QScjC^ -^'-

c

rSSMm

*^f.;>4...

// //, "// / -y

//cr

/f03^

THE SPEECHES AND PUBLIC ADDRESSES OF
The Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P.

Trom '-ic^a^ vfr vg ij j CoUit Forbes ,R CA.
By ^ermzssLOTV ofMess^ fferLry G7a.yes&.C°

THE SPEe'cHES OF
THE RIGHT HON.
W. E. GLADSTONE

HOME RULE, CRIMINAL LAW, WELSH AND
IRISH NATIONALITY, NATIONAL DEBT
AND THE QUEEN'S REIGN

EDITED BY
A. W. HUTTON, M.A.
AND
H. J. COHEN, M.A.

1888-1891

LONDON
METHUEN AND COMPANY
I 902
[All Ktghts Resetvcd.']

PREFACE
In the year 1890, Mr. A. W. Hutton, Librarian of
the National Liberal Club, and Mr. Cohen, of the
Inner Temple, informed me that they "were ready to
undertake the labour and responsibility of preparing
for publication a collection (which must also of neces
sity be a selection) of my speeches, delivered during
the last sixty years. They also apprised me that
they had made the necessary arrangements with
Messrs. Methuen, subject to my consent, for the pro
duction ofthe work.
Taking into view the variety and importance of
the subjects to which these addresses relate, and the
nature of the offices which I have held, I have felt
that it was not simply a question of their intrinsic
merits, and that the consent which was asked could
not be properly withheld.
Mr. Hutton and Mr. Cohen were aware that while
a number of the speeches, by no means inconsiderable,
had from time to time been corrected by myself, a
much larger number had not been so corrected ; and
that it would be beyond my power now to undertake
so large a labour.

vi PREFACE
They cheerfully engaged, however, both to select
with care the best reports, and to refer to me such
passages as in their judgment might seem to require
it ; and I had full confidence alike in their acuteness
and in their intention. Undoubtedly it cannot be
said that their undertaking raises the work as a whole
to the precise level of one corrected throughout by
the author. Nevertheless, I am convinced from my
experience in a former case — that of the rather volu
minous speeches delivered by me in Scotland during
and after 1879 — that substantial correctness can in
this way with rare exceptions be attained. On this
footing it is that I take leave to introduce the work
to those who may feel an interest in it ; and I cannot
too warmly thank Mr. Hutton and Mr. Cohen for the
efforts they have made, nor too strongly express my
belief that they will do everything that is within
the reach of ability, combined with assiduity, to fulfil
their undertaking. W. E. G.
London, Jtme 1892.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE
The text of the following pages has been based, in the case of
the Parliamentary speeches, upon Hansard, and, in other cases,
upon newspaper reports, chiefly those of the Times. It has
frequently been necessary to collate Hansard with the news
paper reports, or these with one another, in order to clear up
doubtful passages. Where any speech has been published
separately, that form of it has been used. Many passages
have been revised, and a few corrected, by Mr. Gladstone him
self. We have occasionally made slight verbal changes, or
omitted a few words, on our own responsibility, where the
reports were obviously incorrect or ungramraatical ; but in no
case, of course, in such a way as to affect the arguraent in the
slightest degree. Throughout, our sole aira has been to repro
duce as faithfully as possible the actual words of the speaker.
With regard to the notes, some of them raay appear to the
present actors and spectators in the theatre of thought and
politics to be trivial or unnecessary, but in writing them some
thought has been taken for the future.
We have to express our thanks to the many and distin
guished correspondents who have answered our questions, to
the elucidation of many points. Above all, our thanks are due
to Mr. Gladstone himself for his invaluable help, without which
this Edition would not have appeared.
A. W. H.
H. J. C.
June 10, 1892.

CONTENTS

Criminal Law in Ireland, House of Commons, June 26, 1888,
The Channel Tunnel, House of Commons, June 27, 1888,
The State of Agriculture, Hawarden, August 2.3, 1888,
The Eisteddfod, Wrexham, September 4, 1888, .
The Irish Question, Birmingham, November 7, 1888, .
The Death of Mr. John Bright, House of Commons, March 29,
1889, ... . .
The Royal Grants, House of Commons, July 25, 1889,
Mr. Gladstone's Golden "Wedding, the National Liberal Club.
July 27, 1889, ....
The French Republic, Paris, September 7, 1889,
The Workman and His Opportunities, Saltney, October 26,
1889, ......
The Report of the Special Commission, House of Commons.
March 3, 1890, .....
The Land Purchase Bill, House of Commons, April 24, 1890,
Disestablishment of the Church op Scotland, House of
Commons, May 2, 1890,
Local Taxation Bill, House of Commons, June 13, 1890,
Sir L. Simmons's Mission to the Vatican, National Liberal
Club, July 30, 1890,
Ireland ; The Labour Question, West Calder, October 23,
1890, . ....
Public Affairs, Edinburgh, October 27, 1890, .

PAGE 1
27425568
98
103
117
121
123
142
170
187
201
214
233258

CONTENTS

Free Trade and the M'Kinley Tariff, Dundee, October 29,
1890, ......
Art and Industry, Dundee, October 29, 1890, .
The Religious Disabilities Removal Bill, House of Commons
February 4, 1891, .....
The Homeric Artemis, Eton, March 14, 1891, .
The Finance of the Government ; The Irish Party ; and
Mr. Parnell, Hastings, March 17, 1891, .
The Colonial "Episcopate, St. James's Hall, June 19, 1891,
The Future Policy of the Liberal Party, Newcastle,
October 2, 1891,
The Condition of the Rural Population, London, Decern
ber II, 1891, ......

28S301
30»329
341
364
375
397

MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES

CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND
House of Commons, June 26, 1888
On June 25, Mr John Morley moved — " That, in the opinion of this House, the
operation of the 'Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887,' and the
manner of its administration, undermine respect for law, estrange the minds of
the people of Ireland, and are deeply injurious to the intere.sts of the United
Kingdom." The next night Mr Gladstone spoke. The resolution was rejected by
366 to 273.
Me Speaker, I do not feel ray temper to be severely tried
by the rather violent attacks of the right hon. gentleman ^
who has just sat down, who says that I, raore than any
other man, am responsible for the dreadful crirae which
darkened the raonth of May 1882, and who alleges that I
habitually raake in the country or here "false" charges — an
epithet which I think I have carefully avoided on every occa
sion in speaking of my opponents. The avoidance of such an
epithet is, if I may so say, a characteristic of civilised political
controversy. I have, however, not the least desire to interfere
with the liberty of the right hon. gentleman ; and if I felt in
clined to be angry with hira at all, it would be with that large
infusion of charity which induced hira, after atterapting to show
that I had made inconsistent accusations, to explain them by a
reference to the accruing infirraities of age. I shall not pretend
to determine to what exact degree I am suffering from those in
firmities ; but I raay venture to say that, while sensible that the
lapse of time is undoubtedly extremely formidable and affects
' Mr Chaplin. A

2 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [junk 26
me in more than one particular, yet I hope that, for a little
while at any rate, I may reraain not wholly unable to cope with
antagonists of the calibre of the right hon. gentleman. The
right hon. gentleman has kindly and generously given me my
choice between two accusations, which he says are incompatible
and contradictory. I decline to avail myself of the option so
handsomely accorded to rae. I adhere in the fullest sense of
every word to both of those accusations. There is one quaUfi
cation which the right hon. gentleman did not mention. I made
it clear in the speech which he has quoted, that while I
made against the majority as a body the distinct charge to
which he has referred, I did not make it against every in
dividual of that raajority, because I recollected that there
were exceptions. I think, if I remember right, my right hon
friend the Member for West Birmingham'^ was an exception.
If my memory serves me, I recollect that at the period of the
Election my right hon. friend referred to Coercion as a policy
which he would be inclined, under certain circumstances and
under certain conditions, to support. But as regards the body
in general, I have made that charge, and, please God, I will
make it again. I do not intend. Sir, to be drawn aside from the
business of to-night. I raeet the right hon. gentleman fairly when
I say that I hold myself responsible for both of these accusations,
presuming to differ from him on what he thinks their contradic
tory character. In my firm conviction, of course, with all due
deference to his superior judgment, they are both of them true,
both of them historical, both of them rational, both of them within
the facts. It is irapossible within the narrow limits assigned to
this debate for each speaker, perhaps for any speaker, to traverse
the whole field of an indictment so wide as that which has been
brought by my right hon. friend the Member for Newcastle-
upon-Tyne ^ against the Crimes Act and its administration
in Ireland. There is a general understanding, I believe, that
the debate shall close to-night. In my opinion, for such a
subject to have been fully and satisfactorily discussed, it would
have required three times the period which is assigned to
^^ Mr Joseph Chamberlain. ^ Mr John Morley.

1 888] CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND 3
it. Not|iwithstanding that, I am making no complaint at the
course pursued by Her Majesty's Government in this matter,
although I did regret that the right hon. gentleman, the First
Lord of the Treasury found himself in duty obliged to
threaten us with what would happen in case the debate should
be unduly prolonged. He has pointed to the consequences
that would ensue in regard to the mutilation and the pos
sible loss of a measure to which we attach great value. But
that is a passing matter. I am aware it is desired in the pre
sent state of public business — and I think it does great honour
to the Irish Members that 'they should concur in the arrange
ment — that we should be content with placing fairly, although
inadequately, the charges which we have to make, and that we
should then revert to the consideration of the great public
raatters that we have to dispose of. I state this, however,
simply as an introduction to a separate statement. With the
exception of one particular subject — naraely, what I deem to be
the extremely important case of KUleagh — I do not intend to
enter into details upon the several portions of this matter.
They were treated by my right hon. friend^ in a raanner which,
if not complete — and complete it could not be — was wonder
fully comprehensive, lucid, able, and concise, and I ara ready
in what I pass over to be bound by the statement which he
made. Now, Sir, I am compelled first to reiterate the complaint,
though I will not dwell upon it, that inforraation has been with
held which ought to have been given to us. I found, in fact,
upon that withholding of inforraation, upon the manner in which
information has been given, upon the illusory and inaccurate
character of the statements of the right hon. gentleman the Chief
Secretary for Ireland,* a charge which I think we can sustain, and
for which I make myself responsible — whether intended or not, it
has amounted on the part of the Governraent to an endeavour to
oust the House of Coramons from its proper jurisdiction in
watching the operation of exceptional laws, and in making pro
vision, whenever circumstances seem to require it, for the main-
1 Mr W. H. Smith. " Mr John Morley. » Mr A. J. Balfour.

4 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [jUNK 26
tenance of the sanctity of private rights. Now, Sir, I remind
the House that we were refused inforraation on the depositions
connected with the imprisonment of Mr Dillon.^ We have been
absolutely refused wholesale information in the case of con
spiracy. We have been refused information on the subject
which of all others was best calculated to test the success
of the policy of Her Majesty's Government — namely, informa
tion relating to derelict land. We obtained, it is true, a
Eeturn on the ilotion of my right hon. friencP of the cases
of persons tried under the Crimes Act. And what a state
ment it was which was presented to us ! The right hon.
gentleman seeras to think it is the duty of each Meraber for
himself to compile statistics, and the duty of the Government
to give every opposition they can to supplying us with know
ledge in a state in which we can use it. So chaotic and so
slovenly a Eeturn on a subject of such importance, without
dates of time, without notification of place, without classification
of the 2000 offences, so as to enable us to know how many there
were of one class, and how raany there were of another, I do
not think I ever knew presented to Parliament ; and, when it
is presented, it is at the beginning of a debate which is to
terminate on the second night. A graver matter still remains.
Inforraation was refused in regard to the deplorable and dis
graceful transactions at Mitchelstown. A less grave matter,
but one which illustrates the position in which we are placed,
was the refusal to give us any information with respect to the
transaction at Ennis. And how are we placed ? We hear
statements made ,in this House ; we recite them elsewhere. I
heard a statement made in this House which I thought chal
lenged and deserved inquiry — namely, that officers in comraand
of Her Majesty's Forces, and especially of cavalry, sent into a
certain yard, which the Governraent described as densely packed
with people, a portion of that cavalry. A raore unwise, a raore
blaraeworthy proceeding, although there was no intention of
^ On May 11th 1888, under circumstances which led to a debate in the House of
Commons on May 14th.
- Mr J. Morley.

1 888] CRIMINAL LAW IN lEELAND 5
charging, I could not have supposed. It was also stated that
there was a charge of the cavalry in the yard. That was at the
time not admitted by the Government; but that the cavalry
were sent into the yard they never questioned for a moment, I
made the charge in a speech at a public meeting, that the
cavalry were sent into that yard, and I admit there were words
of mine which might have been understood in the sense that I
gave credit to the stateraent that the cavalry did raake the
charge. That, however, was quite an incidental part ; the sub
stance of the charge I meant to make was that the cavalry were
sent into the yard. For that charge there was no foundation.
The cavalry were not sent into the yard. A particular hussar
went into the yard, and seeras there to have misconducted him
self, to the injury of one or two perfectly innocent persons.
What happened ? Our prayer in this House was for inquiry.
We made none of these charges as proved facts. They were
reported in the newspapers. We, seeing thera there, prayed for
inquiry. We were refused all inquiry ; and this officer, for
whora I have a great respect, for I believe hira to be an honour
able and a liberal-rainded raan — that is, I believe hira to have
been an honourable and liberal-minded man — Colonel Turner —
writes a letter to the newspaper denouncing rae as a person
totally void of the sense of truth and justice, because I had
raade a charge, which charge was raade in this House, and not
denied by Her Majesty's Governraent. That is the position in
which we are placed because of this alraost systeraatic refusal of
accurate inforraation on the part of Her Majesty's Government
in a case of this vital importance. I raust point out, in all fair
ness, that when he said that I had stated this raatter in defiance
of what had been stated by the Government in the House of
Comraons on the 12th of April, he completely admitted that the
cavalry had been sent into the yard densely packed with people.
Well, Sir, the right hon. gentleraan the Chancellor of the
Exchequer 1 made a statement which I raay take notice of,
in order that I may come nearer to the vital parts of this
case. The right hon. gentleman spoke of two cases of murder
^ Mr Goschen.

6 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 26
in Ireland in which the Crimes Act had been useful — one
by the change of venue, and the other by the use of the
private inquiry. Every man in this House rejoices in those two
solitary cases in which the Crimes Act has been of use ; but the
right hon. gentleraan seeraed to think, and seemed to wish the
House to think, that these were the main matters for which the
Crimes Act had been passed. Why, Sir, was there any difficulty
in this House last year made by my hon. friends near me, or by
myself, on the question of properly criminal jurisdiction ? No
thing of the sort. My right hon. friend — I think in the very
first speech he made upon the subject — said that he was per
fectly ready to entertain the consideration of provisions for the
bona fide corroboration of the Criminal Law. I expressed ray
concurrence with him, and I believe he actually pointed in
principle to these very two questions — the change of venue and
the clause of private inquiry. I know that that clause of
private inquiry took a long time ; but why did it take a long
time ? It was because of the bungling and inefficient manner
in which it had been drawn, so that when it came into this
House it consisted of thirty lines, and by the tirae it received
the sanction of the House in Coraraittee it consisted of, I
believe, 120 lines. Sir, there should have been no difference
of opinion between us on these raatters ; but what was our
contention from the first ? It was that this was not a Criraes
Act at all. It was not fraraed for the purpose of putting down
crirae. It was a Corabination Act ; it professed to go against
conspiracy ; it was really aimed against combination, and we
shall see how it has been applied in these raatters. But when
the right hon. gentleraan wishes the issue to be taken on the
subject of the two murder cases, as to which there are not two
opinions in this House, and wishes it to be supposed that this is
the question now raised on which the House ought to decide —
against these two cases of murder I point to the 2000 cases in
which Her Majesty's Irish subjects have been prosecuted by the
Government, and in which hundreds of them, unless I am very
much raistaken — I believe I raight say by far the larger raajority
of those 2000 — have had to suffer the anxiety of trial and the

1 888] CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND 7
penalty of imprisonment ; and you cannot, by pointing to two
cases of murder, in which particular provisions that nobody
would have objected to on principle have been put in operation,
escape the issue on the general administration of the Crimes Act.
Now, Sir, I shall not attempt, after the powerful speech
of the hon. Member for North-East Cork,i to speak of the
Plan of Campaign or of Mr Dillon, but I shall remark on
the manner in which the right hon. gentleraan who has
just sat down treats me with respect to the Plan of Cam
paign. Having quoted a Une and a half from a speech of
mine, he thereupon expands it by his great power of paraphrase,
and thus, making rae responsible for the padding he puts in, he
is good enough to express his lively satisfaction at my adraission
of fair and sound doctrines which are in reality the offspring of
his own fertile brain. I was certainly not less than half-an-hour
in the month of February - in giving fully and carefully my views
of the Plan of Campaign. I am not going to enter into it at
large at present ; what I am going to do is this — to state in one
single sentence what I believe the right hon. gentleman has not
the smallest idea of, and what I do not know whether the
Government thoroughly coraprehend — namely, what is the real
contention, that hon. gentlemen sitting on the opposite side of
the House, have to meet with respect to the Plan of Campaign ?
I shaU state it without a word of coraraent, and the contention,
as I understand it, is this — that the Plan of Campaign was
framed when Parliament had refused to make any legislative
provision for the necessities of the tenantry of Ireland in the
year 1886, and that it met the case by making demands upon
the landlords equal or inferior to those which, in the Act of
1887, the Land Commission had acknowledged to be just. That
is the true state of the question. It is idle to travel round
and round it as the right hon. gentleman has done ; it is
idle to advance against it the naked doctrine that it is the
law, and that the law shall be obeyed. I know there are
those in this House to whom it seeras to be a cardinal prin-
1 Mr W. O'Brien.
'^ Feb. 17th ; see vol. ix.

o

8 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 26
ciple and a sacred duty to raake no investigations of Irish
history, no raore than they think right, or of the general opinion
of the world as to the relations between Ireland and England.
But that is not so in Ireland. The recollections and the tradi
tions of Irish history are burnt into the very soul of the people.
We know how the traditions of Marlborough survived from
generation to generation on the Continent, and you ought to
know how the saying, " The Curse of Cromwell," has lived from
generation to generation in Ireland. These things are known
and felt there. The Irish people are aware what are the horrors,
what are the atrocities almost incredible, that have been done in
Ireland in the narae of law — the tortures, the murders, the
crimes of every description which, when they have not been done
under the name of law, have been covered by subsequent Acts
of Indemnity ; and who can suppose that a people whose whole
souls are full of these painful and grievous recollections can
come to the consideration of the law in the sarae raind and the
same spirit as the Judge sitting upon the Bench ? In expect
ing it you show your ignorance of human nature, your inca
pacity for statesmanship. The principles on which you act
have never guided wise legislative assemblies, which have always
made allowances for the circurastances which determine the
character of national emotions and recollections, and which have
been aware that in the mixed condition of human affairs condi
tional conflicts between law and public feeling are not unfrequent.
Unhappily, Ireland is perhaps the most conspicuous country in the
world, where law has been on one side and justice on the other.
You do not consider — you do not seem to think it worth while
to consider — the facts of Mr Dillon's case. I will not discuss the
matter at large after the vindication he has received frora the
powerful stateraent raade by the hon. Meraber of North-East
Cork ; but I will refer briefly to some of the incidents of Mr
Dillon's case ; and first among them I must say that it is a
strange irony of fortune that Mr Dillon should be lectured
on the subject of illegality by the hon. and gallant Meraber
for North Armagh ^ — the man who has announced that if Parlia-
' Colonel Saunderson.

1 888] CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND 9
ment think proper to pass a certain law he will lift his hand
in -violence to resist it and encourage his countrymen to do
the same. If Mr Dillon wishes to serve an apprenticeship in
illegality, I recoraraend hira to the raaster opposite ; but the
apprenticeship will be long and arduous, and Mr Dillon wUl
have to mount the ladder step by step before he reaches the
elevation on which the hon. and gallant Member has been
comfortably planted long ago. I want the House to consider
how it was that Mr Dillon becarae araenable to the law ; for, after
all, our prime duty here is not to measure in scales of gold the
wisdom or even propriety of every individual or his conduct, but
to bring to account the Government of the Queen — those who
are responsible, those who sway the raajority in this House, those
who have at their back the Array and the Constabulary, and
that other instrument of justice apparently in sorae cases not
less pliable and effective — naraely, the Resident Magistrates. I
wish to exaraine, then, when Mr Dillon became amenable to the
law. Mr Dillon, I feel bound to assume — I do not wish to go
into the judicial decision — I do not know whether it is a direct
judicial decision or not ; but I shall assurae that he was araenable
to the operation of the law. He was amenable in County Louth,
but he was amenable to its operation subject to going before a
jury. Now, that is of all things what Her Majesty's Governraent
raost dread. Lord Spencer adrainis tered his Criraes Act frora
1882 to 1885, and he adrainistered it with all the success that
can possibly attend such a measure, and in that Criraes Act we
had taken powers for going past the jury in a straightforward,
upright, and honourable raanner, in the light of day, in case the
necessity should arise. It never did arise, and the Act was
adrainistered without departure from the principle of trial by
jury. What has been done here ? An act is done in a county
of Ireland, a county which has a pure and splendid reputation
so far as outrage is concerned. I am told that as to Louth it
raay be said — as I ara happy to say it may be said of raany
parts of Wales — that long years have passed since an outrage
has been coraraitted in that county. Yet Louth was subjected

10 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 26
to the indignity of being proclairaed under the Criraes Act, in
order that Mr DiUon raight not have the benefit of a jury.
These are the acts — this is one of the acts — which provoke
men to say that they are not only harsh, not only are they
cruel, but they are raean. Of them any Government ought to
be ashamed ; and if it were possible for the right hon. gentle
man, by those researches of which he is so fond, to find that
something of the kind was done by a Liberal Government,
I would not stoop to apologise for such an act. If I had
a share in it, I would take a full share of the responsibility,
and perform whatever penance you might choose to impose.
The County Louth has been proclaimed in order that Mr
Dillon might be deprived of his rights as a British subject,
which he possessed at the time he made his speech. Is
that the way in which you propose to propagate respect
for the law in Ireland ? Is that the way in which you
think you will draw the heart of Ireland nearer ? Nearer to
what ? Not to the heart of England, for these two great hearts,
I rejoice to say, are already raorally joined in one ; but nearer
to Dublin Castle, nearer to the Viceroy, nearer to the Chief
Secretary, nearer to the Tory and Dissentient niajority ? It is
necessary, under the high sense of duty that governs the ad
ministration of the right hon. gentleman, that Mr Dillon should
be subjected to the indignity of being put into prison costume.
What says the right hon. gentleman the Member for the Sleaford
Division of Lincolnshire ? ^ " Serve him right." Serve him right !
Is it right, then, to insult a gentleman of his character ? Suppose
an accident happened to the hon. and gallant Meraber for North
Armagh in the contingencies which might arise, and which
he has foreshadowed. I do not believe that, araong his strongest
opponents below the gangway, there is one that would, for a
raoraent, tolerate that this indignity should be put upon him,
But this has been done to Mr Dillon. AVhy ? On the ground
of the inflexible morality which is so characteristic, as we all
know, of the Irish Secretary, that he cannot help observing
upon the want of it in other people. His high morality will
' Mr Chaplin.

1888] CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND 11
not endure the unequal treatment in two cases. Is it equal
treatment ? Is the prison dress for Mr Dillon the same thing
as the prison dress for the man with the frieze coat ? Is it ?
Is it the same thing ? The right hon. gentleman says it
is. I say it is not the same, and I appeal to an authority
better than myself, and better than the authority of the right
hon. gentleman ; for if it is the sarae infliction, I put these
two questions — Why did Parliament provide in England that
every person for the offence of sedition should cease to be
subject to this indignity, and should becorae a first-class ndsde-
meanant ? And why did the right hon. gentleman, who is
troubled with a stiff, unbending conscience, bend that con
science in the case of the priest 1 If the prison dress be
the same thing for Mr Dillon and the frieze coat, is it the
same thing for Mr Dillon and the priest ? The right hon.
gentleman has not dared to put the prison dress upon the
priest. He receded frora it not because he was merciful, but
because he was afraid. [Cheers and laughter.] I hope the
right hon. gentleman enjoys that. I believe he has said he had
no option — that the law prescribed it, and that the law must be
obeyed. Then, I ask, why was the law violated by the right
hon. gentleraan in the case of the priest ? How can he recon-
concile his conduct to Mr Dillon and other Members of this
House with his conduct to the priests, or with the policy which
has long ago dictated the adoption of a wise and gentle and
humane but perfectly protective, law for the treatment of pris
oners coraraitted for sedition in England ? What did the judge
say in the case of Mr Dillon ? He inflicted the raaxiraura sen
tence. But why ? Because of Mr Dillon's great influence. There
fore, he said — " I will inflict the raaxiraura sentence." But how
has Mr Dillon used that influence ? Go back with rae to the
memorable and melancholy day at Mitchelstown. [Laughter.] I
heard that laugh. It must have been involuntary, for it is
shocking to suppose that it was anything else. Go back to the
melancholy day at Mitchelstown, and to the great outrages of
the officers of the constabulary and the raen under their com
mand, and the deaths of three innocent men. It was Mr

12 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 26
Dillon, in my belief, who prevented, by the use of his great in
fluence, a terrible accumulation of that disaster ; and that use of
his influence ought to have been recollected when he was taken
to task by the Judge, and the maxiraura punishraent inflicted
upon hira, because, in sorae other case, the Judge differed from
the use he had made of the influence. I make no special com
plaint of the Judge in this case. I cannot say as much in
respect of another case to which I shall corae by-and-by.
But the Judge in this case said — " Mr Dillon is a raan of great
influence over his fellow-countrymen." By that he meant over
the Irish people. The Judge was perhaps hardly aware that
Mr Dillon's influence is not limited to Ireland. There are mil
lions upon raillions of people in this country — I believe the
large majority of the people of England, as well as of Scotland
and Wales — to whom there could be, on the occasion of a pubUc
assembly, no more welcorae tidings than that they were about
to be addressed by Mr Dillon, and there is hardly one whose
entrance among thera would call forth raore enthusiastic acclaraa-
tion. Now sir, I will venture to say that it is a terrible state of
things that a man of Mr Dillon's character, his qualities, and his
position, is thus treated. It is a state of things which ought
to bring about much reflection, and which cannot be disposed of
by a majority to-night in this House.
Well, sir, I am now going into the case of KUleagh. After the
daring stateraent of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General for
Ireland,! ^u^j ^j^g yg^. i^iore daring stateraent of the right hon
gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on a former occasion,
I wish to set out the whole case to the House. The right hon.
gentleraan the Chancellor of the Exchequer raust not suppose that
the sUght reference to it with which he was provided has in any
degree disposed of it. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General
carae a little nearer to the point when he stated that the raen
who were iraprisoned at KUleagh had been found guilty of con
spiracy at common law for the purpose of starving the police.
Found guilty of conspiracy at coraraon law ? By whora were
they found guilty of conspiracy at coramon law ?
^ Mr Madden.

i888] CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND 13
The Solicitor General for Ireland — I did not state that
the raen had been found guilty of conspiracy at Coraraon
Law. What I did state — and as my authority I refer to the
judgment of the Court — was that the Judges of the Court of
Exchequer said there was before them evidence upon which a
jury might have found thera guilty of a conspiracy at Coraraon
Law. Me Gladstone — I read a report which has all the appearance
of care and precision ; but I ara extremely glad to hear the
statement of the hon. and learned gentleman, and I at once
withdraw what I intended to say on this subject. But if the
hon. and learned gentleraan will have the goodness to refer to
the newspaper to which I referred this raorning — namely, the
Times — he will find that he has been most seriously misreported,
for the words I have used are precisely those which are to be
found there. I will now pass altogether frora that topic. Well,
Sir, I come to what was said by the Lord Chief Baron, and I
dwell the more readily upon this case because, although, of
course, it does not present the entire indictraent to the House
which it has raade against the administration of the Crimes Act,
yet it presents what I think is the most important part of the
case and goes to the very centre and core of it, because our main
contention in the debates of last year was that this Act was not
a Criraes Act at all — that is to say, that crirae was a secondary
and partial subject within its purview; that it was really a
Conspiracy Act, and under the name of a Conspiracy Act it was
a Combination Act, and was intended to put down lawful and
legitimate combination. Now, Sir, let us follow the legality of
the proceedings, the competency of the tribunal, and the lan
guage of the Government in the case of KUleagh. The hon. and
learned Solicitor General for Ireland has, I think, stated very
nearly what was said by the Lord Chief Baron in the first part
of his remarks. But he left out certain words of the Lord
Chief Baron which I think may be accurately represented thus.
The Lord Chief Baron was fully of opinion that coraraon action
had been proved, and upon this conimon action he rather
thought — that was his expression — there would have been

14 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [june 26
evidence frora wliich a jury would have concluded that the real
object was to injure the police, and that upon evidence of that
kind an indictraent might be brought and the jury might give a
verdict. Very well, let us suppose that is so. Then I want
to know what is the state of the law in Ireland ? I accept it
without question. It is not for nie to attempt to affirm or
deny it, ray business is to accept it. The statement of the Lord
Chief Baron is that if four men combine at KUleagh, where there
is believed to be a conspiracy existing, and are proved by
coraraon action to have refused to deal with the constabulary,
a jury might convict them of a criminal offence upon evidence
which tended to prove as much as that. Now, suppose, not a
case of four , men who deal in goods and withhold their goods
from the constabulary, but a case in England of 400 men
dealing in labour and withholding their labour. I believe I
mightgo a great deal further and say "who break their contract."
Even that \vould not be an overstatement. But in the one
case or the other — and I believe I may safely go to the raore
extrerae supposition of a breach of contract — the 400 men would,
every one of them, stand scathless in a court of justice. The
four Irishmen were sent to prison. Where is the equality of
rights ? This is what we asked — what we pressed for last year,
what we were called factious for deraanding. This is what the
Government sternly refused. In England the artizan is pro
tected by the law in respect of the disposal of the commodity
which he has to dispose of. In Ireland you have refused to
protect him by the law in respect of the very same thing. Yet
you tell us you will not hear of an Irish Legislature to deal
with Irish affairs; that the true principle is that which at
Westminster and within the walls of Parliament consecrates (as
is pretended) the principle of equality of rights. Then the Lord
Chief Baron goes on — because the part of his speech to which
I have referred is entirely incidental — "Another offence may
possibly have been committed. But the question we have to
consider is whether a certain particular offence, which we will
go on to consider and define, has been committed or not." What
they had to consider. — these are the words of the Lord Chief

1 888] CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND 15
Baron — was whether the common purpose was that this refusal
to deal should be accompHshed either by compulsion or by
influence which he had called undue influence. I call the
particular attention of the House to these words, because every
thing, in fact, turns upon thera. I may dismiss altogether the
word "compulsion" in this case, because there had been no charge
of compulsion. I have been been favoured, not by Her Majesty's
Government, but by the labour and care of a member of this
House, with the bulky copies of the depositions, and I have read
the whole of them ; and they all of them charge in one and the
same phrase that the offence was joining in a conspiracy to
induce certain persons not to deal. Then said the Lord Chief
Baron — " That is the question we have to consider." What
does he say upon it ? He was bound to say that he did not find
one shadow of evidence whatever in this case, and he did not find
any e-vidence on which it could be argued except in the case of
David Barry. What was the case of David Barry ? Now,
Da-vid Barry was sentenced, like the rest, for one month. By
some process which I do not understand, but I am glad of it,
the sentence seems afterwards to have been reduced to one fort
night, on the ground that Da-vid Barry had, apparently to the
Judges, acted under intimidation ; and, for having acted under
intimidation, he was charged and sent to prison for a fortnight for a
conspiracy to induce others not to deal. What says theLord Chief
Baron? It is siraply this. To be a victim of a conspiracy was, in
the -view of these Judges, the same thing as to be the author of the
conspiracy. The raan who refuses to deal through intimidation,
and under a fright, which he describes in Court, that man is a
sufferer already, and to send him to prison for an offence indicates
either a weakness, or a perversity, or an ignorance, or all three
combined, such as I could not have believed possible from any
thing calling itself a Bench of Justice. Of course, any language
of the Lord Chief Baron cannot possibly be exaggerated in this
case. There is no evidence whatever. Now, Sir, it has been
represented by the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for
Ireland, that there may have been a mistake in this case.

16 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [june 26
Accidents will happen in the best-regulated families, and, con
sequently, there was a slight error of judgment, but not an
error of judgment to form the basis of a charge against the two
Resident Magistrates, ]\Ir Gardner and Mr Redmond. What
I have to show is this — that this was not an oversight on
the part of the Judges. Their attention was expressly and
repeatedly called to the distinction taken by the Lord Chief
Baron. They did not suppose that the different kinds of con
spiracy were confounded together, and that they in sentencing
for one might just as well sentence for another. Here is the
report, which I quote frora The Cork Examiner of the 1st of
June, of what was said on the occasion. Mr Hodnett, who was
acting on the part of the defendants, pointed out to the Judges
that there was a total want of evidence, and that the Judges
ought to disraiss the suraraons for want of e^'idence to show that
the defendants entered into a crirainal conspiracy to induce
others not to supply goods. Observe that he put it before them
in the clearest terms. AVliat said Mr Gardner ? " AVe are both
against you, Mr Hodnett." These are the men to whora, to the
disparageraent of the Superior Courts, you have committed
practically in the most delicate and difficult raatters the govern
raent of Ireland. Howe\"er, Mr Hodnett was not discouraged
and he went on to say — " I have made an argument, and I hope
something will be said." So Mr Gardner proceeded to give his
view of the case. He said his \-iew of the case was this — " The
evidence went to show that these parties entered into a criminal
conspiracy with one another, inasmuch as their acts in the
refusing in nearly all the same language and terms showed the
conspiracy they had entered into." That is to say, he deliberately
passed over what had been stated by Mr Hodnett, wIk.i endea
voured to guide this blind man, and to describe to hira the kind
of conspiracy that was charged in the indictraent. The patience
( if Mr Hodnett was not yet exhausted, and he said — " That is
not the charge. The charge is inducing other persons not to
supply goods." Twice in the most distinct language that raan
could use these Judges were rerainded that it was not a general
charge before thera of conspiracy, but a charge that they had

i888] CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND 17
induced other persons not to supply goods. Here is the final
decision of Mr Gardner, and these are the Judges of whose legal
competence the Governraent are satisfied. He said — " Each
defendant should be taken with reference to the others." The
Judge, having the case placed before him in the most distinct
manner, did not pretend that he had the least scintilla of
evidence to show that the defendants had committed a crime.
He said that they might have committed a crirae ; and without
any evidence and merely in consequence of an opinion in the
sanctuary of his breast he condemned thera.
I have given you now what the Lord Chief Baron said
and what the Resident Magistrate said. But what did
the Governraent say ? Observe, my point is this, and it
is recognised on both sides. We are not dealing now with
the Coramon Law of Conspiracy, which derives its crimi
nal character from its being intended to injure a person
or a class. That is not the offence charged. The offence
charged by the Act is to compel or induce persons not to
do certain things, I put a question carefully framed in the
sense of the Act. I asked first for the production of all these
depositions in cases of conspiracy; and I then asked whether
the right hon. gentleman the Chief Secretary could assure the
House that in every case where an individual had been convicted
under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act the con
spiracy to corapel or induce sorae person not to deal with or to
work for some other person in the ordinary course of trade, business
or occupation, evidence had been taken to prove, not only the
refusal of the individual to work or to deal as above, but to
prove that he was impUcated in a conspiracy for sorae one of the
said purposes — that is to say, for the purpose of inducing or
compelling not to deal with or to work for ; and the right hon.
gentleman in answer to that question gave me the most positive
and distinct pledge. He said—" In all the cases described by
the right hon. gentleman evidence has been taken to prove the
conspiracy referred to." I presume that he had in his hands
at that moment the judgment of the Lord Chief Baron and the
judgment of Mr Justice Andrews— Baron Dowse saying nothing

18 ]\fR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 26
on the subject. He had in his hands the judgment of the Lord
Chief Baron, which said there was no evidence whatever, and
with the judgment in his hands he told me that evidence
had been taken in every case to prove — what ? Not to prove
conspiracy, but to prove the conspiracy referred to.
The Chief Secretary for Ireland — The right hon. gentleman
has confused dates. The answer I gave him was before the
judgraent was delivered.
Me Gladstone — The right hon. gentleraan had not the
judgraent in his hands, but he had the depositions. I have
read the whole of these depositions, and they do not contain one
single sentence upon any subject except that of the refusal to
deal, unless in one single instance. And what is that ? It is
the sentence in which the constable O'Donoghue, states that
there was a raeeting on the 4tli of March, which raeeting is
supposed to have had sorae reference to some combination or
other for the purpose of exclusive dealing, and he deposes that
he did not see any one of the defendants at that meeting. Was
there ever such a case as this ? The right hon. gentleraan had
read the evidence. If he says there is evidence of the conspiracy
I'eferred to, let hira produce it. It does not exist. He cannot
produce it unless all the documents are falsified ; and that which
lie made bold to state to this House, that the conspiracy to in
duce had evidence taken upon it, is totally contrary to the fact,
and the right hon. gentleman has to explain his conduct to the
House. But the right hon. gentleraan, when we ask hira why
he has not fulfilled his pledges — this pledge and that pledge —
his answer is — " Oil, that has been sufficiently threshed out
already, and I cannot go over it again." Such was the language
of the Government.
Now this is no question of a miscarriage or of a mistake
of an inferior tribunal. It is not a question of mistaking
the balance of evidence in regard to which human judgment
may go wrong. Here there was no balance of evidence at
all. There was, as we know now on the highest authority, no
evidence whatever. There could not be any evidence, and there
being no evidence, and the attention of the Judge having been

1 888] CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND 19
called to the fact that there was no evidence, he deliberately re
fused to take notice of that call and went on to aggravate his
conduct by refusing to state a case. Is this a specimen of the
raanner in which this Law of Conspiracy is administered in Ire
land ? I have to put questions to the right hon. gentleman
besides that which I have put to him about himself. Are these
two Resident IMagistrates to continue to administer the Coercion
Act ? I presume that the Government have considered that
subject. I do not undertake to say what is the cause of their
misconduct — whether it is bias, whether it is bigotry- — ignorance
it cannot be, because the thing was placed twice before them —
or whether it was feebleness of character. I do not enter into
these things. I look at the facts, and say it is totally irapossible
to place confidence in such a Bench. I say tbe people of Ireland
would be unworthy of the narae of raen if the spirit of the
country did not revolt against such treatment. I am told that
this is only one conspiracy case. Only one conspiracy case ?
Well, it is the only one in which we have been able to get the
particulars. How raany more are ther« of such cases ? I
challenge the right hon. gentleman, and I raake an appeal to him
to lay upon the table the depositions in all conspiracy cases.
He has heard the statement made by an able lawyer in this
House that he and his friends have exarained 700 out of 2,000
cases, and the conclusion they have corae to is that the proceed
ings were a travesty and caricature of justice. We have got
tbat, and having extracted from the right hon. gentleman sorae
particulars with regard to this special case, we find it to be as
flagTant and scandalous as any in the clays of Judge Jeffreys
[Laughter] The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate^ has
a great faculty for laughter. I know very well that these
men have not the power of Judge Jeffreys, and that we do
not live in the time of Judge Jeffreys. How far is that the
fault of the right hon. gentleman ? What the right hon. and
learned Lord Advocate ought to appreciate is, that the denial
of justice, which is the sarae thing in the case of a farthing as of
a £1,000,000 is as gross, as palpable, and as shameful as ever
1 Mr J. H. A. Macdonald.

20 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 26
disgraced the tirae of Judge Jeffreys. I therefore beg the right
hon. gentleraan to produce the depositions in these cases. I do
not know precisely the number of cases. We have no aid frora
the right hon. gentleraan. We have to find our way through
a lengthened paper with about 2000 names, out of which there
are, I believe, about 150 charged with cnn.spiracy. I think that
the particulars of the painful case upon which I have detained
the House so long show grounds for the necessity of my deraand.
If the right hon. gentleman does not give us the particulars of
the other cases, we shall be compelled to conclude that the other
cases are like this case ; and if he disputes it, let him give us
the raeans of judging. If the right hon. gentleraan does not
give us the raeans of judging, if he is determined that Parliament
shall be excluded from forming an opinion in cases of this kind,
that will sustain ray charge that it is the policy of the Govern
ment to oust the House of Coraraons from the perforraance of
one of its most sacred duties— that of defending the weak, and
maintaining the sanctity of pri\-ate rights and private liberty.
The right lion, gentleraan the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in
his speech last night, contended that the policy of the Govern
ment was making progress, slow but sure. That I understand
to be the upshot of the principal portions of his speech. What did
he point to in support of that contention ? He pointed to
certain statistics about Boycotting, about which I have to observe
that those statistics are an invention of the Go-\'ernment. No
such statistics ever were produced until the existence of the
present f^o^-ernnlent. I entirely decline to accept them, because
1 have no means of testing their accuracy. You might as well
bring statistics frora the moon as gi^•e us your statistics of Boy
cotting. There is no legal, moral, or social test by which we can
judge thera. You plead usage, when usage is in your favour ;
but you depart frora usage because your Returns have been
prepared — I \Yas alraost .ibout to sa}-, manufactured for you
— in order to show a considerable diminution of Boycotting.
A\1iat the right hon. gentleman really means is a dirainution in
the number of agrarian offences — not a very large diminution
hut, I admit, a sensible aud gratifying diminution. I will not

1 888] CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND 21
enter into the question of the cause of that diminution. We do
not believe that the cause is to be found either in the Criraes
Act or in the mode in which it is applied. We think it is due
to other and very different causes. I am not going to enter upon
that distinct ground. If you Uke, I will take the fact upon your
showing, and upon your own argument, and assurae that it is due
to the Crimes Act. If that were so would it be a proof of pro
gress, would it be a proof that you were making your way to a
settlement of the Irish question ? I think not. Lord Spencer's
triumph over agrarian outrage was tenfold what it has been
under the right hon. gentleman the Chief Secretary. I take
it to have been, so far as external raanifestations were
concerned, one of the most coraplete ever brought about
in the history of Executive Governraent. It was a marvellous
reduction. I will now quote figures. The number of agrarian
offences with which Lord Spencer had to deal was quoted as
between 4000 and 5000, and it was reduced, I believe, to a
figure below 1000. But Lord Spencer did not think by that
reduction he had raade any way towards solving the Irish
problem. And not only he did not think so, but the Tories did
not think so. So far were they from recognising in Lord
Spencer's action a satisfactory condition of things as an argu
ment for maintaining coercion, that they declared that the
policy of coercion had failed, and ought to be abandoned. I
know the right hon. gentleman the Member for the Slea
ford Division said that he never approved the abandon
ment of the policy of Lord Spencer, for he thought that the
poUcy of coercion ought to be maintained. The right hon.
gentleman nods his head ; but his disapproval was an, extremely
cheap disapproval, because the right hon. gentleman shared the
spoils of the victors, and took office frora the Government which
disapproved of that policy. But what we contend is that th';
diminution of agrarian offences does not solve the Irish Ques
tion. What is the situation ? What is the general condition
of Ireland now ? Ireland is in the hands of three powers — tho
Army, the Constabulary, and inferior tribunals of justice —
tribunals which I do not hesitate in describing as inferior after

22 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 26
the speciraen we have had to-night ; and no country in that con
dition by the side of a great and powerful State can be said to
have raade the least progress towards a satisfactory settlement
We, whose Empire rests upon the goodwill and affection of every
other people of which it is composed, ought to blush up to our
eyes when we find that Ireland is only to be kept by such
means as those which the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer has described as a slow progress towards the
solution of the Irish Question. I should like to know whether
the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has
considered the position of the Constabulary. In many respects
I look with very great respect on the history of the Constabu
lary. On most occasions they have performed tlieir duty ad
mirably well, making allowance for all difficulties ; but I ara by
no means sure that that position is not getting undermined. I
put this question to the right hon. gentleraan and his colleagues
— Have not collisions between the (Jonstabulary and the people,
have not the occasions upon which the Constabulary have re
sorted to force in their dealings with the people, been raore
numerous within the last twelve montlis than they have been
for a long, long period before i Will the right lion, gentleman
give us a Return stating the nuniber of cases in which, during
the last twelve months, the police have used their batons, and
other Returns with respect to the use of their batons during
other periods ? I own I ara not without apprehension that
something like exasperation has grown up in the minds of the
people with respect to the action of this force. At any rate, I
think there is evidence which must lead one to wish that the
Government could emphatically deny any such a suggestion,
and can assure us that the relations between the Constabulary
and the people at large are as good as they have been at other
periods. I never heard until within the last twelve raonths or
thereabouts that shopkeepers were refusing to serve thera. That
raay be a sraall thing in amount, but it is raenacing and orainous
in its character. I confess, so far as I can judge of it, and owing
to the action of the Government we can judge of it only very
imperfectly, the position of the Constabulary shows that the

1888] CRIMINAL LAW IN lEELAND 23
progress of which the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer speaks is a progress not forwards, but back
wards, as to the solution of the Irish Question. What are the
evidences of faUure on the other hand ? The right hon. gentle
raan has, I think, a difficult task before him when he has to
meet the charges of the hon. Member for North-East Cork, who
in February last defied the Government to contradict his state
raent that the Plan of Campaign was still holding its ground.
Does the Plan of Campaign still hold its ground ? You have
been distinctly challenged to-night to say whether you can point
out an instance in which the two great powers, the Government
and the landlords, have triuraphed over the Plan of Campaign.
The National League, we were told some time ago, was a
thing of the past; but it is now described by the right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as full of
great vigour in every quarter of Ireland. I am told that
the right hon. gentleman used the word " ubiquitous "
also. Well, what has been their success with regard to the
great purpose of this bUl ? The charge of my right hon. friend
near me was that this Bill was introduced for the purpose of
promoting and bringing about the collection of rent in Ireland,
and for the occupation of derelict farms. These are the two
tests of the success of the Bill, and it will not be denied that
they were the great objects of the measures. Nothing has been
said, nothing has been told us, about the occupation of derelict
farms, though something has been told us about the collection
of rents. I will not quote the words used by the right hon.
gentleman on a fornier occasion in this House, but I think I do
not misrepresent their general effect when I say that in general
the landlords of Ireland would be happy to get rents even such
as were offered by the Plan of Campaign, but that in most cases
rent could not be collected. These are evidences of failure
whieh, it seems to me, infinitely outweigh the assertions of slow
and partial success made by the right hon. gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Now, Sir, I should like to know this : The right hon.
gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has challenged

24 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 26
the words of this Motion. Does he think that the respect,
for law has increased among the people of Ireland gene
rally since the enactment of the Crimes Act ? Does he
think that the estrangeraent of the people of Ireland, which is
so rauch to be laraented, not from the people of England, but
frora the systera of governraent enforced upon them — does he
think that the estrangement has diminished ? He does not
seera ready to accept either of these challenges.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer — I do not wish to
interrupt the right hon. gentleman, and would not interrupt
him but for his invitation. The statement in the Resolution
is that we are undermining a respect for the law which did not
exist, and are estranging the affections of the people of Ireland
which we did not possess, during the tirae when the right hon.
gentleraan was in Office.
Me Gladstone — AVliat the right hon. gentleraan has said
does not in the slightest degree touch either of ray challenges.
My question was not whether respect for law existed or did
not exist, or in what degree, or what estrangeraent there had
been or was not. My challenge was this. I believe now very
strongly that the right hon. gentleman does not believe that
respect for law has increased since the passing of the Crimes
Act in the minds of the people at large, and that he does not
believe that the people at large are less estranged now than
before the passing of the Criraes Act.
Mr Goschen — I do not wish again to interrupt the right
hon. gentleman, but he is attributing to me sentiments which I
do not entertain. The right hon. gentleman interprets my
silence as assent. I dissent entirely from his statement. I believe
there has been increased respect for law, and I believe that we
should have begun to diminish the estrangement but for the
persistent efforts of the right hon. gentleman.
Mr Gladstone — Of all the practices of a CJovernment
in difficulties there is none so shabby as throwing upon
the Opposition responsibility for the state of public affairs iu
Ireland. They are in office; they have the whole powers of
the State, and they can do what they please ; they ha\-e got an

1 888] CRIMINAL LAW IN IRELAND 25
arbitrary Act in their power. They have sent to prison all
these people ; and with all the power in their hands, what is
the meaning of saying that the Opposition — not the Liberal
Party, but a wing of the Liberal Party — is responsible for the
state of things which exists ? What I say to the contradiction
of the right hon. gentleman is this. Against his assertion of
success I have given hira proofs of failure, and so far as the
estrangement is concerned — against the increasing estrangement
from the injustice of the present systera of governraent we have
brought into action another powerful influence in dirainishing the
estrangement of the affections of the Irish people — within the
last two years we have revived in their minds a confidence with
which they believe the people of this country will put an end to
whatever wrongs they still suffer. What we think is this, that
there never was a period when the opposition was so sharply
manifested between what is known as Dublin Castle and the
people of Ireland. On the one hand, if you look at Ireland you
wiU see the Government and its agents — powerful agencies,
powerful political agencies, judicial agencies, and social agencies.
On the other side you see the raass of the population, and every
organ for the expression of opinion over which the raass of the
population have influence, the representatives of the people in
this House, and the representatives of the people — a rather higli
class of people — in Municipal Corporations, and in alraost every
elective body, there are returned raen from whom rise a unani
mous chorus of protestation against the system on which the
government is now carried on in Ireland. Nothing has been
more striking in this respect than the fact, as we are told, that
nineteen Members out of the eighty-six Members who represent
the National feeling have been sent to prison since the passing
of the Criraes Act. Do you consider how grave that is ?
There was a tirae, sir, in the history of this country, when a
Bill was introduced liraiting the prerogative of the Crown in
making additions to the Peerage. They were to be reduced to
a fixed nuraber. On the occasion of that Bill Sir Eobert Wal
pole said that in the history of this country the road to the
Temple of Honour had theretofore lain through the Temple of

26 ilE GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 26
Virtue, but it was now to lie — I believe that was the substance
of hi^ stateraent — through the dark paths of political intrigue.
I do not think Sir Robert Walpole foresaw what would be the
ca.se of Ireland in 1888 with respect to the Teraple of Honour.
A\'hat in Ireland is now, in the hands of the present Govern
ment, the mode of access to the Temple of Honour ? We
have either reached, or we are coming very near to, a state of
things in which, in the estimation of the Irish nation, the road
to the Teraple of Honour lies through the prison door. Nine
teen Merabers of Parliament have been put into prison within
twelve raonths, and the right hon. gentleraan the Chancellor of
the Exchequer talks about progress towards the solution of the
Irish problem. What does he think has been the effect of those
imprisonments on the constituents of those nineteen Members ?
Were you to give us the power of access to our constituencies,
e\'ery one of those nineteen Merabers, I venture to say, would
be returned to this House with greater enthusiasm and larger
majorities, because they have been the object of the wrath of
the Governraent that now exists. Now, sir, in raaking this
motion, we pay a debt of honour to the Governraent. I admit
that we in this House should make known at least, if we cannot
set forth in all particulars, the substance of the accusation we
have to raake against them, and which we intend to make
against them in the country. We deal, sir, as my right hon.
friend said, as in former years, with the nation, and not merely
with the House, — we have an appeal which the right hon.
gentleman and his colleagues cannot take away from us. To
that tribunal we will go, and the verdict of that tribunal we
can foresee, and we are satisfied with it, and we rejoice in the
sentence which we know it will and cannot but pronounce.

THE CHANNEL TUNNEL
House of Commons, June 27, 1888
Sir Edward AVatkin, the member for Hythe, moved the Second Reading 'of the
Channel Tunnel (Experimental Works) Bill. It was opposed by the Government,
and rejected by 307 to 16.5.
The appeal which has been made to me by the right hon.
gentleman the President of the Local Government Board^ is a
very fair appeal He has a right to know, and 'I will endeavour
to explain to him why, haviug been at the head of the Govern
ment hi 1884, and ha^'ing voted against proceeding with the
Channel Tunnel Bill, I do not take the same course on the
present occasion. The right hon. gentleman has spoken for the
Government to which he belongs; and, so far, he is in the
same position as was my right hon. friend the Member
for West Birmingham^ when, in 1885, he asked the House
to put a negative upon the Bill. But the right hon.
gentleman will at once perceive the broad and vital difference
between the speech which he has now raade in stating the
grounds for his proceeding and the speech which was then
made by my right hon. friend. The right hon. gentleman has
opposed the Channel Tunnel Bill, I am sorry to say, upon its
merits — upon grounds which will be as good in any future year
as they are at the present moraent. My right hon. friend the
Member for West Birmingham is not in the House, but I have
had within the last week or ten days an opjiortunity, through
his kindness, of going over the whole groimd and testing our
several recollections, and I believe I am correct in saying that
in the speech of my right hon. friend there was not one word
condemnatory of the Channel Tunnel upon its merits, and that
his opposition was an opposition of time, and of time only. For
'^ Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. - Mr J. Chamberlain.

28 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 27
ray part, I cmild not have taken then any other position, and I
will presently state why it was that I was a party to
opposition on that ground. It is a raatter of justice to
the hon. Member for Hythe^ and to the promoters of the
Channel Tunnel, after what happened in 1884 and 1885 — I
believe these were the years, though I ara not certain that I am
absolutely correct — that I should explain the -view which I took
of their case, and the reasons which induced me at that period,
without any doubt or hesitation, to join in the opjiosition to the
progress of the Bill. I am very glad to think, after the debate
of last night, that we are now engaged in a discussion of a very
different kind. I do not think that any person who agrees with
rae will be induced to vote against the Government from any
desire to displace it, or that any gentleman who will vote with
the Governraent will do so upon the ground that this is one of
the sacrifices required frora thera to protect the country against
the danger of a Liberal invasion of the Benches opposite. On
the other hand, I am afraid that our arguments in this matter
on the one side and on the other are looked upon as singularly
unsatisfactory by our opponents. On political questions we
often feel that, at any rate, there is something in what the other
man says ; but on this occasion we seera to get at the ultimate
principles and modes of thinking which are fixed on one side
and fixed on the other, and which would lead us, if we used the
language that occurs to us, to describe the opposite arguments
in very disrespectful terms. The right hon. gentleman has
stated his case with force, clearness, and ability; and yet I
frankly own — and frankness is, after all, a great -virtue — the
whole of the considerations he has advanced, and his arguments
against this Tunnel are neither better nor worse than mere and
sheer bugbears. Having gone thus far in the exercise of frankness,
I will for the rest of ray speech endeavour to fall back on the
virtue of courtesy ; and I will not recur to the use of any lan
guage of that character, by which I only raeant to illustrate
the position in which we stand to one another, and which we
unhappily aggravated in 1884. Now, sir, this subject was first
1 Sir Edward Watkin.

1 888] THE CHANNEL TUNNEL 29
introduced to me by a Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer. It
was first introduced to me in the year 1865 by a gentleman
whose name will always be mentioned with respect in this
House — I mean Mr Ward Hunt. He was not Chancellor of
the Exchequer at that exact time, for I was. He came to me
as the leader of a deputation, and endeavoured to induce — or
perhaps I should say seduce — rae, the Chancellor of the Ex
chequer to Lord Palmerston, into giving my support to the
promotion of this dangerous project. jMr Ward Hunt was
totaUy insensible of the dreadful nature of the petition he was
making — notwithstanding his position in the Conservative
Party, he was totally unaware of all the dangers that have been
pointed out by the right hon. gentleman opposite.
And here, sir, I am obliged to correct a statement of my hon.
friend the Member for Hythe, who, on the authority of somebody
or another, alleged that I alone araong the Ministers of that day
was disposed to give a guarantee in sorae shape or other to
the promoters of the project. I was never disposed to give
a guarantee to the extent of one single farthing to the pro
moters of this scheme, or any other scheme of a sirailar kind.
I find it necessary, for ray own credit, perhaps, at any rate
for the truth of history, to disclaim it. Sir, I was instructed
on behalf of the Government, and with my own full con
currence, to refuse a guarantee ; but we did so without giving
the slightest indication of any opposition to the Tunnel scheme.
A series of other Governments followed, and every one of
those Governments officially committed itself on the merits
of the Tunnel. Lord Granville on the part of the Govern
ment of 1868; Lord Derby on the part of the Govern
ment of 1874, and, I think, the senior Lord Derby, the dis
tinguished Prirae Minister of a fornier period, expressed pre
cisely simUar sentiments ; and every one of those Governments,
acting unanimously, was engaged so far in the promotion of this
project that they gave it their unequivocal sanction. Nor did
they stop there, but they entered upon international proceedings.
Communications were established with France. A Commission
was appointed on the part of the two countries ; and I do wish to

30 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 27
bring horae to the minds of hon. and right hon. gentlemen the
degree to which our honour and our dignity in an international
aspect are involved in the question before the House. I must
say that that is one of the most serious considerations that
operate on my raind witli regard to the promotion of this Bill.
The two Governments jointly instituted a Commission to con
sider the details — the important and difficult details — of the
schemes by means of which this great project could be best
advanced. The principle of the project was taken for granted,
on the one side and on the other, when we entered into these
general proceedings with the French Government. The Com
raission laid down conditions which were to be the basis of a
Treaty between the two countries, and the actual signature of the
Treaty was suspended, not upon the ground of anypolitical appre
hension whatever, but siraply, I believe, upon the ground that
financial considerations did not at that raoraent favour the pro
gress of the scheme. What dwells upon my mind is this — that
there was A'ery much of the character of an engagement of honour
in these proceedings between England and France, and that it is a
matter of some difficulty to justify the recession of a kingdom
like this from a position of that kind, after you have voluntarily
and deliberately, and after long thought and reflection, made
it the subject of such international proceedings.
The right hon. gentleraan says — and I have no doubt very truly
— that there are serious objections raised by the military authori
ties against the scheme. Well, Sir, at the tirae I ara speaking of,
the opinion of the railitary authorities was in favour of the Tunnel.
The two Governments did not act in respect of the Tunnel with
out consulting the military authorities, and those military authori
ties whom the Government had to consult were distinctly favour
able to the Tunnel. But I think I may go a little further than that,
and raay venture to read, at least for the purpose of challenging
contradiction if it can be challenged, a short extract from a very
well-inforraed memorandura with which I have been supplied on
the part of the promoters — and which is one which can easUy
be brought to issue. The extract to which I refer says — "It was
not until the auturan of 1881 that any mUitary opinion adverse

1 888] THE CHANNEL TUNNEL 31
to the Tunnel was expressed." Now, Sir, that is a remarkable fact.
The Tunnel was then a scheme twenty years old. It had been
discussed in every possible form. It had been the subject of
much official correspondence, and it had received the assent of a
number of Governments. Those Governments would not have
assented, and did not assent, without the authority of the
Military Department and the advice of their military advisers ;
and until the year 1881 these portentous discoveries which have
taken possession of the raind and iraagination of the right hon.
gentleraan, and, I suppose, of those who sit near him, were
never heard of. Surely that is rather a staggering circumstance.
And now I will relate the facts upon which the Governraent of
1881 and the following years had to base itself in dealing with
this subject. At that time we find that the military authorities
had commenced their opposition, and a great ferment began to
prevail. A corabination of powers was brought into operation.
The literary authorities were brought to back up the military
authorities. Great poets invoked the Muses, and strove, not as
great poets m other times used to do, to embolden their coun
trymen to encounter serious dangers, but to intimidate their
countrymen by conjuring up phantoms of danger that were not
fit to be presented to anybody except to that valuable class of
the community that the right hon. gentleman has described in
his speech as suffering occasionally the pains of sea-sickness.
Then, Sir, the army — the military host and the literary host —
were backed by the opinion of what is called " Society," and
society is always ready for the enjoyment of the luxury of a
good panic. There is nothing raore enjoyable than a good
panic, when that panic is based on a latent conviction
that the thmg which it conteraplates is not in the least degree
likely to happen. These speculative panics — these panics in the
air — have an attraction for certain classes of minds that is in
describable ; and these classes of minds, I am bound to say, are
very largely to be found among the educated portion of society.
The subject of this panic never touched the mind of the nation.
These things are not accessible to the mind of the nation.
They are accessible to what is called the public opinion of the

32 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [june 27
day — that is to say, public opinion raanufactured in London by
great editors, and clubs, who are at all times formidable, and a
great power for the purposes of the raoraent, but who are
a greater power and becorae an overwhelraing power when
they are backed by the threefold forces of the railitary and literary
authorities, and the social circles of Londou.
Well, Sir, these powers araong thera created at that period such
a panic that even those who were raost favourable to the Tunnel,
of whom I was one, thought it quite vain to offer a direct opposi
tion. We, therefore, proposed the appointment of a Joint-Com
mittee ; and the issue of that Joint-Committee has been very
fairly stated by the right hon. gentleman. I am bound
to make a fair admission — and I do it in the presence of
my noble friend the Meraber for the Eossendale Division of
Lancashire,^ whose opinion at the time I do not now re
raeraber — that, although in the Governraent of 1868, to which
he and I belonged, there never was a question as to the pro
priety of the Tunnel, and Lord Granville wrote in that sense,
and even instituted communications with France ; yet when wc
corae to the Governraent of 1880, and the circumstances of
1881, 1882, and 1883, a change of opinion did find its way even
into the Cabinet. Some of us were what I should call not
quite sound and others of us were, and we all agreed that the
liest thing we could do was to refer the raatter to this impartial
tribunal. And when that tribunal rej)orted, there was no ira
proveraent in the circurastances. If I am asked why, under
tliese circurastances, I took part in throwing out the Channel
Tunnel Bill, ray answer is that we, the Government, were en
gaged in arduous affairs. Powers were put very freely into
action against us at that tirae which are now happily in abey
ance. We deenied that it was our duty to have some regard to
the time of Parliament. We knew it was impossible to pass
the Bill. It was a time of tempest ; and, as sensible men in
time of terapest are not satisfied with the shelter of an umbrella,
and seek shelter under the roof of some substantial building, so
we acted. Whether or not we ought to have shown more hero-
' The Mari|uis of Hartington.

1888] THE CHANNEL TUNNEL 33
ism I do not know. But we thought it idle to persevere in
a hopeless struggle. We did not in the least condemn the
Tunnel on its merits. We did not think there was the sUghtest
chance of proceeding with the BUl to the end, and we therefore
invited Parliament not to bestow its time on a discussion which
we believed to be perfectly useless. That was the principle on
which we proceeded at the time. I will say a little upon the
arguments of the right hon. gentleman ; but I am not going to
attempt to follow those arguments, as if we were engaged in a
debate Uke that of last night. I do not think it would be
expedient or convenient to make this a debate between both sides
of the House. There are sorae on this side of the House who
are probably unsound beside those who are usually so ; and I
hope there are sorae on that side who are sound ; and, therefore,
the House is totally without prejudice. But there is one thing
which fell frora the right hon. gentleraan which I regret, and
that was his coraparison between the internal condition of France
at the present tirae and the internal condition of France sorae
six or seven years ago. I own I think it was an error to enter
upon that chapter of the subject, even if the right hon. gentle
man entertains the opinion which he apparently does entertain.
But as he has said that he thinks there is not the same pro
spect of StabUity in France now as then, I must give rayself
the satisfaction so far of expressing quite a different opinion.
And I may remind the Government and the House of this —
that the French EepubUc never, since 1870, has been called upon
to pass through so severe a crisis as the crisis, not yet, I think,
twelve months old, with respect to the appointment of a Presi
dent. That was the most trying experience which it has had
to go through, and it made many of its friends and well-wishers
tremble as to the issue. It made every sound and right-rainded
raan in France apprehensive of what was to happen; and I
rejoice to say that France and the institutions of France came
through the struggle with as much calm temper and solidity as
any country in the world could have done.
T|sat is one thing I feel it right to say in consequence
of what fell from the right hon. gentleman. Follow-

34 :\IE GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 27
ing the right hon. gentleman opposite, I do not touch on
the engineering question. Neither will I touch upon the
commercial question, except to say frankly that I differ
from the right hon. gentleman, and I beUeve the com
mercial advantages of this Tunnel would be enormous. I have
nothing whatever to do with engineering or commercial ques
tions. I am here simply as a Member of Parliament to see
whether there is any reason why I should withhold my assent
to the plan. Now, Sir, I have used the farailiar illustration of
the urabrella as shelter in a storm. After hearing the speech
of the right hon. gentleman, I am not quite sure whether the
storm is stUl gonig on ; but I was under the impression that the
panic had passed away. My impression has been, and in the
main ray irapression is that the literary alarm and the social alarra,
which backed up the military alarm, are very greatly allayed,
and that we have now, what we had not five or six years ago,
a chance of a fair, temperate, and candid discussion. The right
hon. gentleman refers to a land frontier as if it were an unmixed
evil. No doubt it is less secure, upon the whole, than a sea
frontier; but he must not forget that a land frontier has
enorraous advantages with respect to intercourse between man
and raan, which are of great consequence in the -view of those
who believe that peace, and not war, is the natural and proper
condition of raankind ; and it is to be as we trust to a great
extent for this country, at least, the ordinary norraal and
habitual condition in which we live with foreign countries.
But on the question of procuring a land frontier, if it is a land
frontier, which I do not think it is, the habitual and standing
advantages of a land frontier are enormous compared with its
occasional disadvantages and dangers.
With regard to the political and railitary objections, I
raust say I feel pained, as an Englishraan, in considering
the extensive revolution of opinion that has taken place.
For twenty years this project lived and flourished, difficult
in an engineering sense, very difficult in a technical sense,
and as a financial question. I do not presume to ejiter
upon those questions, and I leave them to tliose who better

1 888] THE CHANNEL TUNNEL 35
understand them — but with no doubt cast on it from the point
of view of the security of this country. Now, Sir^ a transition
from darkness to light has taken place— and it ought to be
haUed, notwithstanding all the inconveniences which accompany
such transitions — and it is rather a serious c[uestion for us to
consider whether the English nation and Governraent from
1860 to 1880, or whether the influences which acted duiing the
years 1883-4 and 1885, and which are to some extent acting
now, lead us in the right or wrong direction. Speaking of the
dangers of a land frontier the right hon gentleman, in a lugu
brious manner, said that this end of the tunnel must always be
the subject of great anxiety. Well, if this end of the tunnel is
to be the subject of great anxiety, what -will the other end be ?
But, strange to say, I flnd that the other end of the tunnel is
the subject of no anxiety at all. Many of us are in the habit
of considering the French nation as light-minded, with great
resources and great ingenuity, talents, and energy, but still
light-minded, unlike ourselves, solid and stable, perhaps rather
heavy, but at any rate a very steady-going people, who make up
our minds slowly and resolutely, and do not change them.
[Laughter.] Oh, I am not speaking for myself — I am only
speaking on behalf of my country ; but I would ask hon. gentle
men to apply this test to the case of the French people. I must
say that they have treated this matter with the most dignified
self-restraint and consistency throughout. I am bound to give
my opinion, and I think the French, had they any other than
the most friendly disposition with regard to ourselves, might
have made serious complaints of the manner of their treatment
in having been invited to embark in this enterprise to an extent
only short of the signature of the Treaty when we receded from
the ground, and left the light-minded people standing in exactly
their original attitude, while we — not the nation, but the
Government and the circles of opinion known in London — have
very considerably altered. Well, but you will say, the question
of our invading France is not a matter to be considered at all.
Therefore, the other end of the tunnel does not seriously enter
into the question. The real question that we have before us is

36 Mil GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [june 27
the likelihood of the coming of that unhappy day — I agree it is
a perfectly possible thing, I think and hope it is nothing raore
than a possible event, still it must be taken into consideration —
when England will be iiiA'aded by France. I am very much
behind the age in a great many respects, and I am sorry to say
very much behind those represeutatiA^es of the age wIkj sit on
the opposite side of the House ; for I have the habit of being
guided to a certain extent in anticipations of the future by con
siderations of the past. I know that it is a raode of looking at
a subject entirely dismissed from consideration at present. For
about 800 years, beginning frora the Conquest, I want to know
which country has oftenest invaded the other, and I will state
this proposition — that the invasions of France by England have
been tenfold raore than the invasions of the British Islands by
France. Do you believe in a total revolution in the means of
action between the two countries ? I do not believe it. There
has, indeed, been a great change in one matter — that of popula
tion. Now, Sir, during the Eevolutionary wars what happened ?
The great Napoleon — the most wonderful general and strategist
of raodern times, the man of whom Dr DoUinger says that he
raised war as to the raode of its planning and execution, not as to
its raorality, alraost to the dignity and attitude of a fine art —
addressed the whole of his resources and thoughts to the
invasion of England. Ireland was tried three tiraes by the
Directory, and three times there were raiserable failures. Two
other fleets had set out, one frora Holland and one from Spain,
and they had been destroyed by the power of British arras at
sea. But Napoleon made it a study nightly and daily to devise
and arrange the means of invading England, and he was obliged
to recede frora it as an irapossible task. Not that it is an im
possible task. Do not suppose that I ara going to say anything
so extravagant. I ara going to say this. It is worth while for
those who have those portentous ideas of the power of France,
and so sraall an idea of our means of defence, to consider the
relative population of the two countries. At the tirae when
Napoleon prosecuted his scheraes the population of Great
Britain was 10,000,000 ; the population of France 22,000,000.

1 888] THE CHANNEL TUNNEL 37
I wUl not count the population of Ireland, for at that period,
unfortunately, as at others, it added nothing to the mUitary
resources of this country for repelUng invasion. WeU,
10,000,000 Englishmen constituted the sura of those whora
Napoleon had to invade, and he could not raanage it. At
the present moment this island contains far more than
30,000,000 raen, not less strong, not less determined, not less
energetic than the 10,000,000 in Napoleon's time at the be
ginning of the century, and they are close in mere numbers
upon the population of France.
Here, then, are two countries, and the question is whether
one wUl invade the other by means of the Channel Tunnel.
This is a country that has incessantly invaded France, and
I ara not sorry to say that though we did it with raarvel
lous success 500 years ago, we have not always been equaUy
successful in recent years, though there is the pararaount
case of 1815, with respect to which, if a paraUel case could
be quoted on the other side for the action of England and
WeUington, I would adrait that there would be soraething
raore in the argument of the right hon. gentleman than I can
allow that it contained as raatters stand. I shall be told that
Napoleon had no steara. That appears to be a strong argument,
but it is capable of being used both ways. I beUeve that the
invention of steam, and the great revolution that we have seen
in shipbuilding, have enorraously increased our raeans of defence
as compared with those of France. I believe that our defensive
power in times of crisis would develop itself with a rapidity, to
an extent, and with an efficiency that would surpass all previous
examples, and would astonish the world. There is one question
that I should Uke to ask — What is the ground taken up by those
gentlemen who point to our security as the main matter which
we have to consider ? Do they mean, on that ground, to Umit
our coraraunications with France ? Do they mean, as in the
time of Queen Anne, to " abate " our trade with France, as
being a source of danger and insecurity ? " No," says the right
hon. gentleman opposite ; " anything but it ; extend your com
munications to the uttermost ; give every facility by which men

38 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 27
and material " — for the word " goods " is synonymous with
material — " can pass from one country to the other, but do not
sanction the construction of this tunnel." That is the plan of
the right hon. gentleman. He proposes that the harbours of
the country should be enlarged. He set no limit to the range
of his phUanthropy and enlightened views upon this raatter.
He has no apprehension upon this subject. Well, ray appre
hension of invasion is not great ; but, if I ara to conjure up any
prospect of danger, I tell the right hon. gentleman dehberately
that his plan of harbours and great ships, and of making the
Channel a high road to be crossed with wonderful rapidity,
presents ten times the danger that the prospects of the tunnel
could possibly present to the most excitable mind.
Now, one word about the opinion of the military authorities. I
ara not going to speak of thera with contempt ; on the contrary, I
must say that I have the deepest respect for the profession of the
soldier, and especially for the function of a commander in the
field, charged with the care of large bodies of men, with the
duty of raaking the raost of the resources of the country, and
with the enorraously difficult task of bringing all to bear on a
particular point, under particular circurastances, and at a parti
cular tirae, for the purpose of war. That I deem to be one of
the highest and most extraordinary trials to which the human
mind can be subjected, and I do not know any other position in
which the deraand for energy and the exercise of every great
quality of human force is so tremendous and overwhelraing.
Therefore, for the opinion of Lord Wolseley, whora I believe to
be a man extremely valuable to his country in the great and
possible contingency of railitary danger and military effort, I
have the profoundest respect, as I have for the opinion of other
military authorities. But that respect is mainly due in relation
to the operations of war, or measures directly connected with
the operations of war. On other matters not so connected their
judgraent carries weight, and always will carry weight ; but in
questions of this character the judgments of military authorities
cannot be accepted as infallible, and we find that the prescrip
tions and recommendations of the military authorities of one

1 888] THE CHANNEL TUNNEL 39
day or one year are disowned and reversed by the miUtary
authorities of another time. We were told in 1860 that Lord
Palmerston's fortifications would give us such a state of security
that we need never be alarmed again ; but have we not had within
these latter years alarms more poignant, more startling, more
costly than, perhaps, were ever reached before in times of peace,
and these fortifications are regarded apparently by those who
recommended them with the greatest indifference ? If I am
asked to rely on the opinion of military authorities as infallible,
and required to surrender my own poor judgment and responsi
bility into their hands, I would quote the name of Alderney.
If there is a single creation on earth that may be called tho
creation of miUtary authority it is the work now represented by
the remains, the ruins, the shreds and tatters of the fortifica--
tions at Alderney. Save that the funds were supplied from the
Treasury, these works were a military creation. I know it is
soraetiraes said that all faults and imperfections in such cases
are due to the impertinent interference of civilians ; but what
ci-vilian had anything to do with tbe works at Alderney ? I
had to do with them in the sense of yielding to the imperative
demands of the military authorities of that day, excellent, able,
and highly distinguished men they were — Sir John Burgoyne,
Sir Henry Hardinge, and others who adorn our railitary
annals. They told us that with an expenditure of £150,000
Cherbourg would be sealed up, and no hostile fleet would ever
issue frora it. I was the raan who proposed this expenditure,
and the House agreed to it thirty-five years ago. But I need
not say the matter did not stop there ; the expenditure went up
to £1,500,000 — and I am not sure whether it stopped short' of
£2,000,000 — and of that there now reraain but the raiserable
fragments of that work, a monuraent of human folly, useless to
us as regards any purpose for which we were urged by military
authorities to adopt their plan, but perhaps not absolutely use
less to a possible eneray, with whom we may at some period
have to deal, and who may possibly be able to extract some
profit in the way of shelter and accoraraodation frora the ruins.
Then take another and very different exaraple frora another

40 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 27
branch of the subject — I wish to speak of nothing but of which
I have sorae personal knowledge. Everybody knows that in
the crisis of a great war the one real and appaUing difficulty, if
not danger, of this country is the fewness of raen, and not the
scantiness of any other resources whatever. We were, until the
forethought and sagacity of Lord Palraerston and Lord John
Russell relieved us of the task, in military occupation of the
Ionian Islands. Our garrison there used to consist in times of
peace of 6000 or 7000 men, and I believe it was admitted that,
considered in reference to times of war and in reference to Re
serves, such soldiers as we would require to have there would
stand to our debit in tirae of war at not less than 12,000 raen.
I am not speaking of political considerations ; but I do not
think any man in this House will say it is desirable to be
charged with the responsbUlity of raaintaining 12,000 men in a
tirae of a great war for the purpose of raaintaining a hold, even if
it were otherwise possible upon Corfu, Cephalonia, Zante, and the
other Ionian Isles. But at that time military authorities were
unanimous in their belief, and strongly urged upon the Govern
ment that the maintenance of our military hold upon the Ionian
Islands was a great, if not an essential, eleraent in the raainten
ance of our power in the Mediterranean. Soraething, we raust
adrait, is to be allowed for the professional zeal of men who
know no bounds to the service they render and the sacrifices
they are prepared to make when the country has occasion to
call for their services ; but much also must be allowed for the
fallibility of huraan judgraent when applied to an object they
consider it necessary to secure, and these are considerations
which in sorae degree equalise our position, though not ab
solutely, to the position of the railitary authorities. It seems
ludicrous for a person like myself to give an opinion on the
military danger of the Channel Tunnel in the face of the
opinion of military authorities; but I cannot get rid of the
feeUng — and it is siraply coraraon sense — that when I en
deavour to consider all the points, which I will not now enter
upon in detail, I ara bound to point out that it is not a safe
thing for us to say, " We have military authorities who tell us

1888] THE CHANNEL TUNNEL 41
this thing or that, and we ought to be satisfied," when, of
necessity, we have before our eyes many exemplary cases where
the predictions and injunctions of military authorities have been
totally falsified ; and when we know that what is preached by
the mUitary authorities of to-day is the direct reversal of what
was thought and taught by military authorities twenty or thirty
years ago. Under the circurastances, I trust we have arrived at
a time of comparative calm, when the matter can be considered
without prejudice, which was not possible in 1883. If I may
presume to refer to an old and homely proverb, " Philip was
then drunk ; " but PhUip is now, I trust, sober, and it is in the
sobriety of Philip that I place all my confidence. I hope. Sir,
I ara not going beyond Parliamentary etiquette, if I express my
hearty congratulations that you. Sir, in the midst of the storm
and excitement, were one of the men who affixed a signature to
the Minority Report on the subject. I believe even now we have
arrived at a happier time, when the gallant enterprise — for I
raust caU it so, arduous and difficult as it is — of my hon. friend
the Member for Hythe has some chance of fair judgraent. The
opinion of the nation was never against it. A fictitious opinion,
which is soraetiraes assumed to be national opinion, was too
strong against it at one period, and it was too strong for rae,
and it even now exists, but weakened and brought within
raoderate bounds, and there is now sorae chance for coraraon
sense and the exercise of that spirit of enterprise that has been
at all times among the noblest characteristics of our country.

