said, he thought the House would agree with him that it was not very easy, on the first blush, to follow the explanation which had been given by the Prime Minister of the course which he and the Government intended to take with reference to the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne. At first he did not himself fully understand it; but, so far as he had been able to realize the effect of it, he would ask the leave of the House to call attention to what that effect must be. There were about that explanation, in a very remarkable degree, evidences of the appropriateness of that epithet which the right hon. Gentleman had applied to himself—"an old Parliamentary hand." It was a very skilful way of getting rid of the difficulty, and of a disagreeable subject, and of preventing, as far as possible, any discussion of it by the House of Commons. It was on the 10th paragraph of the Address that the late Government was defeated; and the 11th paragraph was that which dealt with the agitation for the Repeal of the Union. Now, no Amendment was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman; and, in point of fact, there would be no opportunity of referring to that subject in the debate on the Address, or, so far as he could see, until a long time after the 22nd of next month, unless some hon. Member who had not already spoken called attention to it. His right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had unfortunately already spoken; and, therefore, he (Mr. Plunket) ventured to call the attention of the House to the position in which they now stood. The right hon. Gentleman had said that, in substance, he was prepared to accept the Address; but what did that mean in the light of the qualifications given by the right hon. Gentleman when the Address was last discussed? The right hon. Gentleman said that by no means involved any acceptance of the statements in the Address; and in order to make that clear the right hon. Gentleman proposed to strike out certain words enumerating the subjects to which consideration was to be given, and to substitute the words "the measures which may be submitted to Her." Thus the Government were avoiding all reference to the question of Ireland, the subject upon which the late Government were really and practically defeated, and the question which was absorbing the attention of the whole country at this moment; and, instead of leading public opinion, the Government were depriving Parliament of the opportunity of discussing this question beyond the point to which it had already gone. That course was fatal to the best interests of the country. It would not be possible on that occasion to enter upon that large subject. But he desired to call the attention of the House to the position in which they stood—not for the purpose of Party recrimination or Party advantage, but speaking as an Irishman—[Laugher.] He was, perhaps, entitled to say to the hon. Member interrupting him that he had lived longer in Ireland, and knew more of Ireland, than he did — he told the Prime Minister most seriously and solemnly that if he permitted that question to drift away to some time in the dim and distant future—if he did not assure them that on the 22nd of March Parliament would have an opportunity of gravely discussing his proposals— as any settlement would be better than the state of unrest in which the country now was—every energy for good in Ireland would be completely paralyzed. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, would he go out into the open with his proposals, whatever they were, and give the House an opportunity of discussing them? Would he give his Colleagues in the Cabinet an opportunity of discussing them? Ho trusted the House would pardon him if he spoke warmly. That great question of the Repeal of the Union had been brought much to the front, partly by the fact of the return of 86 Members pledged to that policy, and partly by the existence of an organization in Ireland which was overpowering the Government of the Queen in that country. The late Government had met Parliament with a definite proposal to deal with the organization which had set at defiance, and to a great extent overpowered, the Government of the Queen in that country, and with a definite declaration on the question of Repeal of the Union. They had made a distinct declaration of policy on the question of Repeal, and offered a direct challenge on the question of bringing forward a measure to deal with the organization which he referred to. But the Prime Minister, for his own part, declined to take advantage of the proposals of the late Government, or to be "led into a trap" by taking up the challenge thrown down; but immediately afterwards, on a side issue, which had nothing to do with the real issue, defeated the late Government, and took upon himself and his Colleagues the responsibility of dealing with this great subject. The right hon. Gentleman accepted the Address in answer to the Gracious Speech from the Throne, but told the House also that for the present he did not mean to take any measures at all of a coercive character to put down the National League in Ireland, but in tended at some distant date to name certain measures dealing with the Land Question, and any other question which might call for the attention of Parliament. What was the practical effect of this very skilful manner of dealing with the subject? It left the National League in possession of the field. It left the National League triumphant through a great part of Ireland, and postponed to some distant date the discussion of the question of the Repeal of the Union; and this after the encouragement which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the agitation by everything he had said and done. The great charge against the late Government was that it had, by the experiment of dispensing with exceptional legislation, purchased the support of the Separatist Party in Ireland at too high a price. He thought that the present Government was open to the charge that after that experiment had failed they had adopted the same course of procedure—they proposed to proceed in Ireland without exceptional legislation at double the price. How had that arrangement been brought about? By reliance on the vague phrases used by the Prime Minister, which might mean anything or nothing, that there was nothing in the agitation which meant the Repeal of the Union. He had stated that he would insist on the authority of the Crown and the integrity of the Empire, and such Parliamentary guarantees as might be necessary to preserve that integrity. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was gracious enough to say that there was nothing that he could see in granting Home Rule that interfered with these conditions. The hon. Member was, of course, willing to let the Government down as easy as possible; but on this question they had the fresher mind of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who stated that nothing short of absolute and uncontrolled independence would meet the demands of Irishmen——

I beg to say that I did not use those words, nor was I reported as having used them.

Of course, if the hon. Member said he did not use those words he would withdraw them at once. He had the report of what the hon. Member had said. The hon. Member (Mr. Dillon) stated that although he might be called an extreme Irishman, he would say that he, for one, was ready to shake hands with Englishmen. They would turn over a new leaf in regard to them if they would restore to them the complete and absolute power to make laws for their own country. Those were the words used by the hon. Member; and he (Mr. Plunket) had not misrepresented his meaning.

You used the word "independence" where I said "absolute power to make laws."

said, he thought that he had not misrepresented the meaning of the hon. Member to any considerable extent. He believed that the powers the hon. Gentleman asked for could not be reconciled with anything but a separate Legislature, uncontrolled by the British Parliament. No Member of the House would be more sincerely glad than he if it were possible to devise some means by which the views and desires of hon. Gentlemen representing a large number of constituencies in Ireland could be met and reconciled without setting up a separate Legislature, which, he believed, would be fraught with consequences the most fatal to the best interests of his country, and which must quickly lead to the separation of the two countries. Now, in what position would the matter stand? When, at some distant period, the right hon. Gentleman would be compelled to come forward with his policy on this subject— for the hon. Member for the City of Cork was very willing to make a surrender of the Government as easy as possible, for he would gain everything by the delay—the question would then be lifted out of the category of measures which great statesmen had frequently declared could not be entertained as a practical proposal. This was because it was believed to be deadly and destructive to the best and most vital interests of the country. Besides, the measure would, in the meantime, receive the reputation of having the, at least, qualified support of the Prime Minister. They would find that those who were their enemies in Ireland would have their hopes raised to the utmost; and the task of dealing with the question, and, in the end, disappointing those hopes, would be more difficult than ever. The Government would find many of their friends in Ireland fall away from them, because they could not expect men to stick for ever to a cause that seemed hopeless and helpless. He did not expect the Prime Minister to bring forward his proposals at once; but he, for one, desired to enter his protest against a policy which he feared was too likely to be to the convenience of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—namely, letting this question drift along.

Sir, I rejoice to hear a speech from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) on the subject of Irish policy. If there is anything to regret in the existence of the late Government, it is that the right hon. Gentleman—one of the greatest ornaments of the House, and an Irishman of whom Ireland is proud—was dumb on the question of Ireland. Tonight we have heard what Lord Beaconsfield called the "first wild shriek of liberty." In July and August last, when the most important determinations, which changed for ever the policy of the Irish Government, were taken by the late Administration, I desired, above all things, to know the views of the right hon. Gentleman upon those critical decisions. On that occasion we had speeches from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) and the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), then the Member for Woodstock, explanatory of that policy. There were speeches from the late Solicitor General (Sir John Gorst) which we do not forget, nor the response they received at the hands of the Ulster Members. Mr. Gibson, then one of the most distinguished Members that ever sat for Dublin University, who was subsequently Lord Chancellor of Ireland, approved of the Irish policy of the late Government. In the Recess we had a remarkable revelation from the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) at Sheffield, in which he stated that a consultation had been held many weeks before the last Liberal Government was turned out as to the course of Irish policy without the knowledge and without the responsibility of Government, and that the Gentlemen who afterwards formed the late Administration were determined to take a different course. Those were important decisions affecting the present situation, and it is surprising that the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) was not then heard. The right hon. Gentleman complains of delay on the part of the present Government in stating a definite policy for Ireland, and asserts that the late Administration had made up then-minds as to what they were to do in reference to the National League. Is that a fact? Did the late Government announce a definite policy on that subject in the Queen's Speech? What was the meaning of those "hypothetical paragraphs?" "What was the meaning—to borrow another phrase from Lord Bea-consfield—of that "transient and embarrassed phantom" which went upon so hurried a mission to Ireland? The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), in an address to his new constituents at Paddington, described the late Administration as a fortunate Government till the day of the Queen's Speech, when it met for the first time with a bit of bad luck. But the fortunate Government which met with a bit of bad luck on the day the Queen's Speech was settled lost "a respectable and estimable Nobleman" (the Earl of Carnarvon), who, to use the language of the noble Lord, threw up the government of Ireland. That was the Government which had so decided a policy, and which had made up its mind with regard to Ireland. But the noble Lord, in this same speech which he delivered the other night to his new constituents, stated that he had no particular reason for doubting that Lord Carnarvon had differed from the Members of the late Cabinet. Well, I should have thought that it ought not to be a difficult thing for one Cabinet to describe the sentiments of another upon a given policy of the Government. The noble Lord is not positive whether the late Lord Lieutenant for Ireland did or did not agree with the policy of the last Cabinet; but I will assume that he did agree with his Colleagues. Then why did this estimable Nobleman throw up the government of Ireland on the day the Queen's Speech was delivered? Then there is another official who is not altogether regarded as immaterial to the government of Ireland — I mean the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. But he has not even been mentioned, and until within a few hours of the special mission of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) one would have supposed that the late Government never knew of such a person as a Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, responsible for the government of Ireland. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) also disagreed, but for what reason we have no information. All we know is that after the special and inspired mission of the right hon. Gentleman to Dublin in the position of Chief Secretary, the eminent and estimable Nobleman left Ireland; and the change of policy of the late Government, agreed upon, it appeared, in December, was then announced to the public. That is the history of what I venture to say will remain to the latest period of political history the most extraordinary paragraph ever occurring in a Speech from the Throne. But we are almost as badly off as the late Government, for if their Lord Lieutenant threw up the government of Ireland, ours has hardly arrived there. Now, if a Government which had been in Office seven months could not announce a policy because their Lord Lieutenant had thrown up the government of Ireland on the day of the meeting of Parliament, it would certainly be unreasonable to expect the present Government, whose Lord Lieutenant had hardly reached Dublin, to make a definite statement with regard to their Irish policy. We must have time to receive official information. I know we are inferior to the late Administration, because the noble Lord has told us that their determination not to renew the Crimes Act was taken weeks before they took Office.

No, never. The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken.

Well, that is my recollection, and I think if the noble Lord will consult the unauthorized version of his speech I am not very incorrect.

The right hon. Gentleman leaves out a very important qualification. I said some hon. Gentlemen who formed the late Administration came together some time before the question of renewing the Crimes Act came up in Parliament, and came to the conclusion that in absence of official information that might be subsequently furnished, it did not appear on the surface of things that there was cause for a renewal of it.

I am sorry I did not read this qualification. There is not the least doubt that if a Government finds information that leads them to reverse their policy they will do so. I admit that it was a very important decision; and though, no doubt, the noble Lord wished it kept a secret, as it was from his own Party, people are indiscreet, and it must have got out. But I will not dwell on that except to say it is not usual and not very prudent for a Government with responsibility to come to such a determination. But I do not feel justified in detaining the House upon what is really a question how long we shall continue to debate the Address. We cannot be expected now to make a declaration of Irish policy. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) has said he will make his declaration at as early a period as he prudently can. The difficulties surrounding the question, the complexity of the social condition of Ireland, and the difficulties of the political situation, have been admitted. We must be cautious, and must discuss this matter in as temperate a spirit as we can. No man can admire the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman more than I do; but the question is hardly improved, nor can it be determined, by eloquence. There are hard questions of fact to be dealt with. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government does not intend at the present time to make any proposal, and has given his undertaking that this matter shall be brought forward at as early a period as the difficulty and complexity of the question will permit. It is premature and profitless to proceed with an imperfect discussion. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) says the Prime Minister proposes a skilful course; but I say it is a common-sense course, and that any other would have only provoked the bitterest discussion upon a question not yet ripe for discussion, and upon which we are not prepared to announce a policy.

said, he should not have taken part in the debate if it had not been for the remarkable speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt), in reply to the temperate request of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Plunket). They were now asked to assent to the Address in reply to the Speech, which contained paragraphs declaring that the Union was a fundamental law of the Realm, and announcing that measures for the restoration of social order in Ireland were to be introduced. Now the Prime Minister asked them to assent in substance to those paragraphs.

Assent to the whole substance of the Address.

Assent to the whole substance of the Address; and what his right hon. Friend wanted to know was, whether they were to assent in all sincerity, or merely for the purpose of gaining time and lulling to sleep suspicions which the right hon. Gentleman had created in every part of the United Kingdom? To this request they had the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) just delivered, which was merely a repetition of one of his hustings harangues. It was unwise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to call attention to past controversies; and if the Government did not tumble to pieces in the next few weeks, his impression was that the right hon. Gentleman would be very glad not to be reminded of the expressions which he had used in those speeches of his. The last occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman addressed a public audience, subsequent to the elections, he made certain remarks of a peculiar character. He declared that he was not anxious to turn out the late Government. What he wished was "that they should stew in their own Parnellite juice." And he proceeded to say—

"They would then stink in the nostrils of the country; and when they were flung, discredited and disgraced, to the country, the nation would pronounce final judgment upon them."

That was the opinion the right hon. Gentleman expressed a few weeks ago with reference to one section of that House — the followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer still entertain the same views?—because, as had been pointed out, the National League were, at the present moment, in a great part of Ireland in possession of the field. Was it to be supposed that because, in June last, the late Government were not prepared to renew the Coercion Bill, the present Government— things having developed much since in Ireland—were justified in withholding all mention of their policy for the reason stated? What was that reason? That, although the Government came into Office on the Irish Question, they were in such a position that they were not even ripe for the announcement of any policy. Speaking for himself, having lived a large part of his life in Ireland, he would, under the same circumstances, arrive at the same decision which he arrived at last June as to the Coercion Act; and if the right hon. Gentleman thought they were wrong, he might have reflected upon the argument of Mr. Shaw Lefevre, who stated that it would he absurd with the one hand to largely extend the franchise, and with the other deprive the Irish people of their civil liberties. This only showed that greater value ought to be attached to their ultimate decision, because they had shown that they wore most reluctant to introduce coercion. As the late Government had been practically turned out on the Irish Question, their Successors ought to be prepared with an alternative policy. What was the course which the Government proposed to take? They proposed to leave them absolutely in the dark for a month as to their Irish proposals, and then to commence an examination of the question.

We have commenced it now.

You have commenced it now?

