the question of employers' liability, we shall be able to make use of the delay which has taken place, and give a much better bill than was proposed this last time. My view and hope is, we shall not think so much of the employers' liability as of the workmen's compensation. I hope to see a Working-men's Compensation Bill introduced by the Unionist Government which will apply the rule to all the industrial occupations of the country, including, of course, sea- men, and including the great establishments which belong to the country, the dockyards and arsenals. I hope to see a bill which will put the cost of an accident that happens to a work- man in the course of industrial occupation upon the employer, and so secure compensation for those who are injured by such accidents without all the appeals and all the expense which have retarded the Act of 1880.* I am not going to dwell upon other matters which took place in this last session of Parliament, because I am anxious to direct attention to the very curious position we are now in with regard to the new session which is to begin on the 5th of February next. Why that session is not to begin until the 5th of February I find it a little difficult to understand. I hear on all hands that there are so many bills which the Government are desirous of passing through Parliament, that the limit of time may prevent them from doing any large proportion of what they desire. But if that limit of time is so serious, I wonder why Parliament did not meet in the third week of January instead of the first week of February. We never have too much time before Easter. Easter comes in the middle of April this year, and those two or three weeks which have been sacrificed by postponing the meeting of Parliament might surely have been of some value to an overburdened Govern- ment desiring to pass its bills through the House of Commons. But the explanation of it has really been given to us by the Prime Minister himself. This is going to be a sham session. They are not going to meet for the purpose of showing that they can pass bills, but for the purpose of showing that they cannot pass them. The Prime Minister has told us this is going to be a Welsh session I suppose an Irish bill will come first * The Workmen's Compensation Act was passed in 1897. PLOUGHING THE SAND. 63 and Parliament is going to address itself to the disestablish- ment of the Church in Wales a measure which I don't think would do very much good to those gentlemen who are so anxious for it, and which most certainly would not be any benefit to any single member of the constituency which I have the honour to represent in Parliament. But we are to be asked to disestablish the Welsh Church, and to revise and amend the land laws in Ireland. Those are the two things that we are to deal with at least so Lord Rosebery says. But the Home Secretary, in a speech at Birmingham, said the odds were a hundred to one that the Irish Land Bill would never come on to the Statute-book; and then he went on to say that we should spend days and weeks and months in the House of Commons in discussing Welsh disestablishment, and that as soon as it got to the House of Lords it would be just as well as if we had been ploughing the sands of the sea. And so those of us who have the honour of representing constituencies are to be invited to meet at Westminster on the 5th of February, in order to spend our time in discussing two bills, with regard to one of which it is a hundred to one that it never becomes law, and with regard to the other of which we shall be ploughing the sands of the sea all the time we are discussing it. Now, I really do not know who is going to profit by this process. Certainly the people won't profit by it, because the bills are not going to be passed. Certainly Parliament will not profit by it, for we are not particularly anxious to spend weeks and months in an utterly wasteful and fruitless discussion. Who is to profit by it ? Well, the only persons who think they can profit by it are the members of the present Ministry. And their idea appears to be that they can induce the House of Commons to waste a good deal of this session in discussing bills which cannot pass, and that then the country will be prepared to accept a resolution on the subject of the House of Lords. This question of the House of Lords is in a very curious position. We are told by the Prime Minister, who has made three speeches on the subject one at Bradford, one at Glasgow, and one at Devonport that certain important action is to be taken with reference to the House of Lords ; and he declared that the next general election will take place not upon the Welsh dis- establishment or upon local veto, but upon the question of the House of Lords. Well, that was an important pronouncement from the Prime Minister of this country, and when he invites public attention to a great constitutional question like that it is quite right that it should be discussed in all its fulness, and with a sense of its great importance. But I agree so thoroughly with Lord Rosebery in most of what he says that it is a little difficult for me to say where he and I come into conflict, or 64 PL YMO UTH, JAN UAR Y j, 1895. what the question is upon which we are to be divided. You have found upon the chairs of this hall to-night copies of a little leaflet entitled "Lord Rosebery on the Abolition of the House of Lords." Some of you may remember that when I was speak- ing here two or three months ago in another part of the town something was said about getting some one down to answer Lord Rosebery, and I expressed the opinion that if anybody did come down to answer Lord Rosebery it would be a member of his own party, because they were always the persons who were rinding fault with his speeches. Well, I have not heard that any one of his own party is coming down to answer the speech he made at Devonport. But what I wish to commend to you is this. This little pamphlet contains most sound and valuable doctrine upon the House of Lords. Excellent doctrine ! Every word of it is Lord Rosebery's. Every word of it is taken for I copied the extracts myself from the report of the two speeches he made at Bradford and at Glasgow and if you will keep those little leaflets you will find them very useful when you come to the discussion of this important question of the House of Lords. Lord Rosebery says this is the greatest question that has arisen in England for two centuries or more, and he goes on to say that at the present time the House of Lords, linked to the English majority against Home Rule, occupies a stronger position in many ways than they have for some time past. This is not surely very encouraging to those who are being exhorted to attack them. Then he says that a Second Chamber of some kind is necessary, and in the discussion which is now going on throughout the country, I think you will find that that is a cardinal question to be discussed. What does he say about this ? He says, " I am for a Second Chamber. I am not for the uncontrolled Government of a single Chamber any more than I am for an uncontrolled Government of a single man." Well, that is very satisfactory. He insists upon having a Second Chamber of some kind, and he argues at considerable length that it would be dangerous to put the interests of this country under the unfettered control of an elected House of Commons. He says, " Many of the most eminent members of the Liberal party, and many who are not eminent, are in favour of a single Chamber. I think they have adopted that opinion without sufficient reflection." I understand that my two opponents to whom I have referred are both single Chamber men, and I would sincerely commend to their attention, and the attention of their supporters, this most important testimony of Lord Rosebery against the single Chamber man. Lord Rosebery says not only that it would be dangerous to entrust the fortunes of the empire to the uncontrolled action LORD ROSEBER Y AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 65 of one elected Chamber, but that the universal experience of mankind is in favour of a Second Chamber. Then he says also that you cannot abolish the House of Lords without its own consent. Well, that is perfectly true. It can only be done by a bill, and the House of Lords is not likely to pass that bill. Then some people at Leeds passed a resolution in favour of abolishing the veto of the House of Lords. Lord Rosebery points out, with cruel accuracy of logic, that that is absolutely impracticable. That would require a bill, too, and it is just as impracticable to pass that as it would be to pass a bill abolishing the House of Lords. Sometimes a speaker is asked to address an overflow meeting, or to reply to a vote of thanks, and when a speaker does so, you very often find that the most important thing of the evening is said in that little subsequent speech, because he has not prepared it beforehand. And at Glasgow Lord Rosebery had a little supplementary speech to make, and this is what he says : " What I have had to point out at the other meeting has been this that this is not an easy thing to do ; that it involves a change of the Constitution which can only be carried by a bill passed by both Houses, and a bill which, therefore, the House of Lords is not the least likely to pass ; and I have been compelled, therefore, to point out that the task of the Government, and your task in supporting the Government, is not so easy as is generally supposed. Some people say, 'Abolish the House of Lords.'" Someone inter- rupted, and said hear, hear, and Lord Rosebery turned on him, and said, " My friend says so. Very well ; but how would he abolish the House of Lords unless he is prepared to walk, like Cromwell, into the House of Lords with a. posse comitatiis behind him, and the support of the country at his back ? It is impos- sible to abolish the House of Lords without their own consent, and therefore, when I ask the country, as I have already done more than once, and as I have been criticised for doing, on the subject of the House of Lords, I should ask not merely for in- spiration as to what they want to be done, but as to how it was to be done. And as to the question I cannot honestly say that I have received any straightforward answer." Now we can leave Lord Rosebery there. He does not know how to do it. Nobody will tell him how to do it ; and he has pointed out that the ways which some people have recklessly suggested are absolutely impossible. But, in that state of things, what is he going to do ? Well, he is going to move a resolution. But really play- ing a trumpet in Palace Yard, Westminster, would be about as successful a proceeding. If you pass a resolution in the House of Commons which only requires the administrative action of the Government to carry it out, of course that resolution becomes effective, because the Government acts upon it and makes the E 66 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 3, 1895. change. But if you pass a resolution in the House of Commons which requires an Act of Parliament to carry it out, you have made no advance at all towards doing what you want. You may pass resolutions by the dozen, and they will have no more effect than if the trumpeter had tootled in Palace Yard. But Lord Rosebery says this is going to be an important resolution, supported by the Government, and that therefore it cannot be trifled with. I remember a very important resolu- tion which was supported by the Government in the House of Commons some time ago. It was on the 27th April 1883 that a resolution was proposed, the terms of which will be exceedingly interesting to many of our friends here, who have been devoted to the cause of temperance reform. It was in these terms : " That the best interests of the nation urgently require some efficient measure of legislation by which, in accordance with the resolution already passed and reaffirmed by this House, a legal power of restraining the issue or renewal of licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor may be placed in the hands of persons most deeply interested and affected namely, the inhabitants themselves." Now that was a most important resolution ; affirming that the best interests of the nation urgently required immediate legislation in favour of temperance reform ; and a speech of a most important character was made in support of that resolution. Sir William Harcourt was then Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance of his support is recognised at once and he said : " We are all agreed that this is a matter which ought to be dealt with, and ought to be dealt with without delay. ... I shall vote in favour of the motion of my hon. friend the member for Carlisle. ... I am reminded by my right hon. friend (Mr. Gladstone) that I ought to say I am speaking on behalf of the Government as a whole as well as my own personal opinion." And with that emphatic support from the Govern- ment which then had a large majority, that resolution was passed by the splendid majority of 87 an important and authoritative majority. (Cheers.) Yes ; but that was on April 27, 1883. We are now in January 1895, and from the day when that resolution was passed in 1883, with the support of a majority of 87, nothing whatever has been done. Now, after nearly twelve years, during six of which the Government which supported that resolution has been in power, and has had a majority in the House of Commons, nothing has been done. What do you think of the value of a resolution now ? And the credulous and the misguided persons who believed that that Government in 1883 really meant what it said in supporting that resolution, and who did not see they were simply being used, and their desires and sincerity were being used, simply TEMPERANCE LEGISLATION. 67 as a political instrument they are now without any of the legislation then promised, and they are hoping that in this extraordinary session which is now to begin, some sort of Local Veto Bill will be introduced by the men who twelve years ago declared it must be dealt with without delay. But I think these poor people will be disappointed a little longer, for the Prime Minister went to Glasgow the other day, and at that meeting he discussed in an airy and, I won't say flippant, but amusing fashion, the prospects of different kinds of legislation, and one of them was the Local Veto Bill. He had in the chair at Glasgow a bailie who had been known for years as one of the most earnest and devoted friends of the temperance cause. Lord Rosebery chaffed him on the subject, laughed at him about it, and then went on to say that he was not satisfied with the Local Veto Bill ; he did not think it would be nearly as useful as many people imagined ; he said he did not like the Chancellor of the Exchequer's bill, that Sir William Harcourt had taken his bill from the United Kingdom Alliance, and that he thought the bill Mr. Wilson had in the House of Commons was a better bill, and having said there was a better bill than the Government Bill, he said he would not further discuss so perilous a subject. If those who were taken in in 1883 by the belief that the Gladstonian party meant seriously to go through with that temperance legislation have not been undeceived by the twelve years' delay, and by that remarkable letter Mr. Gladstone wrote directly he left office, I am afraid they are past hoping for. I suppose they will be deluded to the end of the chapter. Well, if we are to have such a session, so be it. I think there are other matters which can properly be dealt with, and I am quite unable to see why at this moment the attack on the House of Lords is to be made, or by what argument it can be justified. I have put here before now one test which seems to be the most simple and conclusive that can possibly be applied to the question whether it is necessary to interfere with the House of Lords at all. It is said that the House of Lords thwarts and defeats the desires of the people. Yes, it is so said by many, and it is so believed by some. But I should like to put the test question, and I put it not asking for an answer now, but that it may be considered ; and I should like when one of our opponents should be speaking again in Plymouth that one of his friends would invite him to answer such an im- portant question as this Is there any bill which the House of Commons has more than once passed which has failed to become law because of the action of the House of Lords ? That must be a fair test. If it is true that the House of Lords has stood in the way of the wishes of the people, you would be 68 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 3, 1895. able to mention a number of measures which the House of Commons wanted to pass and which the House of Lords pre- vented passing. There is one bill, and one only, that has been prevented from passing by the House of Lords the bill for allowing marriage with a deceased wife's sister. That one Bill had passed the House of Commons more than once, and been defeated by the Lords. But ask those who come here and say the House of Lords has defeated the wishes of the people to name one bill beside that. That challenge is a clear one, which cannot easily be evaded. I am quite sure that if my opponents here venture to refer to that question at all, they will have to admit that they can name no other bill which the House of Lords has prevented from passing. I should like to say one word upon another subject. It is said the House of Lords is to be set aside or that its privileges are to be curtailed because it is not a representative body ; and it is said, and truly said, that the House of Lords has not agreed with the House of Commons upon the question of Home Rule. I don't think the country agreed with the House of Commons upon the question of Home Rule. But what I should like to say is that before any attack is carried on against the House of Lords you should at least make the House of Commons a truly representative body. At present there is one gross and flagrant defect in the House of Commons as a representative body, and it is that while England has twenty members less than by her population she ought to have, Ireland has twenty- two too many. Let that be redressed ; and it is a perfectly obvious and simple thing to deal with. Nobody can dispute it, and the present Government itself, in 1893, in one of the schedules of the Home Rule Bill proposed to reduce the repre- sentation of Ireland to 81 members. That was a valuable part of the Home Rule Bill which ought not to be allowed to drop, and I should like to see that gross inequality of represen- tation removed. There has been recently published a most interesting set of returns issued by the Board of Trade under the present Government, and signed by Sir John Hibbert, with regard to the contribution of Ireland to Imperial burdens. In that return it is stated that the accounts are so made up that you can see how much was paid in taxation by each country, and how much was spent in each country out of the taxation there received and how much was paid by each country to Imperial purposes. And it is most interesting to read in this document that Ireland, which has nearly one-seventh of the whole representation in the House of Commons, actually pays only one-twenty-second part of the whole of the Imperial ex- penditure. Of the taxation which is received so much is ex- pended in Ireland upon local purposes that that country, which A SECOND CHAMBER. 69 ought, according to its population, to have eighty-one members instead of one hundred and three, pays only the twenty-second part of the expenditure. While these flagrant inequalities exist in the House of Commons, I think we should look there before we lend ourselves to the attack upon the House of Lords. Whether that attack will ever come to anything we do not know ; what the resolution is, or why it is to be proposed, we are not told. I think it is doubtful whether it ever will be pro- posed. It is quite possible other matters may interfere. But if this resolution is proposed, if we are to have the next general election upon the question of maintaining the Second Chamber, let us remember that we have a Second Chamber, which has been a strength and security to the country for centuries a Second Chamber which has been the envy of other countries ; which they have endeavoured to copy ; which I believe can be strengthened by some amendment with regard to its constitu- tion ; and which is a Chamber which it would be disastrous for us to break up or weaken or destroy until you have a clear decided plan for establishing in its place some other Second Chamber, which should perform those necessary functions to which Lord Rosebery has referred. When that issue comes to be dealt with we shall meet it with great satisfaction, with great willingness, and with perfect con- tentment with regard to what the result of the struggle shall be. For the moment I go from my constituents to the House of Commons to take my share in what has to be called its work. I do not myself think that that work is likely to be very pros- perous or is likely to be very long protracted. But, whatever its character may be, I shall have the honour of representing Ply- mouth, as I have now represented it for so many years. This evening marks a record, not in my career, but in the political history of Plymouth. Since the Reform Bill of 1832 many members have sat men deservedly honoured as representa- tives of this constituency. But I have now been the member for Plymouth longer than any other man has held that position since the year 1832. And I think I may say it will not be my fault if I do not hold it for a good while longer. Your chair- man has been good enough to refer to certain remarks that have appeared in papers here and elsewhere referring to a sug- gestion it has come to no more than a suggestion that I might at some time or other be member for the city of London. Of course, the representation of the city of London is the greatest honour that a member of the House of Commons can have. Considering my birth and the incidents of my life, to be member for the city of London would be a greater honour and a greater prize than it would be to many other men in political life. But I never knew, and cannot imagine, any prize so great, 70 PL YMOUTH, JANUAR Y 7, 1896. or any honour so conspicuous that would entitle a man to be- have badly to old friends. As I have told you before, I am bound to Plymouth not only by personal friendships which have arisen in these years, but by a great tie of gratitude. When I was defeated in the political arena Plymouth gave me a seat, and for fourteen and a half years has given me the oppor- tunity of sitting in the House of Commons and representing this great constituency. Do not let anybody persuade you I am going to behave badly to you. I have asked for your con- fidence and had it again and again, and when the next election comes I shall be here asking for a renewal of your confidence and I hope that then, as at other times, I shall not only have that confidence that makes me your member, but that I shall have with me a man with whom I can work, and of whom you will have every reason to be proud. Annual Address to the Electors of Plymouth in the Guildhall. JANUARY 7, 1896. [It has often been stated that when in the year 1895 th e United States interposed in the dispute with respect to the Venezuelan boundary I expressed an opinion adverse to the territorial claims of Great Britain ; and that the result of the arbitration in 1899 proved me to have been wrong. A perusal of the two speeches which follow will show that there is no truth in either of these statements. For many years Venezuela had asked for arbitration but Great Britain had refused, except on the condition that all the land within the Schomburgk line should be recognised as forming part of British Guiana, and that the only matter submitted to the arbitrator should be the ownership of territory outside that line. Speaking at York, at Plymouth, and at Accrington, I said that the claim to impose that condition was a preposterous claim, and that the whole of the territorial claims of both disputants should be sub- mitted to arbitration. At the time I spoke, although I was not aware of it, an agreement was being made by which the British Government withdrew this condition, and agreed to a free arbitration. By the award of the arbitrators in 1899 Great Britain obtained no territory outside the Schomburgk line, while VENEZUELA. 71 Venezuela obtained two portions of territory within that line ; one unimportant, the other, an important area at the mouth of the Orinoco, upon which she had always insisted. My contentions were thus entirely justified. E. C.] MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I come to-night, according to annual custom, to discharge one of the pleasantest and one, as I always thought, of the most responsible duties of a member of Parliament the duty of meeting, once a year at least, as many of his constituents as can be gathered together, and speaking to them upon great topics of public interest. We fix this gathering for the early days of January and it is sometimes found an inconvenient moment at which to speak. There may be questions pending which largely interest the mind of the country, and upon which it is not desir- able that too much should be said from a public platform. And there are questions now exciting your interest and your curiosity on which I shall be obliged to be silent for a reason that I think you will presently see. I propose to-night to depart from the general rule which has guided me in the choice of topics for my address in this hall. I have generally spoken of the political history of the past year, and to some extent tried to foreshadow the work in which Parliament may be engaged during the session which was about to open. I think on this occasion I must choose other topics. Your chairman has rightly said that we are at a time of great national anxiety. Many most important questions of foreign and colonial policy have now been opened, and it is quite possible that during the year which we are just beginning a very stern test may be applied to the skill of our diplomacy, perhaps even to the strength of our national forces. I therefore propose to-night at this meeting to speak only upon certain topics of foreign policy. To-morrow evening I have elsewhere an opportunity of dealing with questions of domestic interest and the prospect of what I may be able to do in the session of Parliament which is shortly to begin. There are two questions of great interest one upon which we are threatened with, perhaps, premature legislation ; another, upon which I think immediate legislation is absolutely necessary which I intend to leave untouched to-night. The first is secondary education. Upon that I shall have an opportunity of speaking in this town on the afternoon of Friday next. The other is the important and pressing topic of the voluntary school system in this country, and with regard to that I hope to speak in the Free- Trade Hall of Manchester on the evening of Tuesday in next week.* So I will to-night confine myself to the questions of * Post, p. 282. 72 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 7, i8<)6. foreign policy and to some of the many serious questions which we have at this moment under consideration. There are no less than five. We are at war with Ashanti, although for the last ten days certainly we have almost forgotten it ; and I saw the other day that the commander of our forces there had declared that the territory shall be annexed to the dominions of the Queen. We have in the Far East, as a consequence of the "war between China and Japan, certain questions of large interestaffectingpolitical and commercial matters, which threaten to cause disagreement between us and some of our rivals in the commercial affairs of that quarter of the world. Suddenly we hear next that the forces of one of those Chartered Companies, which we hoped would have been competent and peaceful authorities of the least-settled regions in South Africa, has in- vaded the territory of a friendly State ; and to our surprise, and to our great regret, the German Emperor has taken the oppor- tunity of telling us what it may be useful for us to know that we cannot look for any great friendship to him or his advisers in matters of State. There is another question. The President of the United States, with the assent of his Senate and the House of Representatives, has actually appointed a Commission to examine into our title to certain lands on the frontier of British Guiana, and has announced, with some stretch, perhaps, of even the rights of a President of the United States, that the decision of that commission, if adverse to us, will be asserted against us by the United States by force of arms. And to add the last topic to this terrible list, we are watching with great anxiety what the action or inaction of the European Powers may mean at Constantinople. We have there a question less affecting, I think, our interests, but more closely affecting our national honour and our duty than any one of the other four to which I have now referred. That is a serious and it is a sad calendar, raising questions of vast importance, showing to the people of this country that they may have to be prepared at any moment to fight for the honour of their empire or their right to perform in the world the duties which they owe to themselves and to civilisation. Thank Heaven, we are prepared. Fortunately for us there never was a time at which this country was better fitted, if the thing should come upon her, for entering even into the terrible contest of a European or a Transatlantic war. We fortunately have at the head of affairs a man of supreme capacity in foreign affairs, a man whose history and whose position, I think, satisfy all Englishmen without distinction of party, that at all events he may be trusted carefully to consider, patiently to judge, and firmly to assert, the position of this country in any question which may be raised. And Lord Salisbury has the great VENEZUELA. 73 advantage which other Ministers have not enjoyed, that he will speak with the unquestioned support of the Parliament of this country. All men, to whatever party they belong, may be congratulated upon this, that at this moment there is in the House of Commons so strong a majority that the Ministry will not be tempted to hesitate or falter because of the need of pacifying some small parliamentary group, but that the policy which is declared in the name of our country will undoubtedly receive the firm and the unswerving support of the great majority of the representatives of our people in Parliament. Fortunately, again, we are at a time of great national wealth. The resources of this country at this moment are in a better position, our treasury is richer, our capacity for expenditure is larger than it has ever been in the history of the world. And these dangers do not find us without special preparations for them. We have the finest navy that the world has ever seen. We have, we believe, an army in better condition and more fit for any work in any part of the world than our army has ever been before and in our own great commercial marine, and in other departments of our national and industrial activity, we have resources of strength such as no nation has ever before enjoyed. We should think of these things, not to boast of them, but because the thought of them enables us to judge calmly and quietly of the questions which are put before the country. No man could say that any course that England may take now is a course dictated by any consciousness of weakness, or any fear as to her capacity to meet her enemies in the gate. She is strong and she knows it. It is because she is strong that she can look with calmness upon the excite- ments and tumults which are coming to us from day to day, and that she can quietly and carefully consider how far her interest and duties compel her to advance. I named five matters of great foreign importance, but I shall speak to-night on only two. The war with Ashanti, when compared with other topics, is too small to make it necessary to be discussed here. The dangers of which I spoke as being possible in the Far East are as yet dangers of the future alone, and the possible solution of the question in the North Pacific may be found in the solution of one of the other questions in the list to which I have referred. The incidents in the Transvaal, sad and strange as they are, are at this moment enveloped in the strangest mystery. We do not know enough of what has happened, or of how it came to pass that that expedition started from the Chartered Company's territory, to be able usefully to say anything about that. There is only one word that can be said and should be said now, and that is a word of sorrow for the gallant young Englishmen, who I am sure with no 74 PL YMOUTH, JANUARY 7, 1896. thought of wrong obeyed orders they believed it to be their duty to obey, and went out on that expedition, and whose blood has been worse than wasted on the fields of the Transvaal. But the two questions on which I wish to speak to-night are, firstly, the question which, I think, more largely involves the interests of this country than any other of the five the question of our attitude towards the United States with regard to Venezuela, and that other question which, as I said, to my mind more deeply involves our national honour and duty than either that is, our policy in Turkey with respect to the government of the Armenian people. Now we have read a good deal about President Cleveland's message, and the assertion of what is called the Monroe doctrine. It certainly was a startling thing to see in the papers that the President of the United States had declared he was going, without anybody's invitation, to appoint a Commission, chosen by himself, without any consultation with us, which Commission was to report with regard to our right to territory at British Guiana, and that if they reported against us the United States would insist upon our obedience to the report of the Commission. It was certainly a startling thing I do not undertake to say what may have been the full explanation of that action on the part of President Cleveland. Of course, it was met as it ought to be met, by Lord Salisbury, by the firmest possible repudiation of the doctrines laid down in the despatch which preceded that message, and of the right of the United States to take any such position with regard to us and our territories. But the possibility of war between this country and the United States is so terrible, and the possibility of war is, to my mind, so clear and so full of danger that I wish to say something at greater length upon that subject. You are aware that the President based his message upon the assertion of what is called the Monroe doctrine. You may not all be familiar with the Monroe doctrine and its meaning or with its scope. In 1823 there were in South America certain Republics that had proclaimed their independence. Columbia was one of them, and Columbia included that very state of Venezuela, with regard to which we are now having these diffi- culties with the United States. In 1823 President Monroe laid down the proposition in a Presidental message that the United States would not permit the reconquest of any of those Republics by the European Powers to which they had formerly belonged. I will read the exact term of the Monroe doctrine of 1823, in order that you may clearly realise what was its original purpose and its limitations : " The political system of the Allied Powers is essentially different from that of America. We owe it, there- fore, to candour, and to the amicable relations existing between THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 75 the United States and those Powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European Power we have not interfered and shall not inter- fere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence, and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknow- ledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European Power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States." That is the famous declaration in the words in which it was made. American writers have spoken as though it were a rule of international law, but it is an entire misapprehension of language to apply any such term. Rules of international law are based upon the expressed acceptance of Powers, or upon the acquiescence of Powers during long periods of international relations. They may be universal rules, or they may be partial rules. There are some rules which may be fairly called universal the privileges of ambas- sadors, the obligations attaching to a flag of truce, the treatment of non-combatants, are all matters which, though not written in the text of treaties between nations, have been so dealt with for a long series of years, that we may fairly say they are established and accepted rules of inter- national law. There are other rules which are of merely partial application. Thus, in the year 1856, after the close of the Crimean War, four of the great European Powers attached their names to what was called "The Declaration of Paris," and by the rules laid down in that declaration, as be- tween France, England, Russia, and Germany, we were all bound. One of these rules had reference to privateering, and the other was that a neutral flag should cover an enemy's goods. But the United States never accepted them, and is not bound by them at this moment ; and if to-morrow we were at war with the United States we should be perfectly entitled to send out privateers, and to seize United States goods, although under a neutral flag ; although of course it is probable that the European nations in that case might insist on the observance by both combatants of the rules of the Declaration of Paris, and could easily do so if they were agreed upon the subject. But you see these are partial rules of international law, touching only those who have accepted them and were parties to them. The Monroe doctrine is no rule of international law at all. True, it was laid down in the President's Message, but it has never been endorsed by the House of Representatives, or by the 76 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY j, 1896. Senate of the United States ; and although it has undoubtedly been acted upon from time to time by statesmen of the United States it has never been submitted to, or accepted by any Power on the face of the globe, and therefore it is clear that to talk of the Monroe doctrine as a rule of international law is an entire mistake. So from that point of view Lord Salisbury de- molished the American argument in the magnificent despatch one of the finest State papers ever written by an English Foreign Minister which he sent to the President of the United States. There is no need, therefore, to discuss it from that point of view, but there are one or two things arising out of the Monroe doctrine which we ought not to forget. Although not a rule of international law, any nation has the right to lay down, and to announce to others, a principle by which it will be guided in the conduct of its own foreign affairs ; and there can be no doubt, whether we like the principle or not, whether we think that it has by a most strained and forced construc- tion been made to bear a reference, or to appear to bear a reference to the circumstances of British Guiana, whatever judgment we may form upon it, there is no doubt that at this moment it is accepted by the United States people as a cardinal principle of their policy, and I think we should be foolish to doubt that they do assert its application to the present state of circumstances, and that they do intend to enforce it if they can and if the opportunity arises. We should not be too impatient or too angry with regard to it for two reasons. In the first place, that declaration of the Monroe doctrine was suggested to President Monroe and his advisers by one of the most brilliant English statesmen of this century. It was George Canning who suggested to the representative of the United States in this country, Mr. Rush, that it would be wise for some such convention to be made between this country and the United States ; and though no formal convention was made beween us there can be no doubt that it was at the suggestion and on the inspiration of George Canning that President Monroe laid down the doctrine that was conveyed in that message. And there is this also to be remembered, that the purpose and reason for which American statesmen have stood by that declaration is a good purpose and a sound reason. Their view was that if they could prevent the European Powers, military Powers, from taking hold or increasing their hold of the territory in America, they would exempt the continent in which they themselves were from that curse of military armaments which presses on the people of Europe at this moment. So, suggested as it was by a great English statesman, accepted as it was by the American people for a purpose which was good, and a reason which in itself was sound, VENEZUELA. 