THE STATE OF AGRICULTURE
Hawarden, August 23, 1888
Mr Gladstone was present at the Hawarden Flower Show, and afterwards spoke
from the Castle Terrace. Amongst speeches on cognate subjects may be men
tioned those at Gillingham on June 17, 1889, on Agriculture ; at Hawarden, on
August 22nd, 1889, on Horticulture ; and on Jan. 10, 1890, at Hawarden, to his
tenantry. This is not the first time I have addressed you on my own
behalf and on behalf of ray wife and faraily on the occasion of
our Horticultural Show, and I rejoice to think that every year
as it coraes round we have greater and greater testiraonies of
the good that it does, the great interest that is felt in it, and
the great exertions that are made by our friends to excel in the
cultivation of fruit and flowers and vegetables. Now, I do not
know whether I could tell you all the benefits that I think this
does ; but, in the first place, it is another bond of union between
us. It brings us together upon a good footing, with kindly
feelings for a good purpose ; and everything that does that, in
my opinion, is a very good thing. It is a great distinction of
this country that we have plenty of usages of that kind, and
the more we have of them the better, and I am delighted to
think that this one in particular is being added to what we had
before. But there is a great deal raore to say about it, and
more than one can say properly on the sarae occasion, because
it would be better to keep soraething for a future occasion.
The next thing is this — as regards flowers in particular, it
is a very great advantage to people of all ranks and classes
to have theraselves kept in close connection with the beautiful
things which God Almighty has ordained that Nature should
produce — it cultivates the sense of beauty in the people. You,
who live in the country, have advantages in that respect which
are not possessed by the town population ; and I do not know

1888] THE STATE OF AGEICULTURE 43
whether it is fresh in your recollection that the town popula
tion in England, which, if we go some hundreds of years back,
was not a twentieth part of the whole, is now actually more
than half of the whole. It is a most touching thing, in driving
through the poorest streets of London, to see how the feeling
for natural beauties acts even upon the town population ; how
everybody that can contrives to have some flower pots, some
geraniums, something or other that shall be to him the image
of Nature, keeping up his recollection of Nature, and showing
his sense of beauty. It is a real element of civilisation; it
tends to soften and refine huraan nature ; and, where there are
so many things of interest in life which tend to influence
human nature in another direction, it is an iraraense advantage
that an influence of this kind should be brought to work
among all classes of the population. If you go through the
wealthy streets of London you will see splendid boxes of flowers
in the fronts of the windows of the wealthy inhabitants.
Those are very pleasing to the eye, and it is certainly nothing
but creditable that those who purchase them should take de
Ught in them; but that is a very simple and easy matter for
the persons in opulent circumstances, compared with the little
flower pots in the back streets ; because the little flower pots in
the back streets generally represent efforts raade under diffi
culties and with self-denial. It is out of very narrow means,
it is in the midst of serious want that these things are
done ; and most certainly I should always look upon them with
the liveliest satisfaction. But then we raay say that this is the
imaginative side of the question, which has relation to taste and
civilisation. The economical side of it, however, must always
present itself to our minds. You delight in these beautiful
things; but, after all, in the flrst place, you are almost corapelled
also to conteraplate the subject with a view to profit. I want
to 'say one or two things to you upon that subject.
And first let me say I think there are very few persons who
know how large a question this is. In some degree it is a subject
on which there are varieties of opinion ; but there is an iraraense
deal to be done in this country in sraall parcels, in sraall de-

44 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [AUG. 23
taUs, upon patches and liraited areas of ground. To extend
that by what I raay in the rough call spade cultivation is a
matter, regarded in the aggregate, of enormous national im
portance. You wUl understand that I use that phrase in a
large sense, covering by it everything, in point of fact, that is
done by the huraan hand in detail by rainute care and constant
watchfulness, and all the incidents of the weather and other
circurastances; and here I raust say I learnt with pleasure
to-day, from the highest authorities, that this exhibition is the
very best exhibition we have ever had ; and, being the best, it
is made under the most unfavourable circumstances, because I
do not think that since this institution was founded we have
ever had so ungenial a season. Therefore you have been strug
gling under adverse circurastances, and I rejoice to see that you
have struggled successfully. Now, this is a very large question.
If you go across the Channel into France, where the land is very
much more subdivided than it is in this country, you will find
there that what is called the sraall culture is pursued by raU
lions of the population ; and there is no doubt at all about the fact
that a large part of the wealth of France arises frora tha,t kind of
work, which sorae people think insignificant when they look at
it in detail, but which when, as I have said, it is accuraulated
and put together coraes to be of enorraous national iraport
ance. Some thirty or forty years ago the landlords of this
country had a most unfortunate passion for what was called
consolidating farms, and they thought consolidation was the secret
of good econoraical cultivation and of high rents, not as against
the farraer, but of high rents, together with good circurastances
for the farraer. Then sorae people went a little further, and
thought also that raachinery was going to produce in agriculture
the same astonishing results that it has produced in raanu
factures. You know that in the staple manufactures of the
country machinery has put down, and has driven out of the
market, what used to be called hand labour. Now, with regard
to the land, the landlords have had a great lesson, by which I
have no doubt they will profit. They have gone through a very
severe crisis in the last ten years, and it has been observed, per-

1888] THE STATE OF AGRICULTURE 45
haps all through the country, that the small farms have done
better than the large, or, at all events, as another way of puttmg
it, that the large farms have done worse than the small. In a
very great degree the circurastances have been terribly against
large farras. But there was a great movement tending to re
move all agricultural production away frora the huraan hand.
And this would teU most against the small farms. Well, this
more favourable or less unfavourable experience of the sraall
farras shows you that sorae arguments have been pushed too far,
and that there is a great deal to be got out of the human hand, —
using the spade and other impleraents, applying to the soil more
effective processes of exposure to the air than can always be
applied by agricultural machinery, and leading to your obtain
ing frora the surface of the earth a far greater aggregate pro
duct than has ever yet been got, possibly than ever will be got,
by scientific processes and by wholesale methods in agriculture.
A great many people are very rauch alarmed about over
population. I do not so much believe in over-population
as raany people do. I think that if the land is made
the best use of, the result will be that it will feed a great
many more people than when its resources are not properly
turned to account ; and I cannot too strongly state — ray con
viction raay not be worth much, but at any rate it has been
formed upon the observation of a tolerably long life — that I am
persuaded there is an enormous econoraical iraportance in the
subject that has brought us here to-day. I have in my hands a
book called " The Producer and Consumer," by Samuel Eawson.
I had not seen this book when last I addressed you. It appears
to me to be very interesting, and to deserve a good deal of
attention. Mr Samuel Eawson describes hiraself as having been
for raore than thirty years a fruiterer and salesman in the fruit
find vegetable trades, apparently in Birmingham, and he seems
to be a person of consideration, because he dedicates his book, by
permission, to the Company of Fruiterers, a public body ; and no
doubt that is a good testimonial to his being a person of real
knowledge and experience. I shall send this copy of the book
to the Institute for those to read who may like to read it, for

46 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [AUG. 23
that would be turning it to better account than by keeping it
on my own shelves. He tells you a number of things, some of
them that are very reraarkable, and some of them that are
astonishing ; but let me say one thing. There are sorae persons
who say when you refer to France, or when you refer to
a district like the Channel Islands, where there is an enorraous
population relatively to the acreage, and the people are, generally
speaking, extremely well off, — they all say, " Well, but they have
beautiful climates." But our climate is not a bad climate.
There may be more enjoyment and brilliancy in the Mediter
ranean climate than there is in ours ; but it is commonly said, and
I believe it, though I do not want to apply it to this day parti
cularly, that there are more days in the year on which you can
enjoy the open air in England than in raost countries in Europe.
We have not got the worst extreraes; and, I do not know whether
you have observed it, but, although we have been grumbling at
the rain for the last month or six weeks, if you read the papers
you will see that both east and west of us they have had worse
weather than we have had. You will see terrible accounts of
storms and of ruin produced by storms in Austria, and this very
morning we have had some terrible accounts from America ; so
that, after all, I ara not at all sure that we are not as well off.
We have here a raedium climate, a teraperate cliraate, a healthy
climate, a climate that is good for raany kinds of productions.
The cliraate is not always the thing. There are many varieties
of cliraate, and it is not always the one that is thought the best
that does the best. A county that is supposed to be one of the
poorest, one of the least favourable and least genial climates in
the whole island is Aberdeenshire, and there is not a more
flourishing county in the whole island. The farmers of Aber
deenshire send to the London raarket the finest beef in the
world ; the farraers of AberdeenshUe send to the London corn
market such oats that Aberdeen oats are known by that name
because they cannot be ecjualled elsewhere, and they are generally
used for mixing with other oats to bring up the quality ; and,
what is perhaps more to the purpose in this connection, is that
Aberdeenshire people grow strawberries in enormous quantities

1888] THE STATE OF AGRICULTURE 47
for the London market. I admit that they have the advantage
of coming in a little later than other people ; but they do it and
make it pay. Great things are done in that way.
I wUl just mention to you one or two of the things
that this gentleman refers to. Mind, I eannot under
take to aver that he is correct in everything. I have
told you who he is, and what countenance he has, and
he appears to coraraand a great deal of inforraation in de
tail. He gives an account of some things that are astonish
ing, and perhaps that ought to be considered as extreme cases.
What do you think of this ? "I have known an acre of straw
berries making £200." Strawberries generally make a person's
lips water, but to hear of an acre of strawberries making £200
may make other people's lips water in another sense. I do not
know whether he means £200 net profit. I should think not ;
for in another place — I quote it from page 14 — he describes the
growth and the profit on strawberries in a particular season as
making £40 an acre, which seems to be pretty well. He men
tions a multitude of such subjects. One of them is the growth
of tomatoes. I see there are some specimens of tomatoes in the
show that we have beside us. He says : — " A very profitable
fruit that grows is the toraato, especially as grown in Cornwall,
Jersey, and Guernsey; but it grows here perfectly well. It
will make 4d. per lb. at the lowest price, and meets with a ready
sale in the market." They say that they packed, in the season
of 1885, 80,400,000 cans of tomatoes. That is the scale upon
which these things are done. The deraand for articles offered,
and for those articles of food which, in a raild sense, might
be called luxuries, comforts, and many other necessaries, is
enormous. You have got to deal with the huraan stomach ; and
the human stomach, whatever else raay be said of it, is a very
good customer. And you may rely upon its permanent demand.
It is very difficult to say to what extent that demand may be
further enlarged and magnified. The whole human race is not
so weU fed that it cannot take any more. There is a portion of
society which is said to eat more than is good for it. I am
sorry to say that about sixty years ago, in this country, there

48 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [aug. 23
were raany raUlions of people who had less than was good for
thera, and could not get a sufficiency of food. There raay be a
handful of people still in that unfortunate condition, but the
whole, I am happy to think, are a great deal better fed than
they were. They have got the comraand of all the markets of
the world. There is no impediraent to their getting everything
on the best terms that it can be grown for them ; and so I trust
it wUl always continue.
There is another question that does not corae so strictly
within the purpose of this institution, and that is the ques
tion of eggs. With regard to eggs, he raentions one case.
There is nothing very wonderful about it, but it is not un
satisfactory. I take this particular case he mentions on
page 29. A lady keeping from, twenty to thirty fowls has
recently kept a strict account of her poultry-feeding for a year,
and the result was a profit of over £5. Five pounds is not a
very large sum, but let us divide it among twenty-five fowls.
If there were twenty-five fowls and £5, that would be £1 for
every five fowls, or 4s. a year ; so that every fowl raakes a
penny a week nearly. That is a very reasonable return. In
Scotland they say, " Mony a raickle raaks a rauckle." That
shows that upon this world of ours there is a sphere for every
body and for every creature to be useful in; and I think if every
human being did his duty as well to himself and to society as
a fowl that makes a penny a week — well, he would have a
better account to give at the last than he will in sorae cases
now. Here is another instance I will raention to you. This
is an important consideration in the case of farming — that
when the land is originally of poor quality, it wiU very often not
be worth while to try to turn it to account for farraing processes ;
but in the case of spade cultivation the thing is difierent, and
it will often be worth while to turn to account for spade pur
poses what it is not worth while to turn to account for farraing
purposes. What you want for spade purposes, besides space andair,
is the easy use and application to the soil of fainUy labour. Thus
the spade will make the land profitable ; and though, of course,
the original quality of the land is very iraportant, yet it is not so

1 888] THE STATE OF AGRICULTURE 49
indispensable, and you may get a good deal out of indifferent
land by spade process that you would never get, probably, by
the ordinary processes of the plough and the harrow. Here is
a case mentioned by Mr Rawson on page 17. He says, at a
place near Bromsgrove, called Dodford, some years ago the
land did not pay — not untU ten years ago. How carae it to
pay then if it had not paid before ? Because the tenants paid
attention to the cultivation of strawberries, raspberries, and
bush fruit, and it is now paying well. That is this poor land,
which formerly did not pay at all. Upon a recent visit there
which he took— I beg you to pay special attention to this — he
found that many of the tenants had purchased their small
farms out of the proceeds made from this industry. Do not
suppose that this thing is to work magicaUy. That is not so.
It is a question of labour, of care, of skill, of vigilance. The
thing wiU not corae like a prize in a lottery. There are ex
cellent results to be had, but they must be had by the use of
proper means, and guarding in that way against the expectation
of imaginary results. I must say I have had plenty of instances
to show me that there is a great deal to be done, and that there is
a field open to every man who has industry and a fair capacity ;
and it has pleased God to give to the average man fair capa
city, if he wUl take care to add industry to it. There is a great
deal to be done for the improvement of their circumstances,
and the increase of the comforts of life. I once had — not
very long ago — a present sent to me ; it was a present, I think,
of a box of jam ; twelve pots of jam. The man who sent
it said he had been a farmer in Essex of 250 acres of land,
and that he had been brought to the point of ruin ; but
it had occurred to him to turn his attention to fruit cul
tivation, and he did so. He made great efforts, and got
the capital by the formation of a corapany, and he told rae
it had become a most flourishing concern. As he had seen
me among the preachers of the merits of this operation, he testi
fied his gratitude by sending me a box of jam.
Now, about getting to market. There is no doubt that
o-etting the produce to market is one of the most im-

50 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [aug. 23
portant subjects to which you can apply your attention.
I dare say you have seen that there has been passed in
the present Session of Parliament a Railway Rates BUl
that is intended to assist the British agricultural producer
in getting his produce to raarket. There has been a great
deal of complaint against railway conipanies. Men speak, and
Mr Rawson speaks, of the avarice of the railway corapanies ;
they are very wicked ; there is a great deal of avarice araong
them. Now, I believe that the people who direct the railway
companies are no better nor worse than the generality of raan
kind. I suppose they like to have as large dividends as they
can get, and it must be adraitted that their dividends are not
generally very large. I do not believe — you know it is a
curious thing in the history of the world, but I do not believe
that in any portion of the econoraical history of this country
you could find a case where there has been such a vast invest
raent of money or anything approaching it — now exceeding
eight millions sterling — for such raoderate returns as is the
case of the railway corapanies. However, I do not raean to say
that the intelligence of the railway corapanies is always perfect,
or the administration always enlightened ; but, on the whole, I
think they show a great deal of skill. They are a great deal in
the public eye, for what they do is very much canvassed, and
they ought to understand their interests pretty well, though I am
extreraely glad Parliaraent has passed an Act on the subject, and
if there is any tendency on their part to do injustice to the British
producer, it is quite right that that tendency should be checked.
But I want to call your attention to a practical point. I
do not believe that the avarice of the railway corapanies is the
great reason why the British producer cannot get his fruit, his
vegetables, his grain, hay, straw, and so forth to raarket; and I
do not believe that the railway corapanies are governed, as some
people think them to be, by a portentous and unnatural desire
to bring foreign produce into this country cheap, and to make
English produce dear. Rely upon it, that is not the secret. I
have my own opinion as to the secret. It raay not be worth
much, but I give it you. My opinion is this — that the reason

1 888] THE STATE OF AGRICULTURE 51
why the undeniable fact occurs that the foreign producer in
many instances gets his produce to market cheaper relatively is
this : that the foreign produce is collected and brought in such
large quantities, and is sent in great masses to the market.
That is the secret of cheap carriage. Now, unfortunately, we
have not got those combinations in England ; and I believe the
farmers could do themselves a great deal of good, and I believe
the garden cultivators can do themselves a great deal of good, by
the process that is described as laying your heads together.
Now, laying your heads together is a phrase that has been used
in various senses, and I ara anxious that I should not be mis
understood. Sixty years ago there was a most witty clergyman
in this country, Sydney Smith, a canon of St Paul's in London,
and in those days the Dean and Chapter of St Paul's were what
they are now — rather slow. If any of you go to London and
stay there, you cannot be there long without knowing that St
Paul's is a great working church and a great institution in Lon
don ; but then, though it was open on Sundays and week days,
in some way or other very little was known about it, and the
Dean and Chapter were slow. Now, Sydney Smith used to
enjoy himself by passing his wit and jokes upon this Dean and
Chapter, though he belonged to it himself. When wooden pave
ments — an excellent improvement, I think — when wooden pave
ments began to be introduced into London, there was a question
of laying down wooden pavements round St Paul's, and some
body raised the question whether it could be done — whether
they could get a wooden pavement to lay all round it. Sydney
Smith said, "There is no difficulty at all; let the Dean and
Chapter lay their heads together." That was a very good
wooden pavement. But it is not in that sense, it is in a con
trary sense, that I invite you to lay your heads together. I ask
you to lay your heads together in order that the brains within
those skulls may enter into communion with one another ; for I
am persuaded that it is by communication that the farmers and
garden producers can contrive to cope with those most serious
grievances, most serious inconveniences, those formidable im
pediments which prevent the produce from getting, into the

52 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [aug. 23
market, and which discourage its being produced at all, because
it is sent in such small parcels that the railway companies can
not affbrd to carry it except at large relative expense. You will
easUy see that where it is a question of tons, whether of potatoes
or cabbages, or of coals, the carrying of tons at a time can be
done far cheaper relatively to the quantities than where it is a
question of carrying pounds at a tirae. How are you to bring
the pounds into tons ? By bringing a number of producers
together to see how they can lay together the several stocks
that they get out of their ground, and thereby putting them
selves in a position to say to the railway corapanies, " We shall
provide ourselves at such tiraes and in such quantities, and you
will bring thera to raarket for us ; " and the railway corapanies,
having as raany eyes in their heads as other people, if it paid
them to carry the produce, would offer moderate terms for the
carriage. This gentleman, who seems to know a good deal of
what he writes about, says that a very good plan would be to
hire a truck. I think he says that that used to be an old
method. I ara sure I do not know whether he is right or
not in that, but he suggests that a certain nuniber of per
sons should hire a truck, pay so rauch for it, and then put upon
it, subject to the regulations of the corapany, what kind of pro
duce they like, so as to have perfect freedora in it. I do not
know whether that is so or not. What I feel is, that to bring
the produce to raarket at regular tiraes and in considerable
quantities is the true secret of cheapness and expedition in con
veyance. Everything depends upon cheapness and expedition in
conveyance. See how wonderfully the comraerce of the world
is increased. Everywhere the business of coramunication, the
business of sending people, and the business of sending goods
and articles from one place to another is every year coraing to
forra a larger and larger proportion of the whole business of
huraan life. And why is that ? Because the methods of doing
it wholesale, to bring it in quantity, are more and raore studied ;
because conveyance, which after all is an article in the raarket,
is in that way becoraing cheaper, and causes more things to be
conveyed.

1 888] THE STATE OF AGRICULTUEE 53
Now, gentlemen, and ladies too— for I raust not forget
the ladies at any time, rauch less to-day, because I find that
it is Mrs Johnson of Mancott Bank who has distinguished her
self in the show of the present year in a raanner which entitles
her to the highest honour — I have endeavoured in a familiar
way to approach this question, so far as I was able, in a practi
cal manner. We shall meet again from year to year, I hope,
during the time that ray life and the time that my wife's Ufe
may be prolonged, and after we are gone, well, then I hope that
my son, Mr W. H. Gladstone,^ and his wife, and after them our
grandson, may carry on these meetings for, I trust, fifty or sixty
years. But we are not likely to live for a hundred years yet.
All of us are obliged to the committee, to the judges, and to the
treasurer for the manner in which they have laboured for the
success of the show. You wUl be glad to hear that I have done ;
for, as I said before, we raust keep soraething to be said next
tirae, and I only therefore repeat ray hearty and cordial con
gratulations to you on the success you have attained, and the
expression of my hope that the success you have attained may
be regarded only as a stimulus to greater exertions in future ;
and I venture even to hope that you will reflect upon those
things that I have said about combination, about measures for
bringing your produce easily and rapidly to market. And that
reminds rae the word " raarket " brought up a new idea in ray
raind, and that is that I ara happy to say you are likely to have
much greater facility of access to market than you have had.
You are aware of the railway that has been made through the
parish, and of the bridge that is being made over the Dee, and
that there is a plan for making a railway frora the Dee Bridge
to Birkenhead. You are aware that there is a tunnel under the
Mersey at Birkenhead. All these things, I hope, within cer
tainly the next two years, will be joined one to another, and the
raeaning of that is that all your fruit, and vegetables, and
flowers, and whatever you can rear that is worth sending to
market, can be sent straight by rail from a station in the middle
of Hawarden, will be able to be sent by rail in the course of
' Mr W. H. Gladstone died July 4th, 1891.

54 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [aug. 23
perhaps an hour's or half-an-hour's conveyance to Liverpool —
that is to say, into a market of 700,000 people. That is not a
discouraging circumstance, so I hope you will be stimulated
more and raore to exertion, and that you will likewise consider
whether you cannot do something among yourselves to procure
better terms from the railway companies, to put them in a posi
tion to carry for you larger quantities, and therefore to carry your
goods at a cheaper rate.

THE EISTEDDFOD
Wrexham, September 4, 1888
Mr Gladstone delivered this speech as a visitor to the Eisteddfod at Wrexham.
There was no single sentence in the excellent address of our
chairman^ to-day raore important than that in which he said
that on the present occasion we had no politics within these
precincts. I ask no man and no woman what his or her poli
tics are, and I trust that no gentleraan or lady will ask me
anything about mine. Until I get out of Wrexham I shall
forget them altogether. Those who have been with rae to what,
following Parliamentary usage, I probably had best call another
place, will understand and know the meaning of my illustra
tion when I say that, on this particular occasion, in coming
among you again, I feel I have passed from a more doubtful
into a far purer atraosphere. I do assure you that, although
many are more competent to speak to you about your Eisteddfod
than I am, there is no man in or out of Wales, Welshman or
no Welshman, that can do it with a raore entire heart than
mine. I do not corae here to meet a public feeling, I corae here
to express a raost sincere conviction. I rejoice in this institu
tion, and I rejoice in witnessing its progress. The last tirae I
had the honour of addressing an Eisteddfod was in the town of
Mold^ ; and, according to my recollection, the audience before
whom I have now the honour to appear is not less than three
fold that which I then addressed. I see that the Eisteddfod is
taking hold in an increasing degree — I will not say upon the
masses of the people, because I think they have always given it
sympathy, but upon all classes of the community, and is more
and more fulfiUing the idea of that which I have seen officially
called a Welsh national institution. Let me tell you that I
' Sir Edward Watkin. " August 20, 1873.

56 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [sept. 4
underwent an uncorafortable sensation for a raoraent — do not
be alarraed — when, arriving in this roora, I found myself placed
within a yard of what was evidently the most powerful and effec
tive military band, and I said to rayself, " I ara very fond of music,
and I am very loyal to Welsh rausic ; but really this is rather
too close." But when the band began — I do assure you that if
they had been playing till this moment, if their lungs could
have stood it, and for ever so rauch longer, I should have hs
tened to it with unmixed delight. I had not read the official
description of it, but the thought that came into ray mind was,
"This is so good a band, that it surely must be a Welsh
band ; " and I was deUghted to flnd, on asking for inforraation,
which, in the Welsh portion of the book kindly handed to rae,
I had difficulty in gathering with as rauch certainty as I could
have wished — I was glad to find I was right in that supposi
tion. I hope I have not corae here to flatter you, but the
musical talent and the musical' feeling of Wales have always
had my unmixed and enthusiastic adrairation. Think, ladies
and gentleraen, of your " Men of Harlech." In ray judgraent,
for the purpose of a national air — I do not speak of science,
for I am not possessed of it — but for the purpose of a national
air, and without disparageraent of old " God save the Queen "
or anything else, it is perhaps the finest national air in the world.
As to the band that played to-day, I wish to tender to them my
cordial thanks, and to say that, in my opinion, they are a band
worthy even to play the " Men of Harlech." I ara not here to
select the Welsh professors of this art and that art, but I am
rerainded by what I have just said of music, to refer to a sister
art, and to congratulate you upon possessing, in the sister art of
painting, a representative of Wales, who is among the raost
ardent of all Welshmen — and that is saying a good deal, for
Welshmen are not deficient in the faculty of ardour — among
the most ardent of thera all, at the sarae time that he is one of
the most illustrious of our li-ving painters — there may be those
who would place hira quite at the top of the tree, I do not
exaggerate in the words I use — ]Mr Burne Jones.
I have not corae here to speak simply of indi-viduals, and I will

1888] THE EISTEDDFOD 57
pass on to say that I have been struck within the last few hours, I
will not say with the contrast, but, on the contrary, with the re
markable concord between things that are young and things
that are old. I have come this morning from Hawarden by
the Hawarden loop line to the Hawarden Junction, and from
the Hawarden Junction to Wrexham. I hope I may come
many times; but I take this opportunity of rendering ray
acknowledgraents to Sir E. Watkin, who has exhibited to you
the intelligence and the zeal and the liberality with which he
has applied hiraself, as a great railway constructor and director,
to the consideration of the wants of Wales. I express to hira
personally ray share in the obligation, and I congratulate
Wales on the close alliance which I hope will for the future
subsist between hira and her for the proraotion of the great
enterprises to which we must look for the opening up of the
country. That is not all of what I have seen to-day. I saw
great enthusiasm all the way frora Hawarden. People of all
ages and of both sexes gathered at every station with an un
usual nuraber, I think, of Welsh babies. The enthusiasra of
the babies it would be premature to describe — that is all re
served for the future; but the appearance of those babies
showed the enthusiasm of the mothers. Now this conjunction
of young and the old — I mean the new and the ancient — is,
in my opinion, the happiest augury for the well-being of a
country. A country is in a good and sound and healthy state
when it exhibits the spirit of progress in all its institutions
and in all its operations ; and when with that spirit of progress
it combines the spirit of affectionate retrospect upon the tiraes
and the generations that have gone before, and the deterraina
tion to husband and to turn at every point to the best account
all that these previous generations have accuraulated of what is
good and worthy for the benefit of us their children.
That I take to be the object and the purpose of this Eisteddfod,
which is a commemoration of the past. There are some who say
that its purpose is a mistake ; and, although I do not know
whether there are any to be found in Wales who say so now, there
used to be people who said that its purpose is a mistake ; and I

58 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [sept. 4
recollect the time when it was the custom araong many, while
recognising the noble feeling which had organised the Eistedd
fod, to deplore it as an economical error, and to deplore the
maintenance of the Welsh language, and say, " Let us have one
language, one speech, and one communication." I do not intend
to enter at full length into the question ; but I must own that
I have not heard or found that Welshmen, when they go into
England, ever lose their attachment to their native land ; and
I have not found that they are placed at any undue disadvan
tage in consequence of the attachment, although it embraces
and regards as the centre of Welsh life the tongue that is
spoken by the people. But I wish to say what, perhaps, will
shock some men — what shall I call thera ? — sorae who would
call themselves, at any rate, " nineteenth century " men. I
wish to say that, in my opinion, the principle of nationality
and the principle of reverence for antiquity — the principle of
what I may call local patriotism — is not only an ennobling
thing in itself, but has a great economic value. That, perhaps,
may seem a bold statement, but, in my opinion, it is a true one.
Everybody feels, I think, the first portion of it to be true —
namely, that it is of an ennobling character. The attachment
to your country, the attachment among British subjects to
Britain, but also the attachment among Welsh-born people to
Wales, has in it, in sorae degree, the nature both of an appeal
to energy and an incentive to its development, and, likewise, no
few eleraents of a raoral standard ; for the Welshman, go where
he may, will be unwilling to disgrace the name. It is a matter
of farailiar observation that even in the extremest east of
Europe, wherever free institutions have supplanted a state of
despotic government, the invariable effect has been to admin
ister an enorraous stimulus to the industrious activity of tht?
country. That is the case wherever we go; and, in my opinion,
as I think, with that sense of your Welsh birth, and what you
yourselves call your Welsh nationality — if it tends to the
general healthy development of the man, and if it makes him
more of a man than he would be without it, it would make hini
not only morally but economically a man of greater value than

1 888] THE EISTEDDFOD 59
he otherwise would be. Now, this is a day of retrospect, and,
having spoken of Welsh nationaUty, I am reminded to look
towards that inscription which you see upon a portion of your
walls, and which bears the narae of Henry Richard^ — a name
than which there can be no better symbol of Wales. I had the
honour of knowing him for the last twenty years, if not more,
and I have always been glad to take occasion of saying that I
regarded him in respect of the conduct, character, faculties, and
hopes of the people of Wales, as a teacher and a guide. I have
owed to hira rauch of what I have learned about Wales as my
experience has enlarged, and I owe a debt to him on that account
which I am ever glad to acknowledge. But, gentleraen, he has
broader clairas upon you. He has upon you the claim of having
exhibited to the world a model of character, of sympathy, and
delight. I have seen him in Parliaraent, the advocate of decided
opinions, the advocate of sorae opinions, perhaps araong the best
he entertained — for instance, in respect to peace — in which he
had no great nuraber of syrapathisers or followers. I have seen
him always uniting a most deterrained courage and resolution
in the assertion of his principles and views with the greatest
tenderness, gentleness, and sympathy towards those who differed
from hira. The fact is, though I do not wish unnecessarily and
officiously to introduce here considerations so soleran that per
haps they are better reserved in the raain for another place —
the fact is there was in hira what I raay call an inner place,
which was the secret of his outward self-coraraand, and of his
gentleness, as well as of his courage. It was irapossible to see
him without seeing that he was not only a professor of Chris
tianity, but that his mind was a sanctuary of Christian faith, of
Christian hope, and of Christian love ; and all those great powers
and principles radiated forth from the centre, and let his light
shine before men, though he himself would have been the last
either to assert or to recognise that there was in him any kind
or degree of merit of his own. I know his name will long be
remerabered and ever be revered among you, and I ara glad to
' M.P. for Merthyr Tydfil, a prominent member of the Peace Society, and
¦Welsh educationalist ; he died in August 1888.

60 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [sept. 4
have had the opportunity of paying to him this brief and im
perfect, but hearty and sincere, tribute of admiration and re
spect. We are bound on this occasion to go a little further back,
and to consider what Wales is and what Wales has been.
As Sir Edward Watkin so well said, she represents the concen
tration, within a limited territory, of what was once a consider
able portion of the entire British people. She has exhibited for
raany centuries a less numerous, and therefore less powerful,
race side by side with a race far more nuraerous, and of men of
unconquerable energy, and there has been a process which has
gone on for long, or, to use a familiar expression, what I may
call squeezing the Welsh into Wales ; for there were times when
Wales laid claim to portions of territory that are not Wales now.
Monmouthshire, Herefordshire, and Shrojjshire still bear the
token of that state of things, and show that Wales, which was
the ancient sanctuary of Christianity in Britain at the time
when it was stamped out in every county, or nearly every
county, now called English in the raiddle and south of England,
formerly used to extend considerably beyond her present
borders. And what a gaUant fight she made ! Of those
borders, araong others, one tradition relates to the very parish
in which I have the happiness to live, and which belongs to the
borderland. We are told that there was at one tirae a serious
political difference upon tbe question whether the Hawarden
district was to be raade Wales or to continue the borderland.
The tradition is that that great raan, Simon de Montfort, who,
although he has been dead 600 years, is notwithstanding one of
the greatest names in our history, distinctly recoramended and
advised that the River Dee should be taken as the border, and
that the Hawarden district should be recognised as part of
Wales. I am sorry to say it was by still higher political in
fluence that that recoraraendation was overborne, and that that
district continued to be a border district, and, being a border
district, it did not corae so absolutely under Welsh infiuence as
no doubt would otherwise have been the case. But we have
plenty of testiraonies in Hawarden to the original " Welshness,"

1 888] THE EISTEDDFOD 61
if I may so speak, of the country ; for our church takes its name
from St Deniol, a saint wholly unknown in England ; and the
parish is full of names which can only be explained by reference
to Welsh roots; and I have placed in the hands of Sir Edward
Watkin a little book, and a very interesting book, by Mr David
Lewis, a Welsh barrister, I believe, where the city of Hereford
is spoken of in connection with Wales as "her great city of
Hereford." All that has gone by. The Welsh made a very
good and a very hard fight against the English in self-defence,
and what was the consequence ? That the English were obliged
to surround your territory with great castles ; and the effect of
this has been that, as far as I can reckon, raore by far than one-
half of the great reraains of the castles in the whole island south
of the Tweed are castles that surround Wales. That shows that
Wales was inhabited by raen, and by men who valued and were
disposed to struggle for their liberties.
I think it raay entertain you if I tell you that on this occasion —
in order to ascertain and get some light upon previous ideas about
Wales—I thought I would resort to a source which is one on this
subject of peculiar interest — namely, the books of Shakespeare —
to see what Shakespeare thought about the Welsh, and, in the first
place, to corapare his ideas of the Welsh with his ideas of the Irish
and Scotch. If you take his ideas of the Irish, they are very
soon disposed of. He raentions them very seldora, and when he
does mention them it is in a manner far from agreeable to the
Irishman. But with regard to the Scotch, I think he was
slightly more respectful. You would find it not easy to get a
very good character of the Scotch out of the plays of Shake
speare. Now, whatever be the cause, it is of considerable
interest, in my opinion, to look to what he has said of the
Welsh, and that I can venture for the most part to quote with
out fear in this assembly. There is one part of it where I must
tax your patience and self-denial a little ; and I think I had
better get rid of that first, in order, like the children, to keep
the best part of the helping of pudding they have received to
the last. Therefore I will refer first to the case in which
Shakespeare is perhaps least flattering to Wales, and that is

62 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [sept. 4
the case of what was, after all, an exceedingly respectable man,
namely, the clergyraan, the priest. Sir Hugh Evans, in the
Merry Wives of Windsor. Sir Hugh Evans coraes into conflict
with Falstaff, and therefore, of course, becoraes the butt of
Falstaff; because, just as Cromwell, for example, when he was
in the field, knocked down everybody that opposed hira, so
Falstaff, although he was apt to run away frora the field of
battle, yet in the field of contest of wit he was superior to all
mankind ; and even Prince Henry, afterwards King Henry V.,
got the worst of it when he came to loggerheads with Falstaff in a
tournament of wit. So it was no wonder if Falstaff took certain
liberties with Sir Hugh Evans. Sir Hugh Evans was dressed up
in the Merry Wives of Windsor as a fairy to pinch Falstaff.
Being so, he was the more a fit subject for Falstaff, who called
him three things. They are none of them very bad. First of
all, he called hira a Welsh goat ; secondly, he called hira a piece
of toasted cheese ; and, thirdly, when he professed to be very
much exhausted and dejected, he complained of him and said,
" I am not able to answer the Welsh flannel." I believe that is
all that Shakespeare said in mischief. You have heard the
worst of it, and it is not very bad. But here is a curious thing
as it appears to me, and that was that there was a Welsh parson,
as he is called, I think, in the play. At that time they had not
taken raany Welsh clergymen to Windsor, but they had imported
in the last century a great raany English clergyraen to be bishops
and priests in Wales, with what consequences to the welfare of
the Church you know too well. And that is a point on which
unhappily, there can be no difference of opinion. But it is a
curious circurastance that Shakespeare should have produced a
Welsh clergyraan at Windsor ; and my explanation of it is that
the presence of this Welsh clergyman at Windsor, and also
sorae good words which Shakespeare used about the Welsh,
were due to the strong predilection of Queen Elizabeth for
Wales. Never forget when you hear the narae of Queen
Elizabeth that, if she is a person with respect to whom in her
character as a woman there may be raany criticisras and differ
ences of opinion, yet she is a woraan to whom, in my opinion,

1888] THE EISTEDDFOD 63
Englishmen owe an immeasurable debt, and whom Welshmen
ought to remember with respect. You owe to her in the main
the translation of the Bible, and the translation of the Bible in
Wales has been what it was in England — a national institution,
a prop and buttress to the language. Of that I will say a word
more by and by. Moreover, I believe that, altogether, not
Elizabeth only, but the prior sovereigns of the Tudor race had a
friendly feeling towards Wales.
And now I am coming to loggerheads for a moment with
my friend the President. But do not be afraid; there will
be no inconvenient consequences. He said that Henry
VIII. passed a law restricting the use of the language. Well,
I am a man who likes to be cautious in his operations.
I wUl not say whether that is so or not, but I will give
you what is said by Mr Lewis in his interesting pamphlet,
called " The Welshmen in English Literature." Mr Lewis says
that there were fifteen penal Acts in force against Wales,
Welshmen, and the Welsh tongue at the time when the Tudor
faraily came to the throne in the person of Henry VIL; but Mr
Lewis declares, and I hope the chairman will not contradict it,
that these Acts were repealed upon a petition of the people of
Wales in the reign of Henry VIII. Therefore, that was a time,
according to that statement, very favourable to the people of
Wales — that was the time when Flintshire, the county with
which we are connected, first came into existence as a county —
that was the time when Wales was organised in shires, when the
local government of England was given to Wales; and Wales has
greatly profited by that simUarity of institutions. Let us see
what Shakespeare says about the W^elsh ir other places. In the
first place, he introduces Fluellyn in the play of Henry the Fifth,
and Fluellyn proves himself to be not only a gallant soldier, but
a wise captain, and Shakespeare has reraarked in his favour this
line, " There is much care and valour in this Welshman." Care
and valour. If you can get care and valour united in a soldier,
you have got the main part of a good basis upon which to build
a solid character ; but that is not all. I have told you how he
speaks in his works with regard to other inhabitants of these

64 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [sept. 4
islands. He speaks of the " trusty " Welshman, he speaks of
the " loving " Welshman ; and the Duke of Buckingham, when
in the field, is spoken of as " backed with the hardy Welshmen."
Shakespeare, then, calls the Welsh trusty, loving, and hardy.
What else do you desire ? He could not have done it better if
he had received his education in the Eisteddfod. To describe a
nation as being trusty, as being aflectionate, and as being
brave and enduring, you have left very little indeed which
I can add to the character. These, I think, were very
good times, and Shakespeare was a great man, and you can
have no more distinguished and illustrious title to fall back upon
than by citing what he has thought and what he has said of the
Welsh. I do not doubt in my own raind that some portion of
the credit ought to be reflected upon Queen Elizabeth, because
Shakespeare added to his other qualities that of being a good
courtier and a loyal king-and-queen-worshipper ; and I have no
doubt he considered a little what would be acceptable in high
quarters when he penned these remarkable eulogies of the
Welsh people. StUl I have no doubt his heart assented.
But now, ladies and gentleraen, one word more. I am not going
to detain you much longer. I do not know whether many of you
have read a paraphlet written by a distinguished Welshraan, Mr
Ivor James, of University College,' Cardiff, in which he de
velops a most curious course of events in respect to the Welsh
language. In fact he says that about 300 or 400 years ago the
Welsh language was in great danger of becoming extinct. It
wanted sorae central prop and stay. It was not found at that
tirae in the institutions of the Church. The services of the
Church were in Latin, consequently they did nothing for the
Welsh language but when I speak of the services of the
Church, I want to say one word under a kind of constraint of
conscience, because it is an open point on which I think I
difter frora many worthy men. The raass of the people believe
the Welsh to have been a very religious people for about 120 or
150 years, but there are a great many who are in the habit of
saymg that before that time the Welsh were a very godless
j)eople. This is a place, I hope, of freedom of opinion, and

1 888] THE EISTEDDFOD 65
wUl you aUow me to say I do not believe a word of it ? I be
Ueve that they were a religious people from the time that they
have been a people, from the time when they harboured the old
Christian reUgion in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries at the
time when it was driven out of the great bulk of the English
counties but I am aware that in the last 100 or 150 years they
have had extraordinary calls made upon their devout zeal, and
that they have met these calls in a manner and to a degree, out
of means coraparatively slender, which undoubtedly raake that
period illustrious in the religious history of the country. But
I corae to Mr Jaraes, who says there was no support to the
Welsh tongue from the services of the Church. There were
many raonasteries in the country, but the raonasteries were of
English influence, and around thera grew .English-speaking
populations. There were, perhaps, stUl more castles in the
country, every one of which was held by an English garrison.
Around those castles gathered villages and towns, of which we
have the reraains at Hawarden and in plenty of other places ;
but in those castles English was the language spoken, and Eng
Ush diffused itself frora every one of those centres, and the
consequence was that a treraendous pressure frora a great nura
ber of centres was brought to bear by the dominant race and by
the dominant tongue upon the native race of the country. Mr
Rhys supports his doctrine — I ara speaking frora raemory, and no
doubt soraewhat iraperfectly, but I think it of great interest — ^by
.showing that for a certain tirae after the invention of printing
the nuraber of Welsh books printed was exceedingly sraall
compared with the number of English books printed for Wales.
Now, in this period, as he shows, the great centres of English
influence were destroyed ; the monasteries were destroyed in
the reign of Henry VIIL, and the less we say about that the
better. I think as to the manner in which that operation
was perforraed, it was brutal, cruel, and relentless. A great
nuraber of centres of religious influence were then destroyed.
Then carae the destruction of castles. I believe there was not
a castle in Wales that was not disraantled by or about the
time of the Restoration ; so all those centres of English influ-
e

66 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [sept. 4
ence were destroyed, Consequently there was more room for
the Welsh language to get fair play. Then what happened ?
The services of the Church, forraerly in a foreign tongue, carae
to be in Welsh, and the services of the Church in Welsh, and
the translation of the Bible into Welsh, forraed the raainstay
and central prop for the Welsh language all through the coun
try. This raay be an historical speculation in sorae degree, but
I have always thought it an extremely curious question deserv
ing of all investigation.
How was it that the Welsh, who are now in the main
a nation of Nonconformists, in the middle of the seven
teenth century were the stoutest Churchmen in the country ?
There is no doubt alDout the fact that Wales was the strong
hold of the Church and Royalist party. I believe the ex
planation of that is to be found in the circumstances I have
mentioned — naraely, that in the sixteenth century it was
through the arrangements of the Church that the Welsh people
got the support and stay for their language, and that from that
tirae forward it became certain that if they were attached to it,
then it would remain as long as they chose to keep it. What
happened ? Was it not the intrusion of English into the
country, and of English into the churches, irrespective of the
capacity of the people to understand it even, and the intrusion
of English clergyraen and English bishops not in syrapathy
with the people — was not that a raain cause of producing
estrangeraent which left the Welsh people in a state of reli
gious destitution, from which they have made such wonderful,
such heroic, and such effectual efforts to detach themselves ?
Now, if that be so, it enables me to wind up in a moraent. I
have endeavoured to show you what the Welsh language re
quired. I presurae that all of you present are here for the
purpose of coniraeniorating its literature and its arts, and you
wish to maintain that wide and prevaUing usage of it which
we find at present in alraost every part of Wales. If so, see
what has happened in forraer tiraes; see how the language
gave way 300 or 400 years ago, if Professor Rhys is right, for
want of institutions to sustain it. See how, with institutions

1 888] THE EISTEDDFOD 67
to sustain it, the Welsh language rallied and becarae raore
than ever deeply rooted in the rainds and affections of the
people. Then I say, gentleraen, I have a crowning testimony
in favour of this Eisteddfod, because it is here that you meet for
the purpose of giving it a recognised, an irapartial, a universal
means of countenance and support. It is here that you rally
the whole Welsh nation for the purpose, and long, I hope, gentle
men, after I have gone — I will say more, and add that long
after the youngest and heartiest among us has departed to his
account — may these raeetings flourish, and raay the attach
ment of the Welsh people to their institutions and their
tongue always have fair play, and result in their being raain
tained, not only for the gratification of their tastes, but, as I
believe, for the elevation of their characters, and for the promo
tion of the best and the highest welfare of the country. Ladies
and gentlemen, I have detained you a long time, but I trust
you will not feel insensible to the fact that I have looked
seriously at the questions for the purpose of which this insti
tution exists. What I have spoken to you I have spoken in
conformity with all the sentiments of ray heart, and with the
best conclusions at which ray judgraent could arrive. Pro
sperity to Wales, and prosperity to the Eisteddfod as a great
means of proraoting the welfare of Wales !

THE IRISH QUESTION
Birmingham, November 7, 1888
On the occasion of the eleventh annual meeting of the National Liberal Federa
tion at Birmingham, Mr Gladstone addressed a great meeting iu Bingley Hall.
During his visit to Birmingham he made several other speeches.
Mr Chairman, Ladies, and Gentlemen, — I fear that before
this asserably, almost unparallelled except in the town of
Birrainghara, I must entirely faU to address myself in
any competent manner to the resolution^ which you have
adopted, except upon the supposition that I raay venture
to draw to a degree altogether unusual upon your patience, your
indulgence, and your self-denial, so that although we go beyond
the nuraerical limits of all ordinary public meetings, neverthe
less we may discharge the duties of intelligent citizens met
here to consider Iraperial matters of the highest possible im
portance, and to reason upon the conduct which it behoves us
to pursue. Now, gentleraen, the resolution you have passed
stands in broad contradiction to a statement which I have seen
repeated in the journals of recent days — that the question of
Home Eule is dead. If boldness of assertion can carry the
day, I ara by no means sure that we may not corae off second
l^est. Tlie raan who araong all our opponents speaks with the
greatest weight, and on many occasions with the greatest
moderation — I mean Lord Hartington — has recently expressed
his belief that he will hear no more of the argument for Horae
Rule ; and he has developed in recent speeches a faculty of
which, among his many great gifts, he had nev'er pre-viously
been suspected, and that is the faculty of a most bold and
vivid iraagination. Now we shall see, and we shall see in part
frora the proceedings of this asserably, whether the question of
1 Expressing approval of Mr Gladstone's Policy.

1 888] THE IRISH QUESTION 69
Home Rule is dead, or whether the undertaker is to be put into
request for the purpose of serving the absolute necessities of a
party very different from ours.
Gentlemen, what I wish to state to you is, firstly, that the
Irish cannot and the Irish ought not, to acquiesce in a Govern
ment which is against thera, a Governraent of unequal laws ; — -
that they ought to resent, and that they raust and do resent
the conduct of an Administration which, while it professes
to be devoted to the execution of the law, on the contrary,
never fails to manifest its contempt for the law in every
case where it finds the action of the law is inconvenient to
its purposes and airas ; and, finally, gentleraen, I hold — and
I believe you will hold with me — that apart from the ques
tion of Iraperial interests, the Irish themselves, the Irish
people, must in the long run be the best judges in what man
ner and in what place it is most expedient and most hope
ful to deal with the local and particular affairs of Ireland.
Well, gentlemen, have I used these phrases in a spirit of levity ?
On the contrary, there is not a word that I have said that does
not, in ray opinion, adrait of deraonstration as conclusive as you
can desire, but much raore copious than I should like, or than
it would be practicable for rae to inflict upon you. I said, first,
the Irish people did not and ought not to acquiesce in a system
of unequal laws. Do they suffer under any unequal laws ?
Let us bring the question to an issue; and I will give you
examples, which in ray opinion cannot for a moraent — I don't
even believe will for a moment — be questioned or denied.
I take first the law of combination araong the poorer classes
of the community, by which they seek — in the use of a weapon
that Nature has supplied to them — to redress the serious in
equalities under which they stand, as compared with their
wealthier neighbours, in doing justice to themselves with re
spect to their social and econoraical necessities. You have a
law of corabination in England which is just and equal, and
which perraits the working people to corabine without expos
ing thera to the charge of conspiracy ; but in Ireland, on the
contrary, they raay not practise the very same expedient of

70 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [NOV. 7
endeavouring to place themselves in collective action, which is
prohibited under the name of inducing others to exclusive deal
ing. We know from very high authority — the authority of one
of the most eminent judges on the Irish bench, and one of the
most upright, namely. Chief Baron Palles — that such combina
tions for exclusive dealing, and for inducing others to enter into
exclusive dealing, may expose the Irishman, although they do
not expose the Englishman, to a charge of conspiracy, and to
the penalties foUowing upon the charge.
Well, I take another case still more siraple ; I take the law of
public raeeting, one of the raost vital as a condition of the preser
vation of our liberties. Does the Irishraan, as respects the law of
public raeeting, enjoy equality with the native of this island ?
Supposing, gentlemen, if you will allow rae the supposition, im
probable as it is— that is not material, it is for argument's
sake — supposing you and I have in view an important object,
and propose to promote it by the gathering together of a public
assembly. Supposing the public authority of this country
deems that assembly to be dangerous, without entering into
minute definitions, either dangerous to the public peace, which,
in this country, I believe, is the only ground on which any
authority would venture to act against it, but supposing the
public authority prohibits our assembly — that is the raaterial
point — it is our duty for the raoraent, I believe, to submit to
the public authority, but we are at liberty to challenge it in a
court of justice — we are at liberty to obtain against that public
authority the sentence of a court of justice, and under the
protection of a judicial power, if we can make good our case at
law, we are entitled to redress, and to hold such a public
raeeting. Gentleraen, if a parallel case occurs in Ireland,
where the people desire to resort to the use of that powerful
and legitimate instrument — and God knows that in Ireland
they have tenfold and fif tyfold the occasion that we have 01
that, I believe, we ever shall have, to employ that instrument
— if in Ireland it is intended to employ it, the Lord-Lieutenant
can forbid that meeting. He can forbid it under the condi
tions of the so-called Criraes Act, by the use of the raost

1888] THE lEISH QUESTION 71
general and vague terras in which he is authorised by the
Coercion Act to exercise its powers. There is no power of
calling hiin to account before a court of justice We asked in
the House of Comraons that that power raight be given It
was refused, and we were not able even to obtain a discussion
of the question, because the systera called the Closure was put
into operation to prevent our arguing that the Irishmen ought, in
this vital matter, to have equality of rights with the Englishmen.
I will give you another example — -the law of prison discipline.
In England, if a person is put in prison, and if he is convicted
of the oS'ence of sedition — a political if not a very grave offence
— he is entitled (I believe I am correct m saying he is entitled)
to be reUeved from the ordinary indignities and hardships of
prison life to which the ordinary crirainal is habitually subject,
and he enjoys the pri-vileges of what are called first-class rais-
demeanants. In Ireland there is no such power — there is no
such law, and sixteen at least of the Merabers of Parliament
returned by Irish constituencies have been put in prison for
poUtical offences rauch less connected than the offence of sedi
tion is with breach of the public tranquillity, or danger to the
State ; and a gross inequality prevails between the countries,
justifyuig the assertion I made that the Irish are not, and
ought not to be, contented or to acquiesce in gross inequalities
of law afiecting their condition. But I should understate the case
in saying that the ofience of sedition in Ireland would not have
the sarae treatraent as it has in England. The law of sedition
is, I believe, the sarae in the two countries ; but what I stand
upon is this — that for offences rauch less than those of sedition
in Ireland — naraely, such offences as those charged against
Merabers of Parliaraent, — after having been subjected to trial
before the tribunal of resident raagistrates, — disraissible at
pleasure by the Crown, or upon being found guilty of what
is deenied conduct at variance with the Coercion Act — they
have been subject to indignities to which, by the general law
of the land, persons guilty of sedition (a rauch higher and graver
offence) are not subject when they suffer the punishraent to
which they may have been sentenced.

72 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [NOV. 7
Well now, gentlemen, I give you another example. You will
perceive that these cases all dwell and all turn upon matters in
which the condition of the Irish people is vitally concerned.
They all turn upon raatters associated with their daily pursuits ;
with the raeans of gaining their livelihood, and with securities
that they possess, or ought to possess, for gaining that liveli
hood in peace and in quietness. I corae now to another
instance, still raore clear and definite and intelligible to
every raind, without entering into detail. We have had
two cases, one on each side of the Channel, or rather two
classes of cases, in which it has been found necessary for
Parliaraent during these later years to interfere with contracts
raade between landlord and tenant, and to apply to those con
tracts the correcting hand of a public authority for the purpose
of preventing a practical operation of the power, which has
araounted in many cases to the infiiction of the severest and
most grinding hardships. Those cases have been, the one of
them, as you know very well, in Ireland, and the other among
the crofters of the Highlands. In Ireland, after an obstinate
and prolonged refusal, after bringing about difficulties of the
gravest order in the year 1886-7 through that refusal. Parlia
ment did at length pass an Act^ enabling the Land Commission
of the country to deal with the rents agreed upon, or purporting
to be agreed upon, between landlord and tenant, and to give relief
to the tenant where that relief should seem to be just. But in
Ireland there has been a systera under which the position of the
tenant has been burdened and aggravated by past arrears. In
cases where the tenant in Ireland has been unable to pay the
rent, instead of a release or an allowance, as has been given in
England, the practice largely followed has been to add the then
rent to the arrears, and keep thera hanging over the head of the
tenant. Consequently we have contended that the power given
to the Land Coraraission to deal with rents should also be ex
tended to dealing with arrears ; and this raost just and reason
able claim in Ireland was refused. How did you proceed in
Scotland ? The sarae case had arisen in Scotland. The crofter
1 The Irish Laud Bill of 1887.

1 888] THE lEISH QUESTION 73
claimed that relief should be given to him. Belief was given
him, and judges were appointed who were erapowered to remit
his rent. These judges were also empowered to remit or reduce
his arrears. And observe the enormous iraportance of this dis
tinction ; for in Scotland, while the judges in the case of the
Highland crofter reraitted in general about 30 per cent, of the
rent, they reraitted raore than 50 per cent., I believe nearly 60
per cent., of the arrears ; while the consequence of withholding
that power in Ireland has been to leave the tenant at the mercy
of every landlord who was disposed to make undue use of his
position, and has brought about, not in every case by a direct
and avowed raethod of action, but has brought about, alraost as
a general rule, not directly, but, as I believe, by a substantial
relation of cause and effect, those painful e-victions which have
shocked the mind of this country from one end to the other,
and which make it hopeless to believe that the Irish people can
ever acquiesce with satisfaction in a state of things so contrary
to principles of equal dealing between the three countries.
Now, gentleraen, I will say no raore upon that subject of unequal
laws, except that Lord Hartington has stated that the painful
character of these evictions entails a responsibility which lies at
the door of the Liberal party. Now, gentleraen, the discussion
of such evictions I will not enter upon. I will not raake myself
responsible for any broad and general statement such as goes
beyond, and must go beyond, the knowledge I possess ; but I
say, in the first place, that these evictions are from time to tirae
attended with circurastances of horror in Ireland that would not
for a raoment be endured in this country upon any plea, how
ever important and generally substantial it raight be, with
reference to the rights of property, whether in land or in any
thing else. Take the case, for exaraple, which happened quite
recently of a man of the narae of Dunne, who was suffering
from a bronchial comnlaint, who besought, in consequence of
this bronchial complaint, that he might not be turned out of
his house. In defiance of the prayer, and when he was in that
condition, he was turned out of doors, and I believe that within
twenty-four hours, or within a very short period indeed— not

74 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [nov. 7
much longer — he paid the debt of nature ; and on the very day
when the inquest on his body coraraenced the evictions of his
neighbours were being carried on. These things, gentleraen,
could not happen among us. But apart from these cases, which
I hope are incidental and occasional only, I affirm that the re
sponsibility of such evictions lies at the doors of those who refused
in 1886 to give to the Irish tenant the relief they had given to
the Highland tenant, and who caused thera, principally through
the medium of the arrears owing to the landlord, notwithstanding
the prospective relief that had been granted to them in point of
rent, to remain at his mercy. Many landlords, I hope most of
thera, would not abuse that position, but there are undoubtedly
those who do abuse it. Frora that abuse intense suffering arises,
and that suffering pierces into the hearts of the whole Irish, ay,
and in a great degree of the English people also, and leaves be
hind bitter recollections that can never be effaced until you
deterraine to take eff'ectual provision against the recurrence of
such raischief.
Well now, gentleraen, I raake another charge, and it is this —
the Governraent professes to be a Governraent of law and order.
I challenge the assertion. I adrait that they have passed cruel
and insidious laws, under which many are entrapped into acts
which have been made offences in Ireland, though they would
not be offences in England ; but I affirra that no Government
known to this country in the last half century has ever shown
so unblushing and unscrupulous a contempt for law in every
case where respect for law would have been inconvenient for
the attainment of its object. Am I able, gentlemen, to support
that statement ? You shall judge. I wish it were in your
power, and in the power of most among you, to read a little
tract — and what I am now going to say does not bear so much
upon the case of the Government (and on that account I am
rather glad of it), it does not bear so much upon the case of the
Government as it does bear upon the system of legal administra
tion in Ireland. The tract is called The Murder of John Kin-
sclla. It is described as " A chapter frora the history of law and
order in Ireland." It is written by a gentleraan who raust be

1 888] THE IRISH QUESTION 75
considered as responsible — a priest, I believe, of the neighbour
hood, Dr Patrick Dillon. It sums up the whole case, which we
had before known only in disjointed fragments, with every
evidence of indisputable truth ; and I believe, gentlemen, those
among you who are able to read this pamphlet will arrive at the
same painful conclusion as myself.
This man was a raan who was unquestionably — for it is ad
mitted on all hands — shot down in open day without having
wounded anybody, without having injured anybody — shot down
in open day by a body of persons who are called Emergency
men. Proceedings took place, a coroner's inquest was held, and
a sort of trial. You should go through the details to see how
the question was handled, how the magistrates, how the different
officers concerned made their exaraination, or shirked raaking
their examination, into the particulars of the case ; and I do not
scruple, gentleraen, as a responsible person, to say, after reading
irapartially that stateraent, you wUl come to the conclusion that
(owing to a proven and inveterate vice in the administrative
systera of Ireland) the life of a Nationalist is not regarded as
being upon a footing with the life of a citizen in this country —
at least it is not supposed to be watched with the sarae vigilant
jealousy, circled with the same effectual guarantees ; and where
it has been lost, the examination is an examination conducted in
a different spirit ; rather, apparently, with the desire to find the
means of escape from any serious result of the loss of life that
has taken place than with that other spirit, which would pre
vail in other places and districts of this country, with regard to
every class of citizen, be it what it might — naraely, the desire
that full justice should be done, and that the wrong perpe
trated should be brought effectuaUy before the tribunals of the
country. But the action, gentlemen, in this case, as I have said, does
not immediately concern Her Majesty's Government, inasrauch
as, although I ara not prepared to say that they ought not to
have acted, I am not aware that they have been distinctly and
positively challenged with regard to it. I raust now narae to
you another case — a narae not unfamiliar, a name which must

76 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [nov. 7
be repeated in this country again and again until the right is
done, or until wrong is acknowledged — that is the name of
Mitchelstown. Now, gentlemen, recollect what happened in the
case of Mitchelstown. An asserably had gathered together for
a legal purpose. That assembly was disturbed — illegally dis
turbed — by the action of the constabulary. The constabulary,
under the pretext of bringing a reporter of the proceedings, who
ought to have gone by another route to the platform, that con
stabulary atterapted to force its way right through the heart of
the crowd ; — and I ask you what you would say in this country
if it were possible — and, thank God, it is not ! — if from some
portion of this hall a body of sixteen policemen should en
deavour to force their way to the platform where I stand, under
the pretext of bringing a reporter to note the proceedings ; — aye,
gentleraen, and when they failed, they again charged the people,
and I speak what I know to be the raind of great lawyers when
I say every man of that constabulary was guilty of a breach of
the peace, and every one of theni ought to have been put in
prison. Don't suppose I forget that they were acting under
orders. Don't suppose I raean that they were justly liable to
severe punishment. I am raerely speaking of the illegality of
their act, which was gross and undeniable. The raeeting was
attacked a second time, and, being attacked a second tirae, it
resisted the constabulary. Hereupon, although the meeting re
mained in the square where it was being held, the constabulary
fired into the crowd from the windows of their barracks, and
three Irish citizens were killed as the result of that firing.
An inquest was held, and the verdict of the inquest —
whether right or wrongly, on technical grounds, I won't under
take to say — the verdict of the inquest was quashed. No other
effective inquiry was raade. The Government took no step
whatever to ascertain the cause of the death of these three
men. The moraent that the report reached the House of
Coraraons they declared the constabulary had done its duty,
and nothing but its duty. They pretended that there had been
an attack by the raass of the raeeting upon the constabulary
barracks. It was proved by the raost distinct evidence that

1 888] THE lEISH QUESTION 77
there never were twenty or fifty people in the street where the
barracks were. The attention of this country was called to the
facts, although they have never been brought out with that
fulness with which, if it were possible, I should wish to lay
them before you. But it being found that the allegations of a
crowd and a riot could not be sustained — except, indeed, the
riot was raade by the constabulary themselves — this being
found, it was thought necessary to offer some kind of apology
for the deaths of these three raen, and what happened ? After
six or eight months had elapsed, a case was got up under the
authority of an officer of the Governraent in Ireland in respect
of one of the persons killed.
I think he was a youth naraed Lonergan, who stood in the
square where the raeeting was being held ; and the case as got
up was this, that it was impossible frora the window of the con
stabulary barracks to kill Lonergan by a deliberate aira, because
the corner of the buildings intervened betwen, and consequently
Lonergan could only have been killed by a ricochet shot ; that
is to say, by some description or other of rebound. That was
the case set up. Aye, and then carae in the Irish Secretary,^
bold in its adoption. Yes; but don't let me say too much
against the Irish Secretary. The Irish Secretary is acting for
his colleagues. His colleagues are as responsible as he is.
Those called Liberals — those called Liberal Unionists — who
make a Tory minority into a Unionist majority, are more re
sponsible still ; and every voter in this country who, when a
bye-election occurs, deliberately goes to the poll and records his
vote, whether for Tory or Dissentient Liberal, I care not which,
is just as responsible as they are. He contributes, it may be a
sraall part, to the general result, but it is all he can contribute ;
and it is the mass of these particular and individual votes by
which, when collected into general results, the policy of the
country is determined. Therefore, when I refer to the Irish
Secretary I refer to hira only as the organ of those powers
behind him, and it is to thera that I want to direct your
attention. 1 Mr A. J. Balfour.

78 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [nov. 7
However, the Irish Secretary, I raust say, appears to rae to
discharge his part with a spirit of glee which is more credit
able to his courage than to his humanity and right feeling.
He said it was now an undoubted fact that Lonergan was killed
by a ricochet or rebounding shot, and his iraagination added —
" I have no doubt that the other two people were also killed
by ricochet or rebounding shots." Gentleraen, I hold in ray
hand what you may see sufficiently to understand their general
character; and although your eyes cannot reach the particu
lars, I think I can raake thera very easily intelligible. They
are two photographs taken at Mitchelstown upon the spot.
You will observe the point at issue was that it was irapossible
physically, from the police barrack, to have killed Lonergan in
the square where the meeting was held — that is the point at
issue — because there was a mass of buildings between, which
absolutely prevented it. Now here are two photographs, and a
photograph cannot lie. One of them is a photograph of the spot
where the young man Lonergan died, and died, I am bound to
say, a martyr to his country, and that photograph is taken from
where ? From the window of the police barracks. Did the
photograph go round the corner ? In just the sarae way the
second photograph is a photograph of the police barracks. It
is taken frora the very spot where Lonergan fell — a spot which
has been marked and comraeraorated by some kind of memorial
that the affection of his countrymen has supplied, that it might
be consecrated in their hearts for ever. The second photograph
frora the spot where Lonergan fell, shows the police barracks in
perfect plainness, and thus is exploded the whole of this raiser
able fiction, devised six or eight raonths after the fact, and
when no inquiry into those deaths had taken place. It has
raelted into thin air, and will be reraerabered as one of the raost
worthless figments that ever was devised to cover the iniquity
of an administrative systera, and the shameless boldness of a
Governraent which upheld that lawless conduct while professing
to be the champion of order and of lawful rule.
There is a great deal raore, gentlemen, even in the Mitchels
town case, that you ought to know, but I won't detain you

18.88] THE lEISH QUESTION 79
longer on that subject. One single instance of distinct coun
tenance given to lawlessness on the part of a Government.
given deliberately and after warning, ought to suffice ; but I am
sorry to say there is no difficulty in multiplying the instances,
although the circumstances of time and place under which I
speak will not allow me to dwell upon them even at the length
at which I have troubled you about Mitchelstown. In the
case, gentlemen, of four or five convictions to certain terras of
iraprisonraent at a place called KUleagh, what happened was
this — that the raagistrates took evidence upon an offence which
they had no power whatever by law to try ; and, having taken
that evidence, they sentenced four or five men to iraprisonraent
for an offence whicU they had power to try by law — that is, by
the Coercion Act — but upon which they had not taken a single
syllable of e-vidence ; and I am now speaking to you, not in my
own language, but in the language of the judges of the Superior
Court before which the case was brought in Ireland. How was
the case brought before the Superior Court ? It never was the
intention of Her Majesty's Government that it should go to
the Superior Court at all. They wanted it settled by the resi
dent magistrates and County Court judge if there was any
appeal at all. In sorae cases there is an appeal, and in some
there is not ; but the ingenuity of Mr Healy found that the
principles of the Constitution were not so entirely dead even in
Ireland but that he could claim an appeal. He brought this
scandalous and sharaeful case of the resident raagistrates of
KUleagh before the Superior Court ; and Chief Baron Palles and
Mr Baron Dowse denounced the conduct of those magistrates,
stating against thera the very proposition which I have en
deavoured to lay before you. And, gentlemen, these two resi
dent magistrates — though there is not the sraallest doubt that
they were warned three tiraes over, by the solicitor for the
parties accused, of what they were about to do — dehberately re
fused to allow the case to be brought before a superior authority ;
and though they did, as I have said, take evidence on a case they
had no power to try, and sentenced the men in a case on which
they had not taken a word of evidence, these two men, whom I

80 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [nov. 7
do not wish to consign to infamy by quoting their names, are
still resident raagistrates, empowered to do what is called justice
to the people of Ireland ; and it is under these circumstances
we are told by Lord Hartington that this Governraent is most
cruelly used by the Liberal party, because the whole sum and
substance of its offence, after all, only consists in this — that
their resolution and courage are spent in an endeavour to
establish in Ireland the principles of law and order. The truth
is, gentleraen, that it is endeavouring to raake the principles of
law and order — which are sacred principles, and which involve
the vitality of every well-ordered coraraunity — it is endeavour
ing to raake these principles odious in the sight of every rational
man who has the sraallest spark in hmi of the love of freedom,
of constitutional freedom, by which this country is become
great, and without which it never could have attained to its
position among nations.
I will only raention one other case, and very briefiy indeed,
to raake good ray proposition that this Government is a lawless
Government — a Governraent that traraples upon law, and that
insults the law whensoever the law is found inconvenient for
the purpose it has in view. And this is a very simple case
indeed, and a very simple issue. You have heard much of Mr
MandevUle. You know that Mr Jlandeville died. You know
that a coroner's inquest was held upon Mr Mandeville. That
coroner's inquest was a legal court, that verdict^ was that of a
legal tribunal. We know much of the particulars, and this
evening I ara not going to enter upon any of them ; biit when
the verdict was reported in the House of Coramons, in a raoment
the Irish Secretary, the charapion of law and order, declared
that this verdict of a legal court, arrived at with perfect regu
larity of proceeding, ought to be treated with contempt. Now
I will leave that subject. I have done with it, and I think I
have said enough to justify what I mean. I won't enter into
the question, gentlemen, by a lengthened arguraent whether
the Irish people are the best judges of the manner m which
^ It was to the effect that death was " brought about by the bnital and uu-
jii,stifiable treatment he received in Tullamore gaol."

1888] THE IRISH QUESTION 81
their own local affairs ought to be managed and controlled,
though I may incidentally have to touch it before I release you
from the burdensome task of listening — a task to which I raust
say you are addressing yourselves with a patience which is
beyond all praise.
Now, gentlemen, I come to a question that is a very grave
one indeed for us inside Parliament — more grave than you can
easily conceive — and that is the state of the account between
what are sometimes called the two wings of the Liberal party.
It is said that there are two wings. (A Voice ; " One has got
no feathers to it.") It probably would be better if that one
wing had some feathers on it, because then there might be a
chance of its flymg away. I am afraid that as matters now
stand there is no likelihood of its flying away by voluntary
action, although I have no doubt that, feathers or no feathers,
like the albatross, which, I believe, is not at all strong in that
particular, when the proper time coraes you will teach that
wing to fly away. But, gentleraen, this is one of the wings of
the Liberal party; and though what I now see before rae is
numerically but a mere sample of our wing — I verily beUeve
that if the whole of the other wing were collected frora one end
of the country to the other, they would find it very difficult to
fill up Bingley Hall.
But, gentleraen, it is not the question of strength that I
want to discuss. It is the question of right. If you will allow
rae, for really I have acquired such unbounded faith in your
patience that I shall perhaps be unscrupulous in drawiug upon
it, you wUl see the importance of the matter. The allegation
has been made all along that the Dissentient Liberals are doing
no more than consistently adhering to the acknowledged and
universally practised principles of the Liberal party ; that we
have departed from those principles, and thereby have brought
about the laraentable schism which exists. That, gentlemen, is
the question I want you to try ; and my allegations about the
Dissentient Liberals are these, and I will try to make them
o-ood, as I hope I have made good in some degree my allega
tions about the laws and the Government. My allegations
F

82 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [nov. 7
as to the Dissentient Liberals are these three — first of all I say
they have not raaintained the true traditions of the Liberal
party in respect to Ireland, but have abandoned them ; they
have not raaintained, secondly, the pledges they gave at the
Election, but have broken them ; and, in the third place, I will
show you that they have resorted to the very worst practices of
the old Irish ascendancy, in endeavouring to set the different
fractions of the Irish people one against the other, because they
know that to a united Ireland they could not possibly refuse
the reasonable request that is made by the people of that country.
Now, gentlemen, patiently listen to me for a few minutes
while I try that question. Who are, on this great occasion,
true representatives of the traditions of the Liberal party of
England ? And who are the untrue, I won't say false, but the
untrue pretenders to that representation ? I must now carry
you back for a moraent to the period of the Union — I must
recall to your recollection that the Union between England and
Ireland was warraly, -vigorously, and I think I may say unani
mously, condemned by nearly the entire Liberal party, opposed
by Mr Fox, Mr Sheridan, Mr Grattan, Lord FitzwiUiam, and
another name that you wUl recogise with honour here — by Lord
Spencer — the Lord Spencer of that day.^ The Union was
resolutely carried by raeans which I will not now stop to
describe, but which I think were the foulest and the wickedest
that ever were put in action, as far as I know — certainly they
were unsurpassed in foulness and in wickedness in all the
records of the crimes of Governments. By those means the
Union was passed. And what was the Union ? The Union,
gentlemen, was a great revolution in the relations between
England and Ireland. That great Irishman, Mr Burke, who
unhappily was taken from araong mankind before the Union
was carried, was always an opponent of the plan and principle
of the Union. He said Ireland had had its last revolution in
1782, a beneficial and a happy revolution; and he hoped it
would never have another. But that other revolution came.
^ This is an error. I carelessly forgot that Lord Spencer remained a colleague
of Mr Pitt. 1 still more carelessly forgot to mention Mr (afterwards Lord) Grey,
who vigorously opposed the Union. — [Note by Mr Gladstone.]

1 888] THE IRISH QUESTION 83
What was the duty after that rfevolution had been accom
plished, what was the duty of the Liberals who had condemned
it ? What did Mr Fox do ? He said that rauch as he detested
the Union, as it had been raade it was his duty to give it a full
and fair trial. You cannot undo a revolution the day after it
has been effected ; you are compelled to condescend to the
essential conditions of public affairs. Mr Fox recognised that
necessity — he accepted that revolution while he abhorred it. Mr
Grattan followed him in accepting that revolution; and perhaps
it may be a strange and startling statement, but it is an un
doubted fact, that Mr Grattan was found in the English Parlia
raent — he, the champion of Irish liberty — found in the English
Parliament, after the L'nion had been accomplished, voting for
measures of Coercion. I blame him not, gentleraen. I know
too much of the hard and rigid grip of political necessities.
These were necessities of the highest order. They were a
necessity of the public peace of the country. The Union
entaUed Coercion. The Union entailed Coercion against the
Irish people, as it entailed neglect of Irish interests, as it
entaUed the destruction of almost all care for Ireland on the
part of nearly the whole upper class of the Irish coraraunity.
That was the conduct pursued by Mr Fox and Mr Grattan ;
that was the conduct pursued by Lord Grey, Lord Althorp, and
by Lord Eussell. Lord Althorp stated, I believe, that if the
majority of the Irish representatives ever carae and demanded
seriously an alteration of the relations established by the Union,
that concession, that change must take place ; but what I wish
to impress upon you is this, gentlemen, that although the Liberal
party was by principle and conviction opposed to the Union, it
was their duty when the Union had been passed to give it the
fuUest trial, even among the many painful circurastances with
which its working was accorapanied.
Is that trial to go on for ever ? Are all the generations of man
kind to be the servants and the slaves of that particular gene
ration, which, under the guidance of Mr Pitt and Lord Castle
reagh, partly cheated and partly tyrannised the Irish nation
into the Union ? No ! I affirm that when sufficient experience

84 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [nov. 7
lias been accumulated, it is the duty of the Liberal party agam
to consider what is the condition of Ireland, what is the power
of establishing in Ireland that first condition of all good govern
ment, the tolerable satisfaction and contentment of the people.
We have been, gentlemen, coercing Ireland ever since the
Union ; we have coerced it of late more than ever we coerced it
before. At last we have ended it by making Coercion for the
first time the principle of the permanent law of Ireland. It
was forraerly an expedient ; it has now becorae a policy — it has
now becorae a practice, it has now become an idol ; and those
who call themselves Liberal Unionists go forth over the country
glorying in the nature of the enactments which they undoubtedly
have brought about. Well, gentleraen, there are two things to
be looked at — one is the working of the Union in itself, and the
other is the voice of the Irish people with regard to it. I can
not defend its working ; I cannot defend a systera of govern
raent by perpetual Coercion eraployed, not against the malefactors
of a nation by the body of a nation, but employed against one
nation which inhabits Ireland by the other nation or nations
which inhabit Great Britain. But what is the meaning of con
stitutional representation, what is the voice of Ireland upon this
subject ? Eighty-six il embers from Ireland out of 103, or
rather out of 101, because to call the two representatives of
Dublin University representatives of Ireland is a raere — an
absolute mockery. These eighty-six Members, elected as con
stitutionally as the Merabers for London or for Birmingham,
elected as peacefully, and elected by a far more decisive balance
of votes and opinions, they deraand of us this change which we
believe is totally free from all danger to the fabric of the Empire.
At the same time we are corapelled to confess the total failure
of our atterapt to govern Ireland under the present system
Now, observe this, that there were sorae few of the Liberals wlio
had joined in opposing the Union, and who, after the Union,
found fault with Fox, Giattan, Lord Grey, Lord Althorp, and
Lord Russell, and the bulk of the Liberal party because they
gave it a fair trial. They would have had exactly the sarae,
or probably better, cause for arguing the inconsistency of the

1 888] THE lEISH QUESTION 85
Liberal party of that day than the Dissentient Liberals now
have against us. There would have been an apparent inconsist
ency — that inconsistency would have been due to a better prin
ciple of consistency and to sound and healthful dictates of
political wisdom. And so, gentlemen, we ourselves, representa
tives, in the close of the nineteenth century, of the party whose
original principle was opposition to forced union between the
two countries, we, the present representatives of the party,
adrait the faUure of these forced raethods, recognising the
justice of the cause of Ireland in a constitutional mode, and
utterly disbelieving that there is danger to the Empire in
measures which will really unite the hearts of the whole people
throughout the United Kingdom. We say that we are the con
sistent representatives of the Liberal party of one hundred years
ago, and that it is the Dissentient Liberals, and not we, who
have broken with this historical tradition.
Well, but these Dissentient Liberals have done more than
that, gentlemen. They have broken not only those sound
historical traditions, but, beyond all question and all doubt,
they have broken their party pledges. They have raade a
Coercion far raore formidable in principle and character than
any that ever was known before. But I will not trouble you
by entering into its particulars. They promised that Ireland
should have Local Government at least as large as England.
Now, that is a stateraent so serious that I think I ought to
support it by reading you a few words frora the declaration of
Lord Hartington. Lord Hartington, at Eossendale, on July
7th, 1886, said — "Whatever rights we give to England and
Scotland " — he was speaking of Local Governraent — " whatever
right we give to England and Scotland, we are ready to give
equally — if a case can be made out for it, in a greater and larger
and more generous degree — to Ireland." That was the solemn
pledge of the election. How has that pledge been fulfilled?
I will tell you, gentlemen, how it has been fulfilled. Lord
Hartington has himself stated that no Local Governraent
at all shall be given to Ireland until the people of Ireland
abandon the tradition of their forefathers, and consent to put

86 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [nov. 7
aside entirely those views which they now in enorraous propor
tion maintain. That I call a gross breach of pledge on the part of
Lord Hartington. I need not go through that of his friends.
But what have said his friends on the Treasury Bench ? What
says Mr Sraith ?i Well, Mr Smith says that until the Irish
people become altogether loyal there can be no Local Govern
ment for Ireland. Pray observe — not Horae Eule, but Local
Government, which you were all assured at the tirae of the
election that the Tories and the Dissentients were even more
anxious to give than we. This Local Government, says Mr
Smith, shall not be given until the Irish have adopted the char
acter of loyalty, and he means by that definition — there is no
doubt whatever about it — the abandonment of all ideas of Home
Rule. What says Mr Balfour, who is perhaps a more influential
member of the Governraent than Mr Sraith ? Mr Balfour has
raade an arguraent to this effect in my hearing — that Local
Government is an extremely good thing for a people in a
healthy condition ; but that the Irish people are a people in
an unhealthy condition, and, therefore. Local Government would
be for them not a good thing, but a bad thing, and to give them
Local Governraent would, on his part, be an offence, of which he
would not be guilty. Then, I think, I have proved to you that
the Dissentient Liberals have broken, both by their own raouth
and by the raouth of the Tories who accept their support — have
broken their engageraent not only with respect to Coercion,
which I have heretofore shown, but also their engageraents
with respect to the grant of Local Governraent to Ireland.
There was another subject, still raore prorainent, at the time
of the General Election, and that was the subject of the Imperial
guarantee of a fund for the purchase of Irish estates. You wUl
remember what capital was made of that subject. You know
how dreadful it was represented to be that in any shape or form
the English Exchequer should be liable for any payraents, or
should pledge its credit to assure payraent, on that raatter, of a
farthing out of the taxes of this country. What is the case now ?
Do the Liberal Unionists — and they were the people who turned
^ The First Lord of the Treasury.

1 888] THE IRISH QUESTION 87
to most account the question of Imperial guarantee— do they
still hold that language ? You all of you know something of
the Birmingham Post, and I have a short passage from the
Birmingliam Post upon this subject — a passage which is anony
mous, but the raost important declarations of the Dissentient
Liberals are often supposed to issue to the world anonymously
through the Biriningham Post. Now, what is said of the Im
perial guarantee in this short passage ? This is said : " If, yield
ing to pressure frora landowners and Nationalists, the Govern
ment decide upon asking Parliament to expend further grants
under Lord Ashbourne's Act,^ the Unionist raajority would
probably support Ministers in their proposal rather than see
their position endangered. But such support would be given
with reluctance and with grave apprehension, and there would
be little security for the ultimate repayment of the advances
of the purchases so carried." So, then, we understand that,
while not expecting repayment, they would therefore vote for
this Imperial expenditure, in order to secure the political ad
ministration of their old political enemies, while they refused
all poUtical guarantee in order to overturn the position and the
adrainistration of their old political friends. That is a small
matter, gentlemen. They would do it with reluctance ! I
must say that is no consolation to me at all. I do not know
how many things they may have done with reluctance. What
I know is that they have done them, and that after having done
one they did not seem at all less disposed to do another, and
that this chain goes on lengthening itself ad infinitum.
The Imperial guarantee to which they objected, and upon
which the people in this country will, of course, pronounce their
ultimate judgment, the Imperial guarantee was a guarantee
under which England never could have lost one shilling without
the absolute bankruptcy of Ireland. Before a sixpence could
have been applied by the Government of Ireland to any of its
purposes under the Bills of 1886, the last farthing of every
English claim was made certain to be discharged as a prior
encumbrance. What is the case now under Lord Ashbourne's
^ The Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill of 1885.

88 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [nov. 7
Act ? That the British Exchequer is to be a creditor, a direct,
uncovered creditor — there is no intermediate party — the direct,
uncovered creditor of an indefinite number of raen paying £4,
£5, £10, £20, a-year in Ireland, and has to take its chance of
the recovery of those sums ; and advances of that kind, or rather
payraents of that kind, are what the Dissentient Liberals are
prepared to support with reluctance. I think that I have
tolerably well shown that this pledge has also been cruelly broken,
and I won't dwell for a raoraent upon the further pledge they
made that Ireland should, when governed from London, have
the fullest benefit of equal laws, because I have shown to you
in three or four great and important cases that the laws between
Great Britian and Ireland are of gross inequality.
Well, that is not all that I have to say with regard to the
Dissentient Liberals — for I raade another charge — on which I
raust offer you a few words. It was to this effect, that they had
reverted to the practice of endeavouring to divide the people of
Ireland, to set the people of Ireland by the ears araong thera
selves, in order that Ireland raight not present to this country
the aspect of a unity, but that they might be able to plead that
it was a severed, and a divided and distracted country, and
therein to find an excuse for refusing the reasonable demand of
the vast majority of the Irish people. Now, Mr. Chairraan and
gentleraen, this is no new device. You will find some account
of it, if you choose to consult the valuable volurae which
is just issued frora the press under the editorship of Mr
Bryce, and which is called Two Centuries of Irish History;
and I wish to show you in a few words that this setting up
of one part of Ireland against another, this introduction of
the eleraent of religious bigotry araong the people who were, as
to the vast raajority of them, untainted with that bigotry, is an
old scheme and device of the English wire-puller, and has been
all along an essential eleraent in the systera of oppressing and
misgoverning Ireland. In the time of Lord Strafford, 250 years
ago, he commended " emulation foraented underhand," between
Protestants and Eoraan Catholics. In those days it was
atterapted to stir up those religious aniraosities. Next to Lord

1 888] THE lEISH QUESTION 89
Strafford I take another naine,perhaps not very well known in this
country, but it is well reraerabered in Ireland — I raean Priraate
Boulter, Archbishop of Armagh. In these days a change has
taken place that is considerable, but at that period of time
practically the government of Ireland reposed, not in the hands
of the Lord Lieutenant, who was generally absent, but in the
hands of the Protestant Primates of the country. Primate
Boulter said that with regard to a certain affair it would be of a
very serious character, because it united the Protestants and the
Papists; and if such a reconciliation took place farewell to
English influence in Ireland. What I am signifying to you in
very few words is the revelation of a great and guilty plan or
poUcy, and I shall have to show you that that plan or policy is
still being pursued, no doubt with more sugared language, with
more intricate and perhaps mitigated raethods, but with the
sarae end in view — namely, preventing the union of Ireland, and
so defeating her just hopes. When Lord Westraoreland was
Viceroy, towards the end of the last century, he said that the
practicability of effecting a legislative union between England
and Ireland must depend upon maintaining disunion in Ireland,
and disunion in Ireland has been the inhuraan aira with which
this policy has been worked.
Now you have heard, gentlemen, much of Belfast, and you
know (not as to the whole of Belfast, but as to the larger part
of it), you know that it is the great horae of Orange inspiration
and of the religious factions which it is still atterapted to keep
alive in Ireland. Very different was the Protestant Belfast of
the close of the last century. There was an occasion when
Belfast was visited by the deputies whora the Eoraan Catholics
had collectively appointed to maintain and plead their interests.
They visited Belfast. I should not like to say how such persons
would be received now in Belfast, but this is what happened.
The Protestant populace took their horses from their carriages
and drew them through the town amidst intense enthusiasm.
The Protestants of Ireland ninety years ago absolutely united
with the Roraan Catholics in claiming equality of treatraent for
Ireland ; but the torch of religious bigotry was thrown by the

90 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [nov. 7
British Government among them, and the Orange Lodges were
instituted in the year 1795 for the purpose of calling in aid the
bad and evil principle, for the purpose of dividing Ireland
and dislocating her forces, and of enabling the foes of her just
rights to withhold frora her concessions that they otherwise must
have given. Allow me in a very few words to give you the
raost conclusive proof — not in my own language, which hitherto
I have been more or less using — but in their own language, the
conclusive proof of the justice of what I have said. My
affirmation is this — that in the close of the last century the
Protestants of Ireland joined hands with the Roraan Catholics
of Ireland, made common cause in the demand for justice to their
coraraon country, and it was the action of the Ascendency party
^a party entirely confined to the wirepullers of the Adrainis
tration, and unhappily with Mr Pitt and the Governraent at
their back, which, raainly through the raedium of the Orange
Lodges, introduced among them what they detested, religious
animosity, thereby divided them, set one against the other, and
made the policy of a cruel intolerance possible between the two
countries. Now, I am going to read you a few words finally frora the
petition which was presented to the Crown in the year 1797.
It was a petition solemnly adopted at a county raeeting — I will
tell you where afterwards. Its first object was to pray that the
Crown would dismiss the Ministers, and the reasons given were
these : In the first place, that they had landed the country in a
sanguinary and destructive war, without just cause, and without
skilful conduct ; secondly, that they had established in Ireland
a system of lawless and bloody cruelty ; and thirdly, that they
had endeavoured to introduce into it the deraon of religious
discord. And here I quote the words — ¦' They have laboured
with the most reraorseless perseverance " — (" they " means the
Governraent — the Ministry) — -"they have laboured with the
raost reraorseless perseverance to revive those senseless and
barbarous religious antipathies so fatal to morals and to peace,
and so abhorrent to the kind and merciful spirit of the Gospel."
And where do you think, gentlemen, that petition was fraraed

1 888] THE IRISH QUESTION 91
and adopted ? It was the petition of a county raeeting regu
larly gathered under the Sheriff in the terms I will now read to
you — " The humble petition of the freeholders of the county of
Antrim." — a county of which Belfast is the glory — freeholders
who expressed what were then their sentiments, and the
sentiments of Belfast, which the eneraies of Ireland saw that it
was necessary to pervert, and which they did pervert through
the abominable plan that they brought into action of setting
men of different persuasions by the ears. It was entitled, " The
humble petition of the freeholders of County Antrira, con
vened by public notice frora the High Sheriff at Balraeney, on
Monday, May 8th, 1797, Mr Chichester, High Sheriff, in the
chair." Such was the policy of the day. Is that of the present day
very different ? What is the raeaning of the visits of Lord
Hartington to Belfast ? Does he go to recoraraend religious
concord. Does he go there to recoraraend that Irishmen
should love Irishmen, or does he go there to inflame the
Protestants in the North into idle and ludicrous apprehension,
l^ecause they are less numerous than the Roman Catholics ?
He says—Do not abandon the vantage ground you have now
got ; do not allow Irishraen to govern affairs in Ireland, and
frora Ireland ; but raaintain a system odious to the vast
raajority of your fellow-countrymen. I will not quote his words
to that effect. I will only quote one single phrase that he
used. He calls passing a measure of Horae Rule for Ireland
" this abandoning the rest of their countryraen to their fate."
To allow a country to govern itself, is to abandon it or sorae
portion of it to its fate. I have got, gentleraan, a speciraen of
these opinions, which I think may a little entertain you. When
at the end of such a speech as this it may be agreeable to you
that there should be a small change in the parts. You know
the great Orange journal called the Baily Telegraph. I quote
from the columns of the Daily Telegraph, and therefore I have
no doubt I raust be quite safe in quoting it, a docuraent which
is to be presented on the 14th of this raonth to Lord Hartington
and Lord Salisbury — a most touching and most fraternal com-

92 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [nov. 7
bination — by the Nonconforming ministers of Ireland. Now
listen to what they say.
These Nonconforming ministers of Ireland appear to have
had a twinge — an internal twinge — perhaps not of conscience
so much as of logical understanding — in feeling that they were
Uable to this reproach, that the great bulk of their brethren the
Nonconforming ministers of England and of Scotland, and the
Nonconforming laity of these countries, take a view very little
likely to be acceptable to Lord Hartington and Lord Salisbury,
and forming very bad subject matter indeed for a corapliraentary
address to these nobleraen. So with great ingenuity they have
parried the blow which they expected to be dealt at thera in
consequence of their disagreeing with the majority of their own
body ; and the plea they raake is this — " We hold that the
opinion of our brethren " — that is, the brethren of the Noncon
forraists living in Ireland — " is entitled to far more weight than
the expression of opinion from raen who, however good their
intentions, have little or no personal knowledge of the state of
things in Ireland." You observe in what way these gentlemen,
these very original men — many of thera of Scotch extraction —
possibly on that account having consideralde logical affinities and
capabilities, answer the arguraent which they fear may be
drawn from the fact that the majority of Nonconforraists are
against thera.
What is their answer ? Their answer is — the true test is in
local knowledge. You English Nonconforraists are not to be
considered as corapetent judges. Local knowledge of Ireland is
the true test, the true deterraining eleraent, which gives weight
to the judgraent of a man in respect of the ({uestion of Home
Eule. That is their argument. You perceive it frora the senti
raents I have read. Did it never occur to these wise and
overwise Nonconformists, that if local knowledge of Ireland,
local experience in Ireland, was a test of capacity to judge on
the question of Home Eule, they, a handful of raen in the North,
were put already out of court, because the vast majority of Irish
men, who have certainly as much local knowledge and as rauch
personal experience about Ireland as those Nonconformist

1 888] THE lEISH QUESTION 93
ministers, are convinced, determined, hereditary friends of Home
Rule ? That is not quite all, gentlemen. They go on and say,
they appeal to Lord Salisbury and Lord Hartington for protec
tion against the executive power, and they end with this touch
ing paragraph — " Especially do we claim the aid," of whom ?—
not of our fellow-citizens upon political grounds, upon grounds of
civU justice. They do not appeal to those bonds that unite men
in civil coraraunities ; what they say is, " we especially claim the
aid of our co-religionists." That is to say that, according to these
Irish Nonconforming ministers, all our questions of politics are
to be determined according as we array ourselves in this or that
religious denomination.
I say, gentlemen, this is going back to the policy of the
darkest tiraes, without any of the apologies or any of the pleas
which those forraer times raight well have urged for theraselves.
I ara not sure I have given you the most select and pleasing
parts of this address, but they finally declare that if Home Rule
is estabUshed in Dublin, if there is placed there a legislative
body which would pass Bills — subject, reraember, in every case
to the veto of the British Crown, liable to be influenced on any oc
casion by the intervention of the British Parliament, that is to say
by the action of the British raajority — they say that in any such
case as that, what they conteraplate and expect is, that Home
Rule would " deprive us of our rights of citizenship in this great
Empire." Formerly gentlemen, the clergy had a monopoly of
learning and intelligence. I hope that we are not to judge of
the sense of the laity of the Nonconformist churches in Ireland
entirely from the specimen I read to you from their rainisters.
Well, then, gentleraen, I think it is true that in foraenting those
differences, in teaching Ireland not to agree but to differ, our
friends, for they stUl are our friends, except in political distinc
tion, our friends are committing a grievous error, and are going
back to the worst practices of the old Protestant ascendency.
They raay deem that they have got hold of an original idea. It
is not original at all. It was the idea of the sixteenth, seven
teenth, and eighteenth centuries. It was the idea which the
Protestants themselves, when they were trained to a discipUne

94 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [nov. 7
of freedom through the action of their Parliament in the last
century, learned to despise and to renounce, but which was revived
among them by the influence of Orangeisra, and which now, alas !
political chieftains — sorae political chieftains in England bear
ing the name of Liberal and of Whig — are endeavouring again
to bring into action, to the detriment, if not to the ruin, of
Ireland and of the Empire.
Well, how, gentlemen is all this to end ? What have our
friends the Dissentient Liberals to propose to us ? For them
selves, we know they have nothing to contemplate but speedy
extinction. As I have said to another Birrainghara meeting
and I believe it to be a very pregnant truth, they have one very
strong argument indeed in their favour, and that argument is
the Septennial Act. It is hardly possible to act upon them
effectually by means of bye-elections, or by means of expression
of public opinion, so long as they have a well-disciplined body
of votes in the House of Commons, given by men who are sent
to that House, and who sit in that House, by virtue and by
reason of pledges, every one of which they have trampled under
foot. Observe, I do not mean every man of the majority, but I
mean those who make it a raajority, those who constitute the
Dissentient Liberal Party, and who make it a raajority. They
have got there by pledges, which they have trampled under foot.
Well, what they offer to you is that you are to persist in this pain
ful and grievous contest. Can they reasonably expect that the
Irish people will change their minds ? Why have the Irisli
people held out for 700 years if they are to give in now ? Why
did they hold out when they were totally without the means of
action ? And then it is supposed that they are to give in when
they are abundantly supplied with the means of action — I
mean that they are supplied with constitutional privileges,
they are suppUed with a broad and generous franchise and
a vote which their superiors eannot pry into. They have
a more extended franchise, gentleraen, than you have. It is
the desire of England, as we know by a cheer that raade the
walls of this building ring, to adopt the principle of one raan
one vote, but if you look to the returns you wUl find that in

1 888] THE IRISH QUESTION 95
Ireland substantially they have got the principle already. They
are armed with the whole powerful machinery of a constitutional
system. Above all, they are sustained by a great party in
England. Yet our opponents are desirous to go on fighting
this hopeless battle. And for what ? Not for honour, but for
dishonour — dishonour, inasrauch as most of us believe that the
world looks upon the treatment of Ireland by England as dis
honourable to England.
But all must adrait, from whatever point of view they
approach the question, that the governraent of Ireland by
England has been a perfect failure. Thej take refuge — raen
essentially raoderate take refuge — in language of extrerae
¦violence ; that surely is a good sign when we find Lord Hart
ington resorting to language of outrageous violence. You will
judge whether these words are too strong when I read the words
— I think that they forra a very healthy sign of the state of the
case. Lord Hartington said at Belfast on the 19th of October
that the present struggle began as a struggle between union and
separation. That was bad enough; but according to hira it has got
gradually worse since, and it is now — these are his own words —
" a struggle of honesty against dishonesty, of order against dis
order, of truth against falsehood, and of loyalty against treason."
And in the same speech Lord Hartington said that the party with
which we are connected is nearly one-half of the voting power of
the country; so that according to hira nearly one-half of
his countryraen support dishonesty against honesty ; disorder
against order; falsehood against truth, and treason against
loyalty. Now, gentlemen, I say it is an extreme sign when
a raan essentially moderate resorts to language which I am
compelled to describe — if I describe it at all — as very strong
language indeed.
You are invited to maintain this system, and why ? Is it
economical ? The waste of Imperial treasure under this system
is enormous. I ought to know something of the finances of the
country, and I do not hesitate to say that to estimate at from three
to four mUlions a year of hard money the waste of the present
system of governing Ireland, is but a moderate estimate of the

96 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [nov. 7
facts. All this waste, and to produce what ? Not to produce
content, but to produce discontent. Does it produce Iraperial
strength ? Suppose we were involved in great difficulties ;
suppose we had — and God forbid we should have ! — a crisis like
that of the Araerican War — the original Araerican War —
brought upon us at this tirae, would Ireland add to our strength
what it ought to add ? No. We have now got Ireland raaking
a thoroughly constitutional demand — demanding what is, in her
own language, a subordinate Parliaraent, acknowledging in the
fullest terms the supremacy of the Parliaraent of Westminster-
How can you know that under all circumstances that moderation
of deraand will continue ? I cannot understand what principle
of justice, and still less, if possible, what principle of prudence
it is that induces raany — I am glad to say, in my beUef , the
minority of the people of this country, but still a large minority
— to persist in a policy of which the fruits have been unmitigated
bitterness, mischief, disparagement, and dishonour.
Ah ! gentleraen, with what weapons is Ireland fighting this
battle ? She is not fighting it with the weapons of menace,
with a threat of separation, with Fenian outbreaks, with the
extension of secret societies. HappUy those ideas have passed
away into a distance undefined. She is fighting the contest with
the weapons of confidence and of affection — of confidence in the
powerful party by whose irrevocable decision she knows she is
supported, and of affection towards the people of England.
May I tell you an incident that will not occupy two minutes
in proof of what I say. In the county, I think, of Limerick, not
very many days ago, an Englishraan was addressing a crowd of
Irish Nationalists on the subject of Horae Eule. His carriage
or his train, whichever it was, was just going to depart. Some
one cried out, "God save Ireland," and there was a loud burst of
cheering. The train started, the cheering subsided. Another
voice from the crowd was raised, and shouted, " And God save
England " — and there were cheers louder still — cheers louder
still, such as in the language of Shakespeare, that,
"Make the welkin ring agaiu,
Aud fetch shrill echoes from the hollow earth.''