Yes.

said, the examination which had commenced was to apply to a noble Lord (Lord de Vesci), one of the most prominent members of the Loyal and Patriotic Union. Why, the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the very policy which he had most energetically condemned a short time back. Some years ago a proposal was made to examine into the grievances of Ireland, with the view of suggesting some remedy, and the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself with great clearness on that policy. Here was the passage which he happened to come across a few days ago—

"What is the proposition? He (Mr. Butt) says great dissatisfaction exists in Ireland, and we are to promise to inquire, with a view to a removal of this dissatisfaction. If dissatisfaction exists in a country, does he think the vague promise of an intention to inquire into it can be held a fitting mode in which a great Assembly like the Imperial Parliament should meet that state of things? I say, on the contrary, it is a dangerous, a tricky method for Parliament to adopt to encounter national dissatisfaction, if it really exists, with the assurance that may mean anything or nothing, which may…attract a passing breath of popularity, but which, when the day of trial comes, maybe found entirely to fail them. It is a method of proceeding which, whatever Party may be in power, or whatever measures may be adopted, I trust this House will never condescend to adopt."

That was the course which the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues were now adopting. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] Well, if any Minister would get up and state that they had made up their minds on the two important questions mentioned in the Address, they would remove many doubts entertained in different parts of the country. During the recent elections the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley) was very sarcastic on the course adopted by the late Government. He spoke of it as a policy of "soft words and hard cash." If they had initiated such a policy, they did it for the purpose of preserving the Union; but the Government was now borrowing the policy of soft words and hard cash, as far as could be made out, to undermine the Union. If there was any one person in the House who ought to have been prepared with a policy, and to whom they had a right to look for explanations, it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No man had used such violent language towards the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He recollected him denouncing the doctrines of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) as those of assassination and treason, and he declared that the object was to gain "nefarious ends by felonious means." That was the language the Chancellor of the Exchequer applied to an Association which he proposed to leave paramount over Ireland, and who, to-night, declined to indicate any step for putting down what he had so strongly condemned. When, last year, the danger in Ireland of the extension of the franchise was pointed out, the Prime Minister, when confronted with the possibility of 85 Members being returned to Parliament pledged to Home Rule, said ho had sufficient confidence that hon. Mem- bers would be true to themselves, and that any combination for the Repeal of the Union would be met by the English and Scottish Members. Well, 85 such Members were returned, and the right bon. Gentleman was true to himself, because the moment he found he could not obtain Office without the co-operation of those 85 Members their cooperation was invited. The circumstances under which they now met were of a very grave character; and they desired some more definite expression of opinion from Her Majesty's Government than any that had as yet fallen from them. He admitted that they had only been a short time in Office; but during the last six years they had held Office continually, with the exception of about six months. It was often supposed that in Ireland those who were opposed to the views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the separation of the two Kingdoms incurred great obloquy; but the person whom the Irish bated above all was a treacherous friend; and that was the part which Her Majesty's Government had been playing. Either the Government intended to maintain the Union, or they did not intend to do so. The longer they delayed in announcing their decision the greater would be the difficulties which they had to encounter. On that side of the House, therefore, they asked for further information to be given, not in any Party spirit, but in all sincerity, because they considered themselves bound in duty to do so.

said, he did not propose to take up much time in replying to the speech just delivered by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), and which, he could not help thinking, must have been prepared in consideration of some different course than that which had actually been taken by the Government. The noble Lord had spoken as though the Government were asking the House to pledge itself definitely to views to which the noble Lord and his Friends were opposed in the matter of Ireland. On the contrary, the Government had accepted in the usual form the Address in answer to the Queen's Speech, and was neither giving any pledge nor asking any pledge from any Member of the House. The noble Lord, however, wished to obtain a pledge; for he asked, both at the beginning and end of his speech, whether the terms of the Address were to be accepted in all sincerity as committing the House and the Government to the propositions contained in the Address? The noble Lord had bad a larger Parliamentary experience than he had had himself; and the noble Lord ought to know, by this time, that the Answer to Her Majesty's Speech was always so worded as to commit the House to nothing except that they thanked Her Majesty for giving them the information contained in the Speech. In fact, throughout the whole Address they re-echoed each paragraph of the Queen's Speech; and, of course, as a matter of Constitutional law, it was perfectly understood that Her Majesty, in giving them that information, was acting on the advice of the Government which was in power at the time when the Speech was delivered. Under these circumstances, he wished it to be distinctly understood that, in accepting the Address to the Throne practically as it had been prepared by the late Government, they were not asking the House to pledge itself to anything; and they did not consider that the late Government, in putting the Address before them, asked them to commit themselves to anything either. The noble Lord now said that the time had come when the Government must express themselves definitely on the question of Ireland. The noble Lord had even gone so far as to tell them that they had turned out the late Government on the question of Ireland. Clearly the late Government had fallen because it was utterly impossible that it could retain Office any longer. He thought it would have been a little more decent if they had left Office a little earlier. As a matter of fact, it had been absolutely beyond the power of Gentlemen on his own side of the House to keep it in Office any longer. It was a physical impossibility to keep an empty sack upright; and the late Government had been in that position when they had met Parliament without having any policy at all, either upon the question of Ireland or upon any other question. Had the late Government bad any policy on any subject? Had they any policy, for instance, with regard to the question of the condition of the agricultural labourer upon which they had fallen? Well, perhaps they had had two policies; but the two had been utterly different, and inconsistent with each other. There had been the policy of the right hon. Gentleman who had been the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Chaplin), which had been announced in the beginning of the evening of the debate; and then they had had the totally different policy of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) who had preceded him in the Office which he now held. Now, hon. Gentlemen opposite were very much interested in the condition of the unemployed, and wished to call the attention of the House to it by the Queen's Speech. But had hon. Gentlemen opposite any policy with regard to relieving the distress of the unemployed? As to Ireland, they had had no other policy than one of hypothesis. It seemed that oven in a Tory Cabinet they had not altogether been a happy family; and it was only under the pressure of actual Parliamentary conflict that they had made up their minds to say something definite. The noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) had informed the House that he had warned them as to the danger of extending the franchise in Ireland. But what was the action taken by one of his noble Colleagues? In a speech which the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had just delivered he had reminded them of the dangers incurred by conferring the franchise on the Irish people, and the inevitable result of creating a majority hostile to our institutions. At the time when the question was being discussed a Motion had been made by an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brodrick) to refuse the extension of the franchise to Ireland. The noble Lord had then spoken of this proposal as a reactionary one, and as a slur and a stigma upon that country.

I was below the Gangway then.

wanted to know if the noble Lord's opinion changed in accordance with the particular seat in the House on which he sat?

I do not suppose that anything said below the Gangway could possibly bind anyone sitting here.

said, that the views expressed by the noble Lord had been those of a large section of his Party, of the right hon. Gentleman who was now the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), of Lord Iddesleigh, who was then in that House, and of the noble Lord the Member for East Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), and some six or seven prominent Members of the then Opposition, who had walked out of the House rather than vote in favour of the Amendment for refusing the extension of the franchise to Ireland.

said, that he had not been near the House at the time.

said, the right hon. Member for West Bristol had been worse than he had supposed. It appeared that on the occasion of this important Amendment, which, according to the noble Lord, was calculated to prevent great disaster, and the return to that House of a vast majority of Irish Members, whose action would betray the interest of the country, the right hon. Gentleman was not anywhere near the House. Then the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) told them that they had turned out the late Government upon the Irish Question. That was not the fact; but, oven if it were so, surely the noble Lord did not moan that they were to have an alternative policy the first day they entered Office. That view was a different one from that which had been consistently held by the Tory Party for almost a generation. Sir Robert Peel had refused to prescribe until he was called in. It was perfectly monstrous to ask them, in a matter of this difficulty and complication, to come to a conclusion on all the details of their policy in a few days, when, by their own confession, the Members of the late Government took six months to consider their policy, and had not come to a conclusion even then. In a speech, again, which the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) had made at Sheffield he had referred to the sources of accurate information which the late Government had I possessed with regard to Ireland, and had told them that weeks before the late Government had fallen they had come to a conclusion. They had been told at first that there had been nothing which would warrant the Government in applying for exceptional powers in Ireland. When had the late Government received the information upon which they had determined to apply for these exceptional powers? All that the Queen's Speech had done was to express the opinion that it might be necessary, under certain circumstances, to make some further proposal on the subject. On the Thursday when Parliament met for the discussion of the Queen's Speech the Government had no policy, although they had had six months in which to get special information. The late Government had had six months' official information, and the reports and the advice of the Nobleman whom they appointed as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and whose services were deemed so valuable that he was appointed to this position—though it was known, that he could only hold it for six months; and yet they could not make up their minds that it was necessary to introduce coercive measures. Then came the little incident to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred. They sent a distinguished Member of their Administration (Mr. W. H. Smith) as Chief Secretary to Ireland; and within 24 hours information sent by him by telegraph was deemed sufficient to outweigh all the previous information supplied to them by Lord Carnarvon and by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. In 24 hours there was a grand new policy, and a declaration that the Government had determined upon coercive measures. The motives which led them to adopt this policy, when they knew that they were going to fall on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), were very obvious. The present position was a very simple one. The Irish Question was a matter of the utmost gravity, complexity, difficulty, and importance. As it presented itself to the present Government, it was a question of much greater gravity and importance than that which the late Government appeared to have considered it. They, it appeared, had only this simple point to decide—whether or not they had sufficient information of outrages in Ireland to justify them in introducing a coercive or restrictive measure. But the present Government had always said that nothing could induce them to limit their consideration to such a point as that without considering the condi- tion of the Land Question and the demands now for the first time formally promulgated by Representatives who were clearly entitled to speak for five-sixths of the people of Ireland. These were all questions which Her Majesty's Government insisted on considering together; and they had so far extended the limits of the inquiry, and made it the more desirable that time should be given for arriving at a conclusion. If hon. Members asked them to-night to declare their policy, they would frankly tell them that they had not one to give. They pledged themselves to pursue an inquiry which should enable them to state their policy. That inquiry commenced on Monday. It was one not yet concluded. It was their desire and intention to conclude it at as early a date as possible; and as soon as they could his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had stated that the result of Her Majesty's Government's deliberations would be communicated to the House.

I do not wish to prolong this debate to the inconvenience of the House; but the circumstances under which the House has met this evening are of a very peculiar and grave character, and there are certain matters on which I think Members of this House have a right to ask for the clearest and fullest information. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, for technical reasons of procedure, has not been able hitherto to take part in the debate which has been going on; but the Amendment which is now before the House will afford him an opportunity of answering any inquiries, if he thinks it wise or prudent to do so. The Government have told us that it is not, at the present moment, in their power to lay their statement of Irish policy before Parliament. They have not told us at what time they will be able to make that statement. The Prime Minister seemed to think that on or about the 22nd of March this might be done; but, fortunately for the public, a day has been definitely mentioned in the House of Lords by the Representative of the Government there on which the Irish policy of the Government is to be disclosed. The date is a most interesting one, though of a most ominous character; for it has been stated in the House of Lords to-night that the day on which the Irish policy of the Government will be disclosed to Parliament will be the celebrated 1st of April. I cannot think it accidental. I imagine it must be a coincidence that the day has been chosen for the commencement of the Government's Irish policy. But there are indications of a policy on which I think we have a right to question the Government. We have a right to question the Government on the indications of their policy, which are afforded by the appointment as Chief Secretary of the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley). We have a right, before we part with this Address, to ask that right hon. Gentleman, who has avoided taking part in this debate as yet, whether he still adheres to the sentiments about Ireland which he expressed a short time ago—in the month of January—at Chelmsford—sentiments which were distinctly made, which were evidently most carefully prepared, and in giving which to the public he expressly said that he spoke "advisedly." We have a right to know—for he does not require time to make up his mind on this subject—whether he adheres to the policy which he then considered necessary? I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a man of honour, and I am perfectly certain he is not only acquainted with, but is possessed by, all the honourable traditions of English statesmanship. Would the right hon. Gentleman have stated as definitely as he did that nothing short of the "absolute and total removal "of the Irish Members from Westminster was necessary in January, and take Office in a Liberal Government in the month of February prepared to abandon that policy? I know he would not; therefore, there is an indication in the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman of the policy which the Government are going to pursue. If this is so, why could not the Government state it now? The Prime Minister has seen many Governments come into Office; and I would ask him, was there ever a Government which came into Office which did not, at the earliest moment, afford to Parliament a general outline of what their policy was to be? The late Government, at all events, did not err on that point. They occupied precisely the same time as the present Government had occupied in getting themselves together; and on the day they met Parliament my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) stated clearly to the House what the general outline of their policy would be, not only with regard to Ireland, but with regard to the general affairs of the country. But there is another thing on which we are bound to ask for information. I have alluded to the indication which is afforded us of the policy of the Government with regard to Ireland by the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle; but there is another indication which, if possible, is stronger still. When I look on the distinguished array of right hon. Gentlemen opposite I miss a well-known face. No light, or ordinary, or trivial reason can be alleged why I do not see opposite to me the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington). Viewing the great position which the noble Marquess occupied before the country and in the Liberal Party, viewing the fact that almost since the year 1859 or 1860, in every Liberal Government which has existed since then, the noble Marquess has taken a part—and in the last two Liberal Governments a most prominent part—I say we are entitled to ask, solely on public grounds, why the noble Marquess has refused to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government? Bearing in mind the unequivocal and straightforward manner in which the noble Marquess has, on more than one occasion, given to the public his views about the government of Ireland, the absolutely unequivocal manner in which he has pronounced for the maintenance of the Legislative Union between the two countries, we are entitled, in the absence of any explanation, to assume, even more positively than we assumed from the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle, that the policy of the Government towards Ireland is not the maintenance, but the destruction and the repeal of the Legislative Union; and I will appeal to the noble Marquess to say whether we are, or are not, justified in arriving at that conclusion? These are points on which the public require information. The whole country wants to know from one of the men at the head of public affairs—one whom the Prime Minister specially referred to in his first Mid Lothian address—why he no longer is a Member of the Government of the Queen, and why he no longer is willing to co-operate with the present Prime Minister? I think that we are pretty correct in surmising that the same reason that brought about the inclusion of the right hon. Member for Newcastle led to the exclusion of the noble Marquess. If Repeal of the Union is your policy—and obviously it is, because I do not believe that on any other question the noble Marquess would have parted from you—if that is your policy, why cannot you say so in general terms? You could say merely that the Government have come into Office to carry out the policy of independence which five-sixths of the Irish people demand. That must be your policy, judging from the inclusion in the Government of the right hon. Member for Newcastle, and from the exclusion of the noble Marquess, and why not avow it? There is a reason for this delay, and beating about the bush, and these references to old speeches—a most incautious proceeding of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [Laughter.] I speak with the utmost seriousness. I believe that the Repeal of the Union would be a fatal policy for Ireland; but if there is a policy which can by any means be more fatal it is the unnecessary prolongation, for the lowest Party purposes, of the dreadful state of uncertainty which exists in that country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary came to the conclusion that he would destroy the late Government because their Irish policy was inadequate. That was the statement of the Irish Chief Secretary, who brushed away all the nonsense about three acres and a cow.

I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I made no statement of that kind.