77 and justified as they believe it to be by the experience of the last seventy years, we must not quarrel with them, we should not be reasonable to quarrel with them, because they attach great importance to that statement of their national policy. But while we are unable to accept it, while we are understanding and trying to understand the value which they attach to it, and at the same time are not prepared to submit to this strained curious application of it in the appointment of this Commission, I think it is worth while at this moment, when people are even more calmly considering this question because of the anxiety which courses through their minds, that some little consideration should be given to this subject of Venezuela. There were two despatches of the 26th November. One was the remarkable State paper, of which I have spoken, in which Lord Salisbury has discussed the Monroe doctrine. The other was of more length and detail, and although it was signed by Lord Salisbury was no doubt prepared in the Foreign Office. It dealt with the history of the Venezuelan question, and I think it is well that we should clear our minds on this controversy. I saw in the Times a day or two ago it was the last day of the old year I think and I saw repeated in a lead- ing article in the Times to-day, and also in a letter to the Times, the statement that Great Britain will not submit to the arbitration of her claims in British Guiana within a certain line called the Schomburgk line, and that she will submit to arbitration nothing except that which is outside the line so named. Now, if that is the attitude which this country is going to take we shall have war with the United States, and war in which we shall not be right. The history of this controversy is one with which I wish to deal. When we became possessed of that which we call British Guiana we became possessed of what are called " three establishments." There were upon the great river three trading establishments. No territory was assigned to them no exact boundary line had ever been drawn the right of one nation or one party to the great tract of territory beyond had never been defined. We became pos- sessed of these three establishments in the year 1814. As time went on, and as the colonies began growing and groups of people were set down in this territory, it became necessary that the boundary should be defined, and there are amongst the Parliamentary papers presented in the year 1840 two letters, which I do not think have been textually reproduced in this country. One was a letter written by the Colonial Office, dated 6th March 1840 : " I am to request you will observe to Lord Palmerston that Lord John Russell considers it to be important that the boundaries between British Guiana and the conterminous 78 PLYMOUTH, /ANUARY 7, r8q6. territories should be certified and agreed upon if possible, and that Mr. Schomburgk's researches in these parts, which were conducted under the direction of the Royal Geographical Society with the aid of Her Majesty's Government, have qualified him in a peculiar manner to be of use should the services of any person acquainted with the geography of British Guiana be required for the delimitation of the British territories." On the 1 8th March that was answered by a letter from the Foreign Office : " I am directed by Viscount Palmerston to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th inst., enclosing copies and extracts of despatches and their enclosures from Mr. Light, Governor of British Guiana, relative to the expediency of an arrangement with the Brazilian, Venezuelan, and Netherland Governments, by which the boundaries of British Guiana may be accurately defined. With reference to that part of your letter in which you state that Lord John Russell considers it to be important that the boundaries of British Guiana should be ascertained and agreed upon, if possible, and that Mr. Schomburgk's researches in these parts have qualified him in a peculiar manner to be of use in case the services of any person familiar with the geography of British Guiana be required in fixing the boundaries of British territory, I am to state that the course of proceeding which Lord Palmerston would suggest for the consideration of Lord John Russell is that a map of British Guiana should be made out according to the boundaries described by Mr. Schomburgk, that the map should be accom- panied by a memoir describing in detail the natural features which define and constitute the boundaries in question, and that copies of the map and memoir should be delivered to the Governments of Venezuela, Brazil, and the Netherlands as a statement of the British claims ; that in the meanwhile British Commissioners should be sent to erect landmarks on the ground in order to mark out by permanent erections the line of the boundary as claimed by Great Britain. It would then rest with each of the three before-mentioned Governments to make any objection which they might have to bring forward against these boundaries, and to state the reasons upon which such objections might be founded, and her Majesty's Government would then give such answer thereto as might appear proper and just." It has been suggested that the Schomburgk line, which was a line drawn in consequence of that despatch, was a line of concession, of yielding, and not the line of specific British claims. I do not think it is possible to contend that Lord Palmerston was the man to lightly limit the territories of this VENEZUELA. 79 country, and it is perfectly clear that the line which was marked in pursuance of that despatch by Mr. (afterwards Sir Robert) Schomburgk, and was marked by posts on the line, was not a line which we meant to yield to Venezuela, but the line over which we intended to claim jurisdiction. Nothing has happened since 1840 which could enlarge our territory in that district. Nothing has happened since that date to give us any land that we were not then entitled to ; and although, undoubtedly, it would be wise to leave open certain points for consideration in making a new settlement, I do not think it is possible now to contend, fifty-five years after that paper was written and that map prepared, that our territory is extended. We may say that fifty-five years ago we settled our boundary line and would not allow anybody to interfere with it now. That would be an intelligible, perhaps defensible, position. But unfortu- nately other things have happened. Directly the line was indicated by fixed posts the Venezuelan Government protested, and the British Government gave way and removed two of the posts at the more important part of the delimitation, though they did not mean to yield their claim to the territory. And in 1850 there seems to have been the most unfortunate agreement into which a country can possibly enter an agree- ment not to agree. They agreed in 1850 that the question between Venezuela and British Guiana should be left alone, and that meanwhile upon the disputed lands which were not defined, neither side should make any settlement. For about thirty years that agreement stood. It has been violated the Venezuelans say by us ; we say by the Venezuelans. Probably as there was no definition of the disputed lands, it has been violated in fact by both. But it prevented and postponed for thirty years the settlement of this question, which every day has grown more difficult of adjustment and more important. And then, I regret to say, there was another mistake. I am saying nothing to-night with regard to party matters. I need say nothing of party upon either of these two questions. In respect to Turkey, I believe the policy of this country during the past ten years has been continuous, whether Lord Salisbury or Lord Rosebery was at the Foreign Office. With regard to Venezuela, that controversy has gone on for fifty-five years, and the ways of our Foreign Office are so leisurely that although you can tell the date of a particular despatch, it is hardly possible to say by which Minister it was that that despatch was directed or determined upon. But in 1880 there was a chance of settlement. Lord Aberdeen had proposed, only four years after the Schomburgk was marked, a line giving to the Venezuelan Government much more than that line would have given ; and in 1880 the Venezuelan Govern- So PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 7, r8<)6. ment offered to be satisfied with Lord Aberdeen's line. On the other hand, another line was proposed by our Government, and then, I think, a few years later the thing might have gone to arbitration. But a strange proposal of arbitration was made to the Venezuelan Government in 1886, which they did not accept, and which nobody could accept the proposal that between these two lines suggested in 1880 there should be an arbitration, but that the arbitrator was to be directed not to find out which was the proper line, but as fairly as he could to divide the disputed territory into two parts and give half to each side. Well, that is a very different form of arbitration. I do not wonder it was not accepted. But if a true arbitration had then been proposed I think it was possible that this dispute which really then would have been narrowed to a very small area, might have been disposed of in 1886. Now, with these facts before us, it cannot be too late for a peaceful settlement of a question such as this. Each side must to some extent give way. We cannot under any circumstances admit the authority of the Commission which has been appointed in the United States. We cannot under any circumstances recognise it, or take any notice of it, or its decisions ; or submit to any orders which may be given to us by the Government of the United States in fulfilment of that ill-advised message of President Cleveland. But, on the other hand, it is not reasonable for us to say that the line which we in 1840 laid down and com- municated to other Powers, and communicated to Parliament, as being the limit of our claims to territory, is now to be con- sidered a fixed and unalterable line, and to say that we will only arbitrate in respect to areas which are outside. That would be to take as unreasonable an attitude as the United States has taken in the message which President Cleveland has given. I hope that, without taking any notice of the United States Commission, our Government will be able to resume the work of negotiation with Venezuela direct upon this matter. I trust that some mediator will be found not to say between the two lines whether this line or that shall be accepted, still less to say that a particular place in dispute is to be divided as nearly as possible between the two, but some mediator who, looking on the whole history of the case, at the present condition of the settlements in that country, at the natural delimitations which are to be found there and are indicated upon the map, will say, as between England and Venezuela, here the proper line should be drawn. I think that such a mediator may be found, and that his judgment may with honour be accepted by this country as well as by Venezuela. No doubt if that course is taken we shall have something to bear. We shall have to bear taunts and jibes from political opponents here, possibly ARMENIA. 8 1 from those who are not fond of England on the other side of the Atlantic. It will not be pleasant to be told that we have given away. It will not be pleasant to be told that after such a message sent to Congress, Great Britain has consented to arbitrate upon matters upon which she had before refused. It will not be pleasant. But what of that ? I do not believe in that false and bastard honour which is afraid to do justice because justice has been demanded with an insult or a menace. It is our business, especially in face of the fearful calamity which would be involved in an armed contest between this country and the United States, to make up our mind what is right in this matter. And when we have made up our mind what it is right to do, let us do it quietly, calmly, not caring what may be said of us, or what taunts may be uttered, but content that we shall have helped to preserve the peace of the world by that conduct which alone is worthy of a great nation the capacity to do right, whatever the consequences or the provocation may be. And now I pass to speak of another topic. One of the saddest aspects of this dispute with the United States to my mind was that it set at enmity two Powers which I had believed were more anxious than any Powers in the world to secure the good government of the Christian populations of Turkey. It is true that there does not rest upon the United States that special obligation of honour and duty which rests upon this country. It is not a matter which we can turn away from as if the past history of our diplomacy and our nation enabled us to choose whether we would or would not concern ourselves in the good government of the Christian provinces of Turkey. In 1856, at the end of a war which would have destroyed the Sultan but for the support which he had from French and English arms, the Sultan declared, in the ninth clause of the Treaty of 1856, that he would give good government to his people without regard to race and creed, and that he would take firm measures for securing that good government to them. Twenty-two years passed on, and when the trouble of 1878 was upon him, little indeed, if anything, had been done to fulfil the obligations which Turkey came under to Europe and the world in the year 1856. In 1878 he was saved again saved, not by a costly and terrible war, but by the courage and strength of a great English Minister who had the people at his back. Then in the treaty of Berlin, there was another assurance given of the good government of the Christian provinces of Turkey. Seventeen years have passed away since then, and we have, to our horror and indignation, scenes of misgovernment, and cruelty, and massacre in Armenia which have aroused I do not wonder at it, and I am glad of it the somewhat passionate F 82 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 7, fSy6. indignation of the people of this country. There is one reason why I could have wished that Parliament had met a little earlier. It is that we might know who is the traitor to that concert of Europe which, we were assured, was going to do great things for the people of Armenia. I am sure there has been no flinching on Lord Salisbury's part. Months ago, directly he came to power, he took the strong step of giving the most serious warning to the Sultan of Turkey in a speech in the House of Lords in words of which I think we, his followers, are proud words to which I am sure he will not be untrue to-day or in the future. He said : "The independence of Turkey, though it is written in the public law of Europe, though it is guaranteed by the Treaties of Berlin and Paris, is yet a very special kind of independence that exists by reason of the agreement of other Powers that they will not interfere with it and that they will maintain it. ... The Sultan will make a great and calamitous mistake if, for the sake of main- taining a more formal independence, for the sake of resisting a possible encroaching on his nominal prerogatives, he refuses to accept the assistance and to listen to the advice of the European Powers in extirpating from his dominions an anarchy and weakness which no treaties and no sympathy will prevent from being fatal in the long run to the empire over which he rules." Those were significant and strong words all the more signifi- cant because they were spoken by the Prime Minister of this country in his place in Parliament, and were a conspicuous departure from the ordinary course of dealing with or warning foreign Powers. But there were stronger words still, heard on a still greater occasion. I was at the Guildhall Banquet on the 9th of November, and heard the great speech which Lord Salisbury then made a speech listened to, as it deserved to be, with breathless silence by men who, I believe, were satisfied that in the speaker they had a resolute upholder of the duties and rights of this country. He pointed still more clearly the warning he had given three months before. He said : " If you can persuade the Sultan to give justice to the Armenians, you need not trouble yourself upon what paper the promise is written or in what character it is couched. If the Sultan does not give justice, will not heartily resolve to give justice to the Armenians, the most ingenious Constitution that you can weave together will not avail to protect or to assist them. . . . While I readily admit that it is quite possible for the Sultan of Turkey, if he will, to govern all his subjects in justice and in peace, he is not exempt more than any other potentate from the law that injustice will bring the highest to ruin." They were weighty words. I did not doubt, and I do not doubt, that Lord Salisbury was then prepared, and is now prepared, to use the whole of ARMENIA. 83 that great power which he possesses as the representative of this country to bring the Sultan of Turkey to the fulfilment of his duty to civilisation. But I much fear that the concert of Europe which Lord Salisbury is supposed to have invented, and by which he is supposed to have been supported, has had among its members some Power less unselfish than he, some Power which has endeavoured to hinder instead of helping the work of reform in Turkey, unless it was allowed to do so on its own terms and in its own way. I want to know what that Power is ; and I am anxious that when Parliament meets papers on this subject shall be presented, and information given by which our people may be assured it is not the courage and purpose of the English Ministry that has failed ; that this defeat of Europe which has taken place, this procrastination and deliberation that have held the Powers at arm's length for three weeks over a trumpery question of the passage of gun- boats into the Dardanelles, whilst misgovernment and massacres were going on, is not the work of an English Ministry. We want to know, if we can, upon whom to lay the blame for this defeat of the highest purposes of the concert. I think the two questions we have been dealing with to-night are in a sense connected. On the Venezuelan question, I have made an appeal that it shall be considered calmly, with reference to historic fact, and that if a conclusion is come to that the demands we have hitherto made cannot in their fulness be sustained, that we should calmly and quietly and fully waive those demands. The principle in each case is the same. It is a rule a rule of the world that he who claims justice must do justice. There is no use in our attempting to enforce good government and wise counsels upon another Government if we allow our judgment to be overborne by excitement and passion, and are not prepared to do the right thing for others as well as ourselves. I trust we may soon find a solution of the difficulty with Venezuela. I trust some mediator will be found who will mark the line which all may accept, that we may forget the words spoken or the menaces made on one side or the other, and that we may be able again to go with the United States of America in those purposes common to us, and to secure good government both there and here. I am quite sure if this course could be taken it is possible that this year, beginning as it does in dark- ness and anxiety, may yet* turn out to have been a happy year after all. This it will do if it gives us the opportunity of show- ing that the cause of right and justice throughout the world shall be maintained not only by the skill of our diplomacy and, if needful, by the power of our arm, but by a still more potent factor, the authority of our calm and constant example. 84 ' PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 4, 1897. The Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland. ANNUAL ADDRESS TO THE ELECTORS OF PLYMOUTH AT THE GUILDHALL. JANUARY 4, 1897. SIR, there is one subject which you have mentioned to which I propose to devote practically the whole of the speech which I shall make to-night. It is not a subject which, upon the face of it, is particularly attractive, because when we mention finance it suggests a dull speech with a number of figures in it. But this is a subject which has suddenly become of very great importance, and of which we shall undoubtedly hear a great deal in the House of Commons in the course of the coming session. There has been published a report upon the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland which will form a topic of discussion in Parliament, and as a consequence of which we shall probably have an amendment to the Address within the course of the first few days of the Parliamentary session. I am going to ask the indulgence of this audience to-night if I speak simply and entirely upon that one financial topic, and endeavour to put before you as clearly as I possibly can the various considerations to be discussed in Parliament with respect to what will be acknowledged to be an extremely important question. The history of the financial relations between Ireland and Great Britain commences practi- cally with the Act of Union at the beginning of this century. Before the present century, that is, during the time of Grattan's Parliament, from 1783 to 1800, Ireland was separate in her exchequer from the exchequer of Great Britain, and her revenue was raised separately, and gave practically a very small contribution indeed to the Imperial expenses of this country. Her contribution to the expenses of the great war was an extremely small one from 1783 to 1800. Her revenue was something under two millions a year, and she made, as I have said, very little contribution to the Imperial expenditure. By the time we get to the year 1800, which was the time of the union, the people of Great Britain were ten millions in number, and were paying 3 per head in taxes, whereas the people of Ireland, numbering five millions, or one-half as many as in Great Britain, paid only icw. per head, or one-sixth per head of the contribution paid by the people of Great Britain. FINANCIAL RELATIONS. 85 During the time of Grattan's Parliament Ireland got into some- thing like distress and disaster. Her deficits during the last seven years of that Parliament amounted to sixteen millions, and so bad was her credit that in order to raise that sixteen millions she had to incur no less than twenty-six millions of debt. It was in these circumstances that by the genius and ability of two great statesmen, Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh, the Act of Union was carried through. By the act of Union the arrangement was made by which Ireland was to bear two-seventeenths of the taxation of the whole kingdom. And that upon the face of it did not seem to be an unfair arrange- ment. Taking into consideration the population of the two islands at that time, it amounted to this, that by the Act of Union every individual in Great Britain would pay 3^ times as much as each person in Ireland 3^ times as much per head. And there is no reason to believe that there was any neglect of Ireland's interest at the time that the Act of Union was passed, nor that the statesmen of that time were at all indifferent to the condition of Ireland, and the position that she was in of in- feriority in wealth to this country. They arranged this two-seven- teenths to be her contribution. But it was too much. Ireland could not pay it. The great war between this country and the power of France, instead of coming to an end, extended its area and became more and more costly ; and the two-seventeenths which Ireland was called upon to pay was far more than in reality her people could bear. But she never paid it. For the sixteen years that passed between the Act of Union and the consolidation of the Exchequers of the two countries, Ireland only continued to raise about the same amount in taxation as she had raised before. She actually bore taxes to the extent of about one-thirteenth of the amount raised from Great Britain, but she increased her debt by no less than eighty-four millions of money. It was fortunate for her that she had not to raise that money upon the terms upon which she was obliged to borrow before the year 1800, for whereas under Grattan's Parliament, with a deficit of sixteen millions of money she had to raise a debt of twenty- six millions to meet it, under the Act of Union the deficits of eighty-two millions were covered by a debt of only eighty- four millions. But by the year 1816 it had become clear that the relations befween the countries required to be further adjusted. The great statesmen who had framed the Act of Union had foreseen that, and in the seventh article of the Act of Union there had been a provision that if at any time the debt of Ireland came to be in proportion to the debt of Great Britain in the proportion of two to fifteen, and if the Parliament should declare that it was desirable in 86 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 4, 1897. future to raise revenue by taxes imposed equally upon different articles throughout the two countries, then it should be competent for Parliament to unite the financial administration of the two countries. But in the Act of Union there was a very important provision, which was that if Parliament should make this declaration, that then, thenceforward the revenue of the whole country should be raised by taxes imposed indiscriminately on the same articles in the different countries, "subject" and these words we find in the Act of Union, "to such exemptions or abatements in case of Ireland and Scotland as might be thought proper." That had been put in the Act of 1800, and when they came to 1816 Parliament adopted these words, and made a declaration in the month of May 1816, following the provisions of the Act of Union, and containing some words which I should like to read. You will hear this very much discussed during the next few weeks, and perhaps months, and it is important to remember these words. The resolution was : " That all future expenses hence- forth to be incurred, together with the interest and charges of all joint debts contracted previous to this declaration, shall be defrayed indiscriminately by equal taxes imposed on the same articles in each country, and from time to time as circumstances may require ; such taxation shall be imposed and applied accordingly, subject only to such parti- cular exemptions or abatements in Ireland and in that part of Great Britain called Scotland as circumstances may appear from time to time to demand." That resolution was passed in the month of May 1816, and from January 5, 1817, until to-day the system of taxation in Great Britain and Ireland has been one system of taxation, not absolutely equal in both countries, because exemptions and abatements have been made, but the whole of the taxes taken in Ireland and the taxes raised in Great Britain have, from January 5, 1817, been carried to one consolidated fund, out of which the expenses of the empire have been met. I said there had been exemptions and abatements made, and it is of cardinal impor- tance in discussing this matter you should notice that both in the Act of Union and in the resolution of 1816, which brought into one system the finances of the two countries, there was a provision that special exemptions and abatements might be made for " Ireland, or for that part of Great Britain called Scotland." Now, from 1817 for just about seventy years, with only occasional and slight complaint on the part of the representatives of Ireland, this system of joint taxation had been carried on both in this country and in Ireland. But in the year 1886 there came the proposal, as you know, of the FINANCIAL RELATIONS. 87 Home Rule scheme, and directly it was contemplated that there should be separation in the Government and in the Parliament between Ireland and this country, it became important, of course, for the purpose of that scheme, to examine what share of the public expenditure Ireland in fairness ought to bear. Certain investigations were made, not of a very careful and not of a very successful character. But, as you know, in 1886 the House of Commons rejected the Home Rule Bill and for a time any investigation of these financial relations between Ireland and Great Britain with reference to the Scheme of Home Rule passed out of the line of political discussion. But the questions that had been raised in 1886, with regard to the fairness of the contribu- tions of Ireland, were questions which were not allowed to sleep ; and in the year 1890, Mr. Goschen, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed to the appointment of a committee of the House, which was to examine into the equity of the financial relations existing between Ireland and Great Britain. From different reasons, which I need not stop to discuss, that com- mittee never did any work at all ; it never met, in fact, for consideration of the matter which was referred to it. But after the second Home Rule scheme had been introduced in 1893, a commission was appointed by the late Government, which was instructed to inquire into the financial relations between Ireland and Great Britain, to inquire into the taxable capacity of Ireland, and into the relations which should properly exist upon this subject. That commission was ap- pointed by the late Government, but it was recognised by the present Government. Mr. Childers was chairman of that commission, but before it completed its labours Mr. Childers died, and in the month of March 1896, the present Home Secretary (Sir M. White Ridley), by letters addressed to the commission, authorised them to appoint another chairman and complete their labours. They have completed their labours. They have made, I will not say a report, but they have made several reports, signed each by individual members of the commission, upon the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, and it is out of the discussion of those reports that the questions have arisen which are now exciting a great deal of very strong anjd ardent feeling apparently upon both sides of St. George's Channel. We have seen in Ireland a very remarkable spectacle during the last few weeks. We have seen in Dublin, in Limerick, and in other great towns, large assemblages of Irish people called together. There have been on the platform prominent representatives of the Unionist cause side by side with the most extreme representatives of the Nationalist cause. We have seen an Archbishop of the ProteS' 88 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 4, 1897. tant Church of Ireland standing on the platform along with dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church ; the lord-lieutenants of some of the counties of Ireland have called meetings, and have been in the chair, and there have been speaking at those meetings, or been present, men who have been the strongest antagonists of the Unionist party and the most violent leaders of the Nationalist cause indeed, at one of the meetings one of the " political prisoners," as they are called, one who lately was released from prison, took part in the proceedings. There have been in Ireland many things said which, to say the least, are extremely unfortunate. One speech especially has been made by an Irish Unionist peer (Lord Castletown), which was couched in terms which were certainly extremely unfortunate. But there is undoubtedly a great deal of very strong feeling aroused in Ireland upon this subject, and we shall have to face that fact in the House of Commons when it meets. 1 here probably will be a movement not by one section of the Irish members, but by the whole of the Irish members, Unionist as well as Nationalist, in order to redress the grievance under which they conceive themselves to be suffering. On the other side, there has been said, both in speech and in writing, much which I think as lamentable as anything that has been said on any platform in Ireland. It has been said that this com- mission was a packed commission, and that it was appointed for the purpose of assisting the scheme of Home Rule, and that therefore to accept or even to quietly discuss what that commission has ascertained or reported is to assist the revival of the Home Rule Scheme. It was a packed com- mission. It was a commission consisting almost entirely of those who belong to the political party to which I am opposed, and of those who are pledged to a scheme of Home Rule, and therefore if we were called upon to discuss the proceedings of the commission or the advice given by them with regard to national policy, I, for one, should attach no importance whatever to their recommendation. I should refuse to accept, or even to consider, those recommendations, until they had been discussed by a commission more fairly composed and more fairly representative of both countries, as well as of both parties. But I cannot conceal from myself the fact that although upon any question of Imperial policy, especially upon any question connected with Home Rule, the opinion or report of that commission would be of very little authority, still, it was so constituted that upon the question of financial fact it was a very strong commission indeed. Mr. Childers had filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, amongst others, there sat with him upon that commission Lord Farrar, who is well known and well trusted as an inquirer FINANCIAL RELATIONS. 89 into statistical facts ; Lord Welby, who has long been associated with the administration of the Treasury ; Mr. Bertram Currie, who died the other day, and was a well-experienced and well- trusted financier. The members of the commission had before them to give evidence Sir Edward Hamilton, who has long represented the Treasury, and Sir Robert Giffen, whose know- ledge and whose authority with regard to statistical matters no one can deny. And while I should refuse absolutely to pay any respect to the recommendations of such a commission on a question of policy ; while I should recognise as destroy- ing the value of its judgment upon such a question, the fact that it was appointed as a packed commission, I cannot refuse to accept especially after very carefully reading and studying the reasons which they give I cannot refuse to accept the conclusions of fact to which that commission has come. And I want to examine those conclusions of fact, and to induce you to see with me to what fair result they lead in determining our attitude in the discussion which is about to arise. Now, the facts that are come to are these, that at this moment Ireland is paying about one- thirteenth of the whole taxation of the country ; but that the wealth of Ireland, so far as it can be determined by examination of all sorts of different subjects the amount of things consumed, amount of imports and exports, the death duties, the amount of the assessments, the income- tax, and the like instead of being one-thirteenth is only one- eighteenth part of the wealth of the United Kingdom. And there is a further conclusion, which seems to me upon a careful study of the evidence not only a right but a moderate conclusion, that while the wealth of Ireland would form one- eighteenth part of the wealth of the United Kingdom, the taxable capacity of Ireland cannot be put higher than one- twentieth of the taxable capacity of the whole kingdom. I stop for a moment to say a word or two upon that distinction. What is the distinction between wealth and taxable capacity ? Why, when Mr. Pitt was framing the Act of Union, he had that very point in his mind, for in the year 1785 he made a speech in which he said that his opinion was that a people which was only double in resources and established trade the wealth of another country might have the capacity of paying ten times as much in taxes. It was putting it, no doubt, too high. It was putting it in a rhetorical way. But it establishes this principle, which I do not think any economist will seriously deny, that when you are judging of the relative taxable capacity of two peoples, if one people is much wealthier as a body than the other, you ought to take so much for the absolutely necessary expenditure of each country before you make a comparison of their taxable capacity. And the result of the moderate estimate, 90 PL Y MOUTH, JA NUARY 4, as I take it, which is given by this commission upon a consideration of the facts, is that whereas Ireland now pays one-thirteenth part of the taxation, her wealth is only equal to one-eighteenth part, and her taxable capacity is only equal to one-twentieth part. Before one goes a step further to ask what consequence is to follow from the ascertainment of these facts, it is somewhat interesting to ask how it is that this has come about. It was never intended by the framers of the Act of Union, nor was it ever contemplated by those who passed the resolution in 1816. It was thought by Mr. Pitt and Lord Castlereagh at the beginning of the century, and it was thought by those who passed the resolution in 1816, that by extending taxation upon the same main subjects of taxation to both countries you would get a fair representation in the taxes raised of the relative capacity of those countries. Their ex- pectation was a just one, I dare say ; but the history of the disadvantage under which Ireland has fallen is curious and instructive. It is in the main owing to that which is called the Free-trade policy of the Liberal party during the early part of the century, or about the middle of the century I mean the free import policy which was adopted by Parliament. That policy had the result of taking taxes off a number of things that came from abroad for consumption in this country, things which were far more largely consumed in the rich districts than they were in the poor ones, and therefore that policy relieved the taxpayers of Great Britain to a very much greater extent than it relieved the taxpayers of Ireland. There is one passage in this Blue-book which, when one remembers by whom it was written, is very curious, interesting, and signifi- cant, not with regard only to the present condition of Ireland with respect to taxation, but significant with regard to the position of agricultural communities, whether they are found m Ireland or any other part of the United Kingdom. Mr. Childers, who wrote this passage, was a resolute and devoted Free-trader. Hear what he says with regard to the influence of the Free-trade policy upon the condition and prosperity of Ireland : " Ireland, being a country mainly inhabited by agricultural producers, could support its present population upon the corn and meat produced there without having recourse, under ordi- nary circumstances, to a foreign supply of these articles, and could at the same time export a surplus of these food-stuffs. The population of Ireland consumes a rather larger amount, in proportion to its wealth, of spirits, tea, and tobacco. This being so it does not appear that a fiscal system which raises no revenue from foreign food-stuffs, but does raise a large revenue from spirits, tea, and tobacco, is advantageous to the FINANCIAL RELATIONS. 