1 888] THE IRISH QUESTION 97
These cheers were the genunine expression of the sentiment of
the country. They, our opponents, teach you to rely on the use
of this deserted and enfeebled and superannuated weapon of
Coercion. We teach you to rely upon Irish affection and good
will. We teach you not to speculate on the formation of that
sentiment. We show you that it is formed already — it is in full
force; it is ready to burst forth from every Irish heart, and
through every Irish voice. We only beseech you, by resolute
persistence in that policy you have adopted, to foster, to cherish,
to consolidate that sentiment, and so to act that in space it
shall spread from the North of Ireland to the South, and frora
the West of Ireland to the East, and in time it shall extend and
endure from this present date untU the last of the years and the
last of the centuries that may still be reserved in the counsels
of Pro-vidence to work out the destinies of raankind.

THE DEATH OF MR JOHN
BRIGHT
House of Commons, Maech 29, 1889
Mr John Bright died on March 27. He had been a member of Mr Gladstone's
Cabinets in 1868 and 1880, but had declared against his Irish policy in 1886.
I TRUST I may I'cceive the perraission of the House to add
a few words to what has been said so well and with such
deep sincerity by the right hon. gentleman^ on an occasion
of peculiai- interest. And I cannot help saying, at the outset
of the few remarks which I may be led to make, that I think
Mr Bright has been, in a very remarkable degree, bappy
in the season of his reraoval from among us. Felix oppor-
tunitate mortis ! He has lived to witness the triuraph of
alraost every great cause — perhaps I raight say of every great
cause — to which he had especially devoted his heart and mind.
He has also lived to establish a special claim to the admiration of
those with whora he differed through a long political life by his
raarked concurrence with thera on the prorainent and dorainant
question of the hour. And while he has in that way addition
ally opened the rainds and the hearts of those who had been his
opponents to an appreciation of his raerits, I believe, and I think
I raay venture to say, he lost nothing, by that want of concord
on a particular subject whieh we so rauch laraented — he lost
nothing, in any portion of the party with which he had been so
long associated, of the admiration and the gratitude to which
they felt him to be so weU entitled. I do not remeraber that
on any occasion, frora the Ups of any single individual since Mr
Bright carae to be separated from the great bulk of the Liberal
party on the Irish question, there has proceeded any word — I
1 Mr W. H. Smith.

1889] THE DEATH OF ME JOHN BEIGHT 99
do not say of question as to his motives, for that would have
been even in a high degree ridiculous — but a single word of dis
paragement as to the course he pursued.
I may make this acknowledgment that I have not through
my whole political life fully embraced what I take to be
the character of Mr Bright, and the value of that character to
the country. I mention this because it was at a peculiar epoch
— the epoch of the Crimean War — that I carae more fully to
understand than I had clone before the position which was held
by him and by his eminent, and I must go a step further and
say his Ulustrious, friend Mr Cobden, in the country. These
men had lived upon the confidence, the approval, and the ap
plause of the people. The work of their lives had been to propel
the tide of public sentiment. Suddenly there came a great occa
sion on which they differed from the vast majority of their fel
low-countrymen. I rayself was one of those who did not agree
with thera in the particular view which they took of the Crimean
conflict. But I felt profoundly what must have been the moral
elevation of the men who, having been nurtured through their
lives in the atmosphere of popular approval and enthusiasm,
could at a moment's notice consent to part with the whole of
that favour which they had hitherto enjoyed, and which their
opponents thought to be the very breath of their nostrils. They
accepted, undoubtedly, the unpopularity of opposing that war,
which, although many raay have since changed their opinion with
• regard to it, commanded, if not the unanimous, yet the enorraously
prevaUing approval and concurrence of the country. At that
tirae it was — -although we had known rauch of Mr Bright before
— that we learnt soraething more. We had known the great
mental gifts which distinguished him ; we had known his cour
age and his consistency ; we had known his splendid eloquence,
which then was or afterwards came to be acknowledged as the
loftiest that has sounded within these walls during his genera
tion. But we had not till then known how high the moral
tone of those popular leaders had been pitched, what bright
examples they set to the whole of their contemporaries and to
coming generations, and with what readiness they could part

with popular sympathy and support for the sake of the right
and of their conscientious convictions.
I will not now refer to the reraarkable and also highly
varied gifts of Mr Bright except as to one rainor particular ;
but I cannot help allowing rayself the gratification of recording
that Mr Bright was, and that he knew hiraself to be, and he
delighted to be, one of the chief guardians araong us of the
purity of the English tongue. He knew how the character of
the nation was associated with its language ; and as he was in
everything an Englishman profoundly attached to the country
in which he was born, so the tongue of his people was to him
almost an object of worship ; and in the long course of his
speeches it would be difficult, indeed hardly jiossible, to find a
single case in which that noble language, the language of
Shakespeare and of Milton, did not receive an illustration from
his Parliamentary eloquence.
There is another circumstance in the career of Mr Bright that
is better known to rae, perhaps, than to any other person, and
which I raust give rayself the pleasure of mentioning. Every
one is aware that for him office had no attraction. But perhaps
hardly any of those who hear rae can be aware of the
extraordinary effbrts which were required to induce Mr Bright,
under any circurastances, to become a minister, that is to sa}-,
a servant of the Crown. It was in the crisis of 1868 with
regard to the Irish question, and when especially the fate of the
Irish Church hung in the balance, that it was my duty to pro
pose to Mr Bright that he should becorae a Cabinet Minister.
I do not know, sir, that I ever undertook so difficult a task ; but
this I do know, that frora eleven o'clock at night until one
o'clock in the morning we steadUy debated that subject. It
was only at the last inoment that it was possible for him to set
aside the repugnance he had felt to doing anything which might,
in the eyes of any one, even of the more ignorant of his fellow-
countryraen, appear to detract in the sUghtest degree from that
lofty independence of character which he had heretofore main
tained, and which, I will venture to say, never to the end of his
career was for a moraent lowered.

i889] THE DEATH OF ME JOHN BEIGHT 101
It was the happy lot of Mr Bright to unite so raany
and such distinguished intellectual gifts that, if we had had
need to dwell upon them alone, we should have presented a
dazzling picture to the world ; but it was also his happy lot to
teach us moral lessons, and by the simplicity, by the consist
ency, and by the unfailing courage and constancy of his life, to
present to us a combination of qualities so elevated in their nature
as to carry us at once into a higher atmosphere. The sym
pathies of Mr Bright were not only strong, but active ; they
were not sympathies which can answer to the calls made upon
them for the moraent, but they were the sympathies of a man
who sought far and near for objects on which to bestow the in
estimable advantages of his eloquence and of his courage. In
Ireland, in the days when the support of the Irish cause was
rare ; in India, where the support of the native races was rarer
stUl ; in America, at the time when Mr Bright probably fore
saw the ultimate issue of the great struggle of 1861, and when
he stood as the representative of an exceedingly small portion
of the educated comraunity of this country — although un
doubtedly he represented a very considerable part of the national
sentiment — in all these cases Mr Bright went far outside the
mere necessities of his calling. Not only subjects which de
raanded his attention as a Meraber of this House, but whatever
touched him as a man, whatever touched him as a Christian, and
whatever touched him as a member of the great Anglo-Saxon race
— all these questions obtained not only his unasked and sincere
advocacy, but his enthusiastic aid. All the causes which are
associated with the names to which I have referred, as well as
many others, gained frora his powerful advocacy an assist
ance and a distinct advance in the estiraation of the world, and
made a distinct progress on their road towards triuraphant suc
cess. It has thus come about that we feel that Mr Bright is entitled
to a higher eulogy than any that could be due to mere intellect,
or than any that could be due to raere success. Of mere suc
cess he was indeed a conspicuous example; in intellect he
might lay claim to a most distinguished place. But the charac-

102 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 29
ter of the raan lay deeper than his intellect, deeper than his
eloquence, deeper than anything that could be described as seen
upon the surface. The supreme eulogy which is his due is, I ap
prehend, that he lifted poUtical life to a higher elevation and
to a loftier standard. He has thereby bequeathed to his coun
try the character of a statesman which can be made the subject
not only of admiration and of gratitude, but even of what I do
not exaggerate in calling — as it has been well called already by
one of his admiring eulogists — reverential conteraplation.
The right hon. gentleman said that he trusted there would
be no note of dissonance in the utterances of to-night upon
the claims, the raerits, and the distinctions of Mr Bright,
and I raay safely say that on that score all apprehension raay be
disraissed. In the encomiuras that have sprung up from every
quarter there is no note of dissonance ; there is no discordant
minority, however small ; the sense of his countryraen is the
sense of unaniraity. It goes forth throughout the length and
breadth of the land, and I do not know that any statesraan
of ray time has ever had the happiness to receive on his reraoval
frora this passing world honours and approval at once so enthu
siastic, so universal, and so unbroken. And yet, sir, none could
better have dispensed with the tributes of the moment, because
the triumphs of his life are triumphs recorded in the advance of
his country and in the condition of his countrymen. His name
reraains indelibly written in the annals of this Empire, aye, in
delibly written, too, upon the hearts of the great and ever-
spreading race to which he belonged — that race in whose wide
expansion he rejoiced, and whose power and pre-eminence he
believed to be alike full of glory and of proraise for the best
interests of raankind.

THE ROYAL GRANT
House of Commons, July 25, 1889
On July 2nd a message was read in the House of Commons from Her Majesty,
asking the House to make provision for Prince Albert Victor and for Princess
Louise, the eldest children of the Prince of Wales, the latter of whom was then
about to be married to the Earl of Fife. On July 4th u, Select Committee was
appointed " to inquire into the former practice of this House with respect to pro
visions for members of the Royal Family, and to report to the House upon the
principles which in that respect it is e.xpedient to adopt in the future." Of this
Coramittee Mr Gladstone was a member, and his proposal that the Prince of Wales
should receive ^36,000, as an increase of his annual income, and should provide
for his children from this sum, was adopted. On July 25, on the motion to go
into Committee to consider the question, Mr Labouchere, Member for Northamp
ton, moved as au amendment that an address should he presented to Her Majestyj
setting forth, inter alia, " that the funds now at the disposal of Her Majesty and
of the members of her family are adequate, without further demands upon the
taxpayers, to enable suitable provision to be made for Her Majesty's grand
children." It was defeated by 398 to 116. In the course of the debate Mr
Gladstone spoke : he also took part iu the preliminarv discussions on July 4th
and9tli.
My hon. friend the senior member for Northampton, who has
moved the Amendraent, found it necessary for his purpose
— and I own it appeared to rae that the nature of his argu
raent required it — to occupy a very considerable portion
of the time of the House. My hon. friend who seconded
the Araendraent, has also entered at great length into this
subject ; but I will offer the House at least this consolation —
that I do not think there is any call upon nie, or that there would
be any sort of warrant for rae, to follow either of those exaraples.
But there is one portion of the speech of ray hon. friend
the seconder of the Araendraent on which I think I ought
to say a word. For a very considerable part of that speech
— the whole of the latter part — he has been drawing a con
trast, which I should say is highly ad invidiam, between the
miserable pittances, or at all events the very small amounts,
which are accorded to the needy in humbler circumstances and
stations of life, and that expenditure of thousands which is
farailiar, free, and unbounded in some other regions of society. I

104 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JULY 25
shall never attempt — my own firm convictions would prevent
me from endeavouring — to insinuate that contrasts of that kind
do not raise the raost serious questions. The seconder^ of the
Amendraent says that he stands upon moral considerations.
These are raoral considerations, and raoral considerations of a
deep and raost iraportant character; but in ray opinion they
are not so rauch applicable to the question that we are dis
cussing to-day, as they are to the general state of things in a
society where enormous wealth exists, where luxury prevails,
where vast classes of men, raany of those probably sitting in
this House, freely spend upon those objects of luxury and upon
the real or supposed necessities of their stations those enormous
suras which undoubtedly stand in the raost painful contrast
with what the State can do — I will go further and say with
what the State ought to do — with respect to its numerous and
humble dependents.
But is it fair to turn the whole strength of this contrast
upon the Eoyal Faraily ? The Royal Family have large
incomes — you raay say they have enorraous incoraes — and
so have other men. The difference, the broad difference,
between the Royal FaraUy and the other men of gigantic wealth
in this country is mainly this — that the wealth of the Eoyal
Family is in large measure associated with, and even tied down
to, the discharge of public duty, whereas the wealthy men of the
country are under practically no responsibility, except the
responsibility to their own consciences ; and I own I think it is
hard, not that these contrasts should be drawn — in our own
rainds and consciences we cannot draw them too much or too
stringently — but that they should be drawn for the purpose of
turning the whole public feeling on the subject against a Grant
to the Eoyal Faraily. I have said these words because I think
in justice they are required. I do not suppose that all raerabers of
Eoyal faraUies are patterns of what I raay call Christian econoray;
but I want to know how raany amongst us can pretend to offer
such patterns to the world ? How many of the wealthy are
there whose expenditure would bear the microscopic exaraination
' Mr S. Storey.

1889] THE ROYAL GRANTS 105
which we are now invited to apply exclusively ' to Royalty,
whose incomes at least, as I have said, stand in sorae palpable,
some intelligible, some permanent relation to the discharge of
public duties, aye, and to public expenditure, less connected,
perhaps, with that which immediately falls under the name of
moral duties, but still expenditure in which the people at large
feel a deep interest, the presence of which they view with satis
faction, and the absence of which they would view with regret ?
My hon. friend who moved the Amendment has referred,
in terms of whieh I certainly have no reason to complain,
to the substantial differences in the Party on this side of
the House, or rather, I may say, among the Parties on this side
of the House — for we are happy enough to have three of
them — on this subject. I shall not follow him far into that
discussion. I can only say I do not believe I shall excite any
adverse coraraents on the other side of the House if I, like hira,
take a cheerful view of the operations of these differences upon
our poUtical relations. We are not so young in politics, in
Liberal politics, and we are not so entirely unaware of the free
dom of the action of public or private opinion which politics
require, as to be alarmed in respect to our great and broad
pubUc principles and in respect to the large issues which are at
present before the country, because there are undoubtedly on
this question considerable divergencies of opinion among the
members of the Liberal Party.
I thank my hon. friend for what he was good enough
to say as to the allowance he would make for rae as
standing in a peculiar position. Indeed I do not deny
that there is a certain peculiarity of position in one who has
had to give responsible and much considered judgments upon
questions of this class for a period of between 40 and 50
years, for it is 46 years since as a member of the Cabinet
I was first a party to a demand upon Parliainent for a Royal
Grant. I do not, however, myself perceive that there is anything
in the peculiarity of ray position which should render my
conclusion a conclusion fit to be rejected by reasonable men. I
certainly should argue this question upon grounds which appear

106 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [july 25
to me at least to be broad and general. It is for the House and
the public to judge, no doubt, whether these grounds are sound
or not. They will not require rae to encroach largely upon
the time of the House. Let me at once direct myself to the
issues that are fairly raised by my hon. friend.
The issues raised by the Araendment are these. In the
first place, that Her Majesty and the other merabers of her
faraily are possessed of a sufficiency of raeans to avoid applica
tion to Parliament ; and in the second place, that large econo
mies might take place if further funds are needed for the purpose
of Royal endowment. I will first say a few words upon the sub
ject of economy. And I beg the House to bear in mind, that it is
difficult, as I believe, even for a great nobleman of this country — I
take a raan than whose narae none is more honoured, though I
differed from hira in political opinion, I take the late Duke of
Buccleuch — it is extreraely difficult for such a man, especially, as
in the case of the late Duke, if he gives much time and care and
thought to his public engageraents, to enforce in his great establish
ments real econoray and thrift. Sir, it is ten tiraes raore difficult
for a Sovereign. I will go further, and say it is alraost irapossible,
unless the Sovereign be strongly backed by the action of the Gov
ernment, and unless the Government be strongly backed by the
action of the House of Coraraons. I am sanguine enough tobelieve
with my hon. friend that there is some room for economy. I, how
ever, must say, and here I fall back on the seconder of the Motion,
that I am averse to all economy which would not only affect the
dignity, but which would impair the splendour of the Court.
In a society, constituted as this society is, the Court ought to
be a splendid Court ; and not only so, but I will go further, and
say, that a Court amply provided, but not extravagantly pro
vided with means, worked in a genial spirit, and conforming to
a high moral standard, is one of the most powerful, one of the
raost inestimable agencies which, in a country like this, you can
bring to bear upon the tone of society, and by means of which you
can raise the standard of conduct from class to class throughout
the kingdora.
I believe, however, with ray hon. friend, that there is room

1 889] THE ROYAL GRANTS 107
for economy, but the difference between us probably would
be this — that I estiraate the difficulty of enforcing that
economy as very great. I do not doubt Jihat you raight, as ray
hon. friend has pointed out, pick out some salary here and there,
from which deductions might be made. You might be fortunate
enough in particular cases —such as political cases, for instance
— to get rid of the erabarrassing considerations of vested interests.
But I own I have very great doubts indeed whether my hon.
friend has estiraated aright the complicated nature of the pro
cess that would have to be instituted, the firmness that it would
require, the tirae that it would demand, the strength of influ
ence and the weight of authority which must be at its back, in
order to make it effectual ; and I am by no means certain. Sir-,
that a very small, shallow, and partial attempt at thrift in the
Royal Household — I raean in the form of the public relations
of the Sovereign with Parliament and the country — I ara by no
means certain that it would be well to atterapt such small,
partial, and shallow reforras in the Civil List and in the Royal
Household, and the whole of the interests connected with thera,
unless at the very best opportunity. I have very great doubts
— I speak simply as a private individual, for it would be most
presuraptuous for rae to speak for anybody else, and most of all
even to conjecture what may be the views of Her Majesty — but
I own it dwells in ray own mind that it is extremely doubtful
whether there can be that thorough reconsideration, which, in
the whole of its raost corapUcated anatoray, the question of regal
expenditure deraands, except in connection with the settleraent
of a new Civil List. I own that if it be Her Majesty's im
pression, of which I have no knowledge whatever, that at an
advanced period of life it is doubtful whether it would be wise
or fit to atterapt to initiate a scheme of that kind, I can not only
sympathise with the feeling, but I am not at all indisposed to
believe that the judgment formed is a sound judgment. Although
I believe that great fruits will be reaped from a bold and
systematic prosecution of this subject at the right tirae, I ara by
no means clear that that tirae has actually at this raoment
arrived.

108 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [july 25
So much with regard to that subject ; but there remains what
I hold to be the main question raised by my hon. friend. From
his Motion, he consider^ that there are now sufficient means in the
hands of Her Majesty and of the other raembers of her famUy.
I do not quite know what interpretation I ara to give to the
phrase " other merabers of her family." The only one who I
suppose can possibly be tn the view of my hon. friend besides
the Prince of Wales is the Duke of Edinburgh. But it is quite
evident that the Duke of Edinburgh does not enter into this
question at all, for it will be seen from a previous stateraent of
the intentions of Her Majesty's Government that no claim can at
any time be made on his part upon the public in reference to a
Eoyal marriage. Consequently, I shall assurae that the persons
indicated here by ray hon. friend are Her Majesty and the
Prince of Wales. Now, let us consider the case of Her
Majesty and of the Prince of Wales. My hon. friend who has
seconded this Motion, has shown hiraself to be possessed of a
lively iraagination. He deals in millions, of the existence of
which, in an available or a profitable forra, I believe no other
human being is cognizant. Further, he has shown to his own
satisfaction that the private incorae, or what he calls the pin-
raoney of Her Majesty, amounts to the sum of a quarter of a
raillion a year.
Now, Sir, ray estiraate of this rather iraportant question
is that if he had said half that araount, he would have
been very rauch nearer indeed to the mark; and I am sorry
that a phrase Uke that of pin-money should have been intro
duced. I do not think my hon. friend can have appreciated
equitably- the position of the Sovereign in such a raatter.
Take the systera, for instance, of pensions. I will venture
to say that there is no establishraent in the country in
which the system of pensioning is practised as it is in the
establishment of the Sovereign, and that not altogether from
pure benevolence or choice, but from a kind of necessity grow
ing out of the peculiarities of the Eoyal position, which
peculiarities you must take into view if you want to arrive
at any sound conclusion.

1 889] THE ROYAL GRANTS 109
I will not enter now into the details of the subject, but all
I wUl say is this — that what we may call the free income of
Her Majesty is subject to a number of calls to which you
would find it difficult to discover anything fairly analogous in
the expenditure of private persons. I am not here to mamtain
that Her Majesty has not free available means which seem to be
destined by nature, by propriety, and by Her Majesty's own raost
gracious considerate and prudent choice to the endowraent of her
family. Her Majesty has been blessed with a very nuraerous
offspring. Under the circurastances that are now before us the
proposal is that of no part of that posterity shall we hear in the
second generation except the chUdren of the Prince of Wales.
That appears to rae to be a most unportant itera to take into
our view. I feel no hesitation whatever in accepting the
considerate offer of Her Majesty. I do not agree with those
portions of the Report of the Comraittee which would rather, I
think, lead to the inference that there was sorae duty incurabent
upon ParUament which Parliaraent was unwilling to perforra.
I make no such admission. In my opinion Parliament has always
in this matter been very Uberal and loyal, and, notwithstanding
any little indications of diverging opinions, such I heartily hope
and believe it wUl stiU continue to be. Her Majesty has been
pleased to mention one great item which ought probably to be
called the principal item — the large increase that has taken
place since the opening of the reign in the revenues of the
Duchy of Lancaster. I feel that nothing can be more just and
legitimate than that Her Majesty's generosity should, with these
means in her possession, offer to take upon herself the charge of
her grandchildren, and nothing can be more fair or raore cora
patible with our duty, as well to our constituencies as to the
Crown, than that we should accept the offer. It is a very
serious one. It involves a very large expenditure. I think the
seconder of the Amendment stated that the sum of £300,000 or
£400,000 would be an araple sum for all the Queen's grand
children. I must own that, although £300,000 or £400,000 may
sound a very large sum of money, I do not admit that it is an
adequate sum to make provision — respectable, creditable, honour-

110 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [july 25
able, and moderate provision for so numerous a body as, happily,
the Queen's grandchildren have now come to be. It is not
denied by those who oppose the Amendment that Her j\Iajesty
has avaUable raeans. Her Majesty has raade an offer. We pro
pose to act on that offer, and to give to Parliaraent an exemption
from the possibUity of proposals for the raaintenance of many
among the raerabers of the various branches of the Royal Faraily.
The acceptance of this offer on our part will irapose upon Her
Majesty a very heavy burden, greatly exceeding the sura wnich
the hon. meraber has raentioned, and may possibly require rauch
prudence, thrift, and forethought on the part of Her Majesty
to enable her to bear it without disparagement to all her other
Eoyal duties. Well, Sir, that being the case, I ask myself
again whether my hon. friend really has met the case in his
contention that the Prince of Wales ought to be possessed of
funds to enable hira to undertake the care of his children. I
presurae he would not push that doctrine so far as to raake it
erabrace all the liabUities and expenses that might arise in the
event of the Prince's accession to the Throne. The question is
whether for the period while the Prince of Wales reraains Prince
of Wales, it is fair or rational to expect that he should take
upon hiraself the raaintenance of his children as they grow up,
as they depart from under his roof, as they become the heads of
separate establishments, or as they enter into families where, if
the farailies are rich, stUl, being the grandchildren of the Queen
and daughters of the Heir Apparent, they ought not m my
judgment to enter absolutely penniless, but if they are poor
should have provided for thera a raoderate incorae by the State,
which would, perhaps, form a very considerable part of their
whole avaUable means.
My hon. friend says that the revenue of the Duchy of
CornwaU was only £46,000 in 1863 and is now £61,000.
Yes, Sir; but my hon. friend has been favoured by fortune
in this respect. It is true it was only £46,000 in 1863,
but it was £52,000 in 1862, and £50,000 ui the year 1864. It
rose regularly and rapidly until it had passed the figure of
£60,000 in 1869, and since 1869 there are, I think, only two or

1 889] THE ROYAL GRANTS 111
three exceptional years in which it has fallen below £60,000.
I must point out to my hon. friend what really took place on
that occasion. It is my duty to speak of it, because at the time
Lord Palmerston raade a proposal in Parliament I was Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and of course it was my duty to make an
estimate of the Prince's revenue. And what did we do ? We
were, of course, perfectly aware that at the nioraent the
revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall were under £60,000. But
we stated them at £60,000. Why ? Because we were providing
for a period that was likely to be one of considerable length.
At the time of the Prince's marriage the Queen herself had
hardly entered middle age, and there was every prospect of a
lengthened as well as a happy reign. In these circumstances we
gave that estimate of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall
which would be a fair and moderate estimate as applied to the
general state of the Prince's fortune during the time that he
might be expected to continue Duke of Cornwall. It appears to
me that was the proper course, and it is undoubtedly the truth
that if we had been compelled to estimate the revenues of the
Duchy of Cornwall at £46,000, which was the revenue of that
particular year, we should have been obliged to ask for a larger
payraent on behalf of the Prince out of the Consolidated Fund.
Sir, on the whole that estimate of £60,000 a year has proved to
be a remarkably accurate one ; a little, but only a very little
under the raark ; and in these circurastances the point is this —
diversely from the case of Her Majesty, who is receiving con
siderable revenues from the Duchy of Lancaster, which were not
in immediate contemplation at the coraraenceraent of the reign,
the Prince of Wales is receiving almost exactly what he received
before. At present there is sorae tendency to dirainish the very
sum which was held out by Parliament as necessary for the main
tenance of the Prince's dignity as Heir Apparent to the Throne.
Well, Sir, the revenues of the Prince of Wales have remained, I
may say, constant, and have corresponded in a remarkable degree
with the estiraate then raade. It will be admitted that circum
stances have tended soraewhat to throw upon the Prince of Wales
an amount of public duty in connection with institutions as well

112 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [juLV 25
as with ceremonials which was larger than could reasonably have
been expected, and in regard to which every call has been
honourably and devotedly met from a sense of that public duty.
Mj hon. friend will see that the argument in the case of the
Duchy of Lancaster has no application whatever to the case of
the Prince of Wales. But he compares the income of the Prince
of Wales with that of a private gentleraan. I raust say I depre
cate that coraparison if it is attempted to push it to any length.
The Prince of Wales with £110,000 a year does not possess the
same command over the expenditure of that money, or the saving
of that raoney, as a duke or any inferior personage in society with
a corresponding income, and that raust be borne in raind if you
are to deal justly and fairly with a case of this kind.
My hon. friend, however, says that the Prince of AA^ales had
£600,000 in his hands when provision was made for hira by Par
liaraent at that tirae. Sir, that is perfectly true ; it is also true that
a very large portion of that sura, I think between £200,000 and
£300,000 was laid out in the acquisition of Sandringhara. Was
not that a becoming acquisition ? It appears to me it was
perfectly becoraing, and I am not sure that I raight not go a little
further, and say it was alraost necessary that the Heir
Apparent of this country, in the cUcurastances in which he
stood, with no sort of prospect of an early accession to the
Throne, should have a place in the country according to the
habits of the people of this country, where he could exercise
hospitality, where he might follow rural pursuits, and where he
might acquire and cherish a love of home, and conforra to that
truly British standard to which we all like to see our Sovereign
and other Royal personages conform.
Let me call the attention of my hon. friend to a point
he has not taken in view. It is true, he said, that the
Sovereign of this country has, as she ought to have, great
and noble palaces maintained for her use. It is also true
that these palaces are splendidly furnished, and that every
axjpUance of life exists in thera in abundance, almost in a con
dition of redundance. But the condition of the Prince of Wales
is a totally different one. He had no such succession. I beUeve

1889] THE EOYAL GEANTS 113
it would be correct to say that when the Prince of Wales had
provision made for him by Parliament he was scarcely the owner
of a sUver spoon. He had Marlborough House, no doubt.
It was provided for hira; but I am not aware that it was
furnished. If I remeraber right, it was a question of the walls
of Marlborough House and the raaintenance of the fabric.
Everything else had to be provided by the Prince. Therefore,
my hon. friend will see that very little was to be expected
from the source to which he alluded. Now, sir, my hon.
friend who seconded the motion quoted from Lord Broughara
what I raay call an excellent expression — that the raeasure of
the gifts of Parliament ought to be the necessities of the Crown ;
and, of course, by analogy that applies to the case of the
Prince of Wales. It seeras to rae that is a very sound doc
trine. I do not adrait any liability of Parliaraent, apart from
the necessities of the Crown, estiraated honourably, liberally,
and with a due reference to what this country is, and what the
Sovereign of this country ought to be. I admit no other claira
whatever ; but I say, on that claim, in ray opinion, Her Majesty
now graciously offers to assurae a heavy burden upon herself,
which is as much as we can reasonably ask. And with respect
to the Prince of Wales, he has fulfilled the contract, so far as
there was a contract ; he has fulfilled the expectations which
ParUaraent was entitled to forra with respect to his income and
expenditure ; and it would not be rational on our part to sup
pose it was possible for him to produce a sum of many thousands
a year for the free and separate raaintenance of his children.
I think, therefore, that as to econoray it is a raost fruitful and
most important subject, and I trust it will receive, whenever the
proper time arrives — even now, it raay be, — due consideration. It
raay be right that the preparation of a new CivU List should be
anticipated, so far as all these inquiries are concerned. It is a
most important subject. But you cannot make it available for
the present juncture to any serious extent. With respect even
to the possession of funds, I think I have shown that there are
none upon which we can attempt to throw the entire burden of
what is now demanded from us. Well now, sir, let me ask the

114 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JULY 25
House for one moraent before I sit down just to consider how
this question stands as a whole. My hon. friend the mover of
the araendraent spoke of it as a question — I do not reraember
the exact words — which has been reduced within secondary
dimensions. Happily, sir, it has been reduced within secondary
dimensions ; but there are many stages in a great process. They
begin from the reign of George III. Even the reign of George
IV., as corapared with that of George IIL, marks a certain com
mencement of the action of public opinion, and of an iraproved
handling of this raost important subject, in respect of the means
to be placed at the disposal of the Sovereign. The reign of
WUliara IV. raade another and greater advance. The reign of
Her Majesty at the coraraenceraent again placed Parliaraent in
a much more forward condition ; and that one point, the greatest
of all, was attained — that Parliament should not be subject
from time to tirae to those raost objectionable applications for
the discharge of royal debts. Well, sir, how do we now stand ?
Is there no further progress raade in the matter as it now comes
before us ? I do not not say we are now going to do everything
that is desirable to be done. Very far from it ; and even the
Report of the Coraraittee, with some pouits of which I do not
agree, contains most important references to this subject of a
future juncture.
Let us see, then, how we stand. In the first place, I
think it will be admitted that the Prince of Wales, and Her
Majesty on behalf of the Prince of Wales, have not been pre
cipitate in making this applicaton. The period of coming of
age has generally been marked in the case of a prince as the
period for making an application to Parliament. But Prince
Albert Victor is, I think, twenty-four years of age, and his
younger brother has likewise for some tirae been of age. That,
however, is not the only point. In ray opinion, the question of the
grandchUdren of the reigning Sovereign, other than the chUdren
of the Heir- Apparent, is settled — I think for all time — I admit
not by a forraal withdrawal. But the right hon. gentleraan has a
right to state that, and those who object to his course have a right
to urge the stateraent against him. I do not enter into that

1889] THE ROYAL GRANTS 115
controversy ; but I give a raost confident opinion, founded upon
sueh observation of public affairs as has been within my power,
that this claim has as completely disappeared from the region of
what may be termed practical politics as if it had been with
drawn by a deed upon parchment regularly stamped and sealed.
Well, sir, what remains ? What remains is that we have to
consider the case of the children of the Heir- Apparent. The
Heir- Apparent, as I say, had not the power of producing £30,000
or even £20,000 a year for the purpose of maintaining his
children when the day of need arose. But, in making provision
for thera, Parliament will be asked to adopt the plan which
absolutely secures us during the remainder of this reign from
any renewal of these very painful controversies. I think that
a very great advantage gained for us and for the public. I
wUl not say for the stabUity of the Throne, for happily that
stabUity is beyond the reach of the breezes or the gales of opinion
which may be set in motion on these particular occasions. But
the extinction of the possibility of the renewal of these con
troversies for the remainder of the reign is another great
step in the right direction. Let me do right hon. gentlemen
opposite justice, although I am not wholly satisfied with all
parts of the Report. I hope the House will observe the ira
portant words in the paragraph last but one. This is the para
graph which contains the practical proposal : —
" In order to prevent repeated applications to Parliament, and to
establish the principle that the provision for children should hereafter
be made out of grants adequate for that purpose which have been
assigned to their parents."
These are not mere words. They are primarily the basis on
which the proposal is founded ; and what is now asked on the
one hand undeniably secures us frora controversy during the
reraainder of the reign, and, on the other hand, as undeniably
points to the construction of a new CivU List as the occasion
when the whole question must be settled in principle and in
practice, and likewise indicates that mode of settleraent which
my hon. friend, I think, will be the first to recognise as sound
and just.

116 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JULY 25
I have thought it my duty to enter at once into this debate.
Undoubtedly I admit that on every occasion our highest obliga
tion as the Coraraons of England is to the constituencies which
we represent. But we are servants of the Crown as well as ser
vants of the people. Having, then, as I hope, done ray duty to the
people, I have been endeavouring, so far as I could, to contribute
towards casting this delicate question into a forra which in a very
short tirae is, I believe, likely to becorae perfectly satisfactory.
Having done that, I ara not asharaed to say that in my old age
1 rejoice in any opportunity which enables me to testify that
whatever may be thought of my opinions, whatever may be
thought of ray proposals in general politics, I do not forget the
service which I have borne for so raany years to the illustrious
representative of the British Monarchy.

MR GLADSTONE'S GOLDEN
WEDDING
The National Liberal Club, July 27th 1889.
In honour of Mr and Mrs Gladstone's Golden Wedding the members of the
National Liberal Club, through their Chairman of Committee, Lord Oxenbridge,
presented Mr Gladstone with an address and an album, the work of several well-
known artists. The presentation took place at the Club ; Mrs Gladstone was present.
LoED OxENBEiDGE, my lords, ladies, and gentleraen, you have
presented rae on my entering within these walls with a double
gift — the first, a beautiful album, that I have had the opportunity
of examining in another apartraent of the club, in which sorae
of our most distinguished artists have condescended to use their
genius and their skill in the representation of objects and of
scenes which it was deemed might be of the highest interest in
connection with the present occasion. And I would wish to be
allowed to tender my testiraony of gratitude to them for the re
markable raanner in which they have contrived to give to the
life of an individual that interest which nothing but very high
accoraplishraents and very devoted labour could have sufficed to
give. You have also presented rae, my lord, with an address full
of subjects, all of them relevant to the tirae aud the place in
which we meet — sorae of thera of a deep intrinsic interest. Un
doubtedly it was difficult to separate the public and political
considerations, that are so entwined with the whole record of ray
life, frora the doraestic interest which, for ourselves and for all
those of our fellow-countryraen who are good enough to sym
pathize with us, makes the present occasion — the occasion which
we reached yesterday — to be one of special importance to us.
Well, now, let rae say one word — and it will be a very
brief word, for this is not the occasion for political discourses
— a very brief word on the references that have been made in
the address to my connection with the political principles that

118 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JULY 27
form a bond of union for aU persons within the walls of this
club. I shall not feel it necessary, ladies and gentleraen, to in
troduce topics that could give pain to any one differing from us
upon the particular measures that we think raost required for
the advantage of the country ; but I will venture to say, in
taking an historical view rather than a view of the moraent of
the circurastances in which you stand, that, as representatives
of a party devoted to the proraotion of Liberal principles, you
can never be without abundant comfort and consolation. Not
only at the tirae when you are in possession of political power,
but also — and sometimes even more conspicuously — when you
are excluded from it, your principles advance. They are princi
ples, not of destruction, but of improvement ; and the important
admissions which belong to it are — I do not say extorted, I do not
say extracted, from the mouths and recorded in the action of
adversaries — but they are, without the use of anyinvidious phrase,
tlie inevitable incident of the exercise of power in this country ;
and, much as there may be to which we are opposed, and rauch
to which we have objected, in the action of the last three years,
on the part of the dominant party in Parliament, yet we thank
fully record that important principles have been enshrined iu
our legislation, and serious raeasures of practical iraproveraent
projected and adopted, which show that whatever your position be,
either within the favoured precinct or beyond its limits, your
work never ceases. It is always advancing frora stage to stage
and, humanly speaking, you are independent of the leadership,
or of the assistance of this raan or of that. An internal and un
dying energy belongs to the cause itself: and you raay rest
assured that, under the favour of Providence, as it has advanced,
so it will advance, and generation after generation will be its
rejoicing witnesses.
And now, ray Lord Oxenbridge, let rae say one word — it
raust be a very brief word — upon the raore personal portions
of the address which you have been good enough to read,
and in which you have rerainded rae, by the raost seasonable
allusions, how little there is in ourselves on which we can rely,
how entirely everything that is to make us useful in our genera-

1 889] HIS GOLDEN WEDDING 119
tion, that is to inspire us with personal hope, or to unite us in
the bonds of affection with our countrymen, depends upon the
influences which flow downwards from a higher power. I thank
you, my lord, for these references, and I must say that I feel
that there is no description of sentiment which the occurences
of the last few days are so calculated to impress upon the
mind, as a very deep sense of personal unworthiness and, if it
may be, a real approach towards the most essential of all gifts —
namely, the gift of humUity. I ara ashamed, ladies and gentle
men, of the kindness that has been shown to me. When I speak
of my wife, when I acknowledge that there is a greater justice
in the tributes that you have so kindly paid to her, I there
enjoy a relative and comparative freedom. And no words that
I could use would ever suffice to express the debt that I owe her
in relation to all the offices that she has discharged on my
behalf, and on behalf of those who are nearest and dearest to us,
during the long and the happy period of our conjugal union.
But, for myself, I ara indeed deeply gratifled by, and I ara
in no small degree ashamed of, the kindly interest which
my countrymen have shown in the arrival of this anniversary,
and in recollecting the forms that the manifestation of that
feeling has assumed. I hope it will not sound like exaggeration
— it is really the phrase dictated by my desire to express what
I feel — if I say that I feel myself, as it were, drowned in an
ocean of kindness. I should in vain labour to find words in
which to develop that sentiraent. I will leave it as it is. It
expresses the state of raind of one who feels hiraself unworthy
to look in the face these reraarkable deraonstrations of confidence
and of love. I trust to your goodness to appreciate the sincerity
of that sentiraent, and to believe that it is one that can never
be effaced from, and never can for a raoraent be weakened
in either of our hearts.
Allow me, ladies and gentlemen, to reciprocate your good
will, and to say what a noble calling I deem it to be to
serve a people such as this. Wliat opportunities of good to
our fellow-creatures it has opened ; what cheering and plea
sant anticipations of the future; what bright recollections of

120 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JULY 27
the past ; how all its difficulties and the pain attending upon
its contentions seem to vanish in the distance and to become
light as dust, when compared with our conviction that the
substantial nature of the objects that we have in -view is
associated with the highest or with very high interests of man
kind. I wish you, ladies and gentlemen— few, if any, of whom
have attained to the period of life that it has been allotted to me
to reach — I wish that you may, each of you in your sphere, be
enabled to employ the gifts which God withholds from none in
the discharge of those noble duties which are open at all tiraes
to the patriotisra of the English citizens. Within these walls
such words cannot be inappropriate, and they are words suited,
not to the narrow sphere within which I speak, but to every
district, every portion, every corner of our country. It is
among her most characteristic and distinguishing points
that she expects every man to do his duty, not only in the
private sphere of the neighbourhood where he lives, but on a
larger scale. The laws we have lately adopted^ tend to drive
horae upon every heart, every raind, and every conscience a
deeper sense of that duty. The sphere is enlarged, the call is
louder than it ever was before, the raan who does not listen to it
would be unwoi'thy of the narae of Briton, but, on the other hand,
we are persuaded that as in forraer tiraes our countryraen have
not been unable to play a leading part araong the nations of the
world, so in the tiines to come they will, by the help of God,
rise more and more to a consciousness of the greatness of the
country to which they belong, and of the high pro-vidential pur
poses which are associated with its wealth, its resources, and its
power. They hold it as a trust coraraitted to thera from above, to
use alike for their own advantage and for the advantage of their
brethren dispersed throughout the earth. Allow rae, ladies and
gentlemen, to ask you to accept the assurance, not only of our
gratitude and of our good will, but our earnest desire that you
collectively and individually, may be partakers in full of the
blessings which belong to you as Britons and as Christians.
1 The Local Governraent Bill, 1888.

THE FRENCH REPUBLIC
Paris, Septembee 7, 1889
Mr Gladstone was entertained at a banquet in Paris by the Paris Society of
Political Economy. His health was proposed by M. Leon Say.
Mesdames et Messieurs, — Si quelques personnes ont appris
quelque chose de moi, k I'heure actuelle, je leur deraanderai de
m'accorder quelque indulgence. C'est, en effet, k votre indul
gence que j'ai recours. Les sentiments de reconnaissance que
j'eprouve rae reraplissent au point que je ne sais de quelle
raaniere reconnaitre les louanges si peu raerit^es que m'a pro-
diguees M. L&n Say, mon ami, votre digne president. Car
c'est dans votre langue si belle et si cel^bre que je voudrais
essayer au moins de vous exprimer ce que je ressens.
Je voudrais d'abord vous parler de I'Exposition. Je me
souviens avec plaisir que c'est mon pays qui, il y a trente-huit
ans, a eu I'honneur de coraraencer a faire des expositions, k donner
une forrae corporelle et visible a cette idee devenue si feconde.
Mais il etait reserve k la Edpublique franqaise d'aujourd'hui de
donner a cette idfe le developperaent si merveilleux que j'ai tant
admire depuis que je suis k Paris, a cette idee si fructueuse pour
I'industrie et les arts, pour la paix, la bonne amiti^ entre les
nations, pour tout ce qui int^resse le citoyen, qui, tout en
restant citoyen de sa patrie, est aussi un peu citoyen du monde.
J'ai ^te frappe d'admiration en presence de I'irapulsion si
reraarquable que cette Exposition a denude a la vie toujours si
energique de Paris. Paris, aujourd'hui, me parait comme une
-ville que je n'ai jamais connue auparavant. II rae semble plus
magnifique, plus imposant que je I'ai connu autrefois.
Je voudrais parler aussi, non de la situation politique in-
tdrieure de la France — ce serait une impertinence de raa part ;
je ne voudrais pas m'immiscer dans vos affaires — mais je voudrais

122 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [sept. 7
dire quelques mots pour rendre un temoignage et reraplir un
devoir. J'ai connu la Republique frangaise pendant dix ans que j'ai
ete chef du cabinet anglais, et pendant ce teraps j'ai tellement ete
mele aux affaires Internationales entre la France et I'Angle
terre que j'ai pu apprecier pleineraent sa capacitt^ a remplir
toutes les fonctions, dans leur forme republicaine, d'un pays
civilisd, d'un des premiers pays du raonde. Pendant ces dix
annees, bien des questions epineuses sans doute ont dte soule-
v6es. Le gouverneraent francais, je dois le dire, a repondu a
tous les besoins et n'a jaraais raanque a la veritable araitie qui
unit et qui, je I'espere, unira toujours les nations franqaise et
anglaise. Les precedes de la France out toujours fait une
grande irapression sur mon esprit; et, je le repute, son gouverne
ment a toujours satisfait a tous les devoirs qui incombent k
une grande nation civilisee, chretienne, progressive.
Qu'il me soit perrais de vous dire, Mesdames et Messieurs
de dire a M. Leon Say, que je souhaite et que ma nation, j'en
suis persuade, souhaite avec moi, que la France ne raanque
jaraais k son role et ne perde jaraais sa place dans la marche de
rhumanit(3 chretienne et civilisee vers le but que doit rechercher
tout horarae de bon sens et de bonne volont(5.
Je me sou-viens d'un petit incident dont j'ai gardd une pro-
fond impression. Quand les affairs des Indes orientales etaient
sous la tutelle de la Corapagnie des Indes, il y avait en Angle
terre un college sur le frontispice duquel ces raots latins etaient
graves : N'e facias tua culpa minores. C'etait un avertissement
a tous les eleves d'avoir a faire leur devoir et a se souvenir de
la grandeur de ce devoir.
Eh ! bien, si cela m'etait permis, je dirais k tous les Franqais :
JVe facias tua culjia minores. Oui, que la France soit toujours,
comme elle I'a ete, au premier rang des nations europdennes dans
raceomplisseraent de I'oeuvre de la civilisation et du bonheur de
I'humanit^

THE WORKMAN AND HIS
OPPORTUNITIES Saltney, Octobee 26th, 1889
On the occasion of the opening of new Reading and Recreation Rooms at Salt
ney, a suburb of Chester, Mr Gladstone made the following speech. On Septem
ber 12th 1890, he .spoke on "Industrial Progress " at the Dee Iron Works.
Ladies and Gentlemen, — It gives rae great pleasure to ac
cept this address, of which I think that it does high and just
honour to its composer, while undoubtedly it does raore honour
than I deserve to rayself. But I shall choose, ladies and gentle
men, a better subject than myself for this occasion. It is said
that old age makes people talkative, and more especially fond of
giving the history of their own life and experience. Into these
raatters I shall not largely enter, because I have what I conceive a
very interesting occasion presented to me upon a broader ground.
I assure you that it is with very great pleasure that I find mj'-
self among you to-day, because the very busy Ufe that I lead is
so crowded with occupation that it very seldom indeed happens
to rae to have an opportunity of perforraing, as I ought to do,
a neighbourly duty. And now that such an opportunity has
occurred, it gives me sincere satisfaction to make use of it, for
the reason I have named ; and also because in my opinion, this
is a very interesting occasion.
I am happy to say that it is not now a strange thing at all
to meet for a purpose such as has gathered us together to-day.
Perhaps I ought to say what I consider that purpose to be. I
do not consider this to be the mere foundation of a reading room.
If this were the foundation of a reading roora for those who have
ample means of furnishing themselves with mental food, it might
be a very right and a very useful undertaking ; but it would not
present to us the peculiar interest which I think attaches to the

124 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 26
particular institution that we have now to deal with. F<jr this I
understand to be a reading roora — a place of recreation, a place
of study, and a place of iraproveraent — for our fellow-citizens
who belong to the class that we call the working raen of the
country. Now, a far greater interest attaches to such an under
taking as that, first, because our friends of what is terraed the
working class forra the greater number of the community; and
secondly, because they have not the same means of providing
theraselves with the advantages of study and the precious fruits
of knowledge that we have ; and, moreover, it is also — I will not
say an innovation, but I will say it is only a novelty of our
own tiraes that such an institution should be foimded at all.
Well, if I go back to the days of ray youth — and I hope it is
the only occasion I shall have to refer to rayself — if I go back
to the days of ray own youth, I think I raay say that no such in
stitution as this had ever been heard of. It would have been in
deed a very strange thing, as it would then have been thought ;
for at that tirae it was considered a very doubtful question in
deed — I do not say by wise raen, but it was certainly considered
by very raany raen to be a very doubtful question mdeed whether
it was at all desirable, upon any terras or conditions, to found
even primary schools for the working men of the country, and
to open to thera the first steps in the acquisition of knowledge.
Well, this, gentlemen, is indeed a great and happy and blessed
change. The lot of daily labour is necessarily a severe one.
You will reraember that it attaches to the masses of man
kind from the beginning of our race, and I suppose it will attach
to us to the end of our race. Happy is the man well eraployed ;
miserable, in ray opinion, is the idle raan. The labouring man
is happy in respect of his having useful employment, and being
able to make it the means of self-support. But at the same
time, though it raay be an unacceptable, I think it is an undeni
able truth that daily labour, continued from morning to night,
continued frora year's end to year's end, continued frora boyhood
to old age, makes a severe and trying life. And it is raost
desirable that such alleviations of that lot, such aids to those
who have to undergo it as can be provided for thera, should be

1 889] THE WOEKMAN'S OPPORTUNITIES 125
freely and liberally provided. Permit me to point out to you
very briefly that reraarkable alleviations and iraproveraents have
come to the mass of our working raen within the tirae to .which
I have referred. There may be much yet to do, much yet to
desire, and I have no doubt that there is ; but the change that we
have seen — that I have lived to see — has been a great and a
blessed change. As I have said, the period starting, we wUl say,
from seventy years ago — the period opens with the time when
it was even doubted whether any kind or any degree of educa
tion, upon any conditions whatever, should be provided for the
working population of the country. All these doubts have been
cleared away. The school is now at every person's door ; and,
moreover, it is not, as it was in the beginning of the century, a
place of suffering, a place of tyranny, a place very often of ignor
ance, almost useless for the purpose which it professed to attain.
But the school is now a reaUty ; the teacher is usually a person
with his mind set upon his work ; and often, I am happy to say,
there is a great effusion of love and tenderness in that work,
and strong sentiments of attachraent to the pupils who are in
structed, quite certain to bear fruit, at any rate hopeful to bear
fruit, in the lives and characters of those pupils.
I raay raention another point of great raoraent. At the tirae
I am speaking of, the working man was forbidden by law to
join with other working men for the purpose of giving value to
his labour in the market. Capitalists were powerful, were
individually powerful, and were perraitted to corabine as rauch as
they pleased; but working raen raight not lay their heads together
for their own purposes, raight not form their plans or seek by
means of coraraunication and corabination or by any effective
means to promote their comraon interest or to carry out their
plans. There is no doubt there has been very much done since
those days to secure a fair remuneration for their labour.
They are now, what they ought always to have been, as free as
the law can make thera to sell their labour in the raarket at the
best price it will yield.
I will now mention another point, and that is the progress of
machinery. When it was first introduced, raachinery often

126 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 26
appeared to be cruel to working raen. The first stage of its
application has often entailed a good deal of individual hardship
to working raen in special cases ; but to the working raen, in
the long run it is an enorraous blessing. For what does it do ?
It relieves thera of all the severest parts of their occupation.
I remember, in my youth going to see an ironworks where a
large number of men were employed. They were stripped down
to the waist on account of the violence of the exertion required
and the heated temperature, and they were engaged in hammer
ing what are called boiler plates. It is unpossible to conceive a
finer sight. They were a body of very muscular men, and they
wielded enormous hararaers. I do not know whether that kind of
thing still exists, but I believe that it has in the main cUsappeared.
But this I also remember, that long years after I went to see
a great tool work in the town of Oldham, where 5,000 men were
eraployed. I went through the whole of the works, and I raay
say I did not see one single individual undergoing violent
exertion. These five thousand men were all doing the work
required of thera — work that required great skill and attention
• — but I did not see a raan who was undergoing any violent
or exhausting labour. That is the effect of raachinery. A
raachine means a power that does not suff'er, and yet it is per
fectly effective, when directed by human intelligence, in perform
ing that which formerly constituted the most oppressive and diffi
cult portion of the work of the people. That is a great blessing.
Now I turn to another of the points I have to name. In those
times the labouring raan, frora many reasons, could not get the
full value of his labour. In order to obtain the full value of
any commodity you want to dispose of, it is necessary you should
not be tied down to one single raarket. All you who are
men of business are perfectly aware of that. It is necessary
for you to have a choice of markets. Labour was a comraodity
a man had to sell ; but he had no choice of raarkets. There was
no freedora of locomotion in the country; no power for the
labouring raan in one town to see what was gomg on in another
great town, because of the slowness, the expense, and the diffi
culty of moving from one place to another. And he had

1 889] THE WORKMAN'S OPPOETUNITIES 127
practically no press to help him; newspapers were few and
dear. Now all that is changed. See what the locomotion of
this country is now. See how all the things that are going on
in one part of the country are known to every part of the country
through the press ; see how, if more assistance is wanted any
where, how, for a few pence probably, a labouring man may go
by the railway from one part to another. Through the same
agency of the press he may get information that is valuable to
him ; and not only in the matter of corporal locomotion, but in
that of correspondence and the transmission of public intelligence,
and, what is of more importance, the family correspondence
between parents and chUdren has been developed so as to be
within the reach of all.
In the days of my youth a labouring man, the father of a
family, was practically prohibited frora corresponding with the
members of his family who raight be away. How was that ?
you wiU ask. Why, on account of the enorraous expense of
postage. It was such that every poor raan was made to pay
postage for every piece of paper, running from sixpence to
one shilling, and one shilling to one-and-sixpence ; and if there
were two bits of paper the postage was double, and if three
bits of paper it was trebled. But what happened to the rich ?
It did not affect them. There was a system of franking. I
remember it very well I have franked a good many letters
for myself, and I have franked a great many letters for my
friends. I remeraber, when I was a young Meraber of Parlia
ment, there was nobody more popular about the country than a
Member of Parliament. He could frank the letters of the
young ladies. Those letters went free. A poor man, whose
son and daughter had gone into service, or another, whose son
had, perhaps, become a soldier or sailor, or had occasion to re
move to a distance for the purposes of his livelihood, had no
means of comraunication except by paying this monstrous fee.
But you know how the matter stands now. By the infusion of
the skill and courage of Sir Eowland Hill into our system, cor
respondence is now within the reach of all, and the circulation
o-f intelUgence is greatly facilitated. I say that this is valuable

128 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [oct. 26
in all ways ; but it is as to personal family correspondence that
it is the most desirable of all. That is what prevented raem
bers of famiUes frora coraraunicating with each other ; but the
facilities now offered for increased correspondence have deve
loped the power of faraily affection, and have done an enormous
deal to promote that union of families which is, really, almost
the basis of moral excellence and of national felicity.
I will not say that the whole of the changes since that period
have been to the good ; I will not say the whole movement has
been to the good. I do not think it has. I do not think that
all the changes among the upper classes of society have always
been on the right side ; but this much I will venture to say :
that, if not in the entire upper classes of society, yet araong
portions of those classes there is a livelier, more active, and
more practical sense of benevolence than there has existed in
past times. There never was a period in which so many wise
and good schemes for rendering practical help to those who
are in difficulty are devised and put into action. Only last
night, in Liverpool, one of these was raentioned to me — one
planned and devised on an excellent system by Mr William
Rathbone, one of our Members of Parliament. The scheme is
devised to supply those of the working classes who are afflicted
in their homes with good, well-trained, trustworthy nurses.
There are now being established in Liverpool houses where
these nurses are being specially trained to go into the dwellings
of the poor population at the expense of the benevolent and
wise persons who have devised this plan. I only mention this
as a single instance of the principle that is widely in operation,
and which we cannot but conteraplate with the utraost satisfac
tion, because, while certainly ray wish is that the labouring man
shall be a self-supporting individual, yet such are the inequaU-
ties brought about by sickness, and by unforeseen and unavoid
able calaraities at certain tiraes and under certain circumstances,
it is everywhere right and reasonable that he should receive
assistance and help in this way.
I shall not dwell in detaU upon some other changes that
have taken place. You know what the changes are with

1889] THE WORKMAN'S OPPORTUNITIES 129
regard to taxation. Now, if we except stimulants — which are
fair subjects of taxation — there is but one article — tea — of
everything that the working man consumes which is the sub
ject of taxation. True, coffee is the subject of a small tax also.
But I think tea is the one great article of national consumption
which continues to be subject to taxation. Now, that is a very
different story to the time of ray youth ; for in my youth the
working man was subject to taxation, not for the purposes of
the State, not to supply the necessary wants of the country,
but, I am sorry to say, to increase the rents of the landlords
and the profits of the raanufacturers. He was compelled to
pay extra prices for his bread, and as to' his meat he was for
bidden — he was forbidden by law to feed upon a foreign aniraal ;
for the iraportation of foreign animals into this country was
prohibited. As to his wages, I wish they were higher than
they are — but they are a great deal higher than they were.
They have been moving in the right direction; and the best
authorities say that the working man, on the whole, receives for
his labour one-half more, or fifty per cent, more, than he did.
That is to say, for every two shillings that he received sixty or
seventy years ago, he now receives three. And he is called upon
to render less work in return, less work as to tirae — -but that
does not always mean less work, I am happy to say. I am
aware that in some employments the hours are still pain
fully long, sadly too long ; but there again there has been an
improved movement in the right direction, and this has been
developed into many other blessed and beneficial results. Life
is lengthened, life is more healthy than it was ; the range of
disease and physical suff'ering araong the people is narrowed ;
the evil of pauperism has been reduced within a narrower com
pass, and I trust you will see that compass a great deal further
narrowed. Crirae, again, has been diminished, and very largely
diminished ; prejudices have been removed. The working man
no longer looks upon machinery as his enemy, but he knows
well enough that in the raain, and in the long run, it is not
his eneray, but his friend. And, as a consequence of all this,
he has acquired an attachraent to law ; his disposition is not only

130 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 26
to respect, but to aid the enforcement of the law. He regards
the law as he regards the machinery — as his friend, and not as
his enemy. In that respect, there has been a great change within
the period of my life, which I cannot call less than fundamental.
I may mention another thing, which is not the strongest
point of our working population, and that is thrift. I am very
well aware that for a large portion of the population the real
wonder is, not that they do not save a great deal of money, but
that they contrive to feed and clothe, and I may say well clothe;
their wives and children. Still, you are aware that many of the
working men, perhaps, most of the artisans of this country, are
able to save soraething. That, indeed, is a point on which the
English people are not very strong as corapared with some other
foreign countries. In France alraost every working man saves.
If you see a Frenchraan you see a thrifty man. That is more
than can be said in England, even of those who are able to save
but still, we are making sorae progress. If I go back to the same
period there were Savings Banks in this country, but their utility
was almost confined to a certain class — domestic servants, and
other persons who were in imraediate relations with the
wealthier part of the public. Well, we have founded, not yet
thirty years ago, a Post Office Savings Bank, which has become
the Sa-vings Bank of the people. It is quite true these banks
give to the people only a low rate of interest ; but then you must
recollect that no other person can afford to do, at the same price,
the work that is done by them. No private banker can possibly
undertake to receive shillings and sixpences,and to give an account
of them, and to restore them when wanted, and allow interest
upon them. It is a very reraarkable fact, which perhaps some
of you raay not be aware of, that if a raan goes to the Post Office
Savings Bank and deposits a shilling, and two or three days
after he goes again to the bank and takes out the shilling — I
hope he will not do so — that operation costs the public, as it
used to be computed in the Department, exactly elevenpence,
besides paying back the shilling. The investraent of these small
sums in the Post Office Savings Banks could not be carried out
in such a way as to leave room for a high rate of interest ; but

1889] THE WORKMAN'S OPPORTUNITIES 131
then you must all remember this — that a man who has put
his money into the Post Office Saving Bank is in no way
prevented from getting better interest elsewhere when he can.
Nobody asks hira to keep his raoney there, whether it be a
shilling or more. He can, I believe, always have it out by giving
forty-eight hours' notice. Forty-eight hours' notice is not a
very long interval, so that he is not precluded frora getting in
interest as rauch as he can obtain in any other way by any
investraent which he raay prefer. And though I do not consider
the sura very large for a country that has such a large popula
tion and such iraraense resources, still it is soraething to say
that although the institution of Post Office Savings Banks only
took place twenty-six or twenty-seven years ago, they have now
got sixty raillions of the people's raoney.
All these are circurastances which are very pleasing to review,
and they bring rae back to the purpose for which we have
met-to day, when the various blessings which the population
have received are crowned by this important blessing of greater
means of mental iraproveraent. This is the crown of thera all
For these blessings, the sentiraent that should be inspired in our
minds is not the sentiment of pride, with which human nature
ought to have very little to do, and the less of it the better,
but it is the sentiment of thankfulness. To those amongst us
who have had the means of doing more, it is a just cause of
humiliation that we have not done more, and a just cause of
thankfulness that something, at least, has been done. Next to
that sentiment of thankfulness should be, in my opinion, the
resolution of every man, and especially every working man, to turn
to good account all those advantages. If his condition is cap
able of improvement, let him recollect what the condition of his
father, his grandfather, and his great-grandfather was, and let him
resolve, by the help of God, to make the best of the circumstances
in which he lives. And depend upon it, as a general rule, if he
acts upon that principle as a man, he will derive very consider
able results from the just and careful use even of raeans which
are within his reach.
But let the working man be on his guard against another

132 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [oct. 26
danger. We live at a time when there is a disposition to think
that the Government ought to do this and that, and that the
Government ought to do everything. There are things which
the Government ought to do, and does not do, I h&xe no doubt.
In former periods the Governraent have neglected rauch, and
possibly even now they neglect something. But there is a
danger on the other side. If the Government takes into its
hands that which the man ought to do for himself, it will inflict
upon him greater mischiefs than all the benefits he will have re
ceived or all the advantages that would accrue from them. The
essence of the whole thing is that the spirit of self-reliance, the
spirit of true and genuine manly independence, should be pre
served in the minds of the people, in the minds of the raasses of
the people, in the minds of every member of that class. If he
loses his self-reliance, if he learns to live in a craven dependence
upon wealthier people rather than upon hiraself, you' may
depend upon it he incurs mischiefs for which no compensation
can be raade.
Well, now, with those ideas let rae corae to this question
again of the means of improvement — the means of improvement
now happily increasing all over the country I am very glad to
hear that your institution is an institution that is thriving and
flourishing, with an increase of raerabers, which is the first con
dition of its prosperity. I ara speaking of it all along as a work
ing raan's institute. I hope the working raen of Saltney — not
only those who are here, but those who may not be here — will
understand that this institute is for them and for their benefit,
that it it is for their benefit that we are endeavouring to promote
this library, and that it has a peculiar interest in our eyes.
This library is intended, no doubt, for relief and recreation.
There wUl be here plenty of books. Books are a source of
innocent and wholesorae recreation. There will be also
athletic sports and garaes, and other facilities for a man
to gain pleasure and recreation. But that is a secondary
'¦jjurpose for books. There is another purpose for books,
which is to enlarge the mind, to brace the mind, to enable
the people to find pleasure not only in the relaxation of

188.9] THE WORKMAN'S OPPORTUNITIES 13.".
literature, but in the hard work, in the stiff' thought of litera
ture. The hard work of literature conveys to those who pursue
it in sincerity and truth not only utility, but also real enjoy
ment. Well, it is very little that I can say to you with
advantage, because other people are more competent than I
iim to talk to you about subjects embraced in the works which
are possessed in your library, and to tell you how in the case of
books the mind may be usef uUy appUed.
In the first place, I will say one word about manual industry.
I wish to. dispel any notion that may be entertained that manual
industry is necessarily an ignoble thing. On the contrary, it
admits of an elevation to a very high point of excel
lence. A good illustration of that is in the case of a sculptor.
Compare a sculptor and a stonemason. The stonemason has in
many cases come to be a sculptor. He studies form in his work
as a stonemason. He studies to see if he can attain precision of
form. Then, if he can conceive the idea of beauty in form, that
is all that is wanted to enable him to acquire the first rudiments
•if. art, and by continued effort and by continued practice he
rises higher. Rely upon it, although I know there are many
variations and diff'erences in the kind of manual labour, rely upon
it manual labour is honourable, not only because it is useful, but
honourable, even beyond the raeasure of its direct utility, when
directed to honourable airas and honourable purposes. You have
a raultitude of cases where, by means of great mental improve
ment, men have risen to very high positions. And rauch higher
in many cases have men risen through manual improvement
than they are now likely to rise by going in for, or by causing
their children hastily to go in for, what is commonly desig
nated head work.
I suppose there are various subjects of interest that will re
commend themselves to you in connection with this institute
for special notice. You will, I think, no doubt, be very desirous
to learn all you can about the different industries of the coun
try, because it is through these industries you may yourselves
aim at honourable advancement by acquiring a correct know
ledge of the detaUs of these industries, and thus you may im-

134 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 26
mensely improve the advantages of your position in life, I
make no doubt that in these days of the great progress of
natural science there must be multitudes of workraen in almost
every walk of industry who are desirous of turning to account
all the opportunities they may have to lay hold upon sorae of
the branches of natural science. They are of enorraous ad
vantage in the aggregate, and the field is a field open to you all.
There is hardly any person who raay not learn soraething and
may not do something in it. We have often had to recognise
working raen as the fathers of the raost valuable inventions.
Now you are to bear in mind that Englishmen are supposed to
be outstripped in the race of invention by the Americans. The
Americans are supposed to be our children, and there are cer
tain things in which they have had an even higher education
than Englishmen. I mean the education of practical Ufe, and
they are extremely strong in the whole business of invention.
But every workraan here has a fair chance to make himself use
ful, and to do himself good by keeping his eyes open, obser^dng
his work and the conditions under which he performs his work,
and by studying how these conditions can be met, how labour
can be economised, how useful products can best Ije brought out
of the bowels of the earth and fitted for the service of man, and
thus provide better means of executing the works that they have
in hand. This is a fruitful field, and a field open for working
raen; a field in which many and many a working man has
gained advantage to hiraself, and done great service to his
fellow-creatures. There is another subject I am going to recommend to iny
friends the working men, which I hope they wiU always cherish
as weU as they can, although it is not so immediately connected
with the results of temporal gain and advantage, and that is the
study of history. To every EngUshman the history of his own
country should be followed with the greatest interest. Depend
upon it, a human being, if he is to grow, -will find that one of the
best and raost certain raeans of growth is that he should dwell
not only in the present, but also in the future, and not only in
the present and the future, but also in the past, aud that is emi-

1889] THE WOEKMAN'S OPPORTUNITIES 135
nently characteristic of Englishmen. Lately I was reading a
work, a very clever work, by a French author,^ who spoke of
the method in which great constitutional improvements were
carried out in England and France. He said that in seasons of
difficulty and revolution in France, they took the opportunity to
frame declarations of principle, and to write new Constitutions.
The French have immense talent, great powers of abstract argu
ment, and they framed those docuraents probably raore cleverly
than we could ; but as the writer says, whenever there has been
a revolution in England, such as that of 1688, they did not go
about framing these constitutions, but they looked back into
their old history, and inquired what their fathers did before
thera. They went back, for instance, at the tirae of the revolu
tion in 1688, 400 or 500 years before for precedents. Don't
believe the people who tell you that the English Constitution
began in the year 1800. It is as old as the hills. I shall not
be charged with iraraoderate language if I say that it is about
1000, or certainly 500 or 600 years ago, when our English fore
fathers began to develope those grand fundaraental ideas which
now constitute the basis of British Uberty. Therefore, depend
upon it, in the study of English history you do a great deal for
bracing and developing your own character, and for fitting your
selves to take charge of any eraployraent or position to which
others may caU you.
But there are three other subjects outside of English history
which I wish very much to recommend, as I have found them
myself most interesting, most fruitful, most instructive portions
of the field of history. The first is the French history during
the 17th and 18th centuries. In the beginning of the 17th cen
tury France was under one of the greatest of her kings, Henry
IV. His Ufe was terminated by the hand of the assassin. After
him came a series of kings, Louis XIIL, XIV., and XV., who
brought France chronologically down almost to the period of
the Revolution, because the reign of Louis XVI. found the his
tory of France so disturbed in its main features, that he could
do, and certainly did do, but little to modify the forces that
^ Monsieur Boutmy.

136 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 26
were in growing activity. Then carae the great outbreak, the
French Revolution, the raost vast and the most terrible series of
changes known to the history of man. Then came periods of
great excesses, of fear, suspicion, cruelty, and there are probably
none who are not aware that most of the principal actors in
that Revolution are held up to the disapproval and even to the
execration of mankind. In ray opinion, that is but half the
truth. Anybody who wants to understand the French Revolu
tion raust go back two centuries before it, and he will find per
haps 160 or 180 years of abominable mis-government, which it
is ray firra conviction was far raore responsible for all the errors,
and violence, and criraes of the French Eevolution than the
generation by whose allowance those crimes were coraraitted.
It was a lengthened time of gross neglect of every duty of
Government. It was a period of ambitious, useless, sanguinary,
wicked wars ; it was a period of gross cruelty and unremitting
oppression upon the people ; it was a period when law had no
existence for the oppressed population, when arbitrary will de
termined their destiny ; it was a period when vice displayed
itself brazen-faced in the view of all, and by its pestilential ex
araple did everything that it could to ruin and destroy them.
All public right and public law had been so long and so sys
teraatically trarapled under foot, that the very idea of thera had
alraost been effaced frora the popular raind ; and, in entering
upon a course of difficult changes, the French nation had largely
lost hold of that conception which would have been the surest
guarantee against excess.
After that carae the beginning of the French Eevolution,
and when this was in progress the French were not allowed
to settle their own affairs themselves, but neighbouring
Powers, forsooth, gathered their armies on her frontiers in
order to deterraine what should be the Governraent and what
should be the State of France. The consequence was a
mixture of fear and cruelty, and there are no two human emo
tions which are more allied than fear and cruelty. The fear of
these foreign Powers produced suspicion, distress, mutual hatred,
and cruelty among nations and parties and friends. And so

1 889] THE WOEKMAN'S OPPORTUNITIES 137
these doubtful results carae about in France. If you trace thera
back to their origin you will derive lessons raost useful and
most valuable to us all. You may bring the French history
down a little lower. Now pray do not suppose I speak of the
French Ughtly. The French are a very great nation, a very
powerful nation, and a very progressive nation. I will tell you
frankly my own beUef . The French as a nation are exceedingly
friendly to us and desire to be united with us in bonds of
brotherhood. But as friendly critics you see what has gone
on in France from one hundred years down to this hour.
France has not been able to settle down upon one stable
form of government. The very book which I have been
referring to, which I was speaking of just now, very ably puts
it, and contrasts the case of England with that of France. In
England, which had no written Constitution, they had been
working on their old Constitution altogether ; but in France, he
says, since the French Eevolution, we have seen thirteen differ
ent Constitutions. All that is part, depend upon it, of the
ancient raisgovernraent of France. It is a part of a special
weakness flowing from its misgovernment for a long series of
generations. By corrupt, cruel, and base action, the monarchs
had effaced from the minds of the French people the true idea
of law and pubUc rights, and substituted for it that of arbitrary
wiU and licence, and unlimited and vicious indulgence. These
are the parents of all the difficulties in which France has found
herself entangled. I rejoice to see that at the present moment
there is an increasing tendency in France towards stability, and
may God bless that tendency and proraote it, and raay France
be enabled to discharge that high vocation in the world to which,
with the great powers of her people and the great attainments
of her history, I believe Providence has caUed her.
There are two other spaces of history which I would recom
mend to you. It often happens to me that I receive letters of
inquiry from young persons, and older persons, too, as to what
studies they should take up. The history of Ireland ought to
be very well known to us, but, unfortunately, it is almost en
tirely unknown. I am not going to say a word upon controver-

138 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 26
sial subjects. I did not corae here for that purpose. I have
said, I think, some words upon those in other places, and I sup
pose I shaU again. I am speaking to the historical student ;
that is the persi m I am now addressing, and I may tell him that
in ray opinion one series of historical developments from which
he may derive the greatest benefit is the history of the Parha
mentary institutions of Ireland during the last century. They
are most remarkable for the great lessons they teach. The Irish
Parliaraent in the last century was a Parliament with a hundred
\'ices. In the first place, it was perfectly exclusi^'e in the form
of Protestants governing a Roman CathoUc people. Next, it
was a party of landlords, into which hardly anybody but land
lords found their way, and its history is disfigured by rauch that
is to be laraented ; but it is a cuiious fact that, notwithstanding
all that, there was in it a patriotic spirit ; those men never lost
the spirit of true patriotism. It is a spirit that atones for many
vices. I rejoice to think that in this country, where we have
plenty of faults — quite as many as our neighbours, though we
are not quite so fond of dweUing upon them — the spirit of
patriotism is strong upon us. The spirit of patriotism existed
in Ireland during the last century, and I say deliberately to you
that this raiserable exclusive Parliaraent of Ireland, bad as it
was, crararaed full of rotten burghs, bad as it was in a score of
respects, yet it worked out a purpose and design of freedom
between 1700 and 1800 much greater than any work that was
done by the English Parliament within the same period. If you
look into the facts you will find them to be full of interest.
My last recommendation to the student is oue I have been
in the habit of making for the last fifty years, because I then
adopted the sentiraents upon which it is founded, and I now
make it, therefore, with greater confidence after the lapse of fifty
years. That recommendation is, to those who are able to carry
it out, to study the history of the Anierican Revolution. That is
an extraordinary history. It is highly honourable to those who
brought that revolution about ; but also honourable in no in
significant degree to this country, because it was by this country
that the seeds of freedom were sown in America, because it was

1 889] THE WOEKMAN'S OPPORTUNITIES 139
by imitating this country that America acquired the habits of
freedom, and the capacity for more freedom.
In this country we have happily had, to a great extent, and
I hope we shall have it still more, what is called local self-
government — not merely one governraent at a central point,
composed of parties, and exerting a vast power over their fel
low-citizens, but a system under which the duties of government
are distributed according to the capacities of the diff'erent divi
sions of the country, and the different classes of the people who
perform them, in such a way that government should be prac
tised, not only in the metropohs, but in every county, in every
borough, over every district, and in every parish. And that has
tended to bring home to the mind of every father of a family a
sense of the public duty which he is called upon to perform.
That has been the secret of the strength of America. The
colonial systera in which Araerica was reared was in the main a
free colonial system. You had in America these two things
combined, the love of freedom and respect for law, and a desire
for the maintenance of order ; and where you find these two
things combined, love of freedom together with respect for law,
and the desire for order, you have the eleraents of national ex
cellence and national greatness. I believe it is not extravagant
to say that although there were but two millions of people in
the thirteen American colonies at the tirae of the American
Revolution, yet from among these two millions of people there-
proceeded at that epoch a group of statesmen who might defy
the whole history of the world to surpass thera, it might almost
be said to compare with them, in any one country and at any
one period of time. Such were the consequences of a well-regu
lated and truly mascuUne freedom. Now I am going to con
clude. I have been speaking to you entirely, I may say, about
that class of goods which are temporal goods. They are not the
only goods; but it is not in my commission to lead you to
higher things, or to determine the relative importance of the
things seen which are temporal, and the things not seen which
are eternal. I have had for a length of time a hand in the
development through legislation of the economical powers and

140 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 26
resources of this country, but we should fall into a terrible
snare and temptation were we ever to suppose that it is through
wealth and worldly power that man can achieve happiness.
The words are as true and solemn now as they were when they
were spoken by One who was infallible, " "What shall it profit a
man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ?"
It is not for me to develope those ideas. I only wish that this
occasion should not pass by without at least a single syllable
to show that we are conscious of their existence and their
iraportance. And now I coraraend you again to your books. Books are
delightful society. If you go into a room and find it full of
books — and without even taking thera down from their shelves
— they seem to speak to you, to bid you welcome. They seem
to tell you that they have got something inside their covers that
will be good for you, and that they are willing and desirous to
impart to you. Value them rauch. Endeavour to turn them
to good account, and pray recollect this, that the education of
the raind is not raerely a stowage of goods in the mind. The
mind of man, sorae people seera to think, is a storehouse that
should be filled with a quantity of useful coraraodities which
may be taken out like packets from a shop, and delivered and
distributed according to the occasions of life. I wiU not say
that this is not true, as far as it goes ; but it goes a very little
way, for commodities may be taken in and coraraodities may be
given out, but the warehouse reraains just the same as it was
before, or probably a little worse. That ought not to be the
case with a man's mind. No doubt you are to cull knowledge
that is useful for the temporal purpose of life, but never forget
that the purpose for which a man lives is the improvement of
the man hiraself, so that he raay go out of this world ha-ving, in
his great sphere or his sraall one, done some little good to his fellow-
creatures, and laboured a little to dirainish the sin and the sorrow
that are in the world. For his own growth and development a
man should seek to acquire, to his full capacity, useful know
ledge, in order to deal it out again according to tbe supreme pur
poses of education. I remeraber just now I said that, outside of

1 889] THE WORKMAN'S OPPORTUNITIES 141
science, the chance for a labouring man to acquire knowledge
was comparatively very little, unless he acquire it through ob
servation. The poet Gray describes the condition of the rustics
of the village in these words : —
But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page,
llioh with the spoils of Time, did ne'er unroll ;
Chill Penury repressed their noble rage,
And froze the genial current of the soul.
We have witnessed an improvement upon that state of things.
Knowledge has now begun to unroll her ample page, and chill
penury does not now so universally repress. Let that improve
ment itself be improved upon, not necessarily by grand, impos
ing designs, but by each of us according to his means, with
the sedulous endeavour to do our duty to our neighbour,
and our service to our country. Let me express the fervent
hope that this Literary Institute raay thrive, and raay largely
and continuously contribute to the prosperity of Saltney and
the happiness of its people.

THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL
COMMISSION
House of Commons, Maech 3, 1890
On March 3rd, 1890, Jlr Smith, the First Lord ofthe Treasury moved : "That,
Parliament having constituted a Special Commission to inquire into the charges
and allegations made against certain Merabers of Parliament and other persons,
and the Report of the Commissioners having been presented to Parliament,
this House adopts the Report, and thanks the Commissioners for their just
and impartial conduct in the matters referred to them, and orders that the said
Report be entered in the Journals of this House."
Mr Gladstone moved an Amendment, which was defeated by 3.39 to 268.
On February 11th preceding, Jlr Gladstone had supported Sir William
Harcourt's motion : ' ' That the publication by the Times, on April 18th, 1887,
of a forged letter attributed to Mr Parnell, and the comments thereon, were a
breach of the privileges of the House of Commons." On jMarch 25th Jlr
Gladstone spoke at tin; Mational Liberal Club on the same subject.
Me Speakee, I rise to move the amendraent of which I have
given notice. It is to leave out all the words after " House,"
in order to add the words —
"Deems it to be a duty to record its reprobation of the false charges
of tbe gravest and most odious description, based on calumny and on
forgery, which liave been brought against members of this House, and
particularly against Mr Parnell ; and, -while declaring its satisfaction at the
exposure of these calumnies, this House expresses its regret for the wron.s
inilicted and the suffering and loss endured, through a protracted periorl,
by reason of these acts of flagrant iniquity."
In the teraperate speech of the right hon. gentleraan ^ there are
several passages which would invite reraarks. I do not propose
to dwell on thera, though I raight be terapted to ask what are
those periods in the past when the application of honest prin
ciples gave, as he says, prosperity to Ireland ? On one of his
observations I wish to make a coraraent, and it is on the
construction he has given to the araendment. He states that in
1 Mr W. H. Smith.

i89o] ON THE SPECIAL COMMISSION 143
the amendment, fairly construed, the language is such as to lead
to the impression that everything noticed by the Commissioners,
everything done by Irish inembers, receives the sanction of that
araendment. Now, I should have thought it hardly possible for
the right hon. gentleman to fall into such an error, because the
reprobation which is recorded is directed to —
" The false charges of the gravest and most odious description, based on
calumny and ou forgery, whicli have been brought against members of this
House."It is impossible that the right hon. gentleman can suppose that
it is intended by the araendraent to convey that all these asser
tions of censure which have been made by the Parliamentary
Comraission " are charges of the basest and raost odious descrip
tion, based on calurany'and on forgery." Consequently, I put it to
the House that the right hon. gentleraan's construction of the
araendraent entirely'falls to the ground. He is quite right in stEit-
ing that the amendment bestows no censure upon the conduct of
hon. members, and to that part of the subject, of course, it will
be ray duty to refer. The right hon. gentleraan occupied the
earlier part of his speech with a defence of the conduct of the
Governraent. Now this subject, I raust own, to rae, as
connected with the Opposition, is, in that point of view, a
tempting one, but I will not follow the right hon. gentleman on
this occasion. I desire to avoid on this occasion, for a reason
which appears to rae raore than sufficient, all party recriraina-
tion. Tempting as the opportunity is, I entirely refuse it. For
I ask myself, whose character and honour are at issue to-night, and
will be principally affected by the vote the House is about to give ?
In some sense the three Judges are upon their trial ; in some sense
the Irish raerabers of the Nationalist party are upon their trial ;
in some sense the Government may be upon its trial ; but, sir,
it is mainly the House that is upon its trial. It is the character
of the House, which, when brought to the tribunal of history,
no Parliament, as well as no party, can finally avoid ; it is the
character of the House which will suffer or gain according as on
this occasion its course is wise and just, or according as it has

144 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 3
been led into setting a precedent in my opinion unworthy of its
high honour, and highly dangerous as an exaraple of future
Parliaments. There is one point which I will explain at once, for it
is one on which I do not think there can be any quarrel on
principle between the right hon. gentleman and myself. He
invites us to thank the Judges of the Commission " for their
just and impartial conduct in the matters referred to them." It
is not on account of a fundaraental difference as to the conduct
of the Coraraissioners that I have hesitated to embody these
thanks in my araendment. It appears to me to be a question
able and hazardous proceeding to introduce into the course of
our political action the practice of rendering formal thanks for
the performance of judicial duty. I own that I have very con
siderable apprehensions on that subject. This House must
necessarily be swayed from tirae to time by passion leading it
in this direction or that. It has been our object to keep the
action of the Judges separated by the widest possible interval
irom all our proceedings and from the teraper and heat that here
occasionally prevail. Here is an occasion in which all feelings
have been stirred and roused from their depths, and in whicli
the Judges have been called in to deal with a large portion of
the subject matter, and I own I have very great doubts indeed
as to the policy of rendering to them the forraal thanks of the
House. But 1 will not grudgingly render to the Judges what
personally I can. An hon. friend of mine sittingbehindmehas
expressed a desire to insert words in the amendment, "To
acknowledge the zeal of the Coraraissioners in the discharge of
the arduous duties imposed upon them." Well, I am ready to
acknowledge their zeal, and I am ready to acknowledge more
than their zeal. I acknowledge their ability, their assiduity
and their perfect and absolute good faith. Though I may
reserve to myself the right to criticise freely some of their state
ments, yet I do not think there is a line of that Report from
beginning to end which has not been written by the Judges in
absolute honour and good faith. And accordingly in what I
may now say I beg it to be reraerabered that it is under the

1890] THE SPECIAL COMMISSION 145
reservation of what I have just said, and which I do not, in the
slightest degree, desire to qualify. What I have said of the
Judges I think I may have been able to say of many a speech I
have heard delivered in this House. Such temper and dis
position and such honour and good faith do not expel frora the
huraan raind and frora human action all the effects of preposses
sion. In this Report, as I think, along with the amplest
e-vidence of every quality I have described, there are defects and
there are errors — " Quas aut incuria fudit,
Aut bumana parum cavit natura." ^
I hope I have satisfied the House that I do not look in a grudg
ing or unworthy spirit at the action and proceedings of the
Judges, and accordingly if I claim, and it is a duty to claira — I
ara corapelled by the action taken by the other side to claira — a
liberty to criticise that Eeport, that will not iraply any defect
of fair and equitable intention towards those on whom we
iraposed a heavy burden, and who, I ara bound to say, what
ever -sdew we raay take of the political prepossessions —
well, political sentiraents, I will not even say prepossessions
— with which they entered on the inquiry, have in every
respect, I think, fulfilled the best and fullest expectations which
we could possibly have entertained of them.
So rauch for the Judges ; and now I corae to the raotion of the
right hon. gentleraan. I will not dwell upon the serious addition
that he proposes to raake to the burden of the Journals of this
House by inscribing upon thera the 1 20 pages of this Report. I
should have thought that if the House were to deal with this
Report, it ought to have been presented to us not wholesale but
in parts. As far as I know, that is the course which has been
pursued upon forraer occasion.s — not upon occasions of Corarais
sions like this, for, as the right hon. gentleraan says, there has
been no Comraission like this before, and I hope there may
never be again. When bodii-s acting by delegated powers, or
by powers not supreme — for example, a Comraittee of this
1 Horace, Ars Poetica, y. 352.
K

146 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 3
House — have made a Report, and when it has been intended to
induce the House to adopt the Report, the regular and parlia
mentary course, I believe, has been to move that the Report be
read, in order that it may be adopted freely and with full con
sideration of all its parts. But was there ever seriously made
to a deliberative body such a proposal as is now made to us when
we are asked, with reference to a document of 120 folio pages
bristling throughout with contested and disputable raatter, to
accept it in the lump, and at once to pledge ourselves to every
proposition it contains ? If the purpose of the Governraent had
been to secure our adhesion to the main propositions of the
Eeport — namely, to the findings — the course was obvious and
open for the right lion, gentleman to follow. He had only to
propose that the findings should be adopted by the House, and
undoubtedly then the decision of the House of Coraraons would
have been taken upon a considerably narrowed issue. But I
submit that the deraand he now makes upon us, that we should
adopt this Eeport of 120 pages, considering the multitude cf
varied propositions it contains, is alike contrary to the usage of
Parliament in analogous cases, and, I must say, to the dictates
of propriety and of coraraon sense. If it is said that we are
totally unable through a Select Coraraittee to deal with a
question of tliis kind, are we raore fit to adopt the present
course ? Observe, that when the right hon. gentleraan refused
the repeated demand for reference to a Select Committee he
stood in this position of advantage — that in acceding to it lie
wou.ld have had the unanimous assent of the House. The
demand was the demand of the hon. gentleman the Meraber for
Cork^ and the whole of the Irish Nationalist party. It was
thoroughly su.pported and approved by the Liberals on this side
of the House. But the right hon. gentleman, with his extreme
scrupulousness and tenderness for the position of the Irish
Members, would not aUow their case to be subraitted to the con
sideration of a Select Committee, a political tribunal. If because
of our political colour we are unable to investigate the facts, I
want to know how we have acquired a better capacity for that
iMr Parnell.

1 890] THE SPECIAL COMMISSION 147
purpose now when we are called upon without examination,
without inquiry, and without the slightest discrimination be
tween any one proposition in the Eeport and another, to swallow
the whole from beginning to end.
Now, sir, I will illustrate what I have said about some
of the judgraents in this Eeport in respect of which I find
it necessary to reserve ray liberty of criticism, and I will
point out a few of the propositions to which hon. members
are going to be invited to-night to append their subscription
and approval. I say that this Eeport contains a number
of opinions given upon issues which are in no sense and
in no degree judicial. A serious question arose before the
Comraission, whether the agitation and the Land League were
the causes of crirae in Ireland, or whether it was due to other
causes. Four other causes were brought before thera as causes
of crirae, or causes of the cessation of that crime. The first
was eviction and fear of eviction — I am now in 1879 and
1880. And I must offer this practical criticisra upon the
Report, that it is extreraely unfortunate that in these findings
generally there is no reference at all to period. We shall
presently see that that is a raatter of the raost vital
importance. The Commissioners say, on the top of page 86,
that evictions and the fear of evictions were not the causes of
crime ; but on the bottora of the page they say that the increase
of evictions and the result of the agitation against the landlords
were contributory causes ; consequently, it all comes back to
the agitation. We are told that we have no right to look at
e-victions as having contributed to the increase of crirae. They
have of themselves, we are inforraed, induced to crirae ; but we
raust look to the causes of evictions, and the causes of the evic
tions are the causes of the increase of crime. This is an issue
which is absolutely non-judicial. In what way can these tliree
Judges, sitting ten years after the fact, have authority to
determine with more weight and influence than any other man
that evictions were not the cause of crirae, or, if they were the
cause, still that the evictions themselves were due to agitation ?
Observe, in that statement we are given to understand that in

148 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 3
the creation of those crimes in 1879-80, distress and extravagant
rents had nothing to do with it. This opinion, so irrational in
itself, we are called upon to adopt without question or correc
tion. Then there is the statement that crime was due to secret
societies. I will not criticise that conclusion, because I admit
that the question as to whether there were secret societies or
not is a question of fact which raay fairly be called a judicial
issue. Then we come to another issue, absolutely non-judicial,
and yet we are called upon to declare to-night — every one of us
— that the rejection by the House of Lords of the Compensation
for Disturbance Bill in 1880, which was the reraedy we sought
to apply to the great difficulties of Ireland at that raoraent, had
nothing to do with the increase of crirae at all. I cannot con
ceive a raore astounding assertion. It appears to me to be iu
defiance of all the first rules of common-sense and of every
likelihood of the case. It may be said that the Irish ought to
have met their distress more in the spirit of philosophers or
angels, and to have drawn upon an unbounded stock of patience,
and to have had unbounded faith in Parliament; but the Irish
were men, and, according to the view of the Commissioners,
they were men with a fair share of human imperfections ; and
to say that the provocation offered by the rejection of that Bill,
which drew frora Mr Forster ^ a raost indignant denunciation —
to say that it is not to be reckoned one of the causes of
the increase of crirae in Ireland, is indeed not a matter
for censure, for no doubt it is an honest opinion on the
part of the Judges ; but it is an astounding proposition to
subrait to us in the year 1890, and to ask us to subscribe
to. Then the Land legislation of this House is brought upon
the carpet. It was alleged by sorae persons before the
Coraraission that the Land legislation had been a great cause in
mitigating the condition of Ireland and procuring the decrease
of crime. Nothing of the sort, say the Commissioners. They
say that the legislation of 1881 had no such effect, and they
reject the proposition in like manner in respect to the Arrears
Act of 1882, and say the suggestion that the Arrears Act tended
to produce, and did produce, a diminution of crime, is a sugges-
¦^ Then Chief Secretary for Ireland.

1890] THE SPECIAL COMMISSION 149
tion not well founded. That is a stateraent entirely untrue, in ray
opinion ; but, whether true or untrue, it is a judgraent upon an
issue entirely non-judicial, and one which, in virtue of the author
ity we gave to the Judges, we ought not to be asked to subscribe to.
I will give one other instance, perhaps in one sense of a
different description ; but I will give an instance of what I
think disproportionate and ill-balanced judgraent. It will be
for the Law Officers of the Crown to correct rae, and
contend that in this case the araount of censure has been
justly apportioned to the araount of guilt. The Corarais
sioners unearthed in the course of their inquiry the history
of a raiserable and obscure Irish paper called, I think,
the Irishinan — a paper so obscure that ray noble friend Lord
Spencer, whora no one -vvill accuse of insufficient attention to
Irish affairs and the duties of his office — Lord Spencer has said
that he was not even aware of its existence. However, this
paper has at length attained to fame through the labours of the
Coraraission, and several pages of the Eeport are filled with
extracts from it, and these extracts frora the paper, with the
concurrence of Archbishop Walsh,^ are terraed raost aborainable.
I do not object — I do not coraplain; but what I ask is that
you should be equally liberal in according blarae to other
things as abominable, when, as I think I can prove, these
extracts frora the Irishman were — I will not say pardonable
at all, but insignificant from obscurity as compared with
other things as aborainable blazoned forth to the world.
When we come to the grand and capital offence, the nature of
which I will do ray best to set forth to-night — when we come to
that, there is not a word, there is not a citation of one of the
aggravating circurastances ; all that is given is a statement that
the letter upon which a certain detestable charge was founded is
a forgery. That I call an unbalanced judgraent, a dispropor
tionate assignraent of blame. I did not wish to enter into
minute criticisms of this kind; but you have forced rae by
corapelling rae, through your Motion, to become responsible
for each and all of these assertions frora beginning to end.
There is one other objection to adopting this Eeport which I
^ Archbishop of Dublin.

150 ]MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 3
will dwell upon by-and-by ; but it appears to rae to be so con
clusive, so siraple, that I own I do not understand in what way
it is to be raet on the other side, or how the Motion is to be
justified. We have it on the declaration of the Judges them
selves — a declaration they were justified in raaking, and bound
to raake — that great portions of the evidence, and what we
know to be essential portions of the evidence, were entirely
excluded from their view. They have arrived at these con
clusions ; they have recorded thera ; they have passed censure
upon certain acts ; but they have shut out frora their considera
tion — as they have told us, and, moreover, in my opinion, they
were justified from their position and point of view in shutting
out from their consideration — essential portions of the evidence.
What those essential portions were I -will endeavour by-and-by
to explain ; but surely it is hard to believe the right hon.
gentleman can maintain this contention, that a judgment has
been passed upou the Irish case by a body of men who were
precluded from looking at many of the most important topics
that bear upon it. They have said that they were so precluded.
But we are not precluded frora looking at thera — we are bound
to look at thera, we cannot do otherwise than include them.
We are totally unfit for our office as politicians and as legis
lators unless we do include them, and give to each its due
weight. How is it possible to so accept, on the authority of
the Judges, the conclusions they make upon a portion of the
evidence, when you are both able and bound to look at the
whole e-vidence which the Judges were prohibited, by the
nature of their Commission, from examining? These are, I
think, conclusive reasons against adopting the Eeport en bloc,
as has been suggested. The right hon. gentleraan calls upon
us to adopt this Eeport, but in what circurastances ? It coraes
to us with the authority of the three Judges, who have most
laboriously, zealously, and, so far, meritoriously, taken an enor
mous araount of e-vidence, upon which raass of evidence they
have founded their conclusions ; but you cannot separate the
conclusion frora the e-vidence on which it is founded. That
evidence is not before us. There is not a raan in this House

1890] ' THE SPECIAL COMMISSION 151
who has read it — he cannot; it is raorally irapossible; it is
physically irapossible. Is it decent ? Is this what the right
hon. gentleraan describes as being the due conclusion of judicial
procedure, if, when certain conclusions are adopted by other
people and upon evidence, we are to adopt them wholesale, the
evidence being out of our knowledge, out of the recollection
probably even of those who heard it, and not having been heard
by one in ten, or twenty, or fifty of those who are called upon
to accept the conclusions ?
Now, consider what is the sum of this great and import
ant constitutional case. In my opinion it is this. There
has been a controversy in which the Nationalist Members
for Ireland were accused of two classes of offence. One
of those classes was a class of infaraous and dishonourable
offences. The right hon. gentleraan has expressed his joy and
satisfaction, if I understood hira rightly — and I should be sorry
indeed if I did not — that justice has been done to the Merabers
accused in respect of the personal charges. By that I appre
hend he means those infaraous and dishonourable offences.
There was also another set of accusations of acts which were
not in the nature of infaray or dishonour, but which were of a
character which attach to all great and passionate popular
raoveraents and crises of agitation. On the first and great
charge they have been acquitted, and our contention is that
that acquittal, viewing the nature of the charges, absolutely
deraands notice from the House. The censure, as we contend,
is not a subject for a Vote of Parliaraent at the present day and
in present circurastances. Now, let us see what are the argu
raents which bear on those several propositions. Let rae con
sider what are the points upon which the Nationalist Merabers
of Ireland have been censured. I will endeavour to gather them
into heads in a raanner to which I do not think hon. gentleraen
opposite will object. I bring thera into three heads. I admit
that I take no notice of two charges which do not fall under
those heads. One is the charge that they disseminated news
papers tending to crirae. That is the charge the forraulation of
which is said to imply the application of the high doctrine of

152 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 3
constructive con,spiracy. Some of the agents of the League
were found disseminating some of those newspapers, and conse
quently the sixty-five Members of Parliament who sit in this
House, and who are not ashamed to belong to the League, are
iraplicated. Yet the right lion, gentleman really thinks that it
is the business of Parliament to adopt and make such a conten
tion as that. There is another head which may be called the
£G case, or it may be called the £12 case — because in all there
was £12 .spent for the purpose of relieving persons who had
been, or were supposed to have been, engaged in committing
crime. I think a more trumpery charge to appear in a State
indictment than this, standing as it does and supported as it is,
it would be difficult to conceive. Now, the main charges are
three ; and I do not think there is any doubt about it. One is
that seven of the respondents joined the Land League, with the
ultiraate view of separating Ireland frora England. I here
lament, as in many places I have to lament, that the Judges
do not point out the time when this offence was coraraitted.
The time when this offence was committed was a time when
desperate distress prevailed in Ireland, and when she was on
the brink of famine; when unrighteous, unjust, and irapossible
rents largely prevailed in Ireland, as we know frora subsequent
experience of facts. It was in 1879 and 1880 that they joined
the League with a view to the ultiraate separation of Ireland from
England. For ray part, I rejoice to believe that the idea of the
separation of Ireland frora England — which, even in the worst
circurastances, I think was both unreasonable and irapossible —
I rejoice to think that that idea is an idea which is now dead. If
anything would tend to revive that idea it would be the vote
which is now proposed to be given in conderaning a portion of our
f ellow-raembers because they have given countenance to that idea.
I ara corapelled by the love of truth to say that, in ray opinion, to
deny the moral authority of the Act of Union was for an Irish
man no moral offence whatever. Yes, the hon. and learned
gentleman may take nie down.^ I heard the Attorney-
General cross-examine his witness from a pedestal, as he
1 The Attorney-General (Sir Richard Webster) here made a note.

1890] THE SPECIAL COMMISSION 153
felt, of the greatest elevation, and endeavouring to press
horae the raonstrous guilt of an Irishraan who did not allow
raoral authority to the Act of Union. In my opinion the
Englishraan has far raore cause to blush for the means by
which the Act of Union was obtained than the Irishraan has
to blush for anything, even of excess or error, into which he
may have been betrayed in his recollections of that Act of
Union. It was, sir — and, this I speak not in teraper nor in
heat, but after having done the best in my power for years past
to learn the case — it was the offspring of tyranny, of massacre,
of bribery, of fraud. It is no doubt a very serious responsibility
to disturb a country that is under a Government procured by
those means, because every raan is responsible for the conse
quences of that disturbance ; but to treat this as a great moral
offence, and to corae forward now in 1890, and in a sancti
monious vote to condemn Irishraen because they held opinions
in which it is highly probable, if not alraost certain, that Grattan
would have concurred had his life been prolonged, is a raonstrous
proposition. I do not object at all to the recital of the Judges ; they
have raade it in fair and teraperate terras ; but the adop
tion of this vote of censure by the House of Coramons I object
to in the strongest manner. I deera it not only unjust to the
Members so designated — and who will suffer from it extremely
little — but flagrantly absurd and unwise. The other two cen
sures of the Judges are raore to the purpose — I raean raore to
our purpose, raore to the purpose of the present Motion. I
think those two propositions sura up the assuraed guUt of
the Irish Merabers. First, they incited to intimidation by
speeches, with knowledge that intimidation led to crirae. I do
not think that, as far as I can judge, that is an unfair stateraent
of the case on that head against the Irish Merabers. I believe
it is quite as rauch as the Judges themselves have stated. I
think the citations of the right hon. gentleman were not entirely
fair on the subject. I do not understand what was his object
in citing from the charge of Lord Coleridge,^ where he set forth
1 The Lord Chief Justice, in the case of O'Donnell v. Walter, in 1888.

154 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 3
the nature of the accusations which have been raade on the part
of the Times as if he were favouring us with Lord Coleridge's
opinion. Some one will, perhaps, kindly explain what in the
world those have to do with the vote now before the House. But
I would call the right hon. gentleraan's attention to a passage
on page 76 of the Report, where the Commissioners speak of
the connection between agitation and crime. It is about fifteen
lines from the bottora, and it runs as follows : —
"We may say at once that the charge that tlie respondents, by their
speeches or otherwise, incited persons to the commission of murder, or that
the Land League chiefs based their scheme on a system of assassination,
has not been substantiated."
But, in the opinion of the Judges, it was substantiated that
the Nationalists incited to intiraidation by speeches with know
ledge that it led to crirae. I ara not in a position to say that
intiraidation did not produce crime. I contended and argued
from that place ^ that it did, and I have seen no reason
to reverse that opinion ; but, again, I observe we are now
speaking of what happened in 1880 and 1881. The proofs
connecting those speeches with intiraidation, and with intimi
dation which led to crirae, belong to that period and do
not belong to a later. The prosecutors in this case arrived
at an arrangeraent with my hon. and learned friend ^
which I think excluded everything after 1885 or 1886 from
that investigation. It was not worth their while to enter upon
it; but we are now speaking of a former period. The hon.
Meraber for Cork has hiraself frankly and ingenuously con
fessed and stated in this House his opinion that rauch had been
done at that tirae in the way of boycotting which was question
able or iraproper, and I do not iraagine that they deny the
Judges' case in which they say intiraidation led to crime.
What was the other great charge ? It was that the Nationalist
Merabers never placed theraselves on the side of law and
justice ; that they did not assist the adrainistration ; and did
not denounce the party of physical force. I believe that I have
1 The Treasury Bench. 2 gjr Charles Russell, Q.C.

1890] THE SPECIAL COMMISSION 155
stated fairly the charges against the Nationalists as they have
been given by the Commissioners. Let us see what follows.
In the first place, let me point out that these charges of
continuing to encourage intimidation after its association
with crime had becorae known, are charges perfectly general
in their character. It is a question of the general
prudence or imprudence, propriety or impropriety of the
language that they used in its action upon the temper of an
excited nation ; it is not a question of having ministered to this
crime or that ; it is not a question of the slightest personal com
plicity with crirae. There is not one here who will not share
in the opinion held by Lord Spencer on the subject frora the
first : that personal complicity with crime was not charged
against any one of the Members returned to this House. These
charges are charges made by the Judges, and I ara going to
give you sorae weighty and conclusive reasons against voting in
affirraation of them. In the first place, they are ten years old.
It is a bad and a dangerous precedent to go back upon these long
dates in order to obtain matter to hurl at the heads of political
antagonists. In the second place, being ten years old — what
happened at all happened in 1880, 1881, and 1882, chiefly in
the two former years, 1880 and 1881 — were the facts then
unknown ? Were these things done in a corner ? Were they
not the subject of incessant discussion and denunciation in this
House ? Is there anything now affirraed against the Irish
Members by the .Tudges which was not affirmed by Mr Forster,
and, in part, by rayself and by others at that time ? If these
things deserve condemnation now by a vote of this House, why
did you not then condemn them ? Well, I will tell you why.
The Liberals of this House desired the matter to be fought out
fairly in debate, and I do not think there was any reason or
ground — not a rag of reason or ground — for a vote of Parlia
raentary conderanation. That was the Liberal idea ; was the
Tory idea more severe ? Not at all. They thought that these
men were good enough to associate with for political purposes.
The practice was to arrange with thera the votes and divisions,
and at last, in 1885, how was the crisis of the Liberal Govern-

156 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 3
raBut brought about except by the firra, steady co-operation of the
Irish Merabers with the Tory party, for which I have never blaraed
them any more than I blarae them now, because they thought
that the interests of their country were superior to those of
any British administration ? Eight hon. gentlemen opposite
climbed to power upon the shoulders of the hon. gentleraan the
Meraber for Cork — upon the strong shoulders of the hon. Mem
ber for Cork, and they have now become a raajority ; and, having
had full cognizance of his guilt upon the charges at the tirae — the
charges not having been added to since — now in 1890 they actu
ally rouse theraselves to such a point of indignation that tney
are, forsooth, prepared tb vote the condemnation of a cause and
of a policy, the whole benefit of which they took at that period.
I am very sorry that I have been compelled, by the nature
of this proposal, which left me no choice, to go into the
discussion of poleraical raatters between the two sides of the
House, but I ara contending that it would be unwise, and,
indeed, in the highest degree indecent, now in 1890 to pass this
vote of censure, and I cannot give ray own opinion of that
without showing what was your own conduct during the pre
ceding years, when the offences were coraraitted. The right
hon. gentleraan read out the ninth finding of the Coraraissioners,
and he seeraed to be deeply impressed with the subject matter.
What he said was indeed, in his characteristic way, put very
raildly, but he felt he was setting forth matters of extreme
gravity when he stated that the Irish took money for Parlia
mentary purposes frora raen proraoting physical force in
Araerica — physical force which the Irish Members disapproved ;
but these men were willing to do what the Irish Members
approved — naraely, to subscribe raoney for Parliamentary pur
poses. If a paraUel precedent were wanting to justify their
conduct they have nothing to do but to point to you. You
disapproved of the proceedings of the Irish in 1881 and the
following years ; you thought these proceedings led to crime
and to raischief, but then the Irish were willing to join you in
voting out the Liberal Governraent, and you took advantage of
their good dispositions, notwithstanding their crirainal and

iSgo] THE SPECIAL COMMISSION 157
unworthy deeds. Mutatis mutandis, this is a f orraula which will
sorve to express what the Judges have put into this Report.
I ask the House of Coramons now to consider the counter-
allegations which raay be laid before thera — allegations made
seriously by the Irish Merabers. Tbey hold the opinion that
the agitation, even of 1879, 1880, 1881, prevented raore crirae
than it caused. Crirae was caused; what the Judges very
properly call increased crirae was caused by agitation. But I
believe it to be a perfectly serious allegation, tendered in good
faith by the Irish Merabers, that raore crirae and worse crime,
more atrocious crirae, was prevented by agitation. But what do
you say to the allegation of the hon. gentleraan the Meraber for
Cork, who has told us frora the first that his endeavour, his
policy, his scherae has been to draw off agitation and popular
action in Ireland frora violence to Parliaraentary raethods ?
Now, for ray own part, I do not hesitate to say that there was a
tirae when I did not recognise that intention. And when was
that tirae ? This I shall say, as a raatter of fact, that never at
any period since the early part of 1882 have I charged the hon.
gentleraan the Meraber for Cork, as a rainister or otherwise,
with any action, any language, tending to the increase of crirae
in Ireland. I viewed hira as a conservative force — I raean con
servative in the sense of maintaining the law, the order, and the
peace of the country. And when the Irish Merabers tell rae
that in their conviction the agitation, even when it was of the
roughest and wildest, stopped raore crime than it caused, and
especially when they tell me that the endeavour of their dis
tinguished leader has been to put an end to violence and to
substitute Parliaraentary action for what Mr O'ConneU used
to call "the wUd justice" of popular raoveraents, I wiU
not say that the House ought to vote in affirraation of
that stateraent — that may be left to the historian to
decide — but to vote that such a stateraent is unworthy of
credit, and is without force or weight, is, in ray opinion, a
course not very well suited to raaintain the dignity of
the House. I ask the House to listen to the words in which
the Judges describe the liraited scope of the inquiry. I will

158 ilR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 3
not quote the entire passage ; it will be found on page 5 of the
Report, but nearly at the close are these words — •
" We must confine our researches to the question whether the respon
dents, or any of them, have been guiltj' of the things charged and alleged
against them ; we have no commission to consider whether the conduct
of -which they are accused can be palliated by the circumstances of the
time, or whether it should be condoned in consideration of benefits alleged
to have resulted from their actions.''
In the first place, I say this — I ara not raaking it an accusation
against the party opposite for their former conduct, but only
against what they propose to-night — that condonation was given
in the amplest, in the most solemu raanner which is conceiv
able when, in 1885, the representative^ in Ireland of Her
Majesty's Government, with the knowledge and the sanction
of the head of the Government, entered into close, private, confi
dential coraraunications with the hon. gentleraan the Meraber for
Cork, the leader of the Irish party, for the purpose of devising,
if possible, a scheme and a policy for the government of Ireland.
I ask you to answer that arguraent, and to show rae that the
proceedings of Lord Carnarvon and Lord Salisbury — for he was an
essential party to thera, and it would not surprise rae if I were to
be authentically inforraed that no other Meraber of the Cabinet
knew anything about it — I have ray own suspicions, but I do
not wish to act on suspicion alone — I ask you to show rae that
the action of the Viceroy and Lord Salisbury, who concurred
with the Viceroy, in taking these gentlemen into their confiden
tial counsel, for the purpose of de-vising a plan for the govern
ment of Ireland and its treatraent in Parliament, was not a
full, absolute, and ought to have been a final condonation and
closing of the book of controversy with respect to forraer acts.
I want the House to consider a little what is the raeaning
of these remarkable words, " palliation and condonation."
Suppose this to be true — that there was sorae evil in the
Irish agitation of 1880 and 1881, when, as I conceived at
that tirae — erroneously or not— there was a policy which
aimed at the destruction of agricultural rents. That charge
I raade at the tirae in good faith; but I ara not quite
1 Lord Carnarvon.

1890] THE SPECIAL COMMISSION 159
sure now whether it ought not to have been strongly qualified
by the circumstances of the time. But supposing I am told
that even then the good in the agitation far outweighed the evil,
are you prepared to deny that ? And here I have a sorrowful
confession to make. Suppose I am told further that without
the agitation Ireland would never have had the Land Act of
1881, are you prepared to deny that ? Are you prepared to say
that without the agitation Ireland would have got the Land
Act of 1881 ? I hear no challenges upon that statement, for I
think it is generally and deeply felt that without the agitation
the Land Act of 1881 would not have been passed. I ask, what
would have been the condition of Ireland at this moment —
what horrors would have filled the interval — because you are
now looking back on a period of comparative calm and
tranquillity. I had a controversy with sorae of the Irish
Merabers — particularly the hon. Meraber for Longford ^ —
upon a point of difference. I always contended, aud I now
believe, that the abolition of the Irish Church and the Land
Act of 1870 were the free gifts of the Iraperial Legislature to
Ireland. I do not adrait that agitation had to do with the
passing of either of these raeasures. I am not endeavouring to
convince others. I ara only reciting ray own opinion. I was
glad enough to claim credit for Parliament where' I could for
an irapartial judgraent in raatters beneficial to Ireland. The
abolition of the Irish Church was, in point of feeling and senti
ment, a great sacrifice for Parliament to make, and, I think, a
raost honourable sacrifice, and the abolition of the Irish Church
carried in its train the Land Act of 1870. At the time it was
passed that Act was a great blessing to Ireland. It was highly
favoured by the fortunate circurastances of good seasons, and
for sorae years it seeraed as if it might be a settlement of the
Land Question. Then carae the distress and raisery of 1879,
and it broke down. As the raan responsible more than any
other for the Act of 1881 — as the man whose duty it was to
consider tbat question day and night during nearly the whole
of that Session — I raust record ray firm opinion that the Act
Mr T. Healy.

160 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 3
would not have become the law of the land if it had not been
for the agitation with which Irish society was convulsed. You
may say, that if it be true that a great law was necessary for
the safety of Ireland — to save the people from raisery and
starvation — and if that Act could not have been passed without
popular agitation, and if you are now going to pass censure on
those concerned in that agitation, are you justified in saying,
" I ara precluded frora looking at the beneficent results of their
agitation " ? The truth is this. This is our position. The
Judges, under the necessities of the case, have looked at a part
of the case. It is our duty to look at the whole.
What were the whole facts of that crisis ? In the first place,
terrible distress ; in the second place, the rejection by the House
of Lords of the legislative remedy^ for the tirae proposed by the
responsible Ministers of the Crown, and passed by a large
majority in this House ; in the third place, the growth of
evictions ; and, in the fourth place, the wide prevalence of ini
quitous and impossible rents. Out of this great group of facts
the Judges, acting under the terms of the Coramission, absolving
theraselves, but not absolving us, have selected the agitation,
and have said — We cannot look to the right or the left, or
backwards or forwards ; all we have to do is to return a verdict
upon the dry facts whether we can allege that in sorae degree
or other, and in sorae circurastances or other, there was a con
nection between the agitation and the increase of crirae. But
is Parliament to act upon such a basis ? Are we to put out of
view the facts I have referred to ? Perhaps I shall be told that
in the year 1881 I myself expressed ray belief that the nuraber
of landlords levying iniquitous rents in Ireland was compara
tively sraall. Yes ; I did express that opinion, and I did it on
the best evidence at ray command. That was the evidence of
the Comniission,^ at the head of which sat Lord Bessborough ;
and that Coramission reported to that effect. But I cannot
plead such ignorance now. Somewhere about 400,000 tenants
in Ireland were empowered and enabled by the Land Act to
1 The Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill, 1880.
2 Appointed in 1880.

1890] THE SPECIAL COMMISSION. 161
seek judicial rents, or to make covenants with the landlords,
which were themselves equivalent to judicial rents. And, in
round nurabers, 200,000 of thera went into the Court or obtained
these agreements, by which large reductions were secured. It
is not possible for me now to deny that at that tirae excessive,
iniquitous, and irapossible rents prevailed widely in Ireland, and
that they constituted a gigantic and capital fact in the whole
Irish case of that period ; and to pass judgraent on that case
without taking thera into account is in itself a raonstrous in
justice. The fact is this. You are called upon now to weigh
certain classes of actions and speeches in gold scales. They aro
the actions and speeches to which you can trace, as you think,
injurious consequences. But all the other acts of far greater
consequence, all the great historic force which deterrained the
bringing about of the Irish crisis, and, as one may perhaps now
say, the happy deterraination of that crisis, you are to set aside
and say, " No, we have nothing to do with them." And yet you
are not Judges in a Umited Comraission, but statesmen, politicians,
and legislators, bound to look at the whole range of circumstances
of the case, and guilty of raisprision of justice if you fail so to do.
I can only show you my meaning in this raatter by historical
illustrations. My doctrine is this : These acts, with respect to
which Irish Members have been censured, are not fit su'ojects
for Parliamentary censure at all, because they are so mixed up
with other circumstances that unless you take those circura
stances into view you cannot possibly do justice ; and when you
have taken them into view, you find that the acts are such as
are invariably incident to periods of national crisis, struggle,
and revolution. Perhaps you think it wrong in rae to apply
the term revolution to any changes that have taken place, or
are Ukely to take place, in Ireland. But reraember who it was
who connected revolution with Irish affairs. It was your own
greatest authority — it was Lord Beaconsfield, as Mr Disraeli.
In the year 1844, in one of the most reraarkable, and perhaps,
the wisest, passages ^ to which he ever gave utterance in Parlia-
1 In a debate on The State of Ireland, Feb. 16, 1844.
L

162 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [.march 3
raent, he pointed to Ireland, and told the Parliaraent of that
day that the evil features of Ireland were such as could only be
corrected in other countries bj^ revolution, and that the duty
of Parliaraent was to correct these evil features without revo
lution. Yes, that he said in 1844, and for 25 years after that
declaration no single Act of iraportance was passed which in any
way touched the conditions, fortunes, and prospects of the people
of Ireland.
Well, now, sir, what are the circumstances ? The circum
stances are that, in the existence of this great necessity to
relieve half the population frora the pressure of irapossible
rents, means were adopted which were not ill intended and
which were not purposely directed to crime or mischief, but
which were capable in given circurastances of exciteraent in this
case or in that, of operating on excited minds, and of being
auxiliary causes of crirae in such cases. These are the circum
stances. But, sir, is it not the case that in all great movements
in human affairs even the just cause is marked and spotted with
much that is to be regretted ? Have you ever heard of great
changes brought about in the condition of a nation with nothing
contrary to honour, nothing contrary to right, nothing contrary
to order ? Let rae take the two charges against Irish Members
— one of thera that they gave no assistance to justice, and the
other that they did not denounce the party of violence. I will
take an illustration frora our own history. Under Queen
Elizabeth — and if ever there was a period of crisis in English
History it was during that reign — the body of Roraan Catholics
of England were strictly and absolutely loyal. Of that there is
no doubt, and it is recorded that the venerable Lord Montagu —
I do not know whether he was entitled by years, as sorae others
who have taken a share of public action, to be described as
A-enerable — but, at any rate, the venerable Lord Montagu
raarched to Tilbury to support Queen Elizabeth with a troop of
horse, coraraanded by himself, his son, and his grandson. Such
was the loyalty of the body of Roman Catholics. At that time
there was a handful or group of Roraan Catholics, young Roraan
Catholics, chiefly in holy orders, eraissaries of Rome, sustained

1890] THE SPECIAL COMMISSIOIN 163
and cherished by the colleges abroad, and continually engaged
either in arranging plots or awaiting outbreaks when they might
have an opportunity of riveting upon this country a foreign
domination, and possibly even of removing by assassination the
Queen whose life was regarded by the mass of the people as an
inestimable treasure. I have contrasted these two classes of
persons — the one sraall and working against the law, the other
as heartily attached to it. But who ever heard — I, for one,
never heard — that those loyal Roman Catholics made it part of
their active duty to detect the disloyal ? They had no share in
exposing thera ; and it is too rauch to demand, when you have
got before you an oppressed nation and a system of law which
you believe to be in the main radically unjust and bad ard
administered in a foreign spirit, hostile to the welfare and tho
feelings of the country — it is too rauch to expect every man as
a test of loyalty, and as the only means of extending to him
protection, to actively associate hiraself with the law and to
make himself a portion of its train for the purpose of detecting
those whom such a state of the law naturally alienates.
I take another case, and that is with regard to the fact that the
agitation in the eyes of the Judges, and possibly in the opinion
•of raany raore, cannot be held to have been wholly dissociated
with crime. I will illustrate that in like manner frora our
history. I will illustrate it from the history of the Long
Parliaraent. Now, I suppose that if there is a body of men who
have a secure place from generation to generation in the grateful
veneration of the country, it is the leaders of the Long Parlia
ment in its early years. I do not speak of the tirae of Crorawell,
of Ireton, and of Larabert, although it has becorae a great fashion
of late to worship Crorawell. It is the time of Pym and
Hampden, of Falkland and Hyde, for the incidents which I am
going to recite occurred within the last 12 or 14 months of the
Long Parliaraent. Falkland and Hyde themselves in the Long
Parliament belonged to the Opposition. I will not quote the
passage from Hallara, where he gives a general description of it,
but I will quote cases of what was done by those great charapions
of law and order who now enjoy our gratitude and veneration.

164 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 3
I take thera frora Mr Hallara, except in one case, which I take
frora the notes of Sir John Northcote, a very worthy and
distinguished ancestor of Lord Iddesleigh. The Long Parlia
raent usurped from the first, Hallam says, legislative, executive,
and judicial functions. There was a Judge whom they did not
like, who was considered to be subservient to prerogative. They
sent the Usher of the Black Rod into the Court of King's
Bench, and they seized Judge Berkeley while the Court was
sitting. They required the Judges who had signed the warrants
for ship-money to enter into heavy recognisances of many
thousands of pounds ; whether they had been students of the Act
of Edward III.^ or not, I do not know. When they heard of a
clergyman who had perforraed any ceremony in the Church that
they disliked they sent and seized him and committed hira to
prison as a delinquent. There was a tailor so iraprudent as to
curse the Parliament. He was sent to labour in Bridewell
for Ufe, not by the House of Coraraons, but by the House of
Lords, so that a congenial spirit prevailed in both branches
of the Legislature. WeU, sir, when petitioners petitioned
in the most orderly manner for the preservation of the
Constitution they were sent for and imprisoned, but when
tumultuous crowds brought petitions for a change they were
welcomed to the Bar of the House. The climax of all these
cases was one which I hope, sir, will never be repeated during
the period of your own experience. This happened on the 10th
of December 1641. A Member of Parliament, Sir William
Earle, gave inforraation of sorae dangerous words that had
been spoken. Dangerous words ! That is the stateraent of the
charge. What was voted ?
" That Mr Speaker should issue his warrant to apprehend such persons-
as Sir William Earle shall point out."
Such, sir, was the adraixture of gross and huraan elements in
the popular raoveraent upon which, notwithstanding, we look
back as one of the raost beneficial and raost glorious, at any rate
in these early stages, in the whole course of our history. And
1 The Government had recently put in force a long disused Act of
Edward III., against Kationalists in Ireland.

1890] THE SPECIAL COMMISSION 165
we have been accustomed, raany of us, to toast at our festive
gatherings, " the cause for which Harapden bled in the field, and
Sidney on the scaffold." Very probably sorae of those who
vote with the right hon. gentleman to-night have toasted this
cause for which Harapden bled in the field, and Sidney on the
scaffold. These deliberate, flagrant, constant, wilful, and systera
atic violations of law and of private right which were thus
perpetrated by those great raen, and, on the whole, good raen,
are far graver and far fitter to be put into an indictment than
the indirect consequential responsibilities that you throw upon
some of the Irish Members, whose motives and whose intentions
the Judges themselves have been the first to acknowledge.
Perhaps I may be allowed, for it conveniently suras up the
whole case, to quote the words ascribed to Lord Chathara. I
believe they are not in his speeches ; they rest upon the authority
of Mr Grattan. Lord Chatham spoke of that very time which
I have been describing. He said —
" There was ambition, there was sedition, there was violence, but no man
shall persuade me that it was not the cause of Hberty on one side, and of
tyranny on the other."
The cause which was marked by sedition and violence was — in
the judgraent of Lord Chatham, who stands at the head, perhaps,
of your orators and statesmen — the cause of liberty; and the
cause opposed to them, which no doubt had its catchwords of
" law and order,'' was, in his judgment, the cause, not of liberty,
nor law and order, which are the sisters and essential allies of
liberty, but the cause of tyranny. For these reasons I say that
in my opinion you raust raise yourselves a little above the level
of the day, and, if you can, endeavour to take the view of the
transaction we are now engaged in, that the historian will take
when he coraes to perform his final office ; and you will see that
these matters — though I wUl not say the conduct of the Irish
Members is free frora censure any more than I will venture to
say that ray own conduct is free frora censure, or the conduct of
better than I — are not fit subjects for a Parliamentary vote.
And that Parliamentary vote, the vote of an adverse, antagonistic
majority, delivering itself in consonance with its own views to

166 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 3
crush or discredit political opponents, while adding nothing
whatever to the weight of the judgment of the Commissioners,
will, on the contrary, tend to deprive it of such weight.
I will now refer briefly to the acts which constitute the
acquittal. I allude to the charges, every one of which would have
personally stigmatised and personaUy disgraced all the raen who
were the objects of thera had these charges been true. I do not
think \ ou could ever have raade arrangeraents with these raen to
conduL't along with thera the opposition to a Liberal Govern
raent. T do not think that in 1885 you would have entered
into confidential coraraunications with thera for the pur
pose of arranging inforraally a scheme for governing Ireland.
What are these charges ? I take them in their latest edition.
There are many editions, and the last edition is the least
violent, and, I was going to say, the least atrocious. They were
charged with having given incitement by speeches to a scheme
of assassination carefully calculated and coolly applied ; with
having given payraent to proraote raurder ; with having entered
into personal association with crirainals ; and with having made
payments to aid escape frora justice. I do not think the right
hon. gentleraan has observed that the Coraraissioners expressly
absolved the Merabers from this personal association with
notorious crirainals. Then it was charged that they gave
countenance to a raurderous association in America, but it was
proved that they gave it no other countenance than that which
I have described ; it was charged that they, in the person of
tlieir chief, were intiraate with the leading Iiivincibles, and had
probable knowledge of what they were about in the beginning
of May. And lastly, sir, there corae the forged letters. These
are the charges of an infaraous character frora which there has
been a full acquittal, and we ask you to give effect to that acquittal.
Now, I have spoken thus far of the Irish Merabers
without distinction. I raust now speak of the chief araong
thera, because he was the object of by far the worst and raost
atrocious of these charges. I raust speak of Mr Parnell. I
believe that the charge brought against hira was not only an
atrocious charge, but that it was in itself a charge of atrocity

1890] THE SPECIAL COMMISSION 107
entirely unexarapled in our history. Had that charge been
true, the hon. Meraber for Cork would have been guilty, raorally
guilty, as an assassin, as a coward, as a liar, and as a hypocrite.
Every one of those crimes, the worst and the basest that can be
charged to a human being, would lie at the door of the hon.
Member for Cork had he been guilty. Such was the charge in
itself. If it were true, it was the raore needful that it should
be raade. On whom was it raade ? It was raade on a raan
who, looked upon in his public career, was charged with the
leadership of a people. He was charged frora day to day with
the daily care of a nation's interest, at a tirae when he was
invited to becorae virtually a defendant in a Court of Justice
that sat for a year and a half. Such was his condition in
public. What was his condition privately and personally ?
The hon. gentleraan was well known to be strong in raind as he
was weak in health. He was known to be a man of broken
health at the time this charge was made, and finally— there is
no indelicacy in alluding to it, because the hon. gentleraan him
self has modestly and becomingly spoken of it — he was known
to be a man whose lot has not been cast among the rich men
either of England or of Ireland. When this charge was brought,
under enorraous responsibility, what was the assurance that
accorapanied it ? It was not cast at randora before the country ;
it was cast with a soleran assurance tha.t iraposed even upon
Merabers of this House, in these terras, that, " after the raost
careful and rainute scrutiny [the letter] is, we are satisfied, quite
authentic." ^ Was there a scrutiny ? Was there a scrutiny at
all ? Was there anything careful and rainute about it ? Yes,
sir; there was something careful about it, and that was a care
fulness not to know. Mr Macdonald ^ went into the box,
appeared upon his oath, not closed up within the curtains of the
office of the Times newspaper, but upon his oath personally in the
face of day ; and what said Mr Macdonald ? " I abstained froin
asking Mr Houston why the envelopes were wanting, and from
whom he got the letters ; " and then, " I particularly avoided the
1 The Times, April 18, 1887.
The Manager of the Times, who gave evidence before the Commission.

168 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 3
.subject of origin." Having ventured upon forgery, having
carried calurany to its cliraax, the whole of this was crowned
with falsehood, divulged in the raost soleran form, and given to
the credulous, those whora party prejudice for a moraent raight
mislead, to assure thera that they would tread in the paths, not
of cruelty and tyranny, but of justice. Sir, is it an iraraoderate
deraand that, after an occurrence like this, after a poisoned
weapon has been airaed, airaed under such circurnstances, aimed
at such a person, and airaed with the soleran assurance that
nothing was so dear to those who launched it as the strict observ
ance of the law — is it too much that I should ask the House of
Coraraons, which — by iraplication and involuntarily, at least —
carae to give much countenance to the exterior part of this case — is
it too rauch to ask that we should record our judgraent upon
this unexarapled occurrence ?
I have not been able, I adrait, to abstain altogether from
reference to the conduct of the Party opposite in former
}'ears. I have made no charge against the conduct of the
party, or the conduct of the Government, in iraraediate con
nection with this matter. I wish to do nothing to give an
excuse to prejudice or to prepossession. And now, sir, as
a member of the minority, to whora ara I to appeal ? I
appeal from the Party opposite to the Party opposite. I
appeal from them as a Party to thera as individuals. I ask you
as citizens — I will not say as Christians — and as raen to con
sider this case. I ask you to acknowledge the law of equal and
reciprocal raoral obligation ; I ask you to place yourselves for a
raiOnient — not the mass araong whom responsibility is diffused
and severed till it becomes inoperative and worthless ; but I ask
you individually, man by man, to place yourselves — in the
}josition of the hon. Meraber for Cork as the victira of this
frightful outrage. Is it possible, in doing this, after all his cares,
all his suffering, all that he has gone through — and I believe
there is no parallel to it at least for 200 years — that you can fail
to feel that soraething reraains due to him, or that you can
bring that something lower or make it sraaller than I have put
it in the Amendraent I ara about to raove ? No, sir. Then

1890] THE SPECIAL COMMISSION 169
give what I pray you to give ; give it as raen, but do not bo
satisfied with giving a judgment that may be sustained by the
cheers of a raajority of this House upon a victorious or favour
able division ; give such a judgraent as will bear the scrutiny of
the heart and of the conscience of every raan when he takes
hiraself to his chamber and is stUl. Of such a judgment I have
no fear. For such a judgment I ask you, I entreat you, I urge
you, I might almost say, in the narae of that law of reciprocal
obligation, I respectfully demand it of you. Give such a judg
ment in the terras of the Araendraent, concur in declaring that
which is, after all, but a part, and a feebly drawn and repre
sented part, of the wrongs that have been inflicted — give that
judgment, accede to our demand, accede to our prayer, and
grant this late, this raeasured, this perhaps scanty reparation of
an enorraous and unheard of wrong.

THE LAND PURCHASE BILL
House of Commons, Apeil 24, 1890
Upon the motion to read the Government measure known as the Land
Purchase Bill for Ireland a second time, Mr Parnell moved its rejection, and
v.as supported by Mr Gladstone. The Bill was read a second time by 848 to 267.
Mr Gladstone also spoke on its introduction on March 24. When the Bill was
reintroduced in the following winter session, Mr Gladstone spoke against the
second reading (December 2), and returned to the subject on April 10, 1891.
I WISH, in the first place, to raake ray acknowledgraents to
the courtesy of ray hon. friend the Meraber for Cavan^ in
having allowed me to take this early opportunity of raaking
known ray views on this important question. Sir, it is with very
mixed sentiments that I rise to express ray opinion — mixed in
this raanner : that I deeply regret to find rayself corapelled to
oppose a Bill which it would have given rae far greater satis
faction to support, had I not been driven by overwhelraing
conviction to offer opposition to it. I had hoped, and enter
tained a lively hope, that it might be possible for us on this
side of the House to give support to the plan of the Govern
raent. I was encouraged in that hope by the remarkable
declaration of Lord Salisbury, about which, as a raatter of fact,
I believe there is no question, that the plan of the Government
was not intended to impose any burden on the British taxpayer.
According to Parliaraentary and invariable usage, there can
be only one meaning assigned to these words. They are totally
incompatible with any intention to propose a heavy engagement
of the public credit. They were so understood universally, and
by myself araongst others. It would have been a very great
advantage on raany grounds, if it had been possible for ns
to see the land question in Ireland, in familiar phrase, "got
^ Mr Knox.

1890] THE LAND PURCHASE BILL 171
out of the way." Every such question, however there may
be involved in it principles of justice and right as against
oppression, yet likewise tends to stir up the turbid elements
of society, and those who have no good cause for raaking
demands on the landlord can often bring forward a claim in
such circurastances, under cover of those who have such a
cause. It is very well that the country should have seen
brought finally to issue the question whether — as is often
alleged, and, as I think, believed, on the opposite side of the
House — the land question is the only question in Ireland, and
the demand for national self-government merely an appendage
to that question. It would have been raost satisfactory to me,
and I believe to others who think that national self-government
ought to be granted to Ireland for Irish affairs, to have seen
that important point relieved from all possibility of doubt and
dispute by some satisfactory legislation with regard to Irish
land. With regard to this Bill, the Chief Secretary,^ who in
his speech repeated the assurance that no burden was to be
placed on the taxpayer, raust have seen frora the reception of
those words in what sense they were understood by the House.
My first disappointraent as to the Bill was when he proceeded
to inform us what was the real meaning of the words — that
the credit of the country was to be pledged to the extent of
£33,000,000 for the sake of carrying through the provisions
of the Bill. I should not, sir, have been deterred frora support
ing this Bill by the argument ofi'ered by the hon. Meraber for
Cork,^ though I adrait there is great force in it. He
said, and I think with truth, that we cannot, with perfect satis
faction, approach the settleraent of a question of this kind
as long as Ireland is under the present Coercion Laws, because
the effect of those laws is to disable the weaker portion of
the Irish tenantry frora prosecuting their airas by peaceable
and lawful means, and by what were lawful means, and by
what would be lawful means in England or Scotland, from
entering into a combination, which is a legitimate weapon in
1 Mr A. J. Balfour. ^ ^^ Paruell.

172 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [april 24
their hands, for deterraining the just araount of rent they ought
to pay. Still, I was quite prepared to enter upon the con
sideration of this question on the introduction of the BiU. I
endeavoured to do justice to the pains bestowed upon it, to the
ingenuity which it displays, and in no respect do I retract what
I said upon that occasion. I waited to exaraine the Bill, still
cherishing what hope I could ; but I ara sorry to say that
exaraination has brought upon rae ray second and ray greater
disappointraent. One word I raust say with respect to the alternative
pilau which has been proposed by the hon. Meraber for Cork.
I think his conduct in raaking that proposal was not only
honourable, but even chivalrous, because he appeared to
adrait that a person who is in opposition may fairly be called
upon by the Governraent, if he objects to a measure of the
Government, to propose an alternative measure of his own.
That is a principle, I think, new to this House. The hou.
Member accepted it at the sarae tirae without hesitation.
Now, sir, it would not be possible to discuss in detail the
plan of the hon. Member, and I am not certain that in all
its details I have a perfect coraprehension of it. I have
no doubt it was my own fault; but the statement was a very
brief one, and while the general purpose was clear, the exact
terras are not, certainly, fully in ray raind. But on two points
I wish to do justice to the plan. In the first place, it was
coraprehensive; it was intended to effect a settlement of the
whole question. In another point I strongly sympathise with
the hon. Member for Cork. One object of his plan was not
to expatriate the Irish landlords, but to retain thera in Ireland ;
and I, for ray part, ara of opinion that though the expatriation
of the Irish landlords raay be a less evil than many others —
for instance, than a continuance of the land system as it once
was — would have been, yet I own that I think it would be a
sorry conclusion to their long career if, upon the establishment
of a free Government and of free institutions in their country,
they were to decline to take that part in the adjustraent of the
affairs of Ireland which their station entails upon them as

i89o] THE LAND PUECHASE BILL 173
a high and absolute duty. I am glad to observe that the right
hon. gentleraan the Attorney-General ^ for Ireland, as I under
stood, in no way took exception to this principle of the proposal
of the hon. Meraber for Cork, and I think a well-known Irish
County Court Judge, Mr O'Connor Morris — a gentleman who,
though an excellent public officer, is known to be a supporter
of hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to Horae Eule for Ireland
— has propounded a plan based on the sarae ideas. I do trust
that we raay have full opportunity for the consideration of such
features of the plan as would tend to the retention of Irish land
lords in Ireland, as well as to the adjustraent of the land question.
I ara sorry to say that, partly perhaps owing to ray own
fault, I did not fully gather from the speech of the right
hon. gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in introducing
tlUs Bill its real character in regard to several important
points. I shall go over very rapidly the objections to various
points which appear to me capable of being dealt with in
Comraittee, and I shall avoid the inconvenience of entering
unduly, in a Second Eeading speech, into details which can
be dealt with in Committee. Over this class of objections I
shall run rapidly, though some of them are so serious in thera
selves as possibly to constitute valid objections to the Second
Eeading of the Bill. The first objection is one on which
probably there raay be a disposition on the part of Her
Majesty's Government to corae to an agreement. I think this
BUl ought to be confined to landlords who are already such.
It would be highly iraproper to encourage persons to become
buyers of land with a view to taking advantage of the
enorraous boon which is being offered. I shall not dwell on
this point, because I hope it raay not be a subject of dispute
between us. Next, there is the question of arrears. I shall
not dwell on this point at length after the speech of the right
hon. gentleraan the Meraber for the Bridgeton Division ; 2 but
any one who heard the right hon. gentleraan's remarks in regard
to the proposal to allow two years' arrears to be calculated
1 Mr Madden, member for the University of Dublin.
2 Sir George Trevelyan.

174 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [april 24
in the purchase money must, I think, adrait that the proposal
stands in need of justification, which possibly raay be forth-
coraing. There is very great force in the objection of the
hon. Member for Cork in respect to the treatraent of tenants
of non-selling landlords. That difficulty in the present BiU
has been raised to a raaxiraura. It may be said this applied
to the proposal of 1886, and it is true that it did apply but in
a very raitigated degree, because in the Bill of 1886 we
proceeded to take a very large portion of the boon to be
conveyed by Parliaraent, not for the benefit of tenants as
tenants, but as a benefit for the whole community in Ireland.
No less than 18 per cent, was proposed, not to go directh'
to the tenants, but to the benefit of Ireland, though, of course,
it indirectly would have gone to the tenants in some degree,
inasmuch as tenants form a large proportion of the population.
Well, I own I think it is a very great objection, indeed, that
the benefits proposed by the Bill are given to the two classes
of landlords and tenants, and I raust say in no degree to the
nation. With the exception of a very liraited proposal in
regard to labourers, and while Ireland as a whole will have
her credit pledged, and while the credit of Great Britain is
pledged, Ireland as a whole is to receive no portion of this
enormous advantage. There is another point which appears
to me to be impossible to be defended, and which, indeed, goes
so 'near the root of the Bill as to cause rae almost to doubt
whether it can be dealt with in Committee. I refer to the
method for ascertaining the net rental of the land. The
standard laid down in the Bill appears to rae to be so bad
that it would enable a landlord to obtain corapensation in
respect of a large part of income that he had never received,
and never had it in his power to appropriate to his own
benefit and advantage. No reduction is provided to be made
for expenses of management, or for law charges — as, for
instance, in regard to evictions — or bad debts. Under the Bill
the landlord is to be compensated even for bad debts, which
have had to be written off, and which are absolutely beyond
recovery. I need not say the effect of this is that, when you

1890] THE LAND PURCHASE BILL 175

think you are giving 17 years' purchase, you may be giving 20
or 22 years'. I think these are all elements that ought to be
considered in arriving at the real rent. Next, I take the
strongest possible objection to our placing an embargo on the
local funds of the counties of Ireland. That appears to me
to involve a principle which this House ought to hold sacred,
and from which it ought never to depart. I am now on a point
upon which I stand, perhaps, in need of sorae inforraation.
As I understand the Bill, there is nothing to prevent the
occupier who becoraes an owner under this measure from
himself becoraing a landlord.
Mr Madden — He cannot sub-let without the perraission of
the Land Commission.
Mr Gladstone — Cannot sub-let ? Cannot let at all ?
Mr Madden — He can sell, but he cannot sub-divide or
sub-let. Mr Gladstone — Cannot get an occupier under him ?
Mr Madden — Hear, hear !
Mr Gladstone — But upon what principle is the Land
Commission to proceed in granting or refusing such permission ?
This is a very iraportant point. Is it to be understood as an
universal principle of the Bill, that every raan who buys, buys
under a legal obligation to occupy ? It is a question of great
iraportance, upon which there ought to be a clear understanding,
which no doubt we shall obtain at the proper time. Now, with
regard to the guarantees that the right hon. gentleman has
ingeniously provided, I will not, at the present tirae, undertake
to raake a rainute examination of thera. The really valuable
part — indeed, I raay say the only valuable part — of those
guarantees is to be found in the grants to be raade by the
ChanceUor of the Exchequer on account of Probate Duty and
other public charges. But we have already given to England
and Scotland corresponding grants, free from any lien whatever.
How is it possible, if we raake a free gift of these grants in
England and Scotland, and place thera unfettered at the dis
posal of the Local Authorities — how is it possible for us to say
that the grants in the case of Ireland should have this embargo

176 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [april 24
placed upon them, not even for the benefit of each county at
large, but for the benefit of certain individuals in each county ?
There have been at -\'arious times violations of the principle of
equaUty as applied to different parts of the three kingdoms ; but
I am not aware that we have ever known a raore glaring depar
ture from that principle. Another point which I raust also
mention, though it is one that can be dealt with in Coramittee,
relates to the charges which it is proposed to impose on the
counties for the salaries of the Land Coraraission and the com
position of that Coraraission. These are a very grave assem
blage of points, on which, however, I feel that it is not desirable
to dwell at length at this raoment, as I do not wish to prolong the
reraarks I have to raake, and as there wiU be an opportunity for
the future discussion of them.
I come now to objections of which I raust frankly owu
that each and all of thera appear to constitute an absolute
reason against the Second Eeading of this Bill. I have
already expressed ray desire to discuss this question apart
from considerations of party. I will endeavour to adhere to
the principle of that declaration. I will not reraind any hon.
Meraber of this House of what it raight be inconvenient
for hira to recollect. I will not remind hira intentionally of any
portion of the conduct of the Governraent. It is enough for me
to endeavour to look at their propositions as a matter of business,
and not as a raatter of party ; and to endeavour in that sense,
and in that light, to place their character before the country.
When this Bill was introduced, I had uo reason to know from
any coraraunication, direct or indirect, what view would be
taken of it by the representatives of Ireland — whether the
£33,000,000 held out would operate as a golden attraction for
the purpose of placing in abeyance any objections which they
might feel inclined to entertain. I did not say one single word
in the course of the reraarks which I then made which tended
or were meant in any degree to predispose unfavourably the
mind of any single person in this House. But, sir, it becarae
obvious at once that Ireland was opposed to this Bill. I have
seen an account of a raeeting of Irish landlords, whose position

1 890] THE LAND PUECHASE BILL 177
under the BUl it will be our duty closely to examine and care
fully to exhibit; but I cannot say that I consider them as
having, in reference to this matter, even the sraallest title to
express the voice of Ireland. For the voice of Ireland I raust
look to two quarters. I raust look, in the first place, to the
Members for Ireland, and I suppose that I ara quite right in
saying that five-sixths of those Merabers are deliberately and
determinedly opposed to this Bill. But this present House
is perfectly familiar with the idea of passing Irish Bills in
defiance of the wishes of the Irish Merabers. And, therefore,
I never should dreara of addressing to this House such au
argument — however operative in ray own mind — it would be
idle to address to this House of Coraraons such an arguraent, as
that in legislating for Ireland the opinions of the Irish Merabers
should be considered. The contrary practice is recorded in the
transactions of the House during the four years in which the
present Parliaraent has sat. But this case is altogether peculiar.
You are going to raake Ireland a debtor ; you are going to con
stitute a debt of which I have not the sraallest doubt that in
perfect good faith it is your intention to rigidly exact repayment.
But if that is your intention and plan, it is a raatter of vital
iraportance to consider what, in the conclusion of this trans
action, is the attitude of the person who is about to be raade
subject to the debt. That person has but two means of speak
ing. The first, the greatest and the raost constitutional, is by
the Members ; and if the great bulk of these Members protest
against the constitution of this debt — if they decline to recognise
it as an obligation — if, on the contrary, they treat the provisions
of the raeasure as a new wrong inflicted on Ireland — I say
nothing now as to the correctness or incorrectness of their
opinions ; I am simply stating the facts, and ray proposition is
that if you are going to make the people of Ireland your debtor
for a sum of about £35,000,000— which, U the BiU be read
aright, is a figure which may rise very rauch higher — it is a
most formidable combination of circurastances under which you,
by your own choice, involve Ireland in that pecuniary obliga-
M

178 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [april 24
tion, she protesting all the time, and declining to adrait that she
is getting value for her money.
To illustrate that question I would raake an appeal to Her
Majesty's Governraent. Do they think it would be possible,
within the widest liraits of the widest definition of Parliaraentary
omnipotence, to enact a law for Scotland which should contain a
concession of Iraperial credit to the extent of £33,000,000 for the
benefit of certain classes in Scotland, and to irapose the repay-
raent of that raoney, in case of default, upon the counties of
Scotland, in defiance of the protest of sixty out of the seventy-
two Scotch Merabers ? If a Member of the Governraent does
rae the honour to follow rae in this debate, I beg hira to answer
that question. Would he be prepared so to legislate for Scotland,
conteraplating with perfect good faith the benefit of certain
classes in Scotland, and then, by reason of a thing done for the
advantage of these classes, iraposing upon the counties of Scot
land and upon all persons and interests in those counties —
though nine-tenths may not have derived a farthing of benefit
under the Act — this liability upon thera, in defiance of their
protest ? There is iraportant auxiliary evidence — the evidence
of the counties theraselves. Is there a single county in Ireland,
is there a single elective body in Ireland, which has said one
word in favour of the measure ? Their credit is about to be
interfered with and appropriated by us for purposes of which
they do not approve, and I do not hesitate to say that even had
I doubts — which I do not entertain — upon the provisions of this
Bill, which I shall presently refer to, I should deem it most
unconstitutional, most irapolitic, to force such a measure upon
Ireland in defiance of her own deliberate and overwhelming
objection. My second objection is to the use of British credit in this
case. I have never been one of those who take an extreme
view on the subject of the use of British credit. But I think
it is a very grave matter indeed, even when the security
taken for the repayment of the money advanced is, in ray own
judgraent at least, an absolute security. I cannot deny that any
large use of British credit is a burden upon the country. I

1890] THE LAND PUECHASE BILL 179
should think I was tampering with words, and what is called
" throwing dust in the eyes " of those whora I address, if I
denied that for a raoraent. It is quite clear that every large
use of British credit diminishes your power of using it in other
directions ; and how ara I to be told, if that is the case— and I
believe it to be utterly undeniable — that it is no burden on the
people ? I do not wish to push this too far. It raay be quite
right to irapose burdens upon the country with the assent of the
country and for an adequate object and with araple security. I
shall, therefore, avoid any abstract declaration on this subject,
but I shall refer to the circurastances in which we stand, and I
do not hesitate to say that it appears to rae that this Parliaraent
is both in honour and in policy, and upon the clearest constitu
tional ground, precluded frora a large application of British
credit for the purchase of land in Ireland. Reraember, if ever
there was a question decided at a General Election, this ques
tion was decided at the General Election of 1886. About tbe
voice of the party opposite upon it there could not be the
slightest doubt. I am not going to raake the smallest invidious
reference to the benefit which they derived, to the victories
"which they obtained, through exhibiting the treraendous burden
which was to be iraposed upon the country by the Land Bill
¦of 1886. And with regard to this subject of the burden upon
the country, I raust reraind the House, it is in all our recollec
tions, that the universal representation was that £100,000,000,
£150,000,000, or £200,000,000 were to be exacted frora the
British taxpayer for the purchasing the estates of the Irish
landlords. That was the case with regard to the party opposite.
Lt was still raore the case with those who still do us the honour
of interspersing theraselves araong us.^ I think, generally
speaking, that they went further and took a raore extreme view
than the Tories took with respect to this question of the use of
British credit for the purchase of Irish estates. I must go
further still ; I must admit that a very large number of Liberal
•candidates at the Election declared their opposition to purchase
1 The " Dissentient Liberals" or "Liberal Unionists" who, as a party,
;sat on the Liberal benches.

180 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [april 24
on that basis, and I believe that a still larger nuraber of
Liberal constituencies entertained that objection. I do not
now enter into the question whether that is a final judgraent or
not. A judgment may be pronounced very clearly at one
General Election, and it may be reversed by another General
Election, and I am not at all sure whether this subject of
Iraperial credit raay not possibly add another to the many
exaraples of the truth to which I have just reverted. I ara not
at all sure whether we ourselves — each of us as individuals — are
perfectly capable of giving a final judgraent on this question
of British credit until we have considered more largely than we
have yet done, and until we have obtained more thorough and
authoritative inforraation than we yet possess upon the old
relations of England and Ireland with respect to finance as they
stood at the period of the Union, and with reference to all the
expenditure which has been thrown upon Ireland by the Union.
But I do say that for this present Parliament, if British credit
ever were to be used for the purpose of purchasing those estates,
it ought to be under a system of guarantees, I am bound to say,
A'ery different indeed from those which are provided in the
present case. I do not think that the present Parliaraent — if
there be such a thing as an honourable understanding with the
nation — is in a position to adopt the proposals of Her Majesty's
Governraent for setting aside a vast sum of raoney, and by means
of a circulating fund, and therefore with an interminable opera
tion — I do not think that the present Parliament is in a
position to take such a step and give such a vote in conformity
with our honourable obligations to our constituents. These two
objections — the Irish opposition and the use of Iraperial credit
under the circumstances in which we stand — constitute a
conclusive reason why we should not perrait the Bill to be
read a second tirae.
I now corae to the third objection, which, in ray judgraent,
is raore forraidable still, and that is the question of State
landlordisra. The economical test the right hon. sentleman^
has ingeniously covered with a triple front of brass in his
' Mr A. J. Balfour.

i893] THE LAND PURCHASE BILL 181
three impossibUities.^ I am afraid that those impossibilities
would all be penetrated by pecuniary necessity, as the
spears of great warriors used in ancient times to go through
the raany folds with which shields were covered. I own I do
not think the results of present repayments ^ are altogether satis
factory. About 2i per cent is the deficit upon the repayment of
advances which have been made upon such a scale as evidently
not very greatly to coraproraise the power of the State or to
entail any particular danger. The payraents under the Acts we
have passed up to the present tirae are 24 per cent, in arreais.
I do not think that is a brilliant result, when you consider that
it is the outcorae of raeasures which involved an enormous
pecuniary boon, manufactured out of British credit, to the
persons who have directed the sales and purchases in Ireland.
It is when from hundreds you corae to deal with thousands, and
go frora thousands to tens of thousands, and frora tens of
thousands to hundreds of thousands, that the raere question of
pecuniary risk assuraes a totally different aspect.
The occurrence of seasons of faraine will entail difficulties of
which we are not at all corapetent to raeasure the extent ; but the
political danger is, in ray opinion, tenfold greater than the econ
oraical. I think I raay say that nothing will induce rae, in a Bill
of this kind, on a large scale to incur the political danger of State
landlordisra in Ireland. It is terrible to conteraplate. I suppose
that the right hon. gentleraan does not think of coraing upon the
ratepayers of the country or upon the recipients of the Probate
Duty Fund until every measure has been taken against a
defaulting occupier ; for I assume that the very first thing to be
done in the case of default is, in the name of the English
Treasury, to evict the Irish tenants, with the help of the con
stabulary, the soldiery, and the battering-ram, with no aid want
ing except that of the emergency man, whora, I presurae, the
State will not have occasion to eraploy. I ara not willing to be
a party to such operations conducted in our narae. In a raost
1 See Hansard, March 24, 1890, col. 1712.
2 Under the Irish Church Act (1869), the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881,
and especially the Ashbourne Acts of 1885 and 1888.

182 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [APRIL 24
able pamphlet just pubUshed by an hon. Member who proraises
to be a very considerable addition to our ranks, judging from the
argumentative power he shows — I raean the hon. Member
for Elgin and Nairn ^ — I find some words which the hon.
Meraber says were used by ray right hon. friend the Meraber for
West Birrainghara 2 in 1886. I ara quite certain that the hon.
Meraber raust be wrong in saying that those words were used by
ray right hon. friend ; he could not have used those words,
because thev are totally untrue. There is not a single word of
truth in thera. The right hon. gentleman could not have been
ignorant of the facts, and, therefore, he could not have used the
words. They are directed against State landlordism. In the
Bill of 1886 there was nothing affecting England ; the Treasury
was not the creditor ; the British State was not the proprietor ; the
Irish authority was the proprietor ; no power was given to the
representatives of the British Exchequer to levy one single
shilling towards the recovery of the advances under the Bill, but
it was wholly an Irish matter. The equivalent of the Irish
advances was siraply to be deducted frora the gross amount of
the public funds of Ireland. Until that had been done not a
single shiUing was to be appUed to expenditure. The passage I
ara going to quote is, I believe, strictly, literally, and absolutely
applicable to the present Bill. There are only three Unes,
but they are sufficiently pungent, and the virtue of their
pungency is to be found in their truth as applied to the Bill
now before us. They run —
"Bear in mind this, working men of England and Scotland, you will be
the Irish landlords ; you will have to evict the tenants ; j-ou will have to
collect the arrears at the point of the bayonet ; and I refuse to be a party to
such a transaction."
In ray opinion, sir, the knowledge — if even the deficiency is only
2i- percent., or is any percentage whatever — the knowledge that
the eviction of the purchasing tenant is by the agency and for
the behoof of the British Treasury forras a conclusive objection
to any large raeasure of Irish purchase in which it is included.
^ Mr Keay. - Mr J. Chamberlain.

iSgo] THE LAND PURCHASE BILL 183
Now I come to my fourth and last objection, that is to the
terms which, when we first heard thera, and before it was
realised what they raeant, were naturally and of necessity alraost
seductive to the ears of every Member of the House. The terms
of purchase were to be adjusted between the landlord and the
tenant by voluntary arrangeraent. There are some of us who
are accused of wishing to have voluntary arrangeraents in certain
cases where at present there are legal State arrangeraents ; and
on this occasion the friends of voluntary arrangeraents felt that
the statement I have just cited was the best introduction to any
measure of this nature. But what is the voluntary arrangement
under this Bill ? I am bound to think the Government have
not sufficiently studied the operation of their voluntary arrange
ment. I will begin by stating what raay seera paradoxical until
I have illustrated it, that this provision for voluntary arrange
ment is a provision under which you will place it in the hands
of the landlords of Ireland to transfer to their own pockets, if
not the whole, yet nearly the whole of the enormous boon which
you think you are providing for the tenant This is a grave
stateraent, and I could not have raade it without being fully
convinced of its truth. I first of all assume— what I believe
will not be disputed — that this Bill is mainly raeant to raeet the
cases of the tenants who are desirous to buy their holdings in
Ireland. I am glad if it is an accommodation to the landlord ; but
it has always been stated on the other side that to convert
occupiers into proprietors is the object they have in view. In
order to enable the tenants to buy, what is it that we do ? We
offer a boon, primd facie, a boon which is large, which, if I
understand it aright, is enormous. The offered sura of £100
involved in any one of these transactions is, by a touch of the
magician's wand, at once reduced to £68. That is how you
begin — by a gift of £32 in every £100 ; £32 of hard money, coined
out of British credit, in every £100 of hard raoney that is to pass.
And that is not all; because you likewise provide that the
reduced annual payraent shall not be a payraent in perpetuity,
but at the end of 49 years it is to lapse, and the occupying
purchaser is to become absolute proprietor. What is the value

184 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [APRIL 24
of that reversion ? I am not going to compute it as an actuary
would, and say exactly what it would be ; but I do not think I
am wrong in putting its present value at £8. Therefore, I say
that £40 in every £100 upon every one of these transactions is
a boon which you are going to confer upon somebody in Ireland
by means of the use of the public credit To whora are you
going to offer it ? I do not ask what your intention is — I know
it ; it is to give it to the raan who is now the tenant, and whom
you seek to convert into the landlord of his holding. That is
your intention. Is it really effected by your legislation ? No,
sir. In the former raeasure what was conteraplated was that
there should be one integral transaction for the passage of the
estate ; that the whole of these transactions should be carried
on by public advances ; and that the landlord should have no
more to say to the person who had been occupier and was about
to becorae owner. In the Bill it is totally different. If the
terras of the Bill, that the landlord and tenant shall agree, are
to|be followed, provided the two parties are not collusive, they
will have no effect whatever. In such a matter collusion
implies the connivance of both parties to cheat public justice.
I ara speaking of the enorraous leverage you are about to put in
the hands of Irish landlords for the purpose of extracting from
the tenants nearly the whole of the iraraense boon which you
are ofi'ering. Here are two persons, A and B, in business
relations with one another. Parliament makes a grant of £500
to A, the tenant, but attaches to the grant the condition that he
must obtain the consent of B, the landlord. A, the tenant, goes
to B, the landlord, and says, " I want to buy." " You want to
bu)'," replies the landlord ; " that is all very well. You cannot
buy without my consent, and I am the stronger party." And,
undoubtedly, in the case of a tenant desirous to buy, the land
lord is the stronger party. The landlord raay exact frora the
tenant, in the shape of a mortgage on the land, or in the shape
of additional years' purchase, any addition whatever to the
terms, and into that addition he raay iraport as rauch of this
£40 in every £100 as he can force his tenant to agree to. And,
further, it maybe worth the while of the tenant to agree as long

1890] THE LAND PUECHASE BILL 185
as the landlord leaves him something. Suppose the landlord
takes £35 out of the £40— that is a good slice ; but he may say
to the tenant, "If you agree with me, you get £5 in the £100,
and you becorae your own proprietor in the course of 49 years.
If you do not agree, you go on paying till the crack of doom."
That is the position in which the two parties are placed. As
long as you allow these contracts under the name of voluntary
engagements, the landlord can screw out of the tenants whatever
terms he likes. I do not raean that every landlord would do
this, but there are raany who would. I am showing what we
ought not to permit. We are placing in the hands of the land
lord an instruraent enabling hira to enrich hiraself, and to obtain
an excessive and exorbitant price for his land, in direct contra
vention of the intentions of Parliament. That is what Ulster is
well aware of. Ulster is not deceived. Ulster sees into it. The
tenants there are somewhat stronger than they are upon the
average in Ireland; their position is a stronger position; but
what is the language they hold ? The language they hold is
that if you want to have a useful Bill, it raust be not voluntary,
but corapulsory. The tenants raust have the right to require
that the purchase should take place. That is a very different
deraand, and it involves a very serious question. I ara not going
to give an opinion upon that question now. I ara pointing'out,
by an arguraent which I think irrefragable, that the tenants, for
the sake of whom we are going to pledge British credit, will be
at the raercy of the landlord. After having made this enormous
and unprecedented effort, and placed ourselves in a position of
the greatest disadvantage, it is the landlord who will be raaster
of the position. In the division of the spoil the lion's share will
fall to him, and nothing but the leavings and the remnants to
the tenant.
These four objections I am prepared to let stand upon their
own raerits : First, Irish opposition ; secondly, the use of the
national credit in opposition to the recorded judgraent of
the country at the last election — a judgraent which, in ray
opinion, none but the country itself is entitled to reverse ;
thirdly, the e-vil of State landlordisra, which involves large

186 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [april 24
pecimiary risks, but which involves an evil tenfold greater than
any pecuniary risks in the shock to huraanity, to order, and to
the relations between countries, which raust ensue from the
abuse of such a power ; and lastl}', the sad reverse which we
experience when we find that, in the name of a voluntary
arrangeraent, we enable the landlord to bring an irresistible
pressure to bear on the tenant, with the view and with the
effect of extorting frora hira, perhaps, nearly the whole, or a very
large part, of the iraraense boon which Parliament proposes to
confer. In these circumstances, I resign with great regret the
hopes which I entertained of being able to support the Bill. 1
ara not sure that I have even now obtained anything like a full
comprehension of the Bill. It is an exceedingly complicated
measure. I do not know that a more corapUcated measure, or
one so complicated, has ever been brought before us. It contains
points of great ambiguity and points of great difficulty. All
these might, perhaps, be encountered judiciously, and, with
temper and manageraent, raight be got rid of. But the four
difficulties I have raentioned, all persons in this House, whatever
their political creed, will feel constitute points which ought to
be placed clearly in the view of the country, and the country
ought to know what it is asked to do, and what Parliaraent raay
be about to do. For my part, though I have not the sraallest
idea of joining in any obstructive opposition to this or any other
raeasure whatever, still I feel it to be ray bounden duty to raake
objection to provisions so dangerous and flagrant in their char
acter, tending, on the one hand, to embark the country in
pecuniary risks to which it ought not to be exposed, and on the
other, to make the question of land purchase not an aid in the
settleraent of the general question of Ireland, but the means of
iraporting into it new social and pecuniary difficulties, and
further and further plunging us into the deepest political
embarrassment.

DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND
House of Commons, May 2nd, 1890
Dr Cameron, one of the members for Glasgow, moved, " That in the opinion
ofthis House, the Church of Scotland ought to be disestablished and disendo-fi'ed."
The motion was rejected by 256 to 218. Mr Gladstone took part in the Debate
of March 30th, 1886, on the same subject.
The hon. gentleraan ^ who has just sat down has thought it worth
while to refer to a declar9,tion of raine which I will presently
allude to. He has already referred to a declaration raade, as he
stated, by the electors of Mid Lothian, showing the raajority of
constituents in that county, which he stated at 67 per cent.,
to be adverse to the Disestablishraent of the Scotch Church. If
niy raeraory serves me, that declaration did not embrace all the
parishes of the county ; but certain of those parishes were left
out on principles which no doubt approved theraselves to the
proraoters of the declaration. I will not enter upon a discus
sion of that declaration, because an atterapt to appreciate it
with exactitude raight lead rae into invidious remarks. What
I say, in answer to ray hon. friend, is that I shall be raost
happy to answer the electors of Mid Lothian for ray conduct
in respect to that declaration, and for the vote I am about
to give to-night ; and not only so, but I shall be thankful to
Her Majesty's Governraent, and to the hon. Meraber if he uses
his influence with Her Majesty's Governraent in that direction,
if they will give rae that opportunity at the earliest possible
moment. Then the hon. gentleman will receive the fullest
satisfaction, I have no doubt, at all events with regard to
that portion of his speech.
The speech of the hon. Meraber has suggested to ray
1 Mr J. A. Campbell, Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities.
187

188 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [may 2
raind this question : Upon what ground of principle is the
Established Church of Scotland defended ? The whole of
his speech has consisted of observations in detail, showing
how respectable and creditable the Church of Scotland
is, in the activity and devotion of its raerabers, which no
one will dispute, or showing that sorae particular piece of
evidence aUeged b}' the proraoters of this jMotion is of sraaller
value than they have esteemed it to be. In point of fact, the hon.
gentleraan has not looked at the crop in the field, but at the
gleanings he could pick up. He has endeavoured to construct a
case out of almost infinitesimal particulars on which to justify
the continuance of the national establishment It was stated, I
think well, by my hon. friend the Member for East Aberdeen
shire, that the burden of proof in a case of this kind rests with
those who maintain the principle of EstabUshment [" Oh, oh."]
Is it not so ? [" No, no."] Is it not so ? [" No."] Then it is
contended that, when one religious body out of a nuraber is
invested with exclusive possession of national treasure for the
purposes of religious worship, that one privileged religious body
is under no obUgation whatever to show reasons for the
preference. That is the doctrine of those gentlemen who cry
"No." I am not saying whether they show reasons or not;
but I am saying it is their duty to show reason.
What are the reasons upon which the maintenance of a religious
Establishment may be defended ? I am not going to argue this
question cn abstract principles. Manj' Members of this House lay
it down as a first principle of politics that in no case can the
maintenance of a religious establishment be defended. I do not
intend to argue the question upon that ground, and I leave that
principle apart, without either affirming or denying it I look
at this case as a case to be decided upon its own raerits,
with reference to the wants and the circurastances of Scotland.
Now, sir, I ask what are the grounds upon which the existence
of a religious establishraent can be pleaded ? As far as I know,
they have always been these four — either that the religious
establishraent was perforraing sorae special religious work in the
country — for instance, such as the care of the poor — which no

i89o] SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT 189
other body could perform, or that it was testifying to the
raaintenance of certain truths and doctrines which no other
religious body could so effectually maintain, or that it was the
Church to which the decided majority of the people belonged,
or, finally, that it was the Church to which either the decided
raajority of the people belonged, or, even without belonging to it,
yet wished to maintain in the position of the National Church
Establishment. Those are the arguraents which have often
been pleaded, and which possibly might prevail with a majority
of this House for the maintenance of our interest in a religious
establishment. But how can any of those four arguraents be
raaintained in the case of the Church of Scotland ? That is the
question which I propose to try. It is idle to say that the
Church of Scotland is doing good work. It is a body coraposed
of raen who, as far as the laity are concerned, may, I believe,
bear a fair coraparison with the raerabers of other religious
communions, and, as far as their clergy are concerned, everybody
acknowledges the merits of their devotion to their duties,
but those qualities the Church of Scotland shares with all the
other religious bodies known to exist in Scotland, and conse
quently they are qualities which forra no ground whatever for the
preference of an exclusive position. As far as the poor are
concerned, in my opinion it would be idle to contend that the
Established Church of Scotland was concerned with the poor of
that country in any sense except in that important sense in
which every religious communion of the country is concerned
with them by exercising a most beneficial infiuence, so that that
ground for preference for the Established Church does not exist.
Well, sir, as regards the question of testimony to particular
truths — which I refer to rather as what has been historically
available in other tiraes than as a topic which would very ranch
avail at the present period — it was greatly urged in the case of
the Church of Ireland that it was necessary to raaintain it as a
protest against the real or supposed influence or the possible
influence of the Eoraan Catholic Church in that country. Now,
sir, is the Established Church of Scotland to be raaintained
upon the ground that it is the only and the essential defender

190 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [may 2
of the principles of the Presbyterian religion in Scotland i
Why, sir, it would be ludicrous to adopt such a plea in defence
of the Established Church of Scotland. If there are in Scotland
to be found those who in a peculiar and pre-eminent sense are the
representatives of the Scottish Reforraation and its principles,
they are to be found, not in the Established Church of Scotland,
but in the Free Church of Scotland and in the United Presby
terian body. These are the persons araong whora the distinctive
principles of the Scottish Eeformation are raaintained ; and I
was surprised when I heard the hon. gentleraan opposite quietly
stating that the Church of Scotland was really in substantial
correspondence with the Church of England as to the position
it occupied in the reUgious world of that country. The hon*
Member seems to blot out frora his recollection everything that
happened between the tirae of Mary, Queen of Scots, and the
time of the Scottish Union. What were the relations between
the Presbyterians of Scotland and the representatives of the
English Church in Scotland during the reign of Charles IL, at
the period of the Eevolution, and at the period of the Union ?
Why, sir, the history of this country — a highly honourable
history in raany respects of free and courageous assertion of
conscientious convictions — utterly contradicts the stateraent of
the hon. gentleraan, and testifies to the sharp antagonisra which
at that period prevailed between the representatives of the
Church of England and the genuine and thorough-going
Presbyterians of Scotland. I will not enter into the question
whether in every case the existence of an Established Church
is a- grievance to those who do not belong to it ; but I am
inclined to think it is not altogether unreasonable if the
members of the Free Church of Scotland and of the United
Presbyterian body regard it as a grievance in Scotland; and
on these two specific grounds. In the first place, it is they
who went out into the desert, so to speak, relinquishing all
the temporal advantages of Establishraent, and undertaking
all the responsibility at a raoraent's notice of provision
for themselves, not because they differed frora the historical
basis of that Presbyterian Church, but because they were anxious

iSgo] SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT 191
to maintain it intact in its full force and integrity ; and, secondly,
because in 1874 a measure ^ was passed in relation to Church
patronage, the whole effect of which could only be — and I am
bound in honesty to say that in my belief the intention only
was — to draw back pieceraeal and man by man as far as possible
frora the Free Church and the United Presbyterian body — and
frora the Free Church particularly — those whom in 1843 ^ they
had corapelled to undertake the responsibiUty of provision for
themselves. According to modern principles, perhaps the fairest of these
arguraents to which I have referred for an Established Church
is that it is the Church of the decided raajority of the people
of the country. But is the Presbyterian Church of Scotland
the Church of the decided majority of the people ? [Mr J. A.
Campbell — Certainly.] Then you maintain that it is certainly
the Church of the decided majority ? [Mr J. A. Campbell—
Yes.] I adraire the boldness of that assertion. I hope the
hon. Meraber wiU have an opportunity of producing his argu
ments and proofs ; but what I have observed is this : that as
we have heard of those who are more Eoyalist than the King
and more Popish than the Pope, so here is a gentleman, sitting
on the benches of this House, who clairas for the Established
Church of Scotland, and who offers to prove a great deal raore
than the representatives of that Established Church claim for
theraselves. [Sir A. Campbell — The Presbyterian Church.] I
beg your pardon, I said the Established Church. Surely no
hon. gentleraan supposes I am saying the Presbyterian Church
is not the Church of the majority. On the contrary, it has
been urged that if you accede to the Motion of ray hon.
friend, you will lay the foundation for reuniting in one
religious communion three-fourths of the people of Scotland.
Then it is adraitted that the Established Church of Scotland is
in a minority. [" No."] If it is not adraitted by hon. gentleraen
opposite, it is adraitted by the representatives of the Established
^ The Scotch Church Patronage Act.
^ The year of the great secession from the Scottish Church and establish
ment of the Free Church.