I have a very clear recollection of reading the right hon. Gentleman's speech with the greatest interest and attention; and I noticed with the utmost delight— not only for controversial purposes, but generally for the credit of the new Government—that he stated in so many words that what the late Government fell on was the question of Ireland, and what the present Government had come in upon was the question of Ireland. If I am wrong in that I apologize to the right hon. Gentleman; but if he will do me the favour of referring to, I think, his first speech at Newcastle, he will find I have not misrepresented him. That being so, the Government are hardly entitled to the large amount of time which they claim to decide on their Irish policy; and, certainly, if it is to be put in the form of a Bill they may take more time. But respecting the general outline of their policy with regard to social order, the question of legislative independence, and the Land Question, they are bound to take the public into their confidence at a far earlier date than the 1st of April. But if they will not accede to this suggestion, the right hon. Gentleman will not think it unreasonable in us to call upon him, missing from his side one of his oldest, his most tried, his truest, and one of his most experienced Colleagues, to say why that noble Marquess no longer forms part of his Government. To that information the public is entitled. I have risen to extract it; and I do not think that any Member will assert that it is an unreasonable or unjustifiable proposal.

I shall not attempt to interest or amuse the House by following the speech of the noble Lord in the spirit in which it was delivered. If I understand him rightly, he, on the first day of our meeting Parliament three days after our first Cabinet Council, thinks it necessary to accuse us of unnecessarily prolonging the state of uncertainty in Ireland for the lowest Party purposes. This is what he is throwing off in the character of a Member of the Opposition. That is the accusation for which he thinks he has already got sufficient ground. All I can say, Sir, is this—that if that be the spirit in which, either by the Government or by an Opposition, either by a Liberal Party or by a Conservative Party, or by an Irish or Nationalist Party, tie great questions connected with the condition and future of Ireland are to be treated in this House, it is idle for any man, or for any set of men, to address themselves to the settlement of the difficulty. Hope is extinguished, and nothing but despair is found in its place. I shall not, therefore, reply to the noble Lord in the spirit of that speech. I have laid down a resolution for myself, and I will adhere to it as long as human nature will permit me, that in addressing myself to this, the most difficult and arduous of all the questions which in 53 years of political life I have had to deal with, I will renounce from the very first every motive, every topic, every phrase of Party accusation, and will studiously avoid to the best of my humble ability, and with allowance, perhaps, for human infirmities—I will studiously avoid every word which can justly excite a sentiment of animosity, either on the part of Gentlemen opposite or on the part of those Irish Members now constituting a large majority with whom upon so many occasions in the former Parliament we were so frequently in conflict. That, Sir, is my apology—an apology which will, I hope, last and hold good for some time—for not noticing the accusations of the noble Lord. Nor will I comment on the circumstance of his striving at the very first moment of his appearing on the Opposition Bench to envenom this difficult and arduous question by the introduction—[Cries of "No!"] Well, I would take away even that word if you like. To envenom a question, I think, is not an unnatural comment upon the speech of one who, before he has facts, either good or bad, to speak upon, thinks it necessary to accuse us of prolonging the state of uncertainty in Ireland for the lowest Party purposes. I will say nothing to perplex or embarrass the question; and, therefore, instead of saying to "envenom" it, with regard to the meaning of the noble Lord, I will answer it in such respects as it has reference to me with respect to my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington). I heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) a compliment to my noble Friend in the debate on the Address, on account of the clearness with which he, at any rate, had delivered his sentiments on the subject of the Repeal of the Union, and had exempted himself, therefore, from all necessity of further appeal on that subject. Then I apprehend, if I am competent to speak, there can be no doubt or question whatever about the views of my noble Friend in that matter. In respect to the conduct of my noble Friend, the noble Lord appeals to me to explain the motives for that conduct. It is, however, not my duty. It would be a gross intrusion on the rights of my noble Friend were I to undertake anything of that kind. Whether there be occasion for the question or not, it is a proceeding entirely unprecedented in this House to call upon any one Member of this House to explain the motives of another. With respect to the legitimate portions of the appeal, and questions of the noble Lord, I will answer. The noble Lord says that the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley) is an indication of the spirit and tendency of the Government. Well, Sir, he has asked my right hon. Friend whether he adheres to the expressions of a particular speech delivered by him. I cannot presume to doubt, speaking for a Colleague, that to the general purport and spirit of his expressions he adheres. For my own part, I am not in possession, nor would it be possible for me to be in possession, of all that has been said, or even all the important declarations that have been made by my Colleagues; but this I will say—that, so far as I know, the opinions of my right hon. Friend—and I have had some opportunities of learning thom—I anticipate the greatest advantage from the accession of my right hon. Friend to the Government; because I believe that in a perfectly open and liberal spirit he will apply himself to the consideration of this difficult subject, and will afford to us the most valuable assistance in our efforts at its solution. Now, the noble Lord appears to think that I am bound, on this occasion, to discuss the Repeal of the Union. Sir, I do not mean to discuss upon this occasion any Irish question whatever. If I enter upon a discussion of the Repeal of the Union on this occasion, how am I to resist, as I have intimated my intention to resist, the appeal which the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. W. O'Brien) is of course, from his position, perfectly entitled to take, that upon this occasion we shall discuss the subject of evictions in Ireland? That is a question of the deepest interest, and of greatest importance; and there are many other questions of the deepest interest, and of the greatest importance, which are open and before the public mind with respect to Ireland. For example, the question of social order in Ireland may admit, and does apparently admit, of doubt as to the manner in which it should be dealt with. But were I to discuss one point connected with this social order, or with the integrity of the Empire in Ireland, on this occasion, I could not refuse to go over the whole circuit of those great and important subjects with the certainty of occupying much of the time of the House, and with no advantage whatever. I pass on from this portion of the speech of the noble Lord with one observation. The noble Lord has said that whatever indication may be drawn from the appointment of my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Morley), he must observe that the intentions of the Government are to be inferred from its general composition and its general temper. It would have been a singular thing if we had inferred the intentions of the late Government from the speeches made by the noble Lord while he still sat below the Gangway, and when nobody could be bound at all by the utterances he gave forth. Sir, the noble Lord has appealed to me on another point, which is this—he says that he appealed to me to know that upon every occasion Governments have begun with a general declaration of policy. I answer the noble Lord frankly in the negative. It has not been the rule for Governments to begin with a general declaration of their policy. Upon rare and exceptional occasions declarations of that kind may, perhaps, have been made; but I would almost venture to say, fully admitting the truth of the noble Lord's observation, that I have witnessed the entrance of many Governments to power, and I would venture to say that, excepting in, perhaps, two or three instances out of something like from 15 to 20, no such thing has been done. The earliest case of an important Government which I was connected with was the Government of Sir Robert Peel. In the case of Sir Robert Peel's Government, which entered Office in September, 1841, the policy of the Government was inferred, if I remember right, from what had taken place out-of-doors; and although Sir Robert Peel came into Office known to be a friend of the principle of the Corn Law, but intending to amend the Corn Law, five months were allowed to elapse before Sir Robert Peel declared his intentions with regard to that law. Now, with respect to the case the noble Lord quoted, he says that when the late Government entered Office the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) declared the policy of the Government. What policy did the right hon. Baronet declare? Let no one suppose for a moment that I am finding fault with him. I received the statement of his policy in a spirit with which I think I may say the spirit shown tonight does not correspond. The opening statement of the right hon. Gentleman, which was perfectly judicial, was a statement that there was much in the conduct of Earl Spencer that he disapproved, and the statement that the late Government had determined to try the experiment of governing Ireland without the aid of the old method of repressive criminal legislation. They were not prepared, in the state of circumstances they had before them, to apply to Ireland the old method—which they considered an antiquated and very doubtful method—of repressive criminal legislation. That was the length to which the right hon. Gentleman went; and I am bound to say that I think it was as far as he could be fairly expected to go. Well, Sir, that length w e have gone already; that declaration we have already made. It is made in our addresses to our constituents. It has been made by me in this House. I have told you that according to the knowledge we are able to acquire of the condition of Ireland, although that condition is grave, and requires our closest consideration with a view to remedy, yet that we are not prepared, and do not think we should be justified in the state of the facts as they have come before us, in asking you at this moment to choose for your form of remedy the mode of repressive criminal legislation. We have gone, Sir, a great deal further on our accession to Office than the right hon. Gentleman went; because while he in a very great degree, I think, confined himself at that time, with the exception, perhaps, of a very limited reference to a renewal of the Land Purchase Act—while he confined himself in the main to the great negative announcement, which was, in point of fact, a most important announcement, of policy, and was destined, as he ought to have seen, to exercise infallibly, whoever might be in Office, a most important influence on the future policy of this country with regard to Ireland— while he confined himself to that negative statement, we have not confined ourselves to such a negative statement; but we said that it will be our duty—that it is our immediate duty—that it is a duty the execution of which has already been begun—to consider carefully and in detail what are the measures of a positive and substantive character which we ought to adopt by way of applying a remedy to what, I think, on all hands, amidst all our differences of view, is admitted to be the greatest evils. Therefore, what I say is this—the noble Lord found it necessary to have six months of experience and inquiry and consideration about the state of Ireland; and at the end of that time he had not been able to make up his mind whether coercive legislation was or was not necessary. He admitted an approximation towards making up his mind. He thought it was likely to be necessary; and he introduced that somewhat novel form in the Queen's Speech of acquainting the House with the workings of the mind of the Cabinet on this difficult and doubtful subject, affecting the condition of that country. That, Sir, is the answer I have to make to the noble Lord, and indeed substantially it amounts to this. The noble Lord says that to ask till the 1st of April as a date is requiring a time unreasonably long. Well, Sir, I would say it appears to me that that is rather a questionable declaration on the part of the noble Lord. The noble Lord took six months to consider whether he should or should not apply coercive legislation in Ireland, and could not make up his mind.

Where does the right hon. Gentleman gather that?

From the Queen's Speech, which you advised.

The Queen's Speech was adopted before Parliament met.

Exactly so; I am perfectly aware of that circumstance. Queen's Speeches are not made after Parliament meets. He made up his mind, I admit, in three days afterwards; and it is a subject as to which it will be necessary to question the Members of the late Government what were the events which passed in those three days which made them adopt the resolution they announced; what was the course of events with regard to outrage, evictions, and order, and the various points bearing on the subject; what were the events that occurred between the 21st of January, when the Speech was made in this House, and the 25th of January, when we were told that, in 24 hours, the policy had been declared—what were the facts belonging to these four days which caused the mind of the Government to be changed? We are very anxious that the House and the public should be in possession of the interesting information; and that information will be most interesting, as beating upon the actual political situation, as well as upon the views and proceedings of the late Government. Sir, we have frankly given a pledge to the House that no time will voluntarily be lost by us; that we have before us a great and complex question, the most complex I have ever had to deal with. If I am told that the uncertainty in Ireland has been unnecessarily prolonged—I must say I am so desirous to avoid crimination that I do not like to make the reply that suggests itself to me—I want to know why it is that the public mind has been in a state of uncertainty as to the Government of this country and the mode of treatment of Ireland since the result of the General Election became known? Why was it that we heard so much, and hear so much to-night, about the overthrow of the late Government, as if, forsooth! it was a remarkable circumstance that this House should not be contented with the continued maintenance of a Government that had 250 supporters out of a House of 670 Members. It would be a marvellous thing, if a debate be raised, whether on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) or on the prospects of the Irish Question, that this astonishing event should take place—that a Government with 250 supporters should continue to sit upon a Bench which is uniformly occupied by those who have the confidence of a majority of the House of Commons, or, at the very least, by those who have some reason to suppose that the House is not prepared to do otherwise than support them. Well, Sir, when the late Government—and I do not make any accusation about it—determined that with their 250 supporters they intended to meet Parliament, I did not, in my own mind, condemn them; but I said this— they are perfectly aware of the principle that a small minority of this House, those connected with a small minority of this House, are not the persons who are intended to carry on the government of the country; and the conclusion I came to was this—that they were going to continue their association with the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and to endeavour to examine whether they could not meet this great Irish question with some worthier, safer, and more permanent method than the old, often and unsatisfactorily-tried method of special criminal legislation. Sir, I should have rejoiced if that had been the case. [Opposition laughter.] I hear the jeers, if I may so call them. They proceed from Gentlemen who are shocked at the very barest idea of friendly relations with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and almost every man of that Party. How many Members of the Party opposite are there who gave utterance to such an idea in July last, in August last, in September last, in October last, or in November last, or until the elections were decided, and that influence upon the English boroughs had been secured, which has so greatly contributed to swell the ranks of the minority opposite into a respectable minority? I was drawn into this remark from the interruption which came from that quarter of the House, and which actually suggested to me an idea I had no intention of expressing. I should have rejoiced if Her Majesty's Government had arrived at the bold resolution to face this question as a substantive question, and to act on the proposition which the Earl of Carnarvon gave utterance to in the House of Lords at the end of the last Session, that you could not be always resorting to coercion; that you must look for something better than coercion as a means of governing Ireland; for I am quite sure of this—that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the Marquess of Salisbury had been able to brace themselves to such a resolution, it is possible that they might have given dissatisfaction to a portion of their own Friends; it is possible that they might have made one of those Party sacrifices which seem now to have gone out of fashion, but which, in other days—the days of Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington—were deemed the highest honour—namely, when they saw the opportunity to serve the country, to cast to the winds every consideration of the effect upon the Party, and to secure to the nation the benefits which they alone—Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington—were capable of securing. I believe that is the case we have before us; but I do not presume—I feel the overwhelming difficulties of this question to any Government that takes up the matter—the late Government came, I think, to a wrong decision; but such are the difficulties of the case that I do not presume to blame them. I had thought, and I still think, that there were some among them who would have been able to face the danger and the difficulty. I have a strong impression that men among them, and eminent men among them, were prepared to take that course. They could not command union among themselves, and before their difficulties they have fallen. Of their action I say I do not complain. I make no charge against them. In doubtful cases and in entangled cases of this kind it is very easy to make accusations, and the more violent the accusations are the more easy it is to make them and the louder are the cheers they evoke. I wish to renounce all feelings of that kind. We have before us a severe labour. We will not lose any time; but continue to address ourselves, as we have addressed ourselves, to it. We will not rest upon the example of the noble Lord, and say we must have six months' experience, inquiry, and consideration before we do what he did not do—arrive at a conclusion. I have been bold enough to indicate to-night—so earnestly was I desirous to meet the feeling which must prevail in this difficult state of circumstances—that within no long time after the necessary transactions connected with the Estimates are concluded, I hope to be able to open to some degree the views of the Government with regard to those positive and substantive measures of a remedial character for Ireland which we may separate by calling them the question of social order, the question of the land, and the question of Irish government; but which I believe are essentially associated together by bands so strong that it is not in the power of man to disjoin them. We can do no more. We cannot speak of the future. We stand in an attitude in which it would have been absurd, and in which we would have been guilty, if we had pretended to do more than I have indicated. I hope the House will accept our declaration in the good faith in which it has been given, and not approve the noble Lord's attack, and accuse us of prolonging uncertainty about Ireland for Party purposes. All these charges of the noble Lord we pass by with considerable equanimity; we shall strive to do our own duty to the best of our ability, and the best of men can do no more.