91 population of Ireland, although it may be advantageous to the population of the United Kingdom looked at as a whole. It may even perhaps be said that just as Ireland suffered in the last century from the protective and exclusive com- mercial policy of Great Britain, so she has been at a dis- advantage in this century from the adoption of an almost unqualified Free-trade policy for the United Kingdom." But whilst it has been the Free-trade policy which has so injuriously affected the financial relations of Ireland, there is one person to whom almost exclusively the credit is due of having made those alterations in taxation which have pro- duced injustice to Ireland, and that person is Mr. Gladstone. In the year 1853 Mr. Gladstone extended the income-tax to Ireland, and between the years 1853 and 1860, chiefly and almost entirely under his inspiration, the taxes in Ireland were increased to an extent which has added to the burdens of that country ever since the year 1860 a sum of very nearly two and a half millions a year. The changes were certainly remarkable. In the year 1853 the taxation upon spirits in this country was Js. rod. per gallon. It was raised by 1860 to ios., an increase of about 33 per cent. In Ireland in 1853 the tax upon spirits was only 2s. 8d., but there it was raised to ios. by the year 1860. That is to say, the tax upon spirits in Ireland was made four times as much as it was at the be- ginning ot those seven years. It is those changes chiefly, and almost entirely, made by Mr. Gladstone in the taxation of those subjects, and in the relief of the imports that I have mentioned, which have cast upon Ireland that additional taxa- tion of two and a half millions, of which she is now complaining. Well, you may say that there is a puzzle here that you have raised the tax upon spirits, it is true, but that you have raised it as much in Great Britain raised it to as high a point in Great Britain as you have in Ireland ; and many people say that if the Irish people do not have to pay a larger tax upon their whisky than the people of Great Britain do, there cannot be any possible hardship in the matter. Let me explain to you the different points. If you have an old-established country, with a very large accumulation of taxable wealth, as you have in this country, you are able to raise by direct taxation upon the wealth of the people a very large proportion of your income. Of every ^100 raised in this country in taxation about ^53 is raised by taxes upon commodities the people consume ; but in Ireland out of every ^100 raised in taxation no less than 76 is raised by taxation chiefly upon the four objects of taxation spirits, beer, tea, and tobacco which form the great bulk of the tax-bearing commodities in both countries. And when you have a country making a contribution of one-thirteenth of the total taxation 92 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 4, '#97- levied, while its wealth is only one-eighteenth, it is easy to explain, it is easy to see, that that country must raise its taxation, not by direct taxation, but by taxation upon the commodities consumed by its people. But then it is sometimes said, " Oh, well, but if the Irish drink so much whisky and are only asked to pay the same tax upon it per gallon as a man in Great Britain has, there is no unfairness then." Let us examine that. There is an idea that the Irish people consume a much larger quantity of spirits per head than other inhabitants of these islands. That is not a fact. In Great Britain the expenditure upon spirits per head is i. gs. per year ; in Ireland the expenditure is i. 6s. 6d. per year ; but the tax upon spirits is so much larger than the tax upon the other popular drinks of the inhabitants of Great Britain that the Irishman has to bear a large excess of taxation. Let me give you two or three more figures which are interesting. The average expenditure of the people of Great Britain upon intoxicating drink that is, upon spirits and beer is no less than 4. 2s. per head. The expenditure in Ireland is only 2. 135. per head. So unequal is the tax upon spirits and beer respectively that the man in Great Britain who spends ^4. 2s. upon intoxicating drink in the year is only taxed upon that to the extent of 153. 6d., whereas the Irishman who spends 2. 133. in the year is taxed to the extent of 133. 6d. ; and the consequence is an inequality of taxation of which, it seems to me, Ireland has good reason to complain. Assuming these figures to be true, it does not seem to me it can be just that a country which has one-eighteenth part of the wealth should be called upon to bear one-thirteenth part of the taxation. It certainly is not carrying out the principles and the provisions of the Act of Union, or of the resolution of 1816. It has been said, and said strongly, that this idea of Ireland being a sepa- rate taxable entity is a new one ; it has been put down to some unguarded observation made by Mr. Goschen, or some unwise phrase used in debate. If one were dealing with phrases, wise or unwise, used by any leader of the Unionist party, I confess I should not feel myself very much fettered or limited by those observations, but I do feel fettered or limited by the terms of the Act of Union and the resolution of 1816. When I find in the terms of the Act of Union and the resolu- tion of 1816 that Ireland and Scotland were both recognised as taxable entities, whose circumstances were to be considered, then I think that, taking one's stand, not upon any recent declaration of any leader, but upon the plain declaration of the Act of Union itself, we are bound to give consideration to this Irish cause and to see where the grievance is, and how, if there be grievance, it ought to be remedied. But there are some other things to be taken into consideration. We have in Ireland FINANCIAL RELATIONS. 93 an extremely expensive civil administration, and while this curious change has been taking place in the infliction of taxation upon Ireland, there has been another change, no less remarkable, in the relation of Irish finance to Imperial finance. In 1860 the revenue raised from Ireland was very nearly the same as it is now, seven and three-quarter millions. In 1860 two millions four hundred thousand was the amount spent upon the adminis- tration of Ireland, and five and a half millions were con- tributed to the Imperial expenditure of the country. These figures have now almost exactly changed. At this moment the expense of administration in Ireland is no less than five and a half millions a year, or rather over, while the contribu- tion which it makes- to the Imperial expenses of the country has fallen to about two millions. The question at once arises, How are you to reconcile the claim which Ireland is making for a reduction of taxation, with the fact that she only con- tributes one-thirty-first portion of the Imperial expenditure of the country? There is this to be said about the enormous increase of expenditure, that it cannot be put down to the fault of the Irish people. It is not unnatural that the Irish members should have said that their country is being over- taxed, and that they should have tried to get back as much as possible. I am afraid it must be said that this greatly increased expenditure on administration in Ireland has been due to the corruption practised by both political parties in turn, in using Imperial funds for the purpose of pacifying, or bidding for the friendship of the Irish parties, by a too elaborate expenditure upon Irish administration. I have been now sixteen years in Parliament. I do not think I ever heard a proposal made by anybody for an economy in Irish adminis- tration. I am quite sure that if I had heard such a proposal from anybody I should have heard it resisted by the whole of the Irish members without distinction of party. But let us just consider what is the true proportion, upon those figures, which Ireland ought to bear as its fair share of expense. If it has one-twentieth of the taxable capacity of this country, the figure that it ought to raise is very easily arrived at. It so happens and it is very convenient that the matter should have to be discussed at this time, because the figures are so easily dealt with it so happens that the total expenditure of this country upon Imperial service and upon local administra- tion- is at this moment about one hundred millions, and, of course, one-twentieth part of that would be five millions. But suppose we take five and a half millions. That would be one- eighteenth. No one could reasonably suggest, if those figures that have been investigated are in any way trustworthy, that Ireland ought to be called upon to pay taxes to the amount 94 PL YMOUTH, JANUAR Y 4, 1897. of more than five and a half millions in the year. And that means a reduction from her present taxation of some two and a quarter millions. Well, but on the other hand, what ought she to pay for the expenses of her own administration ? It is said by some that if she has only to pay one-twentieth or one- eighteenth of the taxation of the whole country, she ought only to have one-eighteenth or one-twentieth to spend upon her civil administration. I don't think that will hold water for a moment. The expense of government does not depend upon the wealth of the country that is governed. It depends upon the number of the people, and the area you have to administer, and there are circumstances in Ireland which would make it unreasonable to call upon her to cut down suddenly the expenditure which was adjusted no doubt to a larger population than that which is now to be found within her borders. And, therefore, it seems to me she would have a right to claim that her local expenditure should be in proportion to her population ; that is to say, one-eighth of the thirty-six millions which are now being spent by the whole United Kingdom in local administration. That would be four and a half millions for the expenses of the Irish administration, and would leave one million for her to con- tribute to the Imperial purposes of this country. And I confess that I think, looking at the evidence which has been put before this commission, that the only way to deal with this matter would be that in some way or other this over-taxation of Ireland should be met by either a remission of taxation, or by a return to Ireland of so much of the taxes which she con- tributes to the Imperial Exchequer as to place her in a position of fairness and equality in this matter. Now, of course, it is not possible to reduce the taxation in Ireland only. Nobody would suggest, I think, reducing the taxes upon spirits in Ire- land. In the first place, it would probably lead to a much larger consumption of spirits, and that is not a result one would like to contemplate. In the next place you would have to set up as between Ireland and this country a system of Custom - House inspection, and to set up a Custom - House system, putting a barrier between this country and Ireland, would be a step towards the separation of the two countries, which I for one would never willingly consent to. Nor would it do to relieve her from the burden of the income-tax, because the income-tax does not fall on that class of the population who suffer most from the injustice which is now sustained. What can we do ? I think we could and ought to make a grant in some way from the Imperial Exchequer of an amount of one million a year, leaving the contribution of Ireland to Imperial purposes at one million, which is the full amount of the surplus FINANCIAL RELATIONS. 95 which she could have, supposing her to be taxed according to her capacity or her wealth as a surplus after defraying the proper expenses of her own administration. We should then still be in face of an expenditure in Ireland of five and a half millions a year upon civil establishments, which, if properly administered and adjusted to the reasonable needs of the country, would certainly not cost more than four or four and a half millions a year. Let Ireland clearly understand, then, that when this million has been given from the imperial Ex- chequer I do not stop to discuss the exact way in which it should be given that every shilling saved by any reduction that might be effected in the too large and too costly establish- ments in Ireland shall be devoted to special purposes of Irish advantage in compensation for the amount that has been taken in too heavy a taxation. I do not stop to discuss how this could be carried out. This is not the place to discuss that question. Next week this subject will come on in the House of Commons, and it is to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government of the day, and to Parliament itself, that the country may look for the fair consideration and discussion of the question. But that it should be fairly and candidly dis- cussed I have no doubt at all ; and my object in devoting to this subject the time I have this evening, was to point out to you that quite apart from any question of the political character of the commission, quite apart from any question involving political differences between us, it appears to be established upon evidence that cannot be controverted that Ireland at the present time is under a burden of taxation greater than she ought to be called upon to bear ; and I say if that injustice is established it ought at once to be remedied. Now, we are told I see it every day that such contentions as I have been discussing to-night, and as I have to some extent endorsed and supported, lead straight in the direction of disintegration or Home Rule. I am of precisely an opposite opinion. In my judgment it is essential to maintaining our position as Unionists that we should be prepared to listen to complaints of this kind, and should be prepared to remedy them if we find an injustice has been done. We owe justice to all. We owe that justice, strict and scrupulous justice, to the stranger ; and to one of our own household and family we owe something more than justice we owe the most generous consideration, the most anxious care to see lest there should have been any wrong done, the most determined resolution to remedy the wrong, if wrong there be ; and I do not think we should be diverted from that course of honour and of duty even if our poorer sister, who complains that injustice has been inflicted upon her, is somewhat querulous and somewhat unfriendly in the tone of her complaint. During the 96 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 4, 1897. last ten years we have been discussing a question which I have again and again spoken of here as the greatest question that has been before the country during the century the question whether Ireland and Great Britain were to remain under the care of one Imperial Parliament and one Administration. That battle has been fought and won ; and what was the greatest and strongest weapon by which that battle was fought and won ? The strongest weapon that we used was the declara- tion, which we challenged any one to contradict, that the Imperial Parliament might be trusted to do justice to Ireland in all its affairs. We declared this over and over again in Parliament, and here, and throughout the country, and I believe the fact that we were able to say it, and prove it, was the great argument which carried the people of this country with us in our resistance to Home Rule. We declared that there was no grievance which Ireland suffered, of which she could complain, which, if brought to the consideration and judgment of the Imperial Parliament, that Parliament would not be ready and willing to remedy. By that, and by that perhaps in chiefest measure, we won the victory against Home Rule. It is only by maintaining that attitude, and acting on that declaration, that we can worthily uphold the position we have so succeeded in winning ; and I think, so far from the raising of this question tending to the separation of the two countries, it is those who would prevent its being argued, and who attack the Irish people for making their complaint against us, who are going practically towards Home Rule. Let it once be established that Parliament is unwilling to listen to, and calmly and generously to consider, a real case of grievance on the part of Ireland, and those fires which were raging in Ireland, and which very nearly set light to a large part of our English people, and inflamed them in favour of Home Rule, will be lighted again. The only justification for maintaining, as we do now, the authority of one Parliament and one Administra- tion, is our readiness to do justice to Ireland. That was the reason why I desired at the earliest moment, and in that place where I love to speak first upon great public questions, to deal with this subject. I hope I have done something to make clear to you the issues which have been raised, and the evidence given upon them. I hope 1 have said something to my con- stituents in the first instance to justify the line I shall take in my place in Parliament, if this question is discussed first to examine if grievance there be, and then if a grievance be established, not only to recognise our responsibility to remedy it, but our obligation to address ourselves with all promptitude and resolution to the discharge of that which in my judgment would be a debt of duty and of honour. VENEZUELA AND ARMENIA. 97 Extract from a Speech at the Annual Dinner of the Plymouth Working - Men's Con- stitutional Club. JANUARY 5, 1897. THERE are two subjects upon which I do not doubt it was expected by my friends that I might say something on my present visit to Plymouth. They were the two subjects on which I dwelt in some detail when I addressed my constituents at the Guildhall in the month of January 1896. It will be remembered that at that time there was the probability of some trouble and dispute between ourselves and the United States in consequence of the position in which the controversy between British Guiana and Venezuela had then arrived. And I took the opportunity of addressing my constituents to deal with the history of the dispute as to the Venezuelan boundary. I spoke of the history of that controversy, and pointed out that the position which this country had taken during recent years in respect to that question was that a boundary which fifty years ago we had marked out as the limit of the claims of this country in respect of the boundary of British Guiana had now been asserted by us as a boundary with regard to which we would admit no dispute and accept no arbitration, but woufd assert it as a boundary which we intended to insist upon and only allow arbitration outside it. And I said then that I thought that was an indefensible position, and I said, as I thought and think, that if we upholding that position had gone to war with the United States it would have been a war in which we were clearly in the wrong. And I have said since, as you are aware, not in Plymouth, but elsewhere, that the claim that was made by this country was a preposterous claim. It was a preposterous claim, and I am very glad indeed that it has been absolutely and finally abandoned. We are now about, as I hope, to enter upon a treaty of arbitration with Venezuela, and under that treaty of arbitration our claim that the Schom- burgk line should be considered as an absolute boundary, with regard to which we would accept no discussion at all, has been completely and finally abandoned. I do not doubt that when we meet Venezuela fairly in the arbitration which is to take place that we shall be able to establish the clear and righteous claim of this country to large portions of the district which is in dispute. But I am glad to know that the obstacle which for so many years has prevented G 98 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY j, 1897. an arrangement between ourselves and Venezuela, and an obstacle which at one time seriously threatened to produce hostile feeling, and even, perhaps, hostile action, between this country and the United States, has now been withdrawn. There is only one observation that I would make now upon the subject of the Venezuelan Question, and it is that I am sincerely sorry that Lord Salisbury does not seem to have been able to carry out the desire which he expressed sixteen years ago for a somewhat different settlement of the Venezuelan Ques- tion. In the year 1880 a despatch was written by Lord Salisbury on behalf of the Government to which he belonged, in which he said to the Venezuelan Government, that " her Majesty's Government are of opinion that to argue the matter on the ground of strict right would involve so many intricate questions connected with the original discovery and settlement of the country, and subsequent conquests, cessions, and treaties, that it would be very unlikely to lead to a satisfactory solution of the question ; and her Majesty's Government would therefore prefer the alternative course suggested by you, of endeavouring to come to an agreement with the Government of Venezuela as to the acceptance by the two Governments of a frontier of accommodation which shall satisfy the respective interests of the two countries." I wish that the desire and opinion expressed in that despatch could have been carried out, for it would save the expense and delay of a long and very costly discussion of intricate matters now some two or three centuries old, and would, I believe, have secured a better frontier between Venezula and this country than is likely to result from this arbitration. But that is a minor matter. The important matter is that we have waived a claim which we were not entitled to make, and never should have made, and that by waiving that claim we have secured, I believe, a fair adjustment in the future of the controversy between this country and Venezuela, and at the same time have secured ourselves from the terrible risk of, upon a matter of this kind, embarking in hostilities with our cousins across the Atlantic. The other matter on which I spoke at the beginning of last year was the question of Armenia, and that matter has assumed a very remarkable aspect. We found that during the latter part of last year there was aroused a very strong public feeling upon the question of the massacres in Armenia and the conduct of the Porte with regard to them. And for a time it seemed as if there was a possibility of a recurrence of that party con- troversy which took place in the year 1876, and was connected with the incidents which then occurred in Bulgaria. But, fortunately for the country, and fortunately for Europe, that movement had scarcely commenced its operations before it ARMENIA. 99 was found that in substance the people of this country were at one upon the question, and that while on the one hand they were anxious and resolved to put a stop to the atrocities which it had shocked them to hear of in the east of Europe, on the other hand they were equally resolved that they would not hurry the Government of this country into any steps which might produce the calamity of a great European war without effectively redressing the grievances complained of by Armenia. And so as the agitation went on it was found that both parties were at one, and I had the remarkably pleasant experience of speaking at the Guildhall in the beginning of October last, moving a resolution, which was seconded by my colleague in the representation, Mr. Harrison, and speaking at a meeting which represented both sides in politics, but which was una- nimous in its determination to support Lord Salisbury in the policy he had deliberately adopted and pursued with regard to events in the east of Europe. I said it was an unusual and a pleasant experience. I am glad to be able to believe that the result of what took place during the autumn has been satisfactory. There can be little doubt that the visit which was paid by the Czar of Russia to this country was a visit which had considerable results, and one result seems to have been that Russia has come more into line with the other Powers of Europe in the determination to enforce on Turkey for enforcement is abso- lutely necessary the observance of those obligations of treaties, as well as those obligations of humanity and justice, which she had too obviously and too grossly been violating. We do not know exactly how the course of affairs is now going in the east of Europe. We are thankful to know that further massacres and atrocities have not taken place ; we are thankful to know that the Powers of Europe have stepped in and have secured and I see a telegram this afternoon which seems to complete the assurance an amnesty for the Armenians who had been arrested as political prisoners in consequence of the events which had taken place. We cannot tell how the Powers of Europe are moving, or by what steps they propose to enforce their collective will on the Porte, but I think we have the satisfaction of knowing that that Power which for some time interposed its will as opposed against the enforcement of good government on the Sultan by the rest of Europe, has now joined the other Powers, and I am persuaded that if the Powers of Europe are only at one on the policy they desire to enforce on the Porte, the Porte will yield to the necessity of the hour, and that without any chance of a European war there will be better security in future than in the past for the good govern- ment of the subject races of the Porte. There is only one other word on this subject which I want to say. Our political ioo PLYMOUTH, JANUARYS, 1897. opponents behaved extremely well during the agitation of last autumn, and, as a rule, there was no attempt made whatever to give a party colour to the agitation which then took place. Indeed, some of them are publicly lamenting now that they made no political capital out of the matter at all. It- is quite natural that they should desire to explain in some way the fact that they have been at one with us in the policy which was enunciated with respect to the East. It has therefore become rather a popular thing to say that Lord Salisbury and the Government of the day have disavowed and departed from our old traditional policy with regard to Turkey, and that Lord Salisbury has repudiated the policy of Lord Beaconsfield in this respect. It is an entire delusion. Lord Salisbury has never repudiated the policy of Lord Beaconsfield. He is not in the least likely to do so, because he was with Lord Beaconsfield in those matters which, eighteen years ago, involved the considera- tion of these very problems. He has continued, and is to-day continuing, the policy by which Lord Beaconsfield was guided in affairs from 1876 to 1879. What was that policy as declared by Lord Beaconsfield? It is said to-day that it was a policy of hostility to Russia. That is an entire delusion. No sentence will be found in any one speech that was ever made by Lord Beaconsfield in which he represented his policy as being a policy of antagonism to Russia or to any one else. The policy of this country as announced by him, and maintained by him, was never a policy of hostility against any European Power. It was the policy of safeguarding against any, or against every, European Power, if need be, the honour, the dignity, the welfare, and the treaty obligations of this country. Circumstances change, but that policy has not changed. In the latest speeches which Lord Beaconsfield delivered in 1876 in the House of Commons he pointed out that this country had to deal with treaty obligations was bound by them, and must perform them ; and he pointed out in regard to Turkey, in words almost as strong as those Lord Salisbury has used during the past two or three years, that the position of Turkey as a European Power was a question which must be decided with reference to the interests of Europe as well of the races subject to the sway of the Porte. Circumstances changed, as I said. Circumstances have largely changed since Lord Beaconsfield spoke in 1876. We did not hold then, with regard to the Suez Canal and with regard to Egypt, that command- ing., and effective position we hold to-day. And it is quite possible that the time may come when the prospect of a break up of the Turkish power may have less alarm for us, and may threaten less our Imperial interests, than it did in the year 1876. But the statesmen of to-day are governed by the same BY-ELECTION. toi considerations and principles as guided Lord Beaconsfield's policy in 1876. This country is not the antagonist of any Power. It has no rivalries ; it has no jealousies ; it has no traditional hostilities or friendships. It desires to be friendly with all ; but its first duty and that has always been recog- nised by a Tory Government is to protect the interests and honour and welfare of this country ; and while desiring to be friends with all, it never will pledge itself to friendships any more than it would bind itself to hostilities in carrying out that truly patriotic policy. Annual Address to the Electors of Plymouth in Guildhall. PLYMOUTH BY-ELECTION. JANUARY 5, 1898. MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, The political circumstances of Plymouth have suddenly changed since the arrangement was made for me to meet my constituents to-night and address them upon public topics. There has happened that calamity to which our chairman has referred, and that which was to have been the annual meeting at which I should meet my constituents and discuss with them public affairs, without reference, or special reference, to party interests, has now turned out to be an evening in the course of an exciting political conflict in Plymouth. This hall is lent to me once a year in order that I may address my constituents as member for the borough, but directly that sad event happened to which the chairman has referred the sudden death of my colleague in the representation of Plymouth I wrote to the Town Clerk to say that it would be impossible in those cir- cumstances to divest this meeting of a party character, and I therefore asked that it might be considered as an ordinary political meeting. Consent was given to this ; and, therefore, to-night, while I am going to speak upon the political incidents of the session which has lately closed, I shall certainly not keep away from those matters of party controversy on which the minds of Plymouth people are now set. I speak for a short time only to-night upon certain measures that have passed during the last session of Parliament. That has not been my invariable practice. As you will remember, I have, during the last two or three years, addressed myself to one 102 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 3, rSgS. particular subject as the main topic of my address to my constituents. Last year I spoke to you of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland. The year before I devoted my address to a very careful examination of the Venezuelan question, which was at that moment of commanding interest. And if it had not been for the circumstance to which I have referred, I should have devoted almost all my speech this evening to one subject which is uppermost in my mind at this moment the relations of capital and labour in this country. Not very long ago I said something with regard to that terrible engineering strike which is the greatest industrial disaster that has fallen upon this country for a long time past, more terrible in its consequences than many of the wars of which we think and read more than we do of the strike or lock-out itself, and I ventured to say that if the masters pushed to the extreme the proposals which they had made the result would be the destruc- tion of the trade-unionist system in this country, which I declared would be a disadvantage to the country and a disaster to our industrial classes. That statement of mine has, of course, been sharply challenged. I had looked forward to an opportunity of maintaining, of developing, and explaining it to my constituents on this occasion, but it is quite obvious that in the circumstances of to-day that course would be most improper. I cannot I should not desire to commit others to the opinions which I might express upon that subject ; for opinions on that matter I prefer to take the whole and un- divided responsibility, and I could not allow them to affect the interests of those working with me in political affairs. Therefore, for to-night I deliberately put that subject by, and I desire only to make some observations upon the work which the Government did in the last session of Parliament. During that session two very notable and very important bills passed in the House of Commons, and became Acts of Parliament. I might have said, to be more exact, three bills ; but there were two closely connected, inasmuch as they affect the educational system of this country. At the last election, when the country gave to the Government the large majority it enjoys to-day, there was one demand which was made in almost every con- stituency of the country made more strongly in the industrial North of England than in any other part, and it was that the Government should make some provision to help to sustain and defend the voluntary school system of this country. It was not a claim made in one part of the country, or by one section of our community. It was made with emphasis by all who believe, as the great mass of our people believe, that in religious teaching for our children there is the only safeguard for national honour and for national prosperity, and who were determined VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS. 103 that that system of teaching among us which protects and makes possible the imparting of definite religious instruc- tion should not be allowed to disappear and should not be weakened. That claim was made by the country, and it has been substantially and effectually met by the present Government. A grant has been made from the public funds to the voluntary schools of this country a grant so administered that the relief will go to those schools where the poverty of the neighbourhood in which they exist makes support for them most necessary. The schools will be relieved of the burden of the rates. The schools will be relieved from the limitation of the 175. 6d. grant, which actually deprived the most energetic and most efficient schools in our country of the money which had been earned ; and while no very large amount of public money compared with the vast sums which we spend on education has been devoted to this purpose, I believe it has already been found in practice I cannot speak from intimate knowledge of Plymouth, but I do speak from intimate know- ledge of schools in many parts of London that assistance from the public funds, moderately and carefully granted as it has been, is to-day the means of redeeming from difficulty and supporting in efficiency the best and cheapest schools that the people of this country have at their disposal. There are some who talk about grants made to sects, and the maintenance of clerical influence, and the like. It is all rubbish. The interest of the people of this country is that the voluntary school system should be maintained in its integrity and efficiency. At the present time more than half the children of this country are educated in schools which are not supported by the rates, and if these schools were allowed to wither and die to go first into feebleness and then into extinction there would be thrown upon the ratepayers of this country not only more than double the burden of rates that they now bear, but a burden increasing every year, and the more rapidly because the voluntary school system would not still be in existence to check extravagant administration in some places. And when it came before the House of Commons that these proposals must be made to save the voluntary schools there was a claim at once most rightly made on behalf of those Board schools which were in existence in extremely necessitous localities. There are certain places where the income of the people is so pitifully small that it needs an extravagant rate upon them in order to make the smallest provision for the education of their children. And so a supplementary bill was brought in, under which a grant was made out of the public funds in all those cases where there was this average of poverty unable to provide for the education of the children, and a substantial sum has been given to the relief 104 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY s, 18^8. of necessitous Board schools. I do not say that this is all we have to do with regard to education. There is much to be done for the secondary education of the country ; and I hope that at no distant period this demand will be the subject of legislation, as was proposed. But the immediate necessity was, as the whole country had declared, to save the voluntary schools from that degradation and ultimate extinction which would have destroyed the system of religious denominational teach- ing, and would have thrown a cruel burden upon the ratepayers. There is one other subject upon which I have spoken often. You have listened to me during the past seventeen years, and more especially from this platform, on what we used to call the employers' liability bill, but what we now speak of as the " Workmen's Compensation Bill." It was in this hall that I first expressed the hope that we should cease to speak of employers' liability, and that we should try and think about workmen's compensation. As long as it was a question of enforcing liability against employers by actions in the law court, so long we had the most wasteful method that could have been devised of compensating workmen for the results of accidents. But directly it was looked at from the other side it was considered that workmen's compensation was the proper thing. The Government has effected a solution of the matter in a bill, the advantage of which to the industrial people of this country is not realised yet, but will be realised after July ist, when every month will bring to the workmen on railways, or in factories or docks, the knowledge of the value of the bill carried through by the present Government. It is an old and a difficult question as to what should be done in the case of a workman suffering from accident in the course of a dangerous employment. Hitherto, up to the last year or so, it has always been said that there should be liability on the part of the employer if he, or persons for whom he was responsible, had been negligent, and thereby caused accident. But when you come to think of it, there is a wider basis and a truer ground for giving compensation. In the dangerous trades of this country that is to say, on railways or in docks, in great factories, in buildings where machinery and steam-power are used more than half the accidents, aye, three-fourths .of the accidents that take place cannot be put down to any special negligence on any one's part. They are accidents which cannot be avoided even by the best skill that is brought to the conduct of industrial affairs. And the old system left the work- man who was injured by accident in his employment in this position, that at the very moment when the accident struck him down, stopped his wages, found him with a wife and children depending upon him, and without, perhaps, any little WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION. 105 store set by for a time of ill-fortune, he was called upon to prove in a court of law against his employer the negligence which had caused the accident, and to secure under the necessary force of legal pressure such compensation as judge or jury would award to him. Why, of course, in nine cases out of ten the compensation he got was insufficient ; and in nine cases out of ten where money was paid by the employer, a great deal more money was paid than ever came to the pocket of the un- fortunate workman. There were those evils about it that the obligation upon the man to bring his action came at the very moment when he was practically helpless, he himself lying in a sick-bed, with wife and children hardly knowing where to turn for the livelihood of the next week, and then there was the necessity for all this evidence, and the uncertainty as to what compensation would be gained. Now the present Government took a straightforward and manly view of the case. They said, " Where you have a dangerous occupation carried on, which exposes the men who are employed in it to serious accident in every hour of their lives, accidents which may befall them without the slightest act of negligence or carelessness on their part, you should make provision for men injured by accidents like this as part of the expense of the industry that is being carried on, and you should call upon the employer to provide, by insurance if necessary, for the compensation of his workmen, just in the same way as now he is obliged to provide for the safety of the building in which they work and the machinery upon which they work." Now, it has been said in this place within the past few days that the Act which was passed during the last session of Parlia- ment was " a partial and imperfect application of a principle cordially accepted by the Liberal party, and embodied in Mr. Asquith's bill of 1893." Every syllable of that statement is untrue. That principle was not embodied in Mr. Asquith's bill. Mr. Asquith's bill was a bill of employers' liability, under which an action at law would have had to be brought, and the negli- gence would have had to be proved before the workman could get any compensation at all. It is not a principle which was cordially accepted by the Liberal party, for when this bill which we have happily passed into law was introduced in the House of Commons it met with no cordial acceptance it met with an opposition all the more serious and difficult to meet because it was an opposition that dared not face us in the open, but which, by misrepresentation as to the scope of the measure, and by exaggerating the burden upon the employers, endeavoured to lead the members of the Unionist party away from their alle- giance to their own chiefs. I confess I am rather warm about this, because I do not care to see those opponents who had no 106 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 5, 1898. part or share in the acceptance or the enactment of that bill now going about pretending that it was their own measure and I care for it not only because it affects the history of the last session of Parliament and the credit of the presentGovern- ment, but I care about it also because it affects the reputation and history of that great party to which I belong to which has been owing during the last sixty years all the great industrial legislation which has improved the condition of our working- classes. It is just over sixty years ago since the greatest Englishman of this century Benjamin Disraeli wrote his novel of " Sybil," and if you go back to-morrow to that novel you will find in it a sketch of such a condition of affairs as one wonders to think could ever exist among the industrial population of this country, and you will read in clear and definite indication that policy, the foundation of the Factory Acts, which was supported by the Tory party against strong Radical opposition. You will not find a Radical who ventures now to deny that the Factory Acts have been a great boon to the industrial classes of this country. And then the time passed. In 1874 Benjamin Disraeli came for the first time to Parliament at the head of a Tory majority, and the first thing that he did as the work of that Tory majority was in the year 1875 to set right the position of employers and working-men in this country. Up to that time if the employer broke his contract he had to be sued in the County Court, and if the working-man broke his contract he was brought up before a magistrate, and committed for so many days. It was by the Tory Government in 1875 that the Act was passed that put employers and working-men on an absolutely equal footing. But there was something more than that. Not long before that Government came into power there had been a gas strike, and the sending to prison for six months of certain men of the gas company's employ who had struck, and there was a strong, general, and sound feeling that things had gone too far and that there should not have been that treatment of men combined for trade purposes. So now there is on the Statute-book an Act of Parliament which gives power to the working-men of this country to combine together for trade purposes and makes them free from attack. That Act you will find on the Statute-book for 1875. I remember, and am glad to remember, that the man who wrote " Sybil " in 1837 was the man by whose Government these righteous Acts were passed in 1875. And now nearly another quarter of a century has passed, and in 1897 the same party- reinforced, as it has been, by those who are as thoroughly united with us upon labour legislation as they are in their resistance to the disintegration of the empire loyally supported by them, WORKMEN^ COMPENSATION. 