192 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [may 3
Church, who have circulated araong us for our inforraation a
statement which represents their case, as it was very natural
t hey should represent it, in the most favourable forra. What is
that stateraent ? It is a stateraent of the nuniber of raarriages
according to the rites of the different religious coraraunities in
Scotland, and, according to that stateraent, the marriages per
forraed according to the rites of the Established Church of
Scotland are a trifle under 47 per cent of the whole. I under
stand the hon. gentleraan to raaintain that according to the
laws of his arithraetic 47 per cent is more than 53 per cent
Because, unless that is so, by the assertion of the champions of
the Established Church, it is the Church of the minority of the
population. I am bound to say, that, in ray opinion, these
statistics represent the case too favourably for the Established
Church. If the sarae figures were taken for England, I think
you would find that between three-fourths and four-fifths of the
population appeared by the raarriage statistics to belong to the
Established Church. Every one knows that raarriage statistics
represent on behalf of the Established Church raore than is her
due. It is adraitted that the Established Church of Scotland
is the Church of the rainority.
How is it with regard to the fourth of the grounds I have
referred to — naraely, that although it raay not represent the
religious convictions and associations of a raajority of the
population, yet it does represent the wish of a raajority of the
population that it should be raaintained as the Established
Church of the country ? In ray opinion, that is a question
which we ought raost carefully to exaraine and probe to the
bottom. My noble friend the Member for Eossendale ^ was the
leader of the Liberal party in 1877, when he used these words in
Edinburgh, and was received with cheers when he used them : —
" All I can say is that whenever Scotch opinion, or even Scotch Liberal
opinion, is fully formed on this subject, I think I may venture to say on
behalf of the Liberal party as a whole, that they will be prepared to deal
with the question.''
After my noble friend had raade that declaration I took an
¦' The Marquis of Hartington.

1 890] SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT 193
early opportunity of expressing ray full concurrence with him
in the spirit of that declaration. In the spirit of that declara
tion I waited until the evidence in the case, according to the
best of the powers I had of testing it, should corae to be clear
and conclusive. I think, sir, we have now reached that point.
I cannot doubt that the declarations of the people of Scotland
on this question are sufficient to leave no doubt in the rainds
of Members of this House, if they believe in the Parliamentary
representative system under which the country is governed. It
is all very well for the hon. gentleraan who has just sat down
to refer to Petitions presented, and to pass by entirely the
question what is the sense of the regularly-chosen representa
tives of the people of Scotland ; but I contend that the greatest
weight is due to the opinion of Scotland, constitutionally
expressed. It appears to me that whatever view gentleraen
raay take of the raoveraent, be it a great or a small one, that
now exists in Scotland with the view of establishing what is
termed Home Eule in that country, whatever may be the view
each individual takes upon it, it ought not to bear upon, and
hardly can have a bearing adverse to the Motion of my hon.
friend. If we are favourable to the establishment of Horae
Eule in Scotland, we will vote for my hon. friend ; but if any one
be opposed to the establishment of Horae Eule in Scotland, or
if any one desires to suspend his judgraent, at any rate until he
has full evidence, if he does not desire to stimulate unnaturally
and fictitiously the progress of this Horae Eule raoveraent in
Scotland, the wisest thing he can do is to give large scope and
large weight and influence to the answer the Scotch people give
in deciding Scotch questions.
I ara glad to see the Chief Secretary for Ireland ^ in his pdace,
because I wish to raake an observation or two upon a speech he
made upon this subject on a former occasion. He then brought
forward and paraded before us what he thought would be a very
effectual bugbear to deter us from the course we wished to
pursue. He said — 1 Mr A. J. Balfour.
N

194 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [MAY 2
" If you are prepared to urge that Scotch questions shall be decided
according to Scotch opinion, you must be prepared to urge that English
questions shall be decided according to English opinion. And if you act
on that principle, where will you, the Liberal party, be then ? For since
1868 you have never had a Liberal majority iu England."
Such is the statement of the right hon. gentleman — a most
imposing and terrifying statement, raost effectual and admirable,
if it had had the slightest basis in fact It is the practice of
the right hon. gentleraan to assurae to be true that which he
wishes to be true, unless he happens to know it is false. This
is entirely false. He paraded before us this raost amazing pro
position — that from 1868 onward there had been a niajority of
English Merabers opposed to the Liberal cause. How does that
stand ? It stands thus. Whenever we have had a Liberal
niajority in the aggregate, we have had a Liberal raajority in
England also. There have been five elections since that date.
In three, there have been Liberal majorities ; and in two, Tory
raajorities. In the Parliaraent of 1868 there was a Liberal
raajority, and there was a Liberal raajority in England of 42
voices. In the Parliament of 1880 there was a Liberal raajority,
and there was a Liberal majority in England taken alone of 79
voices. In the Parliament of 1885, again, there was a Liberal
majority, and there was a Liberal majority in England of 47
voices. Therefore, sir, I may say two things. In the first
place, the right hon. gentleraan little knows the raaterial of
which the Liberal party is raade if he thinks that through fear
of daraage to their party interests in England they are pre
pared to impose false principles on Scotland adverse to the
fair consideration of their claims. This was an assertion
which, if it had been a fact, would, no doubt, have been very
telling, but it is pure fiction invented in the ingenious brain
of the right hon. gentleraan. Well, that was the case with
regard to Liberal opinion in England. What is now the state
and what has been the progress of recent opinion in Scotland ?
The hon. Meraber who has just sat down says that on account
of two divisions in this House I intend now to cease frora
the course of abstinence which I pursued in 1886 and 1888^

i89o] SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT 195
and vote in favour of Disestablishraent. It is quite true
that I do so intend to vote, but it is not true that I look siraply
at the fact that there have been two divisions in this House.
Let rae point out to the hon. Meraber that there is a great deal
more in the circurastances before us than the raere occurrence
of two divisions. What were these two divisions, and what are
the other signs now before us as to the raoveraent of opinion in
Scotland ? In the first place, I will say it is quite true that, in
1885, a kind of truce was established, and it was understood
in the Parliament of that year — so far, at least, as the Metro
polis and the metropolitan county were concerned — it was quite
understood that the returns that might be made were not to be
taken, so far as sorae of us, at least, thought, as giving decisive
indications in regard to the question of Disestablishraent in
Scotland. That truce was brought to an end, at least, in ray
juilgraent, and I believe in the judgment of many others, by the
able action of the hon. and learned gentleman the Member for
Inverness,^ who declined to recognise the status quo, and brought
in a Bill regarded by us as of an aggressive character, thus
entirely putting an end to any understanding of that kind.
However that may be, with the Parliament of 1885 the whole
matter passed away. Since then, it is true, we have had two
divisions,^ and are to have the third division to-night. But have
we nothing before us but the fact that there have been two
divisions ?
In the first place, we have this — that in both those divisions
a majority of Scotch Merabers voted in favour of Disestab
lishment. How do the figures stand ? They are capable
of being presented shortly and simply. In the division of
1886 the Scotch Members voting for Disestablishment were
24, those voting against it 16, and 32 were absent That
is to say, that three to two of Scotch Members voted in favour
of Disestablishment, and nearly one-half were absent from the
division. That is ray case, because ray point is this — not only
that the opinion of the constitutional representatives of Scot-
1 Mr Finlay.
2 March 30, 1886, and June 22, 1888.

196 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [may 2
land is in favourof Disestablishraent, but that it is increasingly
in favour of it ; that there is a regular and steady raoveraent in
Scotland, the evidence of which cannot be raistaken, all tending
in that direction. That was in 1886. What happened in 1888 '?
There declared for Disestablishraent in the division of that year
40 Scotch Merabers, against it 20, and there were absent 12.
In.stead of there being three to two, the nurabers voting in
favour of Disestablishraent were two to one, and instead of one-
half, or nearly one-half, of the Scotch Members being absent, we
had exactly only one-sixth of them absent. And then what was
the case with the gross niajority in this House, cora23osed, I need
not say, of English Merabers, voting down the sense impressed
on behalf of Scotland, supported by Wales and by Ireland ?
The gross niajority in 1886 was 112; in 1888 it sank to a
majority of 52. Was there no other indication of opinion in
Scotland at that tirae ? We have seen that the Scottish
raajority increased, that the nuraber of Scottish absentees
dirainished, and that the aggregate majority diminished. Are
there no other indications ? Yes, the current elections. The
hon. Member says there were two elections in Scotland, and
desires us from those two divisions to understand what was the
opinion of Scotland. Let him enlarge his vision. Instead of
keeping in view the two elections which, as he truly says, have
taken place in Scotland, let hira take into view the fourteen
elections which, excluding one or two ministerial re-elections,
constitute, I believe, the whole of the Scottish elections since
1886. Out of these fourteen elections, three persons have been
returned to vote against Disestablishment, and eleven to vote in
favour of it, and not accidentally returned to vote in its favour ;
but when the question has been fully ventilated and discussed,
and brought in every possible and imaginable forra before the
constituencies, I raust own that it does appear to rae that there
is no doubt at all, either about the condition of opinion in
Scotland, if we are to adopt the usual constitutional practice of
ascertaining what that opinion is, or as to the direction in which
that opinion is raoving.
I think it quite worth while to raention another indication

1890] SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT 197
which is to be drawn from the action of Her Majesty's
Government themselves, or, at any rate, frora the action of
the body which the Government has appointed. It will be
remembered that we raade an endeavour last year to obtain in
the Scotch Universities Bill a change in the law with respect
to theological tests ; that change in the law was refused
by Her Majesty's Governraent, who, notwithstanding, so far
recognised the circurastances of the tirae that they raade an
arrangeraent under which a Eoyal Coraraission was to be
appointed for the consideration of the subject That Eoyal
Comraission has sat, and I believe that it has taken the bulk
of the evidence that it is to take. I believe I am not wrong
iu stating that in Scotland the confident anticipation prevails
that the Coraraission will recoraraend the aboUtion or the
essential alteration of the theological tests. I raention that,
because I do not intend to quote prejudiced opinion on the
subject. I only quote what I understand to be the general
opinion in Scotland with respect to this question. I only raen
tion that as another indication of the raovement in Scotland
and the state of Liberal conviction upon this subject. The hon.
gentleman says, " Oh, no, there ought to be a dissolution on the
question. There ought to be a specific reference of this ques
tion, unmixed with other questions." Now, sir, is that a rational
stateraent ? That is a demand for a dissolution of Parliament,
and for an election at which the people are to consider nothing
except the question of Establishraent in Scotland ; 40,000,000
of people inhabiting these islands are to elect a new Parliament
and grant a new lease of power for seven years, in order to
determine whether in a country in which the voluntary systera
is more perfectly organised than in any other country, except,
perhaps, America, 18,000 people are or are not to continue to
enjoy two or three hundred thousand a year ! I do not think,
when the hon. gentleman sees his own proposal described in the
lio-ht of fact, he can suppose it is to be entertained for a nioraent.
We know perfectly well, sir, what the opinion of the people in
Scotland is ; and if we believe in Parliaraentary Government, if
we believe in the representative system — and I do not think

198 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [may 2
there can be any serious doubt as to the hoh.. gentleraan's belief
in thera — we raust take, and can only take, the deliberate and
repeated acts of the legitimately-chosen representatives of the
people as conclusively showing the conviction entertained by
the people. I do not believe there ever was a country where
the question of Disestablishment is so simple as in Scotland, or
where it could be introduced so entirely without shock or serious
trouble. The hon. gentleman said it would be tbe greatest
change since the Union. Now, sir, I join issue with him on
that point, and I claim his assent as a fair-minded man to this
projiosition — that it would not entail one-tenth of the violence
of change that was entailed by the disruption of 1843 ; 700,000
people in the Church of Scotland, and the majority of ministers
at that tirae, at once abandoned the advantages of Establish
raent, gave up their churches, gave up their schools, gave up
their colleges and their manses that sheltered their wives and
children, and walked out trusting in Providence to find a
substitute for thera where they could. What violence of change
at all to be compared with that would take place in this in
stance ? There may be differences of view as to the spirit in
which changes of this kind should be carried into effect, and I
have a very decided opinion that they ought to be carried into
eff'ect with a considerate and tender hand. I raay refer here, I
think, to the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. I do not
refer to the Act of Disestablishment as it finally passed, because
that Act contained concessions to the action of the House of
Lords, which certainly upon tlieir own merits I could not then
pretend to justify ; but I take the Act as it passed this House
originally, and I say that that was an example of fair and con
siderate treatment ; and I hope when the tirae comes, when in
sorae other part of the United Kingdom the sarae principle raay
be applied, it may be applied in a sirailar teraper and in a sirailar
spirit. I think equity dictates that raethod of procedure, and I
am quite sure that policy strongly and powerfully recoraraends it.
It is easy to show in abstract arguraent that those enjoying an
exceptional privilege do not derive from that enjoyment any claim
for the future ; but in this country we have acted in ecclesi-

1 890] SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT 199
astical matters and in all civil matters, in every detail of the
public service, on the opposite principle, and the possessors of a
privilege, when that privilege is recognised as unjust or impoli
tic, and when accordingly a legislative sentence has been pro
nounced upon it, have always been considerately and generously
treated. What is the case of the Church of Scotland ? I believe
there is no case so simple as the case of that Church. People
talk of separating disestablishment and disendowment; but
without disendowment, disestablishraent would be an actual
shadow. There is no secular power, there is nothing that can
be grasped belonging to the Church of Scotland except the
advantages of stipend. I raake no doubt that private endow
raent would be recognised. It would, perhaps, be a generous
thing on the part of the Free Church and the United Presby
terians, if they consented to forgo a share in the private
endowments, given in great part by members of their own
body before the Disruption. Although they raight in arguraent
raake a very fair and legitimate claim to them, I nevertheless
believe that the liberal and generous sentiraents in favour of
actual possession would remain.
Then there is another question — the question of the manses
and fabrics — and that question is the only one known to me with
respect to which even the difficulty of a couple of hours' discussion
would be entailed in order to determine what should be done.
The House is aware that in Scotland the fee-simple of the manses
and ecclesiastical fabrics does not lie with the corporation sole, the
parish, or the cathedral. The heritors now possess thera, but they
can only use thera for the purposes of the Church ; and if you
take thera from the heritors, it raay fairly be said, I think, that the
heritors would obtain an iraraediate and fortunate relief frora the
contingent deraands which are raade upon thera frora tirae to time
for the enlargement of the parochial stipends. That would be
a benefit to the heritors, and it raight not be inequitable that
they should be called upon to surrender their title to the manses
and fabrics. If that were done, it might happen, I think, that
the House would do in this case what was done in the case of

200 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [may 2
Ireland, and award corapensation for these ecclesiastical fabrics
to the Church when disestablished ; and with regard to the
manses, at any rate, some fair and equitable provision should be
adopted. There is no sign that a change of this kind would be
attended with any difficulties. On the contrary, when it comes
it will corae through the recognition in this House of what is
due to the clairas of Scotland — through the recognition of the
principle laid down by ray noble friend near rae, with regard to
which I have no indication as to his intention to act upon it or
to cast it behind hira. Ou that subject I have no information,
but the principle is a sound, just, and good principle, and I hold
rayself indebted to ray noble friend for having uttered it. I
need only follow hira on the path which he has opened for rae,
and, on the unquestionable evidence which has now been placed
before us in the raost constitutional form, I shall be acting upon
a raoderate application of this principle both of good sense and
of justice, to which we raust look for the satisfaction and peace
of the country and the permanence of its in.stitutions.

LOCAL TAXATION BILL
House of Commons, June 13, 1890
In the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Bill, the Government proposed to
compensate publicans in England, in certain cases, for the extinction of their
licences. The "compensation" clau.ses met with great opposition, and were
finally withdrawn. On May 15, on the motion to read the Bill a, second time,
Mr Gladstone spoke, and he returned to the subject on June 13, when, in Com
mittee, he opposed one of the Ministerial clauses, which, however, was carried
by 275 to 243. In 1888, when the Government had inserted Licensing Clauses
(afterwards withdrawn) in the Local Government Bill, Mr Gladstone (at Haw
arden, May 26) had criticised the principle of "converting a licence into an
estate." I SHALL not enter on the very terapting raatter of considering
the consistency of the vote which the hon. gentleraan ^ who
has just sat down is about to give with that which he gave
in 1888. There are wider matters before us. I shall notice
briefly one or two of the allegations of the hon. gentleman.
It has been asserted confidently and boldly on the other side
of the House that this Bill does not sanction the principle of
compensation, and that has been a main ground, I raay say
the main ground, upon which Her Majesty's Governraent
have coraraended it to the acceptance of the House. But
the hon. gentleman, whose support as that of an independent
Meraber is valuable for other reasons than the rarity of such
support in this debate, has given as his raain reason for
supporting the BiU that which absolutely contradicts and
oversets the fundaraental principle of the Government, because
he has supported the Bill on the ground that the Bill embodies
the principle of compensation, which they maintain it does not
establish. And those contradictory declarations are, notwith
standing, to result in one and the same vote in one and the
sarae lobby. I agree more with the hon. gentleman on that
point than with the Governraent, except in this, that I contend
' Mr T. W. Rupfsell, Member for South Tj-rone.
201

202 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 13
we are not now discussing the question of corapensation at large —
very raany Merabers of the House have the strongest opinion
upon that subject — but what we are discussing now, as was
defined by the hon. Member for Barrow,^ is the principle of that
compensation which is actually before us. The hon. gentleman
then went on to challenge the judgment of the teraperance
leaders. He challenged their proceedings upon two occasions,
and on one of theni I will raake a reraark. His want of con
fidence in their judgraent leads him to vote again.st the course
they recommend. He refers to 1871 — and here I have the
pleasure of agreeing with very rauch of what he says — and he
says the Bill of that year ^ would have done a world of good and
effected a vast reduction in the nuraber of public-houses. I ara
not indisposed to accept that stateraent, as I was one of the
Governraent responsible for the forraation and introduction of
that Bill. What is the respective guilt of parties in respect of
that Bill ? That BUl, no doubt, failed in sorae degree, owing
mainly to one particular cause — the opposition of the publicans;
but, combined with that opposition, to the indifference and
lukewarmness of the Teraperance party. But the opposition of
the publicans was the opposition of hon. gentleraen opposite,
and the gentleman who is so shocked at going with temperance
reformers, because they were lukewarra in the cause of what he
considers a good raeasure, has no scruple at all about acting
with those, who, as he says, were in full cry against the Bill,
with the principle of which he says he agrees. The hon.
gentleraan says he will vote for the Bill raainly on account of
the Irish portion of it ; ^ but is that the raain portion of the Bill ?
Ara I to look into every corner of a Bill, and, disregarding its
main scope and purpose, if I find sorae particular nook or
cranny where there is something I approve of, such as the
1 Mr Caine.
^ A Licensing Bill introduced by Mr Bruce, Home Secretary, afterwards
Lord Aberdare.
^ Mr Russell had said, "This Bill applies to Ireland . . . . It has been
decided that once a licensed publican in Ireland gets his licence, he may
sell it, and the licensing authority cannot refuse to transfer except the
applicant is of bad character or conducts his house in an improper manner."

1890] THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL 203
operation of the Bill in Ireland, then to say that on that account
I wiU accept the whole Bill ? The public-houses in Ireland are
for the supply of 5,000,000 persons, and those in England for
the supply of 35,000,000. Is it rational, when you are dealing
with a BiU which affects 35,000,000, to overlook aU the con
siderations that can be urged against the BiU in respect of its
operation on the 35,000,000, and to say, " I wiU look only at the
effect it has on the 5,000,000 of Irish people ?"
Mr T. W. Eussell— My position is that I consider the Irish
publican has a legal right and the British publican an equitable
right, and I am anxious in the interests of temperance to do
soraething by which that right may be recognised as speedily as
possible. Me Gladstone — The claira made in the interests of
temperance I wish by-and-by to bring to the test. My cora
plaint is that the hon. Meraber said he was greatly governed by
the operation of the Bill in Ireland, and I say that the operation
of the Bill in Ireland is of necessity a secondary and subordinate
operation of the Bill, which it is quite possible to subject to
separate treatraent If there is a legal riglit in Ireland, it
constitutes no reason for voting for a BiU which is to operate
disadvantageously as regards public-houses in England, The
hon. Meraber rerainds us that the hon. Meraber for Barrow had
said that Bill would be fatal to what he termed the Unionist
party, which I believe to be the Disunionist party, but which, out
of courtesy, I will call the Unionist party, although that involves
a contradiction of my convictions and feelings. The hon.
member for Barrow, in the course of his able speech, has
defended hiraself against being supposed to be a lukewarm
supporter of the present Government, and of the so-called
Unionist cause ; but ray hon. friend might have spared himself
that trouble, seeing the araount of valuable matter he had to
produce. We have all had quite sufficient experience of his
zeal on behalf of that party to believe firraly in his sincerity.
The hon. Member for South Tyrone said — " If the Bill will have
the effect, as you allege, of ruining the Unionist party, why do
you not vote for it and ruin that party ? " No doubt the hon.

204 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [june 13
meraber thought that in offering that suggestion he had made a
great coup. We believe this Bill to be of vital consequence,
and we believe it to be as ruinous as it is important, and, that
being so, it is totally against our principle to vote for this Bill
for the sake of ulterior objects. I ara not surprised at the
arguraent of the hon. gentleman, because, as I understand hira,
and the body of Merabers with whora he has been acting, they
have becorae habituated to this practice of continually voting
for raeasures they disapprove of, and refraining frora the support
of raeasures of which they approve, siraply because of that
ulterior object which the hon. gentleraan recommends us on
this occasion to keep exclusively in view. The hon. Member
will understand that I cannot accept the advice he has kindly
given us.
I was obliged to intervene in this debate, although the House
has kindly heard me before, on account of my responsibility for
the use of a particular terra. Before I advert to that, I wish
to say a word upon the Araendraent. I ara able to support
what has been said in the able speech of the hon. Meraber for
the Carnarvon Boroughs.^ We do not admit this Bill to be
a step in the direction of teraperance. The principle is perfectly
sound that you should not insist upon achieving at once your
whole object and ultiraate aira when you have not the force
that is necessary for that purpose, but you should be content to
arrive at it step by step. This is all very well ; but, according
to our view, and especially according to the view of the Princi
pality of Wales, it is true that this Bill takes a step, but it is a
step in the wrong direction, it is a retrograde step that leads us
a great deal further frora the purpose airaed at than we were
before. I believe the people of Wales especially look upon
this Bill as poison, while they regard as food the provision for
education proposed by the Araendraent ; and they say, " Take
away the poison and give us the food." In Wales there is a
rauch stronger desire for interraediate schools than can be
satisfied with the funds that are available for the purpose. You
^ Mr Lloyd George, who had made his "maiden" speech that evening.

1890] THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL 205
may tell me, and I admit, that people are readj^ enough to put
their hands into the public purse when it costs them nothing,
but it is not so in Wales, for there the people, with laudable
public spirit, raake immense efl'orts to provide these schools for
theraselves. It is in these circumstances the Welsh people
ask that this money may be diverted to a purpose of inestimable
good of which they approve, frora one which will not only not
be valuable, but will be mischievous and ruinous to the country.
The President of the Local Government Board ^ said that some
one had irrationally spoken of this Bill as a Public-house
Endowment Bill. I have a strong opinion that there is no
more objectionable practice in politics, or one to be more care
fully eschewed, than an endeavour to disparage a good cause by
affixing upon it a bad name. The right hon. gentleman thinks it
is a practice I have indulged in. I accept the full responsibility
for the quoted description, and I have not heard any other name
which so adequately describes the purpose and operation of the
BiU. But a slight raistake has been raade ; if it be called a
Publicans' Endowraent Bill, in ray opinion that would not be at all
a just description. There are raany faults in the Bill, grave
faults, and it is difficult to deterraine their order of procedure,
but, undoubtedly, araong the faults of the Bill not the least is
the exceedingly sraall regard it has for the interests of publicans
as corapared with the interests of others concerned. I have
received a coraraunication frora a respectable publican, who
expresses his strong objection to this Bill, and declares that it
is brought in, not in the interest of his class, but in the inte
rests of others more powerful than they. I do not know if I
originated the name for the Bill, I do not know whether any of
my hon. friends claira the authorship. I ara almost disposed
to compete for the honour of the responsibility. Accepting the
full responsibility for the description of this Bill as a Public-
house Endowment Bill, I will say why it cannot be fairly
described by any other name. The hon. Member for Sheffield,^
in an able and telling speech, referred to the operation of the
1 Mr Ritchie. " Mr Bernard Coleridge.

206 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 13
Bill upon purchase transactions, and contended that the giving
of public money for the extinction of licences invested licences
with a value which amounted to endowment. In ray opinion,
that is not a tenth, nor a twentieth, nor a hundredth part of the
sense in which the Bill is an endowment. The raode in Avhich
it is an endowment is this. From the moment the Bill has
becorae the law of the land every interest in every public-house
will be worth raore raoney in the market, and cannot be acquired
except at a higher price. That, I think, is not an unfair mode
of stating the case. I want the proposition to be tested. I
challenge opposition. Unfortunately this business of vast in
vestment by large proprietary interests in public-houses, as far
as I know, has been a monstrous evil, the growth, alraost
entirely of our own time. Within our own tirae it has swoUen
to gigantic proportions, and now constitutes the enorraous, the
alraost insurmountable difficulty in the way of dealing satis
factorily with the public-house question. That evil, which is in
constant progress, depends upon this, that a certain expectancy
of the renewal of the licence leads gentlemen interested in the
manufacture of liquor, and makes it wortli their while to invest
largely in public-houses, and to compensate theraselves by
binding the publican to buy the liquor they manufacture,
irrespective, in a certain degree, either of quality or of price.
You are now going , to add to that expectancy. To that
expectancy, which has been declared to rest upon no legal basis
whatever, and the whole value of wliich may be enormously and
detrimentally affected by raany conceivable proceedings that
could be taken under the present law without raising any claim
for corapensation, you are now going to add the establishment
of this principle, that the authority is to go into the market
provided with public money, raised out of the public taxes, and
buy up licences, irrespective of the further tremendous objection
that the price is virtually to be fixed by the person interested.
Will any man tell me that by the establishment of this principle
by law, this act of legislative countenance given to the doctrine
of vested interest in licences, an approach, at least, will not be
made to the laying down an absolute rule that no licence can

1890] THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL 207
be touched — apart from offence against the law — except in
consideration of payment of public raoney ? Will any man tell
me that that will not at once upraise the value of every saleable
public interest from one end of the country to another ? If that
is so, that is a Public-house Endowment Bill. It does not
matter 
Mr Ritchie — We do not say that
Mr Gladstone — Do not say what ?
Mr Ritchie — We do not say that. We do not interfere in
any degree with the existing powers of the Magistrates.
Mr Gladstone — I ara not indisposed to be corrected by-
and-by. I will only say at this raoraent that, in ray opinion,
there never were raore idle words than the words of the right
hon. gentleraan. The right hon. gentleraan evidently thought
yesterday that he was making an announcement of iraportance
to the House when he read out exultingly the terras of the
Araendraent, which is to declare that the local powers of Magis
trates shall reraain intact. Now, sir, if he were to raultiply
those Araendments, and plaster them all over his Bill, repeated
a hundred thousand tiraes over, laying thera thick as leaves in
A'allonibrosa, or till they were like the advertisements of Pears'
Soap, they would not acquire one shade of value in the eyes of
any one of the millions of people who are opposed to this Bill.
For the prevention of enhanceraent of value they are absolutely
and utterly nugatory. I, therefore, say that this Bill is a Public-
house Endowment Eill, because it adds a value to every pro
prietary interest in premises that are now licensed for the sale
of liquor.
Now, sir, it raay be a long time before you arrive at
the possibility of a comprehensive, sweeping, and conclusive
measure with regard to the treatment of the liquor traffic, but I
object to this Bill upon two grounds — first of all, that we have
under the present law, and corapatibly with the principle of the
present law, great raeans and possibilities of good; and,
secondly, that you not only take away those raeans and possi
bilities, but you also interpose a new and enorraous obstacle in
that increment of value which is to run throughout the country

208 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 13
in connection with this Bill, to which I have just referred as the
Public-house Endowment Bill. The present law has in itself
principles that are, at any rate, of 'Some value. The present
law rests unquestionably and strictly upon these grounds,
araong others, that public-houses are to be absolutely limited to
the wants of the district. Can any man say that they are so
liraited ? No, sir, they are known to be in raultitudes of
districts in the country very far in excess even of a raost
liberal estiraate of those wants. Why are they not brought
down to the raeasure of those wants ? Because you have the
licensing power in the hands of a body which is not well
qualified to adrainister that portion of the present law with the
stringency and firraness with which it ought to be adrainistered.
We always contended for the placing of that power in the
hands of an Elective Authority, and we have been resisted in
the endeavour to obtain that object We are convinced, at least
I for one ara convinced, that if you got that power — not for the
whole purposes of the Teraperance party, but for the purpose of
acting on the acknowledged principle of the present law — once
fairly lodged in the hands of an Elective body, like the County
CouncUs, to be exercised upon their respon.sibility, very great
good would be obtained. I do not raean to say that County
Councils would be justified in going to work upon what are
called extrerae principles of teraperance. I will suppose, for
the sake of arguraent, that there raight possibly be a County
Council with a raajority in favour not only of Local Option, but
in favour of using that Local Option for the purpose of the
total extinction of public-houses — it would be, in ray opinion,
an entire abuse of the power if it were to act upon that prin
ciple, because that is not the princijole of the existing law which
they are to adrainister. They are to exaraine in good faith the
question of sufficiency. Examining in good faith the question
of sufficiency, they would find immense roora for reduction ?
How does this Bill operate upon that roora for reduction ?
How does it operate upon the possibility of reduction ? I will
suppose now that the Bill shall unhappily have been passed
into law, and I will suppose also, what I have no doubt we shall

1890] THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL 209
see before many years are over, that the licensing power is
placed under the control of an Elective Authority in a county.
What is, then, to be the position of the Elective Authority ?
Will any man teU me that that Elective Authority can pro
ceed to-day to pay probably a large sum of raoney to the person
interested in one particular public-house in a district over
stocked, and can to-morrow go to deal with the case of another
public-house in ¦ their licensing operations, and withdraw the
renewal of that licence without paying one farthing for it ? We
have no occasion in this raatter to resort to figures of speech.
The facts are too grave, too solid, either to require or adrait of
exaggeration or enhanceraent. My contention is, that this power
which is already established in the law, and which might
become a very vigorous and useful power when it was lodged in
the hands of a body well fitted for its exercise, is to be reduced
to absolute paralysis, and we are to go — I said one step, but I
should have said raany steps, backward in the way of teraperance.
In ray opinion, the law is capable of iraraense iraproveraent
in ways that would not give the slightest claim for corapensa
tion. It is quite plain that if it were the view of Parlia
ment to introduce the public lease systera which prevails in
Sweden, that raight have immense effect in destroying the
money value of public-house investments. Very likely it
would ; but nobody would for one moraent say it gave a claim
for compensation to anybody. The Member for Barrow made
it a point to-night that the direct operation of this Bill must
be to pay public raoney for buying up the licences, not of
public-houses merely, but of bad public-houses. Now, this is
a separate point in the indictraent — a strong point and a capital
point. Is it true or is it not true ? The President of the Local
Government Board has, this evening, used some words which
I take to be of very high iraportance. He has indicated what
is to make a public-house into a gold-field. It is misconduct.
[Mr EiTCHiB expressed dissent] The right hon. gentleman
never used the word " gold-field." No, I am quoting his senti
ments in language which, I thought, would give it a true but
0

210 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 13
lively expression. To be correct in syllable and letter, the right
hon. gentleraan said that —
"There were a number of public-houses which did not pay, but which
can be made to pay, by doing what, perhaps, the.y ought not to do."
I do not think that is far frora saying that by raisconduct a
public-house can be turned into a gold-field.
Mr Ritchie — What I alluded to was this : I was accused
by the hon. Meraber for Barrow of having said that the public-
houses which the County Councils under these powers would
buy out would be the bad public-houses. I denied having said
so ; and in answer to a further challenge, I said that the words
I had used in connection with the incident were "the sraall
fry." Then, again, I was challenged upon the point as to
whether or not I had said that the sarae sraaller public-houses
were unprofitable unless they had done soraething which they
ought not to have done. I said that raany of the owners did
get a living in that way. But I never indicated that that was
the class which I expected or believed would be bought up
by the County Councils.
Mr Gladstone — The right hon. gentleman was entitled to
interrupt me if he thought I was raisrepresenting hira ; but
he has not said a word which contravenes the effect of what
I attributed to hira. The charge against the right hon. gentle
man of his having said that this was the class of public-house
which would be bought up by the County CouncUs is a charge
which I did not make. I have raade no reference to it I have
not heard the right hon. gentleraan say that, and, therefore,
I raust leave the raatter to be dealt with by those who may
be inclined to contest the explanation of the right hon. gentle
man. I do not enter into the raatter, because I have not
the necessary knowledge. But, perhaps, as it is a raatter
of public interest, I raay read frora a newspaper what the
right hon. gentleraan is reported to have stated to a
deputation —
" We are, however, persuaded that there is an enormous amount of harm
done by the smaller houses — houses of comparatively little or no market

1 890] THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL 211
value : and they probably would be of no market value if they were
conducted in such a way as we should wish to see them conducted."
In referring to the language of the right hon. gentleman I do
not at all wish, to use a vulgar phrase, to put him in a corner.
I have no such intention. I rather wish to corapliraent the
right hon. gentleraan on having raade a declaration which was
absolutely true, and which was of great value and of great
iraportance in reference to the present subject. I do not say
that the right hon. gentleraan has said that the ill-conducted
houses wUl be the ones which the County CouncUs will be
placed under the strongest pressure to purchase. I do not
know whether he has stated so, but I take the liberty of saying
it rayself. I found the argument on the Bill as it stands.
It invests the County Councils with funds for the purpose of
purchase. The Bill as it stands and the Government's declara
tions have properly encouraged the public and the Local
Authorities to make representations to the County Councils
for the purchase of licences. What representations will be
the strongest ? Why, the representations which point out that
public-house A or B is a nuisance to the neighbourhood, that
it catches all the people — as we have heard of a particular
public-house near the dock gates in Liverpool — on the way
to their work ; a house that would be valueless as an ordinary
house, but which is a true gold-field by reason, not so ranch
¦of its position, as of the raanner in which that position is used.
The County Councils may, and I think very probably will,
decline to be the agents to act under this Bill. I believe it
to be raost highly probable that large bodies of public opinion
will be put in motion in several localities to prevent the County
Councils from laying out the public raoney in a raanner so
iraproviclent and so ruinous. But there is a possibility that
in sorae cases opinion will act upon the County Councils to
.stiraulate thera to purchase ; and, again, I invite contradiction
or challenge of this assertion — that where there is this action
of extraneous opinion on the County Councils to raove in
the exercise of powers of purchase, local public opinion will
infallibly point, not to the good and well-conducted public-

212 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 13
houses^which every one, even the hon. Baronet the Member
for Cockerraouth,^ will desire to keep alive — but to those public-
houses, of which there are a certain number, known as a
common nuisance to the districts, although the Magistrates
have not thought theraselves in a position to withdraw the
licences, or have thought that the offences were not sufficiently
grave to warrant so extreme a punishraent.
I do not know what flaw there is in that argument ; I do
not know how to resist that contention. Any one on the Govern
ment Bench who follows rae will not, I hope, orait to show
that our apprehensions on this ground are ill founded, and that
there is no fear of the operation of the Bill putting a premium
on the misconduct of public-houses for the purpose of attract
ing the showers of gold which are to descend on this interest in
the extinction of licences. I venture to say that the community
will before long be endowed with the power of dealing, through
the instruraentality of Local Option, with the existence of
public-houses in particular districts ; but I exclude for the
moraent all questions of mode of extinction. I look strictly
at the present amount of evil with which we have to deal ;
and I am not speaking of the moral evil, but of the amount
of the obstacle which we have to surmount. That is the
enorraous pecuniary value connected with these public-houses.
I look at the araount of that obstacle and the good that raay
be done under the present law. In my opinion, very great
good can be done under the present law as long as you use
it, as you ought to do, without delay. As the hon. gentleman
the Member for South Tyrone is so full of the evils of delay,
let him proraote and accelerate the creation of an elective body
to deal with this subject. There is considerable good to be
done under the present law. There are great obstacles in its way.
This present Bill jDaralyses entirely all hope of effecting good,
and, at the sarae time, enorraously magnifies the evil or obstacle
before us by adding tens of millions, and probably scores
of raillions — and I believe scores of raillions — to the already
1 Sir Wilfrid Lawson.

1890] THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL 213
huge value of the mass of proprietary interests which have
unfortunately come to be clustered around these houses.
These, sir, are the grounds, and I think that they are strong^
broad, and clear, upon which we intend to vote against this
Bill, and we vote against it believing that, while every judg
ment and voice on this side of the House is given in expression
of a clear, conscientious conviction, there are many of the voices
on the other side of the House, even if they forra a majority,
that are reluctant; many that betoken divided minds, many
that have reference to a general loyalty to the Governraent.
and not to the merits of the measure. Could we have a true
poll in this House — aye or no — on the single and separate
question whether this measure is good or bad, we on this
side have not a doubt as to the result. Having said that, and
ha-ving raade these objections, I admit frankly the great value
of this measure to us as a party. I am extremely reluctant —
I am half ashamed, but I cannot help it — to draw party gains
from such a subject But as to the existence of them, there
cannot be a doubt. Opposing this Bill with all ray heart and
soul, as a poUtical and public measure, and firmly convinced
that it is a retrogressive step and one of the raost fatal kind,
I do not for a raoment question that every candidate at a bye-
election who goes to the country on the Liberal side will profit
largely by your unfortunate persistence in this ill-conceived
measure. I am compelled to accept that gift ; though I would
avoid it if I could. I would neutralise and destroy it even now
by beseeching the Government, while there is yet time, to
withdraw a measure with respect to which every one is puzzled
to know why in the world they ever introduced it, and with
respect to which the President of the Local Government Board
himself has explained that the confident expectations which
they entertained of meeting, to a large extent, the views and
desires of a vast body of their countrymen with whose inten
tions and aims they sympathised, have been miserably dis
appointed.

Sir L SIMMONS'S MISSION TO THE
VATICAN
National Liberal Club, July 30, 1890
Mr Gladstone was entertained at dinner at the National Liberal Club by a
number of prominent Wesleyans. The Chairman (Mr Perks) proposed the-
health of Mr Gladstone.
Me Perks and Gentlemen — When I accepted the obliging
invitation which you were so good as to send rae, for the
purpose of enabling rae to raeet in a friendly asserably a large
number of representatives of most iraportant and energetic
religious communions, I accepted that invitation very thank
fully, regarding it in the main as a private invitation, and
indeed, I might say at the first moment exclusively as a private
invitation. But it is very difficult in these tiraes to insure
absolute privacy; and you will agree with rae that there is
not one araong us who is asharaed of their proceedings or
desirous that they should not raeet the light. On the contrary,
our desire is that they should all be carried on in the light of
day, and long life has increasingly deepened this irapression
upon ray mind, that when we atterapt, as we raust now and
then atterapt, at least in inward speculation, to corapare the
condition of this coraraunity, this great British coraraunity,
with that of other coraraunities, upon raost points we might
find that there is an advantage on one side and a set-off on the
other side ; but there is one great, overpowering, inestiraable
advantage which we possess, and that is the advantage of
pubUcity in all our doings. There is no country where it is
so difficult for iniquity to avoid detection, and that is perhaps
the most felicitous of all distinctions that can attach to the
condition of any country as corapared with its neighbouring
coraraunities. Well, sir, I ara bound, however, to say that one

1890] THE MISSION TO THE VATICAN 215
or two incidents which have arisen since the time of your kind
and gracious invitation have made me feel that I ought perhaps
to avail myself of this opportunity, with your approval, of
saying a word or two to you, not in an attempt at any general
review of public affairs, which upon an occasion like this is
impossible, nor even to attempt a review of the transactions of
this most happy, peculiar, and remarkable Session of Parlia
ment. It would be exceedingly wrong to touch upon that
which is at present incomplete, for the Session has not reached
its end. I am inforraed that it is even doubtful on what day
of August it will raeet its end, though it is hoped that if it
meets again in November it will not travel into December.
However, that I pass by, nor will I undertake even to
notice each one of the particulars which you have opened in
your most effective speech upon the present occasion. One
word I wUl say, sir, in meeting this assembly. It is an
assembly composed of gentleraen whose sentiraents, I believe,
are unanimous and whose positions are different. Some, I ara
happy to think, are among my honoured Parliamentary
coUeagues ; others have already assumed the responsibilities of
candidature. Of that portion of the E^ssembly who have not
yet assuraed these responsibilities I venture to assume, to
entertain and express a rather sanguine hope, that they will
find their way into that position before very long. The truth
is that while undoubtedly our candidates are not so numerous
as we raight desire them to be, the prospects offered to those
candidates are eminently satisfactory. We have nothing to
complain of in respect of the condition of the constituencies.
It is quite true that the great interests are against us. They
have been comraonly understood as the interests of wealth,
rank, and power ; but it also true that there is a force in this
country superior to them all^namely, the force of the national
heart and national mind ; and never has there been a raore
distinct and conclusive deraonstration ^ afforded that that
heart and mind are with us than in the years that have
' By the bye-elections which had resulted largely in favour of the
Liberals. See p. 235.

216 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JULY 30
elapsed since the first assembly of the present Parliament, and
the continually growing evidence that the experience of these
years has afforded. I hope that every gentleman who is not
yet, if I may so say, suited with a constituency whose suffrages
he may solicit, will, either by the aid of our excellent friend Mr
Schnadhorst ^ — whora I ara delighted to see among us after his
return in recovered health and strength — or through whatever
agency raay locally be found expedient and effectual, take his
place in the ranks of the army now in course of formation, of
which we have a nucleus in the present Parliament' — a nucleus
that I trust I may say has firraly and resolutely held together
in the day of adversity — and that he will join us in the endeavour
to attain an end which you have described as superior to every
particular end, of every particular interest whatsoever, however
great and vital — an end that overshadows every other end, that
includes every other end, and without the attainraent of which
no other end can be attained — I mean the settlement of the
great Irish question, in which we conteraplate, it is true, justice
to Ireland, but not justice to Ireland only, but the restoration
of the honour of Britain and the liberation of Parliaraent from
slavery and inefficiency.
Mr Chairman, perhaps the question may arise in your raind,
or in the mind of others. What are the occurrences of the
last few weeks that have induced me to think that I ought
to avail rayself of your kindness to allow me to address
sorae words to you on the present occasion ? Well, araong
the interesting incidents of the times — and there are a great
many — there are these : that we have had a considerable stir,
in Parliament and out of Parliament, in the public mind and
in the public press — a considerable stir about the depend
encies ofthe British Empire,' which on the first irapression of the
unobserving raind might perhaps be thought to be insignificant.
We have had upon the island of Heligoland ^ questions of great
importance raised, whatever the true and proper solution of
these questions may be, and we have also had very iraportant
^ Secretary of the National Liberal Federation.
2 Arrangements were pending for the cession, afterwards carried out, of
this island to Germany. See p. 224.

1890] THE MISSION' TO THE VATICAN 217
([uestions raised with regard to the island of Malta, which I
have thought really should demand sorae notice on this occasion.
In a Parliaraent with a raajority of Tories there is not very
great utiUty in persistent and repeated endeavours to irapress
the mind of the majority with iraproved and altered views.
This is a conclusion which I arrived at in the Parliaraent of
1874, and if I have not been a resolute disapprover of obstruc
tion upon principle, yet I should have felt it a very disagreeable
and painful waste of tirae to argue with those who did not wish
to hear and could not possibly be converted. On this occasion
we are in a different position. We are not allowed an oppor
tunity even of stating our views in Parliaraent upon the question
of Malta and upon another question, to which I shall have
occasion to refer, raore nearly connected with Ireland, raore
strange in its features than almost any question which has come
before rae ; we are absolutely impotent, the House of Comraons
is deprived of free speech, and we have no opportunities of
setting forth in the most reasonable and moderate raanner the
views we entertain. Happily that is not the only road to the
pubUc ear and to the public raind. It is quite true that there
is a sort of general proraise that some day or other there shall
be a vote proposed for the Foreign Office, and I believe that
then merabers of Parliament, or those of thera whose patience
may induce them to stay in London, will have an opportunity
of making speeches on the subject. But they will not have any
opportunity of raising a full discussion, because we are greatly
in the dark as to the actual position of affairs. The sentiment
whieh I have expressed as to the enorraous value of publicity in
public affairs is a sentiment which does not appear to be at all
shared by the present Administration. On the contrary, the
occasions on which they adrait it are few and rare and reluctant,
and attended with a great deal of grurabling, and apparently with
an internal sense that it is extreraely unreasonable, and even
factious, on our part, to ask thera for any information whatever.
With regard to the case of Malta there are three points which
I should like to notice. The first is this. There has gone
abroad in the country, and I think in your own denomination,

218 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JULY 30
which is represented in Malta — an apprehension of actual
danger to religious liberty — danger to religious Uberty in a
point the most vital and tender of all — that is to say, the legiti
macy and validity of marriages. On that point I would endea
vour to reassure you altogether. I ara not sure that the danger
has not existed, but I feel the utraost confidence that the public
notice drawn to this subject within the last three or four weeks
is amply sufficient to secure you against any legislation, under
any pretext, under any engagement to the Pope or anybody
else, that could interfere with the validity of any marriage that
has been celebrated in Malta in tirae past, or may be celebrated
in tirae to corae. I shall say no raore upon that subject. I
think that the actual danger to those who raay be desirous of
uniting theraselves in holy raatriraony, or who raay so have
desired in other tiraes, is one which, if it existed — and I ara not
ready to say it did not exist — has passed away.
But in the raeantirae there has been raised a most curious
group of questions in connection with Malta. And do not let
us suppose that because Malta is a sraall country the ques
tions arising there are on that account uniraportant. I am
not speaking of political or railitary dangers in regard to the
British possession of Malta, in which dangers I do not believe,
but I am speaking, gentleraen, of ray desire, and I ara certain it
is a desire which all share, that where, through the course of
circurastances, we are led to the occupation of an island, the
natives of which are not precisely united with ourselves in
uniforraity of religion or in the bonds of race — if we are to hold
that island by the power of England, we are under an obligation
that it shall be held with every consideration for the wants and
the wishes of the inhabitants, and with the most earnest desire to
win and to retain their affection. I am sorry to say that from
tbe very liraited inforraation given us in the shape of a little
Parliaraentary paper giving us an account of a certain erabassy
of Sir Lintorn Siranions to Rorae — a very great novelty in
British history — there are a nuraber of questions raised on
which 1 cannot pretend- 1 have not proper inforraation — to-
lay before you definite conclusions, or to supply you with-

i89o] THE MISSION TO THE VATICAN 219
complete inforraation ; but I would point out to you that these
are topics of the utmost iraportance, and which will deraand a
vigilant observation and watchfulness in the future; and though
the year is probably too far gone for very effective discussion of
these Maltese questions at the present moraent, yet, in the
coining Session, in all likelihood, they wUl call for a good deal of
attention, and raay give rise to free utterance of important
judgments in the House of Coramons. Now one of the points
is this. There appears to be a purpose promoted by British
authority in Malta for soraething like the disestablishment of
the Italian language. There appears to be a desire — I will not
say the evidence is demonstrative, but still, in the manner in
which the question is brought forward, there seems to be a
desire — to a great extent to substitute the British for the
Italian language in Malta. Well, I am opposed to any such
substitution. I think — and my mind goes back to the case of
Wales — that there is nothing in the world that the Welsh
would so vividly resent as any officious attempt to change the
language of their country. And, gentlemen, they are perfectly
right. The union between a nation and its language, the union
between even a small people like Wales and its language, is a
due and an affectionate union ; it is bound up with all its
traditions ; and when we went into Malta we engaged to
respect their traditions, and no atterapt, no policy, I do not care
where it began — I believe it began in some former tirae — but
we have evidence before us now which induces rae to say that
in ray opinion the Maltese have been sacredly proraised the
preservation of their language and institutions, and are entitled
to claim among the very first elements of that promise that we
shall pay due respect to the customs established araong them
and inherited from their forefathers, which are bound up with
all their ideas, and which above all they wish to retain.
Well, I pass from that matter, but I have alluded to it because
it is mixed up with many things and raany questions in regard to
a country where language cannot be overlooked and cannot be
excluded. But there is a great deal raore than that There
has been a raost singular and extraordinary erabassy under-

220 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JULY 30
taken by Sir Lintorn Siraraons, the Governor of Malta, who,
whUe the Governor of Malta, has been appointed Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of
Eorae. But there is no Court of Rorae. When there was
a Court of Rome, I quite understand that, according to
English ideas, it was quite possible — many thought it was
expedient, although sorae thought it was dangerous, but
however that raay be, it is iramaterial to the present purpose —
that there should be an Erabassy to the Court of Eome. Pope
Pius IX. down to 1870 was as much a sovereign in the eye of
the law as any ruler of Europe ; but the Pope at the present
moraent is not a sovereign at all. I adrait that many of the
powers of Europe have sent ministers to the Pope, but we are
not accustoraed to regulate our proceedings with regard to the
Court of Rorae by those of other countries. However, a
minister has been sent there, and he has been sent to raise
questions with respect to the law of Malta, and one of the most
important of these questions has relation to marriages in Malta.
Now Malta is a Roman Catholic country. The Protestants —
the non-Eoman Catholics of that island — are a very small
minority. It is rather surprising that this Embassy or
Legation has not at all had reference to the marriages of the
majority, so far as I can raake out frora these papers, but only
to the raarriages of the rainority, partly to what are called
mixed marriages, and partly — and this is the astonishing point
to which I wish to call your attention — to marriages to be
contracted between persons who have nothing whatever
to do with the law of Eorae or the See of Eome. With
regard to mixed marriages I shall say very little excepting
this — that I do not think it is our business to interfere
between the conscience of Eoman Catholics who choose to
enter into raixed raarriages and the spiritual head of their
Church. That, in ray opinion, is a matter entirely for them to
settle. It is not our business to meddle with it. We
have to look at the essential civil conditions of valid marriage ;
and what lies beyond that is to be settled between the
Pope — a gentleman, I believe, raost highly entitled to every

1890] THE MISSION TO THE VATICAN 221
possible respect in his personal character — and those who
adhere to him in point of religious communion. But I do
not propose to allot to Eoman Catholics the position of others.
I find a letter from the Cardinal, who is the chief officer to the
Pope in conducting all this correspondence, and I find from this
letter, which is at page 10 of the Parliamentary papers, a letter
dated the 17th of January of this year, that the Cardinal states
that he has called the attention of the public to a demand or
request — it does not raean deraand in an iraperative sense, but
raeans a request — made to the British Envoy, which he proceeds
to describe ; and therefore we have no title whatever to complain
of his Holiness the Pope in this matter. He has clone nothing
to take into his hands the powers and the rights that the British
Government offered. AU he has done is that he has simply
answered their request and nothing else. And how does he
answer it ? He answers it by saying that his Holiness declares
certain things. He declares certain things in an official and
authoritative capacity. And one of those things is this — that
persons professing any other religion — that is, any other than
the Eoraan Catholic religion — raay virtually celebrate their
raarriage without the necessity of going through the forra
estabUshed by the Council of Trent. So that, gentlemen, if
any of you should go to Malta and desire to be raarried,
your title to be raarried in Malta — to contract a valid raarriage
there — would depend upon this declaration of the Pope that
you were authorised to do it.
Well, that is an entire and absolute novelty in the history of
England. I say that it is a novelty, first of all, for the last three
hundred and fifty years since the Reforraation ; but ray belief is
that you would find it an entire novelty for three hundred and
fifty years before the Reforraation. I do not believe that before
the Reforraation, when there was Uttle or no outer difference of
religious communion in this country, the people of England went
to the Court of Rorae in order to ask instructions frora the Pope
when they were going to be married, and how their raarriage was to
be raade valid and legitiraate. For, unless I ara rauch mistaken,
during the whole of that time, by the common law of Christen-

222 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [july 30
dom and of this country, a valid marriage was celebrated without
the benediction of the Pope. Now we are to be told, not merely
if we are Eoraan Catholics, but if involved in a raixed raarriage
outside the fold of the See of St Peter, as it is called, that we are
to have our raarriage raade valid by a declaration of the Pope
in the terms which I have read. The Pope is most courteous.
He goes on to assure — or his Cardinal goes on to assure — Sir
Lintorn Siraraons that any legislation which is in accord with
these declarations — in the dominions of the Queen, mind you,
in the Island of Malta — will not meet with any opposition on the
part of the Pope. I endeavour to console and reassure you as to the
danger of the validity of any marriage in Malta. By the distinct
categorical and repeated declarations of Her Majesty's Govern
ment, and by the action of the Roraan See^which does not go
beyond those declarations, and makes no aggressive claim but
accepts the generous offer which what is soraetiraes considered
a strong Protestant Ministry has raade — the validity of these mar
riages is to be held on title and mandate from the Pope himself.
There are a great nuniber of other very curious matters
which I wish to deposit in your rainds. Sir Lintorn Simmons
travelled to Eome, and, naturally, was obliged to incur some
expense. He incurred the expense, I think, of £800 for a
mission which lasted sorae months; and really, when I look
at the expenses of sorae of the raissions that we have had,
I think Sir Lintorn Simmons was extreraely moderate iu the
bill which he ran up — against whora ? Against the country, I
was going to say; but no; not against the country. The
Governraent have taken -exceedingly good care not to ask the
House of Coraraons for a vote for the expenses of the raission of
Sir Lintorn Siraraons, although I believe that there is no case
upon record of a diploraatic raission, undertaken under the
authority of the Crown, the expenses of which have been paid
from any other source than the pocket of the British taxpayer,
with the legitiraate authority and control of the House of Com
raons. However, it was thought more convenient to resort to
^Malta. But Malta was not willing to pay; and it was not
possible, I believe, by any legitimate authority possessed within

1 890] THE MISSION TO THE VATICAN 223
the liraits of that island to get £800 by a vote from the raixed
legislative body which is invested with authority in Malta.
And the result w.as this — they resorted to a little separate
private repository ; a little treasury within a treasury,^ to which
the Maltese Assembly had nothing to say. Within that trea
sury there was a sum deposited of £1000 annually. This, I
have no doubt, was for a special purpose. Out of that £1000,
not by a liberal appeal to the British House of Comraons, not
by a liberal appeal to the legislative body in Malta, but by the
discretion of the House of Coraraons, that raoney — taken from
the pocket of the British taxpayer — has been subscribed. That
seems to rae a very strange, a very unconstitutional, and, I
should say, a very un-English proceeding. There are a nuraber
of other questions which it is really not possible satisfactorily
to investigate, but one of them is this. There is a great deal
more in these papers — which are of much interest — about an
engagement that the Pope is never to appoint an archbishop in
Malta, or a bishop in the dependent island of Gozo, without
previous comraunication with the British Governraent ; and, in
fact, the language goes so far as to seem to imply that he wiU
not appoint any one except those that the British Governraent
approves. Well, I am not at all sure that the British Govern-
raen1>— when I consider what the British Governraent coraraonly
is — I do not raean what it is at this moment, I am not at all
sure that we are the best judges of the men fittest to set over the
consciences of Eoraan Catholics. But that is not the question.
There are two Eoraan Catholic Bishops in Malta, but are they
the only two Roman Catholic Bishops in the Queen's dominions ?
No ; I should think we have at least a hundred of them, if we
go through the Queen's dominions. Are we to beconie respon
sible for the choice of those hundred Bishops ? Why not, if we
are to becorae judges of two ? It looks as if the matter is
intended to spread a great deal further, and I will come to
what I believe to be the key to the whole mischief.
^ Sir James Fergusson, Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said in the
House of Commons, on August II, 1890, "It was a charge upon the
revenues of Malta. , In the Constitution Act there was a sum of £1000
reserved for special purposes at the discretion of the Secretary of State."

224 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [july 30
What is all this raeddling in Malta ? What is this embassy
to the Pope ? We hear about the burial of the dead in churches,
as if the rural districts in Malta were attached to the practice of
burying the dead in churches. Is that a matter which makes it
necessary to send an Envoy, an Envoy Extraordinary ? Is it
necessary to send an erabassy to the Pope for the purpose of
settling whether the dead shall be buried in the rural districts
of Malta within the walls of the churches or beyond the walls
of the churches ? No. You have seen an arrangeraent lately
given to the world, and one which is now going to receive its
Parliamentary consuraraation, in which Heligoland is set off
against Africa. That is a good distance to bring about an
exchange. It rerainds one of the proposal to bring the product
of the Arctic Circle to the Antarctic Circle ; and now you give
away Heligoland, in order to get authority and recognition, so
far as European Powers are concerned, on sorae part of the
coast of Africa. It appears to rae that there is a parallel to
that interchange between Heligoland and Africa. There is
another interchange, of which I get a glimpse in these papers,
between Malta and Ireland. The real secret of this operation I
give you, not frora any knowledge, but frora ray own observation
and conviction. You raay think of it what you please. Any
one is at liberty to dispute it if he likes ; but it is this. The
Pope was induced about eighteen months ago, I think, to
fulminate what was called a rescript against the Nationalists of
Ireland.! jjg thereby, in ray opinion, at great cost to his
own influence within the legitimate sphere of purely spiritual
authority — at very great cost, damage, and detriment to hiraself,
undoubtedly did his utraost to prop up a labouring and failing
cause — naraely, that of the anti-Irish party in this country.
That was a great step on the part of the Pope. Did it not
deraand a return ? You have got the return before you. The
return is by sending somebody whora you call an Envoy
Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Pope. You
go as near as you can to a declaration that the Pope is still a
teraporal prince ; that, being a teraporal prince, he has the rio-ht,
' Promulgated in August 1888 against the "Plan of Campaign.''

i89o] THE MISSION TO THE VATICAN 225
though not the fact, of teraporal dominion. But, with regard to
Italy, and the nationality of Italy, they must shift for them
selves. That appears to me the nature of this transaction. It is
a very strange one. For, whom has it pleased ? It has not
pleased the Maltese clergy, who are, unjustly I believe, abused
right and left for their ignorance and incompetence. It has
not pleased the Maltese people, because the legislative body in
Malta has shown a raost deterrained aversion to the whole
affair, and exhibited so much opposition, that it has been found
necessary to prorogue it altogether, and let its proceedings be
postponed for several months. It has certainly not pleased the
people of England, who do not want to see the ancient principles
by which they have been enabled to avoid these direct relations
with the Court of Bome — not merely these direct relations, but
these concessions of a right to govern in purely British concerns
— subverted. Has it pleased the people of Ireland ? On the
contrary, frora the conduct of the Irish Members, you see they
put on this group of proceedings the same construction which I
have felt it my duty to lay before you. They feel that Ireland
is being given up as against Malta on this occasion for the
purpose of giving the Court of Rome an equivalent for the
favour they did to her Majesty's ministers eighteen raonths
ago. Everybody concerned in this affair is full of suspicion
and doubt, of indignation even, in some cases approaching to
disgust. It is a transaction simply between her Majesty's
Government in this country and the Pope and his advisers at
Bome, supposed to be for the benefit of those most important
parties, but entered into without consulting the inclinations and
interests of all the rest of mankind. It is a very strange pro
ceeding, on which, I think, the public mind should be roused
and directed to an attitude of vigilance. We shall hear more
about this, depend upon it. You can afford to wait. Next
time you see the question turn up, follow it through its details ;
and though the scale is sraall, the considerations touched and
the questions raised are of the utraost interest and of the
highest importance.

226 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [july 30
But there is another question upon which I feel it necessary
to trouble you. And it is quite as singular as the one which I
have just been touching upon. It is a declaration frora the
judicial bench by a judge in Ireland. Not from one of those
whom we irreverently soraetiraes call a " reraovable." They
are a class which have a starap set upon them in consequence
of the events of the last four years that is not likely to be easily
effaced. No ; it is frora a Judge of the High Court of Ireland,
a Court adorned by many men of great ability, high impartiality,
great learning, and with qualities that make a judge honourable and
venerable. And I believe that the gentleraan who is considered
as the delinquent on this particular occasion is a gentleman of
perfect integrity, and even of sturdy integrity, who values his
own honour, and who would knowingly do nothing wrong. No ;
to Mr Justice Harrison I give that credit. I ara not going to
say a word about his character or raotives ; but I ara going to
say a word about the words he used, the natural effect of those
words, and the exaraple he set to the people of Ireland and to
the nation of Ireland, and the consequences that are likely to
flow from such a proceeding.
On the 18th of July, I think. Judge Harrison used words to
this effect. He was conducting, or about to conduct, the assizes
in Galway. I will shorten the words he used. There is no
dispute about them. He said that the county was in a very
dreadful state. He went on to say, " Things here are such that
why the people don't rise and use lynch law is a raystery to me.
I ara astonished they do not do so. If they did, I think it would
be a happy day for the adrainistration of the law." Now,
gentlemen, those words are not ambiguous. If there is a phrase
in politics well defined, it is the phrase " lynch law." And it is
defined by two particulars. The first is that it exclusively refers
to capital punishment. Lynch law does not condescend to im
prisonment. It is not content with sending a Roman Catholic
priest, because he has followed the feeling of his country, to
prison for two or three raonths. No ; it touches life. That is the
first qualification of lynch law. What is the second ? The second
is this — that either lynch law is in a country outside of all law

i89q] the MISSION TO THE VATICAN 227
where there is no law at all, or, if there is a law, it is without the
law and against the law. Apologies are made for it, no doubt, that
sometimes it does the work of the law, in the sarae way as
O'ConneU once apologised, and courageously apologised, for a
great raany of the outrages in Ireland by saying it was the wild
justice of the people that did thera. But that is the character
of lynch law. It is essentially a question of life ; it is essen
tially anti-legal ; and it is from a judge on the bench in Ireland,
of aU countries in the world — in Ireland, where you sometiraes
hear that Nationalists are impetuous and that Nationalists are
interaperate — there it is that this exaraple is set But, gentle
raen, I do not believe that the most vigilant search through the
files of Irish newspapers for thirteen years could produce a
declaration that has passed the lips of any Nationalist one-half
as intemperate or one-tenth as dangerous as these words that
have fallen frora the Ups of Judge Harrison.
Mr Dillon courageously took up the question in the House of
Coraraons, and although I do not for a moraent declare that that
had anything to do with calling for a justification of anything
said by Judge Harrison, he himself volunteered explanations.
But his explanations came to this, that he raeant nothing wrong ;
that he did not believe that he was understood to say anything
wrong, and that he adraitted this expression was " infelicitous."
He has not expressed one syllable of regret for that expression.
He said it was infelicitous ; and just so any Fenian in Ireland
raight say, if he was so inclined, that his objects were honour
able, that his aira was sacred, that it was the welfare, the
liberty, the deliverance of his country, but that in the choice
of the raeans he was infelicitous. But the infelicitous Fenian
would be hanged notwithstanding his expression. That is the
whole extent of the Judge's explanation. He does not say one
word of his having coraraitted an error; he does not desire
to retract that expression. On the contrary, he adopts the high
language of his position. I adrait that by his astounding rash
ness he has placed hiraself in a position of great difficulty.
That I do not deny. It is no easy raatter for a judge to
.apologifse and to say, "I have been wrong." Eut that is no

228 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JULY 30
reason why wrong, and gross wrong, frora a judge is to pass
with irapunity. Here is a case in which the minister and
organ of the law, sitting on the bench of justice, declares from
tliat bench that the coramunity ought to rise and administer
lynch law, and we know what lynch law means. Well, I want
to know what has happened in consequence. The main part of
the Judge's apology is that he believes that the people who
heard hira understood him in a sense quite different from that
which has been imputed to hira. But there is no question of
imputing in the phrase " lynch law." It has but one raeaning.
If it was put into the dictionary, I defy Dr Murray ^ or the
ingenuity of the phalanx that follows hira — great as their in
genuity and ability are — I defy hira to give to lynch law any
raeaning but one. This gentleraan said soraething has been
imputed to hira. He raeans this: "I said one thing, but I am
perfectly confident everybody who heard me understood me to
say another." Then he gives an explanation of what he really
did raean. " My wish was that the people should have the
moral courage openly to assert themselves against the system
of intiraidation and outrage prevailing." But, gentleraen, I
should say a word in passing upon that systera of outrage and
intiraidation. The Judge gives you to understand that there
was soraething approaching anarchy in East Galway. Well, he
spoke upon July 18, and we have only got the returns in the
quarter up to June 30. Those returns I have exarained, and in
the whole of East Galway, which contains a large population,,
during the three raonths ending on June 30 there was a total
of eight threatening letters and of six offenceS; but of those six
offences not one was mentioned in the constabulary returns as
an ofi'ence against life or against the person. That is the state-
of things down to June 30. Unless there has been some com
plete revolution between June 30 and July 18, of which I
know nothing, that is the state of things which has led to this-
astounding declaration.
Now, gentlemen, I want to call your attention to what
^ The editor ofthe new English Dictiorary

1 890] THE MISSION TO THE VATICAN 229
I think a very serious affair. Do not assume that because
you are all Liberals, and because you hear so much said
about the progress of democracy and the self-governing power
of the people — do not assume that in all things you are
going forwards and in nothing backwards. Here is the case
of the condition of this self-governing people. A Judge has
made this fearful declaration frora the Bench. It is noticed
in Parliaraent on the part of 300 raerabers, or very nearly
300. The request is raade to have a time to discuss that
subject, and that request is refused, and the power of the
Government to refuse it is undoubted. And if a motion were
raade— I am not sure whether the forms will permit us to
raake it — to take a day for the purpose of discussing it, 300
Tories and about 60 or 70 gentleraen who still call themselves
Liberals would forra a raajority against us, so we should get
nothing whatever by raaking such a raotion, except giving
colour to that charge of obstruction which, when they have
nothing else whatever to plead, they always use to explain the
present unprecedented state of things. So we are excluded
frora discussing this proceeding of the Judge.
Well, I sat in Parliament, I ought perhaps to be asharaed to say,
in the year 1834, when the case of Mr Baron Smith, an Irish judge
of great merit in many ways, was brought before the House of
Commons; and the House of Commons, first of all, by a very large
majority, appointed a committee to inquire into the case of Mr
Baron Smith and the charges against him, and then by a very
small majority rescinded that vote. But that is not the ques
tion. What I want to point out is the issue of the vote in the
present House of Coraraons. We knew perfectly well what it
would be if we had discussed it We should have had an
opportunity of discussing it, however, with fairness and free
dom, when we could have stated what was to be stated on the
side of the Irish nation, and where, on the other side, all that
could be said on the part of Justice Harrison could be stated
vdth equal freedom and force. In my opinion, the Government
have acted very cruelly to Justice Harrison in not allowing
him to be so discussed in the House of Commons. A wise

230 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JULY 30
discretion, however, led thera to a totally opposite conclusion.
They have decided it, aud we are shut out
What was the case in 1834, to which I lead you back more
than half a century, into the comparative darkness of the tirae of
your forefathers ? They had as good a Parliament as you had,
and Parliaraents in those days had a great deal raore liberty than
the Parliaraent that now prevails, and the Adrainistration that is
now in power. Judge Harrison is charged with using words
which went directly to incite the ignorant and inflararaable to
the use of violence, to the destruction of life, without forra of law
or regard to justice. That is the charge in the case of Justice
Harrison — not altogether unreasonable, although Judge Harrison
says no one understood him in a dangerous sense. Here is an
article from the Dublin Evening Mail, ridiculing the charges'
against hira, and beginning by saying, " After all, what was
there so shocking in what Judge Harrison is reported to have
said ? " — not in the least degree seeking to irapose upon it
another sense. That is the case of Judge Harrison. What
was the case of Baron Smith, and what was the view taken
by the House of Comraons of that tirae ? Baron Smith was-
charged with no offence against public order. Mr O'ConneU
made accusations against hira, and they were two. First of all,
he lay in bed too long in the morning, and came to Court too
late. That was one of the objections, and the other objection was
that he made foolish, interaperate, and raischievous party speeches
frora the bench. If Justice Harrison had thought fit to have
selected for his animadversions a group of us who sit in Parlia
ment who may not agree with his politics, who would have
thought it needful to take notice of such things ? But in 1834
those coraparatively trifiing charges were taken up and
supported by a great authority, and though the House of
Coramons finally receded, it receded only by a niajority of six,
the numbers being, I think, 175 to 169.^ Look what was said,
and it is rather curious who said it. Baron Smith said that he

^ The numbers, according to Hansard and The Mirror of Parliament
(Feb. 21st), were 161 to 155 ; according to The Annual Register, 165 to 159,

1890] THE MISSION TO THE VATICAN 231
never raeant any mischief by what he said, and the raan who
put down that plea was the late Lord Derby, who was then
Secretary for the Colonies in the Governraent of Lord Grey,
and he spoke these words. He said : " I know not, and I care
not, what are the motives of any raan. The question which
this House and the Governraent have to deal with is this — Is
there any substantial ground raade out- for inquiry ? " I do
not charge Justice Harrison with having meant what he said.
I believe he used his words in an absolute vacancy of raind.
I do not think he had the slightest acquaintance with the
meaning of his own language. All that I fully admit, and
I believe in the innocency of his raind. But that has
nothing whatever to do with the raatter. The question is—
What was the effect of those words ? By far the greatest and
most dreadful violations of the public peace that have taken
place of late years in Ireland have not been in Boman Catholic
Ireland. The Belfast riots ^ were far more shocking and
destructive and guilty, and more frightful evidences of an
excitable and perilous state of mind than any manifestation,
even including those that have been culpable, and have taken
place within a recent period, that has appeared frora the quarter
of Irish Nationalisra. Yet these words were used by Mr
.Iustice Harrison. The House of Coramons, elected by nearly
the universal suffrage of this country, has refused to allow all
discussion of the subject, and the leader of the House has told
us that Judge Harrison has afforded a full and free, and —
although the word is not reported in The Times I heard it used
— 3. perfectly satisfactory explanation. Now, I think that,
although I had not intended to trouble you with it at all, this is
a raatter of sufficiently great iraportance. I do not raean in a
party sense. But, even in a party sense, this is very good
material for us to use, and we shall use it. We are bound to
use it We must use it We have striven to produce the
matter where Mr Justice Harrison could be defended by his
friends, and we have been ignominiously refused. Three
^ In June 1886.

232 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JULY 30
hundred merabers of the House of Coraraons have been refused
and are tongue-tied, — and, using the word in its most literal
sense — gagged in this matter. Ah ! it is important that this
should be worked out in the face of the country. What we
want is one thing, and almost one thing alone, and that is to
bring home to the raind of the individual voter a sense of his
personal responsibility. I want to know whether the mass of
the people approve of this ; whether those working men who
belong to Conservative Associations approve of it I do not
believe it. I believe that if you make these things known
they will be condemned. It is our duty to make thera known ;
to hold up to the public view proceedings so extraordinary.
They forra but a part : they form but one small chapter of a
case enormously volurainous. But our duty and our business
is to leave no part of that case unexarained; to exhaust the
whole of the considerations that belong to it ; to bring it fully
into the light and into the glare of day, and then to abide by
the dispassionate verdict of the country.

IRELAND; THE LABOUR QUESTION
West Calder, October 23, 1890
In October Mr Gladstone undertook his third "Midlothian Campaign."
He addressed very large audiences, on the 21st at Edinburgh, the 23rd at "West
Calder, the 25th at Dalkeith, and the 27th at Edinburgh. At the West Calder
meeting a large number of miners were present.
Mr Chaieman, Ladies, and Gentlemen, — It is indeed most
true, as your respected Chairraan has inforraed us, that
we look forward frora the present raoment into a future that
is charged with interests and with expectations which may
ripen into events almost beyond precedent or belief. The
popular character which has been given to the institutions
of this country has had, in my opinion, not so rauch an effect
in putting forward any abstract theory of politics, whether
democratic or other, as in developing and bringing into view
a vast raass of public, social interests which belong to the course
of raodern civUisation. Now, ladies and gentlemen, it is not
for me to speak of my part in giving forra to such expectations,
or in dealing with such interests, either in the past or in the
future. I can hardly believe that the sentiraent entertained of
rae reaches that point of elevation which has been described by
the Chairman in his generous speech. At all events, I know
that it goes far beyond what I am entitled to claim. I know
also that it wUl be, as it has been, the greatest encouragement
and incentive to me in struggling with the difficulties of ray
time of life, and in endeavouring to perforra ray public duties,
during whatever tirae, short as it must necessarily be, may still
be aUotted to me for that purpose — with respect to the length
or the shortness of which I feel naturally two things, — in the
first place, that the deterraination of that question lies in better
and wiser hands than raine ; and, in the second place, that when
233

234 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 23
I cease to appear and to act upon the stage of public affairs, my
place will be filled by other men, whom you wUl find not less
wiUing, and I trust raore competent, to meet the demand.
Well, now, gentlemen, your Chairraan began with mentioning
a subject in which I feel bound to follow him, because it is a
highly instructive one, and it is the subject of the recent election
at Eccles,! with regard to which the greater part of England and
Scotland has, I believe, deprived itself of wholesome rest for a
few hours last night, in the hope of hearing the result in figures,
which at length happily arrived. Now, I refer to this subject,
gentleraen, because I first wish to give you a piece of what raay be
to you inforraation, but happens with rae to depend upon personal
knowledge, which, I think, will assist you in appreciating the
event. We were blessed at Eccles with a good candidate, —
with a very good candidate, — with a gentleraan who has per
formed — although not in a position of great notoriety — who
has performed very iraportant services to the public on a par
ticular Coraraission.' But the Tories had a candidate of the
most extraordinary personal influence. Mr Egerton, whora I
have had the pleasure of knowing for a long tirae, is an experienced
l)ublic raan. He has long sat in Parliaraent. He has held
office under the Crown, and for raany, raany years, — belonging,
as he does, to one of the raost important and most respected and
raost powerful families in the whole of Lancashire — for many,
many years he had the whole concerns of the great Bridgewater
interest entirely in his own raanageraent. Gentlemen, you can
judge how rauch such a character and such a position must
have brought to the support of his party in the Eccles election,
an influence altogether extraordinary, and I don't hesitate
to say that if Mr Egerton has been defeated — as I am glad to
say he has — by a majority of 200 votes, I think I ara correct in
saying that any other man — I care not who — that the Tories
could possibly have produced, would have been defeated by
twice, three times, or four times 200.
' The preceding day Mr Roby, the Liberal candidate, bad been-
returned ; the late member was a Conservative,
- The Endowed Schools Commission, 1869.

1890] lEELAND ; THE LABOUE QUESTION 235
WeU, now, gentlemen, Eccles is a unit But I should like
to look a little for a raoraent, if you will perrait rae, at the
arithraetic of the question I will be considerate in the use of
figures, but I know you are very well up to thera ; and I wish
to point out to you that upon the balance of seats in bye-
elections, since about the close of the year 1886, when the hostile
current ceased to flow, and when the returning tide — which is
now passing onwards to the highest high^water raark — when
that began, since that tirae we have gained upon the balance of
contested elections no less than fourteen seats. Accorapany
rae a little further, because these fourteen seats are all very
well, but they do not dispose of the whole case. No, but we
have gained these fourteen seats upon ninety-four elections.
Now, I should like, if I were a schoolraaster, to put "to the
schoolboys this question — If the Liberal party has gained elec
tions — did I say ninety-four ? — ninety-six I ought to have said
— If the Liberal party has gained in ninety-six elections a
balance of fourteen seats, how raany seats is it likely to gain
when we corae to have 670 elections ?
Now, gentleraen, this is not putting the question in a way too
favourable to ourselves. On the contrary, it is rather unfavour
able to us, because it is a known fact among all the professors
of electioneering craft that the Liberal party shows less well at
bye -elections than it does at general elections, and for several
reasons. In a general election the whole tide of national syra
pathy is flowing. Wherever that tide of national sympathy
flows out large and freely, there the Liberal party prospers.
But there are, gentleraen, as you know, what are called property
votes — plural votes. In Scotland, I ara sorry to say, you have
known too rauch of thera under the narae of " faggot votes."
All these faggot voters during a general election are in this
difficulty, that they cannot be in two, three, or four places at
once, and therefore a number of the votes are lost. But in a
bye-election not one is lost, the voters all come trooping up from
the ends of the world for the purpose of giving their votes, and
as I need not tell you that an overwhelming proportion of this
section of public ojoinion is entirely in the Tory interest, you

236 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 23
may judge what disadvantage this inflicts upon the Liberals at
bye-elections. However, I will not go any further with that
subject. But you have all heard of the rule-of-three, and I
propose soraething of the nature of the rule-of-three sum.
You will find that the sura of 96 elections is as nearly as may
be the one-seventh part of the figure 670 ; and you know, I
daresay, that 670 is the nuraber of the present House of Com
mons, and the nuraber, therefore, of the elections that would
have to be decided in a dissolution. Well, therefore, if you
raultiply 96 by 7, you get about 670. I want to get the fourth
terra of ray rule-of-three, and in order to do that I must raulti
ply 14 by 7, just as I raultiply ray 96 by 7. Multiplying 14 by
7, I find that if 96 elections yield a gain of 14 seats, on the sarae
principle 670 elections will yield a gain of 98 seats.
T will not carry you rauch further. There is at present a
niajority of 80 against us in the House of Commons. You are
aware that when we win one seat it is not a gain of one, but a
gain of two, because we not only take hira away frora the other
raen, but we put hira on our own side. Therefore, to ascertain
the strength, you must double the sura of 98 votes, making a
difference of 196 at a division, and deducting from that the
present raajority of 80, or the majority as it was at the beginning
of Parliament, which would be safer — the majority as dependent
upon the voices of the constituencies — which would make it,
I think, 108, — you will find it impossible to make that calcula
tion in any way that shall give us less than a majority of
80 or 90 seats in the new Parliaraent, which, for ray part,
I beUeve, is rauch more likely to be increased than to be
dirainished. Well now, gentleraen, if I have referred to the Eccles election,
it has not been in terras rhetorical, but I have endeavoured to
treat it strictly as a raatter of business, — that is the light in
which I wish to look at it. But one word more I will say
upon it. Is it not an extraordinary thing, when you consider
what a bye-election is, that we should have had the Strand
with crowds of people in it for hours after midnight last night,
that the quiet of Eothesay Terrace in Edinburgh, where I ara

1890] IRELAND ; THE LABOUE QUESTION 237
enjoying the liberal hospitality of the present Dean of Faculty ,1
should be disturbed by numbers of people marching through
the streets and cheering towards two o'clock in the morning,
and that this should have been the case over all the country,
not because we have had a dissolution and a general settleraent
of the question, but because in the district of Eccles in Lanca
shire, just the 670th part of the whole question had been
settled. So sraall a fraction was sufficient, then, to excite
England, Scotland, and Wales, and, I doubt not, Ireland too.
Well, gentleraen, if so sraall a fraction can do so much, what
it teaches you is how great is the question represented by the
entire figure. It conveys this, that as bye-elections have never,
in my recollection, from the time of the first Beform Act, been
watched as they have been watched during the last four years,
so there never has been a question which has so possessed the
entire heart, and raind, and intelligence of the people, and with
respect to which the entire nation is so well aware that on the
solution of that question, raore, at the present ' raoraent, than
upon all the other questions put together, the welfare and the
glory and the happiness of this country depend. So much for
Eccles, gentleraen.
And now I will not say rauch to-day about Ireland ; because,
although that is a very great question, and the greatest by far
of all questions, I have already had an opportunity of speaking
upon it at length in Edinburgh, and I raay have an opportunity
of referring to it again. Still, I want to say one word upon one
particular point, and it is this — because it is a matter of great
interest. Our friends — by which I mean our opponents — I
always like, if possible, to look upon them as friends, for sorae
of them, I am very glad to say, are ray friends ; but be they
friends or be they opponents, they have pursued a very peculiar
course in regard to the noraenclature of party- — the names that
they have given, and the names that they have taken — and I
complain a good deal of them in that respect.
In the first place, they call us Separatists. I have complained
1 Mr J. B. Balfour.