I had some expectation that the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) might have answered the appeal of my noble Friend near me (Lord Randolph Churchill), which certainly was addressed more directly to him than to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone). But the right hon. Gentleman made some remarks, in the course of his speech, which I think it is necessary, very shortly, to notice. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to question the conduct of the late Government in resolving to meet Parliament after the circumstances of the General Election. I can only say that that was a decision which we arrived at, to no small extent, upon the statements of the right hon. Gentleman himself as to his own position. We had the best of reasons for believing that he, at any rate, did not consider that he commanded a majority of the House of Commons. Whatever be our position in regard to this Assembly, in our belief no Party has a majority in this House. There are three Parties in this House, and time alone can show which has the confidence of the House of Commons. But no sooner did we meet the House, and announce a policy with reference to Ireland which included, but was by no means solely composed of, repressive legislation, than there was that combination between the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his followers and those hon. Members who sit in that (the Irish) quarter of the House, by which he succeeded in obtaining that majority on which, I suppose, his Government is now based. I repudiate the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that our pro- posals with reference to Ireland were solely composed of coercive legislation. In our belief, and in the belief, I suspect, of many others besides ourselves—I suspect in the belief of the noble Marquess the Member for Eossendale—the primary and most urgent necessity in the present condition of Ireland is to secure the supremacy of the Government of the Queen throughout the whole of that country, and vindicate the authority of the law. But when we undertook to submit to Parliament measures for that purpose, at the same time we undertook, if we were successful in passing those measures, that they should be immediately followed by further legislation on the great question of the land, with which, I may venture to say, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) has, in past years, shown himself singularly qualified to deal. But what is the present condition of affairs? I do not complain, for a moment, that the right hon. Gentleman has not disclosed to us his Irish policy to-night; but what I do think, in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket), is that this House, and especially Members connected with Ireland, have great cause to complain that, after all that has been said by right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite with reference to this question, the declaration of that policy is to be postponed for more than a month to come. Now, we were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that this matter has been his daily and his nightly study. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), one of his principal Colleagues, that the result of the General Election in Ireland had made it imperative that attention should be immediately called to the condition of the country. Therefore, this question has not for the first time occupied the attention of the Members of the present Government on their accepting Office. It has occupied their attention, by their own admission, for many weeks past; and the only thing, in fact, of which they could stand in need when they assumed Office was that official information which, of course, is only at the disposal of the Government of the day. Well, now, what was our conclusion on the official information which reached us, and which, we very acrefully considered, with reference to the state of Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman has twitted us with having been six months in making up our minds as to the policy——

I found no fault whatever with the Government for taking six months to make up their minds; I found fault with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) for demanding from us a declaration on the first day of our meeting Parliament as a Government.

Well, but, Sir, it is not accurate—it is not the fact—to say that we took six months to make up our minds in the matter at all. We arrived at a certain conclusion, which we announced to the House after our acceptance of Office, with reference to the non-renewal of repressive legislation for Ireland. We stated, at the time, that we came to that decision in the belief that the powers of the ordinary law would be sufficient to enable the Government to deal satisfactorily with the state of Ireland. That, of course, was a decision that required time to test. It was tested throughout the autumn—I announced myself, during the autumn, that if we found that the powers of the ordinary law were insufficient for the purpose we should have to apply to Parliament for further powers. At the time that Parliament met in January we were in this most difficult position—that my noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (the Earl of Carnarvon) had resigned that post, and the Minister primarily responsible for the government of Ireland was necessarily new to his work. What did we do? We did not alter our policy between the delivery of the Gracious Speech from the Throne and the day upon which I announced the intention of my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) to bring in a Bill for dealing with the National League and other societies of the kind. But we stated plainly in the Speech from the Throne that—

"Although there has been during the last year no marked increase of serious crime, there is in many places a concerted resistance to the enforcement of legal obligations, and I regret that the practice of organized intimidation continues to exist."

The Speech went on to say—

"No effort will be spared on the part of my Government to protect my Irish subjects in the exercise of their legal rights and the enjoyment of individual liberty. If, as my information leads me to apprehend, the existing provisions of the law should prove to be inadequate to cope with these growing evils, I look with confidence to your willingness to invest my Government with all necessary powers."

That was the statement in the Speech. What did it point to? It pointed to this—that we had not, at that time, actually decided what were the precise means by which the state of things which we described would be most successfully met. That was a matter which necessarily had to occupy very grave attention; and as soon as it was possible I stated to the House the decision at which we had arrived upon the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster. I will venture again to assert that there was absolutely no change between the declaration in the Gracious Speech from the Throne and the announcement subsequently made to the House of Commons. That announcement was based upon the very serious fact which appears somehow to have been forgotten or overlooked by the Government in the course of this discussion. We stated our opinion as to the serious condition of Ireland in regard to social order, and the necessity which had grown into existence of adopting exceptional measures for dealing with it. Were we right, or were we wrong, as to the facts of the present social condition of Ireland? Were we right, or were we wrong, as to the power exercised by the National League in many parts of the country, as to the supersession by the National League of the ordinary government of the country, and, indeed, of law itself in many cases? If we were wrong, if the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Mr. John Morley) has different information from that which reached us, if he can show that the state of Ireland is not what it was described to the House of Commons by my right hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes), then let him say so to the House. Let him put that information before the country, and no one will receive it with greater pleasure than the Members of the late Government. But if we were right in our estimate of the condition of Ireland, then all I can say is this—that it appears to me nothing can be graver than the responsibility which the present Government are incurring by postponing for more than a month any attempt to deal with a state of affairs which would be a disgrace if suffered to continue in any civilized country. The right hon. Gentleman, I remember, in one of his speeches, twitted us with what he supposed, at the time, to be our policy of neither governing Ireland ourselves, nor allowing Ireland to govern itself. Well, Sir, it seems to me that, at any rate for some little time to come, he will be following a course precisely similar to that which he so wrongly attributed to us. He is Chief Secretary for Ireland; but I will venture to say this—that in the present state of affairs in many parts of Ireland he is Chief Secretary by the grace of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and is compelled to act according to the bidding of the National League. Well, if that be not so, let him show it to the country. Let him come forward and prove that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University, who spoke to-night, was wrong in his description of the condition of the country, and then the Government will have said something in justification of their present position. Before they came into Office they pressed on us, through the Prime Minister, the immediate necessity of dealing with this question. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Of declaring your intentions.] Well, of "declaring our intentions" as to the mode in which this question should be dealt with. He told us "that whatever should be done for Ireland should be done with all the promptitude that the nature of the case required." Whatever we thought adequate for the case, whether with respect to social order or the land, "let us know what it is; state it frankly to the House." That is now our demand to him, and that demand cannot be met by a postponement of the whole question for more than six weeks. Looking at what we believe to be the present condition of Ireland, I think nothing can be graver than the responsibility which, is incurred by any Government of this country in doing what my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University so well described as "allowing matters to drift," I trust we may have from the right hon. Gentleman who has succeeded to the very difficult Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, and whose abilities, I am sure, we all admire—I trust we may have from him some statement which may, at any rate, show that he is sensible of the grave nature of the organization with which he has to deal, the objects at which it is aimed, and the evils from which the country must suffer if it is not coped with in a very different spirit from that which has animated the speech of the Prime Minister to-night.

, in rising to move, as an Amendment, the insertion, at the end of the 15th paragraph, of the following additional paragraph to the Queen's Speech:—

"This House humbly expresses its regret that in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech the reference to the condition of the people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is of a vague and indefinite character, and contains no satisfactory assurance that such Legislation as the serious nature of the case demands will he undertaken, and is of opinion that, until a Land Bill dealing in a comprehensive manner with the proved and admitted grievances of the Highland People has been passed into Law, the Civil or Military Forces of the Crown should not he employed to evict those People from their hereditary homes,"

said that, no doubt in common with a great many, the House would be glad to hear the announcement of the Government, that, on Monday next, it was their intention to bring in a Bill to deal with the Land Question in Scotland; but it was a question of great urgency, and he regretted that that declaration on the part of the Government did not meet the case which he proposed to provide for, if the House would accept his Amendment. His Amendment was not to force the Government to legislate for a settlement of the Land Question, for he imagined no pressure was required to be put upon any Government to compel them to see the absolute necessity of legislating upon the question with a view to its settlement. It was different a few years ago, when he first took the liberty—which was then thought to be a great liberty—of moving on this question. It was considered a great liberty because, though he was a Scotchman, he represented an Irish constituency. That reproach'—if reproach it were—could no longer be applied; for he had come back now to the House without that stain upon his character; and he appeared, as a Scotch Member, to plead as earnestly as he could on behalf of those people in whose interests he had put down his Amendment. He had no wish to take up any long time in discussing the question, because his proposition was a very simple one. He could multiply instances by the hundred where, in public meeting, resolutions were carried, praying that House to grant suspension of eviction, pending the passing of the legislative measures proposed by Government. His proposal, he thought, was not without precedent; because, although not in the exact form, it contained the substance and spirit of the ill-fated Compensation for Disturbance Bill of 1880. He moved, on this occasion, to ask this High Court of Parliament to grant an injunction to restrain one of the parties to a suit from ruining the other, pending the decision of this High Court on their case. That was literally the issue that was raised by the Amendment. It was an appeal for injunction against one who had the whole power—the power of totally ruining and banishing if he chose—from their native homes as many as happened to reside on his property. He had no doubt there were plenty of good landlords in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; but it was not the good landlords, but the bad landlords, they had to legislate for; and he was only now asking the House to compel the bad landlord, who brought shame upon the others, to do that which the good landlord would do of his own accord. By the law of the land a landlord had perfect liberty to evict a man, whether in arrears or not, upon six months' notice; and the reason he asked the House to accept his Amendment was because, before it was possible for the Government to pass their Bill through Parliament and bring it into effective use, the eviction season would have passed. Hundreds of evictions were now threatened in Scotland; people were having notices served upon them; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) knew perfectly well that in the month of May the eviction season would set in, and in order to prevent that he moved his Amendment. To show the urgency of what he asked for, he would cite a few instances, but without giving the names of the people or the places. The statement was that last Martinmas a number of crofters were served with notices of removal. They had all their rents paid, and their crofts consisted of 2½ acres of the poorest soil. These crofts were in the immediate vicinity of the mansion house, and were of a character that no farmer would pay more than £12 for the whole seven. Yet the laird derived £84 a-year from these crofts. These people went on to say that it was impossible for them to pay these rents, and that hitherto they had been paid by contributions sent by their friends in the South. In their present circumstances they could not see what they were to do. They must submit to the law, and therefore prepare for eviction. None of them were in arrears, and they could only rely upon the Legislature passing some measure to stop these repressive and inhuman practices. In another case, reported by the Press on the 11th of February, it was stated that a meeting was held at Cromarty for the purpose of approaching the landlord for a reduction of rent; and the statement was that Mrs. MacKenzie declined, and said she would "put the whole estate under fallow rather than give one sixpence of reduction." These were the statements that came from a people in a state of despair. In most of the cases in which evictions were threatened it was, no doubt, on account of heavy arrears; but how did they arise? They were carried forward from one tenant to another, these being kept upon the factor's books in terrorem over the tenants. For instance, £6 was fixed as the rent in the books, but £5 was all that was paid; but after a time the tenant found that £1 a-year had been accumulating as arrears which provided the excuse for eviction. There had been no disturbances and no outrages of any kind throughout the whole of Scotland. This was a peaceful, legitimate, and Constitutional demand that was being made; and he appealed to that House, to the Gentlemen who voted for the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, who voted for similar measures for Ireland, for the Land Act in Ireland, and for all the legislation that had taken place in Ireland, to do something for the corresponding classes in Scotland, and not leave them in destitution because they were peaceable. Let them not teach them to break the law— that was a lesson that had been taught in Ireland; but he hoped that his court- trymen would not learn it. Legitimate legislation was what they required; and he asked the House, as a first step, to stand between them and a wrong-doer, and not between them and good landlords—though even good landlords in Scotland had far too much power—more power than ought to be trusted to any individuals. They could sell their land if they chose to Mr. Winans, and the sale would entitle him to give six months' notice to the whole of the native population who were not under leases. He appealed to the House and the Government to stand between those people and what was practically sending them out of the country. These people were attached to their own country, and he wanted to see them living in their own glens and native hill-sides, and not dwelling in the slums of big cities. He wished they had more of them in that position. If they had, they would not hear so much about the distress of the unemployed. There was plenty of land for the unemployed if they could get it to cultivate. He had not brought a large number of cases before the notice of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate; but it was not because he had not the cases to bring forward in witness of what he had said. The nest time this matter was brought forward he would read case after case and take up hour after hour. He moved this Amendment with regret. He should have preferred if he had been in a position to move this Amendment when the late Government were in power—or rather in Office, for they never were in power. He was quite sure there were hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who would have supported this Amendment under those circumstances, but who, under existing circumstances, would not be able to support it, and he thought he would probably have carried it. He believed the present Government seriously meant to deal with this question, and that they would deal with it in a very different fashion from the way in which they proposed to deal with it last year, for a great many things had happened since then. But if the Government were prepared to take away from the landlords the power of evicting the people for no cause, why would they not do it by accepting this Amendment two or three months in advance of their Bill? He should be obliged to ascertain by a division the state of opinion in the House upon the question, so that they would know who were their friends and who were the foes. In conclusion, he bogged to move the Resolution which stood in his name.

, in seconding the Amendment, said, he wanted to bring before the House some facts in regard to the position of the crofters at the present time. Two or three years ago the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) managed to get the time of notice for eviction changed from six weeks to six months; and they knew that already a large number of crofters had received that six months' notice. Under the Scotch Act those who were in arrear might be turned out if they were 40 days in arrear before some date in May; and what he feared was that a large number of crofters who were utterly unable to pay rent in consequence of the new condition of things would be turned out. The crofter did not so much make his living out of the land as on the sea; and the crofter, in his capacity as fanner and in his capacity as fisherman, had lately met with an unparalleled condition of depression. As a farmer his stock had fallen about 50 per cent in the last two years. In his own county in six months the value of stock had fallen nearly 40 per cent, so that if the crofter sold his stock to try to pay his rent, even then he could not pay it. Of course, the large farmer felt the depression nearly as much as the crofters, and they also required protection. Only they had got capital, and the landlord might think twice before he killed the goose that laid the golden eggs—before making the capitalist farmers bankrupt. The crofter had been paying a great deal for his land because it was near the sea; but the depression in the land had not been so great as was the depression in the fishing industry. The poor people were told to go to sea and fish; and now, just as they were driven away from off the best tracts of the land, the steam trawlers came and drove them away from off the sea by destroying their gear and nets. The condition of things in the fishing industry was very deplorable. During the summer a large section of crofters from Ross-shire and Inverness-shire came round to Wick for the summer fishing, and expected to make what would pay their rents and keep their families. But, unfortunately for the crofters, last year nearly all the fish-curers went bankrupt, so that men who a few years ago were worth £20,000 were now only worth a few pence. The fish sent to Germany and other foreign countries last year did not bring to many of the curers a price sufficient to pay the cost of the barrels in which they were packed, while there was great competition from other sources, and the price of the Norway fish had been reduced, altogether making a most unfortunate state of things. The fishermen had been content to get 5s. or 10s. in the pound from the curers, and next year it was difficult to conceive what their condition would be. One reason for the deplorable condition of things was because of the action of the Railway Companies, who had so much abused the power given them by Parliament to make a differential rate of carriage, which was much against the home producer, and in favour of foreigners. They charged no less than £4 per ton for fish, while they bought salt at 22s. and potatoes at 30s. But the crofter, though he was now, from circumstances which he was not able to control, unable to pay his rent, did not forget his right to the land. The homes of the crofters were generally those which they had themselves built, and they were beginning to feel desperate. He thought the new Scotch Secretary should think twice before he sent troops to the Highlands to teach the Highland people what had been often taught the Irish people— namely, that law often meant organized injustice. They wanted to get from the Government and the House an assurance that the men who were unable to pay rent from causes beyond their control should not be sent adrift, but should be secured until some remedial legislation was enacted. He had much pleasure in seconding the Amendment of the hon. Member for Argyllshire.