107 has succeeded in passing this Act, which, although there are many fears about it on the part of employers fears which I feel to be greatly exaggerated still is an Act which, when it comes into force in July next will have this result, that wher- ever in any one of the great dangerous employments in this country a man shall have an accident and be disabled, he shall get, not by action at law, but by prompt and speedy arbitration on recognised and prescribed lines, compensation and provision for himself while disabled from his work ; and every workman and this, I think, you will agree is no light matter every man who is employed in a dangerous trade, and who knows as he goes to his daily work he is subject to an accident which may immediately strike him down and deprive his wife and children of their support, will know that if by an accident his life is lost there will be immediate provision made for those who have been dependent upon him, and who otherwise would be left to poverty. Now, if we are all agreed that this is a good thing and I suppose we are, because our opponents are trying to take the credit of doing it if we are all agreed that this is a good thing, at least you will admit that the last session of Parlia- ment was not a barren session, but that it has made an effective contribution to the welfare of the industrial classes of this country. There is much to be sa'd to-night, and to be said by others whom you do not hear so often as you hear me. I am going to turn for a few moments to foreign affairs ; but I am certainly not to-night going to tax your patience, and no, I will not say tax, but test, because it has always proved equal to it the stenographic capacity of my good friends here upon whom I have inflicted a great many hours' work since I have been member for Plymouth. But I want to say a few words on foreign affairs, because partly of the extraordinary travesty of foreign affairs which has been put before Plymouth within the last few days in the paper from which I read a sentence. I admit it is possible for any Govern- ment that it is called together by the will of the people, however experienced its members may be, however associated they may be in their public life with all that we should respect and desire and esteem I say it is conceivable that they may be such absolute fools that they do not know what is the right thing to do in any contingency, and such absolute knaves that when they do know what is right they carefully do the opposite. I admit this is conceivable ; but do you think it is likely that fifteen or seventeen men in the very first rank of political life, who form a Cabinet on one side or the other in party matters and I am not drawing a distinction at this moment between one party and the other do you think it is conceivable that the whole Cabinet should be so foolish or so wicked that they always do the wrong thing in every conceivable circumstance ? io8 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 5, 1898. Now, the fact is our assailant in this matter has overstepped the line. I have heard of people who say and I have a good deal of sympathy with the sentiment " My country, right or wrong" ; but for any one to say "Against my country, right or wrong," or " My country always wrong," shows that there is not much weight to be attached to his criticism. When I find some one who, whenever a Government has shown firm- ness, says it has been guilty of violence, and whenever it has pursued a conciliatory policy says that it has been weak and pusillanimous, and when I find that that is the account that is given of the whole range of foreign affairs, I should say I should sooner expect to find that in the columns of a second- rate German newspaper than to find it in the election address of the candidate for a great English constituency. What is the fact with regard to foreign affairs ? Let me take first and foremost the attack made upon us. It is said that the Govern- ment is discredited, and ought to be rejected, because it has not succeeded in the Concert of Europe in preventing a war between Turkey and Greece, or in protecting Greece from the damage she has sustained. Let us just examine it for a moment. I have used the illustration once, but it will bear repetition. People seem to think that when the Governments of the great countries of Europe enter into partnership they do it upon this principle : each one says, " I will enter into partnership only on condition that the rest of you do exactly what I like." That is a very charming ideal notion of partner- ship, but I never heard of one in practical business life that could be worked on lines of that sort, and it will not apply to the Concert of Europe. The advantage of the federation of Europe is that instead of there being hostile communications, or quasi-hostile communications, between the different Chan- celleries of Europe, the representatives of the great Powers have met together from day to day and have discussed the difficulties that arise and tried to solve those difficulties ; and when we get the full history of the Concert of Europe and of the negotiations of the Powers with regard to the Eastern Question, I am sure we shall find in the first place that Lord Salisbury made every effort to prevent the breaking out of war with Turkey and Greece. He failed in that ; but I think it is right to say it was not the fault of the Government that he failed. There is great mischief done by those who are always clamouring against our Government and trying to prove it wrong for party purposes forgetting, as they too often forget, the larger interests of our empire which are beyond and above the control or effect of party interests. Lord Salisbury did the best he could to endeavour to prevent war. He could not prevent it, and the war took place. But this resulted from the THE CONCERT OF EUROPE. 109 Concert of Europe, that the war between Turkey and Greece began, and remained, and ended as a war between Turkey and Greece, and not one of the great Powers became entangled in the conflict. And more than that, the races surrounding that scene of war, many of which were inclined to break out and spread the conflagration, were restrained by the Concert of Europe and by the action of the Powers, so that the war was limited to the conflict between Turkey and Greece. But there is one thing more that we can say for Lord Salisbury without the smallest doubt. We know it from the papers which are now being published ; we know that when the war had come to its con- clusion through the incapacity of Greece to carry it on, there were certain Powers in Europe, which it is not necessary to specify, who were inclined to force such terms of peace upon Greece as would probably have resulted in a portion of Greek territory passing under the rule of the Turk. Lord Salisbury never wavered from the cardinal declaration and stipulation in this matter that no territory which had been under Christian rule should be allowed to pass back under the rule of the Turk ; and he insisted upon such terms as have been accepted, and are now being carried out, by which under certain guarantees the Turks are evacuating, and will completely evacuate, the portion of Greek territory they occupied. Although Greece will be, and I am afraid she deserves to be, seriously punished for the war into which she plunged, Greece will not lose any part of her territory ; no part of it will pass under the authority of the Porte. When I find these accusations against the Government I think it is time to ask that a straightforward and candid view shall be taken of the responsibilities of the Government in power. It has enormous difficulties. Look at the extent of this great empire ; look at the way in which, upon any fringe of our enormously-extending territory, troubles may break out. If a Government is confronted with difficulties, what is the sound and honest and manly way for English people, for whom the Government is acting, to treat them ? It is to wait and see what they are going to do in such difficult affairs, and not upon imperfect knowledge and with passionate party recrimination to attack the Government the moment the difficulty arises, and before you know how they are going to act. In this election address there is this sentence : " It remains to be seen whether any assertion of the rights and claims of Great Britain in Eastern Asia will be made, in view of the action of Germany and Russia with China. So far, apparently, the British Government is a passive spectator of events which may have far-reaching consequences to our commercial and maritime positions." When that sentence was written the affairs which were happening in the East had extended over a period of i io PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 9 , 1899. about eight days, and nobody knew what the line of action was of either Germany or Russia, and yet it is suggested to this constituency as a reason for choosing a representative that he has serious doubts as to whether Lord Salisbury will do right or wrong. All Englishmen who are interested in the maintenance of our Imperial renown and our Imperial authority are sensible enough to know that the effect with which a Prime Minister can speak depends upon the extent to which he is backed up and trusted by a confident and patriotic people. Now I am going to pass straight away from these public topics with which I have been dealing. It is very tempting to speak upon topics when they are passing through one's mind, but I must pass away because you have a very full programme before you this evening. I am here not only to make my annual speech to you, but to ask you to give me a colleague in Parliament. I have had long experience now as your member. I have seen the constituency grow from the 6000 electors who constituted it when I came here as candidate, to over 13,000 electors who now exercise the franchise. During all these seventeen years I have not had an easy or light task. It is one which has been a very pleasant one, for it has been made pleasant by the belief which you have encouraged that I have been doing service to this great constituency. But it is very hard work, and it is all the harder if I come to the House of Commons with some one on the other side working against me on practically every division. I should like some one to work with me in the House of Commons, and in Plymouth itself, and for Plymouth interests. And I am making my appeal to the constituency to-night to strengthen my hands, and, if they think the service I have rendered to Plymouth deserves any reward, to give me a sympathetic colleague. Annual Address to the Electors of Plymouth at the Guildhall. JANUARY 9, 1899. MR. MAY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, It has been my habit of late years in speaking at the annual meeting in this hall to deal with one special question of commanding public interest. But to-night I think I shall vary the plan, and I propose to speak to you on the situation that now exists in political affairs in relation to the course in the past, and the THE POLITICAL SITUATION. in probable course in the future, of action in the House of Commons. Parliament has now run a full half of its course. Six sessions are the full life of Parliament the full practical life of a Parliament. We have had three full sessions. It is now a time when we can take stock of the work that has been done, and see what is left to be done during the half of Parliament that remains to be fulfilled. So far as we can see Parliament will go to its end without any change in political power. It does not appear likely, both from the healthy con- dition of ourselves and from the disturbed condition of our opponents, that there will be any shifting of political power before we come to a general election. Of course, there always may be an accident ; and there is one matter, on which I shall have a word to say later, which may possibly interfere with the expectations of political parties. I allude to the controversy with regard to Church matters, which, in my judgment, is more serious than a great many people have yet realised. But unless that cuts across the line of political parties and makes a cleavage among those who are now working together, there is very little doubt that the next two or three sessions will be spent in the carrying out, by the present Government, of legisla- tion inspired and constructed by them. Let us think of what has been done since the last election, when the Government came to meet the new House of Commons. There were two duties that were immediately incumbent upon it. One was to do something to redress the grievances and ameliorate the condition of the great class engaged in agriculture in this country. At the election the claims of agriculture and the sufferings of agriculture had been made perfectly clear, and one duty that lay upon the Government was to attempt to deal with these necessities. Another duty was that of doing something prompt to redress the troubles of the voluntary schools of the country, and to enable them to live and to bear the competition of those Board schools which, supported by the unlimited purse of the ratepayers, were waging against them a constant, and some- times not a very scrupulous, hostility. The Government dealt with both these matters. Relief was given to agriculturists of the country by the law with regard to the payment of rates ; and relief given to voluntary schools of the country by grants dis- tributed among them grants which, although I fear they can only be considered now as a temporary measure, yet still have enabled voluntary schools, to my knowledge, in a great many places to be rescued from their difficulties and to go forth in the very useful course of giving sound and religious education. Some other matters have been passed. I will not refer to the unhappy Vaccination Bill, as to which I am a little in doubt as 112 PL YMO UTH, fANUA R Y 9 , 1899. to why the Chairman chose to call your particular attention to the subject. It is not exactly the matter which I should have put in the forefront of a speech when dealing with the achieve- ments of the Government, and trying to congratulate them upon what they had done. I will not say any more myself about the Vaccination Bill. But there are three measures upon which I will say a word. With the advocacy of two of them I have ever since I have been in public life been very closely connected. In the first address that I issued to any constituency, in the month of February 1880, I named in my address as one of the reforms most urgently needed a provision for enabling accused persons to give their own evidence before juries who had to decide upon their guilt or innocence. I have sought here and in the House of Commons to do my best to get that Bill passed, and I need not say with how great satisfaction I have seen that Bill come into operation. The admirable result is recognised by all the judges who have had to administer it ; and I believe that that reform has been the greatest reform made in our legal procedure for very many years. There is another measure in which, as you know, I was greatly interested. And, of course, it was a great satisfaction to me when, in July last, the Work- men's Compensation Act came into force. Of the mischief of the old system I have often spoken in this place of the delays and the costly litigation and the difficulties which stood between the injured workman and the compensation that he ought to receive. Now we have changed all that. Now, if a workman in the course of his employment suffers from any injury there is prompt and considerable compensation made to him. There is no necessity to go to law. There is no necessity for any action, no necessity for all the witnesses being called that used to be wanted, no raising of all the legal questions that used to perplex and harass litigants, and sometimes used to involve litigants in an action for ,50 or ,100 in all the costs of appeal to the Appeal Court and the House of Lords. All these things are done away with ; and now workmen in our great industries and those dependent upon them have the satisfaction of knowing that there is some protection for those who are dependent on the workman for their daily bread, if he should be suddenly struck down by an accident in the course of his employment. The bill that has been passed extends to all those industries of the country where the nature of the occupation makes accidents more likely to happen, and applies to and protects the workmen in nine-tenths of all accidents that are happening in this country. That is a great achievement. It is the greatest measure of relief and benefit to the industrial classes of this country that has been placed upon the statute-book for twenty-five years ; and I am entitled to congratulate myself that I have had in a IRELAND. 113 small way, but for many years past, the pleasant duty of working to secure that which I feel sure is so great a boon to my fellow- countrymen. There is one other measure I will mention. Two years ago, speaking in this hall, I devoted my speech to the question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, and taking a course which was not entirely in harmony with the views of those with whom I usually act in the House of Commons, I stated here, as I afterwards restated in the House of Commons, my conviction that an injustice was being clone to Ireland year by year in the financial arrangements between the two countries that we were taking from Ireland a larger amount in taxation than her capacity to bear taxation justified us in asking, and I upheld the declaration which had been made by a committee which had been investigating the matter and reported to the House of Commons, that where- as Ireland should pay no more than one-twentieth of the whole taxation of the country, she was being called upon to pay at least one-thirteenth, and that that was too heavy a burden for her to bear. I repeated that conviction in the House of Commons when the debate came on there, and the strength of the Government was used to defeat the proposal which had been made in favour of relief for Ireland. But the Government which in debate refused to relieve ha's since taken the oppor- tunity of giving a very considerable measure of relief to the Irish people ; and it is using this financial question as a means of securing the passing of the Irish Local Government Bill for Ireland, which we have always desired to see passed, and with regard to which we have again and again declared our belief that that was a proper measure of reform in Irish affairs not to separate her by any measure of Home Rule from her fellow- ship with this country, but to establish a system of local govern- ment adapted to the needs of her people. That has been done. It would no doubt have been difficult, unless the Government had been prepared to make large grants in payment of some of the rates that were exacted in Ireland. That payment has been agreed to. Ireland will receive in that respect something like three-quarters of a million a year. The granting of that money enabled the government to pass the Local Government Bill for Ireland, and now we have the great satisfaction of knowing that in 1888 we passed a Local Government Bill for England ; subsequently we passed a Local Government Bill for Scotland ; now we have passed a Local Government Bill for Ireland j and the one great work of constructive legislation in local government which remains to be fulfilled will, I hope, be achieved by the Government in the early part of the coming session of Parliament. These, I think, are great achievements, H 114 PL YMOUTH, fA NUAR Y 9, and they have fulfilled the declarations of the Government as to its intentions, and I can pass over other smaller measures of benefit which have been passed, inviting you to fix your atten- tion on these things I have just mentioned as being a very ample return for three years of legislative work. Now we stop to see what is to come afterwards what is to happen to us in the future ? I am not going to make observa- tions on the condition of our opponents at the present time with regard to leadership. They will, no doubt, in due course choose a leader. I hope when they do this his followers will pay some attention to his advice, because, after all, the conduct of business in the House of Commons is a matter of large importance to the country. If that House is split up into a large number of groups, owning separate leaders, we should have more difficulty in getting through in the course of a session the work it is de- sirable Parliament should do for the country. So I will not say anything kind or unkind with regard to the proposed leader of the other side. But I wish to say a word about this Church question which, as I have said, may cut across our political arrangements and make some cleavage in the House of Commons. I am grieved indeed to think that it has been necessary I recognise the necessity that this matter should be brought before the House of Commons. I should be very glad if I could believe that that which has been already said had been enough to work a remedy of the mischief which, somehow or other, will be remedied before very long. If it is not remedied by the action of the Bishops and I am afraid I do not feel much confidence in the Bishops, for they have had in their hands the power of dealing with the more extravagant and extreme of those who have distressed the Church by their practices, and I am afraid there has been in many cases toleration, and in some cases a good deal more than toleration, of those who have been vio- lating the laws of the Church and the promises they made when they became ministers of that Church. But it is possible that even now wiser counsels may prevail. The late utterances of the Bishops show that they have to some extent understood the strong feeling that there is in the country upon this matter, and it is possible that by a little more firmness on the part of the Bishops and a little more obedience on the part of the clergy, the difficulties that are now facing us may be removed. I fear that that will not be the case. It is not, of course, likely that the Government will introduce legislation upon this subject ; but legislation will probably be introduced into the House of Commons ; and it is a serious outlook for those who are anxious to preserve the Church from the assaults of her assailants from without, and feel themselves hampered and THE CHURCH. 115 weakened through the unfaithfulness of some within her walls. I desire to speak with all moderation and caution upon this subject ; but I cannot help feeling we are in face of a somewhat serious danger. There is no doubt whatever as to what the opinion of the country at large is upon this matter. I am sure that the great majority of our people I may add the great majority of members of Parliament have no desire at all to alter the conditions upon which the clergy of the Church have accepted their benefices and the conditions by which they have agreed to be bound ; but while they have not the slightest desire to alter those conditions, and, indeed, it is not within the competence of Parliament to interfere with or alter the doctrines of the Church while they have no desire to alter those con- ditions, they do mean that those conditions shall be observed, and that if there are those within the ministry of the Church whose present condition of feeling satisfies them that they cannot obey those conditions or be faithful to the undertaking they gave, I think the country is clearly resolved that they shall either obey those conditions or leave the ministry of the Church. How far it may be necessary for Parliament to go, it is impossible to say. You know that very nearly twenty-five years ago there was very much the same difficulty, though I do not think the practices had been carried quite so far, and there was not quite the same anxiety at that time with regard to the attitude of the Bishops ; but in 1874 the Archbishop of Canterbury produced in the House of Lords the Public Worship Regulation Bill, and, advocating that bill in the House of Lords, declared that it was called a revolution, but he said that if it were a revolution to enforce obedience to the law then might it be called so, but in no other sense. And then there happened, and will happen now, if this matter comes before the House of Commons again and if it is plain that legislation is required in order to secure the observance of the rules of the Church by the clergy there happened then, and will happen again if the same condition of things arise, that a bill was passed upon its second reading without a division, for no one ventured to challenge the principle it laid down. Un- fortunately, that bill allowed the Bishops to veto the proceedings against clergymen who had disobeyed the rules of the Church. The Bishops appear now to have come to the resolution that they will veto all such proceedings. The reason is one with which we all sympathise. A penalty was given to inflict upon a clergyman for contempt, and even imprisonment was inflicted upon some men of very high character and saintly lives, and there was such a revulsion of feeling that it became obvious it would lead to most serious difficulties if prosecutions were allowed to go on wholesale. But I confess, if it be true that 1 1 6 PL YMO UTff, JANUA R Y 9 , 1899. the Bishops have arrived at a resolution that no prosecutions should be allowed at all, I think they were violating the spirit of the Act, and carried their authority further than they lawfully could, and I hope there may be some recession from that, as it seems to be an unjustified position on the part of the Bishops themselves. If necessary, I doubt not, the veto will be abolished by the House of Commons ; but I should be very glad to see steps taken by the Bishops themselves which would prevent the necessity of the interference of Parliament. But there is another thing which may have to be done. We do not want again to have the spectacle of clergymen being sent to prison and suffer- ing for conscience' sake, although, perhaps, it may be difficult for others to understand quite the importance they attach to certain practices they follow. We do not want, I say, to have this painful spectacle again, and perhaps by Parliament interfer- ing it would make it easier to pronounce sentence of deprivation by which a clergyman who ceases to obey the rules of the Church would be deprived from his office and prevented from continuing in the ministry. Now, I have studiously used language of the quietest and most colourless character. There is no subject upon which it would be more easy to get up vio- lent excitement upon one side or the other. We may have that excitement in the country before many months are over. I hope we may not. But I thought it desirable to say clearly and plainly what I thought the attitude and course of the House of Commons would be ; and what my course would be in deal- ing with any such question if it came before the House. But let us hope that this danger may pass away, and that we may go peacefully forward in the discharge of the rest of the duties which the House of Commons will have to perform. I said there was one great duty which remained to us in the sphere of constructive statesmanship. We have given local govern- ment to England, to Scotland, and to Ireland. There remains the duty of giving it to London. London, with its vast popula- tion of over five millions, is governed in a strange way. It has no great local life among its people, except at its centre. There is no true municipal institution, and no single municipal institution could be large enough to properly deal with the government of so vast an area. London is not one town. It is a province a province of many towns close together, and we have reason to believe that one of the earliest and most important works of this session I hope Mr. Balfour himself intends to undertake it will be to propose to the House of Commons a measure dealing with the government of London. Fortunately, there is no great difficulty upon the matter. There are many large parishes in London with their forms of local government at present, which are far larger than almost any OLD AGE PENSIONS. 117 provincial town. They are perfectly capable of municipal institutions in the fullest sense of the word. Municipal institu- tions established in them would increase the interest of the people in the government of their locality ; would give men an inducement to come forward and do work in the public service ; and, I am sure, would tend very much to the good government of the whole community, and to the development of a very much stronger spirit of local government than now exists in London at all. It is a great work which wants to be done, and a work which I hope will be among the first works of the session which opens on the seventh of next month. Now, I am not going to speculate with regard to other measures that may be passed, because there is a large subject upon which I want to say a few words with regard to a pro- posal which may or may not be made, but which I hope will not be brought forward. You are aware there has been a great deal said for some years past upon the subject of old-age pensions for the working-classes, and I think, if you try, you will not remember my ever having said a word upon the subject. I have always felt very doubtful as to the wisdom of the pro- posal which was being made, and I desired to make no observa- tion upon it, and express no opinion, until the schemes which had been propounded by different persons had been carefully and clearly investigated. That has now been done. A Com- mission was appointed, with many experts upon it perfectly capable of expressing their opinions upon this subject, and they reported at the close of their investigations, not only that no scheme put before them appeared to them to be practicable, but that they could not themselves find any scheme which they could recommend for adoption. Now I should like, in view of what may be proposed in Parliament, to examine this question a little to-night. I trust the Government are not going to make any proposal of any sort upon this matter to the House of Commons without referring that proposal either to the same Commission or to a Commission of a like character, in order that it may be carefully considered by those not immediately engaged in political conflict. For this reason, if a scheme is brought before the House of Commons, the question then which comes to the mind of a member of the House of Commons is not only, " What should I think of this scheme if I exercised my own judgment on it," but it also is, and must be, " Shall I be more or less popular with my constituents if I vote against this scheme?" That is a very different question; and this is so large and important a matter, it involves not only so great an expenditure of public money, but, as I think, so large and dangerous an interference with the habits of the people, that I hope that no measure of any kind referring to this matter will n8 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 9, 1899. be brought forward in the House of Commons without being subjected to a very careful examination by some such expert commission as that which has dealt with the other schemes. It is all very well to say that people over a certain age, when they have passed their years in toil, ought not to be obliged to go to the workhouse to end their days. It is always very sad for an old man or woman who has gone through life honestly, industriously, and uprightly, to be obliged to resort to any form of public or private charity in his or her old age. But one has to look at the practical proposal made, and the proposal which seems generally discussed now is that some- how or other provision should be made by which persons over the age of sixty-five years should have an allowance of 55. per week from the State. There are some observations that one has promptly to make on such a suggestion. In the first place 55. is a very small allowance. It is not sufficient to support a man or a woman in any sort of comfort, when a single room in which he or she lives costs from 2s. 6d. to 33. in the way of rent. Five shillings would very soon be found to be an entirely inadequate allowance, and there would, of course, be a move- ment immediately to increase it. Another observation occurs to one. It is not very satisfactory to take an arbitrary age as the time at which the old-age pension should commence. Sixty- five is rather late. Among our very hard-working industrial classes a man at sixty years of age has very often done as much work as his frame is capable of ; while, on the other hand, there are men between sixty-five and seventy who are much better able to do their work. It should, if possible, in any such scheme be decided not merely by the actual age at which the person has arrived, but by his or her condition and capacity for working in a trade. One or two other questions arise. Should this relief be dependent at all upon a man having made provision for himself by investing in friendly societies or the like? It is very difficult to say it should, because if you are going to give relief to the man who has provided for himself by friendly societies, and refuse it to the man who has not, you are giving it to the man who wants it least, and refusing it to the one who has nothing else to depend upon. And although as a general rule it may be taken that the industrious and thrifty man will make some investment in a friendly society, and so make some provision for himself, it by no means follows that the man who comes to sixty years of age and has made no provision has been improvident or careless. He may have been unfortunate. He may have had sick children to take care of. He may have lost all his little savings by the wreck of some wretched company in which he may have invested them ; and one cannot help seeing that under any such system there would be a constant presenta- OLD AGE PENSIONS. 