238 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 23
before, and I complain again, of that terra. I complain of it,
because, by fixing upon us that name, they fix upon us the
intention which they know just as well as we ourselves know,
frora the bottora of our hearts we detest and abhor. Well,
gentleraen, that is not fair play in poUtics. During the course
of a long life, I have heard raen called Conservatives or Tories,
and I have heard raen called Liberals, or Whigs, or Badicals, and
I have heard men called Bepealers, and with these terras as the
political currency we got on very well. There is not one of these
terras which iraplies anything painful, anything shameful, any
thing that can wound the feelings of any man. But these people
with whora we are now contending are the same people, but they
are in a worse humour, and they have called us Separatists. I
cannot say, gentleraen, that I suffer greatly rayself. If they
can invent a worse name — well, I shall suffer perhaps still less.
What I want to point out is this — to use naraes of that kind is
a barbarising practice, which is contrary to fair play. It is
like the raan who, in a boxing or pugilistic contest, strikes
below the belt; and what raakes it, gentleraen, more extra
ordinary is this, that we are often informed by our antagonists,
and so often that one would suppose they might be speaking the
truth — we are constantly inforraed by thera — Professor Tyndall ^
and others — that all the education, all the culture, and all the
talent of the country, is on their side. Then, I ara afraid, if
the education, and the culture, and the talent of the country
are obliged to resort to these uncivilised tricks for the purpose
of carrying on their warfare, there is one sraall consolation that
reraains to us, gentleraen, and that is, that though we have
neither education, nor culture, nor talent, but are a set of stupid
boys that are always at the bottora of the class, yet this one
consolation reraains to us — let us show that we have o-ot better
raanners than they.
They are raore considerate in the name which they assio-n to
themselves, namely, the name of Unionists. And upon that
subject I totally deny their title to it Bnt, at the same time,
1 A distinguished scientific man who was prominent in. opposition to the
Home Rule cause.

i89o] IBELAND ; THE LABOUE QUESTION 239
I wish that that should be raade a matter of fair argument, and
I therefore propose — for it is an interesting question which
bears upon the history of things — really to bring out the merits
and important parts of the case.
What is a Unionist ? Now, there is a fair question. And in
my opinion, gentlemen, a Unionist is, in the first place, a raan
who, if you talk to him about uniting the hearts of a people, about
uniting the wills of a people, about uniting the intelligence of a
people, looks upon you as a dreamer and a fooL He has no
faith in these matters at all. He does not believe in them.
There is no such thing in huraan kind as heart, as will, as
intelligence. What is really the only instruraent for dealing
with raankind is the coercive obligations of an Act of Par
liament. There you have got something that you can rely
upon. Well, now, that is the first idea I have of a Unionist.
I will give you an illustration which is historical, but I think
it is not without interest — it is quite recent. When the
Austrian Erapire held, not very raany years ago, a large portion
of Italy, it held that portion of Italy raainly by raeans of four
great fortresses of the first class, with the naraes of which I
need not trouble you. But they were always called by the
collective narae as "the Quadrilateral." When the Austrians
were told they ought to give up that country, in the interests
of Italy, and in their own interests, their partisans — the sarae
kind of people that we have now got to deal with — said, " Oh,
no; it was impossible, because their Erapire would lose its
whole security, and go utterly to the dogs, if they did not keep
the Quadrilateral." If you talked to thera about the advantage
of having good and affectionate relations with Italy, they
laughed at you, exactly in the sarae way as our opponents
laugh, and jeer, and scoff at us, when we talk about the
advantage of an union of hearts with Ireland. And so they
held as long as they could to their Quadrilateral. But, in the
raercy of Providence, there carae upon them a war,i which
turned them out of their QuadrUateral, and the Quadrilateral
I In 1866.

240 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 23
became a part of the Italian Kingdom, which is now entire
from the Alps to the southern promontories of the country.
But what has happened ? These Italians whom Austria strove
to trample down by its Quadrilateral — and every one of whora
hated Austria in those days frora the bottom of his soul — the
country peopled by these Italians has now — whether wisely or
unwisely it is not for me now to say — entered into a treaty
called the Triple AUiance,^ for the purpose of maintaining the
Austrian Empire. Not for that sole purpose, but partly for
that purpose. Such is the wisdom of people who trust in
bricks and mortar, stone, cement, and " quadrilaterals," and
have no faith in huraan hearts and huraan understanding.
That is one idea of a Unionist ; I am sorry to say I do not
think it is a very elevating one.
I want to go closer to the question, and see what this raeans
as applied to the Irish question. When you hear these gentle
raen saying what they have been doing — what a glorious battle
they have been fighting for raaintaining the Union — that they
have fought this battle for four hundred years against the
overwhelming force of a small rainority — and when out of this
they try to raake great hectoring speeches — well, you would
suppose there had been sorae body of politicians in the House
of Coraraons who were endeavouring to repeal the Union. But
there is nobody endeavouring to repeal the Union — not a man
is endeavouring to repeal the Union ; and this, gentlemen, is
not a question of rhetoric, or a question of invective, or apology,
but a question of history, and a question of fact.
What, gentleraen, is the Act of Union,^ and what does the Act
of Union prescribe ? I will tell you in a very few words. Its
prescriptions are raainly three. Before the Act of Union,
Ireland was a sovereign country, and the Parliaraent of England
and Scotland had no more power or title to constrain or trespass
upon the Parliaraent of Ireland than it had to traraple upon the
Congress of Araerica. Now, that is a matter of fact. Ireland
was before the Union an independent kingdom. To that
1 October 1887.
2 July 1800.

1 890] lEELAND ; THE LABOUR QUESTION 241
independence the Union put an end. That was the first, and
by far the greater, enactment of the Act of Union. That, I
need not tell you, is an enactment which no raan, English or
Irish, in Parliaraent seeks to disturb. It is an enactraent which
every man, aud certainly every man of the party with which I
have the honour to be connected, is bound to raaintain.
The second great branch of the Act of Union was that which
gave representation to Ireland at Westrainster. Now, gentle
raen, it is very well known that, although we saw great
difficulties attaching practically to any plan for the purpose, and
although we knew very well that no vital want had occurred
before the Act of Union, in consequence of the fact that there
were no representatives of Ireland at Westrainster, yet in
respect to the public opinion of the country, and believing the
public opinion of the country to be to this effect, that there
ought to be representation of Ireland at Westrainster, we agreed
to give effect to the public wish. There is no question at all
before us of reraoving from Westminster the representation — I
don't now speak about its particular form or conditions, that is
for discussion at another time — the representation at West
minster. What do you think was the third great enactraent of the Act
of Union ? The third great enactraent of the Act of Union was
this, that what was called the Protestant Church of the country,
which was the Church of all the peers and all the squires, and
none of the people, should be raaintained as the Established
Church of the country for ever and ever, and the maintenance
of it in that character should be this — I think the words used
¦were — " should be an essential and fundaraental part of the Act
of Union." 'WTiat has become of that third great division of the
Act of Union ? Why, gentlemen, it has gone to the dogs. It
does not exist. There is no Established Church at all in
Ireland; and Ireland, I believe, if you ask the whole of her
people, and undoubtedly if you ask the laity belonging to that
Established Church, all of them will say that they are a
great deal better without it than they were with it That
portion of the Act of Union has gone, and that part was " essen-
Q

242 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 23
tial and fundamental " ! Lord Cairns,^ when we disestablished
the Irish Church, made a masterly argument to show that, if
you have got a deed or a document in which there is a particular
condition described in the deed and docuraent itself to be essen
tial and fundaraental, and you violate that condition, the whole
thing coraes to the ground; and therefore, according to Lord
Cairns and his party — for he spoke on behalf of the Tory party,
and was a raost powerful and able man — according to Lord
Cairns and his party, the Act of Union is gone already.
But, ladies and gentlemen, I think that Lord Cairns pushed
the matter rather far, because I look upon it as being a very
great and important reality, and I believe — and I think that
Ireland believes — that it is much better that the Act of Union
should not be destroyed. The Act of Union was carried by
raeans so indescribably foul and vile that it can have no moral
title for existence whatever, from any of the circurastances out of
which it sprang. But it was a very great Act. It produced
enorraous results. The Irish, with O'ConneU at their head,
under a just and natural indignation at the manner in which
they had been represented by their national representatives,
called for the repeal of the Act of Union ; but reflection taught
thera better, and in the year 1845 a gentleraan naraed Dillon,
the highly-respected father of a highly-respected son, who now
sits in Parliament, and who enjoyed the confidence of his
country, wrote to the Duke of AYellington on the subject of
Irish Governraent in 1845. At that tirae considering the raatter
araong theraselves, a large body of thera carae to this conclusion,
that it was not necessary for them to ask for the repeal of the
Act of Union, but that- it was necessary to have a local Parlia
ment invested with authority to deal with the whole of Ireland's
internal concerns, and that then it might be wise, and would be
wise, to have an Imperial Parliaraent at Westrainster to deal
with the affairs of the Erapire ; and Mr Dillon wrote in these
terms to the Duke of WelUngton in a sentence or two that I
will read to you, They are not long, and they are really well
1 The Lord Chancellor of Mr Disraeli's Administration, 1868.

1890] IBELAND; THE LABOUE QUESTION 243
wortli your hearing. " I do not seek," he said, " the raw repeal
of the Act of Union." This is published in his Life. " I do not
seek the raw repeal of the Act of Union. I want you to retain
the Imperial Parliament with its Iraperial powers. I ask you
only to disencumber it of these cases which exhaust its patience,
and which embarrass its attention. I ask you," he goes on, " to give
to Ireland" — I beg pardon, I have made a mistake — it is totally
immaterial- — my friend Mr Campbell reminds rae that it was not
the Mr Dillon of that day who wrote it ; it was his friend and
coadjutor, Mr Davis, a man not less famous in the history of
Ireland, and no less possessed of the confidence of his fellow-
countrymen ; and therefore it is a formal mistake of the name
that I wish to correct, and then he said — he used the words that
I have described, and went on to say, " It is not impossible to
corabine Irish legislature for local purposes with the integrity
and foreign importance of the Empire. A local Parliaraent
granted so, and in a kindly and candid spirit, would be fairly
accepted, and would conciliate that large and varied body, which,
from wisdom, or want, or patriotisra, or arabition, are intolerant
of ha-ving their local laws raade, and their local offices filled by
Englishraen." I am not now entering into doubtful and disputable argument,
but am pointing out to you that this narae of Unionist, rather
craftily assumed by our antagonists, is a sheer blunder, and
could not possibly have been assumed by them, but for one
great characteristic, which they undoubtedly possess, and are
determined to maintain, and that is entire and absolute historical
ignorance. No, gentleraen, whatever the Act of Union was in
its origin, we propose to retain it. We propose to retain it with
the assent of Ireland, the assent given by its eighty-five Nation
alist members, an assent expressly given ever since tbe year
1885 by Mr Parnell at their head. What we propose is a vast
and effective delegation or devolution, which shall, as Mr Davis
well says, rid the Imperial Parliament of a vast mass of work,
of contentious work, which prevents it from doing the business
of England and Scotland, and which, while restoring to England
aud Scotland the true liberty of their Parliamentary life, and a

244 .AIE GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 23
decent rapidity in the raoveraent of public legislation, shall at
the same tirae give contentraent, peace, happiness, and loyalty
to Ireland.
Gentleraen, I avUI not trouble you further to-day with the
history of Ireland, because I consider that is not the purpose
I carae here for to-day. I knew I was coraing into a centre
of the raining population of the county, and it appeared to
rae, therefore, to be a most appropriate opportunity for inviting
you to consider with rae the raost iraportant questions which
are now raised in the forra of legislative proposals, and in the
forra of raany facts and circumstances which, to the careful
observer, have an infinitely larger, wider, and more compre
hensive character than any party legislative proposal, in respect
to the condition of the labouring population of this country,
and its prospects and its interests. This is indeed a matter
of the deepest interest. On various occasions, various persons
have of late pointed out the iraraense change which has taken
place in the position of the labouring people of this country.
Gentleraen, I have been a witness of that change. I have seen
thera in the depth of their depression, and I ara in a better
condition than younger men to raeasure the enormous amount
of true, real, substantial progress that has been raade. I don't
hesitate to say, gentlemen, that at the close of the great war,
we heard of nothing frora what were deemed to be the organs
of public opinion — that is, from the liraited and enslaved press
of the day — we heard of nothing but the railitary glory of
England and the ascendancy which she had acquired in
European counsels. Yes, but in acquiring that ascendancy,
and in emblazoning that glory on her shield, she not only had
pledged the resources of her future in a pecuniary form to a
degree that tlireatened it with absolute ruin, but she had reduced
the masses of her population to a state of degradation and a
state of want which were enough to put in question and to
comproraise all the fame that all her triuraphs, whether in
the field of battle or upon the field of political liberty, had been
able to secure for her. It was a dreadful state of things.
Now, gentleraen, what have been the heads of that change

iS9o] lEELAND ; THE LABOUE QUESTION 245
briefly enuraerated ? In Scotland there was no such thing frora
one end of the country to the other as a labouring raan with
a vote — absolutely, I believe, I ara correct in saying, no such
thing as any man below the degree of a shopkeeper who had
a vote in any shape whatever. Their institutions were a
mockery, their representatives were the slaves, the willing
slaves, of the Government of the day. They were often returned
to Parliament after a contest by a nuraber of votes you could count
upon your fingers. I remember reading of a sharp contest for the
county of Inverness, where there were three candidates,^ and the
winning candidate was returned, because he stood at the top
of the poll, and he stood at the top of the poll because he had
been so happy as to obtain fifteen votes, whereas his luckless
opponents had, I think, only respectively got eleven and six.
Well, gentlemen, we have not absolutely given to every head
of a faraUy a vote, but we have corae extreraely near it. We
have given it, I think, to alraost six raillions of people in the
country, and we are ready — as, I trust, we of the Liberal party
are ready, when we get rid of this raajority that terms itself
Unionist — we are ready to go on a little further, and by the
amendraent of registration and by the abolition of these faggot
and pluraUty votes, to lay down the principle, and give effect
to the principle, of what is called succinctly One Man One Vote.
Gentlemen, having done that, security in the exercise of that
valuable suffrage has been attained by the ballot.
I raust own that the state of the law is not quite satisfactory
to me in one particular, and that is the continued operation of
what is called the Septennial Act. The effect of that Septennial
Act is what we now see and may continue to see for a couple
of years raore ; indeed, they threaten us with the year 1893,
but at any rate for sorae considerable tirae we raay continue
to see what we see now, viz., a sham raajority in Westminster,
passing laws and giving votes, which I won't say they know
— that would be too heavy a charge against them, and I call
in upon their behalf that which I believe theologians call
1 In 1802.

246 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 23
"invincible ignorance" — but what we know, at any rate, to
be votes, and to be laws, and a whole system of policy, totaUy
opposed to the convictions of the people. But, gentlemen, it is
certainly, as I know very well, one of the aspirations of the
Liberal party to shorten that term, and thereby increase the
popular control over their representatives in the House of
Comraons ; and here I have got a sraall piece of advice to give
you, not at all a bad test question to put to a Tory candidate,
for I understand that you are to have a Tory candidate. I
have been culpably neglectful in informing myself about
him. I believe him to be a very respectable raan. I know
nothing about his moveraents, nothing of his intentions. I
think I know soraething of his prospects. When a gentleman
of that political colour comes down to West Calder and asks
any of you for your votes, I advise you to book hira if you can
for the repeal of the Septennial Act and for the establishment
of shorter Parliaraents.
I go on to other questions, because ray subject at present
is the iraraeasurable change effected in the condition of the
working men of this country — of the average working man
of the average position — reaching upwards to those of the
very highest skilled labourer, and reaching downwards to
those whose labour is alraost purely mechanical. I have
spoken of the immense political change, but there are other
changes, if possible, greater. The working man is now
educated, and in that respect I adrait that in Scotland he was
largely educated even at the tirae to which I refer, though not
so well as now. He is now generally educated throughout
the whole island." He has now, besides the possession of
education, free access to knowledge. Knowledge is untaxed.
That is one of the battles fought and won for you by the
Liberals of this country. Besides the access to knowledge, he
has obtained through the labours of Liberals and Tories^who
for supporting it wore proscribed and ejected frora their party^ —
the blessing of freedom of trade ; and that freedom of trade,
won by twenty years of hard Parliamentary work, has added
upon the average 50 per cent, at least — with perhaps, I admit.

1890] IBELAND ; THE LABOUB QUESTION 247
some assistance from railways and from telegraphs — has added
upon the average at least 50 per cent, to the available means
and available comforts of the working population of this
country. But there is one thing, gentlemen, more important, I think,
than any of these, and it was the earliest of all the triumphs
won on behalf of the working men, and that was the power
of free corabination. When I was a child, if a small body of
working men consulted together, and combined together, and
jointly refused to work for a particular individual, unless he
would give them such and such wages, that was an offence
punishable at law; and to a Scotsman, gentleraen, — to a
Scotsman, — you owe the repeal of that abominable state of
law, and the establishment of freedom to combine — I mean
to Joseph Hume,^ It is an iramense debt that you owe to that
most worthy, distinguished, and excellent member of Parliament,
in that and in a hundred other particulars. And that freedom
of corabination, naturally, when it was first given, was not
so perfectly effective. The ingenuity of lawyers and of judges,
not corrupt, but under bias, set to work to lirait it as far as
possible; but within the last few years the whole operations
of the working classes, corabined together in their particular
trades unions, have been set entirely free frora interference
of any kind, so long as they kept within the limits of the law,
and abstain from violence, which, whether in England or in
Ireland, is and ought to be everywhere punished and put
down. Well, gentlemen, I have stated these things shortly, but if
you put them together, they describe a change which is not
only great, but which I have not exaggerated in terming an
immeasurable change. Now this question is a question of
extrerae interest. I admit that in the beginning of this speech
I was upon ground purely controversial and polemical I am
not ashamed of going upon that ground, if I am conscious that
I am endeavouring to speak, as far as human infirmity will
1 In 1842.

248 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 23
permit, the language of truth and justice. But it is a relief
and a satisfaction to get off that ground for a little while, and
in contemplating this enormously changed position of the
labouring man as such — that is to say, of the great raass of the
nation — I feel myself lifted, as it were, into a purer air, and
engaged in a survey of a rauch wider and raore attractive
landscape. This, gentleraen, is a raarvellous change. It is not
uncommonly described in the language which I think was
first used by Lord Salisbury, when he said that the labouring
men were our masters. You are our raasters. Now, gentleraen ,
what I wish above all things is to be true, and therefore I wish
to say to you that in ray deep, in ray firra conviction, that
stateraent is subject to very great qualification. You are our
raasters, and you are not You are the raajority of the voters
of this country. I ara speaking of rayself as a non-labouring
man for convenience' sake, but I hope that I ara a labouring
raan rayself, and I hope so to continue. Now, you understand
ray meaning. You have the raajority of the votes in the
constituencies, and undoubtedly, when the population of the
country is fairly roused upon a given question — when it has
given evidence of its deliberations by uniting itself into sorae
thing like an unaniraous raass, or into a mass with a great
predorainance of sorae opinion and conviction — that opinion
and conviction are sure to prevail, and they will prevail, in spite
of the resistance which raay be offered to thera for a time
by the privileged classes. So far, gentlemen, you are the
raasters. It is a novelty, and it is a great novelty, a fruitful
novelty, and a novelty leading to rauch interesting reflection.
But that is upon a particular occasion, upon the occasion of
some question that has assuraed such raagnitude in the public
eye, that it has for the tirae eclipsed alraost everything else,
and attracted to itself almost a monopoly of the thought, the
care, and the sentiment of the country. You see these are
conditions which cannot be had every day. There are a
hundred questions at a tirae calling for the attention of Parlia
raent, and it is perhaps on only one of these questions, and very
often on none of thera, that the sort of union of public senti-

1890] IRELAND; THE LABOUR QUESTION 249
ment which I have endeavoured to describe can possibly be
brought to prevail. WeU, gentlemen, although you raay be
the masters in respect of particular raeasures passed through
Parliaraent under these particular circumstances, yet it is
almost an impossibility, when we consider the conditions of
human life, tied down to labour — not merely manual labour,
but mechanical and mental labour — tied down to labour, and
not invested largely with leisure — it is impossible that the
raind of the country can always be alive to questions of great
iraportance in such a way as to be thoroughly exercised upon
them all, and to arrive, in respect to them, at a deliberate,
general, and solid conviction. And so I do not use that
expression without large qualification. But at the sarae tirae
it is a very iraportant fact, that whereas the labouring raan
as such was forraerly far weaker than the capitalist, and the
raass of the labouring raen, even when perraitted to combine,
could do very little in the face of the capitalist, the labouring
men as a class are now rapidly approaching to a footing of full
equality with the capitalist, and it is even possible that they
may becorae the stronger of the two.
WeU, now, gentleraen, I don't know whether that is likely to
happen, but I wish to speak to you language, which, if not my
position, yet ray age, perhaps, may do soraething to justify. I do
not wish, gentlemen, to be your fiatterer. That is the worst
service I could do to you, and that is the greatest disgrace I
could inflict upon rayself. Now, if we look back over the
controverted questions of the last fifty or sixty years, the great
changes which have taken place on the statute-book, and other
great changes which have raade themselves felt in other ways —
if we look back over these things, we find that upon most of
those questions in the past, the judgraent of the labouring
population of this country has been far raore just, equitable, and
enlightened than the judgraent of the educated classes. Of this
there is no doubt at all. I raight quote a hundred instances of
it. I will only refer for a moraent to one instance, and it is the
judgraent of the operatives of Lancashire with regard to the
great war in Araerica, when, although that war took the bread

250 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 23
out of their mouths, and brought the independent and well-to-do
labourer down very nearly to starvation, yet not one of them
could be found to lift a hand in the cause which they thought
was the cause of slavery as against the cause of freedom. Well,
now, gentlemen, there is a great anomaly and paradox. You
cannot deny that education and leisure are very great advan
tages for forming a sound judgment upon public questions.
How, then, does it come — if it be a truth, as I believe it to be a
truth — how did it come that the sounder judgraents you have
forraed have been formed by those who had, so to speak, neither
education nor leisure, and that the unsound judgments were
forraed by those whora Professor Tyndall now lauds to the skies ?
Ah ! gentleraen, it was this — temptation led them astray. Bias,
worldly considerations, selfish interests, and class interests led
them astray. Gentleraen, the true test of a raan, and the true
test of a class, and the true test of a people, is power. It is a
small thing as long as he has not power— as long as temptation
is kejDt out of his way — that he should be tolerably just in
his judgments ; but it is when power has come into his
hands that his trial conies — power which corrupted the judg
ments of the leisured and the wealthy classes may corrupt the
judgments of the people. You will have teraptation near you,
gentlemen ; you — the labouring people of this country — when
you become supreme to such a degree that there is no other
power to balance and counteract the power which you possess.
You have approaching you, together with great physical, social,
and political advantages — you have approaching you a deep and
searching raoral trial — you have to preserve the balance of your
raind and your character, and even if you becorae, and when you
have becorae, stronger than the capitalist, stronger than the
peerage, stronger than the landed gentry, stronger than the
great raercantile class — when you have becorae in one sense
their political raaster, you have still before you one achieveraent
to fulfil, one glory to attain, and appropriate to yourselves —
continue to be just. I ara bound to say I have seen no serious
tendency to alarra rae upon that subject as yet ; I venture to
give that warning for the future ; it applies to the coraing days

i890] lEELAND; THE LABOUB QUESTION 251
more than to the days that are past, and I hope that the mass of
this meeting will live into these days in increasing prosperity
and happiness, and if they do so, I ara sure they will reraeraber
.with kindliness what was at all events a well-raeant suggestion.
Gentlemen, I am getting on, and I come to the question
which many of us have been thinking of, and must think of,
and shall have to think of raore. I get down again upon ground
of practical and definite propositions, though not upon the
ground of party contentions. I refer to what is much spoken
of, here and elsewhere, as the Eight Hours' Bill — that, I believe,
has a great and just interest for you. There is one warning I
would venture to give in regard to the Eight Hours' Bill. I
nnderstand, frora a well-inforraed quarter, that in one particular
coal-pit tn this county — the Bosewell Pit — there is a state of
arrangeraents which causes a sense of dissatisfaction, of great
and keen dissatisfaction, and which rather tends to accentuate
and sharpen a desire for the enactraent of an Eight Hours' Bill,
which, it is thought, would reraove a grievance that is believed
to exist in that pit I do not intend, and it would be absurd, on
my part to atterapt to discuss the question of that pit in full ;
all I will say about it is, as I know that the case of that pit has
so far been referred to the consideration of the Home Secretary
of State, and, as I understand that it is in his power, under the
present law, to deal with it, I shall only say that, as far as I
can judge, it appears to rae that there has been good ground for
calUng in whatever aid he could give, with respect to the state
of affairs that prevails there. I don't give any opinion upon the
conduct of the gentleraan — I believe a very able gentleraan —
who has the raanageraent of the concern ; but I only state ray
own opinion to that extent. I mention it chiefly for the sake of
this. We must always be upon our guard against the temptation to
decide outside questions of immense breadth and coraprehensive-
ness upon the ground of narrow and isolated instances. For if
we do that, we may inflict evils ten times greater than those
which we hope and which we desire to cure.
Well, now, gentleraen, the question of the Eight Hours' Bill
arises in two forms — one of thera a Bill for restricting labour

252 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 23
generally to eight hours, and the other for restricting labour in
mines to eight hours. With respect to the Bill for restricting
labour generally to eight hours, I shall only say that I do not,
and will not, give such a Bill as that, however long I may live,
any consideration until I see the Bill in print before rae, for I
have very great doubts whether a raan could put such a Bill
into print. It would be a very hard task, indeed, and I dismiss
that — notwithstanding the recent vote given at Liverpool ^ at a
meeting of Trades Unions, I dismiss that — frora present con
sideration. So far as I raay be concerned, I do not see ray way
even to consider it.
The Eight Hours' Miners' Bill is undoubtedly on a different
footing. First of all, the nature of the employment is so
different ; and, gentlemen, though I am not a miner, I have been
in a coal-pit a sufficient nuniber of tiraes to have the feeling
which it seeras to rae that every raan who has been there raust
entertain — that eight hours out of every twenty-four are quite
enough for any huraan being to labour under these conditions.
The separateness of the labour, the manner in which the men
are brought together, the manner in which on that account a
strong feeling of class conies to unite them, so that they become
a distinct comraunity as it were on the face of the world, is a
highly distinctive feature in the case of the miner with respect
to the Eight Hours' Bill. And, gentleraen, I raake another
adraission, which is thi,s — that our legislation with regard to
factories, even although we profess to have founded it, and have
founded it as to the letter for the case of woraen, and particularly
for the case of children ; yet, practically, it has been legislation
which has erabraced the case of raen, and therefore I hold that
this business of the Eight Hours' Bill for rainers is a raatter
perfectly open for free and unprejudiced consideration. My duty
upon the question I consider to be bounded by that. I think it
right that I should preserve an open raind, that I should corae to
the consideration of the question without prejudice, and with a
' At the Trades Union Congress held in August 1890 it was voted by
193 to 155 that Parliament should be asked to fix an eight hours' day,
or a week of forty-eight hours, for all trades alike.

1890] IRELAND ; THE LABOUE QUESTION 253
fair and honest disposition to look at the raatter frora this point
or that point which bears upon it, irrespective of any wish or
predisposition of my own, and with a -view of coming to what
is right and just to all parties.
Now I would just point out several matters that appear to rae
to bear on the question in a very iraportant way. In the first
place, I am under the impression at the present moment, that
although there may be a very considerable degree of union of
opinion araong the rainers of particular districts in the couutry
with regard to the Eight Hours' Bill, yet we are very far indeed
frora the tirae when there is any sort of approach to unanimity
among the rainers throughout the country, speaking of thera as
an entire body. And undoubtedly one of the conditions which
is absolutely necessary before you could for a raoraent think of
a measure which may in certain cases interfere with individual
freedom, and raay require very judicious treatment to accorarao
date it to the possible exigencies of trade, would be that the
strong, solid, permanent convictions of the miners as a class
should be declared, and until they are so declared, you are
hardly in a condition to press the adoption of such a measure in
a pereraptory way.
Well, gentleraen, that is not quite all. Of course, there is
this to be borne in raind, that all classes of producers raay fall into
habits and a state of raind which belong to classes. I have
been one of those who have been censured for talking about the
classes and the raasses. But, gentleraen, it is not possible to do
one's duty in political life without saying sorae things that are
disagreeable, and it is necessary occasionally to draw those
distinctions between the classes and the raasses, because,
wherever there is a class, there grows up necessarily raore or
less of a disposition to prefer the interest of that class to the
interest of the public. Well, now, when we speak, of the
labouring people as a whole, we speak really, gentleraen, in the
main, of the nation, and it is very fair to speak of the raasses,
and distinguish thera frora the classes. But when we corae to
deal with the particular classes — when the labouring raen,
according to their several employments, break themselves up

254 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 23
into this body, and that body, and the other body, and propose
this or that in relation to themselves — why, then, undoubtedly,
the labouring men here become a class, and may come to be
enamoured more or less of separate interests of their own,
adverse to the interests of the public. They raust be content to
have their class interests, whatever they are, judged of in the
light of the public interests.
I ara perfectly certain you will owe rae no grudge for speak
ing freely such sentiments in your presence. But there is
another consideration that to my mind is more important yet,
and it is this — I like to look at the instruraents which labour
possesses for the purpose of carrying forward its corapetition
with capital. I say, gentleraen, its competition with capital,
not its conflict with capital ; I think the word " conflict," which
one might be tempted to use, conveys an untrue irapression.
Labour and capital are in sorae respects opposed to one another,
that is, they are partially opposed as to the division of the
profits of production, but they are essentially and profoundly
allied. I think it is very just to corapare thera to two people
rowing in a boat One has an oar on each side. Now, you
know, gentlemen, that when a boat is propelled in that manner,
a portion of the force of each is lost in lateral pressure, but the
bulk of the force of each is corabined, and sends the boat on its
course. That is the case of labour and capital. They raay have
separate interests, yet their separate interests are less by far in
the long run ; they are essentially allied, and their separate
interests are little as corapared with those in which they are
united. But, still, I ara the first to adrait and to contend that
labour has an interest distinct frora that of capital, and that it
is the duty of the labouring man, not only for his own sake,
but for the sake of his wife and of his children — it is the duty
of the labouring raan to see that in that corapetition with
capital, labour gets nothing less than justice. I go so far as
this, gentleraen, that down to the present time, wherever the
competition has existed, where it has gone to sharp issues,-.
where there have been strikes on one side and lock-outs on the ¦

1890] IRELAND ; THE LABOUE QUESTION 255
other, I believe that in the raain, and as a general rule, the
labouring raan has been in the right.
But what are the modes by which he should prosecute the
attainment of the purposes he has in view ? That is the only
remaining point I wish to call your attention to. One of the
most useful and valuable means of strengthening the position
of the labouring class, without doing harm to any raan, is what
is called the method of co-operation. Co-operation, which is
very largely applicable, and, I am happy to say, is very largely
exercised and applied — I do not know if it is so here — through
out the country — co-operation in the distribution of coraraodi
ties results in iraraense economy and immense benefit to the
labouring man, and is likewise advantageous, because it helps
to give hira the practice of self-government on his own behalf
and on behalf of his class. Co-operation, again, in the business
of production is much more difficult, but if it can be managed
it is better still, and most heartily wherever it can be had, either
in raanufacture or agriculture — wherever it can be had — I for
one cordially wish it well. Co-operation is one of these raethods.
Another of these methods is an Act of Parliament. Now,
gentleraen, all I would say to you is, be slow to prefer raethods
which interfere with liberty to raethods which proraote liberty.
An Act of Parliaraent coraes chiefly into corapetition with the
method of corabination. The raethod of corabination is now, I
rejoice to think, in a great degree through the crowning efforts
of ray friends, Sir William Harcourt and Sir Henry Jaraes,^ —
that method of corabination denied iu great part to your Irish
brethren and fellow-subjects as respects their vital and stable
pursuit, namely, agriculture, — is perfectly free and open to you
as regards your eraployraents in manufacture, commerce, and
trades of all descriptions. You have achieved by combination
iramense results. The system of corabination is a sound system.
There is no doubt that combination brings opposition, and may
bring harshness to bear upon individuals, but that is a rare
exception, I must look to the operation of it as a general rule,
and I do not hesitate to say that the bulk of what the labouring O
1 Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875.

256 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 23
man has gained iu his relations as representative of labour from
the capitalist as representative of capital, the bulk of what he
has gained he has gained by the use, and by the judicious use, of
the power of combination.
Now, gentlemen, I owm that I have considerable doubts as to
what extent the method of an Act of Parliaraent and the method
of combination will work together. I don't say they won't — •
these things are not to be judged of by abstract principles.
They ought to be judged of by applying our coraraon sense to
understand and to measure the merits of each case as it arises ;
but this I do say, that if the labouring raen of this country were
to contract the habit, whenever there was a difficulty before
them, of calling for an Act of Parliament to put it down, instead
of endeavouring by free action among theraselves, and by the
operation of the healthy power of public opinion in the local
coraraunities — if they were to prefer the stark and rigid action
of the sections in an Act of Parliament to that method of
freedom of discussion, — that method of elasticity, — which per
mits errors to be corrected, and false steps to be retraced, they
would seriously deteriorate the habits of their minds, and as
freemen they would come to stand in a lower and not in a
higher position than that which they had occupied before. It
is in that spirit I should wish you to approach these questions.
So far as it is in ray power to give any advice upon them, I
attach to freedom a value that I cannot describe. When people
tell rae that since I was a young man I have changed all my
political opinions, I say, No, that is not true ; I have not changed
all my political opinions. I carae into political life with a very
con.siderable veneration for things ancient. I have still a very
considerable veneration for things ancient I dislike, I raay
alraost say I detest, gratuitous change, and I would like to see
that the men who propose a change are required to give a reason
for that change. But, gentleraen, one great change I have
made. I was educated and brought up not to know the value
of liberty, and I have learned to value liberty. That is a great
change. And I have learned to know that, although liberty may
be misused and abused like every other blessing of Providence,

1 890] IBELAND ; THE LABOUE QUESTION 257
yet without liberty there is nothing sound, there is nothing
healthy, there is nothing solid, there is nothing that can move
onwards on the face of this earth. And I trust, gentlemen, that
as part of the love of liberty is to love it on behalf of every
other man, just as rauch as you love it yourselves, I trust that
in considering labour questions you will always bear in mind
that to resort to the coercive and rigid operation of public
authority, though it raay in certain cases be a necessity, is
infinitely inferior — so long as you are not provoked to it by
necessity — is infinitely inferior to doing your own work by
yourselves and araong yourselves, — to seeking strength by unit
ing yourselves hand to hand and shoulder to shoulder, and by
so marching forward with the blessing of Pro-vidence to tbe
attainraent of every real, every social, every political, and every
raoral good. I thank you, gentlemen, for your attention.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS
Edinburgh, October 27, 1890
In October Mr Gladstone undertook his third "Midlothian Campaign."
He addressed very large audiences, on the 21st at Edinbiirgh, the 23rd at 'West
Calder, the 25th at Dalkeith, and the 27th at Edinburgh. At the West Calder
meeting a large number of miners were present.
Mr Cowan, ray Lords, Ladies, and Gentleraen, — The duty
incurabent upon me at this period of giving some account
of the raanner in which I have endeavoured to discharge
the high trust coraraitted to my hands is of necessity an
arduous duty, but the kindness and affection with which
I have been welcoraed, and I raust say the auspices under which
I appear before you to-day, in the presence of our veteran leader
of LiberaUsra, Mr Cowan, have converted that arduous duty
into a lively pleasure. And I have nothing to apprehend except
the danger that the too kindly and favourable estiraate taken
of ray acts and words may perhaps have a tendency to relax
the moral and intellectual fibre, and to make me less sensible
than I ought to be of the serious nature of the struggle in which
we are engaged.
Gentleraen, although I have trespassed very largely upon the
attention of the constituency in the various raeetings we have
held, I regret to state that I have still a good deal to say. And,
moreover, lapses of raeraory or accidental suggestions frora one
quarter or another raise new matter for consideration as we go
along the path on which we have entered. One word I ought
to say to-day — a very brief word — in order to repair a pure
error of raeraory on my part.
I discussed pretty largely at Dalkeith on Saturday the im
portant question of the Establishraent or Disestablishraent of
the Scottish Church, but I oraitted, through lapse of recollection,
to refer to one portion of a speech ^ I delivered on that subject
1 May 2nd, 1890. See p. IS.

1890] PUBLIC AFFAIBS 259
in the House of Coraraons, and that dealt, at no great length —
nor need I now touch it at any length — with the manner in
which, when the time arrives, the work of Disestablishment
ought to be effected. Gentleraen, it is ray strong opinion — it is
according to the precedents of .our country in analogous cases —
it is according, I think, to the considerations of equity and
justice — that we should resolve that, so far as depends upon us,
when this work has to be done, it shall be done equitably, and
even, as far as the nature of the case perraits, tenderly. Liber
ality has always been the raaxira of the State in putting an end
to raonopoly and privilege, and a long course of experience has
deraonstrated, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that such liberality
is wisdom. Of course, no one will hesitate in adopting the
principle that every life-interest of a legal character is to be
respected. No one, I think, will doubt, though I will not enter
into details, that, as a general rule, such questions as raay arise
with respect to fabrics and raanses ought to be approached in a
liberal spirit ; and perrait rae to go one step further, and to say,
reasoning frora experience which we have had, and have at this
moment, of the popular feeling in England, — which, I have no
doubt, prevails in Scotland, — it ought always to be borne iu
raind by us — however liberal we may be in our general opinions
and however we raay be convinced that Scotland thinks this
matter ought to be speedily taken in hand, yet we raust reraera
ber — that the principal part of the property that is in question,
naraely, the teinds ^ of this country, are not in the nature of
funds to be cast at once into a central treasury. They largely
partake of the nature of a local asset, in which the people of
the several localities conceive — and, I think, conceive with
justice — that they have a special interest, and in the ultiraate
application of which^which I think it would be preraature at
present to open and discuss — in the ultimate application of
which it may be that they ought to have a certain amount of
discretion entrusted to them. I will not dwell long on that
subject, but I will refer to sorae questions that were sent to me
,at Dalkeith, and which the unreasonable demands that I had
1 Tithes,

260 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
already raade on the patient audience at that place prevented
rae frora answering. I need not be long about it here.
The question was put to me, and you raay have read it in the
papers, " Considering that you stated in 1886 that the wit of
raan could not devise a plan for retaining the Irish representa
tion at Westminster, how is it that you say now that there are
a great many raodes in which it can be done ? " Now, gentle
men, the reference to ray declaration of 1886 errs in a vital
oraission. I never said that the wit of man could not devise a
plan for the purpose. What I said was that the wit of man, so
far as I could see, could not devise any plan that would not be
open to objection or that would be free from inconveniences.
This is exactly what I say now. We certainly have arrived at
a conclusion that, so far as we are able to read the public raind,
the public raind is under the conviction that these objections
are objections that are confined within certain liraits— that these
inconveniences are not intolerable — that it is far better that we
should face thera and eudeavour to deal with thera in a practical
spirit, and in what raay appear to be the best and safest raanner,
rather than continue to violate all the greatest principles of
national justice, and thereby to sap, as we are now doing, the
foundations of Imperial strength.
But, then, these questionists go on to inquire, " How do you
mean to do it ? " Gentleraen, a raan's disposition to answer a.
question sometiraes depends in no sraall degree upon his opinion
of the intention of the man who puts it. We have pledged our
selves frankly to a principle, and that is to give effect in the
best manner that the subject permits to the view and desire
which we understand to be national and general. With respect
to the raode in which it is to be done, what does the questioner
want from rae ? He wants rae to point out one araong the
raultitude — for there are a raultitude — of methods of proceeding
and of applying one and the sarae principle — for what purpose T
— iu order that he raay bring all the artillery of his ingenuity
to bear upon that particular mode of doing it, and to say that,
though the thing is good, the manner is detestable. Consider
a little further the depth of the astuteness of this gentleman,.

i89o] PUBLIC AFFAIRS 261
who wants to practise upon ray well-known simplicity. What
they tell us is, that there is to be no dissolution of Parliament
till 1893, and consequently no opportunity of dealing practically
with this question till 1894. And what they modestly ask is,
that I myself, that my friends and colleagues near me, and
other friends and colleagues elsewhere, are now to bind our
selves, four years beforehand, not only to the principle to
which we have bound ourselves, but to the particular method
and definite detail by which it is to take effect — every other
person reraaining absolutely free, and these very gentleraen
reraaining free to corae down upon us at the last moment, and
+0 say, " You have totally raistaken the opinion of the country ;
your raethod of going to work is intolerable, and we protest
against your going further with it"
Now, gentleraen, I will tell you what we say. We are not
acting upon principles of reserve. We are acting upon this
intelligible principle, that, having undertaken to respect the
opinion of the country, we wish to get that opinion in its raost
deliberate and ripened state. We know that the continued
discussion of the question will have the effect of further and
further ripening that opinion, and we wish to obtain all the
guidance that we can frora what we perceive to be the genuine
national con-viction -with respect to the raanner of proceeding,
as well as with regard to the principle which we have adopted
and it is on that account that our duty to the nation, — our duty
to respect the nation in such a manner, and to ascertain its ripe
and deliberate views, — binds us to wait until a practical issue
is about to be raised, and not preraaturely to enter upon raatters
which belong altogether to a later stage. As far, gentleraen, as
ray very iraperfect understanding enables rae to comprehend
the subject, that is the reply which I make to those gentlemen
who have put me certain questions.
Now, gentleraen, while I ara upon that raatter, I should like
in a very few words to give a general caution — I don't think so
much to the people of Midlothian, because I think they want
that caution less than the average, but I will say to the Liberal
party in the country at large — and that is on the subject of

262 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
what are called " test questions." Now, that is a very interest
ing phrase, and, as I understand it, it very often means this,
that where a portion of the coraraunity — very often an import
ant portion, — perhaps in some division of the country a pre
dominant portion, — but then we raust recollect that we have to
raake an election for three kingdoras and not for one — where a
portion of the coraraunity fears that it is not likely to have a
majority of the whole country, but that it is likely to exercise
a considerable power over local candidates through their own
local and particular interests, they erect their own subject of
desire into a test question for the entire community. Now,
there are a great number of these questions, and do not suppose
for a raoment that I am speaking of any one of thera with dis
respect. I am not going to absorb and swallow the whole of
thera in a lump. But I am enumerating thera for the purpose
of basing on thera a warning I wish to give — and at the same
tirae I wish you to understand that, as to raost of thera, I think
the desires expressed in regard to thera are just and expedient ;,
I am now speaking of thera exclusively in regard to the disposition
of any of their followers to erect thein at this raoraent and uni
versally into test questions for the election of Members of
I'arliament on which they can act, and then I will ask you to
consider what the effect of it raust be. I put down seven of
thera, gentleraen, without the Irish question. The Irish question,
I think, has been erected by the convictions of the Liberal party
throughout the country into the character of a test question,
because it stands between us and every other question, and we
cannot get at any other question till the Irish question is out of
the way.
Now, here are seven of these questions, and you will see that
no one of thera is trifiing or insignificant; all of thera are
backed by very energetic, and raany of thera by very extensive
sections of public opinion. The first I name is the great
(question of Teraperance. I shall have to say a word upon it by
and by, although not so rauch as I should like to say ; the
second is the question of the Eight Hours' Bill ; the third is

iSgo] PUBLIC AFFAIRS 263
the question of Disestablishraent in Scotland ; the fourth is the
question of Disestablishraent in Wales ; the fifth is the question
of the Suffrage of Woraen ; the sixth is the question of Horae
Rule in Scotland ; and the seventh is a question which excites
a most vital interest in England — a deeper interest, I think,
than in this country — the question which is known under the
general phrase of Agricultural Allotments. Now, there are
seven of these questions, and when any one of them is to be made
into a test question, the raeaning of it is this : We, who are in
favour of this subject, are Liberals — we adrait you to be a
Liberal — we know you to be a Liberal — -we wish you to be
returned — but unless you will adopt our test questions, we will
either abstain from voting, or vote for a Tory against you, and
so put you out of Parliament.
Now, gentlemen, the effect of that practice — which I will not
discuss at length — is to make one great array into seven little
arraies, with seven commanders at least, perhaps raore. And I
need not tell you what is the consequence on the field of battle
of the adoption of these sectional and fractional raethods of
proceeding, in lieu of being content, as in the mixed character
of human affairs we ought to be content, to take up the broadest
and the largest issues, and those which coraraend theraselves to
the party at large, and to trust to what we know to be, or
believe to be, the intrinsic force of the reasonings which support
us upon our other views and propositions to ensure for thera
everything that justice will give. Now, I hope that considera
tions of that kind will be borne in raind when the tirae coraes
for pronouncing the grave and soleran judgraent that the
country will have to give on the present great and solemn
controversy. Now, gentleraen, I ara going to say one word, which will
perhaps create astonishraent — I ara going to say a word on the
question of public econoray. Is not that a strange idea, that
at this tirae of day — in the year 1890 — when we have got so
many things to consider, any man should waste even a minute
of your tirae by talking about public econoray ? Public economy,
gentlemen, has gone out of fashion. When I entered public

264 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
life, public economy was greatly in fashion. Mr Cobden — who
was believed to be rather an authority in his own day — Mr
Cobden used to hold, and hold deliberately, that public econoray
was an essential part of public virtue. Well, I ara not going
to detain you at length about it. The country has grown
extreraely rich. I ara not going to deplore the abuse or the
waste of a raillion or two. I deplore it very rauch, but I ara
not going to enlarge upon it so long as the country pays its way —
so long as the nation knows what is being done, and consequently
is responsible for applying the reraedy if the danger has come
into view. Now, I have just two things to say. A Parliaraentary
paper has been produced which we never should have heard of
but for the judgraent, skill, and deterraination of a friend of mine,
not here present, a rauch respected friend of mine — Mr Lefevre ^
— from which it appears in a manner intelligible to anybody
that the railitary and naval charge of- this Empire, which in the
year 1835, under the Conservative Governraent of Sir Eobert
Peel, I think, stood at about thirteen raillions — that railitary
and naval charge has risen to raore than thirty-eight raillions.
That, gentlemen, I think, is a fact that justifies rae in having
mentioned the subject as one that deserves attention. You
had better watch it, you had better see how it goes on from
year to year, for the tendency of these things is to grow and
not to dwindle, and the consequence of enlarging establishments
of this kind invariably is, that a great bulk of the professional
raen, the great bulk of the Tories, and here and there perhaps a
Liberal or two, are apt to say that these establishraents are not
large enough, that it is unworthy of this great country to haggle
about a little raoney, and that we had better go on and be
rather raore liberal than less. That is not ray opinion, gentle
raen. My opinion is, that we have gone beyond the measure of
prudence and propriety. I do not want to force that opinion,
for we have other raatter raore necessary, raore pressing, and
fruitful before us ; but this one thing I want to say — I recom
mend and urge upon you to watch with the utmost vigilance
1 Mr Shaw-Lefevre had been Postmaster-General in Mr Gladstone's
second Administration.

1890] PUBLIC AFFAIBS 265
all atterapts to conceal frora you the expenditure of the
country. I tell you plainly that an attempt of that kind was
raade this year, when the present Governraent never told us —
what they ought to have told us at the first raoraent — that
above thirty-eight raillions was the railitary and naval charge
of the year. They endeavoured to keep back a portion of the
charge, as Ananias and Sapphira endeavoured to keep back
a portion of the price that they had received. Mr Lefevre
followed up the subject like a hound with a good scent. He
knew what he was going after, and he brought out the truth,
At present it stands thus : You ought to consider whether that
is a just and a raoderate araount of charge, and whether you
would like it to be increased or whether you would wish it to
be dirainished.
Gentlemen, I pass on to that which is the particular subject
on which I ought to address you to-day — a raost important one,
not always as iraportant as it is at the present raoraent — I raean
the manner in which, upon the whole, the existing Parliaraent
has discharged its duty ; and don't suppose that I am going to
lay upon any one raember, or upon the merabers of any one
small body of raen, the entire responsibility for what I am
going to describe. If the Government has made bad proposals,
and taken bad measures to support thera, the fault of not
correcting that Ues with the House of Coraraons ; and if the
raajority of the House of Coraraons has not corrected the
Governraent, but, on the contrary, has encouraged it and
supported it in all its worst proceedings, the responsibility for
that lies, frora tirae to time, with those who, at bye-elections,
are called upon to give their votes, and I ara thankful, gentlemen,
to think, that, to judge from experience, they appear to feel
that responsibility. But the tirae is coraing when it will lie on
the whole constituency of the country, and the raost difficult
thing we have to do now is, not to prove the existence of the
evils — that really is easy enough — the difficulty is to raake the
individual voter feel that with hira will lie the ultimate
responsibility, that in the face of God Alraighty, and in the
face of men, it is the private voter, not only in the palace, not

266 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
only in the mansion, not only in the factory, and not only in the
shop, but down to the cottage and the hovel, who has got the
question to decide. And if he answers me by saying that after
all he has only got a one-raillionth part, or a five-raillionth part
of it, I say, " Yes, but the whole is made up of the parts, and if
the raischief you are going to do is sraall, it is the utraost you
can do, and you can do no raore ; and for raisusing your vote,
whether the effect of it be great or whether it be coraparatively
trivial — for misusing your vote you will have to answer."
Before speaking of any particular measure, I must tell you
that we have had within the walls of the House of Coraraons
soraething like a Parliaraentary revolution in a department of
public life, which is very much withdrawn frora the public eye,
but which, notwithstanding, is intiraately associated with the
vital interests of the country — I raean in what is called the
Procedure of the House of Coraraons. You know that for a
long tirae it has been agreed on all hands that Parliaraent was
not strong enough for its work. There was too rauch to be
done, and they could not get through it. But in one thing,
gentleraen, they are perfectly irreproachable. It is not their
shirking personal labour. No asserably in the world has ever
done an amount of personal labour to corapare with that which
is now done by the British House of Coraraons. But we have
been agreed as to the great excess of the araount of work, and
as to the necessity for a great change. Two raethods of change
have been proposed. We frora the first have held, not that it
was not right to make regulations raore strict in this point and
in that, where it could be done without serious violation of
principle. But we have held all along that the true raethod of
making Parliaraent strong enough and free enough to do the
business of the country, was to adopt large plans of what is
called Devolution, — devolving upon subordinate bodies large
portions of what now encurabers and obstructs the progress of
Parliaraent, so that its hands raight be free, and, without an
increase of labour, it raight be able to get far better through its
proper work. Now, that is what I call the Liberal idea of
meeting this difficulty. But, gentleraen, there has been another

1890] PUBLIC AFFAIBS 267
idea, and, as you are aware, our Liberal ideas were not in great
favour in the election of 1886, and a Parliament was returned
to do most of the things that we disapproved, and to refuse
raost of the things we wanted. And one of the worst things, in
my opinion, that this Parliament has done, has been the
method in which it has gone about altering the procedure of
Parliament. Gentleraen, the spirit of the old rules of ParUaraent was a
noble spirit. It was a spirit of trust. It was a spirit congenial
to a nation instinct with freedom. It was a spirit of willingness
to encounter secondary inconveniences rather than run the
remotest risk of interfering with that inestiraable and that most
valuable practice — though, of course, the practice is likely to be
abused — the absolute freedora of debate.
But, gentleraen, I won't describe to you in detail the raethods
that have been introduced. I will only say this in justice to
two distinguished men, — namely, the Speaker of the House of
Comraons, and the Chairraan of Coraraittees, — that although

great inconvenience has been suffered, and much mischief done,
yet it would have been much greater, but for the reraarkable
ability and high conscientiousness and courage of these two
gentlemen. But in order that you may understand that I ara
speaking of very serious raatters, I will give you one of the
instances in which what is called the Closure was put in force.
You know that when a Bill coraes into the House of Coraraons,
it is, in the first place, read a first and a second tirae, and it then
goes into Coraraittee for the consideration of the details point by
point. Now, in all questions affecting the rights of the people, that
consideration in Coraraittee point by point is the raost vital part
of the whole. A Bill was introduced which I need not describe
now, in 1887, under the narae of the Criraes Act, which had
nothing to do with crime, but which was intended to repress and
put down combinations of the people, which would have been
lawful corabinations in England. That Bill contained a nuraber
of provisions woven together into one network. Now, will you
believe that under the regulations that now subsist, and the

268 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
power of applying what is called the closure, a very large and
iraportant portion of the clauses of that Bill passed through the
Coraraittee, and were reported and passed into law, without ever
being voted upon, without ever being debated at all? We
reached a certain clause of the Act, and, having reached that
clause, it was the duty of the Chairraan to rise and to announce
that, under the regulations that had been adopted, the question
must be put as to reporting the BiU to the House. Of course, I
do not raean to say that the Chairman was coercing the majoritj'.
Not at all. It is the raajority I am complaining of, but the
majority had raade it his duty to propose to thera — and they
adopted the proposal — that the Bill for restricting the liberties
of the people of Ireland should be adopted, as to a large portion
of it, in the lurap, and without the power given to any Irish
member, or to any British friend of Ireland, of pointing out the
iniquitous method in which several of these provisions, as we
thought, were sure to operate. So that, understand, taking it in
the rough, a system of coercion has been iraported, not into
Ireland only, but into the House of Coraraons, and an endeavour
has been made, with a large araount of success, to substitute the
systera of coercion for the ancient spirit which left in the House
of Coraraons an atraosphere free and pure, worthy of Britons to
breathe, consecrated by the recollections of six hundred years,
and if we could have had our way, to be handed down as free
and as pure as we received it to those who are to follow us in
life and in political action.
Well, now, gentlemen, this being the case so far, what coraes
next ? The next question is. How has it succeeded ? I ara not
prepared to adrait at once that success would have justified it,
but this I will say, that failure would condemn it. If that
ancient system of freedora and generosity is to be given up, and
is to be trampled down, and a new-fangled systera introduced,
under the auspices of a pretended Conservatism and of a sham
Liberalisra — if that is to take place, at any rate success is the
only result which can supply for it an excuse or an apology.
The question then is, gentleraen. How has it succeeded ? and
here I say boldly, that it has not succeeded at all. It has failed.

1890] PUBLIC AFFAIRS 269
This Parliaraent has worked hard ; it has been raade to work, to
a great extent, in chains, and the consequence has been just as
when the negro had to work with the slave-driver at his back,
although you might flog him well frora tirae to tirae, you
got very little out of him. That has been the result of this
wretched scheme of coercion introduced into the present Parlia
ment, and, to a certain extent, I ara here upon ground in respect
to which people are agreed, because you see the Tories go all
about the country, and they say : " Well, we raust adrait very
little has been done. We passed sorae useful raeasures " — they
don't very often tell you what they are — " we would have
achieved the raost wonderful legislative triuraphs — we would
have raet all the wants of the country, and surpassed all its
expectations — if it had not been for the aborainable systera of
obstruction which has been carried out in the House, and which
has raet us on the right and on the left, in front and in rear, so
that in our best efforts, although they have been raanful to a
degree, and not less prudent than they were brave, we have been
baffled by this astounding system of obstruction." That is a
question, gentlemen, I want to test, and I want to show you, in
the first place, what it is that this Parliament ha,s done.
This Parliaraent has passed five good raeasures, — Local
Government for England, and Local Governraent for Scotland —
County Councils. The measure of Local Government for
England,^ a most difficult subject, was introduced into the House
of Comraons by Mr Bitchie, the head of the Local Governraent
Board, in as able a speech as I have ever heard delivered on the
introduction of a great measure. It is a pleasure to render a
debt of justice to an opponent when he is engaged in doing
right — not otherwise. There is no debt of justice when he is
not engaged in doing right. The Local Governraent Bill for
Scotland^ was a second good raeasure, and the Conversion of the
Three per Cents.,^ which was carried through by Mr Goschen,
was a third. I ara afraid his name does not altogether stand
well in this latitude ; but let us do hira justice when he is doing
well — it may encourage him to do a little raore. The conver-
1 1888. "^ 1889. = 1888.

270 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
.sion of the Three per Cents, was introduced and passed by him.
Then there was another Bill relating to the Scottish Universities,^
which undoubtedly, upon the whole, was a very valuable Bill ;
and, again, there was a fifth Bill, relating to Welsh Interraediate
Education.^ Now, gentlemen, we are going to talk of obstruction, because
¦ — ^I ara in your judgment, and subject to your correction, when
I say to you that the allegation of obstruction is at present
nineteen-twentieths of the argument that the Governraent raakes
to the country. I have given to you these five good measures.
How were they passed through the House of Coraraons ? Were
those five measures obstructed by the Liberal party ? No ; they
received the warm and decided support of the Liberal party, and if
we occupied any tirae at all upon thera, it was only in the atterapt
to raake thera better than they were, because the County Coun
cils Bills for England and for Scotland undoubtedly were little
raore than the skeletons of good Bills. We wanted to put raore
flesh upon the bones. We were not allowed to do it, but we
forwarded and proraoted the passing of these BUls, and I should
like to see whether any Tory speaker will deny that every one
of those BUls passed through the House of Commons with the
.aid, with the support, and with the countenance of the Liberal
Opposition. When I say the Liberal Opposition, I do not
exclude the Irish Nationalists. All those Bills were either
acquiesced in or positively supported by the Nationalist Mera
bers frora Ireland.
Well, as I have given you an account of the good raeasures
passed by the present Parliament, and assisted by the Liberals,
I think I ought fairly to say next what are the good measures
that have passed the present Parliaraent, and that were opposed
by the Liberals. I have not heard of one. I do not think that
one exists. I do not think that it is in the power of any Tory
or any Dissentient to point to such a thing. Then I pass on to
another class. What am I to say of the bad measures that have
1 1889.
^ For the better Administration and Endowment of the Universities of
Scotland, 1889.

1 890] PUBLIC AFFAIBS ,2,71
passed with the support of the Liberals? I think there are
none. But one very bad raeasure passed in spite of their opposi
tion in the year 1887, which has been the cause of an infinity
of difficulty both in Ireland and here. I raean that which we
call the Coercion Act.
Well, then, gentleraen, five raeasures that are good, and raay,
perhaps, be called more or less great — sorae of thera decidedly
great — have been passed with our support ; one very bad
measure has been passed against us ; and one other very bad
measure there is which was introduced, which was opposed by the
Liberals, and which failed, and that is the measure which we
call the Public House Compensation Bill. Now, gentlemen, I
do not want to iraply that there has been no other useful work
done by the present Parliaraent. I ara happy to say that under
our institutions there is always a great deal of useful work
which is necessary for the country, that is going on within the
walls of our public offices, whoever is in power, from time to
tirae, and, indeed, continuously. But what I ara speaking of is
this. I want to bring into your rainds the power of judging
how far this new coercive systera of procedure in the House of
Coraraons has been successful, or has been a raiserable failure,
as corapared with that which preceded it. And for that pur
pose I think I have mentioned the only Bills that have ever
found their way into a Queen's siseech at the beginning of the
session — for that is the test — and have afterwards passed into
law. These are the Bills which the Government thinks im
portant, and whenever they have an iraportant raeasure to
introduce they put it into the Queen's speech, and no other than
those five I have naraed — no other that I ara aware of — has been
put into the Queen's speech at the beginning of the session.
And, ladies and gentlemen, I say that is a very poor and scanty
and meagre return of work for a Parliament that has now sat
with an enormous majority to carry on its work — that has now
sat through four full years.
Well, but then is the thing getting better, or is the thing
getting worse ? Gentleraen, I tell you it is not getting better,
but it is getting worse, and for that reason I will give you a

272 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
few figures of the siraplest character — nobody shall complain
that they are difficult to follow or to understand — belonging
to the years 1889-90. Here are sorae little docuraents of
great value — the Queen's speeches — made at the beginning
of the session and at the end of the session. And as we
know it is a known Parliamentary fact that the Governraent
announces its policy and its work of legislation in the Queen's
speech at the beginning of the session, you perceive that by
coraparing the result with the Queen's speech at the end of the
session, which renders an account of the things done and the
things undone, we get the raeans of doing what would otherwise
be very difficult, naraely, of bringing to soraething like a touch
stone the professions made by the Government when they go
about the country and describe all the good things they have
done, and all the good things they would have done. Here
are the speeches of 1889-90, but I will not even quote these
speeches. In 1889 the Government proraised in the speech
at least fifteen raeasures. There were at least fifteen raeasures
of a rank to find their way into the Queen's speech, and
they passed five of thera and failed with ten of them. That
was in 1889. They passed one-third. You would not think it,
gentlemen, — if you were landed proprietors, — you would not
think it a very satisfactorj' result if your factor announced to
you that he had been able to levy one-third of the rents, but as
to the other two-thirds he was able to give no account of thera.
And the same thing would, I think, follow in the case of the
shopkeeper with his bills, if one-third of his customers paid hira
aU right, and the other two -thirds were nowhere to be heard of.
In 1890 we did not mend that. There were ten Bills proraised
— I raean ten Bills of public interest, because there was an
eleventh Bill which I do not take into view — for iraproving the
barracks of the soldiers — an important BiU, but one which had
nothing to do with the general appetite of the nation for pro
gressive legislation — ten were promised in 1890. Two were
passed and eight failed, and the two that were passed were per
haps the least significant of all. One of thera related to the
winding up of corapanies — it was to facUitate the procedure in

1890] PUBLIC AFFAIBS 273
the winding up ; aud the other touched an important subject,
but I do not believe it was of a very vital character — it had to
do with the subject of workmen's dwellings ; but in all the great
subjects to which attention was widely directed — in every one
of them — the whole procedure of Parliament this year faUed,
and failed miserably — the Tithes, and the PubUcans' Corapen
sation, and Irish Land Purchase, one Bill after another went
rolling helter-skelter down the stairs of the House of Coraraons,
to be buried, perhaps never to rise again. Gentleraen, you have
all heard of a publication called the Edinburgh Beview. You
know what it was, and you look back with great respect upon
what it was. I do not know whether you know what it is, but
I think I raay describe it by saying that it gives support to the
present Government with a kind of heavy enthusiasra, if you can
bring together that substantive and that adjective — and they
had an article in July which I advise anybody to consult who
doubts anything of what I have said, and he will see that a
more beggarly account of empty dishes never was served up
than is distinctly recorded by the Edinburgh Beview, which, as
I have said, with a heavy enthusiasm, supports the Governraent,
and which announces at the end that the raajority of the
Government in the course of these years since the election has
been " slightly impaired."
Well, gentleraen, such is the case of the failure — the growing
failure — frora year to year of the present coercive system of
legislation in the House of Comraons, and of the efforts of the
Government to do your work. But it is all due, they say, to
obstruction. Now I have studied how to bring that question to
a test. It is very easy for raembers of the Government to go
about and say — every man of them says — it is their staple dish
— not only their staple dish, it is their whole bill of fare — they
serve up to audience after audience throughout the country this
terrible obstruction which has ruined all their good intentions,
and all their gallant and wise endeavours. Of course, it is just as
easy for us to go about the country and to say — if we were dis
posed to adopt that method — that this charge of obstruction is
an impudent imposture, that there is no foundation for it at all,

274 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
that it is a miserable device of men who resort to it because
every rag of every other pretext has been stripped frora off their
backs, and so, in the defect of any decent clothing in which to
present theraselves to the world, they have tried to concoct and
to weave together this pretended account of Parliaraentary
obstruction. Now, gentleraen, what I propose is this — to go from generali
ties to particulars. The way to see whether a charge of that
kind is just, or whether it is flagrantly unjust and untrue, is to
go to particulars. I rayself charged the Tory Opposition under
the late Government with obstruction. I will give you a speci
men. We proposed a plan of Closure of Debate which was never
intended — and we raade it known it was never intended — to be
used by the raajority against the rainority in the ordinary sense,
but was only intended to enable the House, when it was pos
sessed, irrespective of party, with a concurrent feeling to put a
stop to the occasional obstinacy, or, I raight alraost say, iraper
tinence — at any rate importunity — that is a better word — of
some particular raeraber not gifted with as rauch wisdom as
zeal. That proposal, which was so feeble that it never but once
was brought into operation, and then it was not worth putting
into operation — that proposal, on the pretext of respect for
liberty of debate, was opposed by the Tory party for nineteen
nights altogether. There is obstruction ! There are the masters
of it ! There are the professors of it ! If now they are charg
ing obstruction where it does not exist, their guilt is great, for
they perfectly know — they know- frora their own practical ex
perience — the raeaning of the word they use.
Now, gentleraen, let us look at the way in which the tirae has
been spent, and, as I tell you, I make ray appeal frora generali
ties to particulars. Down to the 28th of June — it is needless
to corae lower down than that, because after that time it was a
question of winding up the business in detail — but down to the
28th of June, no less than sixty-five nights of the session were
taken for Government business. I won't go through it — it
would be irapossible, and a great deal too wearisome for you if
J were to attempt to go through the whole of the eraployn;ient of

1890] PUBLIC AFFAIBS 275
these nights. I will only take four points, but they will quite
suffice to enable you to understand how the raatter lies. Seven
nights were spent by the Government upon a vote which they
introduced with respect to the report of the Parnell Coraraission.
Six nights were spent by the House of Coraraons upon the Land
Purchase Bill, in carrying it to a state at which the Committee
stage was attained. Four nights were in like manner spent
in carrying the Tithes Bill to a sirailar stage ; and ten nights
were spent upon the Bill for the Corapensation of Public-houses.
Now, gentlemen, just look at these four points, which, as you
will see, dispose of a large portion of the available time, and I
am quite certain that if it were possible — which it is not — to
bring these people who charge us with obstruction to book, those
are the subjects that they would put it upon, and therefore I
wish to raeet them on their own ground.
First, I take the Parnell Coraraission. Well, gentleraen, I
tell you here, as I have said in the House of Coraraons and
•elsewhere, that, in my opinion, the demand upon the House of
Coraraons to give that vote condemning the Irish Members for
speeches and acts which were done a good many years ago, was
•one of the worst, .raost dishonourable, raost disgraceful, and
raost offensive acts, when adopted by Parliaraent, as it was,
that has marked British history for two hundred years. I will
not attempt to argue the question in detail. It would keep nie
too long, but I will give you these two reasons. The first
reason is this, that these acts for which the Irish Merabers were
¦conderaned were acts done prior to the end of the year 1885,
.and that in the end of the year 1885 it was ray duty, standing
in this very place, to describe to you the close and intimate
alliance that had been forraed between the British Tories and
the Irish Nationalists. Every one of these acts had then been
done. That did not prevent the Irish Tories from joining hands
with the Nationalists to turn out the Liberals, and that, com
paratively, is a small affair. It did not prevent them from
holding out to the Irish Nationalists a virtual proraise of some
raeasure of Horae Eule. It did not prevent thera frora sending
Lord Carnarvon to Ireland, to have Mr Parnell to dine with

276 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
hira, and to hold conversations with hira that left on his raind
the irapression and belief that the Tories were going to give
thera Horae Eule. And, gentlemen, I do not blame the Irish
Nationalists. I never have blamed thera for entering into that
alliance. It was their duty, in the condition in which they
stood, to get assistance for Ireland wherever they could. And
so it would be now. If they could get a fuller justice for
Ireland by going to the Tories than by being with us, then I
should say that they would be right in getting it. That is their
suprerae duty until the capital wants of Ireland shall have been
supplied. But look at the Tories ; and what do you think of
the raen who enlisted these people as their allies for the
general election — who took the benefit of their votes in the
constituencies — who, in order to get that benefit, held out
to them what they believed to be the promise of a sub
stantial adoption of their wishes — and who now corae down
and place upon the pages of Parliaraentary journals a pretended
judicial condemnation of the previous acts of those Irish
Merabers ?
But, gentleraen, there is another point, — in which they were
still more guilty, if possible, — and it is this. The three Judges
who examined the conduct of the Irish j\lembers arrived at the
conclusion that in various points their language, if not their
acts, had been violent and dangerous, and such as could not be
approved. I cannot go into details. That, I think, is a fair
general description of it. They then said : " It is very possible'
that it raay be alleged that these excesses are excesses that
always happen in great national struggles, and it may also be
alleged in favour of the Irish Members, that the general upshot
and effect of their exertions has been to do infinitely raore good
than harra." The Judges stated these points with perfect fair
ness. They went on to say : " These things, whether they be
true or not, are no part of the raatter subraitted for our con
sideration." I am not going to enter upon the question whether
they were right or wrong in that matter ; but this I say — that
they fairly placed before us the considerations which were
necessary for a coraplete understanding of the case ; and what

1890] PUBLIC AFFAIBS 277
did the Government propose to Parliament to do ? The Judges
had said, " We deliver a condemnation " — limited it was to
certain subjects, but still a serious condemnation, and it was
not on the gravest raatters, but it was upon matters that were
of some gravity — " we propose a conderanation," said the Judges,
" founded upon one-half of the case, because that is the only
half referred to us." But what are you to say of a Parliament
which, dealing with the honour and character of its own merabers,
adopted that judgment upon one-half of the case, when it was
its solemn duty, if it were to give any judgment at all, to give
its sense upon the whole case ? Parliament was not restrained
from considering as legislators what the Judges were restrained
frora considering, because they were only invested with a narrow
and liraited coraraission ; but Parliaraent deliberately overlooked
and set aside that consideration, and, refusing to look at the
conduct of the Irish Merabers as a whole in fighting a difficult
and so long apparently desperate battle of their nation, they
condemned them for the things that could be said against thera,
without choosing to hear or to weigh what was to be said in
their favour. Well, seven nights were occupied in getting quit
of that subject in the House of Coramons, and I ask you whether
that was too long for us to occupy in the endeavour to bring out
to the sense of men, whose minds were apparently obtuse and
irapenetrable, what we thought elementary considerations of the
most sacred character — necessary to the peace and decency of
human life between man and raan — necessary, above all, to the
duty and to the dignity of a great legislative asserably.
Now, the next great obstruction was this — six days were
spent upon Land Purchase. Now, gentleraen, the Act for Land
Purchase — the raerits of which I ara not going now to discuss —
was one of the most complex raeasures ever subraitted to Par
liament In six days of discussion, it went through its first
reading, it went through its second reading, it got rid of all
the preliminaries to the Coraraittee, and there was nothing
for Parliament to do but to proceed to details. Well,
gentlemen, I can only tell you that I do not think I have ever
known, in all my experience in controversial matters, a com-

278 ¦ ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [oct. 27
plicated raeasure of that kind which has attained the Committee
stage in anything like so short a period ; and so far from its being
a case where obstruction was practised, the only question that
can be raised is whether the Opposition did their full duty in
allowing such a raeasure, involving, among other things, a per
manent abstraction of thirty-three mUlions of your raoney, for
a, purpose which at the election you had conderaned — whether
we were right in allowing it to go forward at such a rapid rate.
FouT nights were spent upon the Tithes Bill — not a Bill
probably exciting great interest in Scotland, but one of large
importance in England — but in the sarae way, gentleraen, I say,
and every one who has Parliamentary experience will support
me, that with regard to this Bill, far less complex than the
Irish Land Bill, but still a very difficult Bill, and with sorae
very disputable propositions of great delicacy and importance —
to carry it through all the introductory stages, through the
second reading, and to get the Speaker out of the chair — that
is, to be ready virtually to begin the details in Committee — that
was not only not a case of obstruction — it was a case of ex
tremely rapid progress.
Well, then, I corae to tlie Public House Corapensation Bill.
Ah ! gentleraen, I wish I were fresh, and that you were fresh,
that I might go into a raore extended consideration of that
subject I cannot do it, and you could not be expected to
listen to-day to what I could say upon that BiU. But what
happened to that Bill ? They charge that there were ten days
spent upon it. Well, gentleraen, I say that they were ten days
well spent. And now let rae ask you just to consider that the
tirae taken upon a Bill depends partly on its complexity,
and partly on the gravity of the issues which it raises. Now
this Bill was introduced in the raost iraproper raanner. It was
of enorraous iraportance. There was no doubt that it ought to
have been announced in the speech frora the Throne Instead
of that, to the absolute surprise of everybody, and when the
House of Coraraons was already crowded and crararaed with
Governraent measures jostling one another, this wretched Bill
was produced, and the other measures were thrust out of the

1890] PUBLIC AFFAIBS 279
way, and in fact a confusion and disorder of business was estab
lished by the agency of the Government itself, taking one of
their Bills to-day, and another of their Bills to-morrow, and
another Bill the day after, such as I have never witnessed.
But the issues in this Bill were most iraportant. We are all
agreed that the drink question is one of the greatest questions
of the day. About that there is no doubt at all. We are all
agreed that it requires public action— executive action, and
legislative action — both, in my opinion. What said the
Government, and what said we ? Why, both of us raade
undoubtedly the boldest challenges to one another. The
Governraent said, "Here is this treraendous subject, which
nobody has been able effectually to touch. We will now
produce to you a plan which is so admirable, so powerful, and
yet so gentle, that it will conciliate all interests, and that it
will mitigate and finally remove all evils. It is just to the
brewers, it is just to the publicans, it will reduce the number
of public-houses, and reduce the amount of drunkenness in the
country." These are very broad and great allegations. And
what did we say on the other side ? " Why," we said on the other
side, " this is not a raoderate reforra, as you call it, of the public
house systera. It is a great aggravation of existing evils. That
which constitutes the essential difficulty in our public house
system is the enormous value of the pecuniary investments that
face you at every turn when you approach it. You, by this
Bill, are giving legislative sanction to that value in its raost
extravagant form. If you pass this Bill, the value, which is
called the good-will, of the public-houses in England will amount
to £200,000,000. Scotland and Ireland raight possibly add
£50,000,000 or £100,000,000 raore. I do not know. And you
bring this forward under the narae of a reforra ; but, in point of
fact, it is a Bill to make all reforra hopeless and irapossible."
I am not, gentlemen, giving you these brief and summary state
ments as if they embraced the whole arguraent of the case, but
I want you to see how vast a case it was, and how absurd it is
to coraplain that ten days of the tirae of the House of Comraons
were spent in bringing so vast and impori^ant a subject to an

280 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
issue. And how did it corae to its issue ? It came to its issue,
gentleraen, I hope partly by our loyal endeavours to show up
the raischief of the scherae. But it carae to its issue mainly by
this, that the Governraent found the ground giving way under
their feet. They found their raajority diminishing day by day.
They found that it was doubtful whether they might not corae
to absolute defeat. They knew that absolute defeat on the
subject would raise the question of resignation as well as defeat,
and therefore they withdrew their Bill in tirae'. It was not
our arguments that defeated the Bill. Our arguments raay have
exposed, and I trust did expose, the Bill, but it was not our
arguraents that defeated the Bill. The motive that defeated
the Bill was the fear of want of votes. A long experience
enables me to assure you that no arguraent — not if it were knit
as closely as by Euclid or by Newton — is of the sraallest effect
in procuring the defeat of a Bill in the present House of
Coraraons, provided the votes hold together. But the votes did
not hold together. They went down frora 80 or 90, which they
then were — they went down gradually dwindling and tapering
like a beautiful spire. They went down from 80 or 90 to 40 or 30,
and from that to 20 or 10, and once, I believe, carae fearfully near
to zero itself, when the nuraber 4 was all that could be recorded.
That was a tirae to consider the raatter seriously. So the brewers
and the teraperance interest and everything else went to the wall.
The Bill disappeared, and the charge of obstruction was foisted
by the Governraent on the country to conceal the abortive
design and the disastrous and deplorable failure of the Govern
ment Gentlemen, I rejoice in having taken part in the defeat
of that Bill. I assure you most sincerely — though I don't say
it was ill intended — I have raade no offensive accusations with
regard to the raotives — I ara ready to believe alraost anything
they tell rae of their raotives, and therefore I believe that they
did honestly intend it for the proraotion of teraperance, — but I
say this, that it gave to the raain obstacle in our way such a
portentous power as to raake it wholly insurraountable, and to
reduce alraost to despair, if that Bill had passed, any and every
teraperance reforra. Now, gentleraen, I think I have said

iSgo] PUBLIC AFFAIBS 281
enough on the subject of obstruction as it was when our little
shadowy proposal was met with nineteen nights of opposition,
and as it has been in the year 1890, when the Bills that I have
spoken of — the failures of the Government — have been before
Parliaraent, and all of them have had this kind of funeral pall
cast over them to hide their ugly features, and present to the
world something or other that would serve as an excuse for
what has happened.
Gentleraen, before I close I raust venture to say sorae words
to you, which will not, I hope, be long, on the subject of the
foreign policy of the country. I have not opened my mouth on
that subject in Midlothian as yet, and I need not detain you
long, for you know the principle upon which we have proceeded.
We have carefully avoided throwing any obstacle in the way of
the -Foreign Minister when difficulty appeared to be gathering
round him, and we have been resolved to throw no such obstacles
until we see distinct and positive grounds for objecting to what
he was about.
There is one subject, gentlemen, upon which I do seriously
object to his proceedings, and which I raust briefiy raention —
it is connected with the Island of Malta. Now, the Foreign
Minister sent for the first tirae in our history during 200 years
— the first tirae in our history since the Revolution — he sent
an accredited Minister to the Pope — I will not say to the Court
of Rorae, because it is very doubtful in what sense there is a Court
of Rorae. A Court of Eorae implies a temporal power. There is
no temporal power. The Pope has no more temporal power at this
raoraent than the Moderator of the General Asserably. He cer
tainly has spiritual rule over vastly raore subjects, but you will
understand that it is rather a staggering affair to send a Minister
to one who is not a sovereign. It is said that a Minister
has gone before. But, gentleraen, nobody has ever been
accredited before. It is quite true that there have been
agents— agents who were sent to convey and to receive infor
raation — but that was at a tirae when the Pope was a teraporal
sovereign, and when the only question to be considered was one
¦of a rauch narrower character. However, in this case what

232 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
appears was this — I ara not afraid that the Protestant character
of the country will be interfered with, because it is not in the
power of any Minister dabbling in raatters of this kind — even if
he coraraits any follies — it is not in his power to modify that
character. In point of fact, he would very soon find out the
necessity of retracing his steps if he did attempt it. But,
gentleraen, what does appear is this — in the first place, that
through those raost unwise negotiations ^ between Sir Lintorn
Siraraons, under the authority of Lord Salisbury and the Pope,
the civil privileges in Malta, even of Protestants, if they con
tracted what were called raixed raarriages, were brought into
the utraost danger — that is to say, the highest danger of all — the
danger of a pronounced invalidity of their raarriage. The noise,
the uproar, that immediately arose from a vivid dissatisfaction,
I think, showed the Governraent that the sooner they gave up
that part of their project the better. Well, I do not speak of
the matter now as if we had it fiilly before us, because we have
not ; but I think there are these three things to be considered.
In the first place, I do not like to send the Arabassador of the
Crown — of the Queen — to negotiate abroad with any personage
whatever about the rights of British subjects in the British
dorainion. It seeras to rae that that is to assume an unworthy
attitude, and one that will not be approved by the people of this
country. My second point is, that such proceedings are very
dangerous to the civil rights of our Boman Catholic fellow-
subjects, because arrangements are made behind their backs
between the Pope in Bome and this British agent. They are
not consulted. They find the faith of the country pledged, and
there is no security for the raaintenance of their civil rights.
Thirdly, I must say that, although I know that many, other
Powers send ambassadors to the Pope, yet I think the view iu
England has always been that arabassadors are for temporal
sovereigns, and for nobody else, and that to send an ambassador
to the Pope comes dangerously near to supporting the claira
which the Pope — I think very unfortunately for his own
interests — the claira which he raakes that some part of Italy
1 See p. 214.

1890] PUBLIC AFFAIBS 283
shall be again placed under clerical dominion, in order that he
raay not only be a spiritual, but a temporal sovereign. Any
thing of that kind wounds the feelings of Italy, and disturbs our
relations with Italy — and disturbs thera for a cause not only
insufficient, but also, I think; unjust. Now, gentleraen, I
mention that to you as a question you ought to watch. We
shall have to hear more of it. We are not yet fully informed.
You ought to watch it, and be a little on your guard against
proceedings which, in my opinion, have been in the highest
degree indiscreet.
Now I will raove on raore rapidly. With regard to the
question that was a good deal discussed, of the arrangeraent in
South Africa,! my belief is that, considered as a whole, it does
credit to Lord Salisbury. I do not say that critics may not
pick holes in it. I do not say that everything in it is
satisfactory, or that it will of necessity work satisfactorily ; but
I say that, upon the whole, I believe he did the best that the
circurastances of the case permitted. Well, there are two
subjects, both of thera standing difficulties — one of thera is the
Newfoundland fisheries, and the other is the military occupa
tion of Egypt. We have carefully abstained frora saying a
single word that could create difficulties for him either in the
one or the other, and so, gentleraen, you raay depend upon it —
so we shall continue to act. It is irapossible, unfortunately,
when you have touched foreign policy, to pass away frora it
without looking to the east of Europe.
And here I ara not going to blarae the Governraent, but I ara
going to speak sorae words of ¦ regret and dissatisfaction with
regard to what we hear of things passing in the Erapire of
Russia : I ara convinced that some part of what is going on in
that erapire would be abhorrent to the feelings of all its best
.subjects — of all such men as the Eussian Ambassador in
England, of all such men as the Russian Foreign Minister in
St Petersburg, and of all such raen as the Eraperor of Russia
himself. But I am grieved to say that the accounts we receive
^ Arising out of the seizure of the Delagoa Bay Eailway by the Portu
guese Government on June 28th, .1889.

284 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
of the civil oppression that is now apparently being practised
upon the Jews, and the accounts we receive, even of personal
and corporal cruelty in certain cases, inflicted upon thera, are
to the last degree painful and repulsive. I earnestly hope that
we raay be of use in bringing sorae knowledge of these
questions to the authorities in Eussia — for reraeraber, gentle
raen, that perhaps the capital raerit among all the merits of
free government is that it ensures publicity, whereas the
greatest of all the disadvantages of despotism is that it is
almost essentially and inseparably allied with secrecy, and that
the ruler seldom knows of the abuses that are going on under
his official sanction. I do trust that we raay be favoured with
better accounts frora that quarter in raatters with respect to
which we have a strong sentiraent; for although, gentleraen, you
have not raany Jews resident in Scotland, yet you have sorae.
One of that race at the present moraent excites your warmest
and liveliest sympathy.^ In England we know thera well, and
I ara bound in truth and frankness to say that we have every
reason to esteem them highly. Well, now, there is another
great political question in Bussia. You have heard of Finland.
Finland is a State, small coraparatively with Bussia, but
Finland has long enjoyed — ever since it was attached to Bussia,
it has enjoyed — what raay be called a legislative independence
— not in all things corresponding with the Home Rule we ask
for Ireland — but still it has been a systera of great freedora,
great liberty, which has given coraplete satisfaction in Finland,
and has raade Finland raost loyally attached to Bussia. A
powerful party in that country, whora I consider to be the first
cousins of the Tories and Dissentients in this country — a
powerful party in that country is endeavouring to put down the
independence of Finland, and to cause Finland to be governed
frora St Petersburg, just as Ireland is governed frora London.
Gentlemen, I heartily wish ill to all such scheraes.
But there is a sorer subject still, and that is the state of
Turkey. The state of Turkey, I fear, with regard to what
reraains of Turkey in Europe, and with regard to parts, at
^ The Countess of Bosebery was very ill at Dalmeny.