said, he had lived for 20 years among the crofters, and could bear out the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire. The fishery was in a dreadfully bad state, and the crofters were quite unable to pay their rents, which were greater than the holdings were worth. It was not proposed that the declaration in the Amendment should last for years, but only for one year, by which time the ejectment season would have passed, and they hoped for a satisfactory measure enacted by the Government. Surely for one year the landlords could afford to let the matter lie. If the landlords meant to force the people to pay rents it simply meant driving them off the land, and they all knew the results. An eviction was simply a sentence of death to many of those people. It was all very well for the landlords to say—"We must have our rights;" but the people had rights as well as the landlords. In the Highlands many of them had rights superior to those of the landlords. How many of the proprietors had bought the land? The Argyll and Sutherland families had paid nothing for those lands on which these crofters lived; and he hoped that in this 19th century such landlords would not be allowed by means of evictions to turn the people adrift. In many cases the land had been kept for the landlords by the strong arms of their forefathers, and by nothing else. It was no use trying to get blood out of a stone, and it was no use trying to get money from the crofters, because for a long time they had paid their rents from money they did not get from their crofts, and now they had no more to pay. He would heartily support the Amendment, hoping that by this time next year they would have no need for such a Motion.

said that, as an English Member, he desired most heartily to support the Amendment. He had taken means of informing himself on this subject, and he was persuaded of the urgent necessity of speedy legislation. But speedy legislation would not be sufficient if evictions were to be allowed to go on in the interval. He had no sympathy with men who could and would not pay their rent; but occasions sometimes arose when a large number of tenants could not pay owing to special circumstances; and then it was only fair that other portions of society should take their part in the burden, and not throw it all on the poor. The Report of the Crofters' Commissioners in 1884 was a lamentable indictment against the whole system of the North-Western Highlands; and this state of things had been growing worse ever since, and evictions were becoming more and more cruel. The Report showed that a social revolution had taken place in these districts, in the course of which the poor toilers had been the sufferers, while the owners had up to very lately been the gainers. The Report showed that there existed a patent contradiction between the Statute Law and the immemorial tradition and custom of those districts. It also gave instances in which whole communities had been driven from the land, and had been huddled between the mountains and the sea on comparatively bare and barren tracts, on which the utmost industry would not enable them to live in any comfort. Eights had been unjustly invaded, and he hoped that the House would not trifle with this matter. Mr. Angus Sutherland, the late crofter candidate for Sutherlandshire, recently gave an account of what was known as the Rosehall case. He stated that in 1845 the estate of Rosehall was purchased by I Sir James Matheson, who promised the tenants that they would never be removed from their holdings, at any rate so long as he lived. The tenants accordingly reclaimed much of the land, and made great improvements. The estate was then sold, or rather exchanged for another, and all the tenants were served with notices to quit by the new landlord. They were compelled to accept the landlord's terms or forfeit all their improvements; and thriving tenants were thus turned into rack-rented feuars. He said it was incumbent on the Government to take good heed lest the extreme pressure of what might be legal rights, but were moral wrongs, should drive along-suffering people to desperation, and bring about bloodshed and disorder in hitherto comparatively peaceful regions.

I have listened with great pleasure to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton); but, in some respects, I could almost have wished that the hon. Member had deferred his speech for a few days. I have no doubt, from his intimate knowledge of the Highlands of Scotland, he has much in reserve to tell us; and I should be glad if, some throe or four days hence, on the Motion for the introduction of the Crofters Bill, and still more on the second reading, he moves again the sympathy of the House as he has moved it to-night. I cannot but think that his speech, and the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane), are somewhat premature, or somewhat tardy. They are premature if they are intended to excite the interest of the House in those provisions which the Government intends to bring forward, and which, I earnestly think and trust, will be of a nature, if not to satisfy, at any rate to gratify, those hon. Members. But they are tardy as applied to the present condition of the House of Commons and the Government. The Amendment to the Address which the House is asked to entertain to-night states that the House humbly expresses its regret that in the Queen's Gracious Speech the reference to the condition of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is of so vague and indefinite a character; and contains no satisfactory assurance that such legislation as the serious nature of the case demands will be undertaken. That is the Preamble to the Amendment. I am not here to defend, I am rather here to adopt, the Address in answer to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech; but if I were here to defend it. I should say that the line and a-half referring to a measure for mitigating the distressed condition of the poorer classes of the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland would cover legislation of a sort which might be very satisfactory oven to advanced Members of this House. But if there might be some justice in the Amendment throe weeks ago, there is none now; because the Government, through the mouth of the Prime Minister, has promised—not that it considers that legislation about the crofters is of great importance, but that it considers it almost paramount, for the very first Notice of a measure that has been given by the present Government—at any rate, the first Notice of any measure of importance—has been for a Bill for improving the condition of the crofters and cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. I ask the House whether it is a fair reward to a Government which has shown itself so anxious to grapple, and to grapple rapidly and thoroughly, with this great question— whether it is fair to reject the earnest appeal of the Prime Minister, who has given this pledge, which you may be sure he will make good—not to insert Amendments in this Address; and I think hon. Members will have to show very strong cause indeed for inserting this Amendment, because it is an Amendment of a very serious nature. The Amendment, after the Preamble that I have quoted, goes on to declare that the House is of opinion that until a Land Bill dealing in a comprehensive manner with the proved and admitted grievances of the Highland crofters has been passed into law the Civil and Military Forces of the Crown should not be employed in evicting the people from their hereditary holdings. I earnestly trust that before voting hon. Members will consider the very serious nature of the Amendment for which they are voting. The hon. Member for Caithness-shire (Dr. Clark), in his interesting speech, referred to the great distress of the fishing population, and to the manner in which they are suffering by the competition of trawlers, and by the discriminating rates of railways. I should like to ask the hon. Member for Caithness whether the fishing population of the Western Highlands are the only fishing population in the United Kingdom that are suffering from bad trade and depression? If that is not the case, why should we adopt such a strong remedy as that of suspending the ordinary operation of the law in their case, and in their case alone? I must frankly own that I would not assent to such a proposal. Before adopting it, two facts would have to be established. One of these two facts would be that the population that was going to be specially benefited by such a very strong proposal as this was suffering from any great grievance of a nature requiring to be remedied, or from any great danger; and the other thing that would have to be established would be that it had been up to this time entirely neglected by Parliament. But are the people of these Highlands and Islands suffering under any very great grievance from evictions, or from any danger of evictions? I am glad to think that at a time like this in England and Scotland the landlords are treating their people with that sort of consideration which ought to exist between the landlords and the tenants. ["Oh, oh!"] I will not say it is being done everywhere; but I know of many cases in England and in Scotland where large reductions are being given, and very freely given—permanent reductions—and where the eviction of an old tenant is the very last idea that would occur to the mind of the landlord. But are the Highlands of Scotland at this moment the districts where there is an exception to this rule? Are the Highlands, during the last two years, districts where evictions are being ruthlessly carried out? If there can be any charge brought against the late Government, or against the Government which preceded it, it would be—not that evictions in the Highlands were too easily carried out, but that, practically, there were no evictions at all, even where rents could not be obtained. There is no part of the country in which, at this moment, there is such immense and such general arrears as in certain parts of the Highlands; and to tell the House of Commons that during the last six months, that during the last two years, there have been any exceptional crop of evictions is to tell them something which is not a fact; and, unless it is confirmed by the most powerful evidence, the House could not be induced to accept such an extremely strong Resolution. But it is not the case. There is a general feeling among the landlords of the Highlands, as there is a feeling in the House of Commons, and in the country in general, that the crofters of the Western Islands are in a very unsatisfactory condition, which ought to have been altered long ago by legislation, and that that is the district in which, of all others in the country, the power of eviction ought to be less ruthlessly and most mercifully used; and I do not believe I am exaggerating when I say that there is no district in these Islands where the people have been in less danger of eviction than they were in the crofting districts of Scotland. Now, I come to the question of what has been done for the crofters in this respect by the House of Commons. Never was so strong a Resolution passed, giving so very marked a lesson in the direction of doing the utmost to mitigate the rights of landlords to the Executive Government, as the Resolution that was passed on the 14th of November, 1884, at the instance of a distinguished Irish Member, who has vindicated his right to take up the cause of the crofters. The Resolution was as follows:—

Resolved "That, in the opinion of this House, it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission upon the condition of the crofters and cottars in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, or to apply such other remedies as they deem advisable; and that this House concurs in the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission at page 110 of its Report, that 'The mere vindication of authority and repression of resistance would not establish the relations of mutual confidence between landlord and tenant, in the absence of which the Country would not be truly at peace, and all our inquiries and counsels would be expended in vain.'"

That is the Resolution under which, at this moment, the Highlands of Scotland are being administered—the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons, giving the greatest moral sanction in its power to the theory that the rights of the landlord should not be pressed. On that Resolution the landlords of the West of Scotland have acted, and since that Resolution was passed evictions have not been oppressive; and to say that they were numerous would be to say something which is very far from the fact in the Western Highlands. While I may have been willing to give a passive assent to that Resolution, I cannot go further; the Government cannot go further, and lay down the opinion that the law is not to be supported. The hon. Member asks whether the Government would be prepared to send troops to enable Mr. Winans to make any fresh evictions in order to extend his deer forests? During the last six months, under a Conservative Government, no troops have been sent into that district; and I do not think it is very likely that, under a Liberal Government, any troops will be sent for such a purpose. We desire to find a remedy, not in making any declarations of this sort, but in bringing in and pressing forward a Bill giving the largest measure of protection and comfort to the crofting population that the general sense of the country and the wisdom of Parliament will allow us to give. I am bound to say I was rather struck by the speech of one hon. Member who represents the crofters, and by the fact that he insisted so very much upon one side of their difficulties and grievances—namely, that of the want of fixity of tenure and of fair rent, while he said so little of what I believe the crofters themselves feel is at the bottom of their difficulties, and that is the want of more land. I hope I have given sufficient reasons to induce the House to sympathize with me in my earnest appeal to the hon. Member and those who act with him not to press this Amendment on the Address. If he does press it he will be sure to find in the Lobby against him many right hon. Gentlemen who sympathize with his clients with a sympathy almost as strong as his own, and some who have a knowledge not immensely below even his great knowledge of what they really want. I wish to present a further argument to the House relating to this subject. It is a most important thing that just at this moment we should not pass a Resolution of the House of Commons which weakens the authority of the law, which refuses to allow the Government to discriminate between those cases in which rent is retained in the hands of the person who is able to pay his rent, and between those cases in which a crofter is suffering hopelessly under arrears brought about by an oppressive state of the law. There is another reason connected with the Western Highlands why, at this moment, we cannot afford to relax the authority of the law. There is the question of rates. The authorities have great difficulty in getting rates from the occupiers, and from other people besides; and if the House of Commons pass this Resolution, which I feel bound to say is an unjust and an improper one, and, in face of the legislation which the Government promise, a most unnecessary one, you will weaken the hands of the parochial authorities in collecting those rates, and bring about a state of things which will be most disastrous and most discreditable, and, to the education of those districts more especially, perhaps quite fatal. I trust that what I have said will not be considered as in any way showing a want of sympathy with the condition of the crofters; but I earnestly hope, in view of what I have said, and the promise of the Government to introduce a measure, the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.

said, he begged to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment in the Ministry as Secretary for Scotland. He seemed, however, to be but imperfectly acquainted with the condition of the Western Highlands. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman possessed any exact information as to the number of evictions, or the number of notices which had been served to produce evictions at the coming term. He had been informed that no fewer than 200 notices of eviction were served to become due in May last year. A difficulty arose as to the interpretation of the law. The crofters claimed the benefit of the Agricultural Holdings Act; and it was found upon trial in Edinburgh that the landlords must give six months' notice to the tenants, they having failed to do so. He had observed from the newspapers that some landlords had served notices of eviction in a wholesale manner. Those notices would come into force on the 15th of May next, and it was then that the difficulties of the situation would arise. Then was the time when the landlords in the Highlands would have to appeal to the forces of the Crown in order to carry out those arbitrary and unjust evictions. The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) did not ask the suspension of evictions to be carried out indefinitely, but only until the Bill of the Government came into effect. It was feared, and with too much reason, that a great number of evictions would take place in the Highlands in May next. Notice had been served by the landlords to that effect; and if the Bill of the Government became law, it would not come into operation in time to prevent the landlords carrying out the evictions at Whitsuntide. He thought the House was called upon to express its opinion on this question, and to say that the civil and military powers of the Crown should not be used for evicting tenants in the Western Highlands of Scotland. Unless the Government adopted some such opinion as this, there was great reason to apprehend serious difficulties in Scotland in May. The responsibility for maintaining the peace of those districts would rest upon the right hon. Gentleman. He should be sorry to encourage any movement for the non-payment of rent; but those acquainted with the condition of the Highlands knew that the tenants had not, at the present time, the means of paying, either from farming operations or from fishing; and he thought Parliament ought to intervene to prevent the landlords taking advantage of such a state of circumstances to evict crofters. There were many cases in which the holdings of the crofters were worthless for the purpose of making rent. They were really a foothold for the men on the soil, and the rents had always been paid from fishing, or by some members of the family going to some other part of Scotland and paying the rent of those who remained at home. He considered that the case was sufficient to justify the action which the hon. Member had recommended to the House. The suspense of evictions would only affect bad landlords; and he thought the case of the crofters was quite as strong as that of the Irish peasants when the Government brought in a Bill in former years to suspend evictions. The people in the Western Highlands were a law-abiding, godly people, and no one would accuse them of turbulence unless they had good cause for the complaints they had made; and he should have thought the Government, under very difficult circumstances, would have been very glad to accept the Motion.

wished to join the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan) upon his appointment. The right hon. Gentleman had, in the course of his speech, shown an earnest sympathy with the grievances of the crofters, and in the indication which he had given that it was the intention of the Government to deal with those grievances in a strong Bill. At the same time, he thought that, in the language used by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the suspension of evictions, he had taken a somewhat unfavourable view of the case of the hon. Member for Argyllshire. He thought that, at this moment, the relations between landlords and crofters in the Western Highlands were very much strained; and there was a fear that, unless notices of eviction were withheld, trouble would ensue in that region at an early date. On the whole, however, he thought the hon. Member would be wise in listening to the appeal which had been made to him, and not press his Amendment in view of the Bill promised by the Government.

said, that there were one or two points in the speech of the Secretary for Scotland on which he wished to make a brief remark. The first was the statement that had been made as to the improbability of troops being employed to carry out evictions under a Liberal Government. But it was a fact that under the last Liberal Government troops were sent to carry out the service of writs, the result of which would be the eviction of crofters; and, therefore, there could be no security that this would not happen again merely because a Liberal Government was in power. Another statement was that there existed in other parts of this Kingdom a general depression in agriculture calling for a remedy; but that was no reason why the remedy desired in this case should be refused because it did not embrace every other case. There was, however, one point in the speech of the Secretary for Scotland which would lead him to join in urging the withdrawal of the Amendment; and that was the promise given that in the proposed Bill of the Government it was intended to take powers for preventing evictions in all cases in which they ought not to be carried out. ["No, no!"] If it were not so he was very sorry, and in that case he did not see that it was easy to avoid voting for the Amendment. True, it proposed the stoppage of evictions of every sort, and he could not honestly support a Bill which should involve that principle, because there might be cases in which evictions might be legitimate and proper. There might be cases in which tenants could pay their rents and would not. The law ought to distinguish between the two classes of cases. But this could easily be done in any measure to be introduced. If he were mistaken as to the scope of the Government Bill, it was the duty of Scottish Members and of Liberal Members from every part of the Kingdom to vote for the Amendment. What he desired was that such modifications should be introduced into the present law as would be necessary to make it more consistent with justice. No law would command the respect of the people of this country except in so far as it was based on justice. The great changes in circumstances which had taken place since the bargains and leases were entered into should be taken into consideration. Those changes had not been brought about by the landlord or the tenant. They had come upon us by causes altogether beyond the control of any human being; but it ought to be recognized that they were upon us. As he had said, what he and others desired was to modify and alter bargains entered into, so as to make them what fair and just-minded men would enter into at the present time. He would support the Amendment.