119 tion to the public of very hard cases which were excluded from the benefit of these allowances. But that is not all the difficulty, because if you are going to make it conditional upon a man's having subscribed for a certain number of years to a friendly society or the like, it is obvious that you cannot begin paying these pensions until you have allowed that time to elapse, Suppose it were said, as some of those who have proposed schemes say, that between twenty and sixty a man must have paid so much in subscriptions either to a savings-bank or friendly societies or the like ; if you lay down any such law as that your scheme will not come into operation for forty years to come, and it will not operate except for the people who are twenty years old now and begin at once to pay subscriptions. That would be absurd. You must give allow- ances while this time is going on to those who have not sub- scribed, and who would have subscribed if the scheme had been in operation when they were young ; and the time will come when people who have subscribed nothing have had the allow- ance for all these years, and people afterwards who have subscribed nothing will say, "Why should not we have it, too ? " and the whole requirement of subscription to the friendly societies would break down at once. Let us see if there are not even greater difficulties still. I think there are two of very considerable importance. I think it would be a public danger if there should be an enormous mass of people with incomes direct from the State, and bringing their influence to bear from time to time in order to secure an earlier grant or larger grant of pensions than they are receiving. You would find them scattered all over the country. A proposal to exclude those receiving such pensions from the electoral roll would be denounced as a hard and cruel suggestion, and as marking them out as a lower class than their fellow-countrymen ; but if you had a large number of persons so receiving pensions, and clamouring to Parliament from year to year that the amount should be raised to six, seven, eight, or nine shillings a week, as the case may be, and that it should be granted at sixty instead of sixty-five, or at fifty-five instead of sixty, there would be extreme difficulty in resisting that demand, and the financial scope of the proposal would be enormously increased. But to my thinking there is a greater and graver objection still. Any scheme for universal pensions to those over sixty- five years of ages strikes at the very root of thrift, sobriety, and industry on the part of our people. If you once made every- body understand that when he was unable to work in the factory any longer he would be provided by the State with enough to keep him in comfort and respectability for the rest of his days, where would go your friendly societies and those 120 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY 9, 1899. magnificent organisations for the promotion of thrift which the working-classes have built up among them ! The whole of the inducement would be gone. Why should a man deny himself the luxuries of life, and sometimes even its comforts, if, when he came to sixty-five, he would have to live on the few shillings he had saved, while one who had been thriftless would have doled out to him the same number of shillings from the State ? I think it would be a very serious blow at the national character. And there is yet one consideration more which I think is serious in this respect. It is the duty of sons and daughters to provide in the old age of their parents, for their parents who have watched over their childhood and educated them and made them capable for the work of life. Of course, there are many cases where there are no children, or where there are no children in a position to be able to help, but it would, I think, be a serious injury to the character, the national character, if we did not maintain it as one of the canons of social life that it was the duty of children to protect, comfort, and succour old people in days of old age and infirmity. Looking at all these con- siderations, I myself have a veiy clear opinion that a system of old-age pensions, which would really come to be one gigantic system of indiscriminate out-door relief, would sap the character of the people in thrift, and would reduce the strength of those influences which keep families together, and bind up common relationships of loyalty and affection between children and their parents. For all these reasons it would be dangerous to have any such system at all ; and inasmuch as the systems yet pro- posed have been found not at all satisfactory when submitted to the criticism of a commission of experts, I hope it will be long before the Government lend themselves to proposals in the direction of this vast and very menacing change. Ladies and gentlemen, I think I have said all that I desire to say with regard to matters which may be brought before the House of Commons. There are only a few further remarks which 1 shall have to make upon another and different set of questions. We seem to be suffering at the present moment from a rather severe attack of fussy self-assertion, which is very different, indeed, from the calm and tranquil dignity of a great country which knows its own resources and knows the purity of its policy in the world. Such an attack would appear much more like that of a parvenu republic than a kingdom which has lasted for 800 years. It seems as if we cannot hear by telegraph, from any part of the world, of any little thing suggested to be threatening our influence, power, and authority, but we immedi- ately get into a state of fuss and activity about it as if it was a very serious threat against our national existence and repute. We really ought not to be so fidgety. We hear that somebody FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 121 has got a concession from another country, say, in China, for there we hear that concessions have been made to make rail- ways. I should, indeed, be very sorry for the man who got a concession to make a railway in China ; I should be also very sorry for the shareholders. A concession, for the most part, would mean a company. What will become of the company ? The concessionaire would probably sell out at a considerable price and close his part of the transaction by assisting in preparing the prospectus. It may be that China is in such a condition that railways there will pay. Well, I doubt it very much. I have no reason to suppose that China is a more wealthy country than certain parts of India, or that there is a greater promise of commercial activity in it. But I am quite sure nobody could have made a railway in India with any satis- factory results to the shareholders of the company ; and no rail- way could have been made and carried out in India if it had not been for the guarantee of the Government which was given to that proposal. But directly we hear that somebody has got a concession our people seem to think that something terrible has happened in the universe, and that we have been defrauded because we have not got a concession like it, which probably would be equally worthless. I do not believe in all these con- cessions. Sir Ellis Ashmead Bartlett has got a concession for lighting with electric light the streets of Smyrna. I have not yet seen the prospectus of the company, but I have no doubt it will come in time. And when I am told about railways and concessions of this kind being given to other countries, and that it is desirable our people should have them, I cannot help re- membering that wherever a concession is given, whenever that railway comes to be made, it will be made by the industry and work of the country which is best able to supply the materials for the building of the railway. And we shall get our share of the advantages of concessions even when they are given to people not belonging to our own country. But take another instance. There was an announcement in the papers some time ago I really do not know whether it was true ; do not suppose I believe the thing because I saw it in the Telegraph but there was a statement that the various consuls had been march- ing somewhere in China, and to the great astonishment of every- body the Russian Consul actually had forty more soldiers in front of him than our man had and thereupon there were passionate little paragraphs in the papers calling attention to this terrible sign of the ambition and activity of Russia. I wish our people could have a little more self-control and self-command. We are a great deal too strong for it to be necessary for us to indulge in all this fussiness and fidgetiness upon the subject. There is no mistake anywhere, in any country in Europe, or in 122 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY, 9 , 1899. the East, as to the position of Great Britain, and as to her attitude if her rights were really interfered with. There is no division of opinion and sentiment among us upon that subject now. The best and strongest section of our opponents have fallen into line, and there has been no stauncher and abler supporter of Lord Salisbury in the late discussion with regard to Fashoda than was found in the person of Lord Rosebery. There is no mistake as to our attitude. If those to whom we are linked by ties of alliance ask for our help, if there were any interference with the territories which are under our flag, if there were any violence upon the persons or the property of the subjects of the Queen, in however remote a part of the world, there would be no hesitation on the part of the Ministers of this country to pledge, if necessary, the whole forces and the whole resources of the country, to maintain the honour of our flag, and to protect the interests, persons, and property of our fellow-subjects. There will be no dispute about it. ' ' One thought from sea to sea, One voice from shore to shore ; Peace, if without dishonour, peace may be War, if it must be war ! " But only " if it must be war ! " Of all the interests of this country it has often been said, and should be said again, the greatest are the interests of peace. We cannot hope to carry out in the world that great mission of civilisation of which we believe we are the foremost champions and exponents we cannot carry that out unless we seek peace, and strive earnestly to make light of little differences that for the moment may affect the relations of different countries, but only speak firmly and strongly when our national interests are really assailed. We all profess to be anxious for peace. About three weeks from to-day there will be another gathering in this hall, where I think all the prominent men of the town will be present men of both political parties to endorse the action of Lord Salisbury in accepting the invitation of the Czar, by his Rescript, to that conference out of which we trust something may come in miti- gation of the pressure of armaments on the people of Europe. On such an occasion all will be clamouring and anxious for peace. But it is no use passing resolutions, there is no use in Rescripts or protocols, if every time some trivial telegram speaks of what you think is an invasion of British interests abroad, you straightway burst out on platform and in the Press into menaces and gibes against the other countries of the world. Oh no ! We must study to work for peace ourselves must study to work for peace by doing all we can to keep calm and quiet in the presence of what seem at the moment to be difficulties, and to remember what a great heritage it is with which we are PEACE. 123 dealing. We need have no anxiety. The future is with us. Year by year the bounds of our empire extend ; year by year our language becomes more and more the language of the world ; year by year the institutions of freedom, of which we have set the pattern, are becoming more and more dear to the Anglo-Saxon-speaking races all over the world. What is there to fear? Why should we be troubled? There are things we have to do at home. We have to look after the welfare of our own people, we have to look after the education of our children, we have to look after the freedom of labour among us, and its right to exercise itself freely, and when these things are done I believe we shall be doing the work of peace, and I believe that work is the noblest we have to do. I have spoken strongly in Plymouth this time with regard to this matter. I am entirely indifferent to criticisms and comments which are made upon me with regard to speaking thus, when my speaking is for the moment not in exact accord with the present popular feeling. I am quite careless of that. As the time goes on you will have plenty of men to speak to you whose voices are simply the echo of what happens to be the wish of the crowd at the time. At all events you have not that in me. It has been my privilege to speak to you for many years. I have not said anything to you which I did not say with my whole heart, ex- pressing in it my judgment my independent judgment upon public questions. Now I only wish to express the hope that as we go forward in the work of Parliament, doing that work which is necessary for the good government and welfare of the country, we shall be supported by the people, resolved to do their duty to the world, as a nation, resolved to do that duty steadily and unflinchingly, flinching from no sacrifice that is necessary to enforce their right, but shrinking from any action that will imperil the cause of peace unless that action be demanded by the strongest bonds of national honour and national progress. The Czars Rescript. A SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE PLYMOUTH CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION. OCTOBER u, 1898. ACCORDING to my custom, I propose to make some observa- tions upon public affairs, and I intend to-night to confine myself to one topic, which to me, at this moment, is of great, I would almost say of supreme interest. It is the invitation 124 PLYMOUTH, OCTOBER //, 1898. that not long ago was issued by the Czar of All the Russias to the Powers of Europe to the nations of Europe, rather to consult as to the means by which it may be possible to stop the rivalry of increased armaments, which at present is pressing very heavily upon the industry, labour, and resources of all European countries. There has been a special reason which has led me to much interest in this subject. The first and principal part of my holiday this year was given to a trip to the Baltic, and when I left England on the I7th of August there were apprehensions abroad with regard to the relations of this country with Russia, especially in connection with trans- actions that were taking place in China relations of this country towards Russia which could scarcely be described as peaceful relations, and appeared to many to indicate the pro- bability of war. While we were on the seas the clouds darkened. When I reached Stockholm we heard of strong language and strong action by our representative at Pekin which seemed to make it very probable that serious difficulty would result ; and when, on the morning of the last day in August, we steamed in among the forts of Cronstadt, we had some expectation that news might reach us which would disappoint, even at the last moment, our hope of seeing St. Petersburg. Fortunately that apprehension proved to be unfounded, and not only was there no declaration of war between the two countries, but on the very day on which we had entered the roadstead at Cronstadt the Russian Emperor had taken a step which I hope and believe may, with the assistance of the statesmen and the peoples of Europe, lead to a great benefit to the world at large. He invited the nations of Europe to confer together as to the means of checking that great increase in their armaments which is casting so heavy a burden upon the peoples, and upon the industry, of European countries. He took a notable occasion for issuing that invitation to peace. He chose the occasion on which he was opening in Moscow the memorial to the great Emperor Alexander II., who in 1861 gave freedom to thirty-five millions of people by the emancipation of the Russian serfs. The opening of that monument to Alexander II. was in itself a notable event in the history of Europe. The scene, the circum- stances of that memorial were in themselves remarkable. On the brow of the hill which rises steeply from the river at Moscow there stands the ancient Kremlin, a town within a town. Its walls, two miles in circuit, enclose arsenal, palaces, and convents, the wealthiest treasury that the world has to show, and the richest shrines ever dedicated to Christian worship. And the Kremlin crowns with its splendour the manifold beauties of that strange city. As you stand upon the hill and look 'out over Moscow, there rise from wondrous fields of dark-green roofs the THE CZARS RESCRIPT. 125 gold and purple glories of spire and dome ; and there at the spot which, is associated with all that is most strange and remarkable in Russian history the Emperor inaugurated the splendid monument, not unworthy in its grandeur of the glories of the Kremlin itself, to Alexander II., who had conferred this great benefit upon the world. It was a remarkable occasion. I believe myself that what this Emperor has done in 1898 may be an act fuller of blessing and benefit to the world than even the great emancipation of the serfs of Russia in 1861. It is an invitation to the nations to consider how far they are to go on in the rivalry of expensive armaments how far it is possible to substitute Christian statesmanship for this extravagant and wild rivalry of military and naval expenditure. We have heard at once a chorus of cynical doubt as to the motives of the Russian Czar. It has been said that Russia is not prepared for war, and that Great Britain is ; and that Russia desires to postpone for some years what some people talk of I think foolishly and wickedly as "the inevitable conflict" between this country and Russia. It may be that that is true. It may be that Russia is not now prepared for war, and would least of all desire an immediate conflict with the forces of this country. If that be so we may be thankful that the unpre- paredness of Russia may induce her Monarch and Government to enter into international relations which will not only post- pone but may possibly prevent altogether the great conflict of which some speak so lightly. I do not underrate the difficulties of the task which will be before the Congress should it assemble ; but the invitation of the Czar is an invitation no Ministry will dare to refuse. The Congress of Peace ought to meet. We ought to send to it our ablest, our most experienced, our most peace-loving statesmen ; and they should go into that Congress prepared to forget the quarrels of yesterday, and to make light of the little differences of to-day, in the hope that they may do something to relieve the peoples of Europe in time to come from the burden of these costly armaments. It is not, of course, disarmament that is proposed. Disarmament would be an idle dream. Every country which has colonies and dependencies must have the means, by mili- tary force, of protecting its interests in distant parts. A country which has neither colonies nor dependencies must yet have an organised force to protect itself against revolution and attack. But there is no reason in the world why the great nations of Europe should continue to multiply their extravagant provisions of military and naval armaments, when by the exercise of a frank and reasonable statesmanship those burdens could be removed from the peoples of their respective countries. Not only would disarmament be a dream ; we cannot hope by 126 PLYMOUTH, OCTOBER //, 1898. any statesmanship or by any arrangement as to armaments, to escape the dangers of war. Those dangers do not come alone from despotic or autocratic countries. The passionate- ignorance of a democracy, or the reckless ambition of some politician, who desires to defeat an opponent, or to supplant a colleague, may lead a nation into war ; and there is always an element of danger as danger there is in the best things we have in life in the campaign of provocation which the baser and less scrupulous part of the Press in free countries appears determined to carry on. But if we cannot abandon our arms, or secure perpetual peace, at least we may work for a moderation of tone between different countries an attempt to understand their legitimate claims, and their legiti- mate requirements of military and naval force, and to promote such an agreement between the nations of Europe as may assist us to relieve the people of the burdens which press so heavily upon them. It is said that these burdens press more heavily on Continental countries than on ourselves, and I think that is true. It may well be that in some places on the Continent that burden has become almost too heavy for the population to bear ; and it is, subject to something I shall say presently, fortunate for us that our prosperity of late years has enabled us to bear easily burdens somewhat considerable in amount. But I do not believe there is the smallest ground for doubting the good faith of the Emperor of Russia in the invitation which he has issued to the world. That invitation was not the act either of a selfish man or a timid man. The splendours of the Russian Empire are associated, as unhappily are the splendours of most empires, with military glory and success, and from the selfish point of view the Emperor of Russia might be well con- tent to go on with the splendid army and military organisation around him, of which he is the chief. It was not the act of a timid man. The Czar of Russia is exposed from year to year, and from month to month, to the conspiracies of that extra- ordinary Nihilist organisation, which, without any positive object of constructive statesmanship, seeks to destroy the organisation that exists in Russia, as well as in some other countries ; and there have been at least two occasions during the present year when the life of the Czar of Russia has been closely imperilled by Nihilist conspiracies. Curiously enough, that conspiracy gains much of its strength, and finds many of its most important adherents, in the ranks of the army. A selfish or a timid man would have done nothing to increase any sentiment of distrust or hostility there might be in the army ; and whether the result of the invitation to the world be a success or a failure, I for one think the Czar of Russia by that invitation uttered by him, on THE CZAK'S RESCRIPT. 127 that day and on that occasion, has done much to make his name as renowned in Russian history as the name of that grandsire of his who was murdered in the streets of St. Petersburg and whose memorial he then unveiled. But if this be an honest invitation, which it is to the interest of the world that we should accept and try to make effective, we must not disguise from ourselves that there are difficulties in the way. I have said that it will not abolish the pressure of armaments upon the peoples of Europe. It will not insure us against the c'-ingers of war. But we must make up our minds that if this congress is to be carried out, and representatives of European peoples are to meet at the council board, to assure as far as may be the relief of these peoples from great and growing burdens hereafter, the present condition of distribution of territory in Europe and in the East must be accepted as final. Alsace and Lorraine will have to remain German. Egypt will have to remain under the effective authority of Great Britain. Madagascar and Tunis and Tonquin will remain under the unquestioned authority of France ; and with regard to other parts the world over, I need not go through the catalogue. Where conflicting claims have been advanced, the essential condition of such an arrangement as the Emperor of Russia has proposed is that the great countries of Europe should accept the existing state of things. That will mean, no doubt, the dis- appointment of many hopes the hopes that have been formed of redressing what are supposed to have been the injustices of past history ; but this is an absolute essential of an acceptance of the Russian doctrine, and it carries with it one other con- sequence, that this Conference, if it is to meet at all, should meet as soon as possible, that there should be no temptation offered to the countries of Europe to endeavour suddenly to extend their territories in distant lands in order that they may be found to be in possession of them when the Congress of Peace shall meet. But there is one other thing that may be said about this. It is spoken about as doubtful and idealistic ; but if the three nations who are chiefly responsible for the peace of Europe were to agree among themselves that in the interval between now and the meeting of this Congress of Peace they would cease the rivalry in military and naval armaments which has been going on if Russia, Germany, and Great Britain were to agree upon a policy to carry out the principle of the Russian Emperor's suggestions, I have no doubt whatever of the success of that Congress when it should meet ; for the other nations of Europe will only too gladly relieve themselves of the burdens which are pressing so heavily upon the people to-day. I hear it said that after all we shall gain nothing by it ; that we are richer and stronger than other nations ; that we have borne 128 PLYMOUTH, OCTOBER //, 1898. quite easily the heavy expenditure of recent years, and that in this competition of increasing armaments we have nothing to fear. I am not sure that that would be a sufficient answer if it were true. We have no right, because of our prosperity at the moment, of our great resources and our material strength, to impose upon our people, and, by our example and action, upon other peoples, the burden of useless naval and military expendi- ture. But I wish our people would realise that to them also it may be a matter of prudence to check this competition. Russia desires, I have no doubt from prudential reasons, as I believe the Czar desires from philanthropic reasons, to diminish the cost of her army and navy. But Russia is not the only country which ought to consider the question of material resources in view of a large increase in expenditure on naval and military forces. A good many years have passed since I said anything specially in Plymouth with regard to financial matters and the expenditure of this country ; but a few days ago, . while in London, I got the Statistical Abstract, dated August 1898, and issued only last week, which shows the financial history of this country during the last fifteen years ; and when I opened it and noticed that the first year in the fifteen was the year ending 3ist March 1884, I was reminded that in January 1884, in the Guildhall here, I made a speech with regard to the comparative ex- penditure of Liberal and Conservative Governments. Some of you may perhaps have copies of the little volume of speeches I published, and may like to refer to that speech of January 1884. I then pointed out that while the Conservative Govern- ment of 1874 to 1880 had been responsible for an average expenditure of eighty-one millions a year, the Liberal Govern- ment had, in four years, raised the average to over eighty-six millions in a year. At that time economy had not ceased to be valued as a virtue, and we were in the habit at elections of disputing the claim to be an economical party with our adver- saries on the other side. What a strange change there has been since 1884 ! I have examined the figures in this book, which is prepared in the usual way of giving official figures, with the apparent determination to make it as difficult as possible for anybody to ascertain what is the exact truth, and these figures want comparison and collating before you can get at the true results. But when one does get at the true result, and com- pares, as I propose now to compare, the expenditure of 1884 with the expenditure of 1898, one gets some figures which are worthy of consideration. In 1884 the expenditure of the country was ^85,954,564. In 1898 the expenditure was ,105,686,994 ; or an increase of the national expenditure of fifteen years by no less than 23 per cent. How has that twenty millions more INCREASING TAXATION. 129 been spent ? Well, the figures that I give you for the army and navy will give a substantial answer to that question. In 1884 the army cost 16,135,326. In 1898 it cost 220,308,000, or an increase of 25 per cent. In 1884 the navy cost 10,728,721. In 1898 it cost 21,446,000. The expenditure upon the navy doubled in the course of that fifteen years. I do not grudge one penny of that increase if it has led, or helped to lead, to the result of putting a check, not in this country only but in other countries, upon the inordinate in- crease of the naval and military expenditure of the peoples. Ten millions of money is a very large sum. It represents a great taking from the pockets of the people. It represents an amount which, if it were not expended in the wasteful crea- tion of guns and ships, but devoted directly to the social advantage and welfare of the people, would do very much to improve the condition of the poorer classes among us. Devoted to guns and ships, it is not wasteful if it be needed to hold our place against the other nations of the world. If the ex- penditure of that money has, as perhaps it has, satisfied Russia, France, and Germany that our resources are so great, and that the spirit of our people is so high, that it is no use for them to enter into a rivalry of expenditure in which they must inevitably be beaten, then that extra expenditure has been the wisest and most useful that this country has made. But we cannot deny to ourselves that it imposes heavy burdens upon the people of this country. I turn to look at the statistics of taxation, the taxes that are taken from the people of this country. Again, there is an ingenious arrange- ment in the Government accounts, by which somehow you lose sight of about nine millions of money, and it is not very easy to detect it as being part of the national taxation. But after you find the right page you know it is. In 1884 the sum that was raised by taxation from the people of this country that is, excluding what we got from the Crown lands, from the profits of the Post Office, from the wise investment, for instance, in Suez Canal shares, and so on was ,71,866,000. In 1898 there came from the people in taxation ,97,974,168. But that is not all. You know very well it is not only by Imperial taxation that your pockets are touched in the course of the year. There are such things as rates. In 1884 the rates levied by local authorities were 24,934,874. In 1898 they were 35,898,774. So that if you add the taxes which the people had to pay to the rates which they had to pay, you will find that whereas in 1884 they had to pay 96,800,874, in 1898 they had to pay 133,872,942, or an increase in those fifteen years of no less than 38 per cent. Now I am not in the least an alarmist. The figures do not I 130 PLYMOUTH, OCTOBER //, 1898. shock me very much. We have had prosperous years. We have had increasing wealth among our people. We have now a lighter pressure of taxation upon the people of this country than possibly we have had at any time, certainly much lighter than our fathers bore in the early years of this century. But what I want to see is this, that where large sums of money are extracted from the pockets of a prosperous people, those sums of money shall be spent in the way which best subserves the interests of the people and their social welfare, and it is not the way in which best to subserve their social interests and social welfare to spend the money in an unnecessary rivalry of armies and navies. It may be that the difficulty is too hard to solve. It may be that when the statesmen of Europe are at that council table for meet they must, it will be a crime against humanity if any nation stands aside and disappoints the expectations which have been formed from this invitation it may be when they meet at that council table they may find the difficulty too strong, but I for one will never give up a good hope for myself or for others because there seems to be difficulty in the way. To me it appears that of all the interesting and important events that have filled this century, this invitation of the Czar's is one of the most interesting, and may be one of the most fruitful in good ; and I desired to speak of it to-night, not only because I wish to express my sympathy with that invitation, and my anxiety that it should be met by this country in a cordial and a friendly spirit, but because I desire to point out to you, and through you to others, that this is not a time at which we can deal lightly with these questions of heavy expenditure. We have enjoyed our great prosperity. Out of the fruits of that prosperity we have easily paid the burdens of taxation that have been laid on this country. It may be the fact, I hope it is, that that prosperity, and an exhibition of our capacity to bear great burdens, has had an influence on the councils of the great nations of the world, and led to this proposal being made. But we cannot forget that a time may come which would not be a time of so great prosperity which, if not a time of adversity, would be a time of pressure on our people, and then the burdens we so easily bear to-day, burdens the in- crease of which we have watched from year to year with scarcely a doubt or a grumble, might become too heavy for us to bear. There was one other subject I meant to say a word about to-night. I think our Government has rejected hastily and without sufficient consideration the proposal for protecting the food supplies of our people in time of war by the establishment of public granaries. Perhaps it is as well I have not left myself THE CZARS RESCRIPT. 131 time to do it, as it is a large subject, and deserves to be treated separately. I will leave that to be dealt with on a separate occasion. I have always desired, if possible, to confine myself to one topic, and on that topic to speak in a way which will be clear and definite. To-night I commend to your considera- tion this invitation of the Czar. I hope that that great party of which you and I are members, and which, I believe, has always worked loyally for the advancement of our people and for the maintenance of our honour, and, at the same time, has desired as far as possible to secure peace throughout the world that party whose leader and representative, the Prime Minister, has been signally successful during the last two or three years in meeting very difficult questions and controversies, and in preserving to a great extent the peace of Europe, and in limiting the mischief which such hostilities as have occurred might have caused to the world I trust this great party, so long as it guides and rules the political affairs of this country, may be found not only willing to agree to accept any such proposal and overture as the Czar of Russia has made, but to endeavour to carry that proposal of his, made at Moscow, into an International understanding which shall be a blessing to all the world. War for Commerce. ANNUAL DINNER OF PLYMOUTH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. JANUARY 5, 1899. Speech in proposing the " Port of Plymouth Chamber of Commerce." I HAVE had the honour of proposing this toast on many occasions, and I have generally found myself offering a few words of congratulation, which it has almost always been easy to find material for, upon the work of the Plymouth Chamber of Commerce and upon the commercial aspects of the time. To-night I find no difficulty whatever in offering you those words of congratulation. We have had during the last year a period of peace and of progress, a satisfactory condition of the trade of the country, of rapidly increasing wealth in the country, and of full prosperity in all the branches of its industry. But I do not feel disposed to-night to content my- 132 PLYMOUTH, JANUARY s, i8(^. self with simply congratulating you upon those matters. 1 think there is a danger on which I should like very promptly and very strongly to speak. There has been developed among us a very dangerous tendency to look to force as an agent of the commercial interests of this country. We have heard in many quarters of the propriety of maintaining an open door for commerce even at the cost of war. We have heard of the duty of pegging-out claims for posterity, and gently resisting the attempt of any other Power to seize those claims. And we have seen the appearance in the world of a new figure, which would be amusing if it were not so dangerous, and that is the commercial traveller of the quarter-deck. I think this morning there is another portent even more serious still. To-day's newspapers contain a manifesto of the Cobden Club, and that manifesto fairly interpreted really comes to this, that whenever territory in which any adventurers of our country have obtained commercial interests should pass under the authority of a civilised nation, it was not only our right but our duty to prevent, by war if necessary, the establishment in those territories of the protective tariffs which that nation might apply to its own country. There seem to be some among us, it is clear from this manifesto, who think that because we have adopted a fiscal policy which throws open every port under our flag to the equal commerce of all the nations of the world, we have a kind of divine right, which misguided Protectionist nations cannot have, to annex or otherwise acquire any part of the world's surface. Now, against that doctrine in any form, and however applied, I want to make the most prompt and vigorous protest I possibly can. It is a foolish doctrine. Tested by observation of the course of commerce throughout the world, it is a doctrine which cannot be justified as a matter of commercial prudence. I was interested the other day reading an article in the Daily News upon the French in Tunis, signed "H. W. L." Mr. Lucy. And in that article on Tunis Mr. Lucy spoke of the influence at Tunis that Sir Richard Wood, our British Consul there, had eighteen years ago, and he used this interesting phrase : "Through his active agency the honest grip of a British hand closed over everything that was worth having." And he went on to illustrate his description of this valuable influence, and to describe the commercial history of Tunis. And it was very curious, for he wound up his article by saying : "As a matter of fact, the revival of British trade with Tunis dates from the institution of the French Pro- tectorate." The ^2co,oco which represented our trade in 1880 had in 1897 swollen to the figure of ^680,000. It is a very valuable illustration of the fact that the possession of a country like Tunis by a foreign Power, even if that Power has WAR FOR COMMERCE. 133 erected barriers against our trade by adverse tariffs, may be, and very likely will be, the cause of a very great increase in our commercial activity. Now we hear a great deal about the necessity of protecting our trade in certain districts of the world, and during the last few months, when certain mad people have been inclined to provoke the Government of this country into warfare in the East because of some dispute as to concession or influence in Chinese trade, it often occurred to me to wonder how many of the people of this country understand what the condition and volume of Chinese trade are. There is this great empire of China, which, so far as it has been open to any trade at all, has been open to our trade for many years past. I find in the statistical abstract for the last fifteen years a record of our trade with China, and I should like you to know what it has been. In 1883 our imports from China were worth ,10,100,000, and our exports to China were worth 4^ millions, or a total of 14^ millions. In 1897, instead of our imports from China being 10 millions, they were only ,2,700,000. Our exports to China had increased to ,5,200,000, but the volume of our trade with China had shrunk in fifteen years from 14^ millions to 7^ millions. It had diminished by about one-half, bearing, of course, a very small proportion, indeed, to our trade with the whole world. That has been the course of our trade with China when no foreign influences have been in the field to check us, or control us, or defeat us. I do not think if our people had a little more accurate appreciation of the extent and value of our commerce with China there would have been quite so much danger of warlike operations a few months ago. But there is another observation I want to make to you. Of course, no single instance proves any proposition ; but if you take the course of our trade during the last forty years you will find this an interesting fact that whereas during these forty years we have increased the area of our authority in the world to an enormous extent, and have brought large areas and great populations under our direct control, whereas at the beginning of the forty years our trade with our own possessions and dependencies amounted to one-fourth of the whole trade of the country, at the end of these forty years, after all this accretion of territory and population, our trade with our colonies amounts to one- fourth of the whole volume of our trade. The proportion has been steady, though the area of our authority has so largely increased. That should be, and I think is, a certain indication it is not by the direct government of countries that the course of trade is mainly or materially altered, and whether a country passes under our own influence or under the influence of another civilised Power, in either case there will be a great accretion of 1 34 PL Y MOUTH, fANUAR Y j, 1899. trade to us, or to any country which is worthy of taking its place in the commerce of the world. I think the facts and figures show that this idea, which is lately gaining ground, of the necessity of increasing the area of our direct authority in order to swell the volume of our trade is founded upon an absolute mistake ; and I have no doubt myself that from the point of view of commerce the commercial interests in this country there can scarcely be indicated one accretion of territory which we have obtained, whether by conquest or by bargain, which has been worth to us the money which has been expended in its acquisition or may be rendered necessary for the purposes of its protection. But I want to go a step further than this. So far as I can judge of facts and figures, it is not simply that there is no such profit to be got by taking up claims or by defending the " open door" at the cost of war, as some people will think. But if it were true that we could to our own profit extend our commerce by force by war I should denounce the doctrine that we had a right to do it as a wicked doctrine. The only legitimate weapons of commercial warfare are bounties and tariffs ; a refusal to deal with people who will not treat you fairly, the giving of special benefits to those whose industrial prosperity will be useful to yourselves. You may, if you like, distrust or despise those weapons. If you refuse to use them you must rely, and can only rely, on the natural advantages of your country, and upon the character, and the intelligence, and education of your people. It is amazing to me to note that men who have stood by unmoved whilst important British industries were being destroyed and flourishing British colonies were being ruined, and have refused to do anything to help them because the simple and just remedy of an intercepting duty would vex their economic orthodoxy as Free-traders, should at this moment apparently be prepared to embark on a commercial policy which means not advancing the welfare of the country, but hindering it and crippling it by adding the penalties and extravagancies of war to the work we are doing throughout the world. I have indicated the methods of commercial warfare which, I believe, are the only methods that are legitimate, and I protest that if you pass beyond those methods of commercial warfare and seek to extend the area of your commerce by the use of Maxim guns and Lyddite shells, and all the devilish con- trivances of modern warfare, you are embarking on a policy which is a crime in ethics as well as a blunder in policy. "War for commerce" sounds a very innocent phrase and may be allowed to pass. " Murder for gain " has an uglier sound, but it as truly represents the course of the policy which I denounce to-night. The issue of the manifesto this morning by the WAR FOR COMMERCE. 