1890] PUBLIC AFFAIRS 285
least, of Turkey in Asia, and especially to Armenia, seems to
grow more and more hopeless. We are not perfectly informed
as to details. I am not going to censure Lord Salisbury,
because I can well conceive that his power in this matter is
much behind his will. We are not going to censure them, but
there cannot be a doubt that the Government of Armenia, the
governraent of our fellow- Christians in Arraenia — and, if they are
not fellow-Christians, they are our fellow-raen, which would be
just the sarae — the Government of Armenia is raarked with
oppression, with plunder, with violation of woraen, with reckless
disregard of life as well as of liberty, and is raore and raore
seaUng what will at sorae time perhaps be recognised to be the
doom of what was once the great and powerful Turkish Empire.
I turn for a moment, gentlemen, from that melancholy spectacle,
with respect to which it raay becorae our duty to stiraulate the
Government, if we can, to greater activity — I turn frora that to
a spectacle of a very different kind — the spectacle of Bulgaria
— of a country once ^ exhibiting to Europe the raost horrible
specimen of what cruelty and reckless inhuraanity can
accoraplish against a people. Now, there is a joyful and
complete reversal of all those painful features. I have in my
hand a letter from a most intelligent friend, who gives rae in a
few words — that is, I will only give you a few words of the
account which he gives me of the present state of Bulgaria —
corapletely realising all the anticipations that we ventured to
hold out at the tirae when we were told that it was a raonstrous
offence against the balance of power to speak a word for
Bulgaria, and that it was useless to speak of self-government in
that country, for they were totaUy incapable of raanaging their
own affairs. Now, here is the opinion of a gentleman — I do
uot know that I am justified in giving his narae, but I assure
you he is one of the most intelligent, and trustworthy, and
assiduous men that I know, and what he says of the present
state of Bulgaria is this : " Law and order are maintained all
over the country without the slightest difficulty. Brigandage
has entirely ceased. Justice is administered with perfect
I 1876.

286 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 27
fairness" — carry in your raind, as I read out these incidents,
what is going on in Ireland — "justice is adrainistered with
perfect fairness. Beads have been raade or improved in all
directions. Education is free and corapulsory; schools have
been opened in every coramune ; technical schools and a
university have been established, while a large nuraber of
bursars are maintained at foreign universities." Then he goes
on to say, gentlemen, that economy is observed, that the debt
of Bulgaria is but three raillions sterling, and that the whole
of that three raillions has been expended in the construction of
railroads, and he closes with — ^wliat we could never get one of
the Jingoes to believe- — namely, that if they were afraid of the
power of Eussia, they were defeating their own purpose, for the
true barrier between Eussia and Turkey was a living barrier of
free raen, and no other barrier could be erected ; and my friend
writes and says, " It will be difficult for the Bussians to advance
through Bulgaria to Constantinople without the consent of its
people. The Turks are already beginning to recognise that it
forms a buffer between them and Bussia." There, gentlemen, is
a picture for you of what Home Eule can achieve araong a
people who had lived for four centuries at least under an
unraitigated oppression, who were considered totally incora
petent for the raanageraent of their own affairs, and for
interfering in whose raatters we were treated as soraething
worse than busybodies, for we were — sorae of us-^denounced
as neither raore nor less than Bussian agents and Bussian
spies. Ah ! gentleraen, there I close. I ask you to go with me at
one step frora Bulgaria to Ireland. Not in Bulgaria alone, but
all over Europe, you may see in a multitude of spots the blessed
effects of investing human beings with a reasonable control
over the governraent of their own destinies, and over the
settleraent of their own affairs ; as, on the other hand, you raay
see cases of rupture, of dissension, and of difficulty that have
arisen where that wise course has been obstructed, and the
method of force has been pursued. Let us, gentlemen, lay that
lesson to heart What is good for huraan nature in the East is

1 890] PUBLIC AFFAIBS 287
good for it in the West. What is good for the foreigner long
degraded is good for our fellow-subjects, who have already
fought and won a large portion of their battle. Go on to the
consummation of the good and, I will say, the sacred work, and
proceed upon that principle — sanctioned alike by feeling and by
prudence — that the true way to secure the foundations of law
and order in the country is to make the people that inhabit it
conversant with them through the medium of a just, an equitable,
and a kindly administration, and through the experience of the
inestimable blessings which they are calculated and enabled to
convey.

FREE TRADE AND THE
M'KINLEY TARIFF
Dundee, October 29, 1890
Mr Gladstone was presented with the freedom of the city of Dundee and
afterwards formally opened a Fine Art Exhibition in the Victoria Art Gallery.
My Lord Provost, Bailies, and Town Councillors, my Lords,
Ladies and Gentleraen, — I address you, trusting to your
patience in listening to any words that raay proceed from your
youngest burgess. Though I am a very young burgess in
Dundee, I am a tolerably old burgess of sorae other places. I
am not sure whether there are any older in Scotland at this
raoraent, but we are now in the year 1890, and I can asseverate
to you that I was raade a burgess of the ancient and royal
burgh of Dingwall in 1820, or I believe in 1819. I have never
failed, I believe, in ray duties as a burgess of the royal burgh
of Dingwall, and I trust, sir, that I shall not fail in whatever
duties raay attach to me as a burgess of the great city of
Dundee. It is to me, as you have justly anticipated, a very
great satisfaction and a very great honour to have my name
added to a roll upon which we find the names of so many
distinguished and even illustrious persons. But, sir, it is, if
not a greater honour — I frankly own in the presence of this
assemblage — it is a still greater satisfaction and pleasure and
raatter of interest to rae, that I ara added to a roll whereon
stand the names of ancestors of raine, both near and reraote.
My father, whose narae is ever dear and venerated to rae, was
one of your burgesses in the eighteenth century ; and others of
ray narae and of my blood appear on that roll as early as in the
fifteenth, or, I think, in the fourteenth century of our era.
And, sir, you have said that I ara not slow to claira the name
288

1890] FEEE TBADE AND M'KINLEY TABIFF 289
of a Scotsman, and, undoubtedly, even if I were slow to claim
it, there is the fact staring rae in the face that not a drop of
blood runs in my veins except what is derived from a Scottish
ancestry. Now, sir, I rejoice to meet you in the Kinnaird
Hall, for there again I am encountered by the pleasing and
delightful association which the name suggests. I enjoyed for,
I think, frora forty to fifty years the friendship of the late
Lord Kinnaird. His narae has a very high place in ray esteera
and affection, and I rejoice also that I raeet you in a place
dedicated to all raanner of useful purposes ; for that rerainds rae
that, though ray character as a politician is one very dear to
me, and although I think that in that respect there is a pretty
close sympathy between myself and a considerable portion of
the inhabitants of Dundee, I am here to forget everything that
relates to sectional politics. I meet you siraply as a burgess
and as a citizen, to consider, if I do venture to consider, raatters
that are of coramon interest, in a hall which, as I understand,
is usefully and nobly dedicated to every beneficial public
purpose. Well, sir, on coming to Dundee, I cannot but be
struck with the fact that since the time when I first knew it,
which was in the year 1837, it has been, I raay say, not only
an enlarged, not only an improved, but a reconstructed city. I
have travelled to-day through your noble streets, and I have
seen — already seen — a large portion of your vast population,
and I naturally think of the interests which have been reared
up, by means of which Dundee is now great, and will in future,
as I trust, be greater still, and ray mind turns spontaneously
towards a subject which is one of comraon view, coramon
judgraent, coraraon feeling to us, naraely, the state of your
coraraerce, the dangers with which sorae have supposed that
coraraerce recently to have been threatened, and the character
of the estimate which as rational raen you ought to forra as to
your probable future.
It is a subject of great interest in connection with the name
— I will not say a good narae — I will not say a well-oraened
name — I will not say a highly acceptable name, but at any rate
a narae sufficiently familiar to you — namely, that of a gentleman

290 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 29
who bears the designation of M'Kinley, and of that tariff ^ by
association with which, as I understand, he is most likely to
gain, if he does gain it at all, a title to imraortality. Now,
gentleraen, this is a very great subject. I hope you will uot
think I ara now raaking victims of you, by discharging upon
you the relics and the leavings of matter which I ought to have
placed before ray constituents. No ; I did think — I may have
been wrong, but I did think — there was no place in which this
subject would have greater interest than in the city of Dundee.
Not only your position as a great comraercial and manufacturing
centre, but your traffic with the United States of America itself,
makes it, I think, appropriate here to consider what is the
nature of these proceedings in Araerica about which we have
heard so ranch. Whether it is good, or whether it is bad, will
not require very long to discuss ; what araount of evil it is
likely to do to us, and what araount of evil it is likely to do to
the people of the United States theraselves, is a subject which
it is irapossible not to deera worthy of sorae reraark. Now,
sir, I stand here in the land where Adara Sraith was born, the
parent and patriarch of political econoray — the raan who first
taught us that in our intercourse with other nations, as well as
araong ourselves, it was better to have our hands free than to
have our hands and arras in raanacles — who taught the great
doctrines of Free Trade, and who has irabued the world with
these doctrines. This is the land of Adara Smith ; England is
the land of Pitt, of Sir Eobert Peel, and of Cobden. These great
teachers, whose names are enshrined in my raind with a
veneration which I think is due to the benefactors of raankind.
But, ray Lord Provost, I ara not about to bring a railing
accusation against the people of the United States — first of aU,
because I have received from that people greater kindness than
I have frora any nation, except my own, on the face of the
earth ; and, secondly, because I believe that it would be very
bad policy indeed in us to exaggerate our own share in the
operation of this M'Kinley tariff — believing, as I do, that
Protection, although it may inflict incidentally and collaterally
^ The Tariff Act had been passed on the preceding October 1st.

1890] FEEE TRADE AND M'KINLEY TARIFF 291
blows upon the countries that are in connection with the
protected country, yet does by far the greatest share of the
mischief to the country in which it is adopted, and whose
people it plunders and defrauds. I am not going, therefore, to
treat you to the commonplaces of Free Trade. It is unneces
sary ; but I am going just to look for a few raoraents at the
facts of a case of this kind.
My Lord Provost, I am greatly struck, even this very day, in
considering the history of the American and of the British tariff.
Fifty years ago we had 1200 articles upon our coraraercial tariff,
which we have picked to pieces and got quit of — at least we have
reduced them to about the number of twelve, on which we levy
duties, strictly to meet our fiscal necessities. But America, the
laud of progress, has been pursuing exactly an opposite process.
I had the opportunity of exaraining — through the kindness of
ray excellent friend, and your excellent representative, Mr Leng,
and the courtesy of the Consul of the United States in Dundee
— of examining the tariff of the United States as it stood in
1874. At that tirae Araerica had begun, and had raade very
considerable progress in, the work of building up a protective
system. But now she is greatly raore advanced. However, in
this tariff of 1874 I find, by a trustworthy table register, that
the taxed articles — the numbers of items — in the Anierican
tariff at that date was exactly 1492. They beat us, j'ou observe,
gentleraen. Our antiquated tariff, which we had destroyed — a
volurainous tariff, which we have reduced to less than one side
of one single leaf of paper — has gone, but that principle of
voluminous tariff" has had its revenge in Araerica, where already
in 1874 there were 1492 articles, or, as I wish to be liberal, I
will use round nurabers, and say 1500 articles. Well, theU)
gentleraen, the kindness of another friend has supplied rae with
a copy of this wonderful M'Kinley tariff. Naturally I was
anxious to make a slight effort to acquire a certain amount of
knowledge of it, and it is so formidable an affair that I would
recommend the institution of Chairs in the American Universi
ties, and the appointment of professors, and the gathering of
classes who should be students of the tariff, and the erecting a

292 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 29
knowledge of it into one of the new sciences. I have been
very unsuccessful, gentlemen, in my own efforts, and I will
give you the cause. I have stumbled and broken down at the
very first article. The very first article on which I hit — it is
number 105 — begins with flint and lime, and then enuraerates
a nuraber of other things; and I did think, when I carae to flint
and lime, that surely these were pretty innocent articles. The
introduction of free flint and lime cannot greatly injure
Araerican manufacture or displace Anierican labour. The flint
will not raake raen's hearts harder, and the lime will not blow
them up. Nevertheless, when I got to the end of the sentence,
I found that flint and lime, with glassware and some other
things, were taxed 60 per cent " ad valorem." Well, gentlemen,
I really raust frankly say that, with the ascertainraent of that
fact, niy study of the M'Kinley tariff carae to an end. I could
not go any further.
Let us endeavour to look at the facts of the case. We
have araong us a national opinion in favour of Free Trade,
yet there are a certain nuraber of people who believe that the
injurious effects of Protection are chiefly felt by the countries
which deal with the protected country. Let us look at the
countries that practise Protection. The argument is that
Protection fosters their trade. Now, that I believe to be
fundaraentally a raistake. I do not raean to say there are no
injurious effects to other countries. There is a deal of displace
ment and disturbance — what we raay call demoralisation of
trade — and a great deal of inconvenience felt by individuals
and even by classes. But, taking a larger view, it is not true
that the tariff of any country on earth can interfere seriously with
the prosperity of Great Britain or the United Kingdora. And
why ? If you will simply follow me, in a few words you will see,
I think, how it is that this operates. Let us suppose that there
are twenty great markets in the world, and that these, for the
sake of arguraent, are all the raarkets in the world, and that in
one of these raarkets a stringent Protection law — such as the
M'Kinley tariff — is passed. No doubt the first effect is to
injure us in that raarket, and to restrict our dealings : but then

1890] FREE TRADE AND M'KINLEY TABIFF 293
what is the larger and wider effect ? The larger and wider
effect is to increase, to raise the standard of prices in the United
States of Araerica. Baising the standard of prices at horae
raeans a dirainished power of exportation. That diminished
power of exportation raeans, that while we are damnified in that
one of our twenty markets, we derive benefit in the other
nineteen from the diminished power of the United States to
compete with us in any of thera — a dirainished power due to
the augraentation of prices and to the iraposition of restraints
under which she has to work. And so, even if we go round
the world, it still reraains that each country that gives greater
stringency to Protection within its own borders is thereby —
though daraaging us within its own raarket — is thereby giving
us a freer and a broader field, and a raore coraraanding power
in every one of the other nineteen raarkets. The consequence
of this is that it is not possible for us to receive vital or
profound injury frora any of these operations abroad. Do you
see the alarra that prevails in France, the alarra tbat prevails in
Gerraany ? — they threaten retaliation against the M'Kinley
tariff. Gentleraen, do not let us be led for one nioraent, upon
any consideration, into the suicidal folly of talking or of
drearaing of retaUation. Our trade has been hit again and
again, as far as it is in the power of any one to hit it, by the
reaction towards Protection which has raarked the legislation of
sorae countries during the last ten or fifteen years. Gentleraen,
we do not deal with this country or with that country. We
deal with raankind, — nothing raore and nothing less than with
mankind. We laraent what we think the error of those who
go on raising the prices against theraselves — giving encourage
ment to sections of their own countryraen to bad and wasteful
production, instead of careful and cheap production, preferring
sorae selected portion of the capitalists of the country to the
broad general interests of the entire people of tbe land. We
lament, we grieve over it, but do not let us retaliate. Eely
upon it, there is energy, there is skill, there is capital, there are
plenty of raeans and resources for this great coraraercial country
to hold and keep its place, perhaps to an indefinite time, in the
great markets of the world.

294 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 29
Now, why do I say that we ought not to think of
retaliation ? There is soraething very plausible in the idea
of retaliating for what some people call a wrong. I will
not enter into the question whether it is a wrong or not,
because I think every country is competent to enact whatever
it pleases — whether it be wise or whether it be unwise — in the
raatter of coraraercial legislation. It is called soraetiraes a war
of tariffs, and I think that is not at all an unjust description.
Shall we enter into that war ? I think not, gentleraen. The
favourite proposition is what is called an Imperial ZoUverein —
that is to say, that the whole of the British Erapire shall have
a coraraon tariff — I doubt very rauch if the whole of the British
Erapire would consent to it — but that is another matter- — shall
have one common tariff in favour of all the subjects of the
Queen, and as against all foreign countries whatsoever. Now,
there are a thousand objections, I think. This objection strikes
one at first that it would be very hard indeed upon those
countries which pursue with us a system of free and open trade
to inflict punishraent upon thera because a particular country —
though a very great country, and though a country raost closely
united to us in feeling and interest — has adopted a re.stricti\e
systera of commerce. But I do not stand upon that I wish to
point out how the case really comes before us. The effect of
an Iraperial ZoUverein would be undoubtedly to sorae extent
to enlarge our commerce with our Colonies and Dependencies,
but then it would also infallibly be to contract our commerce
with the rest of the world. Now, which of these two is the
raore important ? They are both of them vast ; they are both
of them of enormous consequence, and I adrait — and I am
very glad to think — that our comraerce with India and the
Colonies increases rather the faster of the two. But look at the
amount, because, in the long run, the araount of a trade is a
pretty good criterion of its value. The araount of our Colonial
— our Iraperial — coraraerce is 187 millions in the year, takiD<T
all imports and exports of all descriptions of goods together.
But the amount of our foreign commerce is 554 raillions in the
year. Now, gentlemen, I think you will recognise at once that

1890] FEEE TRADE AND M'KINLEY TABIFF 295
it would indeed be a doubtful, or rather not at all a doubt
ful policy — a great deal worse than a doubtful policy —
a most injurious policy — to clog the action of British
energy and enterprise on the market of 554 millions in
the year even for the purpose of enlarging that action in the
raarket of one-third portion of that araount
Well, gentleraen, let us look — it is a question, I think, of very
great interest — let us look at the effect of Protection on the
markets of the United States itself. I now hold in my hand a
letter — an extremely intelligent letter — of a purely practical kind,
not relative to Dundee business, but relative to the business of the
town of Bradford, and it may be well to quote from it, because the
town of Bradford has business which will probably be more affected
by the M'Kinley tariff than any of the other great centres of
industry in this country. Now, one thing that the writer of
this letter points out — showing the poisonous and venoraous
character of the enactment— he points out the unjust and
disproportionate pressure of the protective systera upon the
lower classes of the coraraunity who use the coarser fabrics.
He tells us that upon the higher worsteds which go frora
Bradford — or sorae of thera — the rate of protection in Araerica
will be about 70 per cent.; and that on the lower classes of
similar goods used by the poorer portion of the population the
rate will be 120 per cent. Is not that a monstrous injustice to
the mass of the population? We should say so in Great
Britain. I know not whether it can be otherwise in America.
But what is the next effect ? And this, I think, is a very
interesting observation. The writer of this letter holds that a
manufacture raises its character in proportion as you can direct
it towards the finer classes of goods. The finer classes of
goods allow of the pursuit of beauty and of the cultivation of
taste ill a degree greater than the coarser classes of goods. But
if the coarser classes of goods in Araerica are protected at 120
per cent, while the finer are protected only at 70 per cent, it
follows that the Araerican manufacturer will, of 'course, direct
his attention to the coarser classes of goods. And, as the writer
of this letter argues — and I for one do not know the answer to

296 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 29
the argument— the effect of that is that you degrade and
depress the character of Araerican raanufactures. That is the
effect in America. But what is the effect in Great Britain ?— the
exact reverse. Americans raust get paid for their exports. We
want their coraraodities, we want their corn, we want their
cheese, we want their oil, and I know not how many things
that they produce. They send us these goods ; they wish to
send thera, and they will send thera, and they must be paid for
thera. And they raust take payment either in British manu
factures or in foreign and colonial raanufactures, which we have
bought in other countries by exporting our goods. But they
must, and they do, take payraent largely in British raanufactures.
Therefore what wiU be the effect of this M'Kinley tariff in
England ? The effect of it will be to direct the attention of the
British raanufacturer towards the production of the finer classes
of goods, because these bear the least intolerable protective rate
in Araerica. And consequently the effect will be to elevate
and improve the taste of our raanufacturers, as well as to spur
and stimulate their ingenuity, by directing them to the
necessity of the most economical production. Gentlemen, that
is a very interesting arguraent of the writer of this letter, in
respect to the iraraediate effect of this M'Kinley tariff.
But I want to apply another test, to show how ill judged are
the arguments of those in this country who think that we have
so very much to fear from the restrictive coraraercial systeras of
foreign countries. Gentleraen, I have referred to the statistical
docuraents which exhibit to us the course of trade in this
country. I showed you that even in 1874 Araerica taxed 1500
articles. Now, is it the fact that since 1874 our trade with
America — though Araerica has gone on tightening and tighten
ing her protective systera — is it the fact that she has diminished
our trade ? Quite otherwise. I will give you the figures in
the shortest possible form, dating frora the period I have
named, and taking first tbe year 1875. The five years from
1875 to 1879 gives us an average export to Araerica of British
manufactures araounting to 21^ raillions sterling. Then I take
the last five years — 1885 to 1889 — and those give us an

1890] FEEE TBADE AND M'KINLEY TABIFF 297
average export of 33 millions sterling, or an augmentation of
65 per cent., while the total foreign trade of the country in that
period has only augmented 12 per cent There is a raagnificent
passage in a speech of Mr Burke, when he was narrating horrors
that had taken place through the folly and tyranny of rulers in
India, where he described the history of a particular district as
the history of a prolonged and obstinate contest between the
folly of raan — the wickedness of man — and the bounty of
Providence to uphold and to redeera. I wUl not talk of folly
and wickedness with regard to this great and friendly people.
Yet we cannot help thinking that we know that either they are
right and we are wrong, or we are right and they are wrong ; and
as we believe that we are right, we must believe that they are
wrong. And it is a great corafort to us to see that, even
although we raay think thera very wrong, yet there are causes
at work which are stronger than the will, the fancy, the caprice,
or the selfishness of raan, or than huraan error in any of its
forras, which are continually opening raore and raore the gates
of friendly intercourse, and raultiplying and enlarging the
benefits which coraraerce confers, both raorally and economically,
on the nations engaged in it.
Only one word more, my Lord Provost and Gentleraen, lest
you should think your youngest burgess is given to be rather
garrulous, and is guilty of the charge soraetiraes raade against
those who have attained a certain period of life — and therefore
I will only give you one word raore as to what has happened.
I have shown you how, under Protection — and in defiance of
Protection — trade between the United Kingdora and the United
States of Araerica has been rapidly and greatly increasing. How
is this in Dundee ? Has Dundee suffered from the protective
system ? It raay have suffered in this, that if there had been
a free systera the extension of the business of Dundee would
have been greater stiU. But the exten,sion of the business of
Dundee itself, even under the protective systera, is a great
extension. I find that in the very last year — and there can be
no doubt about the authority of the stateraent — I believe it
has corae frora no less high authority than the respected Consul

298 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 29
of the United States in this city — I find in the very last year
there was an increase in the value of British exports from
Dundee to the United States amounting to £133,000, or about
7 per cent. ; and if I take the two last years and corapare them
with what carae before, there is an increase in value from
Dundee alone of £385,000 in value, or about 25 per cent
Well, gentlemen, my object has been, not by making a plausible
case, but by going if I can a little to the heart of the raatter, to
dispel, so far as you who hear rae, or so far as any who raay
read me, are concerned, the vain apprehension that we are to
receive substantial or general daraage frora any of these proceed
ings, be they what they may. Any injury that is done to us
will be coraparatively sraall, and will be but the minutest
fraction of that which is done by the protecting country to its
own Population. That word Protection is a miserable misnoraer.
Call it oppression — call it a delusion — call it a fraud. I wish
I could supplant that narae Protection and give sorae name for
it that is nearer to the truth.
It is perfectly true that Araerica is the country which,
of all the countries in the -«'orld, can the best afford to
try this strange, and, to rae, astonishing experiment ; and
why ? First . of all, because her territory is so large that
she is a world in herself, and the araount of free trade
within America herself creates itself a vast and healthy
comraerce, with which nothing can interfere. In the second
place, Araerica has the advantage of a natural wealth, both in
regard to soil and in regard to rainerals, such as perhaps has
never yet in any case of a great country been known upon the
surface of the globe. There is also, gentlemen, another advan
tage that Araerica possesses — greater, I believe, than either of
these two, and it is this — America grew up to hardy manhood
under the influence of pressure and restriction — not commercial
restriction — but natural restriction — iraposed by nature in its
youth. A great scarcity of labour was the characteristic of
Araerican industry for generations after the foundations of the
Colonies, and that scarcity of labour naturally raade it a practice
of the people to study the raeans of what is called labour-

i890] FEEE TBADE AND M'KINLEY TABIFF 299
saving ; and that labour-saving became a tradition of the
country, and entered profoundly into the habits and character
of the people, so that now their remarkable position is this,
that with the vast wealth which nature offers thera in the
raine, and in the field, they likewise have a capacity which, at
this moment, I believe to be the first and the highest upon
earth, of reaping what they have to reap, of digging what they
have to dig, in the most econoraical manner that has ever been
known to mankind. And, gentlemen, it is the possession of
these enorraous advantages which helps to disguise the truth
frora Araerican reasoners, because the free traders in America
— I rejoice to say a most powerful body, for whora possibly a
signal triuraph raay be reserved — make the arguments that we
make in this country, and the answer to thera is, " You tell us
that the systera of Protection is ruinous, but look at the vast pro
gress and the vast wealth of the country." Certainly the country
advances, — certainly the country advances in wealth. And do
not we know many a case in this country of a rich man who
wastes a great deal of his raoney, and yet he continues to be a
rich raan, because so rauch reraains behind ? There is a good
story of the heir-apparent to a ducal house. The agent of the
estates went to the duke, and said, " My lord duke, I think it
right to inforra you that the Marquis of So-and-so is spending
a great deal ; " and the duke looked the agent in the face, and
said, " Is he ? I hope he is, for he will have a great deal to
spend." Though Araerica raay be wasting a great deal of
money, she has a great deal to waste. It is a question not of
absolute but of comparative retrogression, but it is a fearful
waste of the resources by which her people ought to be made
strong and happy — that is, in our view. But what I hope and
what I venture to advise is that we do not complain so rauch
of the injury to ourselves — first of all, because it is irapolitic,
and secondly, because the fact of injury would be in the raain
untrue. Substantial injury cannot be done to us, though
occasional injury may here and there result. No, gentlemen,
let us leave that great people to fight the fight of argument
among theraselves. If we have faith in truth, both econoraical

300 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 29
and moral truth — if we have faith in it — let us have faith in
it on the west of the Atlantic as well as on the east. Let us
rely upon it that the light will come in upon the dark places —
that a people so acute, a people with so reraarkable a history,
and a people of destinies yet raore wonderful and grand than
the history which it has already recorded — they will find their
way to the results that are best for theraselves, and they will
find it raore easily, raore readily, and more effectually in propor
tion as they are left raore respectfully to theraselves, in proportion
as we show, that rauch as we value their coraraerce, we value their
friendship and regard still raore ; and that every one of us looks
forward with fondness to the tirae when the great English-
speaking people of the world shall exercise a raoral influence,
probably unbounded in all experience, over the fortunes and
interests of raankind. Let us who are now laying the founda
tions of that future Iraperial, and raore than Imperial, unity,
by exhibiting the same regard for Araerican liberty as we have
for our own, by showing that we do not pretend to be the
raasters of Araericans in reasoning or in anything else, but that
we trust entirely to America's own good sense and the vigour
of her understanding, to the great opportunities before her, the
pressure and the true sense of her own interest, to adopt at
length a course of policy which will be the best for herself and
the best for humankind. Gentlemen, I thank you for the
patience with which you have heard me in this crowded
assembly. I will no longer trespass on your time.

ART AND INDUSTRY
Dundee, October 29, 1890
Mr President, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen — I proceed
to discharge that duty which is the simplest in the world, and
certainly not the least agreeable, which has been imposed upon
me by your President, and to declare the present exhibition to
be opened. Having done that, is it right that I should detain
you from looking at the exhibition by any remarks of my own 1
Your exhibition is, I am quite sure, full of beauty. I will not
pretend to pass a deliberate judgment after a very cursory
inspection, but I will say that I have seen many works of art
even in the course of my walk through the rooms, which have
impressed me very favourably indeed, and I cannot think that
any observations I may raake can have a beauty in them at all
to corapare with that of the works upon the walls. Therefore,
you will understand that anything I say on this occasion is not
at all to enter into corapetition with it, as I know that in that
I should be defeated. I suppose I may, in a few sentences,
express to you opinions that will show that I am not discharg
ing this duty as a perfunctory obligation. It is most pleasant
for me to be brought into contact, even for a raoraent, with an
exhibition of this kind. I cannot consider your exhibition as
apart frora your perraanent picture galleiy.
Exhibitions, I think, have been tried — and have been
successfully tried — in various towns of the country at an earlier
date than that at which they have aspired to be the possessors
of permanent picture galleries. The whole thing is a question
of progress from year to year. I need not say that I can
recollect the time when I do not think there was such a thing
iu the whole country as a local annual exhibition of pictures,
301

302 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 29
and rauch more do I doubt whether there was then such a
thing as a permanent gallery belonging to any one of our towns.
Even in London, our wants and ideas were very raodest as to
their scale. I rejoice to say that there were admirable painters
in this country in the early part of the century with whom I
was farailiar, but the scale of the exhibition was extreraely
smaU. I dare say — I ara sure — you are aware that the annual
exhibition in London has developed or split itself into three,
that each of these is attended by great and increasing crowds
of people, and that, in fact, it seeras hardly possible to satiate
the appetite which exists throughout the country. It is most
satisfactory to flnd similar dispositions extending into the pro
vinces, and I am not at all surprised to find that Scotland holds a
very foreraost place in the foundation of these institutions. In
speaking of Scotland, gentlemen, and Scotchmen, I raay depart
for one raoraent frora the straight path before rae to raention
the narae of a Scotchraan — Mr Carnegie. Mr Carnegie is not
a Forfarshire raan, but he is the next thing to it, for he hira
self has placed upon record in his very reraarkable works, his
devotion to the town of Dunfermline, where he was born. It
is not only his activity, but it is the manner in which he has
preached, and, still raore in earnest, which he has practised the
munificent devotion of vast funds collected by his energy and
intelligence to the foundation of great institutions for the
benefit of his fellow-countryraen. Many of these may be
known to some of you, but I am in a condition to state it as
a matter of fact. He is, as you know, a great ironmaster in
Pennsylvania — the greatest ironmaster, I believe, in the world.
He has his works not very far from the town of Pittsburg, the
centre of the raining industry of that great state. Mr Carnegie
has endowed the town of Pittsburg, partly for the purposes of
a library, and partly for the purposes of art galleries, with the
sum — not to corne after his death, but out of his pocket ; paid
over the counter, so to speak — the sum of £400,000. That is
an instance of bounty, and I cannot but believe that there is
bounty here. We have many instances of it You have in
stances df it You have instances of it, I believe, in Dundee.

1890] AET AND INDUSTEY 303
There are splendid instances elsevt^here, and I cannot but
beUeve that it is contagious. The disposition that produces
it is contagious in its character ; and if we have wants still un
supplied notwithstanding, we shall see the movement for the
supply of those wants continuing and increasing in its rate
and efficiency, so tbat what has been alraost a marvel to the
raen of our generation will come to be a truism and a common
place to those who follow thera. I ara greatly pleased to find
such a collection has been made in Dundee for raany more
reasons than one. But one of the reasons undoubtedly is, that
the industries of the country will derive enorraous advantao-e
from the cultivation of art. Beauty is an element of iraraense
pecuniary value. The traditional cultivation of taste and pro
duction of beauty in industrial objects, is better known — best
of all known, perhaps — in Italy, and very well known in
France. We may still be some steps behind in raany depart
ments in that respect, but there is not a doubt that in the
enorraous coraraerce of France, the beauty of the objects pro
duced counts from year to year for a great many millions
sterling, and those raillions sterling would fade into their air
were the appreciation of beauty and the power of producing
beautiful objects to be taken away, which, happily, it hardly
can frora such a people. It is an eleraent of immense com
mercial value. Let us look abroad — let us take our lesson
from nature, for, after all, we cannot go to a better source, or as
good a source, as to the works of God. The Alraighty has
provided this earth with the beautiful, and made it fair and
beautiful, and has made the beauty of the land in which we
are appointed to be born, and in which we live, an important
instrument in stirring up in us, and for confirming in us that
devoted attachment to our country, which, I hope, under the
name of patriotism or whatever other narae — which, I believe,
always has been a pointed characteristic of individuals,and which,
I trust, always will be a marked and pointed characteristic of
those who will succeed thera in following generations. The
Alraighty has given us a lesson in this respect in making his
works beautiful, showing that he suggests to us to raake our

304 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 29
works beautiful, hurably, aud reverentlj^, but yet believing that
if in every department of life we are following that example.
He will regard it with favour, and crown it with His blessing.
The question arises, Is there incapacity in the people of this
country to corapete with other nations and races in the produc
tion of beautiful objects ? I have told you that I think we are
behind in certain respects ; but I hold that there is no such
incapacity, and I hold this partly on this account — the
enormous progress which I rayself have witnessed. I assure
you that it is hardly an exaggeration to say that at the time
when I was a boy and a youth of ten or fifteen years of age,
there was hardly anything that was beautiful produced in this
country. And I remeraber at about that period of ray life —
I believe I was eighteen — I was taken over to see a silk
factory in Macclesfield. At that time Mr Huskisson — whose
name ought always to be remembered with respect araongst all
sound econoraists — and the Governraent of Lord Liverpool had
been making the first efforts not to break down — that was
reserved for their happier followers — but to lessen, to modify,
or perhaps I should say mitigate, a little, if possible, the pro
tective systera. Down to the period of Mr Huskisson silk
pocket-handkerchiefs from France were prohibited. They were
largely srauggled, and no gentleraan went over to France
without, if he could raanage it, in his pockets, his purse, his
portraaiiteau, his hat, or his greatcoat, bringing back handker
chiefs and gloves. But Mr Huskisson carried a law in which,
in lieu of this prohibition of these French articles, a duty of 30
per cent was imposed upon them, and I assure you it is in ray
recollection that there was a keener detestation of Mr
Huskisson and a raore violent passion aroused against hira in
consequence of that mild initial measure than ever was associ
ated in the other camp — in the Protectionist carap — with the
career of Cobden and Bright Well, I was taken to this
raanufactory, and they produced the English silk handkerchiefs
which they were in the habit of raaking, and which they
thought it so cruel to see competed with by the silk handker
chiefs of France, although, even before they were allowed to

1890] AET AND INDUSTEY 305
compete, they had to pay the heavy fine of 30 per cent on the
value. And it was in that first visit to a manufactory in
Macclesfield that — I will not say I became a Free Trader, for
it was ten or fifteen years after that before I entered into the
full faith of that policy; but frora what I then sa-w there
dawned upon my raind the first ray of light; and what I
thought when they showed me these handkerchiefs was, how
detestable they really are, and what in the world can be the
object of the policy of coaxing, nursing, coddling up manufac
tories to produce goods such as these, which you ought to be
ashamed of exhibiting ? Well, there is a very different state of
things now. One of the consequences, as you are probably
aware, of introducing free trade, was that even in the cotton
trade — I think it is the cotton trade that I have specially in
-view — in the cotton trade, where formerly the practice had
been to import, by a one-sided process, the French cotton
patterns for printing cotton — even in that trade, after a fe-w
years had been given to the opening of the trade, that one-sided
progress becarae two-sided, and the French patterns came from
Miilhausen to Manchester, and the English patterns went frora
Manchester to Miilhausen, because there were raen then with
an open raarket, who endeavoured to infuse new beauty into a
large number of the industrial objects of this country — in our
glass, in our porcelain, in our earthenware, in our tissues with
out end — and I hope and believe not the less in the great linen
manufactures for which Dundee is so faraous, that the intro
duction of beauty is becoraing a regular portion of the
industrial art. Well, there is no reason, when we look to our
history, why we should despond or suppose that we are not to
attain all the purposes — all the good purposes — that beauty
and the study of beautj^; are raeant to attain.
Now, shall I shock you if I tell you what, perhaps, is
partly only a personal opinion of ray own ? The study of
beauty has several very forraidable eneraies. One of them,
of course, is haste in production, carelessness in production..
Sometimes the desire for cheapness makes people think you-
cannot have cheapness and beauty together. But the parti-
u

306 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 29
cular euemy which I think is one of the raost formidable of
all to the true comprehension and true pursuit of beauty is
that thing which is known under the name of fashion. That
may seem strange to the young gentleraen who want to be
smart in their dress. I will not speak of young ladies. To
them I have no doubt it will sound as if I was using lan
guage certainly rash, and perhaps almost profane. What is
fashion ? Gentleraen and ladies, if the ladies have anything
to do with it— I won't say whether it is so or not — what is
fashion? Fashion of dress is perpetual change. Wherever
there is perpetual change, if it is to be justifiable or if it is to
be useful, there ought to be perpetual progress. But fashion is
not perpetual progress ; fashion is a zigzag. Fashion is a wheel
that whirls round and round, and by-and-by, after a fashion
has been left — after it has been discarded — if you have only a
little patience to wait long enough, you will find you will get
back to it. Ladies and gentleraen, you are young and I am
old • I have seen this wheel of fashion going round and round
always puzzling you, like a firework wheel, but always landing
in a total negation of progress and with a strong tendency to
the substitution of raere caprice and mere display for the real
pursuit of beauty.
Of course, I believe that the pursuit of the beautiful is a
thing founded on permanent principles, and I am glad to say
that in Scotland you have had sorae authors who have written
— and written with great ability — to show that the principles
of beauty raay be raore difficult to discern, and to reduce to
formulcB, but they are as perraanent in themselves, and as
certain as the priuciples of arithraetic and raathematics. Cer
tainly, if we look at variations — fine art is not in the sarae way
governed by fashion — we know that art springs up, advances,
and reaches a cliraax in a particular country, and then, usually,
more or less declines. But art is always aiming at the exhibi
tion more and more of permanent and changeless principles,
and depend upon it we ought to look as much as possible, in
the production of beautiful things — we ought to look to those
eleraents of beauty which are solid and perraanent, and do not

1890] ABT AND INDUSTEY 307
change frora age to age. Is that a wild fancy ? Why is it
that we admire the architecture of the Greeks ? Why do we
admire the sculpture of the Greeks ? Because we know that
it was given to that race by Providence to attain to a more
just, true, and strict, and much more general perception of the
permanent principles of beauty than perhaps has been ever
given to any race. At least, if they have a rival, they are
nearly without a rival, upon the earth, and the wonderful
thing is to see among the Greeks this feeling diffused. If you
are told that you are a provincial people, take your lesson from
provincial Greece. Bceotia was nothing but a little subdivision
•of Greece — a very sraall sub-division of a very sraall country.
However, it had the advantage of being next to Attica, and
there was a sraall town of the name of Tanagra, frora which,
within the last few years, were exposed, in the Athenian
market, almost for nothing, little statuettes. They iraraediately
found appreciation, for the Greeks of tlie present day have, I
•can assure you, a great many of the qualities that belonged to
their iUustrious ancestors, and now, in the sunlight of freedora,
they are maturing and developing these qualities. But these
little statuettes came immediately into appreciation. But it
was found that, though they were only taken out of the tombs
•of an obscure town almost unknown to history, of a town
hardly big enough to secure for itself some third-rate railway-
.station, if it now existed, these statuettes were instinct with
the spirit of beauty frora head to foot, in figure and in costurae.
Many of thera — a good many of them, I think — are now in the
Museum in London, aud serve to illustrate both the great
function that the Greeks fulfilled in former times, and likewise
the raanner in which that which is truly beautiful never
¦could go out of fashion if we were sound and sagacious, and
consistent in our view of acting on those principles.
I do not think Scotland has any reason to despond in this
raatter. I rejoice to think what a large nuraber of persons
have grown up in Scotland during the present century to adorn
the history of British art — I cannot recollect them aU. You
,had Wilkin, you had Leslie, you had Dyce, you had Phillip,

308 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 29
and a great raany more. You have at the present moment a por
trait painter practising in Edinburgh, one or two of whose works
I have seen^I mean Mr Eeid — which are perfectly entitled to
take their place among the historical portraits of the world.
Therefore, it is reraarkable, gentleraen, and I tell you why.
Because the primary reputation of Scotland has always been
for solid qualities. A Scotchman is logical, a Scotchman is
canny, a Scotchraan has raany qualities of a beautiful and
useful kind indeed. But, observe, the Scotchraan, beside all
these things, is iraaginative, and there are not wanting proofs
of that I will not now dilate upon the name of Burns ; I will
not now dilate upon the narae, in the opinion of some, and in
my own opinion, I think, more illustrious — that of Sir Walter
Scott. I will siraply point to the achieveraents of Scotchraen
in the field of art, and the proportion that prevails between
Scotch artists and English artists relatively to the population
of the two countries, and say that Scotchraen enter freely into
this corapetition in the study and pursuit of beauty. I ara quite
confident it is a competition in which they never will be
worsted. On an occasion so interesting as this I will release
you, ladies and gentleraen, for the purpose of the far raore edify
ing occupation of examining the works on the wall, rather than
listening to the superficial and stray remarks which I have
been raaking.

THE RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES
REMOVAL BILL
House of Commons, February 4, 1891
Mr Gladstone moved the Second Reading ofthe Religious Disabilities Removal
Bdl which he had brought in. His motion was defeated by 256 to 224.
Sir, when it fell to ray choice to undertake the charge of a Bill
for removing from the Statute-book of this country an anomaly,
an injustice, and a discredit, I was in hopes that it would only be
necessary for me to spend a few minutes in introducing the
BUl to the notice of this House ; but those hopes have been so
far disappointed as to make it necessary for rae, I fear, to
trespass at soraewhat greater length on your time. Murmurings
and mutterings there have been in various quarters, as was to
be expected. We have just seen presented petitions which
filled the arms and taxed the muscular strength and fibre of
those who presented them, and one of them appeared to me
sir, to conceal within itself, under the appearance of a mere
roller, what might in fact be a forraidable weapon of offence.
Not only have we these raanifestations from quarters which are
usually wakeful in these matters, and where everything in the
nature of a disability, though it be the merest rag and .merest
shred, most woefully torn and tattered, yet remains dear to the
English heart ; but there have been rumours even with respect
to the intentions of her Majesty's Government — I cannot tell
whether they may be true or not; but I know that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1867 took part along with
myself^ in pleading for the opening of the most difficult of
these offices, and the one with respect to which the greatest
objection was taken, and I doubt not he intends to pursue
1 In a debate on the Oath and Offlce Bill, April 9, 1867.
309

310 MR GLADSTONES SPEECHES [FEB. 4
the same course in the present debate. As to his colleagues,
the right hon. gentleraan ^ now has upon his left one whom
I have always regarded as the prop and pillar of everything
that deserved to be overthrown and reraoved. I ara afraid
there is cause why I cannot confine rayself within the ten
minutes I had contemplated as sufficient time for explaining
the nature and character of the Bill ; but I will endeavour
not to be unreasonable in my deraand upon the tirae of the
House. The first point that I have to raention is one of a very
singular nature.
I beUeve it to be in law seriously doubtful whether Eoman
Catholics are at this moment disabled from holding the offices
of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Lord Chancellor of England.
The arguraent in the main may be stated in a few raoraents.
The Roman Catholic ReUef Act, the 10th of George IV., does
not impose upon Roman Catholics in so many words disability
for holding those offices, but it does provide that no Roraan
Catholic shall be entitled to hold thera " otherwise than as he
raay be by law now entitled." What was the legal position
before the passing of the Act of 1829 ? Every subject of her
Majesty is presuraably entitled to hold every office under the
Crown, but in the case of the Eoraan Catholic he was obviously
and effectually barred by the Test Act. I am not aware, and I
believe some good lawyers are not aware — I believe I may
quote araong others the erainent raan who now holds the post
of Lord Chief Justice of England, not with reference to any
judicial decision, but -with regard to opinions given in this
House and supported by argument — that there was no other
disability except that of the Test Act. The Test Act was
reraoved by repeal in the year 1863. I do not enter now into
the arguraent further because, on the other hand, it is seriously
contested by other lawyers whether that repeal has been
effectual to qualify Eoraan Catholics for those offices. At any
rate I believe this is true, that when Parliaraent repealed the
Test Act it had no distinct and specific intention of opening
those offices to Roman Catholics. Well; sir, it is quite plain
1 Mr Chaplin.

1 89 1] RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL 311
that if the law is doubtful it ought to be made .clear. ' It is
quite plain that no person charged by her Majesty with the
solemn duty of forraing a Governraent in this country could
venture to recommend to her Majesty this or that individual
for either of these great offices while there was the smallest
doubt attaching to the law which would place the validity of
his acts in controversy. Consequently, I thought it my duty
not to be deterred from prosecuting this Bill, and I think that
in arriving at that decision I shall so far have the unanimous
assent of the House, if, indeed, the opponents of the BUL be in
a frame and teraper of raind in which it is possible for thera to
assent to any proposition whatever issuing frora my unworthy
lips. I will say one word on the drafting of the Bill When this
Bill was drafted, it was drafted, as it was thought, in conforraity
rather with precedent than with abstract ideas, and the con
sequence is that it lays down conditions with respect to the
discharge of certain functions which it raay be held are in the
nature of religious tests. Whether they are so or not I do hot
know — I do not undertake at this moraent, at any rate, to
decide — but I certainly,, and I think ray right hon. and hon.
friends ^ who are immediately responsible for the Bill, have come
to the conclusion that it would be better . not to embarrass
ourselves with any considerations of that kind. Our object is
siraply to remove the anomaly, which is supposed to exclude,
and which perhaps excludes, certain subjects of her Majesty
frora holding certain offices under the Crown, and to raake
pro-vision, or to be certain that satisfactory provision is made,
with regard to any duty ecclesiastical in its character, or not
purely civil, that attaches to either of those offices. We" think
that those duties raay be handed over with advantage to such
person as her Majesty, under the provisions of the Bill, raay be
pleased to select, and that it is not necessary for us to have any
reference whatever to religious profession in the description of
such person. Consequently, the course I should propose to
' Mr Campbell-Bannerman, ' Mr Colin Morley, Sir Horace Davey, and
Mr Asquith.

312 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [FEB. 4
take is this. If the House is pleased, as I hope it will be
pleased, to read this Bill a second time, I should, with the
consent of the House, revert to the convenient practice which I
have not known to be applied for the past few years to any
Bill of great importance, but which used to be applied to Bills
even of great importance with great advantage to the country —
namely, the practice of passing a Bill through Committee pro
foxmd, so as to present it in that form which the promoters,
with the consent of the House, thought the proper form in
which to subrait it, reserving the substantial Coraraittee to be
taken after the report of the Bill frora that Comraittee pro
formd. Sir, I must next refer to a matter personally affecting myself,
which I ara extreraely reluctant to introduce to the notice of
the House, only because such personal raatters are not fit or
convenient for the general consideration of the House. But the
publications I have seen on this subject raake it quite certain
that gentlemen foraging after topics in connection with this Bill
will fall back upon those personal questions which always, it
raust be observed, have the advantage of creating a lively
interest in the House at the nioraent A pamphlet has been
put into my hands within the last five minutes, entitled Mr
Gladstone, Exposed. I have not yet had the opportunity of
profiting by the wisdora and learning which no doubt it con
tains, but it seeras to rae that I must reUeve myself from what
T know, by the inspection of other documents relating to this
Bill, will be thought a very convenient and advantageous topic
on this occasion. The arguraent is that I, of all persons, am
not the raan to propose this BiU. Well, sir, I will take the
liberty of exactly inverting that arguraent, and saying that so
far as all previous declarations are concerned, I, of all persons,
ara the raan to propose it. The allegation which I have seen
raade is that I rayself am a man who, by certain pamphlets
published in 1874-75, proved that Roraan Catholics were not fit
to be intrusted with the discharge of high and responsible
duties, inasmuch as their allegiance was impaired by certain
tenets of their religion. I wish to state the case fairly, and my

1 891] RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES EEMOVAL BILL 313
answer is this — it is perfectly distinct, and I will bring it to the
test, of distinct words. It is perfectly true that I did impeach
in 1874 certain declarations of the See of Bome as dangerous to
the civil allegiance of those who adopted and concurred in them,
and I invited, in a pamphlet terraed Vatican Decrees, ray Eoraan
Catholic fellow-subjects to give assurance to their fellow-
countrymen on the question whether they did or did not profess
a full, entire, and undivided allegiance.
The effect of that pamphlet was to draw forth a considerable
nuraber of replies, and I rayself, having published the tract in
Noveraber 1874, and having read and considered those replies,
published a further tract termed Vaticanism in February 1875,
and in that tract I inserted a passage which I will now read to
the House, but which evidently, for sonie reason or other, has
never met the eyes of a single person connected with the opposi
tion to this Bill, or any officer of any institution that has been
concerned in getting up that opposition. A blindness, such as
was inflicted on a sorcerer in the New Testament, seeras to have
struck them when they were engaged in the perusal of that par
ticular page of the book, and I ara now obliged to appeal to
another sense— -nainely, the sense of hearing.
What was the conclusion at which I then arrived with regard
to the allegiance of my Eoman Catholic fellow-subjects ? In
page 14 of the pamphlet termed Vaticanism, published in
February 1875, will be found these words : " I cannot but say
that the immediate purpose of my appeal has been attained in
so far that the loyalty of our Eoman Catholic fellow-subjects in
the mass remains evidently untainted and secure." And, sir, it
is because I am the raan who upon examination and challenge
have deliberately — sixteen years ago — announced that, in my
opinion, whatever might be the clairas of the Boman See, their
loyalty was untainted and secure, I am the very raan, if I have
no other qualification, to be so far at least qualified to propose
the BUl now before the House.
Let me endeavour to impress upon the House that that is the
whole question. Unless you can show that the loyalty of the
Eoraan Catholic is tainted, you have no right to inflict a dis-

314 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [feb. 4
ability upon hira. I affirra that the opponents of this Bill have
no locus standi failing that. They raust attack that loyalty, aud
unless they can attack that loyalty with effect, they are con
tradicting the principles of our Constitution, old and new, the
principles of our statute law, and the principles which we have
inscribed on that statute law in the very clearest terras. Is that
doubted ?
I affirra, and I do not intend to give it as my individual
opinion, as a raere dictura proceeding from rae, as it would
proceed without the sraallest authority — ray affirraation is that
the principles of the British Constitution admit and allow of no
civil disabilities on account of religious opinion. Is that prin
ciple clearly declared in our law, or is it not ? I will read a
very few words frora the statute of 1867, chapter 75, frora the
prearable — a statute ^ highly creditable to the Parliament which
passed it, and which was passed and took its place in the laws
of this country when a- Conservative Governraent was in office,
thus supplying a good omen of what we ought to expect on
the present occasion. That statute begins with these words :
"Whereas certain of her Majesty's subjects are now, on the
ground of their religious belief, subject to civil disabiUties," and
so forth, " and it is expedient to reraove such disabilities, and to
substitute one uniform oath for the several oaths now required
to be taken by different classes of her Majesty's subjects."
Pra.y observe who are the persons in conteraplation. Not
certain selected persons, distinguished either by property, rank,
influence, or religious profession, or by local habitation. They
are inhabitants of these sraall islands ; they are the vast and
alraost innumerable populations in almost every quarter of the
globe who bear alike the burden of allegiance to her Majesty,
and who together approach 300,000,000, and constitute one-
fifth part of the population of the globe. Pray observe this,
for it lies at the very root of the question ; it is no selected
portion of her Majesty's subjects whom the Act has in contera
plation. The declaration is clear ; the grievance is stated at the
beginning of the prearable, that certain of her Majesty's subjects
1 The Office and Oath Act.

1891] BELIGIOUS DISABILITIES EEMOVAL BILL 315
are now under disability on account of religious opinions, and
the result is as clear and broad, for it is to provide that one
uniform oath be taken by all persons, " in lieu of several oaths
now taken by different classes of her Majesty's subjects." I
hope that there wUl be no controversy on this question of
principle, that our law has for its basis the universal qualifica
tion — unless there be exceptions, and the exception I am
coming to — of all her Majesty's subjects of all religious opinions
in all quarters of the globe, wherever they may be found, and
there is no power of lodging a case against a Bill which airas at
an emancipation or enfranchisement of that kind, except in the
one only narrow path of impeaching the allegiance of sorae
portion of them, which irapeachraent I have shown, frora the
passage read to the House, I, at any rate, have eraphatically
and explicitly renounced. Such is the principle of our Con
stitution. Let me point out that in this case to except is to proscribe.
It is a question of proscription with which I have now to deal.
I will not enter into the question of whether proscription is or
is not persecution, but I think that causeless proscription is
persecution. It is the only kind of persecution that remains
open or accessible to the lovers of that araiable pastirae. But I
say that exception is proscription, and I want to know what is
the cause of proscription, what is the view of it taken by our
Constitution, and what is the cause of proscription if any pro
scription is to be raaintained. Now, sir, what are the apparent
causes of proscription under our Constitution ? Everybody will
say the Crown. Sorae people have taken a very broad view of
this thing indeed. I possess a letter frora one who is at least a
courteous correspondent, who says : " Sir, — Your Bill is the first
step towards relighting the fires of Sraithfield." It is a rauch
more moderate stateraent to say that it is the first step towards
altering the conditions of the succession to the Crown. Sir, it
has nothing whatever to do with the succession to the Crown,
and I will tell you why. In the first place, the Crown is not
concerned in any of these statutes, and no law has been laid down
¦ with respect to the Crown such as was laid down (but not for the

316 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [fee. 4
Crown) in the statute of 1867. The Crown is not open to com
petition. If the Crown were open to competition between A
and B, and it was found that A was the man best fitted to
wear it, but could not be appointed because he was a Boman
Catholic, and therefore the Protestant must be appointed, then
you would have achieved the first step towards proving an
analogy. But there is no competition. The Crown has a
single function, which is to be discharged by a single person.
But more, it is a mistake to suppose that the laws relating to
the Crown inflict a proscription on a particular class of
believers. The whole principle is entirely different on that
point. These proscriptions are negative in forra. They do not
require a person to believe ; they punish a person for belief.
On the contrary, with regard to the Crown, what the law
requires is that the person wearing the Crown shall be a
Christian believer of a particular profession. It is not merely
— though it has constantly been so called — a requirement that
the Crown shall be worn by a Protestant ; it must also be worn
by a person coraraunicating in the Church of England. This is
a distinction. This distinction between requiring a positive
belief and proscribing a positive belief is a distinction which has
becorae faraous and historical through the writings of Mr Burke
on the penal laws of Ireland. Every one must have in his
meraory those iraraortal writings of Mr Burke upon Irish
history and law, in which he contrasts the Irish and English
penal laws, but the Irish especially, with the persecutions of old
tiraes, to the disadvantage of these penal laws ; for, he says, the
object of these persecutions was to drive people into some
religion which it was thought it would be for their advantage
to profess, but the object of the penal laws was not to drive or
induce or bring people into any belief whatever, but only to
drive thera out of a certain belief, only to ascertain that they
did not believe. That is exactly the principle of the little
raiserable shred and tatter of proscription which I now in-vite
the House to sweep away. Now, with regard to the question
of the Crown, this is not the occasion for rae to give any opinion
at all. It is a very high constitutional question, which, in my

i89i] BELIGIOUS DISABILITIES EEMOVAL BILL 317
opinion, it would be very unwise to disturb. Its abstract raerits
constitute a subject and a field so wide that it is totally
unsuited for the present limited discussion, and I pass it by
by saying that I do not believe that the present settleraent is
regarded as irrational or creates discontent, and I, for ray part,
am not in any manner or degree prepared to touch it.
But I pass on to another class of exception which is noticed
in the Belief Act of 1829. That is the exception of an office,
the very existence of which, I suspect, is unknown to some
members of this House, and I do not think it proves thera to
be men generally ill-informed if that be the case, though I have
no doubt Scotchraen may be shocked at the utterance of so lax
an opinion. This is the office held by Her Majesty's Corarais
sioner to the General Assembly of the Established Church of
Scotland, and that office is also excluded frora tenure by a
Eoman Catholic. There are others known to our law, of which
I shall not endeavour to give a catalogue.
But there are those in this House who are now acting as
Ecclesiastical Commissioners — I myself have acted in that
capacity, and certainly ray recollection is that the law requires
to be taken — I myself have taken — a declaration stating that I
am a member of the Church of England. I believe I ara right
in that respect ; I am not aware that the law has been changed ;
and it falls under the same category as the case of the High
Coramissioner to the General Assembly. But the principle of
these liraitations — though I do not think that they are liraita
tions very necessary to be raaintained — is clear, and cannot be
said to be offensive, because the duties to be perforraed are not
civil duties, and consequently the disability to perform them is
not a civil disabiUty.
With regard to the Eegency of this country I will only say
that it is treated by the Act of 1829 as an appendage to the
provisions of the law relating to the succession to the Throne,
and I do not see that there is anything unreasonable in the pro
visions of the Act. Then these proscriptions are not proscrip
tions in either case attaching to the Crown ; they lie in a totally
¦different sphere, because they are not affecting the discharge of

318 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [feb. 4
duties properly civU. With regard to the question of the Crown,
I wish to avail rayself of an authority which, not inconsiderable
in itself, I think ought to have weight with gentlemen on the
other side of the House.
I daresay we shall hear in to-day's debate that I am touching
the Constitution of this country. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, I
thought so ; I endeavoured to get that cheer. I wish to say
that when these questions were raised in 1867, Mr Disraeli took
part in that debate, and expressly said that he approved rela
tively to the circumstances of all the restraints iraposed upon
the tenure of these offices by the Act of 1829, but he did not
hold — on the contrary, he denied — that they were any part of
the Constitution of the country ; he treated them as principles
with which you could deal without exposing yourselves to that
reproach, which he deeraed absurd. Having endeavoured to
clear all obstacles away, I have arrived at the contemplation of
this one solitary proscription which remains on the Statute-
Book. I beg the House to conteraplate it in all its beauty or in
all its ugliness and deforraity. What is this proscription ?
What offices does it affect ? Out of the whole vast variety of
employments under the Crown it affects only two. And why
does it affect them ? Now, let us try that. My point of
departure is that you have no right, except on proof of disqua
lification, to impose these disabilities. You cannot call on rae to
prove corapetency or ability ; the burden of proof is on those
who deny and exclude, and the sole part open to you, the sole
proposition on which you can found yourselves, is that the
allegiance of Eoraan Catholics is doubtful or irapeachable. Now,
let us look at these cases.
I take first the A''iceroyalty of Ireland, because I ara told and
believe that the consciences of gentlemen are less vividly affected
with respect to the Viceroyalty of Ireland than with respect to
that most sacred fortalice of the Constitution, that inner sanctu
ary and holy of holies, the Lord Chancellorship. I wish to take
the opportunity of stating to ray Scotch friends that I think, in
virtue of their nationality, they ought to look out pretty sharply*
for I ara very considerably shocked to find in. our statutes the

i89i] BELIGIOUS DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL 319
expression, "the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain." I am not
aware in what sense the Lord Chancellor is terraed the Lord
ChanceUor of Great Britain, and, as Member for Mid-Lothian,
until I am better informed, I protest against that expression as
an aggression analogous to the old raids across the Border — an
atterapt to place upon Scotland a servitude which we utterly
repel The "Lord Chancellor of Great Britain," I contend,
should be " Lord Chancellor of England."
In 1867 the question was whether the Viceroy of Ireland
ought to continue to be under a disability with respect to the
profession of the Eoraan Catholic religion. I think Mr Disraeli,
then Minister and leader of the House, took part in that debate.
He denied that it was a constitutional principle to exclude a
Eoman CathoUc ; but he asserted that the Viceroy of Ireland
had ecclesiastical duties to perforra, the perforraance of which
would hardly be corapatible, so Lord Naas and Mr Disraeli con
tended, with the Boman Catholic religion. I wish to point out
that he based his opposition to the proposal, so far as the Vice-
royalty was concerned, entirely and exclusively upon a ground
which has now altogether disappeared. When, happily, we
passed the Act in 1869 to disestablish the Church in Ireland,
we swept away all ground for disability in the shape of those
ecclesiastical functions on the part of the Lord Lieutenant. It
is for those who still contend that Boman Catholics ought to be
excluded from this office to show why it ought to be done. Do
not let them atterapt to shelter theraselves under the authority
of Mr Disraeli. This office of the Viceroyalty of Ireland is, I
believe, an office as purely civil at this raoment as any office
under the Crown. If there are any ecclesiastical functions, they
are totally unknown to rae. I do not believe in their existence.
I have never heard them asserted to exist ; and I submit that
any principle which justifies your excluding a Eoraan Catholic
from the office of Viceroy of Ireland is just as good and rational
for excluding him from the office of Viceroy of Canada or India.
Here you have, indeed, if anywhere, open to you a source of
danger, for the Viceroy of Ireland, whatever he does, he does
under our own eyes. The Viceroy of India, at a distance of

320 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [feb. 4
raany thousands of railes, operating within the precincts of a
Governraent of which we have only the raost partial, rare, and
occasional cognisance — if they want an exercise for their ingen
uity in showing the dangers that arise frora the discharge of
ci-vil duties by Roman Catholics, I would seriously advise hon,
gentleraen opposite, and the gallant Colonel ^ who presented a
petition, and others, to study carefully the Viceroyalty of India.,
and see whether they cannot in sorae raanner or other obtain
from the duties of that office, where responsibility is so indirect,
and where the power of our watching is so incomplete, whether
they cannot obtain a show of reason, or, at all events, a fairer show
of reason for exclusion than any they can show in this case.
I go on now, sir, to the Lord Chancellorship. The objections
to a Bill of this kind are but two, so far as I know. One is the
doctrine that is set up to the eff'ect that the Lord Chancellor is the
Keeper of the King's or Queen's Conscience. Now, sir, what is tho
meaning and what is the value of that doctrine ? There was a
time when it was perfectly, absolutely, and literally true. I
have not beeu able to find any distinct and consecutive history
of the idea, but it appears to me very like the case of one of
those streams which flow through certain strata on to the
surface of the earth, and then, coming into other strata, are
absorbed, covered over, and disappear. The Lord Chancellor
was -Keeper of the King's Conscience at the time when he was
the head of the King's Chapels, and when, in virtue of that head
ship, he was, at a period long before the Reforraation, private
confessor to the Sovereign, and so he was literally and truly, or
at any rate, distinctly, the Keeper of the King's conscience. At
that tirae the Lord Chancellor was a very secondary person, for
Lord Carapbell or Blackstone, I do not reraeraber which, inforras
us that at that period he was only sixth araong great holders of
office ; and the head of the law at that period was not the Lord
Chancellor, but the Chief Justiciary of the country. In course
of time the Lord Chancellorship becarae iraportant, and other
offices dwindled, and the Chancellorship passed frora the head
of the King's Chapels into the hands of the Archbishop of
^ Colonel Sandys.

1891] RELIGIOUS DISABILITIES EEMOVAL BILL 321
Canterbury, or of some other, great , ecclesiastical functionary,
and so remained until the reign of Henry VIII. He had at
that time ceased to be Keeper of the King's Conscience, and
there was no personal relation between thera from that tirae
onwards, so far as my information goes, and though I have
endeavoured to inquire, as I have said, I can find no consecutive
or full history of the case.
I believe that the doctrine entirely slipped until George III.
wanted to intrigue against his own Prime Minister, Mr Pitt,
either as regards Eoraan Catholic eraancipation or sorae other
matter. He consulted the Lord Chancellor of the Cabinet
against the head of the Government, and he did it upon the
pretence that the Lord Chancellor was Keeper of the King's
Conscience, he knowing beforehand that this Keeper of the
King's Conscience exactly coincided with the opinions he held
Now, as Keeper of the King's Conscience, are you prepared to
.replace Lord Halsbury in the position of private confessor to
her Majesty ? Are you prepared, and will you propose your
Bill for that purpose, and let us see what we can make of it ?
But until you do that, and until you place your law upon this
footing, do not talk any more about the Lord Chancellor being
the Keeper of the Queen's Conscience.
But, then, sir, the Lord ChanceUor is the possessor of great
ecclesiastical patronage, and when I speak of ecclesiastical
patronage, I speak of benefices ; I do not include the appoint
ment of chaplains and so forth, which may be considered civil
appointraents. But the Horae Secretary is also possessed of
ecclesiastical patronage. The patronage in the Isle of Man
belongs to the Home Secretary, just in the sarae raanner as
ecclesiastical patronage of other descriptions belongs to the
Prirae Minister; and I rather beUeve, but of this I ara not
quite certain, that the Channel Islands are in the sarae category
as the Isle of Man with respect to ecclesiastical patronage. We
have had for five years a distinguished gentleraan,i ^-j^q^ in the
language of the law, professes the Eoraan Catholic reUgion, and
fiUs the office of Home Secretary ; nor can it be said that any
1 Mr Henry Matthews, Q.C.

322 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [feb. 4
difficulty, or doubt, or debate, has arisen in consequence of his
being by law invested with the discharge of that function. He
has not corrected me about the Channel Islands, and I therefore
assume the Channel Islands are in the same predicament as the
Isle of Man. I am sure the Protestant Association ought to be
much obliged to me for pointing out to their minds the
existence of this great and frightful constitutional danger,
I have been told that the right hon. gentleman, since he has
held that office, has handed over to the Prime Minister the
discharge of this duty of ecclesiastical patronage. I do not
know whether that is so or not, and he does not appear disposed
to give me any information.
Mr Matthews — Since I have had the honour of holding the
office of Home Secretary, I have never subraitted any narae
whatever to the Queen for any ecclesiastical appointment. From
the first moraent of my being appointed Home Secretary I
asked the First Lord of the Treasury, then Lord Salisbury, and-
since my right hon. friend ^ near me, to submit to the Queen the
names for the appointment to benefices in the Channel Islands
and the Isle of Man, instead of myself.
Mr Gladstone — As regards the position of the right
hon. gentleraan, I will say two things — first of all, I would say
that I ara quite convinced that if he had subraitted any narae
for the purpose he would have done it with the raost perfect
honour and irapartiality; and, secondly, that the proceeding
which he has described is raost honourable to his disposition.
He was in the condition of Csesar's -wife, who ought not to be
suspected ; but I must question the regularity, if not the legality,
of the proceeding. If it be within the raoral competency of the
First Lord of the Treasury to hand over ecclesiastical patronage,
say to the Presideiit of the Board of Trade, that would be a very
extraordinary proceeding ; and, therefore, of his own authority
and of his own raotion, the right hon. gentleraan appears dis
tinctly to have broken the usages of the Constitution. I do not
think any one Minister of the Crown has, as a general rule, a
title to hand over any of his duties to any of the other Ministers
2 Mr W. H. Smith.

1891J BELIGIOUS DISABILITIES EEMOVAL BILL 323
of the Crown. But there is another matter. I understand that
the First Lord of the Treasury has exercised this patronage, and
has recommended to the Crown, and that the Crown has nomin
ated to benefices in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands in
consequence of the supposed disability of the right hon. gentle
man himself. I am extremely sorry to propound for the con
sideration of the right hon. gentleman a legal difficulty which I
am afraid he may find to be rather serious.
He has handed over his ecclesiastical patronage to the First
Lord of the Treasury, but the statute law of this country has
been beforehand with him, and has handed it over to somebody
else. I hope I am not raaking revelations. Is the right hon.
gentleman conversant with the 17th section of the Eoman
Catholic Relief Act ? ^ This section, which is, I believe, still in
force, says : —
" Provided always, and be it enacted, that when any right of presentation
to any ecclesiastical benefice shall belong to any office in the gift or
appointment of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, and such office shall be
held by a person professing the Eoman Catholic religion, the right of pre
sentation shall devolve upon and be exercised by the Archbishop of
Canterbury.'' Mr Matthews — I ara rauch obliged to the right hon. gentle
man for having reminded me of that section, but it was
perfectly present to my mind. This ecclesiastical patronage,
such as it is, does not belong to the Home Secretary but to
the Queen, and the intervention of the Home Secretary is
merely to suggest candidates for her approval.
Mr Gladstone — The business of recoraraending for ecclesi
astical appointments does not belong to the Prirae Minister
either. There is no law and no binding authority attaching any
of those functions to the office of Prime Minister. It seems to
me most inconvenient to assert that patronage does not belong
to the office of the Horae Secretary, when he by fixed constitu
tional usage recommends for the appointraents, and when he
and he only is responsible for those recommendations. I do
not see that it is in the power of the Home Secretary to transfer
^ 1829.

324 . MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [feb. 4
his duties to the Prime Minister ; and if it is not in his power
so to transfer them, then I fear that presentations raade by the
Prirae Minister in this case are void and without effect.
I adrait that the disabling point of patronage, when it is held
by a particular person in office, is not the sarae thing as a civil
disability. I think such a disability of patronage ought
undoubtedly to be general if it is to exist at all. It ought not
to be a disability infiicted on the professors of a particular
religion ; but for those who read our history there is no doubt
that, with respect to the Roraan Catholic religion, the principle
followed was this — not that the Roraan Catholic religion was
specially to be conderaned, not that it was designated as a
religion more reraote frora the prevailing religion of the country
than raany other forras of religion, but that it was a rival
religion and a rival Church, and that, having been a rival
religion and a rival Church, there might be a raotive in the
case of the Roman Catholics which might operate to render it
unsatisfactory for them to exercise the duties of ecclesiastical
patronage. In consequence, we adopt the raethod which is
pointed out by the statute of 1829, and by the facts of our
history, and we propose to sever from the Lord Chancellor the
exercise of ecclesiastical patronage.
What right have we to inflict religious disability ? I will not
speak merely of poUcy. Nothing can be clearer to me than
that, in point of policy, it is a gross and monstrous error. What
right have you to do it ? Your principle is, no civil disabilities
on account of religious opinions. What right, with respect to
the civil duties of the Lord Chancellor, have you to inflict this
disability ? I read a stateraent that were this disability removed
from the Viceroy he would not allow so much as what is called
a " removable " magistrate to exist in Ireland unless he was a
Eoraan Catholic, and that everybody in office would be Eoraan
Catholic; but that is hot an objection to my BiU. It is an objec
tion to the declared principle of the law, which raakes the whole
of her Majesty's subjects alike qualified and entitled to the pos
session of office for the discharge of every kind of civil duty ; and
here I corae to the odious part of this proscription, which

r89i] BELIGIOUS DISABILITIES EEMOVAL BILL 325
is the selection of a particular body of Christians, and that
the largest of all bodies of Christians, to inflict upon it this
stigma and disgrace, to record in the face of the world the
constitutional belief, that, although the duties of the Viceroy
and Lord Chancellor are, under this Bill, purely civil, and
although everybody else is quaUfied to discharge them, one
class of persons, and one only, is disabled by law frora under
taking thera.
The Home Secretary, I do not hesitate to say, in the posses
sion of his office stands quite as near the Sovereign as does the
Lord Chancellor, and he stands a great deal nearer than the
Viceroy of Ireland ; and indeed there is no act in which the
Crown is concerned that the Viceroy of Ireland can perform
except through the medium of the Home Secretary. Yet the
right hon. gentleman, and I rejoice to say it, professing the
Eoman Catholic religion, holds the office of Home Secretary,
and no huraan being has ever coraplained — no arrasful of
petitions are presented against this appointment, praying her
Majesty to remove hira ; and I believe if I were, instead of
this Bill, to introduce a Bill for the reraoval of the Home
Secretary, the very gentlemen who have appeared to-day as
champions of the Protestant Constitution would vote against
my Bill as dishonourable, by rejecting it sumraarily frora the
notice of this House. No, sir. Boman Catholics are ineligible
for these two offices. Who, then, are eligible ?
Consider what the British Erapire is. Consider whora it includes.
Consider all the professions of religion, and all the professions
of non-religion, that make up the vast body of the community
of the Queen's subjects. It might seera invidious to draw any
distinction between one body of Christians and another, but
pray recollect that there is no legal obstacle, so far as I can learn,
going beyond the legal pale — and I rejoice that there is no
legal obstacle — to the holding of the Lord Chancellor's ecclesi
astical patronage by a Jew,i by a Mahoraraedan, by a Buddhist,
^ There was here a slip of memory. The Jew can hold the office, but
he, and he alone, is disabled from exercising the patronage. — Note nr
Mr Gladstone.

326 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [FEB. 4
by a Hindoo. All these, under your Protestant Constitution,
can hold the office of Lord Chancellor, and exercise, as the
right hon. gentlemen truly says, not by the mere recommendation
of the Crown, but in virtue of the legal powers of the office
itself, the right of presentation to, I think, 800 benefices in the
English Church. The Jews are the possessors of a great
tradition in common with ourselves, and I rejoice to think that
those who do not accept that tradition at all — not only the
Mahommedans, but the professors of all those Oriental religions
¦ — you affirra by your law to be qualified to hold these offices
and to exercise ecclesiastical patronage. Yet you deny it
to the Eoraan Catholics. That is the inequality I ask you
to proceed to reraove, the inequaUty which you refuse to
remove. So much for the religions. What are we to say of the non-
religions ? Secularists, Materialists, Agnostics, Atheists — all
these are not religions — but non-religions. Every professor of
every one of those non-religions, every man who coraes to you,
saying, " I will tell you nothing of what I believe, but I will tell
you a great deal of what I do not believe," and then proceeds to
sweep away from you everything that constitutes your consolation
and your hope, your guide in conduct through life until death —
all these people are quaUfied to hold the Lord Chancellorship
of this country, and to recoraraend for ecclesiastical benefices.
But the successors of Pascal, of Thoraas k Kerapis, and of old
Pope Gregory the Great, who sent missionaries to this country —
they are all to be disabled.
Oh, sir, I have shown that the principles of your law require
the passing of this BiU. I have shown that your policy
deraands it, for what can be so absurd as that when a
gentleraan is engaged in the constitution of a Governraent in this
country there is a particular man whora he finds to be, on the
whole, best qualified to be Lord Chancellor or Viceroy of Ireland,
but he is compeUed to pa.ss him by because he is a Eoman
CathoUc, and to put in soraeone else who, whatever his merits,
is less fit for that particular office ?
In that noble profession, the Bar of this country, every man

1 891 J BELIGIOUS DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL 327
rises by free and open and unbiased and glorious competition.
It is a grand thing, morally as well as socially, for a man to rise
and become the head of the English Bar, and is it worthy of
you and your traditions, when a man has arrived at such a
position, and when the prize is his by every principle of right
to say to him, " Pass onwards ; you are disabled from fiUing
the Chancellorship, for you are a professor of the Eoman
Catholic religion " ? Thus the last and only test that remains
is the test of religion.
People have written to me saying, " Is it possible that you
can be a Christian" — I might almost imagine that I was
not from the tone of these communications — "and can you,
remembering the religious responsibilities of all Christians,
press this Bill?" Yes, sir, I can, I will, I do. We ought
to do it because we are Christians. There is nothing raore
fatal to the interests of religious belief than the setting up
of fictitious, unreal, shara standards of belief. If we are to
have such standards at all, let them be of intelligible character.
A distinguished man^ and adrairable member of this House
was laid yesterday in his mother-earth. He was the subject of
a long controversy in this House — a controversy the beginning
of which we recollect and the ending of which we recollect.
We remeraber with what zeal it was prosecuted ; we reraember
how summarily it was dropped; we reraember, also, what
reparation has been done within the last few days to the
distinguished man who was the imraediate object of that
controversy. But does anybody who hears rae believe that
that controversy, so prosecuted and so abandoned, was beneficial
to the Christian religion? The people of this country saw
through the imposture which blinded raany members of this
House ; and it is in the name even of that religion which the
vast bulk of us believe to be holy, believe to be the greatest
and only true treasure of mankind — it is in that name — if I
' Mr Charles Bradlaugh. The controversy had reference to the Parlia
mentary Oath. The Eesolution of June 22nd 1880, rejecting his claim,
was ordered to be expunged from the "Journals of the House" on January
27th 1891.

328 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [feb. 4
raust fall back upon such a resource — although it is mainly and
broadly on the grounds which we are here to discuss — namely
the grounds of constitutional law and political wisdom — that I
a.sk you to give your assent to the second reading of this Bill.

THE HOMERIC ARTEMIS.
Eton, March 14, 1891.
Mr Gladstone addressed the Eton boys in the School Library ; the occasion was
said to be the seventieth anniversary of his entering the School.
On February 5th 1890 he delivered an address on "The points of contact
between Assyi-ian discovery and the Homeric text," before the Oxford Union.
Society.
Gentlemen, Friends, and Fellow Etonians, — for that is the
title under which I wish particularly to appeal to you to-day, —
I have undertaken, perhaps rather rashly, but I hope frora a
good motive, to speak to you about some subjects from Horaer,
and the subject I have selected is that of the goddess Artemis.
I took it first in the hope that it would fall within a narrow
compass. But, in that respect, I have been disappointed, and I
find there is raore to say about her than could possibly be
included within the corapass of any lecture which humanity
would suffer me to infiict upon you. However, I will not delay
except to say that the chief part of what I have to tell you will
be to present to you the facts of the case, or what in Germany
they call the Bealien — a very convenient expression to which
we have nothing which exactly corresponds — but what may be
called tbe facts of the text. I shall present to you, as well as
I can, the attributes of the goddess Artemis, as she is presented
to us in Horaer. I think you will be surprised at their nuraber
and variety. Upon that arises a most interesting and difficult
question — How is it possible to link thera together by any
coraraon origin ; how is it possible to unite by a single thread
so many different properties and qualities ? The first character
under which she appears, and with respect to which I am not
sure that full justice has always been done her, so far as regards
the Horaeric Artemis, is that of a type and raodel of beauty ;

330 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 14
equal in that respect, though diverse, but equal even to Aphro
dite, who is sometiraes supposed to be the peculiar and even
sole raodel of beauty araong the divinities in Horaer. But, upon
the whole, you will see that the terras which he attaches to
Arterais with respect to beauty are not less striking than those
of Aphrodite. But you will easily judge. There is, however,
one distinction possessed by Aphrodite — naraely, that when
beauty is spoken of in the abstract in the great speech of
Achilles in the ninth Iliad,^ he refers to Aphrodite as a raodel —
Kovpi]v 6' OV yafiico 'Ayafie^vovos 'Arpftdao,
ouS' ei )(pvo-€Lr] 'A<l)podLTrj KaWos epl^of
That distinction she possesses. But the chief use that he makes
of his models of di^'ine beauty is to compare beautiful and re
markable women with them, and it is rather striking that the
female characters whom he cares most about he compares for
beauty more to Artemis than to Aphrodite. There is, I think,
only one exception — Penelope, because she is, no doubt, one of
his raasterpieces. But although he corapares her to Aphrodite
for beauty, he corapares her along with Arterais. It is in his
characters of less iraportance, about whom he cares compara
tively little, that he compares them in beauty with Aphrodite.
There are, for exaraple, Herraione, the daughter of Helen, whora
he only nientions in a single Une; Briseis, who, although an
important personage, is hardly a favourite character ; Cassandra,
who is also little raore than a lay figure, so far as the poera is
concerned ; and all these he corapares to Aphrodite. But those
whora he especiaUy corapares to Artemis for beauty — Helen
and Nausicaa — are two of his raasterpieces. Helen is corapared
to Arterais in the fourth Odyssey, where she enters in the hall
of the Palace of Menelaus. So I think you will agree that I do
not overstate the case when I say that Horaer places Artemis
upon quite as high a level as even Aphrodite. There are two
distinctions between thera, and they are rather interesting to
observe. The first is that in the case of Artemis he includes
what he does not always put forward when he refers to beauty.
But he puts it forward significantly in the case of Artemis. She
'¦ LI. 388-9.

1 89 1] THE HOMERIC ARTEMIS 331
is always represented as of considerable stature. That was in
Homer one of the qualities of divinities. In the description of
the shield of Achilles,^ where Athene and Ares are compared as
the rival gods of war, he describes them as KaXo) Kal /xeyaXo) 
'A/x(^t? dpi^r^Xw. He has done the same thing for Artemis,
and he has done it in more than one way. In a very
remarkable passage to which I raay refer again in the
Odyssey, where he describes how the various divinities contri
buted appropriate endowments to the daughters of Pandareus,
he places Artemis in clear competition with Aphrodite — in fact,
he may be said to give the go-by to Aphrodit;e, and he fixes as
the endowment which Artemis bestows that of firjKo^, which was
a distinct element of beauty in the case of deities. In the sixth
Odyssey, =^ Odysseus addresses Nausicaa as like the goddess in
beauty, stature, and manner —
'Apre/iiSt (re eywye Alos Kovpj] p.€yd\ow,
eidos T€ fieyedos re <l)vr]V t' ay^^to-ra e'iVKO)*
It is possible that he does this because Nausicaa belonged to the
people who were called Pheeacians, li-ving in the island of Scheria,
where they had kindred gods. It is rather remarkable that this
tradition of the great stature, or the comparatively great stature,
of Artemis should be so long lived that we find it even in the
first .^neid* — " gradiensque deas supereminet oranes." But
there is another point stUl raore remarkable. It is that in
Aphrodite beauty is put forward allied with passion, and gross
passion, and there is not a single moral element of any kind. It
is evident that Horaer intended to exhibit her as wonderful in
respect of her beauty, but as repulsive and not attractive. But
in the case of Arterais the beauty is not only associated with
the absence of vice, but with a kind of holy purity. There is
an epithet, which is the highest epithet in all Horaer: it is
ayvT) — that is, when the person spoken of is in the feminine
gender — not when it is used of a raan. It is even applied to
Persephone, of which a word by and by. Speaking generally,
it is a characteristic epithet which he applies to Artemis, to
indicate a sort of holy and consecrated purity. Well, so far so good.
' IL xviii. 618-19. ^ Ll. 151-152. = L. 501.

332 AIE GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 14
I ara now going to mention one attribute of Artemis, which'
is of very little importance. She sends a wild boar into the
Calydonian country, in consequence of a neglect of duty to offer
sacrifice upon her altar. That is a purely mythological property
that she possesses, I will not say enjoys, in coraraon with the
other raerabers of the Olympian system, and I do not think it
calls for any special notice on our part. The next attributes of
Artemis I am going to mention are about five or six which corae
together, belonging to what may be called her " death ministry."
How she carae to have such a ministry is another question,
which I will not touch upon now. It is a very remarkable
function indeed. It is her office not raerely to inflict death, to
be the rainister of death ; sorae writers have said the death
brought by Artemis is simply sudden death. But that is a
mistake ; it is soraetiraes sudden, soraetiraes not sudden, but
the reverse, and the contradictory of painful. Painless or un
conscious or placid death is one of the forras of death which it
is the duty of Arterais to govern and apply. The painful death
which she adrainisters is of a different character, and that, of
course, is naturally a sudden death. That was inflicted upon
Laodaraia in Iliad vi. in the legend of Bellerophon; upon
Ariadne, in Od. xi. ; upon a Phoenician woman, in the
15th Od.,1 who had grossly misconducted herself in more
than one respect. But it is quite evident that the princi
pal rainistry of Arterais in respect of death was this pecuUar
description of death in which death is disarraed of its sting.
We find a reraarkable line repeated in both poeras, and applied
only with a change of gender, as well to Arterais as to Apollo,
in which the gentleness of this rainistry of death is indicated —
oh ayavoU ^ekeeaffiv. That is a raost extraordinary and interest
ing function, and that this is really the character of her death
rainistry you raay see from a striking passage in the 15th
Odyssey.2 There is there a description of an island which
cannot be absolutely identified, but the account is very likely
founded upon Sicily. That island is represented as being
nearly a terrestrial paradise. The people live in abundance and
^ LL ¦117 and 478. " L. 403.

1891] THE HOMEBIC AETEMIS 333
..peace, and when they grow old, under the guidance of Arterais
and Apollo, the men and women are brought to this painless
death. There is a most beautiful case of this painless death in
the 20tli Odyssey ,1 in the passage spoken by Penelope in her
prayer to Artemis, in which, driven to the extreraity of woe and
privation, which she had so long and bravely borne, she is at last
led to express the wish that her life raay be brought to an end —
&s e'/i' aiarwo-eLav 'OXvp-nta doifxar' e^oj/res,
r)e fl' e'i'TrXoKafiOs /3aXot "Aprefiir, o(pp' 'OSva-fja
6aa-opev7j Koi yaiav vtto o-Tvy€pr]V d(fitKoipr]v,
firjS' (Tl xeipovoj dv8p6s ii)(^palvoip.i vorjpai,.
lines which I will venture to translate thus —
' ' Would fair-haired Artemis had stayed my breath,
So might I pass below the hated earth.
Yearn for Odysseus even there in death
Nor live to cheer a soul of meaner worth."
That last Ime I recoraraend to the notice of everybody — Pene
lope expecting her death, and regarding with horror the idea
that the partnership of her heart could be clairaed by any one
but Odysseus. So rauch for the ministry of death. Then there
is the rainistry of song. This is a very curious point, and it has
been very rauch overlooked ; indeed, is but slightly indicated.
There is no direct personal ascription of a gift of song or music
to Artemis such as belonged to Apollo, but it is indicated in
Iliad xvi. 182, when Hermes casts his longing eyes upon certain
nymphs, — . . . jLtera peXTropevrja-iv
'Ev x^P"" 'AprepiSos )^pv(Tr]\aKdTov KeXafieii'^f.
So song was the practice of the nymphs of Artemis, and doubt
less of Artemis herself also.
Then, araong the raany attributes of Arterais, she was the
daughter of Leto and the sister of Apollo ; these two charac
teristics being inseparably united. As the daughter of Leto,
however, her relationship to Leto is not dwelt upon by Homer
so strongly as the relationship of Apollo. He is caUed,
you will remember, tn the opening of the Iliad, the son of Leto,
as though to give prominence to the fact. But it is not so with
Artemis, though the interest of Leto in her is more than once
' Ll. 79-83.