I only rise, Sir, on account of an observation which was made by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane), which, although not intended to be used in an offensive sense, was to the effect that the words in the Address may mean no more than that a measure was to be introduced for relief by the parochial authorities. I have no desire to protract the debate upon the Address; but, as such a suggestion has been made, I think it right to state publicly that there was no such intention on the part of Her Majesty's late Government in placing those words in the Queen's Speech; but, on the contrary, it was our intention to introduce a measure which I think the hon. Member for Argyllshire and the Members from Scotland who have spoken in this debate would have found to have been a somewhat comprehensive measure. I have only to say that no description of that measure could have been more unlike reality than the suggestion which the hon. Member for Argyllshire has made. I think it is necessary, however, to give some explanation on behalf of myself and my Colleagues in the late Government who propose to vote against this Amendment. We vote against it because we are satisfied that it can serve no good purpose. It expresses the regret of the House that in the Queen's Speech—

"The reference to the condition of the people in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland is of a vague and indefinite character;"

whereas it is proposed to amend that condition by the Bill which is promised to be brought into the House. The latter part of the Resolution, if passed by this House, will declare—

"That until a Land Bill dealing in a comprehensive manner with the proved and admitted grievances of the Highland People has been passed into Law, the Civil or Military Forces of the Crown should not be employed to evict those People from their hereditary homes."

Such a Resolution ought not to be passed. The word "satisfactory" is itself most vague. Satisfactory to whom, the nation or the crofters? and satisfactory on what basis? I have, therefore, no hesitation in supporting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland, that the Amendment should be withdrawn.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has made an appeal to the Liberal Members to vote against this Amendment. He tells us that it would be injurious and improper in us to carry this Resolution in the face of the promise which Her Majesty's Government have made to deal immediately with this pressing question. But in the same speech he was candid enough to tell us, from his knowledge of the measures of the Government as a Member of the Cabinet, that the Bill proposed to be introduced will not deal with the salient point of the Amendment. He intimated that the Bill will contain no provision for suspending the process of evictions, which hon. Members from Scotland assure us will be put in force about Whitsuntide. A few Sessions ago we had a similar Amendment proposed in the Address by Members from Ireland; and the present Prime Minister on that occasion accepted the principle in the analogous case of that country. He caused a Bill to be brought in dealing with evictions, in the shape of compensation for disturbance; and so important was that Bill considered that all the Business of the House was suspended in order that it might be passed. We do not ask now for any revolutionary measures, or that criminals or offenders should be supported; but we simply ask that these unfortunate crofters who have had notice of eviction served upon them shall not be evicted unless their case does not happen to come within the four corners of the Bill. In the event of the Bill becoming law, I presume that it is impossible to pass it between this and Whitsuntide; and I suppose that the landlords are not disposed to give any pledge that they will not carry out evictions in the meantime. We simply ask now that the Liberal Party, who have come back from the country pledged to deal with this Land Question, should give effect to the pledges which they gave to their constituents, and take the only opportunity which offers itself between this time and Whitsuntide to obtain a declaration from the Government that they will not use the Civil or Military Forces at their disposal for the purpose of carrying out evictions. The Government, not with any intention of being unfair, but owing, I presume, to a mistake, have mixed up this question with the analogous question of a refusal to pay rates and taxes. My opinion, and that of those who are acquainted with this part of Scotland, is that the refusal to pay rates and taxes has arisen from abortive attempts to enforce evictions for non-payment of rates. But the principal persons who are refusing to pay rates and taxes are not the crofters, but the landlords who have been evicting the crofters. All I ask is that the Forces of the Crown should not be used in turning out these unfortunate crofters pending legislation to meet their case; and unless I receive some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Scretary for Scotland that it is proposed to withhold the employment of the Forces of the Crown for that purpose I shall vote for the Amendment, and I trust that other Members on this side of the House will take the same course.

I am very unwilling to protract the debate; but I think that the speeches which have already been made would convey a wrong impression to the House, and induce it to be believed that a majority of Members, who sympathize with the case of the crofters, are in favour of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane). I think I am justified in speaking in the name of those who sympathize deeply with that part of the population, because in regard to my own constituency—North-East Lanark—although it is not a crofter constituency, and although it consists of a hard-working and industrious population engaged in industries different from that of the crofters, I may say that no question was pressed more strongly upon my notice during the election than the subject of the crofters; and there are very few Members in the House whose acquaintance with the Highlands of Scotland dates as far back, in the early period of their lives, as my own. I confess that I am not surprised, for certain reasons, that this Amendment has been put forward. In the first place, I think that the hon. Member for Argyllshire is justified in the observations he made with reference to the paragraph in the Address to the Crown. If anything more than some eleemosynary measure of relief was contemplated by the words which have been placed in the Address, I think that those words have been chosen with singular infelicity. There is also this further point. After the Resolution which was passed last year there was a Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government— the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone)—dealing with the subject. That Bill might easily have been passed in the course of last Session; and the Prime Minister made an appeal to the late Government, when the change of Government occurred and they came into Office, that that Bill should be passed. That appeal was not listened to, and the request of the present Prime Minister was rejected; and I think that much allowance must be made for the crofters, after the patience which they and their friends have manifested, in seeing legislation promised year after year which would give them relief, but which, when the moment comes when it ought to be carried to completion, has been, by one accident or another, retarded and set aside. I submit, however, that there is scarcely anything which could justify such a sweeping interference with the ordinary action of the law in the enforcement of contracts as is proposed in this Amendment. I say "scarcely anything" because I think there is one state of circumstances which might justify it; and that is if evidence were produced of a systematic intention to evade a Bill just coming on by evicting as many persons as possible for the purpose of getting such evictions carried out before the Bill was passed. But we have no evidence of that kind, and no allegation of that nature at all; and although the hon. Member for Argyllshire has said that he could string a number of instances together and lay them before the House, if it would not weary the House, he did not do so. Well, I appreciate his generous consideration for the House in that respect; but I submit that it is absolutely necessary to lay such evidence before the House before such an interference with the action of the law as this could be agreed to. It is a far more sweeping measure than the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, because that Bill proposed to arrest evictions under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, whereas in this case we are asked not to proceed under an Act of Parliament, but arbitrarily to stay the hands of the authorities. I think that the assurance of the Secretary for Scotland ought to satisfy the hon. Member who has moved the Amendment, and I hope that he will not press the Resolution. I can assure the hon. Member that there are many hon. Members in the same position as myself, who have the warmest sympathy for the object which he has at heart, and who will vote with him and speak for him if necessary, unless the promised measure is one of a thoroughly liberal and satisfactory character, and one which will completely satisfy the just demands of the crofters.

The hon. Member who has just sat down has been pleased to state to the House that, in his opinion, scarcely anything can justify the adoption of this Amendment. Now, it appears to me that the case should be put the other way. Can anything justify the evictions which will take place unless this Amendment is passed? The very fact that the Government have promised to bring in a Bill to improve the condition of the crofters shows that these impending evictions will take place under unjust conditions. As an English Member and as a Member sitting on this (the Ministerial) side of the House, I am desirous of finding any reason, if I possibly can, for adopting the appeal which is made to us on behalf of the Government; but I can find no such reason. It is perfectly clear that no Bill can be introduced and carried through this House which will prevent the evictions which will take place next May, if the Amendment which has been proposed is not carried. I, therefore, cannot absolve my conscience from the necessity for voting for this Amendment, whatever inconvenience may arise to Her Majesty's Government in consequence. I am quite sure that if hon. Members realize the fact that the vote they are now about to give may cause hundreds of honest men to be evicted from their homes they will hesitate before they reject the Amendment which would save the crofters from such a fate.

I hope the House will allow me to proceed with the second reading of this Bill. The object of the measure is to provide that no child or young person employed in a shop shall be worked for more than 12 hours in a day. The second reading was passed by the House last year without a division. It has been said that the Bill has since undergone some modifications; but that is not so. The Bill is practically the same measure as was adopted last year. We did not propose any inspection last year, nor do we do so now; because we believe that it would be to the interests of all shopkeepers that the others should conform to the law. This is no question between shopkeepers and their assistants. The great majority of shopkeepers are anxious to close earlier. I have been several times asked whether there is really any need for this Bill; whether it is possible that any large number of young persons are actually employed for more than 12 hours in the day? On this point I may remind the House that last year I had the honour to present Petitions from almost all our large cities, and finally one monster Petition containing many thousands of signatures. A meeting was held last June in support of this Bill, which was warmly supported by the Bishop of London, Cardinal Manning, Earl Stanhope, Lady John Manners, and Mr. P. Harrison, while the Chair was taken by that eminent Judge, Lord Bramwell. Lord Bramwell is well known as a staunch supporter of individual independence, and an opponent of Government interference and over-legislation. But he warmly supported the present Bill. He said—

"No one had a doubt of the propriety of laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals. That must be admitted to be a right thing. Why? Because they were helpless; because they could not protect themselves. But they were not more helpless than the child—a two-footed creature, who was subjected to the orders and control of those against whom he was powerless to struggle. It could not be doubted that the Bill which Sir John Lubbock had brought forward was one which ought to receive the approval of that meeting. He believed a shortening of the shop hours would be a good thing for everybody concerned. He believed it would be a good thing not only for those who worked in the shop, but for their employers. It would diminish expenses, and the workpeople would be fresher and more vigorous in the service of their master than they could possibly be now."

The Shop Hours' League have also collected a great deal of evidence on the subject—evidence which I am sure no one can read without warm sympathy and compassion. To make my case complete the House will, I hope, allow me to give one or two cases.

Louisa B——, aged 19, drapery, four and a half years at Battersea.

"My hours are from 8.30 a.m. to 9.30 p.m., and on Saturdays until 12 p.m. As to meals, we are supposed to eat our food as quickly as possible, and then return to the shop. I was in perfect health when I entered the business, now I often feel ready to sink down for want of fresh air and rest. Before the end of the day, and especially on a Saturday, I feel exceedingly weary and depressed, and have difficulty in standing until the clock strikes 12. I am quite unfit to attend a place of worship on Sunday morning."

Amy J. L——, aged 19, drapery, King's Gross.

"I have been in business three years at Poplar, Hackney, and where I am now. At Poplar the hours were 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., at the other places from 8.15 and 8.30 a.m. to 9.30 and 10 p.m., and at 12 p.m. on Saturdays. It is often 12.30 and 1 on a Sunday morning before we get out of the shop. Meal times, about 20 and 25 minutes for dinner, and 15 minutes for other meals. I was in perfect health when I first went into the business. During the last 18 months I have been away from business three times through illnesses, which the doctor said was through the long hours. If I had a little out-of-door exercise I should be much better; and I think it might be arranged for us to sit some time during the day when we are not busy. I am always thankful when Sunday comes; but I am never fit to go to a place of worship till night."

E.M.—in a shop in Camberwell—says—

"Went into business between 15 and 16 years of age. The average hours are from 8 and 8.30 a.m. to 9.30 and 10 p.m., and from 11.30 to 12 p.m. on Saturdays. In my present situation we have no stated time for meals. We eat as quickly as possible, and then hurry back to the shop. Never before I went into business did I know what illness was; but since have scarcely known what it is to be free from pain. I have overflowing of blood to the head, which causes me to swoon after standing a long time. I scarcely know what it is to stand with ease for the violent pains in my feet and legs. My feelings at the end of the day are so dreadfully low and weak that I scarcely have the strength to undress. I never feel thoroughly rested when I have to get up."

Another girl, in a shop at Deptford, said—

"I begin at 8 a.m. and leave at 10 p.m., Saturdays 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. We have from 15 to 20 minutes allowed for each meal. We are very often called forward from our meals to the shop to attend to customers. We leave our meals half consumed, and then the food is either cold or we get no more. When apprenticed to the drapery my health was good; but it is gradually failing, and the doctor says I am in a consumption. I am, therefore, obliged to leave at the end of the month. I have never been able to get for a walk except on a Sunday, as no respectable girl cares to go out between 10 and 11 at night. After the fatigue and worry of the week I am so thoroughly worn out that my only thought is to rest on a Sunday; but it goes too quickly, and the other days drag on slowly."