135 Cobden Club brings home to me more clearly I hope it will bring home to my fellow - countrymen more clearly the mischief and the danger of the course of policy which they are being invited to pursue ; and of all places in the world where this protest might most fitly be made by me that place is in the constituency which has honoured me so long by its confidence, and at the meeting of the Chamber of Com- merce of that constituency. Our Chambers of Commerce ought to be agencies of peace. Many of us cherish the hope that now, as we are nearing the end of the century, there may be some assuagement of the terrible evils that are cast upon the world by the extravagant and unnecessary military and naval preparations of the peoples of the globe, but if there is any- thing that would put far off the hope of universal peace and that would disappoint the best expectations we may have formed of some relief of the nations the industrial peoples from these great burdens, it would be the acceptance by Chambers of Commerce, and by the commercial world, of mistaken and misguided schemes for the advancement of commerce. Do not let it be said of us in the Plymouth Chamber of Commerce that we have been untrue to the great principles of commercial Chambers. The idea of a commer- cial Chamber is to organise and regulate the commerce and industry of the world ; and by doing that it should weave as closely as possible those blessed ties of peaceful intercourse and mutual interdependence which we hope will help to bring about the pacification of the world and the relief of our people from the burdens of taxation. Plymouth lying as it does close to the great harbour associated with the naval and military strength of the country, may seem the most likely place in which these mischievous doctrines should find their acceptance. But I pray that as the years go by the Plymouth Chamber of Commerce, while it will know and will prize as the guardians of our freedom and honour the naval and military resources which make this country great and powerful to-day, will know at the same time how to carry forward in its peaceful mission the work of extending the commerce of the world. 136 PLYMOUTH, SEPTEMBER 28, / reform. The members of the Common Council are elected by all the ratepayers of the City ; the Lord Mayor is elected, not by the same constituency, but by a constituency of 8000 men, and for the position, for the intelligence, for the wealth of the men who belong to it, there is no constituency in the Kingdom that can compare with that constituency which elects each year the Lord Mayor of London. I do not want to go into details with regard to it, but I heard somebody use the word " audit." Is the honourable gentleman who used that word "audit" aware that every year the accounts of the City of London are brought here and placed in the Library of the House of Commons, and that the auditing of many of the accounts of the City of London is performed under Acts of Parliament, that the accounts all the accounts of the City of London are published every year ? There is no secrecy of any sort or kind about them, and the most vigilant critic of the City of London, the most vigilant member of the London County Council, even in its time of fiercest antagonism, has never been able to find anything wrong with the audit of the City. And so, sir, I venture to say that the City of London was entitled to con- sideration on the part of the Government. There is the other epithet, which I had nearly forgotten, that it is obstructive. In what respect is the City of London obstructive ? The City of London has more than once proposed to bring within its boundaries, within the advantage of its corporate government, certain outlying areas ; and with the full consent of the City of London I supported a Bill for bringing back effectively within its limits that part of Southwark which used to be associated with the City, and which is now only a nominal portion of its area. It would not have been at all unwilling to extend the boundaries of the City of London, and what has it done that it is obstructive with regard to this matter ? All that I know is that in the year 1884 the City suggested the creation of other municipalities in London, and in that way suggested very much the policy which is being followed by the Government now. But I do want to put this question to those on the other side who attack the City of London as being antiquated and obstructive : What would you like to do with the City of London? Do you want to extend its area? If you want to extend its area, why not suggest it? It is possible to suggest it. It might be done. The City of London might be made an even more important corporation than it is at the present time, if you desire so to do. Well, I have never seen a suggestion of that up to the present. The Corporation of the City of London represents the greatest and most important community in the world. You talk of your square mile. It may be a square mile, but what a square mile it is ! Take any hour of LONDON GOVERNMENT. 257 the day, and consider who they are within that area of a square mile, who are carrying on their business, and who are working in the great industries the financial industries and the com- mercial industries which have their home and centre in the City of London. I do not think I need go farther. The City of London will be left by this Bill discharging its duty, which it has well discharged for centuries, and, I hope, discharging great national duties. It has never dealt with those great possessions of which it has the stewardship as if they were the property of the square mile. It has dealt with them on very much larger principles, and with regard to the public weal. I do not agree with the right honourable gentleman the Member for Bodmin that the carrying of this Bill will not secure the position of the Corporation of the City of London. I think it will. I think that when that old corporation is surrounded by other corporations of great influence and great authority, as- sociated with it in the work of municipal government, it will be strengthened against any attacks which may be made upon it. That is one of the reasons why I am glad to see this Bill. That is one of the reasons why I think in proposing this measure her Majesty's Government have done a great service to the cause of Local Government in London, and in carrying this measure they will add to the great honours that have come to our party in years past in connection with Local Government. It was our party which in 1888 gave Local Government to England ; it was our party which, a little later, gave it to Scotland ; and it was our party which last year gave it to Ireland. I trust that the giving of a sound and effective system of Local Government to London may this year complete the work which the Government has to do in the direction of Local Government, and crown the successes which they have achieved in this direction. The War in South Africa. DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS, OCTOBER 19, 1899. [Parliament was summoned to meet on the i;th October 1899, and during the debate upon the Address in answer to Her Majesty's speech, Mr. Philip Stanhope proposed the addition to the address of the words, "but we humbly represent to your Majesty our strong disapproval of the 258 HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER 79, 1899. conduct of the negotiations with the Government of the Transvaal which have involved us in hostilities with the two South African Republics." After two nights' debate the amendment was rejected by 356 to 158. The following speech was delivered on the second night of the debate.] I THINK the House will understand that it is with reluctance I take part in this debate. The matter is a grave and serious one, and I wish I could hope that what I must say on the subject will be welcome and pleasant to friends sitting around me. But I ask their forbearance. I will make no large claim on their patience, but there are things which it is my duty to say to-night. I have spoken on this subject outside the House, and, having so spoken, after what has been said I feel it my duty to join in this debate. The leader of the House, in answer to an attack hinted at by the Leader of the Opposition, but which the right hon. gentleman does not appear to have courage to make directly, said that if the Government had been guilty of errors in the conduct of these negotiations, he would like to have those errors made known in the presence of the representatives of the people. It is because I have said else- where, and am prepared to say here, that I think there have been errors in the conduct of the negotiations that I feel bound this evening to state clearly and distinctly what those errors are. Since I made that speech, a fortnight or more ago, I have read with the utmost care all that has appeared in the Blue Books and in the public prints in regard to this matter. I have listened to-night to the speech of the Colonial Secretary, and if I had found it possible to get up and tell the House that I found I had made a mistake, that my opinion was expressed too hastily or upon imperfect knowledge, I hope I should have had the courage and it would require less courage than for the speech I have to make to-night to acknowledge my blunder. I would rather have confessed to a personal blunder and mistake than say a word in the nature of an attack on the Government or any member of the Government. But I am bound to say the more I read of the correspondence and learn the circumstances of the case the more I am convinced of the errors in the negotiations, and that this lamentable war is absolutely unnecessary. And I would add this that if I had any doubt when I came into the House, the extraordinary statement which was made by the Colonial Secretary (Mr. Chamberlain) about half an hour ago with regard to the tenor and intention of his answer to the proposals of the Transvaal Government that statement would have satisfied me that there have been most unfortunate and disastrous blunders in this matter. With a large part of the speech of the Colonial Secretary, of course, THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA. 259 I have no concern. I am sure I shall be acquitted at once of concern or sympathy with the personal attack made upon the right hon. gentleman yesterday from the other side of the House. So far am I from thinking that he was given a place in the Ministry which would take him out of contact with the work of this House, and give him occupation sufficient to prevent his interfering with measures here I say we never can be too grateful to him for the Workmen's Compensation Act, which I think the best measure this Parliament has passed, and I hope it is not necessary for me to say I absolutely dis- sociate myself from any personal attack. With the earlier part of the speech I have no fault to find. It is true we are all agreed there were grievances in the Transvaal ; that the rights of British subjects had not been sufficiently respected ; that our interests were endangered by the bad government of the country ; and that it was the imperative duty of this or any Government to use such measures as might rightly be employed to put an end to the grievances, and to protect the interests, of the inhabitants of the Transvaal. Nor am I concerned in the question of whether we were premature or dilatory in the despatch of troops. Of course, upon a matter like that all confidence must be given to the Ministers of the Crown ; they act upon the circumstances as known to them. But on the middle part of the speech I was going to say the smaller part of the speech connected with the Amendment, that is to say, the conduct of negotiations I desire to say a few words. Let me in parenthesis say that I cannot help being very heavily oppressed by the thought of what we are doing upon entering upon this war. It is not that we have to fight with a large number of persons. When my hon. and gallant friend the Member for the Wellington Division of Somersetshire was speaking in moving the Address I could not help remembering that the whole Boer population of the great country in South Africa we are going to attack is equal to about a sixth of the population of that western county part of which he represents. The gravity of the proceeding is shown by the fact that in order to deal primarily with that small body of persons, we are obliged to call out the reserves and militia, to send out a great army corps, to draw troops from India, and to accept contri- butions of troops from our great colonies. Seeing the efforts that are made for the prosecution of this war, one wonders what the country would do if ever we were engaged in a war with a great European Power. What is the reason, the neces- sity, for these great preparations and this costly expedition? The question which exists between you and this small body of persons is one which touches so many interests, which is con- nected- with so many difficulties in other parts of South Africa, 260 HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER 19, 1899. that it would have been worth anything for your diplomacy to have succeeded in healing the sores which existed there without raising all those difficulties which call on the country at this moment for such an enormous expenditure of force. The gravity of the matter has been foreseen. We are told that during the time this Government has been in power the garrison in our South African possessions has been raised from a few thousand men to the very substantial number of 15,000. AN HON. MEMBER : 25,000. Sir E. CLARKE : Of 25,000. Moreover, there are sugges- tions that in the future, owing to the action we are now taking, and to the unhappy differences which must exist when this war is over, we shall have to keep a garrison of 40,000 men in South Africa. It may or may not be so, but I think the best garrison that we could have established in our South African possessions would have been a faith in the perfect straight- forwardness and honour of the diplomacy of this country. I am very much afraid that the course of these negotiations has been such, however we may be able to justify ourselves, that we cannot expect from those with whom they have been carried on the admission that we have been straightforward, frank, and honest in our dealings with them. A good deal has been said about the question of the suzerainty. I do not propose to make many quotations to-night, but I shall be ready to support any statement I make by a reference to the quotation if it is asked for. I think that course will be most convenient, and I will trust hon. Members to check any statement I make by a reference to the Blue Books. Much has been said about the suzerainty. I said in the country, and I say here, that for any British Minister since 1884 to assert that we have a suzerainty over the Transvaal is not only a statement made in defiance of fact, but also is a breach of national faith. Suzerainty was expressly provided for in the Convention of 1881, but when the Convention of 1884 came to be made, suzerainty is not to be found mentioned in it at all. It is said that there were negotia- tions with regard to the matter at the time, and the right hon. gentleman has said to-night that a proposal was made to Lord Derby that a Convention should be made in a particular form, expressly disavowing the suzerainty, and that he would not consent to the form or the substance of such a Convention, That is perfectly true, but other things are to be remembered as well. The right hon. gentleman read some words from the statement which Lord Derby made in the House of Lords, but the important words of that statement were these " We have abstained from using the word ' suzerainty ' because it is a word which is capable of misconstruction, and leads, maybe, to misrepresentation and difficulty." THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA. 261 Therefore, there was a deliberate abstention in 1884, after conference and agreement with the delegates of the Transvaal, from the use of this word in the Convention, and the reason Lord Derby gave, as is stated by some one whose honour is not impugned, why they did not explicitly abandon the term "suzerainty" was that they were afraid to give to the then Opposition in the House of Commons, which was at that time troubling them very much with regard to Egyptian affairs, a further handle. Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN : I do not think I can allow that to pass. That statement was made by Mr. Faure. But Sir Robert Herbert who, I think, is the only person living who knows really intimately the history of the whole of this question denies it. Sir E. CLARKE : I beg pardon. Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN : I assure the hon. gentleman that Sir Robert Herbert disagrees entirely with Mr. Faure. I have had the opportunity of personally consulting with Sir Robert Herbert, and I say without hesitation that he considers that Mr. Faure was entirely mistaken. Sir E. CLARKE : All I can say is that Sir Robert Herbert's statement is in my hand. He says : " I have absolutely no recollection of that or any similar language being used. I desire, however, to add that I in no way question the bona fides of Mr. Faure's account of his remembrance of this part of the contract." Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN : Oh yes, the bona fides. Sir E. CLARKE : If Sir Robert Herbert does not remember any such language to have been used in his presence, but does not question the bona fides of the man who said he did hear it, I confess I think there is some evidence that it was said. Let me pass to another point. The Boer delegates, after they had been to this country, had seen Lord Derby, and had discussed this question of suzerainty and if hon. gentlemen will refer to The Times paragraphs of about that time they will find the question of the suzerainty was specially mentioned as one of the topics went back to their own country and submitted a report to the Volksraad. That report, which was published in the papers at the time, stated that they had procured the abolition of the suzerainty. If there was a mistake about it, it ought to have been corrected then ; but, as a matter of fact, from that time, when Lord Derby spoke in the House of Lords, until October 16, 1897, when the Colonial Secretary revived the claim of suzerainty in justifying a refusal to proceed to arbitration, that word had never, so far as I know, been used by any Minister of the Crown or in any public document having regard to the Transvaal. I venture to say that if it is 262 HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER ig, 1899. arguable whether the particular clause of the Convention of 1884 did create what could be called a suzerainty, at all events, it was a breach of faith to the Transvaal for any British Minister, after the lapse of fifteen years, to renew the claim attached to that word, which had been deliberately abandoned after conference with Lord Derby. It is said that the suzerainty remains because the preamble to the Convention of 1881 remains. I cannot imagine how anybody can have brought himself to believe that there is any substance in that. The Convention of 1881 recited in the preamble certain things, and then went on to make articles to give effect to them ; but the Convention of 1884 did not consist of new articles of an old Convention ; it was called in terms a new Convention, and the new Convention was one with a preamble of its own, appropriate to the position which was then created. The Transvaal at that time was not made, but was recognised as an independent sovereign State, a State with which this country was negotiating on equal terms. A great deal has been said about the claim of the Transvaal to be an international sovereign State. The Colonial Secretary has not said much about it, but a great deal has been said about it in the Blue Book. When that statement was made Sir A. Milner sent a telegram or despatch one of those unfortunate telegrams and despatches which have been most unnecessarily published in this extraordinary way in which he said this was clearly in opposition to Her Majesty's Government, and is in the nature of a defiance of Her Majesty's Government. Why should it be a defiance of us for the Transvaal to take one view of its own position and not a defiance of the Transvaal for us to take another view ? I really cannot understand. If it is a question as to how far the Transvaal was justified in looking upon itself as a sovereign State, I should like to refer to a quotation, and I think it will be a treat to the House to hear a new quotation which has n,ot been read or published so far as I know in the course of these discussions. In 1884 Lord Kimberley, representing the Govern- ment of the day in the House of Lords, was asked in that House how it was that the British Minister had signed the Convention with the Transvaal of 1884, but had allowed six months to the Volksraad in which to -ignify its acceptance of that Convention. Lord Kimberley replied, on i7th March 1884 " A treaty when concluded must be ratified by the sovereign power. Now, the sovereign power is not in the President of the Transvaal, but in the Volksraad itself, and the treaty must therefore be ratified by the Volksraad there and the Queen here. The noble Earl [Cadogan] also referred to another point, viz., that in 1881 the delegates who concluded the Conven- THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA. 263 tion on the part of the Transvaal solemnly engaged to see that the Convention of that year should be ratified. The noble Earl will see that there is a considerable difference in the two cases. There was then no established government in the Transvaal. The persons with whom we negotiated were dele- gates of the Boers, and that is a wholly different case from the present when there is an established government, and the delegates are acting under the ordinary authority given them by the State." The leader in the House of Lords of the then Government, therefore, himself described the Volksraad as being the sove- reign power with which this country was entering into a Convention. Now, of course, the Transvaal is not an unlimited sovereignty. It is limited by one particular article, but the Transvaal is a sovereign Power. It has international rights. It is entitled to receive Ambassadors or the representatives of Foreign States. It is entitled to send its own representatives to Foreign States, and the only limit upon its sovereign power is that all treaties made by it with Foreign States which it is perfectly free to make are not valid unless within six months they are ratified by Her Majesty's Government. That is a derogation from its sovereignty, but it does not destroy the sovereignty. That the Transvaal is an international Power in another sense we cannot dispute. We have ourselves on two occasions entered into treaties with the Transvaal for arbitration upon the terms of the Conventions. Having said so much upon these points, let me say this. I am amazed to hear what the Colonial Secretary says with regard to these matters. He says they are not of importance, and that in the answer of the Transvaal which was given in August of this year they were, in fact, waived. I will come to that in a moment, but I want to see what is really the history of this matter. There is no use whatever in going back before the time of the Bloemfontein Conference. Now what were the instructions given to Sir A. Milner before that Conference ? " Lay all the stress on the question of the franchise in the first instance. Other reforms are less pressing, and will come in time if that can be arranged satisfactorily." Other matters were mentioned, but Sir Alfred Milner went to that Conference and told President Kruger that if they could come to an agreement upon the franchise the other questions would either solve themselves or could be dealt with by arbitration. The Conference broke down. A proposal was made by Sir Alfred Milner which President Kruger would not accept, and in reply made a proposal for a nine years' franchise, which is described by the Colonial Secretary as an absolutely insufficient and foolish proposal. What happened after? 264 HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER /p, 1899. Almost directly after the Conference had broken down the Transvaal addressed a despatch to this country asking for arbitration upon the matters which were in dispute. Before that despatch was handed in Sir Alfred Milner suggested to the representative of the Transvaal that if the franchise were promptly and satisfactorily dealt with other things might easily be arranged. Upon that hint the Transvaal acted. We talk about criminal obstinacy and their making no advance. It is absolutely absurd. There was a session of the Volksraad. They prepared a Reform Bill by which a franchise of seven years was given, and a certain number of seats were given to the Rand, and in a single fortnight that Reform Bill was passed ; and by July 26 the Uitlanders were being enrolled as naturalised burghers under the provisions of that Act. On July 27 the Colonial Secretary wrote a despatch in which he recognised that this was a great advance, and he went on to say what was perfectly true that one could not possibly tell, except by a little experience and investigation, how far the seven years' franchise would give the Uitlanders a fair share in the govern- ment. That was on the 27th July, but that despatch was not presented to the Boer Government until the 23rd of August. It was held back for this reason that it was suggested to the Transvaal Government, or by the Transvaal Government (it is not material with whom the idea originated), that it might be ex- pedient to make a further proposal which would suit this country better, and so avoid the necessity of the inquiry into the effect of a seven years' franchise, because it was thought that if a five years' franchise was granted there would be no necessity for that inquiry. With regard to the application made to the Transvaal not to go on with the passing of that Act through the Volksraad until Her Majesty's Government had had an oppor- tunity of expressing an opinion upon its sufficiency, it is not the fact that this application was refused. A draft copy of the Bill had been handed to our representative at Pretoria, and the answer given when that request was made was that the Bill was ready for submission or had been submitted to the Volksraad, and it was impossible for the Minister to stop the proceedings of the Raad. President Kruger has had much difficulty with the Volksraad. I think he has on many occasions shown him- self a moderator, and an influence on the side of peace, but if he had gone to the Volksraad and said, " I propose we should adjourn the discussion until the British Colonial Secretary has had an opportunity of telling us what he thinks about the Bill" of course such a message would not have been listened to by anybody. It is said in many newspapers that the Transvaal insisted on our disavowing and withdrawing our claim to suzerainty. The Transvaal Government did nothing of the THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA. 265 kind. The Transvaal stipulated that there should in future be no use of the word which had been abandoned in 1884, and that the controversy on the subject should be allowed to drop. Now, I agree with the right hon. Member for West Monmouth (Sir William Harcourt) that there was good reason why the con- ditions attached to the five years' franchise proposal should have been accepted. The extraordinary incident that has marked the proceedings of this evening has been the statement of the Colonial Secretary that the answer to that proposal might have been taken as an acceptance. That was the phrase he used, but it is an ambiguous phrase, and I should like to know Was that answer intended as an acceptance ? Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN : At that time we thought the pro- posal of the Transvaal extremely promising. We intended to send a most conciliatory answer, accepting, as far as it was humanly possible for us to do so, their proposal, and, as the only point of difference was the internal intervention, I thought myself it would be accepted. Sir E. CLARKE : Then I take it that it was intended to be an acceptance of that proposal. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that were so, if, in fact, the Colonial Secretary intended to accept the proposals of the Transvaal, then undoubtedly this amend- ment is proved up to the hilt. But I do not think that any one can read the despatch which was sent on September 8 and reconcile it with the statement which is now made. Just let me put this to the House. Suppose when the Colonial Secretary got that proposal of August 19, he intended to accept it, what would have been, might have been, ought to have been his answer? That we do accept, that while we claim the right which any Government has to interfere for the protection of its subjects, we do not claim any right beyond that which we have under the Convention of 1884, or a right which arises in conse- quence of our position in Africa ; and he might have gone on to say that as to the suzerainty, if objection is taken to the use of the word, we do agree that it shall not be used in future, and that the discussion as to whether we are suzerains or not shall be tacitly allowed to drop. That is the obvious answer that would have been given by any one who intended to accept such a proposal. But what was the answer given ? I crave the indulgence of the House for a moment while I refer to this. The answer that was actually given was " Her Majesty's Government have considered the proposals which the South African Republic Government, in their notes to the British Agent of igth and 2ist August, have put forward as an alternative to those contained in my telegram of 3ist July. Her Majesty's Government assume that the adoption in principle of the franchise proposals made by you at Bloemfontein will 266 HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER 19, not be hampered by any conditions which would impair their effect. " With regard to the conditions of the Government of the South African Republic ; first, as regards intervention : Her Majesty's Government hope that the fulfilment of the promises made, and the just treatment of the Uitlanders in future, will render unnecessary any further intervention on their behalf, but Her Majesty's Government cannot, of course, debar themselves from their rights under the Conventions, nor divest themselves of the ordinary obligations of a civilised Power to protect its subjects in a foreign country from injustice. "Secondly, with regard to suzerainty Her Majesty's Govern- ment would refer the Government of the South African Republic to the second paragraph of my despatch of July 13." The second paragraph of the July despatch is this " Her Majesty's Government concur generally in the views expressed in your despatch, and have no intention of continuing to discuss this question with the Government of the Republic, whose contention that the South African Republic is a sovereign international State is not, in their opinion, warranted either by law or history, and is wholly inadmissible." By all means, but where is the acceptance ? Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN : We had no intention of pursuing the controversy ; what the hon. gentleman has just said was all that they asked for. He has just said that we tacitly agreed to allow the correspondence to drop, and that, as he has already declared, it was our intention to do. Sir E. CLARKE : Supposing that to be so, there was an obvious misunderstanding. The stipulation that you would dis- continue the use of the word and allow the controversy tacitly to drop is not answered by a reference to another despatch, which says that you are not going to continue the controversy. But I must point out that that answer which was, as we know now, intended to be an acceptance of the proposal made on 1 9th August, was sent by telegraph on 28th August. On 2nd September the Transvaal Government answered it, regretting that Her Majesty's Government " have not been able to decide on accepting the proposal for a five years' franchise," and then they go on to say this " Passing now to the discussion of the observations of Her Majesty's Government on the conditions attached by this Government to the proposal, which has now lapsed in conse- quence of the non-acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of these stipulations, the Government wishes to observe (a) that with reference to the question of intervention, this Government has neither asked, nor intended, that Her Majesty's Government should abandon any right which it really might have, on the THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA. 267 ground either of the Convention of London, 1884, or of inter- national law, to intervene for the protection of British subjects in this country ; (b~) that as regards the assertion of suzerainty its non-existence has, as this Government ventures to think, already been so clearly stated in its despatch of i6th April 1898, that it would be superfluous to repeat here the facts, arguments, and deductions stated therein ; it simply wishes to remark here that it abides by its views expressed in that despatch." Now, if the despatch of 28th August had been misunderstood, and if the Transvaal Government ought to have taken it as an acceptance of their conditions, why was not that said ? But so far from it being said, a despatch was written which destroys the right hon. gentleman's suggestion that it was an acceptance. The despatch was sent on 8th September " Her Majesty's Government understand the Note of the South African Republic Government of 2nd September to mean that their proposals made in their Note of igih August are now withdrawn because the reply of Her Majesty's Government con- tained in their Note of 3Oth with regard to future intervention and suzerainty is not acceptable. Her Majesty's Government have absolutely repudiated the view of the political status of the South African Republic taken by the Government of the South African Republic in their Note of i6th April 1898, and also in their Note of gth May 1899, in which they claim the status of a sovereign international State" (in our telegram of 28th August no reference is made whatever to the claim to be a sovereign international State) "and they are, therefore, unable to con- sider any proposal which is made conditional on the acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of these views." The proposal had never been made conditional on their acceptance. Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN : The hon. Member harps upon the word acceptance. He must remember he asked me the ques- tion whether we intended to accept. I, myself, should have thought that the Boers would have taken it as an acceptance, but I suppose it may be properly described as a qualified acceptance. We did not accept everything, but we accepted at least nine-tenths of the whole. Sir E. CLARKE : Really, this becomes more and more sad. It is dreadful to think of a country of this kind entering upon a war, a crime against civilisation, when this sort of thing has been going on. Why, in the very next sentence, the right hon. gentleman says " It is on this ground that Her Majesty's Government have been compelled to regard the last proposal of the Government of the South African Republic as unaccept- able in the form in which it has been presented." Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN : In the form. Sir E. CLARKE : Is it a matter of form ? 268 HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER 19, 1899. Mr. J. CHABMERLAIN : Yes. Sir E. CLARKE : With regard to the point made by the right hon. gentleman opposite in his speeches in the country and in this House, that the conditions which were attached to the proposal of August 19 were conditions which might have been accepted, we know now that so little objection was there made to them that a despatch was sent, which, it was supposed, would be considered by the Transvaal Government as an accept- ance. Suppose otherwise. Suppose the proposals were so bad that they might be deemed to be rejected. In what period did this happen ? The despatch in which the right hon. gentleman said that the offer of the seven years' franchise was far in advance of anything promised before, and that it formed a basis upon which matters might be discussed by a joint Commission, was kept back until August 23. Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN : It was communicated. Sir E. CLARKE : I have no doubt its substance was delivered. It was telegraphed on 27th July, and communicated to the Transvaal Government immediately after that, but not formally delivered until 23rd August, when these proposals were all known to Her Majesty's Government. What was the situation, then, when the despatch was formally delivered to the Trans- vaal Government ? On 22nd August the right hon. gentleman received these proposals which we now understand he was willing to accept, but having received these proposals on 22nd August he telegraphed on 23rd August to deliver to the Transvaal Government the despatch sent on 27th July, re- ceiving in a friendly fashion the proposal for a seven years' franchise. The Government then refused to go any further with regard to the proposals of igth August. It would have been perfectly right to say, "You have misunderstood our answer, we intended in substance to accept your offer;" but not only did they not do that, but they distinctly refused to discuss the seven years' franchise, which had been dealt with in favourable terms by the despatch delivered on 23rd August. There was here a lamentable departure from the course which our opponents might have expected us to take. If negotiations are going on with a man, and you have come very near a conclusion, and he has made a proposal which you may not think adequate and sufficient, but which gives a basis of agreement, and if he then makes another proposal intended to cut short the discussion by making some other arrangement and you refuse that why, in common-sense and honesty you ought to keep open the proposals which you have been con- sidering before. Sir, I confess that I, for one, cannot see any answer to the suggestion that at that time of stress and difficulty Her Majesty's Government would have acted wisely THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA. 269 either in making clear the acceptance of the proposals of August 19, over which there had been a misapprehension, or in saying, " After this alternative proposal is out of the way we will go on negotiating upon the basis existing before, and try to bring them to a conclusion." But not only did they get rid of the proposal of the five years' franchise by not accepting the con- ditions ; and then said that they refused to go back to the dis- cussion of the seven years' franchise ; they actually made the fact that the Transvaal Government had proposed a five years' franchise a reason for saying, " You have actually admitted that a five years' franchise will not do you any harm, and we will not let you go back." From that time the question was hopeless. There was one further attempt made by the Transvaal Government to bring matters to a conclusion. In the answer of 2nd September there was a discussion of a question of a joint commission. It was pointed out to them that they had not in terms accepted the joint commission proposed in the despatch of 27th July, and on 8th September the Transvaal Government sent a telegraphic communication asking her Majesty's Govern- ment to add to their note a clause stating that they accepted the joint commission. Time went on. Parliament, unhappily, was not sitting. Mr. JOHN BURNS (Battersea) : It never is when South African affairs should be discussed. Sir E. CLARKE : I have heard it often said, and I think said with a good deal of truth, that there are many dangers to the peace of the world in discussions which take place in this House with regard to foreign matters, and I believe the representatives of the Foreign Office sleep the more soundly and peacefully when Parliament is not sitting. But in this case we have had a specimen of what is called the new diplo- macy. Everything has been published whether it ought to have been published or not, and I am convinced that if this House had been sitting during the month of August and the first week of September there would have been no war with the Transvaal. We should have secured without war the five years' franchise, which Sir Alfred Milner said was better than any proposal that he himself had made ; or we should, at all events, have had a seven years' franchise, with an inquiry by joint commission, and arbitration on every other point. I said that I was reluctant to intervene in this matter. It is a great pain to me to take to-night a course which separates me in judgment and in action from many of my colleagues, but it is impossible for me to do otherwise. We have had a specimen of the new diplomacy. If I had read these Blue Books, not knowing the persons who were concerned in the matter, I con- fess that I should have been forced to the conclusion that the 270 HOUSE OF COMMONS, OCTOBER i 9t correspondence was conducted not with a view to peace. I do not suggest that for a moment. We have had the statement of the right hon. gentleman that he has been working for peace ; but if he has been working for peace in this matter I cannot help saying that a more clumsy correspondence is not to be found in the records of diplomatic action, and it seems to me that the publication of certain despatches in these Blue Books has been most unfortunate. It was competent for Sir Alfred Milner to send a confidential statement to the Colonial Secre- tary telling him freely what he thought. Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN : They were not confidential ; they were sent for publication. Sir E. CLARKE : The right hon. gentleman says they were sent for publication. Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN : I have already said that that par- ticular despatch was for publication. Sir E. CLARKE : I am not referring to one despatch only. There are a number of them. As one travels along the Blue Book one finds these despatches from Sir Alfred Milner. The Blue Books are full of despatches whose publication could not have been of any use except to make the Transvaal more suspicious, while they are also filled with observations from Cape newspapers, with reports of public meetings at which violent speeches have been made with regard to the Transvaal, with anonymous affidavits as to outrages and threats used towards this country. We are told a most extraordinary thing with regard to the object of the Blue Books. We are told on the highest authority that it is desirable to inform the public mind, to raise the public interest and sympathy for the Govern- ment. Yes, if the Government were going in the direction of war these Blue Books were the very things to excite sympathy and support for them in this country, and to excite a feeling in the Transvaal which was as hostile to the preservation of peace as was the excitement of a violent war feeling here. I think the course which these negotiations have been allowed to take is greatly to be regretted. I should have been wanting in duty to myself if I had not here said what I have said elsewhere with regard to them. I should like to say one personal word to the hon. friends around me. I have been for thirty years in active political life. I have been for twenty years a diligent worker in the affairs of this House. I think I can say that during that time I have been unwavering in my fidelity to the leaders of my party in this House. Except on one occasion, when I made a speech with regard to the financial relations of Ireland, I have not in this House spoken against the course which my leaders were taking. It is, therefore, a great pain to me to speak so now. But my work for the party has THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA. 271 been amply and completely rewarded. No sort of reward or gratitude remains due to me from the party or its leaders. It has been rewarded by my being permitted for some years to be one of the law officers of the Crown ; it has been rewarded more than that by the constant friendship, and I hope I may say the confidence, of the right hon. gentleman whose follower I am proud to be. A reward, too, has been given to me which is, perhaps, better than anything else, and that has been the opportunity afforded to me of taking a sometimes not incon- spicuous part in the discussions of this House. But I am bound to speak this. No man can know that he is right ; but he can know whether his opinion is an honest one, whether it is absolutely unbiassed by any question of personal interest, or by the more subtle influence of personal antagonism. I know that my opinion is an honest one, though it may not be right. I hope by-and-by my hon. friends who now are feeling angry and hurt at my conduct may remember that there is a deeper and a truer loyalty to party than that loyalty which is expressed in the constant going into the division lobby at the bidding of the Whip. I think they will acquit me of any disloyalty to the party in having, as I have done, striven to prevent my country from suffering the calamity, and my party from suffering the reproach, of having embarked on an unnecessary war. The War in South Africa. FEBRUARY 2, 1900. [Parliament met on the 3Oth January 1900, and during the debate upon the Address in answer to the Queen's Speech, it was proposed by Lord Edward Fitzmaurice to add to the proposed address the words, " But we humbly express our regret at the want of knowledge, foresight, and judg- ment displayed by your Majesty's advisers, alike in their conduct of South African affairs since 1895, and in their preparations for the war now proceeding." After six nights' debate the amendment was rejected by 352 against 139. The following speech was delivered on the third day of the debate.] Sir EDWARD CLARKE : I do not desire to offer to the House a controversial speech upon the motion which is now before us, but there are some things that I should very much like to say if the House will give me its patience. They are 272 HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUAR Y 2, 1900. not at all from a party view, but from my strong feelings in regard to the position in which the country at this moment stands. I do not agree with the complaint that has been made from the Treasury bench of the debate which is now going on. I do not at all believe that the country is taking no interest in this debate. On the contrary, I think the strongest interest is being taken in it from the many aspects of the question which are being dealt with, and I think from day to day the interest that has been felt has been well rewarded. I never knew of a vote of censure moved as an Amendment to the Address that was not complained of by the Government. If Ministers are sure of a majority they say the debate is a waste of time ; if they think they may be defeated they say the motion is factious. I am quite sure that the time which this debate has already taken has not been wasted. I will not speak of other speeches, but the speeches that were made yesterday by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir Charles Dilke), by my hon. friend the Member for Belfast (Mr. Arnold Forster), and by the Under Secretary of State for War (Mr. G. Wyndham), were speeches of great value to the country, and which the country is studying to-day with interest. In regard to those speeches they may not be of so much value taken separately, but the group of them illustrate the military position of the country at the present time, and require to be studied together in order that the people may be instructed as to what is the present position. Therefore I do not agree that this debate is being wasted, and I make the strongest protest against the attack which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Goschen) has just made upon the right hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), whom he has. denounced as being a friend of the enemies of this country, because he has spoken what he believes to be the truth with regard to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. That is not a charge which a Minister has a right to make, and I do enter my strongest protest against it. I should like to say that while I think this debate was inevitable, and is, on the whole, doing good, I am very anxious that, if possible, there should be no division when this question comes to be put, and I think the words which the right hon. gentleman has just addressed to the other side may well be considered by them when they are determining whether they will have a division upon this question. I for one will gladly vote for the Govern- ment ; because now, while the war is raging, when it is impossible for us to stop the war without doing more mischief to our Empire, and producing more misery in the world, we must carry the war to its ultimate conclusion, that is the successful issue of our arms and the establishment of a satisfactory state of things in South Africa. I will gladly vote with the Govern- THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA. 2?$ ment ; but I do wish that when we come to the end of this debate there may be no recorded division, which, though it will be perfectly understood in this country after the debate, will un- doubtedly be misunderstood and misconstrued abroad. An argument has been put forward against which we have a right to protest, and that is the suggestion that the Government cannot be fairly held responsible for those defects which are charged against them with regard to the preparations of armaments, because they would not have been able to get from the House of Commons the supplies which they thought were needed. Now, this is the last Government by whom such a complaint should be made. Since this Parliament began the Government has had an almost unparalleled authority in this House. It has had the support of a very large majority, and there have been domestic circumstances on the other side which have crippled for a time the strength of the Opposition. Indeed, Ministers have actually gone about lamenting that they have not had a sufficiently strong Opposition for the regular and comfortable conduct of Parliamentary affairs. While they have had an overwhelming authority in this House and only a divided Opposition, there is such a completeness of party spirit and party discipline throughout the country that if an old supporter of the Government differs conscientiously from the policy of the day, he is punished by exclusion from Parliamentary life. (HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh !) Oh yes ; and I am prepared to pay the penalty for having expressed opinions unpalatable to those who have supported me. I do not think it is fair to suggest that it is any excuse for a Government, in such a position and with such a majority, that it cannot be held responsible for the defects charged against them with regard to the preparation of our armaments, because it would not have been able to get the support and the supplies from the House of Commons which they thought were needed. (HON. MEMBERS : No, no !) It has been suggested over and over again. Mr. A. J. BALFOUR : I never said that. Sir EDWARD CLARKE : I am very happy to be assured that the right hon. gentleman did not say so ; but it is perfectly well known that it has been alleged. Let me pause for a moment to say a word regarding the negotiations. The Ministry speak very strongly against those who now discuss the conduct of the negotiations, and the right hon. gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty has said that the country has made up its mind on this matter. But, sir, I think, if the Government do not wish these negotiations to be discussed, they had better leave off publishing Blue-books; because the Blue-books published during the present week contain a most remarkable illustration of the course the Government took on a most critical occasion. The S 274 HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 2, igoo. position of this question is greatly changed from that which it had when we were discussing it in October last. Then we were not aware of what we now know, that the Government had complete and accurate information in regard to the strength of the armaments, and the number of the Boer forces. When, in the light of these Blue-books, we consider the situation as it existed in the middle of September, the course which was taken in sending the despatch of September 8 becomes more and more amazing. On the 6th September a telegram was received by the Colonial Secretary from the Governor of Natal. We are told ndw that until September 27 nobody thought, and nobody was entitled to think that the Orange Free State would join the Transvaal. Yet on the 6th September this telegram was read by the Colonial Secretary, who received it from Sir Walter Hely-Hutchinson : " My Ministers know that every preparation has been made, both in the Transvaal and in the Orange Free State, which would enable an attack to be made on Natal at short notice. My Ministers believe that the Boers have made up their minds that war will take place almost certainly, and that their best chance will be" then comes the remarkable phrase " when it seems unavoidable, to deliver a blow before reinforcements have time to arrive." That telegram came on 6th September. But there is some- thing more than that. Sir Alfred Milner had a few days before that spoken of "the colossal armaments" of the Transvaal, and yet it was on the 8th September that the despatch was written which was said to be an acceptance of nine-tenths of the pro- posals of the Transvaal Government. And when I read the passage from that despatch that Her Majesty's Government were compelled to regard the proposal of the Transvaal Republic as unacceptable in the form in which it had been presented, I asked the Colonial Secretary " Is it a matter of form?" and the Colonial Secretary in the face of this House said, " Yes." That was on 8th September. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN) : No, sir, I cannot believe that I could have said that, although it appears to have been only a hasty interjection. Most certainly the difference was not merely a difference of form. What I think I said was that nine-tenths of the Transvaal Government's proposals would be acceptable, but that the one-tenth that remained was something more than a matter of form. Sir EDWARD CLARKE : I do not wish to dwell on the point ; but I believe the exact words are to be found in Hansard^ At any rate we know that on the 8th September both the Transvaal i See The Parliamentary Debates, Fourth Series, Vol. LXXVIL, p. 311 (igth Oct. 1899). THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA. 275 and the Orange Free State were arming, and that that warning came to a Government which had full information as to the number of the Boer forces and the state of their armaments and ammunition. I will not, however, dwell on that point, but pass to another ; and that is whether we do realise now the necessity of not only making a great effort to succeed in this war, but of making that success as speedy as possible. Time is of enormous importance. Ministers are no doubt bound to be reticent, but it is permissible for a private member to think and to say, when the country is drained of troops, that there are dangers ahead, week by week, arising out of the multiplicity of the difficulties between this country and foreign states, which make it of supreme importance that every effort should be immediately made to put this country in a state of defence. There has been a splendid exhibition of loyalty, courage, and devotion on the part of the country ; but national defence cannot be maintained by voluntary subscription. I would hope that within a very short time there will be some very strong move- ment to organise in this country a force which may be useful to us, if unhappily we are called upon to meet dangers at home, while our army is locked up in South Africa. There is one thing I should like to say in regard to the matter of the future. I am very glad indeed that the Leader of the Opposition did limit his definition of the purpose and object of this war in the way he did. Before the beginning of the debate, a great many people were anxious that the Government should say that this war should never stop until the British flag is planted at Bloemfontein and Pretoria. I can quite understand English- men wishing that that may be the ultimate consequence of the war ; but it would be a terrible mistake if the Government declared that that was an essential consequence. We do not know what our difficulties may be in the future. Suppose we take it on the footing that this war is absolutely just, and that we cannot escape from it, and were compelled to enter into it from the best of motives. Even then, it would be most unwise for the Government to define the result which was to follow the war ; because we might find ourselves in difficulties so great as to compel us to expend, on an object unnecessary and hardly worth the realisation, a force which we have no business to use except for the highest purpose, and for the greatest interests of the nation. I am bound to say from my point of view, and of a great many others in this country, that this war is an absolutely unnecessary war, caused by our diplomatic blundering, and does not represent that which can be truly called the cause of justice. Those of us who think thus look with horror at what is going on in South Africa. We are sending our best and our bravest sons to slay and be slain 276 HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 2, 1900. by men who are as brave and as true-hearted as themselves. This is a thought which, I believe, comes day after day, and morning after morning, into the minds of many men amongst us, and we pray that something may be done to stay this war. I want to leave it to the Government, when we have succeeded in the first requisite of having cleared our foreign foes from off the territories of the Queen, to make some settlement, honour- able alike to ourselves and to the brave people whose conduct in this war has vindicated for them the right to maintain their independence. I plead only for this, that we shall leave open to ourselves the right and the opportunity of making such an honourable settlement at the first moment when we can stay this bloodshed and agony. I do not believe that the annexation of the Transvaal and the Orange Free State would be of the slightest advantage to this country. I believe it would compel us to a great increase in the enormous military expenditure which now presses upon our people, and will press upon them more heavily for some years to come. I do not desire to press my own views on the House, because I realise that they are not popular at the present moment ; but I only plead that the Ministry should not pledge themselves to a course of action which may involve tremendous sacrifices in the future. There is one other point I wish to dwell upon. I know the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility. It is a very valuable doctrine in many aspects. It obliges Ministers to take an active and careful interest in everything that comes before the Cabinet ; and when something happens on which the Government is arraigned by a hostile party, it is well that the Ministers should feel that there is a solidarity amongst them. But that doctrine may be carried too far. In this case the real responsibility for this war, be it right or wrong, is with the Colonial Secretary. It is impossible not to see, not to note, from the speeches that have been made of late, that the Prime Minister, who, I believe, is the man in whom all England puts the greatest confidence at this moment having many other things to deal with, and being distressed by domestic anxieties may not have been able to attend so closely as he otherwise would have to this matter. But at all events, we cannot get away from this fact, that there are two men one in this country and one in South Africa who are the persons looked upon, it may not be by all in this country, but certainly by all in South Africa, as being the persons who have been most closely associated with the beginning of this war. I wish that the highest sentiments of patriotism would induce these two men to leave to others the positions which they now occupy. I must say I myself believe that the greatest difficulty in South Africa, in dealing with the solution of many questions that have arisen in this THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA. 277 war, is the fact that the lines of communication and action in South Africa are with the Colonial Secretary and Sir Alfred Milner. I am not saying a word against their honesty in this matter ; but I do say that I believe their presence one here, and the other in South Africa would be a difficulty and a hindrance to a settlement. If others were to take their places for a short time (HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh !) Oh, yes. This is a great national crisis. It is a time of great and deep anxiety. If others were to take their places for a few weeks, or a few months, if the Prime Minister himself were to take under his own control the communications of the Colonial Office to South Africa, if Lord Rosebery would give his services to the country, and go out to South Africa himself, to deal with the solution of these difficulties, it would be a sacrifice not too great to ask even from the greatest men amongst us, at the time of national danger, and one for which I believe the country would be very grateful. I have said I was not going to make a con- troversial speech (HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!) I do not think I have. If I have, it has been with no intention of personal attack, but simply under the conviction that we are now at a time of great national danger, and that we have to consider the things not only of to-day, but of the future. MISCELLANEOUS SPEECHES. The Primrose League and the House of Lords. SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF GRAND HABITATION AT COVENT GARDEN THEATRE, APRIL 19, 1894. LORD SALISBURY, MY LORDS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN, I rise to propose the following resolution : " That this meeting of the Primrose League in Grand Habitation assembled desires to record its conviction that the House of Lords is an integral part of the Constitution, and essential to the maintenance of the liberties of the people." When I heard the first part of the speech which we have just enjoyed, I thought, my Lord, that you had accepted for yourself the responsibility of moving the resolution which was set down in my name, for upon some at least of the great matters which concern the existence and the usefulness of the House of Lords you spoke words which I will not repeat, as I should only diminish their weight and could not add to their effect. There are, however, still some things with regard to the House of Lords which you, in kindness, left me the opportunity of saying. This motion speaks of the House of Lords as an integral part of the British Constitution ; and, in so speaking, it does justice to that great assemblage, not only in reference to recent political events, of which every Peer may be proud, but in reference to much earlier services rendered to this country by the great aristocracy that forms the House of Lords. In times long gone by the liberties of our people, and the growing commerce of our country, were protected against the tyranny of the Crown by an aristocracy which was too proud to be servile, and too wealthy to be corrupt. The special dangers that then existed have passed away, but I believe that 278 THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 279 in the constitution and character of the House of Lords we find our safeguard against a danger at least as great as was ever threatened by the tyranny of the Sovereign. We are in danger now of what I may call the tyranny of the odd man. We are in danger of the despotism of the House of Commons ; and of all despotisms to which this country could be exposed the most dangerous would be that despotism which was able in some respects to claim that it represented a larger authority than that of the power which was despotic. The House of Commons, if it were despotic, if it had no Second Chamber to check it and to insist upon the reference of great questions to the people, would represent simply the odd man in each constituency. A majority which might have been obtained in a handful of con- stituencies would give one man, the Minister of the day, the power of finally determining great political questions. Your social system, your domestic liberties, the Constitution of the country, the future of the empire, would be at the mercy of the votes of a handful of the least instructed and least intelligent of the electors of half-a-dozen boroughs, or would be at the mercy of a political intrigue within the walls of the House of Commons itself. Against these dangers we require some protection, and it must be found in a Second Chamber. There is no man who ever had to deal responsibly with the difficulties of government who does not know that with representative institutions a Second Chamber is absolutely necessary to prevent danger from the passion it may be from the passionate folly of the people at a particular time. But if there is to be a Second Chamber, how should it be constituted ? If a Second Chamber is to be of any use in the country it must have the character of independence. If it were simply a representative body, elected by some means by the same constituents as the First Chamber, it would, of course, be of no use, as it would reflect the same opinions. If you adopted the device of electing your members for life it might be said that they were representative because they were elected, but their usefulness would only be to the extent to which the election for life made them independ- ent of influences which govern and control an elected Chamber. Then there is the device of having a property qualification for the person elected, or for the electors themselves. Does any one believe that in a time of real stress and conflict such devices for reducing the representative character of the Second Chamber would be of the smallest value ? Of course they would be swept away. I regret to find that some of those who defend the existence and the action of the House of Lords speak occasionally in apologetic terms as to that House being founded on the hereditary principle. I believe the fact is that a wise man creating a Second Chamber for a country like this would 280 LONDON, APRIL 79, 1894. select the hereditary principle as the best, and would in it find the surest and safest foundation for the establishment of such a Chamber. The hereditary principle, however, is no mere choice of political philosophers. It is perfectly familiar in the lives of all of us. In ordinary life and in the whole course of history the hereditary principle has been found to be one which the people were prepared to recognise^ and by which they were prepared to stand. The advantage of the hereditary principle is that it results in the selection of men who from their very earliest childhood have been educated in the knowledge that upon them would fall the responsibility of the discharge of great public duties, and that, not simply by their own position and opportunities, but by the honour of those who have gone before them, they are bound to faith- fully discharge those duties. Consider the education of one in the position which I have just sketched. He is brought up from childhood in a house where every book and picture upon the walls tells him of honour enjoyed and of public service rendered by those whom he is proud to speak of as his ancestors. All reminds him that he in his turn will have to discharge public duties in a situation where he knows that vice will not be excused by obscurity, and that meanness cannot be justified by any commercial maxims. His education is the education of one who is to bear responsibilities and discharge public duties. By that very education he is free of the affliction from which English public men outside the walls of the House of Lords suffer the fear of speaking their whole mind, lest the speaking of their whole mind may offend a little set of persons who hold in their hands in a particular constituency the political future of the member, and the terrible temptations to palter with opinions which they know not to be true, for the sake of earning that support without which all hope of public service will be gone for them. These considerations, to my mind, absolutely justify the firm maintenance of the hereditary prin- ciple as the main foundation of the Second Chamber. I do not say that upon the hereditary principle exclusively should the House of Lords be constituted. I wish, indeed, that the House of Lords twenty years ago had followed the wise counsel of you, my Lord, and had admitted to its ranks men who had done public service, but who, for various reasons, could not accept the honour of an hereditary peerage. I believe that the result would have been to remove that reproach from the House of Lords which many people now bring against it, namely, that its doors are only opened to public servants who have distinguished themselves in the fulfilment of their duties to the State on the condition either that they have a large fortune or have been blessed with no children at all. Many of our great public THE HOUSE OF LORDS. . 281 servants have only been able to go into the House of Lords because there was no son to succeed them in the hereditary dignity bestowed upon them. I hope that when, as I think will soon happen, the House of Lords has the opportunity, under Lord Salisbury's guidance, of again considering and dealing with this question, all such defects will pass away. It is often said that when men are admitted to the House of Lords their opinions undergo a change. That is perfectly true. They feel the advantage of independence. Their better self is able to be asserted, and there is no more interesting process in nature for one to carefully watch than the gradual reassertion of the claims of reason over the mind of a Gladstonian peer. He passes to a place where he can speak fully his own mind if he desires to do so ; where upon any question which comes before him he is able, without fear of consequences to his political reputation or future, to say exactly what he thinks, and to do exactly what he wishes. Before he went to that House he perhaps had enjoyed the dis- tinction in the other House of being a member for some con- stituency, but he had not represented that constituency or even its general opinion and feeling. It is only in a few cases, at all events on the Gladstonian side of the House, where a man has, by long public service, obtained great personal repute in his constituency, that he is able to hold himself quite free from the tyranny of the small bodies among his constituents ; and in most cases he represents, not the majority of his constituents, but, like the Prime Minister to-day, a bundle of noisy minorities, not one of which he can dare to disregard. A Second Chamber must be an independent Chamber or it will be of no use. No independent Second Chamber, I believe, can be constructed by any device or manipulation of the electoral system. Let us be glad that we have the best Second Chamber in the world a Second Chamber founded upon the natural principle of heredi- tary succession, but a Second Chamber which has always shown itself ready to yield to the opinion of the people when that opinion has been fully and truly expressed. If on these grounds, which are to some extent theoretical, the position of the House of Lords can be defended, and its history can be spoken of with pride, we have recent and practical reason for being thankful to, and having confidence in, that House. You, my Lord, have referred to the course the House of Lords took last year, when, by rejecting the Home Rule Bill, they forced on the Govern- ment of the day the necessity of either postponing that Bill until they had been compelled to appeal to the electors, or of immedi- ately taking the opinion of the country. They dared not take the opinion of the country then, and every day that has gone by has made them more anxious to postpone their appeal until they are able to confuse it with a multiplicity of issues Mr. 282 . MANCHESTER, JANUARY 14, 1896. Dillon the other day declared that the chief object of every Irish member now should be to postpone the appeal to the constituencies. Why? Because he knows as well as we do what the nature of the reply would be. He knows as well as we do that when the House of Lords gave that vote, by an unexampled majority of its members, it gave a vote which spoke the true mind of the people of this country, and pro- nounced a decision which, whenever the question shall be put again to the constituencies and put again directly it shall be before the Home Rule Bill is passed will be confirmed with as much emphasis as was apparent in 1886. The Ministry is now stumbling on from day to day, making concessions to the various noisy minorities according as the necessities of the day compelled them. Scotland sulks, so the Ministry vote for Home Rule for Scotland ; Wales grumbles, and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill is to be introduced next Monday ; Ireland threatens, and so the Evicted Tenants Bill is to be brought on this evening, and I presume that the proposal is to be made that the public funds of the country shall be applied to the relief of the political necessities of those who invented the " plan of campaign." We have great reason to be thankful to the House of Lords for its decision last year, and not only for having given that decision, but for having given it with so much emphasis and firmness as to show that it is prepared to secure for the people of this day that which the aristocracy of this country secured for the people years ago the power of dealing with its own affairs. I believe that when an appeal is made to the country the result will be such as to show every one that the judgment of the House of Lords on the Home Rule Bill was the judgment of the people, and that we owe to the wisdom and courage of that historic House the preservation of the Empire. The Education Question. SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE FREE TRADE HALL, MANCHESTER, TUESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1896. Sir EDWARD CLARKE moved the following resolution : "That it be impressed upon the Government that the assistance they may proffer to Voluntary Schools in the interests of justice and religious liberty, from whatever source it may be derived, must be adequate in amount, RELIGIO US ED UCA TION. 283 and permanent in character, and that a prominent place be assigned to a Bill for the relief suggested in the measures to be introduced in the ensuing session of Parliament. And, further, that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Marquis of Salisbury, the Duke of Devon- shire, and Sir John Gorst, M.P." I HAVE accepted the task of proposing this resolution, and I never accepted a task in public life with a more clear conviction of its duty, or a larger feeling of its responsibility. We are at a moment when it is important, and I am glad to say that that most desirable object is likely to be fulfilled, through the organisation which has called you here to-night when it is important that the people of this country who are interested in the religious education of the people should make their voices heard in sounds so clear and strong that they may produce immediate action by her Majesty's Government. This meeting to-night is not a Conference at which we are to discuss the various ways in which assistance may be given to the Voluntary Schools. We are not going here to debate a series of rival schemes for securing the position and the permanence of those schools. This is not a Conference ; it is a demonstration a demonstration of the feeling of the great masses of the people, and of those upon whose support the present Government depends for its existence and its con- tinued authority a demonstration of their opinion as to the necessity of prompt and adequate and permanent action. This is no gathering for the purpose of embarrassing her Majesty's Government. We have no doubt whatever as to the sentiments and the strong feelings of our leaders in both Houses of Parliament. That brilliant statesman whom Man- chester sends to be our honoured leader in the House of Commons (Mr. Balfour) wrote some months ago, in clear and distinct terms, his declaration that it was imperative that some effectual remedy should be found for the mischiefs under which the Voluntary Schools are now suffering ; while, as for the Prime Minister, no one who heard or read what he said in answer to the great deputation which waited upon him not long ago could fail to see that his own strong feeling was in favour of a large and ample provision for the needs of Voluntary Schools. But although this gathering is not intended to embarrass or trouble the Government, it is intended to inform and to warn the Government. There are other members of the Cabinet from whom less satisfactory language has been heard ; and it is perfectly clear to most of us that some members of her Majesty's Government do not at this moment understand the extent or the force of the movement which we this evening 284 MANCHESTER, JANUARY 14, 18^6. represent. They have to be informed on the matter and to be warned upon it ; to be informed that the feeling which now induces us to make this claim upon the Government that one of its earliest duties shall be an ample provision for the needs of the Voluntary Schools is not the feeling of a small section of the constituencies of this country, but is the feeling of those who represent the predominant force which has brought them into power, and which intends and hopes to be justified in sustaining them in the possession of that power. And they may perhaps need to be warned that a feeling so strong as this is cannot safely be disappointed, and that, in view of the urgent necessity of action on their part, and in view of the strong feeling of the great mass of the constituencies of this country, it would be dangerous for the Government if it were not to recognise the imperative duty of an early dealing with this question. There is no necessity for us to discuss schemes to-night. Let us once persuade the Government that this matter is one of immediate importance, and I don't think there will be any great difficulty with regard to the finding of the means or the legislation which will be required. I am quite sure that we should not be inclined to be captious or trouble- some with regard to the particular methods in which relief should be given. Those who have the guidance of this great movement recognise the difficulties which any Government might have to meet in providing for the immediate necessities of the case, and would be prepared to accept a solution, if it were permanent, and if it were adequate in its provision for the future, they would be prepared to accept the solution which the Government itself might think best fitted for the purposes of the time. But some immediate solution there must be. The resolution I have been asked to propose, and which exactly represents what I was proposing to say at this moment, lays emphasis upon three points : the remedy must be prompt, adequate, and permanent. In the first place the remedy must be prompt, because the mischief is pressing, and growing every day. As year after year goes by, that unfair competition which the Voluntary Schools have to meet on the part of Board Schools, endowed with the rates, and competing against them in a way which they cannot sustain, forces them to the wall, and as each year goes by, some Voluntary Schools have to be abandoned ; some valiant souls who have struggled to keep alive in their neighbourhood the teaching upon which they place so much value, find the work too great for them, and the Church School passes away and the Board School takes its place. These hostile forces are growing, and as there is more and more extravagant expenditure on the Board Schools, it becomes more and more difficult to maintain the struggle. RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. 