It is stated that probably one-half of the drapers' assistants in London never enter a place of worship, and those who do are so drowsy that they can scarcely keep awake. The cases I have given are by no means of an exceptional character. In Islington, out of 250 shops counted, 200 were open at 9.30 p.m.; at Hackney, 150 out of 200 at 9.30; in Hammersmith, 200 out of 250; in Kentish Town, 120 out of 175; in Bow, 125 out of 175; in Bermondsey, 320 out of 400 at 10 p.m.; in Lambeth, 350 out of 450; in Battersea, 140 out of 200; Poplar, 120 out of 150; at Stoke Newington, 225 out of 300; in Whitechapel, 475 out of GOO at 10.15; while on Saturdays a large proportion of these shops continue at work till midnight. It must also, of course, be remembered that the assistants have to go on writing some time after the shops are closed. I have no reason to suppose that these districts are worse than others; they are merely taken as samples. Thus, as the assistants begin work, on an average, about 8 in the morning, their actual working hours are from 1G to 17 in one day, and from 13 to 14 on five days in the week. Probably it would be within the mark to say that the majority of shopkeepers' assistants work from 75 to 90 hours a-week. I have taken these illustrations from London; but the evil is by no means confined to the Metropolis. In Liverpool it is deeply felt, and my hon. Friend the Member for that City had last year a Bill dealing with the subject. The Shop Hours' League have instituted inquiries, and they state that at Brighton, for instance, the hours are about the same as in London; in Bristol they are excessively long; at Chester, Derby, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, and elsewhere they are about 80 per week. At Manchester most of the retail shops have terribly long hours. At Rochdale "they are far too long, and we do not know how to shorten them." The Bill contains no new principle; it merely extends to shops that which is already the law in workshops; it suggests no machinery or inspection; it involves no expense; it would not interfere with trade; there would not be a yard of stuff or an ounce of tea sold less than now; and we should lengthen and brighten the lives of thousands of these poor children. Just let me ask the House to consider what 14 hours of work mean. We cannot reckon less than seven for sloop, one for breakfast or supper, half-an-hour for dressing and undressing, one hour for buying necessaries, doing their room, &c., and if we allow an hour for getting backwards and forwards we have accounted for the whole 24; and not a moment is loft for amusement, or self-improvement, for fresh air or family life, for any of those occupations which cheer, brighten, and ennoble life—in fact, we literally say that not only have they not a moment to themselves, but they are so hard worked that at the end of the week they are fit to drop with fatigue. I am convinced that all London would gain if the shop assistants had greater opportunities of intellectual, moral, and spiritual improvement. Moreover, the cruel effect of the long hours is considerably increased by the fact that the unfortunate assistants have to stand the whole time. This long standing is a terrible evil. How injurious standing is we may clearly see from the fact that though customers remain in a shop for so comparatively short a time they are invariably accommodated with seats. Considering, however, the relative need of rest as between the assistants and their customers, it must be admitted that the seats are on the wrong side of the counter. This is, happily, no question between shopkeepers and their assistants. There is no such difference. I believe the shopkeepers are almost as anxious to close as the assistants themselves. Perhaps, then, it may be said, why not leave the matter in their hands? Because in almost every case the arrangements for early closing have been rendered nugatory by the action of some very small minority among the shopkeepers. Over and over again we read that the shopkeepers in a given district are anxious to close, and have all agreed to do so with, perhaps, a single exception. But that single exception is fatal. One after another the rest gradually open again, and the whole thing breaks down, and thus a small minority tyrannize over the rest. It seems clear that nothing but legislation can remedy the evil. Voluntary action has been tried and failed over and over again. For instance, in 1872 a South London Drapers' Association was formed in order to shorten the hours. An influential Committee was formed, and about 250 drapers joined the Association. After much labour and expense, and a great deal of canvassing, they agreed to close at 8. This arrangement began on the 2nd of September; but it lasted only about a fortnight. One by one the shops kept open. At last only the 20 Committee men were left, and then the whole movement collapsed; but before finally breaking up they met and passed a unanimous resolution that nothing short of legislation would suffice to shorten the hours of labour in retail shops. I might quote many other cases, but will only refer to one. At Sunderland a similar attempt was made, but very soon broke down in the same way. Indeed, the great majority of shopkeepers would, I believe, welcome a Bill which would prevent a small minority of unprincipled competitors from obtaining an unfair advantage. The question naturally arises whether the passage of this Bill would have the effect of throwing young persons out of employment? Now, in the first place, it is estimated that from one-half to two-thirds of the shop assistants are young persons ranging from 12 to 21 years of age, and the conditions which regulate their employment would govern the rest. Moreover, the great majority of shopkeepers would be only too glad to close if the remainder would do so. There is, indeed, one objection to factory legislation which does not apply to a Bill like the present. It is obvious that interference with manufacturers, if carried too far, might drive them out of the country, and thus, by depriving our factory population of work, defeat its own object. In such a measure as I am venturing to recommend there is no such danger. The shops, on the whole, will obviously do as much business, whether they are open 12 hours or 14, though the shopkeeper who keeps open may fetch away a little business from his more merciful or considerate neighbour. No one, then, can say that our proposals are of a character to injure trade, while they would brighten and prolong the lives of thousands of our countrymen and countrywomen. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.

I entirely agree with the principle of the Bill. I think it is a sound one, in the interests of the community and of young people themselves. I certainly feel that young persons between 13 and 18 years of age ought not to be allowed to work more than 12 hours a-day; but I believe that the Bill will not entirely meet the circumstances of the case. I have had a great deal of communication with persons engaged in business on the South side of London; and I venture to say that the circumstances under which the businesses are carried on there are altogether different from those which apply to businesses in the West End of London, and that it might be injurious to the interests of trade to include indiscriminately all businesses in this Bill. I hope, therefore, although I cannot object to the second reading of the Bill, that after it has been read a second time my hon. Friend will agree to refer it to a Select Committee. I hold in my hand a letter from one of the principal traders of South London—the head of a very large firm indeed—and he tells me that they are obliged to begin business at 8.30 in the morning. They have to carry on the business, which is that of a drapery establishment, until 12 o'clock in the day, when the business itself begins to slacken; and from that time until 8 in the evening—I am speaking of a part of the Metropolis where almost the whole of the community are a labouring people—the writer informs mo that he might, for all practical purposes, shut up his shop. But at 8 in the evening the business begins again, and it is found necessary to conduct the greater part of it between 8 and 12 o'clock at night. I cannot help thinking that if the Bill of my hon. Friend were referred to a Select Committee we should get evidence from persons engaged in business under different cir- cumstances from the shopkeepers and tradesmen of the West End, and that we should get some evidence which might enable us to modify the provisions of the Bill, so as to render it useful to all classes of the community. I am afraid that if we pass it in its present form it may press hardly upon many persons who are not in over-flourishing circumstances at the present moment, and who will feel inclined to say that we have been legislating for the poorer parts of London on lines altogether inapplicable, however suitable they may be for the West End of the Metropolis. Firms like those of Marshall and Snelgrove and others may be able to shut up their establishments at 6 or 7 o'clock in the evening; but in districts inhabited by the poorer classes I am quite certain that the shops have to be kept open for a much longer time. This correspondent of mine says—

"From 8 until 9.30 we take as much or more money as in the whole of the previous part of the day."

He states, further—

"Trade is not prosperous at the present moment."

And, speaking, perhaps, a little angrily, he asks—

"What is the need of legislation of this kind?"

He calls attention to the fact that most of the shops at present voluntarily close at 5 p.m. upon one day in the week; and he adds that the condition of the assistants employed in the shops is improving every year without pressure being brought to bear upon the employer. I believe that that is the case. I cannot, as I said at first, resist, and I do not think that I ought to resist, in the interests of humanity and good sense, the second reading of this Bill; but I do trust that when it has been read a second time my hon. Friend will have no objection to refer it to a Select Committee. The time of the Session is very early; and I hope that every Member who would serve upon the Committee would be anxious to report at as early a date as possible. I hope, also, that the Committee would be able to find out means by which businesses which require longer hours than others may be satisfactorily conducted.

I should like to say a few words before the Bill is read a second time, seeing that the matter is one which must come under the cognizance of the Home Office. I have not yet had time thoroughly to consider the whole question; but as far as this Bill lays down that young persons between the ages of 13 and 18 should not be worked more than 12 hours in the day, which is the main provision of the Bill, I think that everyone in this House will agree that young persons of that ago should not be overworked. The Home Office look upon women and young persons such as these as being under their charge with respect to the amount of work which they may be called upon to do; and I cannot deny that it is a sound principle they should not be worked more than 12 hours. That is the principle of the Bill, and on that ground I shall not object to the second reading. But I am bound to say that, in my opinion, the Bill as it stands is altogether unworkable, and that it would not be possible to accept its provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) says that the Bill proposes to exclude from its operation those employed in licensed public-houses and refreshment bars; but these appear to me to be the persons who, of all others, require protection, and who should not be allowed to be employed for more than 12 hours a-day. Therefore, I do not think that that is a provision which the House ought to adopt. Then I understand my hon. Friend to say that the Bill does not propose to appoint any additional Inspectors; and yet the object of the Bill is to extend the provisions of the Factories and Workshops Act of 1873 to persons employed in shops. But if you do not employ persons to carry on the duty of inspection, how are you to enact that these young people employed in shops are to come under the provisions of that Act? Without some provision in regard to inspection I am afraid the Bill would be altogether unworkable. I will only say that I will consider very carefully the nature of the provisions of the Bill, and will be prepared to state my view at a later stage. I would, therefore, respectfully recommend the House to allow the second reading of the Bill to pass; but I hope my hon. Friend will allow some interval to elapse—say six weeks or so—before taking the next stage, so that we might, in the meantime, have the advantage of the advice and opinion of those who are interested in the matter, and who will necessarily be entrusted with the working of a measure of this kind. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Thorold Rogers) that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, I have no very strong opinion upon the matter; but I will be prepared to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), if he will consent to defer the Committee stage for a few weeks.

I hope that we are not going to discuss all the Bills that are down upon the Paper. I think it would be a wise plan to adjourn the House after we shall have disposed of this Bill. In my opinion it would be wise to adjourn before we come to the next Order of the Day. ["No!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has said that he agrees with the principle of the Bill. I confess that I do not see anything in the principle of the measure, or the form in which it has been drawn, to which I object; but I would strongly recommend the hon. Baronet in charge of it (Sir John Lubbock), at this early period of the Session, and after the appeal which has been made to him by the right hon. Gentleman, either to postpone the Committee stage for six weeks, or else to refer it to a Select Committee. Such accurse would not amount to the shelving of the Bill, but would simply insure that the question would receive full consideration, especially in regard to the difficulty which has been raised as to the class of persons to which it ought to apply. My own view is that the very wisest course to take, at this early period of the Session, would be to refer it at once to a Select Committee, in order that its provisions may be thoroughly discussed. I am quite sure that a Select Committee would be able to report long before the six weeks which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to. I therefore hope that the hon. Baronet will accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Thorold Rogers), and refer the measure to a Select Committee; and after this Bill has been disposed of I hope the House will consent to ad- journ without proceeding to discuss any of the remaining Orders of the Day.

Sir, I should wish to make one or two observations, as I happened to be the Chairman of the Factory and Workshops Committee, which some years ago sat and considered this very question. I may say that while we were very ready to give relief to young persons employed for long hours, yet, for the reasons given in our Report, we did not see our way to do so in the case of shop-workers. If the House will refer to this Report of the Committee they will find a great deal of information given on the evidence of persons from many quarters of the Kingdom. The question presented a good deal of difficulty; and I am of opinion that domestic industry is a thing with which it would be inexpedient to interfere, and that legislation upon it would probably do more harm than good. We must all feel very much sympathy with young persons, women especially, who are employed for long hours; and it is within my knowledge that young women are often employed for 14 or 15 hours at refreshment bars. That is much longer than the time during which young people are employed in shops, or, at least, in such as are attached to dwellings where they take their meals. Therefore I am glad my right hon. Friend (Mr. Childers) has exercised caution in giving assent to the Bill. I believe that hon. Members will, on consideration, see that there is great reason for caution before giving scope to their benevolent ideas with reference to this question.

Sir, I should be very glad to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers). If the House agrees to the second reading of the Bill I will then move that it be referred to a Select Committee.

Sir, as the hour is late, and the next Bill on the Paper is an important one, which there will be plenty of opportunities of con- sidering hereafter, I shall now move the adjournment of the House.

Sir, I rise to oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The action of the right hon. Gentleman in moving the adjournment of the House is but too transparent, and it is one which I think ought not to be passed over without comment. At this hour I am not, of course, disposed to go against the will of the House; but I cannot agree to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman until it is ascertained. The next Bill upon the Paper is one of which the right hon. Gentleman does not entertain a high opinion; and that, no doubt, is the secret of his wish for the adjournment. But I do not see why we should not use the opportunity which is now before us of considering that Bill, as it is yet early—[Laughter]—in the morning. If I have the privilege of moving the second reading I shall not occupy more than five minutes in giving reasons in support of the Bill; and certainly there is no reason which I can see why the House should not be asked to agree to that Motion. I hope Her Majesty's Government will not accede to the Motion for the Adjournment without a more definite reason than that given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, of whom the Earl of Beaconsfield once said that no sooner did we begin business in February than he wanted to know when we should rise for the Easter holidays. I trust the House will not agree to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir, when I opposed the Motion for the adjournment of the House I promised that I would not occupy more than five minutes if I had the privilege of moving the second reading of this Bill, and I intend to keep that promise. I must apologize for appearing hero for that purpose, because my name is not upon the back of the Bill; but the House will be a ware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Woodall) has accepted the position of Surveyor General of Ordnance, and I can only regret that the Bill has now passed from his hands. In the meantime, until further charge of the Bill is taken by some hon. Member, I have promised to look after it. Sir, the simple ground on which I shall ask the House to accept the measure is one which I believe will commend itself to hon. Members on this side—it rests upon the principle laid down some years ago by the present Prime Minister, that the franchise ought to be extended in every ease unless it was barred by personal unfitness or political danger. Now, I think it is impossible to allege that the enfranchisement of women comes within either of these qualifications. We have already given the franchise to women in the election of school boards, and also in the election of municipal councils, and in each case in the opinion, which has been verified by experience, that they were not personally unfitted to exercise the franchise. Now, what is the allegation made as to the political danger of giving them the franchise? I say it is an allegation which I am ashamed to hear, and one which I think those who make it ought to be ashamed to utter. They say that the giving of the vote to women would be politically dangerous; they refer to Primrose Leagues, and say that it will add to the Conservative strength in the country. Now I do not believe that. The experience we have had of the use of the vote given to women in connection with school boards and town councils is not consistent with that declaration. That experience shows that women are divided in opinion very much as men are between the two political Parties; and there is no reason to believe that the extension of the franchise to them would lead to any increase of Conservative strength. Even if it were so, I should not hesitate to extend it to them. I hope that the support of hon. Members who sit on this side of the House will be given to the Bill, and that they will not say that they oppose the enfranchisement of women because they believe it will benefit one political Party more than another. Now, I believe that if there is any fear of danger from the Primrose League, and from the introduction there from of women into politics—an introduction not of a direct character—that such fear or such danger will be lessened, if not altogether removed, by giving women the privilege of claiming to vote; for, in my opinion, it is simply because they have not been allowed to have the vote as a privilege and as a right, and to feel what they owe to the country in giving their vote, that we have witnessed the action of women in respect of some elections which does not appear to have been inspired by the best possible motives. But, Sir, I look to this gift to have the greatest influence over the character of women themselves. Because it will give them a larger range of ideas, because it will introduce them to the highest and best in the public life of the country, I would give the franchise to women. I would give them the franchise even if I anticipated some temporary political danger. But there is no ground whatever for that anticipation; experience has shown that the danger is imaginary. There is only one other observation I wish to make, and that is in relation to the framing of this Bill. This Bill proposes to give the electoral vote to all women, being single, unmarried, or widows, who possess the same qualifications in respect to property which now gives to men the right to vote. I do not think it can be seriously said that danger would attach to the gift proposed to be given by this Bill; and I most sincerely and confidently recommend the Bill to the acceptance of the House.

I do not propose to detain the House more than one moment. What I am particularly desirous of saying is that a large majority of the Members of the House will support this Bill upon grounds altogether different to those stated by my hon. Friend the Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall (Mr. Courtney). It is not for the House to consider whether there is any fear of danger involved in the en- franchisement of women—the question is purely and simply whether women are entitled, under our Constitution, to the franchise. The supporters of this measure claim that the franchise rightly belongs to women. Personally, I do not share the opinion the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) entertains as to the effect which will not be produced, nor do I share his opinion as to the effect which will be produced, by the passing of this measure. Single women or widows who pay rates and taxes either have a right to the franchise, or they J have not. I claim that they have a right to it. It was felt by many that the passing of the Franchise Bill last year afforded Parliament a fitting opportunity of adopting the principle embodied in this Bill. I regret to say, however, a great many hon. Members—the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), and others whom I see sitting near the hon. Gentleman now—though pledged to the principle of this Bill, deliberately voted against the proposal to engraft it upon the Franchise Bill. I contend that there would have been very little difficulty in passing through both Houses a clause embodying this principle in the Franchise Bill, because it was shown that a very large majority of the Members of both Houses were then in favour of the enfranchisement of women. Such being the case, and knowing as we do that at least 100 Members upon the Ministerial side of the House pledged to support the Bill in obedience to a Party Whip deliberately went into the Opposition Lobby when the question was introduced during the passing of the Franchise Bill, I trust the second reading will be agreed to without further delay.

I have much pleasure in supporting the second reading of this Bill. I am fully convinced that there is no class of people now exercising the franchise in this country who would exercise it more intelligently and more independently than would the class this Bill proposes to enfranchise. I know many women who, but for the fact that they are women, would be voters, and they feel most keenly the deprivation they suffer in not being allowed to exercise any influence in the passing of the laws of this great nation. We have a lady as the Sovereign of this Realm; we have admitted ladies to exercise votes in respect to the lower departments of public life; and to exclude them from any voice in the doings of this House, where measures more important than any others are debated and passed, appears to me to be a very unreasonable and inconsistent proceeding on our part. With the certain knowledge that a large number of this class of persons would exercise the franchise intelligently, independently, and with an earnest desire to do good to the country, I most heartily support the second reading of this Bill. I believe that by passing this measure we shall still further add to the strength which was given to the nation by the extension of the franchise during the last Parliament.

I appeal to the House whether the length and character of the speeches to which we have just listened is not a very good argument that this is not the hour or the occasion on which we can properly debate this measure? Whether the Bill is a good or a bad Bill it is a very important Bill. It proposes an enormous and unknown addition to the franchise—an addition to the franchise of a class of persons totally different from those who have hitherto voted. It comes, too, on the very morrow of the largest addition to the franchise we have ever had, when I think everyone might have wished and have expected there should be a little breathing time to see how the addition of last year worked. It is only by the merest accident that it has been possible to bring this Bill on to-night—a Government night—and now we are asked to hurry it through with five-minute speeches. I dare say the speeches are excellent. Still, they are only five-minute speeches, and a Bill of this sort should not be dealt with in five-minute speeches. In point of fact, if the Bill is read a second time now it will, for all practical purposes, have been read undebated; and to carry a Bill of this nature, excellent as it may be—and I am not inclined to admit it is excellent—would be nothing less than a scandal: it would be a misfortune, because it would lower very considerably the national respect which is entertained for the way we do our business. I wish to spare the time of the House, and therefore I do not now argue the Bill on its merits, as I should have done at another and more reasonable hour; to-night it is quite sufficient to argue on the points I have mentioned. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney), who moved the second reading, pointed out that it was only proposed to enfranchise widows and spinsters, and not married women. Whether that is an advantage in itself or not—whether it is an encouragement of morality or not, I will not say. But this I do say—that the safeguard is tainted with the proverbial worthlessness of all safeguards. We know that a safeguard, generally speaking, amounts to dust to be thrown in someone's eyes. If we allow dust to be thrown in our eyes in this case, we shall in a short time see very respectable married women clamouring at our doors and demanding a share in the government of the country.

I, Sir, also intend to make a short speech, although short speeches have been so much complained of by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Beresford Hope). I am rather astonished that it should be felt that to debate a subject in five-minute speeches, if they are to the point, is a disgrace to this Assembly. I am sure that a Bill like this, which has been so long before the country, and so frequently before the House of Commons, is much more effectually dealt with in such short speeches as have just been deprecated than in long speeches. I have to argue in favour of this measure in the briefest possible manner. It is a measure of justice, Mr. Speaker; and on that ground I, for one, base my support of it. We give the franchise to classes or bodies of persons for a double reason—first, because they have their own interests to protect; and, secondly, for no less a reason—namely, that it is very difficult to ascertain what will benefit a given class of people, or what is the best way to deal with their difficulties, unless we have the opinions of that class before us. There is no officially recognized method by which the opinion of any body of persons is brought to the notice of this House, other than the recording of votes at the ballot. Women are at this moment gifted with a considerable amount of political influence. That political influence is now exercised free from any responsibility, and that is an evil and a misfortune. If we could stop their political influence we might get rid of the misfortune; but we cannot do that now; and, therefore, why not attach responsibility to it? I believe that the varied misfortunes which have been so repeatedly foretold and indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University to which I have the honour to belong will vanish under the happy touch of responsibility.

I do not propose to detain the House even for the proverbial five minutes, but merely wish to add one argument which seems to have been overlooked by hon. Gentlemen who have already spoken—an argument which, I think, is not unworthy of the attention of the House. It appears to me that one of the best arguments in favour of granting this measure of justice to those who have been denied it so long is that women, as the mothers of future generations, can and do exercise considerable influence upon the minds of those who are to come after us. We have every reason to believe that it will be to the interest of generations yet unborn that the mothers of our posterity should be able, by having the vote, to take such an interest in political matters as will enable them to educate properly the minds of their children. For during the early years of childhood, when the infant mind is most open to receive impressions, it is from the mother, rather than the father, that the child derives that instruction which it most readily assimilates. No one can have studied the history of this country without knowing that this question has been debated many years; and, therefore, if we can dispose of the subject now in five-minute speeches much good will result.

I am one of the many new Members of the House; and if I feel a little diffidence in making a short speech upon this Bill, the House, I am sure, will accord me its indulgence. Sir, it does astonish me, as an Englishman and as a Member of this deliberative Assembly, that at 1 o'clock in the morning, and in three or five-minute speeches, a great Constitutional change—a change greater than any that has ever been effected in any country in the world—should be made by a jaded Legislature. ["Oh!"] I suppose that I, a new Member, feel more tired than experienced Members, and that I have used an improper word. I heard some hon. Members who sup- ported this Bill speak of having had experience of women franchise. Where? I think that it is only in the somewhat wild States of America—the Mormon State, for instance—that the franchise has been given to women. We are asked to make this enormous Constitutional change on such experience as that. The speeches of the two Members who last addressed the House were, I consider, strongly opposed to the measure. Those hon. Members spoke of the weight and importance in the country of married women. All the advocates of this measure based their support of it upon the circumstance that the grievance which one sex suffers springs from the action of the other sex, and that those grievances cannot be redressed because the one sex have not the vote. Now, the grievances of which women complain spring from the marital relation. I suppose, quite unconsciously, I have been very amusing; but if we read The Woman's Suffrage Journal, a copy of which was sent to me to-day, we find that it is because of the behaviour of the husbands, and the rights which they exercise over the property of their wives, that the women demand the franchise. It is because husbands come home drunk and kick their wives, and sometimes injure the children—it is for all these reasons, which seem to me to be associated with the marital condition, that the franchise is wanted for women. Well, the hon. Members who bring in this Bill propose to give the franchise to women who know nothing about these reasons, widows who had known something about them, and spinsters. Let us reverse the case. Let us suppose that in this country the franchise was conferred upon women, and not upon men, and that we, the men, wished redress from the grievances which we suffer from the women, those grievances arising only as they can arise, out of the marital relations. I have repeatedly said I suppose I am very amusing; but I would respectfully ask the House what grievances spinsters and widows suffer from men? Well, should we be satisfied if it was proposed to give the franchise only to old bachelors and widowers? The hon. Member based his argument upon the question of personal fitness, yet he seeks to exclude the fittest of their sex who are selected for the most important function. [Laughter.] It is no laughing matter; it is getting beyond that. We are excluding the most fitting of their sex—namely, those who are selected for the most important functions. All the grievances suffered by women arise out of the marriage relation. Most Members in this House are desirous of seeing classes represented, and the class of women who suffer grievances at the hands of men are not the spinsters and widows, but the married women; and if women are to be represented at all, the married women ought to have their interests represented in Parliament. My hon. Friend on my right says that married women do not pay taxes; but that is not the point. The point is whether we shall give women, as women, the vote, or not. Further than that, if we pass this Bill, it is inevitable that we must eventually admit women to Parliamentary representation. I will tell the hon. Member why I think so. Will women be satisfied by being represented by persons of the opposite sex? Is it likely they will be satisfied by the franchise being given to widows and spinsters? It appears to me inevitable that they would demand to have women Representatives of women. We are not satisfied unless we have class Representatives; and it is obvious that the women will not be satisfied unless they are represented by their own sex. I have only one word more, and that is that a measure so important as this—more important than any Reform Bill that was ever introduced, whatever its scope might ultimately be—ought not to be left in the hands of a private Member, but should be dealt with on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.

I have risen so often in past Parliaments to discuss this question that I should not have taken part in the debate on this Bill if it had been brought on under ordinary circumstances. I do not intend to discuss the merits of the question now; but I think that an opportunity should be afforded for those who oppose the measure to be in their places. My hon. Friend was within his right in moving the second reading of this Bill; but I think I am also within my right in saying that it was not expected that the second reading would be taken to-night. That being so, I will not detain the House by entering into arguments to show that this is a very grave question. We all admit that; for it is clear that the Bill would interfere with the political prospects of this country—and still more so on any future extension of the franchise hereafter. Such a question does not deserve to be dealt with in five-minute speeches. In this new Parliament, when the subject was being discussed before Members who had, probably, never heard it discussed before, I think that so important a measure should not be introduced for the first time at this hour. At all events, it cannot be dealt with, at least, from the point of view of those who oppose it in five-minute speeches; for they have much to say upon the subject, and the opportunity is not afforded them to-night to discuss it. I appeal to those who support the Bill. If it is to have any weight in the country, will it not be better, before voting for or against so grave a change, to learn the views of the occupants of the Ministerial Benches? I will keep my word, and I will not take part in the discussion of the Bill; but those who are opposed to the principle of the Bill ought to have an opportunity of addressing the House; and, therefore, with a view of enabling others to discuss the question, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

There is a great deal of force in what my right hon. and learned Friend has said upon this subject. When the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) suggested that we should adjourn the House I quite concurred and voted with him, and I am sorry that the majority was not in favour of adopting that course. Although, after all, we might deal with small measures on the first night of a Session, it has never been according to custom to deal with Bills of first-rate importance on such occasions; and, as everybody knows that this is a measure of first-rate importance, nobody expected that it would come on at this Sitting. My right hon. and learned Friend thought very properly that so important a question should not be taken when none of the Leaders of the Party opposite are in their places. It is perfectly certain that this division will be regarded in the House and in the country as a snapped division. Everybody knows that it is so. Nobody expected that the question of female suffrage would be dealt with to-night; and it would not be fair to the House or to the country that in a new Parliament, and at such an hour, a question of such magnitude should be dealt with in this absurd way. I shall certainly support the Motion of my right hon. and learned Friend for the adjournment of the debate.

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not second the proposal, because the Motion for the adjournment of the House was suggested by him to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.

It was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary.

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Henry James) rose, he had no intention of moving the adjournment of the debate until it was suggested to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have heard a great deal on previous occasions from the Chancellor of the Exchequer about submission to the will of the House; and if ever there was a division taken which showed the will of the House, it was that which was taken a short time ago, when the House deliberately decided that it would deal with this question now. What is the objection to this course? It is that the question has not been adequately discussed. If this was a new question, there might be a great deal in that argument; but it is a very old question, and has been discussed over and over again; and although we have had amusing speeches to-night, there has not been one single new argument advanced on one side or the other. Now the House, which is a full one, has decided that they would come to a division on the second reading to-night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, and we all know, that there will be ample opportunity for those who oppose the Bill to express their opinions upon it in its future stages; but I do not suppose that there are half-a-dozen Members in the House who have not made up their minds upon this subject years ago; and all I ask is that in this full House, in obedience to the will of the House, we shall be allowed to express our opinion on the second reading of this measure. Under these circumstances, I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not press his Motion to a division; but if he does, I trust the House will adhere to its former decision.

I should like to point out to new Members what the Motion for Adjournment really means. If the Motion for Adjournment is agreed to, all hope of passing the Bill must be abandoned, for it will inevitably be blocked or talked out on future days, and would have no chance whatever of being passed. The proposal to adjourn the debate is exceedingly disingenuous; but the effect of it, if passed, would be to prevent the Bill now before the House having any legislative effect. The supporters of this Bill are entitled, when they get a chance, to bring it forward; and they should have the courtesy of the House extended to them now that they have secured an opportunity of doing so.

The history of this Bill shows that, for many years past, it has always been lost because of having been talked out on a Wednesday, or because of having been blocked after half-past 12 o'clock at night. On that ground, and because the measure has been fully discussed over and over again in past years, I beseech the House not to lose this opportunity of passing the second reading of the Bill, but to allow the subject a fair chance of being considered by the new Parliament.

Reference has been frequently made to-night to the position of the Bill, and its chance of coming on again if this opportunity is lost. I may be allowed to suggest what will be easily understood by everybody—that if we take a vote on the question of the adjournment, it will be a direct vote against the second reading of the Bill, and not only a direct vote against the second reading, but against the principle of the measure. I would point out that this is not the first, or the second, or even the third time that this and similar Motions have defeated the Bill; and I shall be curious to know, after we have taken the division, how many hon. Gentlemen pledged up to the eyes to support the measure have gone into the Lobby on a Motion of this kind to defeat it, as they did last year when the Reform Bill was before the House.

I wish to make an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Sir William Harcourt) for one moment. It will be in his recollection that many Members on this side of the House, during last Session, and at a critical moment in the progress of the Reform Bill, deliberately supported the Government when they appealed to us not to give our votes in favour of this measure. Well, to-night I have been reproached by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) for the course I took on that occasion. I would remind him that I got up on that occasion, and appealed to the House net to jeopardize the measure before it, but to postpone the vote on the principle of the proposed change to a time when the matter could be decided on its merits. I consider that that time has now come. I should be quite content if 25 out of every 100 Members have made up their minds on the Bill. When the Reform Bill was before us, and that curious move was made by the House in the sudden conversion of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who were supposed to be supporters of this measure, I had an idea that the feeling then was that it would embarrass the Government to extend the franchise to women, and might lead to the defeat of the Franchise Bill. I would remind my hon. Friend that it will be found that all those who honestly express themselves in favour——

The Question before the House is that of the adjournment of the debate; and I would remind the hon. Member that he must confine himself to that.

I would crave the indulgence of the House just to say one word. I am not disposed, if I may say so, to press this matter further. We have made our protest in asking for the adjournment of the debate; but as the adjournment has not been agreed to, and as there is so large a majority against it, it would, it seems to me, be discourteous to continue further opposition. I would appeal to the opponents of the Bill not to take a division against the second reading. If we do the result may be misunderstood in the country. For my own part, I shall take no share in any division, as I think it desirable to make our stand on another stage of the measure.

I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Henry James) appeals to hon. Gentlemen below him to postpone the consideration of the measure. I wish to observe that there are many Members of the House who would have been glad to have spoken on the subject if an opportunity had been afforded them—hon. Gentlemen who feel very strongly on the subject before us. For myself, I should be sorry to separate myself from my political Friends; but, in common with many others, I feel very strongly on the matter, and should have liked to have spoken. We have, however, come unprepared to do so, not anticipating that the subject would come on to-night; and, under the circumstances, I think we are entitled to ask the indulgence of hon. Members.