285 This is a matter that will not wait. Whether it be easy or hard to do to-day, it will be a great deal harder to-morrow, and harder still the day after so it must be done at once. Now is the time to go before Parliament. There are many measures, it is true, that we need for this country. I can think of many things which, if our Parliament were governed by more sensible rules, could be passed and would be very useful to the country, but I cannot think of one which is more pressing than this. There are many measures of social improvement and advantage in men's minds and hopes that might be passed such matters as provision for old age, some help toward the ownership by men of their houses, and other excellent proposals, but not one of them but can be more easily dealt with next year than this year, for they are becoming better understood. But this is a work more difficult to do next year than it will be to do now, and, if it be necessary work, now it must be done. It is not only because the body of Voluntary Schools is being diminished in its force of resistance ; there is another thing to be considered under the present system of elementary education in this country : the School Boards are gradually passing from their attack on elementary educa- tion into an aggression upon the field of secondary educa- tion. They are using the rates which are gathered from the people in ways which the people do not know of, and for purposes not only never avowed but never contemplated by the Act of 1870, and by those who have been responsible for the establishment of the School Board system. One of the leaders of the School Board body of teachers has said : " If you can only keep off legislation for ten years, the organisation of the Board Schools will have taken hold, not only upon elementary but upon the secondary education of this country." That would mean the total exclusion of definite religious teach- ing. Take another point. I notice in a letter from a prominent politician that he thought the Bishop of London, who had been speaking in favour of Voluntary Schools, would find that the 50,000 teachers were too many for him. I quite understand the meaning of that phrase. He was thinking that those 50,000 teachers had some electoral capacities, and it is true there is a real danger in that. There is in every part of this country, getting stronger day by day, this organisation hostile to the Voluntary Schools system, an organisation which you will have to fight and overcome. Therefore it is that I think and say this is a work which must be done now ; a work which becomes more difficult with every year that passes. And not only is it a work which wants to be done now, but it is a work which the Government is better fitted to do now than it ever will be during any period of its existence. At this moment there is a 286 MANCHESTER, JANUARY 14, 1896. Parliamentary position which makes it impossible for the Government to offer any excuse for failing to do what we want. You know at this moment there would be added to the Govern- ment forces some eighty votes besides, if it should bring in any clear and adequate measure for the relief of Voluntary Schools ; which would give them such an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons that there would be no question of its pass- ing into law. In the next place, "that it should be adequate." There, surely, we are standing on firm ground when we claim that in the schools established by voluntary effort the work which is done for the State should be rewarded to as large an extent as the work that is done by the schools which the State has founded. I pass from that to say a word on the question of a permanent remedy. I want to see the remedy in an Act of Parliament. It is no use to apply remedies by grants which may be at the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or by alterations in a code which may be modified next year by a Minister who may and we have had conspicuous examples who may be hostile to the existence and the efficiency of Voluntary Schools. We want it in an Act of Parliament, which shall secure for the Voluntary Schools fair treatment, and shall secure for the scholars at the Voluntary Schools an equal treatment with the scholars which come from other schools. One of the most important things to be insisted upon is that this remedy which is to be applied shall be a remedy secured by Act of Parliament. It is said that we shall provoke reprisals. A member of the Government has warned us against asking too much and thus provoking reprisals, and if we were ask- ing them for anything which could not be justified on the fairest and justest treatment of all classes of the State. I might be afraid, but such a warning has no terrors for me. We are told that we should be content to be starved to death only a little more slowly because if we take the steps that would give us relief for our hunger, by and by somebody might kill us. That does not appear to me to be a very serious or a very terrifying observation. What we want is that our schools shall live in efficiency and strength ; and I am quite certain that if an Act of Parliament be passed which puts our schools in a safe position, there will be an efficiency and splendour in their service to the State which will secure them against all dangers which come, even in times of political tempest or change. But there are, we know, charges made against us. It is said by some that this action of ours is not really in favour of educa- tion, but that we desire sectarian supremacy and sectarian pre- dominance, and that it is from love of power and money, and not from love of education, that the Church of England is making this movement. The observation is either childish or RELIGIO US ED UCA TION. 287 dishonest. That statement cannot honestly be made by any man who knows the history of education in this country. We hear people talk as if education began in 1870, just as people talk as if the Church of England commenced at the time of the Reformation. Ignorant and foolish both. There was education before 1870, and whence did the education of our people come before that time ? The great strength and power of education in this country, and it was no light power, came from the devotion of the Church of England, its people and its ministers ; and those who make those charges to-day forget that we are only trying to stand by and preserve the splendid endowments of public educa- tion which have been given to the people of this country by the Church of England at a time when they who now cavil at our work, and put these opprobrious imputations upon us, had done very little for the teaching of the children. It is not love of sec- tarian predominance, it is not the desire to secure the supremacy of one particular form of religious belief, that moves us in this matter, but it is the love of the children, that love being the love of country. Why do we think so strongly on this matter ? Why is it that this movement, which has taken its start from Manchester, seems likely to sweep, as I trust it will, through the crowded populations of the north, and, by their energy and strength, compel the Government to give you adequate help in this matter ? Why is it that this feeling has been evoked ? Because we know, or at all events believe, that the education of the children of this country is a greater question than any other with which Parliament may have to deal. Your foreign difficulties come and pass away. We might meet a campaign, we might meet a defeat even, and as the years went by we should pass from under the cloud and resume our course amongst the nations of the world ; but there is one thing, and one thing only, which is the safeguard and assurance of the future honour and happiness of this country, and that is to be found in the sound, true education of your children. Let them be taught to fear God, and to act as those who from their earliest childhood have lived under a feeling of responsibility to their Divine Maker, and you need have no fear either for the social condition of your people or for the strength of your country in her dealings with the nations of the world. Every- thing depends upon the character of our people, and the training of that character must begin in the schools. I move the resolution in the firm belief that by that measure, which I trust the Government will introduce, they will give prompt, adequate, and permanent protection to the Voluntary Schools, and by so doing they will be rendering the most splendid service to the people which it is possible for a Government to do. 288 LONDON, APRIL ig, Lord Beaconsfield and the Tory Party. SPEECH DELIVERED AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF GRAND HABITATION OF THE PRIMROSE LEAGUE AT THE ALBERT HALL. APRIL 19, 1899. MR. BALFOUR, LADIES, MY LORDS, AND GENTLEMEN, I have the honour of moving the following resolution : " That this meeting of the Primrose League in Grand Habitation assembled declares its faithful adherence to the principles of the Primrose League, and its conviction that the maintenance of those principles is essential to the prosperity of the Empire and the freedom and happiness of the people." Sir, while this is in the form of a resolution it is really something more. It is a declaration to be made by this great assembly of their firm adherence to the principles of the Primrose League. When I tried to find a formula in which to express the whole meaning, work, and duty of the Primrose League, to whom should I go but to the record of that illustrious statesman whose memory we are honouring on this occasion the greatest master of political science that this century has known a man of whom it may be truly said that each one of the eighteen years that have passed since we lost him has brought home to the people of this country a deeper sense of the magnificent service that he rendered to the Queen and to the Empire. In June 1872 Lord Beaconsfield made perhaps the greatest and most effective speech that ever came from his lips, and in the course of that speech he declared the three principles on which the Tory Party was based. He expressed them as the maintenance of our institutions, the preservation of our Empire, and the improvement of the condition of the people. That was a memorable speech. I do not know of any speech ever de- livered in this country 7 which had so immediate and far-reaching an effect on our political history. It was a clarion cry by Lord Beaconsfield for his own party. But it was more than that. It was a reminder which the whole nation understood of principles and duties which, if not forgotten, had been long obscured. The nation rallied to him ; and to that speech, more, perhaps, than to any other single utterance or incident, may be referred the fact that during the twenty-seven years that have elapsed since it was uttered the constitutional party have had the longer time in authority and the greater influence in this country. But it was not simply in its party results that LORD BEACONSFIELD AND THE TORY PARTY 289 that speech was important. The difference between what was thought on these great subjects many years ago and what is thought on them now is the measure of the influence that Lord Beaconsfield exercised. Talk of the maintenance of our insti- tutions who threatens those great institutions now ? Twenty- seven years ago, just before Lord Beaconsfield spoke, there had been a declaration of Republican opinion by a prominent politician in a large centre of population in this country. The man who tried to preach Republicanism in England to-day would not be denounced ; he would be laughed at ; and of other great institutions very much the same might be said. The preservation of our Empire? We are all Imperialists to-day. I do not quite like all the characteristics of some of those who call themselves Imperialists, but at all events if there is anything wrong to be found with them it is only the criticism that vice is paying homage to virtue, and that these individuals are adopting the phrases and imitating the policy of those who for many years have maintained the true Imperial policy of the country. Then, sir, as to the condition of the people? Twenty- seven years ago Lord Beaconsfield was derided for speaking of the condition of the people and the improvement of their homes. It was said that that was a policy of sewage. To-day there is no member of any party which bids for the support of the country who does not claim, truly or untruly, that his policy is the policy of the improvement of the condition of the people. So I venture to say that those principles which Lord Beacons- field proclaimed twenty-seven years ago at the Crystal Palace have become now not only the triumphant principles of his party, but the accepted doctrines of the great mass of political opinion. But that, it may be said, was a declaration of Tory policy. That is so, and it is a declaration of Tory policy this assembly will readily accept. The Primrose League is the social expression of the Tory Party, and it corresponds exactly in its constitution and in its action to the famous description which in the same speech Lord Beaconsfield gave of the Tory Party. He said : " The Tory Party, unless it is a National Party, is nothing. It is not a confederacy of nobles : it is not a demo- cratic multitude. It is a party formed from all the numerous classes in the realm, classes alike and equal before the law, but whose different conditions and different aims give vigour and variety to our national life." Words could not more fitly describe the principles, the work, the future of the Primrose League ; and it is in our acceptance of these great principles, our fervid belief in them, and our work to spread them that the future of the Primrose League will depend." There has been much in the past which showed how political T 290 LONDON, APRIL 19, 1899. feeling changed from party to party. Our Chairman has spoken of certain opinions which were in vogue forty-five or fifty years ago. It is curious to compare the political atmos- phere of fifty years ago with that in which we are now living and working. Then there was an important, I might almost say a dominant, school of public thought which was all for philosophic freedom. Nobody was to be obliged to do any- thing. The highest gospel of life was the commercial gospel which I for one have always thought completely detestable that the chief duty of a man was to do the best he could for himself, and that to buy in the cheapest market and to sell in the dearest was not only the excusable conduct of an enter- prising merchant, but was really the behaviour of a Christian who desired to do his best for the world. It was suggested and believed that Government was nothing but a matter of police, and that Colonies were not to be valued as the outcomings of our nation's life. What has become of these doctrines ? The idea of to-day seems to be that you cannot possibly govern too much, and that wherever you have a majority in favour of a particular idea, that majority, however constituted and elected, is entitled to compel everybody else to obey it. We are taught to believe in the supreme wisdom of anybody who is directly elected, and asked to imagine that commercial undertakings can be carried on by people who have never been heard of in commerce before, simply because they have been elected by a majority to a District Council. Whereas in old times the State was not to interfere at all unless there was actual violence between man and man, some people seem to think now that no area is too sacred and no matter too small in which a majority, however constituted, is not entitled to have its own way. One would think from the current talk of to-day that the welfare and supreme happiness of the human race depended on a bye-law and a ballot-box. The change marks in a very interesting way the oscillation of public feeling. The great strength and comfort of this country is that there are great and deep principles held among us which will sur- vive a change of atmosphere of this kind, and will check the excesses even of the most careless philosopher or the most diligent reformer. The changes of the last fifty years have really had little effect on the institutions of the country, because underlying those institutions is the national character, of which they are the true and wise expression. Until that national character is altered you may change without danger some of the forms of your insti- tutions, and feel quite secure that no harm would be done to the State. Passionate partisans are sometimes, when bitter in the LORD BEACONSFIELD AND THE TORY PARTY 291 experience or apprehension of defeat, heard to declare that a particular measure will be the downfall of the country. We know better. The Ballot Bill was passed amid wild outbursts of delight from the Radicals, who declared it would destroy the wicked in- fluence of the landlord and parson. During the twenty-seven years before it was passed the Constitutional Party had been in power for six years ; during the twenty-seven years after it passed that party was in power for sixteen years. Then the Local Government Bill was passed, and it was said that the vigour and intellect of the country would get rid of those who had ad- ministered affairs in the past. Wherever these men have chosen to take on themselves the burden of the work, those who previously held authority hold it again to-day ; the change took place, the storm passed, and nothing has happened. Is not that a lesson not to be uneasy in the troubles of to-day ? The Primrose League does not admit the mastership of any politician, however eminent, it puts forward no Election Programmes, it pledges itself to no particular course on any Bill in Parliament. It represents something deeper than that. It strikes a dominant note by harmony with which you may test and judge of the worth of any political programme. We have reason to believe in the pre-eminence and success of our institutions. As the French proverb says, the more you change the more it is the same. It has often been said that the increase in the constituencies would overthrow the institutions which were supposed to depend on privilege. But what has in fact happened ? On each great extension of the franchise the first success has gone to our opponents, the second has come toourselves. In 1832 the Reform Bill threw the Tory Government out of office ; within two years it was back again. In 1867 the great artisan class in our towns was admitted to the franchise, and the first election was a defeat for the Constitutional Party, but in 1874 it came back to power as well as to office for the first time for thirty years. In 1885 the agricultural labourer was released from the cruel influence supposed to keep him in bondage, and the first election went to the Radicals; but in 1886 the Tories were back in power with a supremacy hardly ever enjoyed by the consummate genius of Lord Beaconsfield. We have been reminded by the brilliant Leader of the House of Commons of the strength of our position of this country. His Leadership of the House of Commons is an assurance to us of the future, for he unites with those intellectual gifts which are admired by all, personal qualities which make him not merely the trusted but the beloved Leader of those who follow him. I am glad that the right hon. gentleman is in the Chair when it falls to my own lot to vindicate the principles of the Primrose 292 LONDON, OCTOBER 13, League. You have in your Habitations the opportunity of doing much more than the ordinary work of political organisa- tion. By simple words, by sympathetic and kindly ways, you can bring to bear on the people an influence which is denied to the speaker or the essayist. I invite you to reaffirm the creed you have accepted, to pledge yourselves with renewed vigour to press that creed on the country. It is a great work you have to do, great problems are before you for study : ' ' How best to help the scanty store, How mend the dwellings of the poor, How grow in love, as life advances, Valour and charity more and more." If you want watchwords I return to Lord Beaconsfield, and I take the words " Industry, Liberty, and Religion," the words in which he expressed the great principles of this country. These words are the potent spell with which, God helping us, we can compel fortune, command the future, and spread through- out the Empire those great principles which will be the saving strength of every part of it, and which are nowhere cherished more firmly or taught more clearly than in the Habitations of the Primrose League. The Church and its Work. AN ADDRESS TO MEN, DELIVERED AT THE MASS MEETING OF THE CHURCH CONGRESS, AT THE ALBERT HALL, OCTOBER 13, 1899. MY LORD BISHOP, It is about four months ago that you invited me, in terms which made your letter a command, to come and speak at this great gathering of the Church Congress, and I do not think that many days have passed since then without there coming to my mind the great responsibility that I had undertaken, and without my thinking very earnestly what I might be able to say of use. It is an opportunity given to few an opportunity I am never likely to have again. If I, a layman, a Churchman, have anything worth saying to my fellow-Churchmen I must say it to-night, for this is my time. I am not going to try to please you by a speech of pleasant THE CHURCH AND ITS WORK 293 things. Though I am a politician it is my habit to speak what is in my mind. I do not ask for your assent or your approval, I ask only for your attention and your thought. There is much temptation at such a gathering as this, in such a Congress, to dwell upon the great progress, material and moral, which has been made by the Church during the century which is nearing its close. But I put that aside. It would be pleasing, but I am not sure that it would be very useful. It has been said by that great writer and teacher, whose name the Dean of Canterbury has just mentioned, John Ruskin, that the world would be a great deal better if we occupied ourselves in finding fault with our own class and not with other classes, and I think that it is well to ask, and to ask with frankness and with courage, What is the view that is held by others about the Church to-day ? What is the favourite caricature that we find in outside descriptions of the Church? One can learn much from a caricature, though it is always unfair. It is the ex- travagant exaggeration of real defects. I look at the litera- ture of to-day, and I ask what is the opinion of the Church, that is represented or indicated by those who are outside? It is said and let us ponder over what is said of us it is said that the Church is an ecclesiastical body of fashionable or feeble prelates and of wrangling priests. It is said that there is a self-complacent laity having fragmentary beliefs and occasional devotion. It is severely respectable, extremely con- servative, ready always to listen to judicious platitudes upon the Christian life, but resenting the intrusion of Christian doctrine into the actual and practical affairs of the world, and inclined to tell a preacher to mind his own business if he ventures to refer to the large question of social purity and the national welfare. I say that that is a caricature. We know that it is a caricature. But is it not worth while to look at it for a moment and ask how it comes to pass that this can be said or thought concerning that Christian society, the Church ? The Church has done, and is doing, as we all know, splendid work. In the darker times that have gone by the .Church has been the only teacher of the people. It is to-day the teacher of the larger part of the children that are being brought up ; and, while it has secured to the great majority of our children the blessing of a Christian atmosphere and Christian teaching in the schools, it has given to them hundreds and thousands and millions of them the higher privilege and blessing of which the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke to-night the Christian home, with the mother's teaching and the father's guidance. The Church is one of the greatest I think the greatest of the missionary societies of the world. The Church is not actually the greatest, but it is one of the greatest, temper- 294 LONDON, OCTOBER 13, ance societies to be found amongst us. The Church is some- times I wish it were always the greatest peace society of the world, proclaiming in season and out of season the lessons and teachings of its Divine Master in the unwilling ears of a passionate and covetous world. But, with all these things to think of, how is it that we have to confess that a large part of the intellect of the country has been alienated from our creed, and that the greater number by far of the hardworking toilers of this land never enter a temple of Christian worship ? It is a terrible thought. Is not the meaning of it that the Church has lacked something of its work, that it has been in some degree wanting to the great opportunity of the great mission that it has had ? Let us think what is the motto and the rule of the highest Christian government, "To keep the simple folk by their right, to defend the children of the poor, and to punish the wrongdoer." That should be the rule of a Christian State. How far are we failing to act up to that rule of teaching? We cannot, by a word or by an Act of Parliament, or by a treatise, get rid of poverty from the world. We cannot. And our people, the great mass of the working- men of this country, have gradually turned away from the idea that it is possible for any sort of legislation or of teaching to establish an artificial equality of social conditions which would last for a single week. Socialism indeed has given that up. But it is not inequality of condition that brings sorrow and misery to the world. I do not doubt that the well-paid servants of Dives were at least as happy as Dives himself. But Lazarus was at the gate and wanted so little. And the Lazarus that is at our gate always wants so little of relief and of help to raise him to a higher standard and to a happier life. We cannot solve I do not imagine that any one can solve the eternal problem of poverty. But are there not many things among us which tend to produce poverty, and to bring the shame and suffering which is worse than poverty itself, which we could prevent and should prevent if we were true to our ideals and duties as members of a Christian Church ? Let me speak to you of one or two instances. The Dean of Canterbury has referred to the horrible overcrowding of our great city, in the dismal dens of which men, women, and children, huddled together, as Tennyson said, each sex like swine, live in an atmosphere of brutalism and degradation from which it is hardly possible there should rise the flower of a Christian life. I speak not of them. Let me speak of two or three others. When you leave this place to-night, if you go about two miles to the east, and linger awhile till midnight has come, you will see a sight which is a disgrace to our city and our country, the like of which can be seen in no other capital of THE CHURCH AND ITS WORK 29$ Europe. There you will see the terrible procession of the ruined daughters of the poor for nine-tenths of the prostitu- tion of England is from the seduced daughters and sisters of working-men. You will see that procession going along the streets of our city, the women offering their bodies and their souls for sale, and, not only with no check or hindrance, but the uniformed servants of the city the constables, and the superintendents, and the inspectors are waiting upon the goblin market and regulating the traffic of vice. It is a spectacle of shame which is a disgrace to Christian England. But if we do not defend the children of the poor, do we punish the wrongdoer? How is it that the notorious swindler who has ruined hundreds of homes lives in luxury at his country- house, with his French cook, while you drag to prison the untaught outcast who, for hunger's sake, has stolen a loaf of bread ? There is another thing that I want you to think of. In- temperance has been spoken of by the Dean, and I am not going to speak of that. Intemperance, indeed, is terrible in its effects, but intemperance is diminishing in this country, and has been diminishing for years. But there is growing up in large areas of our population, not so much in the south as in the midlands and the north, a vulgar and sordid vice the vice of gambling, which has many of the effects of intemperance. It ruins homes ; it destroys the instincts of thrift ; and it breaks a man's life up by filling his mind with a passion for getting money for which he has never worked. And this vice is grow- ing in England, and doing incalculable harm to the life and the manhood of our people, and corrupting every manly sport among us. This vice is sanctioned by the example and the tolerant words of those who ought to be helping to keep the nation clear from degradation. How do we deal with it ? If the man who keeps a little confectioner's shop puts an occasional shilling into his sweetmeat packet to tempt the children to come and buy, he is summoned before the police magistrates and fined under the Lottery Act. But the gambling clubs are in full vogue and are unchecked. Your newspapers are filled with the information which enables the gambling to go on. I heard the other day I hope that it is not true that a member of our aristocracy, one of the guarantors of this Church Congress, had said that he saw no harm in betting if you did not bet beyond your means. And he was a millionaire. If he said that, he could never have known the mischief that is being done in our great manufacturing towns. We fine the con- fectioner, but I saw that the highest court of justice not long ago condescended to hear an argument in a collusive action brought to establish the legality of the betting ring at a suburban 296 LONDON, OCTOBER /j, 1899. racecourse. When I think of these things, there come to my mind the lines of Charles Kingsley : " Who would sit down and sigh for a lost age of gold When the Lord of all ages is here? True hearts will leap up at the trumpet of God, And those who can suffer can dare. Each old age of gold was an iron age too, And the meekest of Saints may find stern work to do In the day of the Lord at hand." Could these things be if we had done our duty as Churchmen with the strength and force of the Church ? We have heard a great deal I think too much of the catholic revival. Is it not time that there was something said of a Christian revival, a revival that would awaken us to a sense of our duty, our influence, and our capacity, and help us to make the Church of England to which we belong a more potent factor in all the moral and social movements that affect our country ? There has been during the later part of this century a great revival-- outside the Church. The Salvation Army has been the greatest religious phenomenon of the century. It is the largest temper- ance society in the world. It is, I think, the largest religious body I ever heard of, the membership of which rests simply on personal holiness ; whose every member is bound to constant self-denial ; and whose obligations can only be enforced by exclusion from the body. I wish the enthusiasm and earnest- ness which have animated the Salvation Army had been found inside our Church. (A Voice : " The Church Army.") I support the Church Army, but there are differences between the two. I am not speaking of a revival in personal holiness. Upon such a topic as that I should not presume to speak. But I am speaking of a revival which would make the great mass of our people understand that the Church was something better than a speculative society with a turn for charity organisation, and that it really was a strong and living power, entitled to their affection by the Protestant purity of its faith, and by the universal sympathy of its manifold activities for good. There is an alliance, honourable and helpful to both, I think, between Church and State. God grant that it may long continue. Only bring the Church and the people into closer contact and a closer union. This is a great opportunity, this Congress, this great meeting. Here are thousands of Churchmen come from every county and belonging to every calling, and each one of you has around him in the world a group of men who listen to his words and live by his example. Can we not go out from this place to-night determined for ourselves to give THE CHURCH AND ITS WORK 297 assurance to the toiling millions of this country that we desire to understand their needs, and to work with them and for them in every movement of social and material progress, and in that way cannot the Church and the people, no longer separate, but one in faith and doctrine, in charity and in hope, go forward in the century which will soon dawn upon us to the noblest victories of freedom and of faith ? INDEX. A ACT of Union, 84, 85, 92 Anti-Parnellites, 45 Arbitration, 80, 97, 138 Armaments, Naval, 51-55 Extravagant, 58, 138 Armenia, 72, 81, 98 Asquith, Mr., 63, 105, 201 B BALFOUR, Mr., 26, 41, 291 Beaconsfield, Lord, and the Tory Party, 288-292 His foreign policy, 100 and Industrial Legislation, 106 and Imperialism, 289 Behring Sea, n, 22 Bishops, 114 Bloemfontein Conference, 141, 263 CANNING, George, and the Monroe Doctrine, 76 Castlereagh, Lord, and the Act of Union, 85 Chamberlain, Mr. J., 258, 276 Article on Licensing, 220 Workmen's Compensation Act, 2 S9 Despatches to the Transvaal Republic, 141-1415, 265-270, 274 Statements during debate, 261, 265, 266, 267, 268, 270, 274 Chambers of Commerce, Agencies of Peace, 135 Childers, Mr. , on effect upon Ireland of Free-Trade policy, 90 China and Japan, 56 Concessions in, 121 Trade with, 133 Church, The, and its Work, 292- 297 Church of England, Disorders with- in, 114, 194 Church in Wales, 148-162, 193-210 Mr. Gladstone and the, 149 Lord Rosebery upon the, 196 Includes more than half the population, 149, 199 Results of disendowment, 207 Cleveland, President, and the Monroe Doctrine, 74 Cobden Club Manifesto, 132 Colonies, the real strength of the Empire, 58 Commerce and War, 134 Concert of Europe, 82, 83, 108 Conversion of National Debt, 23 Corporation of City of London, 254 Czar, The, Peace Rescript, 123-127, 138 299 300 INDEX. D DECEASED Wife's Sister Bill, 68 Declaration of Paris, 75 Derby, Lord, and the Transvaal Convention of 1884, 144, 145, 260-262 Disarmament, 125. E EASTERN Question, 108 Education, 102, 282-287 Free, 19 Eight Hours Bill, 13 Election Expenses, 39 Employers' Liability Bill, 24, 40, 46, 59, 105 FACTORY Acts, Lord Beaconsfield and the, 106 Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland, 84-96, 113, 223-244 Appointment and Reports of Commission, 87, 223 Relief of Ireland by Local Government Bill, 113 Foreign policy, 71-83, 100, 108 Free Trade, So-called, 90 GAMBLING, 295 Gladstone, Mr., 163 Danger of dependence on Irish vote, 46 and Temperance Reform, 2i4 t 221 on Church in Wales, 149 unjust to Ireland in Taxation, 91, 228, 230 H HARCOURT, Sir William, 7, 41, 66 and Local Veto, 210-223 Hartington, Lord, 28 Healey, Mr. T. M., 4, 34, 173, 179, 183, 239 Home Rule for Ireland, 3, 20, 31, 43, 95 The Bill of 1893, 163-175 House of Lords, 278-282 Lord Rosebery on, 63, 67 I IMPERIALISM and Lord Beacons- field, 289 International Law, 75 Intoxicating drinks, Moderate con- sumption of, 216 Comparative consumption in Great Britain and Ireland, 92- 243 Ireland, 4, 8, 17, 63, 84, 163-175 Condition of people, 233 Electoral anomalies in, 170 Extravagant administration in. 93 Financial Relations with Great Britain, 84-96, 113, 223-244 Intoxicating drinks, consump- tion of, in, 92, 243 Over-represented in House of Commons, 33, 68, 166 Taxable capacity of, 68, 89, 91-93, 113 J JAMESON Raid, The, 72, 140 Japan, 56, 72 K KIPLING, Mr. Rudyard, 147 INDEX. 301 LABOUR Questions, 12, 51, 102, 106 Local Veto, 39, 50, 63, 66, 210-223 London Government, 116, 244-257 Mr. J. S. Mill upon, 246 Share of City Corporation in, 254 M MAJUBA Hill, 146 Metropolitan Board of Works, 251 Mill, Mr. J. S., on London Govern- ment, 246 Milner, Sir Alfred, 141-143, 262, 271, 274, 276 Morley, Mr. John, 177 on essential conditions of Home Rule, 6 on Registration, 177-192 Murder for Gain, 134 N NATIONAL Debt, Conversion of, 23 Expenditure, Enormous in- crease, 128 Naval Armaments, 51-55 and Military Expenditure, 128, 129 Newfoundland, n, 22 O OLD Age Pensions, 117-120 PARLIAMENTARY Procedure, 15, 41, 5. 55- i 68 Parnell, Mr., on his followers, 4 on the "trumpery" Home Rule Bill of 1886, 5 His qualities as a leader, 7 Remarkable demonstration in honour of, 7 Commemorative procession, 37 Payment of Members, 39 Peace, 122, 146 Congress, 138 Dangers to, 126 Ploughing the sands, 63 Plural voting, 187 Primrose League, 278-282, 288-292 Prisoners' Evidence, 25 Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, 115 R RAILWAY Servants, 13 Redmond, Mr. John, 38 Registration, 22, 40, 175-193 Cost of, to candidates and local authorities, 185 Returning Officers' expenses, 39 Rosebery, Lord, 33, 63, 122 on Temperance Reform, 215 Royal Commissions, Lord Salisbury upon, 241 SALISBURY, Lord, 15, 22, 72, 131, 146 and the Monroe Doctrine, 74 and Turkey, 82, 99, 108 and the Venezuelan boundary, 98 and the Czar's Rescript, 122 on Royal Commissions, 241 Schomburgk line, The, 77, 97 Second Chamber, 64, 69, 279 Lord Rosebery in favour of, 64 Hereditary principle the sound- est basis of, 280 302 INDEX. TARIFFS, The only legitimate wea- pons of commercial warfare, 134 Taxation, Increase of, 129 Temperance Reform, 66, 210-223 Resolution of 1883, 66, 214 and Gladstonian Party, 67 Lord Rosebery upon, 215 Times, Letter to the, 136 Tithes Act, 18 Trades-Unions, 12, 17, 102 and the Railway Companies, 14 Transvaal, Dispute with, 136-147, 257-277 The Jameson Raid, 72, 73, 140 Letter to the Times, 136 Pretended Suzerainty over, 144, 260 Tunis, 132 Turkey, 108, 146 U UGANDA, 35 United States, 12, 74, 80, 97, 146 United Kingdom Alliance, 213, 215 VENEZUELAN Boundary, 70-81, 83, 97 President Cleveland's despatch, 74 Schomburgk line, 78 Unreasonable stipulation of British Government, 80 Arbitration desirable, 80-83 Lord Salisbury's proposal in 1880, 98 Decision of Commission, 70 Voluntary Schools, 102, in W WAR for Commerce, 131 Wesleyan Methodists, Under statu- tory restrictions, 154 Workmen's Compensation, 47, 62 Act of 1897, 104-107, 112 Common employment, 47 Contracting out, 47 Mutual Societies, 48 Printed by BALLANTYNE, HANSON & Co. Edinburgh &* London LIFORNlA )S ANGELES LIBRARY SSSSSSSSSSt L >RAflY FACILIT DA 565 C67A3 1890