334 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 14
indicated. But as the sister of Apollo, there is one important
point with respect to Artemis which has still to be borne in
mind. Artemis is invested as fully and efficiently with what I
call the " Arrow " attribute as Apollo himself. She has the bow,
and she not only uses it, but a great raany epithets are applied
to her in connection with it. There is another point I must
mention, although it is not so easy to make interesting. There
are several epithets applied to Artemis in which the word ¦x^pva-ix;
occurs, ¦)(^pva-r]\a,KaTo<!, '^pvaodpovo'i. It would appear that these,
as well as the bow, raust have been derived frora Apollo, because
there is another tradition connected with Artemis which associ
ates her with the moon. But she could not possibly have got the
element of " golden " from the moon. We are driven, therefore,
to assurae that this epithet is derived frora Apollo. Now, I
have gone through no fewer than ten characteristics of Artemis,
and I have more to raention. Perhaps you will say, and justly,
that I have not raentioned those which are raost prorainent in
your rainds. But what I have raentioned are all what I raay
call Olyrapian attributes — Horaeric attributes of Arterais. But
you cannot account for all her attributes in the ancient mytho
logies upon any one theory. The attributes I ha-^'e gone through
are, I think, all of them referable to her connection with Apollo.
How Apollo came to be invested with all these attributes of
song, prophecy, knowledge, command over death, is another
raatter. No doubt he derives a portion of the Homeric attri
butes from a source with which Homer does not directly deal.
It coraes frora the fact that Apollo had been associated m other
raythologies with the character of the Sun. How he carae to
possess these great and elevated qualities — knowledge of the
future, the mastery of death, and so on — is a large question
into which it would not be possible to enter now. But there is
a passage which deals with this question in a high authority
upon this, as, indeed, upon all subjects which he touches — in
Dr DolUnger's " Heidenthum und Judenthum." That writer
tells us that any attempt to unite all the attributes of Artemis
under one consistent theory can only be made by the raost
artificial construction of the Homeric text. The poems of

1891] THE HOMEBIC ARTEMIS 335
Homer belong to a period when the Greek nation was only in
the course of being made. In his tirae it was a composite
nation. It was made up partly of Pelasgians, partly of
Hellenes, partly of Phoenicians, and all these different factors
in the composition of the nation necessarily brought with them
their own religious traditions, and it was Homer's task to bring
them into a sort of theological unity. The sistership of Artemis
to Apollo is comparatively raodern in her history. She had
before this several histories and worships not in virtue of her
connection with Apollo. But you may, I believe, lay down this
rule, that whatever attribute Arterais holds in coraraon with
ApoUo is Olyrapian, Homeric, Greek, and is of coraparatively
less antiquity although that antiquity is very great indeed.
Whatever attribute she holds apart frora Apollo belongs to her
worship in other forras by other countries, for the most part
to an earUer period.
I now, therefore, come to the attributes which do not
connect theraselves with Apollo, which will show in an ex
ceedingly curious raanner how traditions derived frora various
sources have by the genius of a great nation and a great poet
been embodied in that most extraordinary religious system
which I venture to call the Olyrapian religion. Now, you must
have observed that Artemis is allied with Troy in the Iliad.
Apollo is allied also with Troy, but in a different way as being
the organ of the will of Zeus; there is no connection with
Zeus at all in the partisanship of Artemis for Troy. Why,
then, was she the ally of Troy ? First of all, you will reraera
ber how in the Theoraachy in the 20th and 21st books of the
lUad Artemis placed herself in antagonisra witb the superior
power of Here. The consequence is that Here rushes at her,
roughly grips both the wrists of Arterais together with her left
hand and belabours her about the ears, whilst poor Arterais
endeavours in vain to escape frora this severe and degrading
castigation; the word ivTpo-7ia\L^op,evij indicates the endeavour of
Arterais to escape frora this castigation. It must occur to any
one who tries to get at the meaning of the Horaeric rayth that,
as has been pointed out. Homer never does anything without

336 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 14
a reason. When I was an Eton boy I ara afraid we put many
things into our Unes to fiU up the metre. I do not suppose that
any of you ever have recourse to such a practice of less enlight
ened days. But in Homer there is nothing without a reason.
I assure you, after much examination of the text, carried on for
forty years, I am astonished at the way in which p)urpose is
carried through — I do not say absolutely without exception,
but a distinct, definite purpose is carried through the whole of
these poems, and every line of thera, to a greater extent, I may
say, than in any other text in the world. It is only recently
that the Gerraans have been able to keep up at all effectually
with the vast raass of matter which the text of Homer indi
cates and involves. The great scholar Buchholz has grappled
with it, and has published his account of the facts of the text
which fills six thickly-printed octavo voluraes. What, then,
is the explanation of this degrading punishraent inflicted by
Here ? The text of Horaer shows us that the religion of Troy
was greatly, if not vitally, diff'erent from the religion of Greece.
The Olympian religion is founded upon what is soraetiraes
caUed by the very imperfect phrase anthropomorphism. The
religion of Troy was manifestly nature worship. Now, one of
the pre-Horaeric traditions connected with Arterais was that
of an earth goddess. You know there was an earth goddess
in all systems of nature worship, and as a mere uniraportant
figure, a sort of abstraction, Horaer cannot be said not to
give testiraony that Tata is in sorae sense a goddess. And
a real traditional worship of that character was e-\ddently
the worship of Arterais. This partisanship of Artemis with
Troy was, I take it, associated with the religion of Troy,
and does not depend solely upon the Theoraachy for its Ulustra
tion. You will find it in the third Iliad, in which there is a
very soleran arrangement between the two goddesses that they
shall enter into a compact, the condition of which is that the
war is to be decided by single combat, and that they shall join
sacrifices and settle how it is to be arranged. If the religions
had been the same there would have been no difficulty at all — •
they would have got over the difficulty by combining in one

1891] THE HOMEBIC AETEMIS 337
common sacrifice to Zeus. Again, in the 276th line they get
over the difficulty by off'ering a lamb to Zeus on the part of the
Greeks, and a lamb on the part of the Trojans. To whom ?
Why, to the nature powers — to the earth and to the sun. The
same idea is seen in the 17th book, when the term of Trojan
success is brought to an end by Here. The sun is stated to
have gone to rest unwillingly. Another illustration of the
nature worship of Troy is in the 21st Iliad, where Achilles is
involved in the waters of Skamandros, and is only saved by
the overpowering might of Hephasstus. It is quite clear that
here we have reference to nature powers, and that the earth
goddess as a nature power was raost appropriately pitted
against Here, because Here is really the Achaian forra of the
ancient earth goddess. Indeed, the very narae Here appears to be
with very insignificant modifications the sarae as the old name
epa, earth. Then we see how appropriate it is, first of all, that
Here should be the antagonist of Arterais — that is, that the Grecian
representation of the old tradition of the earth goddess in the
Greek peninsula should be pitted against the earth goddess of Troy.
And you will also observe that this accounts for the inexorable
partizanship of Here for the Greeks, because her own attri
butes brought her into direct corapetition with Artemis. The
Greek Artemis inherited the attributes of the Artemis of Asia
Minor, where, as the representative of all the products of the
earth, her famous statue was covered with a raultitude of
breasts. Her worship at Ephesus was a kind of raetropolitan
worship, representing the worship of all Asia Minor. I have
given you some clear grounds of distinction between the Troie
and Achaean reUgious, and of the place which Artemis holds in
the Troie system. But why does not Tata appear in the Homeric
poems as a goddess ? The reason is that, if she had, the link
would have been broken with the Olympian systera. Homer
had two things to combine. He had to corabine the separate
religious traditions into a literary unity, and to avoid breaking
with the usages of the people araong whora he lived. So he
allows Fala to appear as a sort of abstract idea. It is quite
evident that Artemis takes the place which Tala would other-

338 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 14
wise have filled. That partizanship with Troy refers, in my
¦view, to the character which Artemis had borne in the old
mythology as the earth goddess. It may be worth while to
notice that temples of Artemis abounded in Greece, most of
all in Arcadia. There were between twenty and thirty of them
in the time of Pausanias, who gives the most interesting and
important testimony with regard to the religion of Greece.
Why in Arcadia, as these were temples based upon the old
tradition of the earth goddess ? Because Arcadia was the great
centre of Pelasgian, pre-Achaean population, and there we find
represented these ancient traditions, which had to be so greatly
modified in order to bring them into harmony with the anthro
pomorphism of the Olympian system. Another statement may
at first appear paradoxical. Artemis is leader of the nymphs,
who are iv xopm AprefiiSo<;. Now, Homer is full of nymphs.
We have all the famous nymphs brought out in Homer. We
have different classes of nymphs referred to at Iliad xx. 8. It is
just the same in the Odyssey. There are mountain and foun
tain nymphs referred to again and again. We have the term
dypovop.oi,, which does not indicate exactly what we mean by
the country, for arypb<; has always some element of wild and
open country about it. It does not imply cultivation, as " ager "
and " rus " came to imply afterwards. Now, these nymphs are
always found in the train of ArtenUs, and she is their Queen.
Why ? It coraes of the old tradition of Arterais, because these
nyraphs were all irapersonations of natural bodies, portions, so
to speak, of the earth, springing frora the earth ; and it was
only in that condition of huraan impersonation that anything
belonging to the nature system under the Homeric system
could be perraitted to find its way into the Olyrapian regions,
or estabUsh a relationship with thera. That makes the connec
tion sufficiently clear for the case of the nymphs. But, besides
that, I do not hesitate to say that the function of Artemis, as
Huntress Queen, is referable to the same source. Recollect
that Artemis is not a raere sportswoman. She is queen of the
regions in which she sports. Both m the lUad and the Odyssey
she is TTOTVLa dr^pwv, which shows the way in which Homer

1 89 1] THE HOMEBIC ARTEMIS 339
deals with the earth goddess. He cannot directly make her
the earth goddess, but he makes her the goddess as well of
animals as of nymphs, who represent all the natural bodies,
which places her in the closest connection with the attri-
butes of the earth goddess. There is another postJIomeric
tradition which makes her the queen of the under world. You
will recollect the solemn invocation of Dido before she dies —
"Tergeminamque Hecaten, tria virginis ora Dianae."^
At that time Artemis had become the goddess of the under
world. She is not the goddess of the under world in Homer.
But yet there is a sort of indication of connection between her
and the person who was the goddess of the under world.
There is a solemn and mysterious figure — for you must bear in
mind that the doctrine of woman's rights had reached its highest
point — A'fdoneus there is nothing ; everything is done by Perse
phone, and, curiously enough, there is this indication of a
relationship between Artemis and Persephone, that he calls
Persephone a^vr) — that remarkable characteristic epithet applied,
as we saw, to Artemis. You will see how well being goddess
of the under world agrees with the idea of Artemis ha-ving
been an earth goddess in some of the old mythologies. Accord
ing to Homer, the earth was really the shell of the under world,
and the sun when he comes before Zeus in the Odyssey has to
pass daUy the mouth of the under world. The sun god there
threatens that, unless he gets what he wants, he will stop there,
and not give any raore light upon the earth. Thus it is that
Arterais came to possess this function of goddess of the under
world. Artemis also appears as the moon goddess, as Apollo is
the sun god. As nature powers, they cannot come into Olympus,
into which they could only enter upon Achaian conditions,
though they might retain some of their ancient attributes.
There are certain attributes in this connection, such as -^pvao.
0povo<; appUed to Artemis as 'x^pva-'^vio^ is applied to Apollo.
There are other signs also of this old character of moon goddess.
One is very curious, and that is the very singular manner in
1 JEn. iv. 511.

340 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 14
which Horaer deals with the moon. The sun bears the character
of a god, but he is kept in the shade in the Iliad, and he is not
allowed to enter Olympus. But the moon is dealt with raore
uncereraoniously. She is not even a person, much less a god.
She might just as well be made of green cheese. She is nothing
but a physical body. I will now release you from this long
story. But you will see, at any rate, that I am only stating
what would be found in any book of credit and authority deal
ing with these questions of antiquity. When I was a boy I
cared nothing at all about the Homeric gods. I did not enter
into the subject until thirty or forty years afterwards, when, in
a conversation with Dr Pusey ,1 who, like me, had been an Eton
boy, he told rae, having raore sense and brains than I had, that
he took the deepest interest and had the greatest curiosity
about these Horaeric gods. They are of the greatest interest,
and you cannot really study the text of Horaer without gather
ing fruits ; and the raore you study him the raore you wUl be
astonished at the multitude of lessons and the completeness
of the picture which he gives you. There is a perfect encyclo
paedia of human character and human experience in the poems
of Homer, more complete in every detail than is elsewhere
furnished to us of Achaian life.
' Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford (1828-82).

THE FINANCE OF THE GOVERN
MENT, THE IRISH PARTY,
AND MR PARNELL.
Hastings, Maech 17, 1891.
Lord Beassey, Ladies, and Gentlemen, — If you are good enough
to feel any satisfaction in meeting me on the present occasion, I
can assure you, in return, that I rejoice to attend an asserably of
true-hearted and right-minded raen, citizens whose political
principles and purposes I believe to be those that are required
for the welfare of the country, and who, though at the present
moraent they form unhappily a rainority in the local constituen
cies, yet are, I beUeve, in an attitude of advance, and are likely, as
I hope, before long to assert for theraselves that share in the re
presentation of the horae counties to which by character, ability,
influence, and patriotisra they are thoroughly entitled ; and
under such auspices as those of our chairraan and those of Mr
Gardner^ — who was at one tirae the solitary representative, like
Abdiel in ]\Iilton, among seventy merabers of Parliament, of
Liberal principles, of raen like Mr AUard, the secretary of the
institution,"'^ and last, but not least, like Mr Harcourt, ^ by whora
the arrangements of to-day have been organised — I feel that
you wiU emulate the exaraple — indeed, you have in more than
one district already emulated the exaraple — set by other por
tions of the country, and will give to Liberal principles that
power, when the opportunity is offered — that power and influ
ence that they deserve in the councils of the nation. I raust
dwell upon local affairs if it is only to say one word of syrapathy
^ ilemher for the Saffron "Walden Division of Essex.
' The Home Counties Division of the National Liberal Federation.
' The Honorary Secretary.

342 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 17
with the calamitous losses of Ufe that have marked the recent
severe weather, and from which this coast, and this spot upon
the coast, have not been exempt. It is impossible for any one
who bears the narae of Briton not to have a very strong and
deep interest in the gallant portion of the community who brave
the winds and waves for our advantage, and many of whom I
have seen in the streets of Hastings and St Leonards to-day
welcome us on this present occasion,
Now, the present situation is pecuUar. There is a good
deal which I think ought to be said upon the situation of
the moraent, and therefore I would beg you to understand,
without an undue consumption of time and your patience,
it is not in my power to attempt to map out in full the
aspects both of the present and the future. I cannot lay
down all the whole basis of the Liberal creed or of its pro
spective developments. I must make a selection from the
urgent and interesting topics that appear to me to call for pre
sent and particular attention. I shall not go round the interests
of the country as represented in the different departments of the
Government. Indeed I will only bestow one word and one
moment upon a most important department of public affairs,
which must always be of deep interest in every asserably of
Englishraen ; I mean the foreign affairs of the country, and I
refer to that because I can do it with greater satisfaction than
any comments which it might be ray duty to make on other
departments of public interest. I admit that we are imperfectly
acquainted with the transactions of the Foreign Office during
the present Administration. We know, however, that Lord
Salisbury has had in his hand more than one knotty and per
plexing question, some of them not connected with former
times, some of them inherited from former times. Fuller in
formation might modify my opinions, but I am bound to say
speaking generally, that, so far as I know, there has been little
in the proceedings of Lord Salisbury in connection with the
Foreign Office to which as Liberals we ought to object. When
we look back to the state of things twelve or fourteen years
ago, to what we call familiarly but truly the Jingo period, I ara

1 89 1] THE FINANCE OF THE GOVEENMENT 343
very thankful that we are enabled to hold a pacific attitude,
and to wish Lord Salisbury well in the application of all sound
and pacific principles to the maintenance of English interests
and English honour in the conduct of his great department as
Foreign Minister.
I turn now and look to another department of the State, at
all times the most important, with regard to which I particularly
wish that it were in my power to hold language of as amicable
a character. I refer now to the finance of the country. Un
questionably the finance has reached a condition in which it has
become requisite that the public mind should be addressed to
the consideration of the principles that are gradually being
sapped, and of the undermining, dUapidating processes that are
being appUed slowly and tacitly to the soundest principles of
our financial system. On one great occasion it was my privi
lege in ParUament to encourage, and as far as I could to aid, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer in the important measure^ by which
he effected a large reduction in the interest of the National
Debt — a reduction that may, I fear, have borne hard upon many
of those who were public creditors, but with regard to whom we
are bound to say that what they did they did with their eyes
open, and no compulsion was offered to them. No one had a
right to complain of the measures adopted by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, of the steps taken with regard to that measure,
which has been of public benefit. But what has since been
going on ? I must remind you of that which is apt to pass
away from recollection, for the finance of the country is inti
mately associated with the liberties of the country. It is a
powerful leverage by which English liberty has been graduaUy
acquired. Bunning back into the depths of antiquities for
many centuries, it lies at the root of EngUsh liberty, and if the
House of Commons can by any possibility lose the power of
the control of the grants of pubUc money, depend upon it your
very Uberty wiU be worth very little in comparison. That
power can never be wrenched out of your hands. That powerful
leverage has been what is commonly known as the power of the
1 Mr Goschen's Conversion Scheme, 1888.

344 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 17
purse — the control of the House of Coraraons over public ex
penditure — which not only is your raain guarantee for purity,
and which has been, certainly, in other times a very effective
guarantee for econoray, but which likewise lies at the root of
English liberty, and if the House of Commons could by any
possibUity lose the power of controlling the granting of public
money for carrying on the affairs of the Governraent, depend
upon it your other liberties would be worth but very little in
coraparison. No -violence, no tyrrany, whether of experiraents
or of such raethods as are likely to be raade in this country,
could ever for a raoraent have a chance of prevailing against the
energies of that great assembly. No ; if these powers of the
House of Commons come to be encroached upon, it will be by
tacit and insidious methods, and, therefore, I say that public
attention should be called to this.
I will tell you on what main conditions, in ray opinion,
it depends. First of all, it depends on the right of the
House of Comraons to fix the expenditure of the country
from year to year, and you will at once perceive that that
is the only security you have for the observance of fair con
ditions between one year and another. If it be in the power
of the Government, through the agency of the majority, to cast
the burden of the present upon the future, the temptations so to
do will inevitably prove too strong for the weakness of human
nature. Tbe consequences will be the gaining of a partial and
a superficial credit and popularity which are not deserved ; in
the second place, the storing up of future financial embarrass
raent ; and, in the third place, a real invasion of those public
liberties which are so essentially associated with the power and
privilege of the House of Commons. Next to that power of
annual control which is necessary and essential, is that there
should be a unity in the public funds. For 150 years — from
the tirae of Mr Pelham and Mr Pitt, the greatest finance
ministers of this country, so far as capacity was concerned —
the object has been to get rid of the older system, in which a
multitude of different funds were created, and to bring them
into one account, to bring them into due conspicuousness and

1 89 1] THE FINANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT 345
due purview of the entire nation, so that we might see them as
a whole, and might know what we were about ; and these long-
continued labours, I must say, have had wonderful results, and
I do not hesitate to say that for practical purposes there was
nothing in the ci-vilized world to compare with the efficiency of
Parliamentary control such as it has been during the greater
part of my public life, and such as it will continue, unless you,
by acquiescence in an abuse, allow it to be undermined. With
this unity of systera and simplicity of account, which has been
built up by the skill of Ministers in the past to such a high
degree of perfection, there is another condition which is even
more important than those I have mentioned, and that is that
there should be no concealment, and that everything which has
been spent should be brought before the country from time to
time. Then you put the saddle upon the light horse. There
was extravagance because the people did not feel interest enough
in the matter to stop it. I can only tell you for my own part that,
such is the iraportance I attach to the question of absolute pub
licity in the whole of the public expenditure, that I consider —
though I ara not a man to recommend waste at any time — the
waste of five millions a much smaller evil than the concealment
of one raillion. When there is waste, it reraains to the nation to
correct it. When there is concealraent, they are without redress.
What have we seen in the course of the last year or two ?
Proceedings that I must say, in my opinion, are unexampled. I
shall not be able — the matter has become so complex through
the arrangements of the present Governraent, and the present
majority have adopted it, that it would take alraost hours to lay
before you a full exposition of the state of the facts. What I
have to say will contain only a part of thera, and I will en
deavour to state to you some of those which may be considered
the most striking and vital points of the case. I state — and you
wUl agree with me— that the fixing of the expenditure from
year to year by the vote of the House of Commons is the
essential basis of our system. What has been done now ? By
an Act^ passed in the year 1889 ten millions of money were set
1 The Naval Defences Bill.

346 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 17
apart for expenditure, with no condition as to the time within
which the money should be spent, but with the pro-vision, made
under Act of ParUament, that the liquidation of this expenditure
was only to be made in seven instalments, spread over seven years.
See what that would mean. It means the taking out of the hands
of the Parliament of the future the power of determining what
the public charge of these years is to be. And what is the pre
text for this ? It is that they want merely to build ships of
war. No doubt they did, but if it was money to build ships of
war the House of Commons were the proper judges in that
matter. And see the points that are here involved. It is said,
and said most truly, by Sir Thomas Farrar that at the present
moment there is nothing in which fashion more prevails, and in
which fancy more prevaUs, than in the character and exact
structure and condition of ships of war. We have been chang
ing incessantly for the last thirty years or more, and Sir Thomas
Farrar has said wittily and well that there is almost as much
fashion in ships of war as in ladies' bonnets. And what do you
think, gentlemen, or perhaps I had better alter my phrase —
what would you think, ladies, of the good sense and prudence
of any lady who went to her milliner and, upon a plan now laid
down and determined, gave an order for a bill, and bound her
self to pay for a seven years' supply of bonnets all rigidly
adapted to the present pattern ? I have no doubt, in delicate
language — raore delicate language than I can pretend to use —
you would point out to such individual the institutions in this
country intended for the charitable reception, kindly treatment,
and, if possible, the cure of those who are providentially visited
with certain affiictions, and that it is quite evident, to judge
frora her actions, that was the residence she had better, for the
present select. But it is more than that as the matter now
stands. In voting the estimates year after year, the House of
Commons is able to discharge that function which belongs to it
by the Constitution, of itself, and to no other part of the Legisla-
lature. The House of Commons is the body that has the right
to extend if it thinks fit, or contract if it thinks fit, the expen
diture of the country. It is now provided that for seven years

1 89 1] THE FINANCE OF THE GOVEENMENT 347
to come fourteen hundred odd thousand pounds in each year
shall be applicable to shipbuilding under Act of Parliament.
The discretion is taken out of the hands of the House of
.Commons. Oh, we shall be told, but the Act of Parliament may
be altered. It may be altered, but by whose consent ? By the
consent of the House of Lords. And if, though the House of
Commons — I do not say it would ; that is not the question ; the
question is who is competent and who is entitled to judge — and
if the House of Commons should be of opinion during these
seven years, bound as it is to represent the national interest and
feeling, that this expenditure ought to be contracted, it cannot
diminish it by a single farthing without the sound Tory majority
that rules the House of Lords, and I think that is a pretty
serious state of affairs.
But that is not quite all. As I said, were I to go further
into detail I should show you that the floodgates of abuse
have been opened even to a much larger extent than I
have yet described. But I can only select my points, and
I am bound to say that my next point is this, that when
this enormous expenditure was devised it was so arranged under
the terms of the Act of Parliament that it should be concealed
from the public, that it should not appear in the annual returns
of expenditure. Our friend Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, an enlightened
member of Parliament,^ devised a form of return which should
detect this misdoing of Her Majesty's Government, and under
which the whole expenditure for naval and military purposes in
the year 1891 — the whole estimated expenditure — should be
fairly set before the country. It is to him, and not to the
Government, that we owe the knowledge of the fact that about
thirty-eight millions were spent upon our army and navy in the
last year, with regard to which, though this is a very wealthy
country, it is a matter, it seems to me, which deserves consider
ation more than it receives, greater even than in some periods
when great wars have forced it upon the attention of the coun
try. That was hot all. I come now to the most vital question,
the whole question of publicity, because when we examine the
1 For Bradford.

348 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 17
returns we find that the sum of 38 millions was to be spent
within a year only, and 33 J millions were to be provided for by
taxation and -i^ raillions were the concealed contraction of
pubUc debt, and this was not to be known to the people at all.
Mr. Lefevre dragged it into the light of Parliaraentary con
trol — control of the House of Coramons, that is, as regards
publicity. I think that is enough, but I have another point to mention
scarcely less important. We are getting into a system under
which Parliament is treated and the country is treated to the
exhibition of fictitious surpluses of revenue over expenditure.
It is not possible to consider anything raore unjustifiable or
anything more dangerous. What is a surplus ? A surplus is
an excess of bona-fide receipts over bona-fide expenditure. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer last year showed a surplus of 3^
raillions, but what did he do with the expenditure ? If he had
shown that 4i raillions of expenditure of which I have just been
speaking to you he would have had no surplus at all, but a defi
ciency of one raillion. But this surplus was laid before the
House of Coraraons, and was treated as a free fund which the
House of Coraraons was at liberty to dispose of in relief of the
public burdens, while all the tirae the public burdens in the
shape of debt were being increased by about a raillion. Well,
gentleraen, that is a very serious state of affairs, and here again
you seera to appreciate the little simile of the ladies and the
bonnets. I ask you what would become of the landowner, what
would beconie of the tradesraan or lawyer, or any other raan
who has an account to keep and has got to find food and raiment
for himself, his wife, and children, if, when he casts up his
accounts at the end of the year, he dehberately strikes out a
large sum, a charge he knew he had incurred, and pretended to
himself and to others that he had a balance or revenue over
expenditure, that he was in a flourishing condition, and might
then proceed to indulge in some more little luxuries in addition.
But, gentlemen, I must add one word upon that subject, only
one word, because I want you to see what was done or atterapted
to be done last year by the Governraent, not by the House of

1 891] THE FINANCE OF THE GOVEENMENT 349
Commons, for I am glad to say that the House of Comraons stopped
it — even this House of Coramons stopped it — but the manner in
which it was proposed to dispose of that fictitious, artificial, and
pretended surplus of revenue over expenditure. A large por
tion of it- — I think about one third; if I remeraber right,
£1,200,000 — it was proposed to invest in the fancy scheme of
buying up the licences of public houses on such terms as owners
of public houses might be prepared to accept ! That is what I
called — and I venture to say it was the right and just descrip
tion — a Public House Endowment Bill. If the sarae thing were
done with grocers and haberdashers, and the Treasury of the
country was to be expended in buying in grocery and taUoring
establishraents at terms fixed by themselves, it would be just
the sarae — a Grocers', a Tailors', or a Haberdashers' Endowment
Bill. So that money, which was artificially and, I might say,
except that I do not want to be personal, or I would say fraudu
lently obtained — which was obtained without any due warrant
or title — -was to be laid out in the very worst, raost foolish, and
pestUent method that could be devised. Well, gentlemen, it is
fair to say the House of Commons stopped that, and I rejoice
that it stopped that plan, for it would have done enormous mis
chief. And I am con-vinced that my friend Sir Williara Har
court did not exaggerate when he said that if that BUl were
passed and its principles adopted the public houses of the coun
try could not be bought up — and according to the principle of
the BUl, there was no mode of stopping them but by buying
them — could not be bought up for a sum less than two hundred
miUions of money. Well, gentlemen, it is a great thing that
that mischief has been averted. That is one among the many
blessed boons that you owe to a patriotic Government devoted
to the sacred and solemn task of maintaining a parchraent union
between England and Ireland.
There are many other things connected with finance to which
I should like to refer, but I must not do it, because I have more
to say, and I must be mindful of the fact that there are bounds
to all excesses, even in public speaking. I must go to that
other subject, which has assumed within the last four raonths

350 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 17
a peculiar position — the great subject of Ireland and Irish
policy. There is nothing more remarkable than the history of
the Irish Parliamentary party as it will stand in the pages of the
future historian. The Irish Parliamentary party now existing
in the House of Commons has been the result of a long series
of circumstances. First of all it represents the substitution of
Parliamentary methods for those methods of excess, crime, and
outrage which at one time appeared to be the only methods
with the least hope of efficiency to the unhappy people of
Ireland. Now, the establishment of Parliamentary methods
and the inculcation and familiarising of Ireland with the
doctrine that Parliament was to be the organ through which
redress was to be obtained of Irish grievances was an enormous
advantage in the political civilisation of that country; audi
am bound to say — for it is beyond all question — that the attain
ment of that advantage was due almost entirely to one raan —
naraely, that eminent and, I think, undoubted patriot, Daniel
O'ConneU. In later tiraes there has been a further develop
ment of those principles which has been of a very remarkable
character. It has been thought by the Irish National party
that the peculiar circumstances of Ireland justify and require
the adoption of other rules beyond the rules of substituting
Parliaraentary action for irregular and illegal action, and two
things have been done, two practices have been adopted, which
I think it requires the very peculiar circurastances of Ireland
to justify, which are probably justified, and which have been
justified by those circurastances. In the first place it carae to
be the rule of the Irish ParUamentary party that their votes
should be governed, not upon the Irish questions alone that are
submitted frora the chair, but upon all questions brought to the
issue in Parliaraent — their votes should be governed by Irish
considerations. That raay sound strange, but I would Ulustrate
it in this way. Supposing one of you had been a member of
Parliament in the time when Lord Grey's Eeform Bill was a
great and absorbing question of the day, and was a question to
which it was obviously right — such was the concentration and
absorption of public interests in the subject — that everything

1891] THE FINANCE OF THE GOVEENMENT 351
else should be made to yield, it would not have been at all un
reasonable to determine in your own minds that you would go
on voting for him until that Reform Bill was settled; you
would give every vote upon every question with reference to
its tendency to impede or promote that particular measure.
That is just what the Irish did. They said — " For us the Irish
question is supreme ; the Irish question is Alpha and Omega.
Without it for us as Irishmen there is no good to be obtained ;
with it all other good will follow." So they adopted that prin
ciple. Then they adopted a further principle, which was this
— that whenever a Nationalist entered Parliament to become a
member of the Nationalist party in Parliament, he adopted it
subject to a pledge, I believe, of honour — I know not whether
written, but certainly understood and avowed and perfectly
well known — well known to those connected with Parliamentary
matters — that upon every question that might arise and might
be made the subject of deliberation by the Irish party the
minority should give way to the majority, and co-operate with
thera to the sacrifice of their own opinions. This is a very
remarkable fact with respect to what is now going on in
Ireland. I believe this cannot be contradicted, and that what
I have said is the literal and siraple truth, that every raember
of the party in the minority should sacrifice his own opinions
to those of the majority. Now this is the means by which the
Irish party arrived at a position of great power and influence,
which it appears to me that, at any rate, of late years they
have been using for the good of their own country and for the
good of the Empire at large. As far as regards the latter
stages of the development of the Parliamentary party principle
to which I have referred, and particularly as regards the rule
that an individual must yield his opinion, after a fair oppor
tunity of stating it, to the majority, and must regard the view
of the majority as law for him, I have always understood that,
in particular, that latest principle was due very much to
the skilful and discerning agency of Mr Parnell when he was
leader of the Irish party.
And here I must say one word upon Mr Parnell, not of a

352 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 17
personal character — I have no intention of putting myself in
personal conflict with any man. Whenever I see ascribed to-
him — I do not say " said by him," that is another matter-
whenever I see anything ascribed to him, anything concerning
myself, which I know to be untrue, then I think it my duty to
say so to the public. I was reading in The Times yesterday
what purported to be a portion of a speech made by Mr Parnell
the day before — that is, last Sunday ; and it was to this effect.
I wUl not read the exact words, but I will give the substance.
He said a charge had been made against hira that he had
opposed the clairas of labour candidates — you know what are
raeant — and brought about their defeat. He adraitted that this
was true ; but what was the cause of it ? These are the words
ascribed to hira — '' He did so because, as an aUy of the Liberal
leaders, acting in negotiation with thera, he was bound in
England to carry out their policy ; and when they asked hira
to use his influence and direct his organisation to defeat labour
candidates he was under an obligation to do so." Well, as Mr
Parnell is stated to have said by the reporter of The Times that
that instruction he received from the Liberal leaders, and that
it was iraposed upon hira as an obligation by them, I suppose
when he speaks of the Liberal leaders I must be more or less
included. On that supposition I wish, with very great brevity,
to state to you that tn the recital I have made, which is rather
cruelly ascribed by the reporter to Mr Parnell, there is not one
syllable of truth, so far as I ara concerned, frora beginning to
end. If the Liberal leaders have taken any part, and they have
taken a part, with regard to labour candidates, it has been the
desire frora the bottora of their hearts to proraote, by the use
of every legitiraate raeans at their coraraand, an increase, aye,
an undeniable increase, in the nuraber of the representatives of
labour who now sit in the House of Coraraons. And I trust I
raay have an opportunity of backing what is said by reference
to the candidature of a labour candidate^ on this platforra, and
expressing, in the face of you all, my hearty and warmest
wishes for his success.
1 Mr G. Ball, candidate for the Rye Di-vision of Sussex.

1 89 1] THE FINANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT 353
I pass on from that particular point ; I pass on from
that point to what lies beyond, and I look to the remarkable
career of Mr Parnell, with respect to which it has often been
thought I owed some explanation to the public. It has been
pointed out that, in the month of October 1881, 1 myself, in the
City of London, denounced Mr Parnell in terms of great severity,
whereas for several years past I have been in political co-opera
tion with him in respect to the Irish question. It is true I
denounced him in the month of October 1881. I argue the
question whether it was wrong. I stick to ray own conviction,
and I tell you on what I founded rayself. I founded myself on
this — that Mr Parnell had at that tirae, on more occasions than
one, but especially, I think, in a speech delivered in America,
expressed hiraself in language which I thought raost dangerous
to the Erapire — with respect to the total separation of Ireland
from this country. That was one ground ; and the second
ground was this — that at that time, according to my -views of
the proceedings of Mr Parnell, he was a determined opponent
of the Irish Land Act, and had arrived at the conclusion that
that great measure, to which we, the Liberal Government,
looked as the main instrument at that time for redressing the
grievances of Ireland — he was determined to bring that measure
to ignorainious failure. Those were the grounds of my denuncia
tion. After Mr ParneU came back to the House of Coraraons
frora his imprisonment in KUraainham, I never heard of his re-
peatuig that dangerous language with regard to the separation
of Ireland from England, and I am bound to say — only justice
to hira requires me to say — that instead of being an opponent
of the Land Act he did then becorae a co-operator with us in
giving it effect. And looking at the position he assuraed from
1881 to the end of the Liberal Government of 1885, gentlemen,
I have no selfish or personal interest in coraraending it. Mr
Parnell, during those years, and his whole party were in opposi
tion to us, and it was their vote that put us out of office in
1885. I do not complain of that, but in speakhag of the Irish
ParUamentary party, I think that in their position it might be
quite possible that they were justified in doing what they

354 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 17
thought was demanded by Irish interests. I make no cora
plaint, and never have, directly or indirectly. We come down
to 1885, and then came 1886, with the announcement of the
policy of Home Eule. AVhen that policy was announced by the
Government of 1886, it was frankly and raagnaniraously and
patriotically adopted by the Irish National party. Our plan
was based upon the twin ideas, first of all, of handing over to
Ireland the full and efficacious control of her own local affairs ;
secondly, of raaintaining in a forra not less full and efficacious
the control of the Imperial Parliament over all those charges
and all those interests which were Imperial. With a raost
enlightened sagacity the Irish party of that day adopted that
basis of action. They reserved to theraselves the right to araend
in this or that detail the plan we had announced, as we on our
side were both entitled and bound to adopt any iraproveraent of
that plan. That was the basis of our co-operation. Well, what
I wish to tell you is this — that if it happens in ray lifetirae — I
raust not say what is to happen after ray political career has
reached its close — but if it happens in my lifetime that every
fresh plan for Home Eule, as I trust raay be the case, raay be
founded with a rigid fidelity upon those two bases — neither of
which, in ray opinion, can be justifiably separated frora the
other — any infringeraent of the one would, if I ara right in my
view, infiict mortal daraage on the other. That is the basis on
which we stood. Upon that basis we worked frora the suraraer
of 1886 to the winter of 1890, and with what result ? You
know with what result — that upon certain chances which bye-
elections afforded we obtained last year sixteen seats. With
that before rae I think I may venture to call it a matter of
certainty that, if under those circurastances Parliaraent were
dissolved to-raorrow, a large and commanding majority would be
returned for the purpose of converting Ireland into a blessing
and source of strength to this country, instead of being a diffi
culty, an erabarrassraent, and an obstacle to the practical con
duct of our affairs, to the application and pursuance of our vital
interests. WeU, gentlemen, then came that sad and painful

i89i] THE FINANCE OF THE GOVEENMENT 355
time of the disclosures in the Divorce Court ;i and I must now
speak with respect to the effect of those disclosures, because
there you, in point of fact, are more deeply concerned than I am.
It was not my business, gentlemen, to place myself upon the
chair of the Judge, to pronounce judgment upon my fellow-
creature with regard to any amount of delinquency, real or
imaginary, great or small, of which he had been guilty ; but it
was your part, gentlemen, as the Liberal party of this country,
to consider on what principles and on what rules you would be
guided in the disposal of your votes. The Liberal party of this
country knew perfectly well that the according of Irish Home
Eule depended upon them. In sorae recent speech of Mr Parnell's
I see he says that it may be time for them to think of Tory
allies, and that Lord Salisbury raay be very likely included.
They have played that game once. It did not seem to lead to
any very satisfactory results. I have never raade any secret of
it; if it were possible that the Tories would give Ireland a
measure of Home Eule corresponding to the measure I have
alluded to, I should be delighted. I should give them the same
support as if it were a measure proceeding from the Liberal
party. But there is no impediment in the way of such a
measure in the Tory conscience which does not care much about
it. I do not know whether it is in the Tory intellect ; I do not
think it is in that either. It is in the existence of that unhappy,
unfortunate, ill-starred abortion of a party which is called the
party of Liberal Unionists. The Tories might give Home Bule
just as they gave Roraan Catholic emancipation. They had
always opposed it ; but, nevertheless, the time came when they
thought proper to give in, and they were not extinguished by
gi-ving it. On the contrary, the Tory party lives by its defeat.
It always comes up again like the figures in " Punch " if you
think it has been fairly and finally disposed of by a great clout
on the head. But the Liberal Unionists are in a different posi
tion, because the reason and ground of their existence is opposi
tion to Home Rule, and if Home Rule were granted they vanish
into thin air. That is the difficulty, gentlemen. Well, the
1 The ease was that of O'Shea v. O'Shea and Parnell, tried November 1890.

356 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 17
Liberal party arrived at an important conclusion. I have no
right, of course, to speak as an infalUble authority, but I believe
I am statuig what is perfectly well known. We never entered
into the aff'airs of the Divorce Court, or considered whether Mr
Parnell should resign his seat in Parliament. That was a ques
tion for the Cork constituency. No question of this kind was
ever raised, even as to the ordinary leadership of the party.
What the Liberals of this country did was this. They looked
forward to a coraing crisis. They said, " We are working for a
raajority in the next Parliament; that majority, obtained by
Liberal agency in this country, will give Home Bule to Ireland."
That .Home Bule to Ireland, if there had been no disclosures in
the Divorce Court, would have been the raeans of making Mr
Parnell the constitutional ruler of Ireland. The disclosures in
the Divorce Court, we must observe, were of a complex and not
of a single character, and embraced a great deal besides the ira
raediate raatter brought to issue. The battle comes to issue,
and we have to decide whether we still, after these disclosures,
will place the constitutional leadership of Ireland in the hands
of Mr Parnell. We will not do it. Now, gentlemen, that is
not an iraraoderate thing to say. I had not to consider in what
condition as a party they would give their votes and devote
their efforts. My duty was a rauch simpler one. I was merely
the reporter of the general conviction of the Liberal party.
Now, I never doubted that that was the con-viction of the
Liberal party, and of the soundest and best parts of the party,
and, moreover, I believe that U that was their conviction in
Deceraber last it is now their conviction. It is a final fact in
the case. We are ready, gentleraen, to face defeat, exclusion,
political misfortune ; but to do that which I have described — to
create constitutional leadership in Ireland under guidance such
as I have referred to — the Liberal party are not prepared, and
no consideration will induce them to be prepared.
WeU, what happened next ? As I told you, according to our
understanding, we expected the Irish party would have met to
gether, and would have voted as to who was to be their leader. I
should have thought U there was one thing more absolutely in the

1891] THE FINANCE OF THE GOVEENMENT 357
nature of a party than another, it was the choice of a leader.
A political party not authorised to choose its leader is a con
tradiction in terms. However, gentleraen, a dispute has arisen ;
a different view is taken by the minority of the party, while the
majority of the party has steadUy and finally decided that Mr
Parnell shall not be leader of the Irish party. The question
has undergone that transportation across the channel which, in
the case of criminal prosecutions, is called a change of venue.
The venue has been moved away frora England to Ireland, and
it is the Irish people who have now to judge of that question —
a question of great iraportance, on which they appear to be in
a certain degree divided. But what we say is, that a seceding
minority, bound as we understand by its pledges to follow the
majority, is resisting that majority, and setting up the man
whom the majority has put down. Another curious circum
stance, gentlemen, I cannot help noticing in passing. I read a
manifesto of Mr Parnell's, published in America. He appeared
to me to have put in that manifesto many questionable claims,
and to have reckoned upon some sources of strength which,
perhaps, he does not possess ; but one thing I was exceedingly
struck with in the way of omission. He apparently forgot
to inform the Irish in America whom he was addressing
that he had now the support of the Tory Press and most
of the Tories in England. Undoubtedly he ought to have
set forth that amongst his resources when he was taking an
inventory. But there is a minority of the Tory party, who are very
indignant at that mode of tampering with Mr Parnell, and of en
deavouring to set him up, which is practised by too many of thera.
Now, the question as it comes to us, I think, stands thus.
The decision of that question we had to leave to the Irish
people, not because we have no opinion about it, but be
cause we think it is a question for thera to decide and not for
us, and that our interference would give a handle to those who
may wish to raislead thera, and that the less, therefore, that we
intervene in the discussion of it the better. All I hope is, that the
decision may be a prompt decision and a clear decision, because I
can conceive nothing raore injurious to the Irish cause or to the

:;.oi:

MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 17

Imperial interests connected with it, than the continuance of a
state of things which would give even to the most prejudiced per
sons the slightest excuse to say it was not quite clear as to the
way in which the voice of Ireland was to be given. The question
for us is, What is our duty ? And it is on that I am very
anxious, if you will allow me, to say a few words. An idea has
gone abroad that the action of the Liberal party must undergo
some immediate change in consequence of what has happened
in Ireland. Now, let me say that I think that idea has found
but a very liraited acceptance indeed within the liraits of the
Liberal party itself. Our opponents like to say : " Oh, the
ground is cut away frora under your feet now ; you can make
nothing of it." That is not the sentiment of the Liberal party.
And the action of the Liberal party and the election at Hartle-
pooD show that the Liberal party never was more solid, never
more possessed, or raore deterrained as a united host upon prose
cuting and achieving that which it has in view. The idea, I do
not say it is a dishonest idea, is formed entirely on a raistake.
It seeras to be supposed that the Liberal party within the walls
of the House of Comraons has been busy all this tirae since 1886
in endeavouring to persuade the House of Comraons to adopt
Horae Eule. It is nothing of the kind. We have not preached
the doctrine of Horae Eule directly or perseveringly in the
House of Coraraons, and why, gentlemen ? I do not think that
even a political party or anybody else, if he could avoid it, would
waste his breath thus. You raight just as well go and preach
to the waves which wash upon your cliff's, or upon the coast of
Brighton, you raight just as well go and preach to thera as
preach to the niajority in the present House of Commons. We
have kept our breath for other purposes. It does not follow
that we have been idle in the House of Coraraons. No ; we
have steadily resisted in the House of Coraraons any attempt to
coerce Ireland in all its forms. And now what with regard to
coercion ? Depend upon it the difficulty is not to be got rid of
by such an idea, even if it were sound, instead of being exactly
1 January 21.st, 1.S91. Mr Gladstone's supporters won the seat from their
opponents.

1891] THE FINANCE OF THE GOVEENMENT 359
the reverse. It is not to be got rid of by the notion that Home
Eule can be thrust into a corner, which it cannot. It has not
been, and it is not, our immediate daily duty in this House of
Commons. Our daily duty has been to resist Irish coercion and
to mitigate and qualify it where we could not resist it. And in
certain cases we have not been wholly unsuccessful. For ex
ample, you may remember that early in this Parliament, when
numbers of Irish members and priests were sent to prison — you
will remember the mode in which they were treated. There
they were put on the plank bed. They were made to clean out
slops from their own cells. They were made to wear the prison
garb. They were made to take their exercise in company with
common criminals, and that proceeding was actually defended
by our opponents. If we are rightly informed, this has now
altogether faUed, and yet Mr DUlon and Mr O'Brien^ have been
sent to prison, and I am sorry for it. But, as I believe, as far
as their treatment is concerned they have nothing to complain
of. So that, as a minority, we have not to say that our labours
have been whoUy ineffective. I want to show you the truth
and reality of the proposition we make — that Irishmen are by
the present law, and still more by the present administration of
the law, deprived of the privileges which Englishmen enjoy. I
wUl not go now to the question of combination, because it leads
into long disputes.
I wUl refer to the right of public meeting, and I will tell you
what happens in Ireland with regard to the right of public meet
ing. You will then judge whether I am justified in what I say
when I make the allegation that Great Britain is governed upon
one principle and Ireland upon another ; that our Irish fellow-
subjects are shut out from liberties which we enjoy and know
to be essential to our civil condition. Now I will tell you some
of the practices that prevailed in Ireland. Suppose a public
meeting is called and the Government consider that that meet
ing ought to be put down. No doubt in the discharge of its
duty the Governraent may put down the public meeting subject
to correction by Courts of law. Why, they may put down that
' February 1891.

360 ilR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 17
public meeting by force, subject to correction by the judgment
of a Court of law. If we were here met together and suspected
of soraething objectionable, no force could be applied to us, for
we are in England, not in Ireland. In Ireland the police is
under the direction of the present Irish Governraent. Of course,
the blame does not lie with them, but with their chiefs at head
quarters. Irish raeetings are charged and dispersed by force
without any notice given, if the Governraent holds them to be
Ulegal or impoUtic and means to break them up. That is one
point in which it is absolutely impossible that Irish adrainistra
tion should be atterapted, or, if it were attempted, would be
tolerated in England. Another point is that meetings are
violently dispersed, and after the people who coraposed the
meeting fly in all directions they are pursued by the police and
batoned after they had fled frora the raeeting as if they had
coraraitted a criminal offence. Can you conceive such an inci
dent in England? You knowit is just as impossible as that
Jack Ketch should be sent round first to one raan's house and
then to another. Another point is this, which was stated by
Mr. DUlon in the House of Commons. He said he forraed one of
a group in a town where a public meeting was going on. He
formed one of a group of five or six gentlemen standing talking
in the street far away frora the raeeting, and having no con
nection with it ; and a police officer gave the order to a body of
police to charge them and disperse them by force. This is totally
destructive to the first elements of liberty.
Then I will refer to the visit of Mr Morley to Ireland,
where one of these police matters was in question and
certain Irishmen had been taken up by the police. Mr
Morley found three things, I think. First of all, that he
Jiiraself was cheered by the crowd ; secondly, that the police
were hooted by the crowd; and, thirdly, that, I believe,
six prisoners were cheered by the crowd. I do not think
that it is a very good or healthy state of things when the
police engage in such practices as to lead the people to hoot
thera. But this is treated as a criminal offence. With regard
to these three points, you will ask me for ray authority. I will

1891] THE FINANCE OF THE GOVEENMENT 361
give it to you. My authority is this. The three points were
stated most distinctly by Mr DUlon in the House of Commons
in the summer of 1890, and the Government were asked
whether they disapproved or approved of such practices. No
answer could be obtained. Now, if the Government had said
these were the errors of subordinate agents, that might have been
accepted ; but no answer could be obtained. I followed Mr
DiUon in the debate, and, having recited the three points, I
again challenged the Government. But no disavowal of those
practices could be obtained. They have been noticed again
and again this year with a similar result. Therefore I ara
justified in saying these are practices approved of by the Execu
tive Governraent. And I cannot expect that the police should
apply principles of justice and liberty which their masters
encourage them to disregard. I mention these points because
you will see that this is an indictment of a very clear and
distinct character. I will name two other points. A meeting
was held last year, I believe at a place called Swinford, where
a member of Parliament was to address his own constituents,
which was supposed to be lawful and constitutional, and even
very often necessary. What happened ? A police officer made
his appearance, and gave notice to the meeting that if anything
was said which the police officer deemed to be illegal he would
disperse the meeting by force. Can you Englishraen conceive
an occurrence of that kind in England ? You know it is
absolutely irapossible for a Court of Justice to condemn a
meeting, and the Executive Government on its responsibility
to disperse a meeting, because a dangerous speech is antici
pated. I believe I have made out my point that the liberties
of Ireland are trodden under foot by the present Government.
And we have a great and sacred work to do in defending the
present liberties of the Irish people, let alone the laws to
which they are pledged. We raust endeavour to secure for
them what laws they suppose raore tolerable than those under
which, unfortunately, they have now to suffer.
Well, I shall soon to be able to release you altogether. I have
been endeavouring to point out to you that it is a raistake to sup-

362 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [march 17
pose our occupation has in any degree altered or been interfered
with. We have the duties relegated to us of defending the interests
of Ireland, and of promoting the public interests of Great
Britain, and I wish to point out that we have not been alto
gether idle in the execution of that duty since Parliament
resumed in the latter end of January. Before Christmas the
whole time of the House was in the hands of the Government.
But there have been few days for the discussion of subjects
brought forward by private members since we met at the end
of January, and we are now in the middle of March. Here
are several things which have been done. There was, you
remember, the deplorable course of prosecutions, founded upon
principles of the grossest intolerance, against the late Mr
Bradlaugh. That stigma has been removed, and the whole
matter of these proceedings erased from the journals of the
House of Comraons as unworthy of its proceedings. We have
endeavoured to raise the question of a thorough reform of the
present very defective system of registration through the agency
of my right hon. friend ^ whom I ara glad to see here, and to
establish the principle that plural voting is not according to
the principles of the British Constitution. We claira one raan
one vote as the dictate of justice and of sound policy. We have
endeavoured to rectify a gross inequality, very ranch aggravated
by Her Majesty's present Government, in the preference given
to land and realty in the raatter of taxation. We have endea
voured to obtain that which your neighbours in London, if not
yourself, deeply feel — a new state of law with regard to the
taxation of ground-rents. We have endeavoured to efface frora
the Statute-book the two reraaining enactments which violate
the principle that no one should be subjected to civil disabili
ties on account of his religious opinions. Those provisions are
alraost entirely extinct, but one or two miserable relics still exist.
The whole of the Tory party in the House of Commons goes
down to the House to hug, and embrace, and applaud, and ap
preciate them as if they were the precious bulwarks of the
Constitution. We have endeavoured to asssert what we think
^ Mr J. Stansfeld, M.P.

1891] THE FINANCE OF THE GOVEENMENT 363
justice requires with regard to the Church EstabUshment in
Wales. FinaUy, we have endeavoured to amend the law of
conspiracy in a manner which, had we been able to carry it out,
would have removed the greater part of the grievances which
Ireland suffers under the Agrarian Act Well, I hope you will
be inclined to think that it is not a contemptible record of pro
ceedings taken within the last six or seven weeks of the whole
time to which my present register refers. I think you will also
agree with me, it shows we have plenty to do. The Liberal
party has still a great work before it, a great and noble work,
the continuance of that work which has raade it so valuable to
the country in former times, a continuance of that same spirit
which has inscribed upon the Statute-book of the country so
many reforms and improvements as, perhaps, have never been
accumulated in the peaceful records of any country. Sustained
and supported by you, and by those who think with you all
over the country, we shall continue to the very best of our
abUity to prosecute that great and patriotic enterprise, because
we know that it is in that not violent, but steady, not rash, but
at the same time courageous, following of our principles that
we are able to pursue the way to the union of classes, to the
domination of the law, to promote the stabUity of the Throne,
and to advance the happiness and the contentment and the
prosperity of every portion of the people and the strength of
this great Empire.

THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE.
St. James's Hall, June 19, 1891.
The Jubilee of the Colonial Bishoprics Fund was celebrated by a meeting iu
St James's Hall ; the Bishop of London presided.
My Lord Bishop, my Lords, Ladies, and Gentlemen, — In
obedience to the call which has been made upon me from the
chair, I rise to raove and to ask you to assent to the following
resolution : —
" That the reraarkable success with which it has pleased
Almighty God to bless the efforts, begun fifty years ago and
continued to the present time, for the extension of the Episco
pate in the colonies of the Empire, and the missions of the
Anglican Church throughout the world, is a call and encourage
ment to all raerabers of that Church to secure its further
expansion upon the priraitive principles of Apostolical order
and discipline."
I ara very sorry, ray Lord, that the absence of the First Lord of
the Treasury and the leader of the House of Coraraons, which I
am quite certain is due not to anything less than a very sub
stantial cause, should have given me prominence upon the
present occasion beyond .what I had anticipated. You, my
Lord, in your address, and the Priraate ^ in his letter, have
already placed before the world, or at any rate, before the raeet
ing, the speciality, such as it is, which warrants ray presenting
rayself to you on tbis occasion. I ara possibly the only one of
all those here present, though that is uncertain, who was also pre
sent at the iraportant raeeting held in the raonth of AprU, 1841. I
ara certainly the only raan — I will not say the only raan living
^ The Archbishop of Canterbury was unable to be present, owing to illness.

1 89 1] THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE 365
but the only person living and also available for this purpose —
who took part in the proceedings of that memorable occasion. I
cannot pretend to appear before you, ladies and gentlemen, as
entitled to any special credit for a marked devotion of time or of
means to the promotion of this great undertaking. I cannot
claim for many years to have borne more than a formal part in
the business of the Colonial Bishoprics Fund. I appear before
you as a historical landmark. A historical landmark may pos
sibly have its uses on such an occasion, because progress has to
be measured by time, and the time of fifty years which has
elapsed since the meeting held under the auspices of Archbishop
Howley and Bishop Blomfield has been a time very pregnant
with events of the deepest interest, some of them calamitous,
others happy and blessed in their results to the Church of
England and to the general cause of religion, than any half-cen
tury to which we can point in the recent history of Christendom.
My Lord Bishop, it is evidently not an exaggeration to say that
this is a remarkable occasion. Take the arguraent supplied by
this single fact ; avoid all enhancement, all elucidation, and rely
singly upon the figures that the Bishoprics, which were ten in
1841, now in June, 1891, number eighty-two. My Lord Bishop,
reverting to that period, I cannot but draw this distinction be
tween the present undertaking and the generality of pious,
benevolent, and wise designs. When such designs are conceived
in the mind of man they are usually introduced to the world
with an amount of sanguine expectation — and not unjustly in
troduced to the world with an amount of sanguine expectation
— which the hard conditions of life and the lessons of subse
quent experience tend materially to abate. Such, my Lord
Bishop, is not the case in the instance now before us. I will
venture to say that if the raost sanguine man among those who
attended the meeting of April, 1841, had been asked to carry his
glance forward fifty years into futurity, and to form his esti
mate of what might on reasonable grounds be then hoped
to be achieved, there would not have been one among those
persons there present who would have ventured to base his cal
culations upon any result even nearly, even reraotely, approach-

366 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 19
ing that which by the blessing of Almighty God has been
actually attained. And, my Lord Bishop, I for one — I hope I
do not exaggerate — am not sure that even that multiplication
eightfold of the number of Episcopal sees gives us a fully pro
portionate idea of the extension and enlargement of the Church.
The statistics of the Episcopate are simple and accessible ;
even those of the principal clergy are to a certain extent within
reach ; but those of the communicants and adherents of the
Church are, of course, almost entirely inaccessible to us. I must
confess that I do not altogether reject the belief that if, as we
are enabled to exhibit this eightfold muItipUcation in the num
ber of Episcopal sees, we could show with equal fairness and
facility a multiplication in the nuraber of clergy labouring in
the field, of the assistants of those clergy who come forth from
the ranks of the laity, and finally, of the members of the Church
itself, probably the general result would even show that the
eightfold multiplication is not beyond but is within the lines of
the vast raaterial extension which has been attained. But, my
Lord Bishop, great as that material extension has been which is
nieasureable by figures, there have been other results of this
great moveraent, perhaps more remarkable still. You have re
ferred, and I think it is among the most signal of all the features
of this case — you have referred to the unquestionable fact that
this institution has appealed less to the ordinary means of ob
taining popularity and public support than perhaps any other
useful and valuable institution of the day. We have not
marched in the streets, we have not assembled in anniversaries.
we have not availed ourselves of the habitual and powerful
assistance of the Press. There seeras to have been a general
absence of resort to those perfectly intelligible, perfectly rational,
and very powerful and successful instrumentaUties ; but with
out exciteraent, without noise, with a sparing recourse — for it
has been a sparing recourse — to the Church and to the world
only upon those occasions when e-vident and palpable necessity
has arisen, we see the results before us to have been not less
reraarkable, in ray judgraent, than those which can be shown in
the case of any undertaking which has distinguished the history

1891] THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE 367
of the present century. It is like that beautiful account of the
building of the Temple,
" Like some tall palm the noiseless fabric sprung."^
It has arisen from the ground. You have it now before you in
noble, in magnificent proportions. And if it be true there have
been these long intervals of silence on the part of the council
and governors of the fund, remeraber that that negative state
ment has likewise the force of a positive appeal, because if you
have not been troubled, not been pestered, as some would say
with incessant demands for the promotion of this great cause,
be assured when the demand is made it indicates a real interest
and has real necessity. Give it a friendly welcome, and meet
the claim it is entitled to make upon you.
It is not possible not to see the powerful, constant reaction
of this great undertaking upon the Church at home. The
Church at home, if not in the person of its members, yet un
questionably in the person of its clergy and of its governors,
has experienced within these fifty years an immense elevation.
No small part of that elevation is due to the heroic enthusiasra
which attended the first efforts at the foundation of the Colonial
Episcopate. It would be impossible, my lord, to do justice to
the members of that body. Selection from araong them is
dangerous. We are guided now partly by personal recollections.
Accident may cause us to omit those who ought to be included
in the list ; but names such as Bishop Selwyn, Bishop Patteson,
Bishop M'Kenzie, Bishop Armstrong, and Bishop Field — these
are names than which none brighter are to be found in the
annals of the Church of England or of the Church of Christ at
large. These, ray lord, are happy and they are ennobling re
collections, and, in truth, this great effort has taught us, I think,
raany lessons, one of which — if I raay be perraitted to do so
without treading upon forbidden ground— I will endeavour to
illustrate, and that is the vast resources that are unfolded in the
principles of voluntary action within the Christian Church. I
do not here raise the questioh of the establishraent. That ques
tion may have been raised with regard to the Colonial Church
' Heber's Palestine.

368 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 19
fifty years ago. Now it hardly exists, and, furtherraore, it hardly
exists for any man at home or abroad who is reckoning upon
the prospective extension of the Church, and the resources upon
which it will have to draw. No one looks to the action of the
State for the enlargeraent of raeans for the maintenance and
propagation of religion in future times. To retain that which
exists is probably all that the most sanguine anticipate, and
from point to point questions may arise in different portions of the
world, as they have arisen in the colonies, even upon that reten
tion. In truth, if we look to the aid of the State, these fifty years
of which I speak have been years of great loss, for there was a far
larger araount of subvention frora political and civil sources fifty
years ago for the purposes of the Colonial Church than now. But
in those days the eff'ect of that political subvention, I really believe
it is no great paradox to say, was to starve the work of the Church,
They were blind to the vast fund upon which they had to draw in
the wealth of Christian faith and Christian love. They had no
idea at that tirae that, at any rate by the Church of England, very
large resources could be raade available frora voluntary sources,
and, if you will allow me, I will illustrate that statement by one
single and slight anecdote, which I think is conclusive.
At that time the principal resources of the society — the
venerable Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in the
Colonial Possessions — were derived frora a Parliaraentary
grant of £16,000 a year applicable for and used — very pro
perly used — for the raaintenance of the clergy and the
Church in the North American colonies. When the raove
ment of reforra came on, with circumstances of some ex
citeraent, in the years 1830 and 1831, there was a feeling
growing up highly unfavourable to the continuance of this
systera of providing by tax or by the annual vote of the House
of Coraraons for the religious wants of a particular denomination
in the colonies ; and by a rather rude measure of the Colonial
Office, which was afterwards a good deal softened, it was de
terrained, and the society were inforraed, this sura of £16,000 a
year would be dirainished, the first year to £12,000, the second
to £8,000, the third to £4,000, and the fourth year to nothing

1 89 1 J THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE 369
at all. That was undoubtedly a sharp transition, and it caused
the dignitaries of the Church to bethink theraselves what could
be done. I think in the beginning of the year 1832 or 1833 I
dined in company with an excellent man — one of the most
learned and most able men — the Bishop of Chichester will
sustain me in what I say — one of the most learned and able
divines of the Church known at that time in Oxford, Dr Burton,
who was then Professor of Divinity. Dr Jacobson^ at this
private party was speaking of this withdrawal of the £16,000.
It made a great impression upon rae at that tirae, and I have
retained the language which was used. He said — " Well, you
know, if this were a moderate sum, something raight be done
by personal contribution ; but such a sum as £16,000, how
would it be possible to do so ? It would be beyond rational
expectation. The case is desperate." What would be thought
of £16,000 a year now as a lirait to the subvention and the de
mands of this venerable society ? She had at that time some
other resources; but this was very decidedly the raost ira
portant of thera all. Now, what would be thought of that
lunit now ? No, my lord, you will see that there is no want
of raeans in the world. What the world wants is replenish
ment of the stores of faith and love, and industry and intelli
gence and capacity, which belong to mankind, and which belong
in so special a degree to our own race. Wherever there is good
to be done over the broad surface of the earth, there wUl be
abundant raeans forthcoming in order to do it. The lesson is
of active extent and practical character, and can hardly be
adequately described, which we have learnt upon that subject.
Our rainds have been opened and enlarged. We have seen that
we were at that period to a certain extent in Egyptian bondage.
Instead of going to an office in Downing Street and endeavour
ing to arrange matters at the table of a Minister, you have now
to deal with the Christian mind and Christian heart at large.
You can go to mankind as a race, to the nation as a nation, to
the Church as a Church. You stand upon broader ground— you
wield more powerful instruraents, and if only you do not faU in
' Afterwards Bishop of Chester.
2 A

370 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 19
the faith and courage necessary to use them, depend upon it you
will achieve great results.
There is one other lesson which I cannot help referring
to, though I wUl not dwell upon it at length, and which
the Colonial Church has taught us. Whatever be the
merits and whatever the peculiarities of the system of an
Established Church, there cannot be the smallest doubt at
least of this, that the localities have been so multiplied and so
compUcated in an old country and old institutions like ours that
it becomes extreraely difficult to provide for a new state of
things. Now, at that tirae, in 1841, there had hardly grown up
the very first perceptions of the great necessity which was
coraing upon us, that is to say, the necessity which coraes
upon a church as a voluntary society when it finds itself, and
finds itself perhaps rather suddenly, deprived of all the supports,.
be they natural or artificial, be they beneficial or otherwise — but
of all the supports v/hich in other circurastances it has derived
from the connection with the State. It was not very long after
the establishment of this fund when there carae the first
emergence of an apparent necessity for self-government and of
self-constituted powers in the churches of the colonies. I my
self, if I raay presurae to say so, was rather early in the field in
making an effort in the year 1852, aided by the legal and friendly
assistance of that admirable raan. Lord Hatherley,^ in devising a
measure,^ which did not at that tirae, however, obtain the assent
of Parliament, with a view of putting the churches in the
colonies into a condition of capacity for exercising powers of
self-government. I am not going to dwell upon the details of
what has happened in the last fifty years. But it is known to
us all that some of those colonial churches have had to confront.
difficulties — I will not say due to what cause — they were due, I
think, to a variety of causes — but they had to confront diffi
culties, the amount of which cannot be exaggerated, while they
were travelling over the path, rough enough in itself, which
leads from a condition of legal establishraent to a condition of
» Then Sir -William Page Wood, Lord Chancellor 1868-1872.
» The Colonial Church Bill.

1 89 1] THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE 371
voluntary action. The case of the Church in South Africa, as
it is in connection with the narae of Bishop Colenso, and
all which that name suggests,^ is one which of itself reads
to us a hundred lessons. Now, no one can doubt that
that case — I am not going into the rights or wrongs of it,
I am not going to dispute or argue upon this view of
the raatter or that, but there cannot be a question as to the
general result — that that case has operated in the most powerful
raanner, — first, in giving a practical character to the self-
governraent and free existence of a Church in the colonies ;
and, secondly, in dispelling the dangerous and raischievous idea
which undoubtedly weighs upon the rainds of many in this
country, and which had taught people, or induced them, falsely to
believe that when you take away the legal sanction from spiritual
things, then spiritual things lose all their force and vitality.
The exact reverse of that proposition, I apprehend, is true.
It is rather singular — I have availed myself to some extent of
the means which have been put into our hands — it is, I say,
rather singular to perceive to what an extraordinary length in
certain cases the superstitions of the old legal system of this
country have carried, not only weak or indifferent, but even
learned and able men. I hold in ray hand a remarkable treatise
by the late Lord Blachford,^ called " Some Account of the Legal
Development of the Colonial Episcopate." In that tract Lord
Blachford finds a state of things in which the South African
Synod had declared — having lost every vestige of the privileges
and advantages of establishment — that it would claim the
privileges and freedora to which it had been declared to be
judicially entitled, and it said it would not recognise as a bind
ing authority in questions of faith and doctrine or discipline
relating to faith and doctrine any decisions other than those
of its own ecclesiastical tribunals, or such other tribunals as
might be accepted by the provincial synod itself as a tribunal
of appeal. Now, here is a legal deliverance of the raost formal
character which I venture to coraraend to your notice as in
^ From 1864 onwards.
' Better known as Sir Frederick Rogers, a distinguished official of the Colonial
Office ; raised to the Peerage in 1871.

872 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 19
itself an historical, a legal, and a philosophical curiosity. I
ara proceeding on the authority of Lord Blachford, and I do
not think there can be a higher one. Lord Blachford says
— " The Judicial Coraraittee in the case of ' Merrynian v.
WiUiaras ' treated this practical refutation of their ecclesiastical
authority as an abandonment of the English standards of faith
and doctrine." And the words are — " There is not " (that means
as between the Colonial Church and the Church of England)
" there is not the identity in standards of faith and doctrine
which appears to their lordships necessary to establish the con
nection required by the trusts in which the Church of England
is settled." It is certainly, to me, a raost astounding stateraent.
I can perfectly understand this — you raay say the raembers of
an Established Church are bound, and all who are in communion
with thera for the purposes of the Established Church are
bound, to give obedience to the law of the land. They can
take their choice, if the law of the land decrees what is con
trary to their consciences ; but the law of the land is. entitled
to be obeyed. But I do not understand hira to say, " That is a
doctrine of law and order," but to say that is part of the
standard of faith and doctrine, so that in point of fact we who
accept the Apostles' Creed, we who accept the Nicene Creed,
are not raerely accepting that doctrine, but are to be bound to
any construction a Civil Court raay put upon any part, and
that if we do not accept it we are not only bad citizens — that
raight be argued, I can understand it, though it is a difficult
point — but we are departing from the standard of faith and
doctrine. So that in point of fact the Apostles' Creed and the
Nicene Creed are very iraperfect, and there ought to be added
to each of thera a separate article to say that all men, to be good
Christians, raust be bound, at any rate in the Church of Eng
land, to accept whatever senses raay be affixed to either of these
creeds by the civil tribunals of the country. I wish to use this
subject siraply to say what a debt we owe to the Colonial
Church for having carried us through these controversies.
That citation which I have raade I do not raake as having at
the present raoraent the sraallest practical iraportance. The worms

1891J THE COLONIAL EPISCOPATE 373
and moths have nearly eaten it to pieces. There is not a docuraent
of the dark ages which is more completely dead and gone for
aU practical purposes. But I wish to point out how near you
have been to a very serious and dangerous case. Of all interven
tions into the doraain of conscience, the intervention of the
State, never drearaed of, happily, in this country, and I hope
never to be drearaed of, if it did corae to a reality, would be the
most dangerous and destructive. Now I have kept you too long.
I corae back to the meeting of April 1841. I stated that
I was the only person then living and then honoured by being
engaged in the proceedings of that meeting who is now avail
able for the purpose of recoraraending the prosecution of our
present object. But, ray Lord, there was a reraarkable speech
made on that day which sent a thrill of exaltation through the
whole asserably in Willis's Rooras, delivered by a raan of erai-
nence, of known devotion to his work in his own sense, whose
whole raind and whose whole heart were then given to the
service of the Church of England. He was then known as
Archdeacon Manning. Archdeacon Manning, in a most strik
ing and most powerful speech, delineated the condition of the
EngUsh Church of the Anglo-Saxon race of our colonial
Empire. He pointed out upon how vast, how gigantic a scale
we were then occupying the waste places of the earth, and
multiplying millions of human beings who trod the face of it,
and then he pointed to the scanty evidence which up to that
tirae had been given of any care which had been given by the
Church of England for the propagation of the Gospel in those
vast countries. He contrasted the raeagreness and feebleness of
our spiritual efforts with the wonderful, undying, untiring
energies of the coraraercial powers, and the spirit of eraigra
tion, which were even then achieving such vast results in the
world. He contrasted, I say, the one spectacle with the other.
He said the Church of England has now to raake her choice
between the teraporal and the spiritual. She has to deterraine
whether she wUl be the beast of burden or whether she will be
the evangelist of the world. That was a noble appeal, a noble
phallenge. The force of it was felt. It was taken up and duly

374 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [JUNE 19
answered. It was answered then, and I trust it will again be
answered now. If there were grounds for answering it then,
when everything was in hope and expectation of a rational esti
raate of the future, rauch more are there grounds for enlisting
in the same service now, when we have before us results which
we are corapelled to admit not only to be satisfactory, but even
to be in their scale and in their nature wonderful. My Lord, I
trust, therefore, that these efforts which you and your brethren
in the episcopate are making in the country will receive an
attention in sorae degree in proportion to their value, to the
weight which they derive frora your authority, but the still
greater weight which they derive frora the nature of the topics
which they involve. It is inspiring, but it is treraendous ; it is
frora one point of view a terrifying spectacle to consider the
multiplication of mankind throughout the various quarters of
the world. We cannot but say at the very least that in order
to enable us to cope with the vast process and to obtain
in full satisfactory results, the Gospel of which we are pro
fessors must attend and accorapany the developraent of tem
poral and material civilisation. To answer to that call is the
purpose, at least in its measure, of the raeeting to-day. We
have arrived at a tirae when I think every claim that can be
conceived is found to exist on behalf of the fund for which we
now appeal to you. The results are before you. The principles
involved are the same as they have ever been, but the proraised
field which was white with the harvest is larger than it ever
was. It calls upon each of us, upon those in authority and
upon those not in authority, to do our best according to his
raeasure and degree, to the young to offer to that cause the
most preciousof all off'erings — their time, their heart, and their Ufe;
even to the old it leaves the duty of bearing testimony to that
which tbey have seen with their eyes and heard with their ears —
to the results of which they are endeavouring to speak, not as a
raatter of speculation, but as a fact which gives them a firra and
ever deepening conviction that the Church of England has a
great and raanifest part to play in giving effect to the beneficent
dispensation of God iu the Gospel for the salvation of the world

THE FUTURE POLICY OF THE
LIBERAL PARTY
Newcastle, October 2, 1891.
The Annual Meeting of the National Liberal Federatiou was held at
Newcastle.
Mr. Peesident,^ Ladies and Gentlemen, — Belying on your
kindness to favour as rauch as you can, by your indulgence,
the exercise of physical powers which are not altogether what
they have been, I proceed to address you ; and I cannot other
wise coraraence than by saying that it is imjpossible to listen to
speeches toned so highly in the sense of favour and generosity
as those of your President and Mr. Burt^ without raisgiving.
But I must not allow misgiving, however just, to suppress or
to impede the expression of gratitude; and I ara truly and
profoundly grateful, both for the temper and the spirit which
led them so far beyond the bounds of strict justice in what
they were pleased to say, and in the reception you have been
so good as to give to their too favourable remarks. Now, I
meet you here in part as citizens of Newcastle, that great and
distinguished community, but also more particularly to-night
as representatives of the Liberal , sentiment throughout the
country, which we believe to dominate powerfully and effectu
ally the mind of the country at large.
We have fought, ladies and gentleraen — we have indeed
fought a long and severe contest. When we look back to the
year 1886, we look back upon an epoch of great and crushing
defeat ; but every one of the five years which has elapsed since
the period of the defeat has brought upon our horizon a
brighter and again a brighter light We began with the pro-
' Dr. Spence Watson. ' Member for Morpeth.

376 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 2
spect only of a possible recovery. Next, recovery shortly
becarae probable. It has, according to our best deliberate
judgment, now been, humanly speaking, raised to such a point
that it is the precursor and it is the assurance of the tirae,
which we know cannot be distant, of a certain victory.
Our duties as they becorae raore hopeful become also raore
serious. We have to take a more practical view of the par
ticulars of affairs, and were I able to perforra it, my duty
would be to attempt, this night, aided by your favour, sorae
thing like a survey of the public situation. But the first diffi
culty that encounters rae, ladies and gentlemen, is this — a
surfeit of raatter, for there is no other word adequate to
describe it It is not the excess raerely, it is the absolute sur
feit of work that reraains to be done — work that accumulates
from year to year; and of work that is certain to fall more
heavily into arrear in proportion to the prolongation of the rule
of a Tory Government. Yes, gentleraen, it is a surfeit which
raakes it difficult now to choose the topics of address, and
which will raake it difficult hereafter, when the tirae has
arrived, to choose proper subjects of immediate and preferential
attention. Whatever your victory may be, with all your
intelligence and all your zeal, you will want the additional
virtue of patience ; for such are the deraands of this vast
Erapire, extended and diversified beyond all precedent in
human history, that without that patience, disappointment
aud even confusion might be the results of triumph.
Now, I will endeavour to run over with the utraost rapidity
several subjects with regard to which I own their claim to
public attention, without attempting to give tbem, on the pre
sent occasion, anything deserving the name of satisfaction.
For instance, if I name to you the question of shortening
the duration of Parliaments it is to dispose of it in a sentence ;
to say that it manifestly deraands, and ever will deraand, the
earliest opportunity that can justly and wisely be chosen for
the purpose.
If I speak of the readjustment of taxation, particularly as
between various kinds of property, I speak of a subject

1 891] FUTUBE POLICY OF LIBEBAL PABTY 377
abounding in complex detail, but which I may also dismiss
with the utmost brevity, because I can confidently refer you to
the speeches and votes which on all occasions we have given
in Parliament as an assurance that when its turn comes it will
have practical and decisive attention. I name next a word
that it requires some courage to utter in these days — the word
econoray. It is like an echo from the distant period of my
early life. The wealth of the country, and the vast compara
tive diffusion of coinfort, has, I ara afraid, put public econoray,
at least in its more rigid and severe forras, sadly out of coun
tenance. However, I will say this one word in acquittal of
my own conscience. Much has been said, and fairly and justly
said, of the advantageous change effected by the present
Governraent and Parliaraent in the conversion^ of the National
Debt, which has resulted and will further result in a large
annual saving. But all that saving has already beeu absorbed,
and effaced, as I may say, from the public account, by the
enormous increase not only of the charges in supplying the
necessary civil wants of the country, but by the enorraous
increase of our naval and raiUtary expenditure. Now, that
increase, vast as it is, is as far as possible frora satisfying the
relentless appetite of those wbo have laboured raost heartily to
bring it about ; and now and again, and even within the last
few days, there have been in some portions of the public Press,
and apparently with high authority, complaints of the miser
able insufficiency of our miUtary and defensive establishments.
Well, there is another subject on which I should have been
glad to speak had tirae perraitted, for foreign policy has many
and important domestic results ; but I wUl only say this, that,
as we Liberals in Parliament understand it, the foreign poUcy
of the present Administration has been well-nigh the inverse
and the reverse to tbat of the Administration of Lord Beacons
field. We endeavoured to raake the work of the Beaconsfield
Adrainistration difficult, because we thought it was doing iU.
But we have striven to raake the work of the present Admini
stration in its foreign policy easy, because we think, as far as
1 18S8.

378 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 2
our information lias gone — and we have been so tranquil on
the whole subject that our iurorniation, I admit, is but partial
— that so far as we could discern, its spirit had undergone a
beneficial change, that appeals to passion and to pride are no
longer sent broadcast over the country, and that on the con
trary a more just, more genial, and more kindly spirit is
exhibited by the departraental portion of the activity of Lord
Salisbury. Accordingly, we have endeavoured to make his
work not difficult but easy. One thing only I would wish to
say upou this subject, and it is this.
I shall indeed rejoice if— before the day comes for the pre
sent Administration to give up the ghost^it be possible for
Lord SaUsbury to raake an effort to relieve us from our burden
some and erabarrassing occupation of Egypt Tbat occupation,
so long as it lasts, rely upou it, raust be a cause of weakness
and a source of embarrassment. It is one which we owe
entirely to engagements contracted by the former Tory Govern
ment, and the escape from which I greatly fear the present
Tory Government, improved as it is in its foreign policy, will,
notwithstanding, hand over to its successors to deal with.
There is rauch, very rauch raore, necessary to be said in order
to give a full view of this subject; but I raust at present con
tent ray.self with this succinct and partial reference.
When I think of the raultitude of subjects that I am running
over and have to run over, I recollect the device of the Father
of all Poets, as be is constantly and justly called, who, when he
found the matier crowding upon hira inconveniently, appealed
to the Muses and besought them tbat they would give him,
instead of the single organ he possessed — that they would give
hira ten inoutlis and ten tongues with which to speak. Were
I ill a condition to bring such a machinery into play I could
treat with tolerable satisfaction of the matters that are before
me. As it is, you will recognise the incompetency of huraan
nature, and you will liberally pardon my shortcomings in pro-
porti(m. There is a subject that I raust next give a word to. It is
¦the subject of temperance. You are so much agreed in regard

1891J FUTUEE POLICY OF LIBEBAL PABTY 379
to it that it does not require detailed discussion. But I have
a word to speak both of congratulation and of hope. I con
gratulate you, gentleraen, on the ground that has been made.
Although the proceedings of 1890 were negative and not
affirmative— although they appeared to consist substantially
only in the rejection of a bad plan ^ and not in the adoption of
a good one — yet they had this silent but most iraportant effect,
that they disposed — I really believe for all tirae — of by far the
largest and most alarming part of the question of compensa
tion. And here I must say that my right hon. friend Sir
William Harcourt made, by his fearless and energetic exposi
tions, a valuable contribution to that result. The proceedings
of 1890, 1 say, disposed of the possibly monstrous and certainly
enormous clairas for compensation which must have been made,
and which the present Government then acknowledged might
have been raade, in the extinction of licences. With regard to
those claims, I do not hesitate to say that, viewing the founda
tion of the Bill then introduced, it would have been possible,
under the provisions of that Bill, to build up a wall in con
formity with that foundation which would have proved an
irapenetrable and inexpugnable fortification when the time
carae to any effectual dealing with the drink traffic. There
have been, however, sorae positive results also. In various
parts of the country it appears that a new life, a more equitable
and a bolder spirit, has been infused into the proceedings of
the boards of magistrates, I mean the licensing boards. But I
wish also to speak a word of hope. I trust that raost of you
who are here present — I should be glad to say all of you,
except that I fear there may be some who are approaching the
period of life to which I have myself attained — that most of
you may witness a thorough and effective reforra of the laws
connected with the traffic in alcoholic liquors. I trust that
among the conditions of that improvement you may find a fair
and just acknowledgment of the rights of local populations to
deal in a proper raanner with the question whether there shall
1 Embodied in the Local Taxation Bill, 1890. See an earlier speech in
this volume.

380 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 2
or shall not be within their borders any acknowledgraent of
pubUc-house traffic at aU. I do now enter upon the particular
form and conditions of such a plan ; but I affirra that the right
of the populations rests upon a basis as sound and solid at least
as the right that is now possessed and is now exercised without
objection to deterraine that important question by the owners
of the soil
Well, gentleraen, relying on the firraness of your nerves, I
venture next to raention to you for a sirailar brief and insuffi
cient notice the two questions of the Scotch and Welsh, or it
raay be Welsh and Scotch Disestablishraent. I ara careful to
avoid all atterapts to deterraine any question of precedence as
between the two. It is no affair of mine. I ara a resident in
Wales, and I ara a Scotch representative. I will not erabroil
rayself in what would be for me an erapty and fruitless contro
versy. But I will assure both Scotland and Wales that they
have the unaniraous support of the Liberal party. It does not
depend upon those specially responsible for the conduct of
Liberal affairs in Parliaraent which of these shall take prece
dence. Each of thera has bold, resolute, and active charapions
who will not consent to wait, and who would be very wrong if
they did consent to wait, and to suspend all their personal-
action until Home Rule has become law and until, in the new
order and suggesting of the Liberal progrararae, their turn has
come. One further consolation I venture to offer to both the
Scotch and the Welsh : If the Scotch gain the precedence their
gain will help onward tbe Welsh cause, and if the Welsh gain
the precedence their gain will help the Scotch.
I have another question to pass lightly over, though it is a
very wide question and a very difficult question. It is the
question of the House of Lords. It is a large and difficult
subject. Considering the pressure of the clairas of various
other subjects, it raay be thought that the question of the House
of Lords is i'or the present in the shade. I should not be very
sorry if it reraained in the shade for some time longer, provided
that the additional lease thus gained were gained by its wisdom,
forbearance, and raoderation in dealing with the public affairs

1 89 1] FUTURE POLICY OF LIBERAL PARTY 381
of the country. Though the question of the House of Lords be
at this moment remote, there is one mode by which it might
be made approximate, very near indeed, and a burning question
of the day, and, that is, if in an evil hour the House of Lords
were tempted to listen for one moment to the counsel that was
so inauspiciously addressed to them but a short time ago by
the Prime Minister of the country. Lord Salisbury, in a
speech^ some two or three months back, contemplated the possi
bility — his mind is open to that extent — of a Liberal victory
at the general election. He conteraplated the passing of a
Home Rule Bill through the House of Comraons, but he assured
his friends that all would not then be over, for they might still
rely upon — I ara quoting the sacred words — upon " the play of
the other parts of the Constitution." Strip off the disguise from
these words. There is but one other part of the Constitution
that could possibly perform such a prank as to interpose itself
between the deliberate judgraent of the nation and the incor
poration of that judgraent in the forra of law, and that is the
House of Lords. The House of Lords tried that garae iu 1831,
and threw out the Beform Bill. The consequence was, that it
had to undergo a most painful hurailiation as the price at
which it obtained a delay, and no raore than a delay, of twelve
months in the passing of that raeasure ; and the conduct then
pursued destroyed much of whatever confidence was still at
that period entertained by the country in its action. Again,
gentlemen, I myself, hurable as I am, had once the infelicity,
or felicity, as you choose to call it, of finding myself iu a sort
of conflict with the House of Lords. We had a great battle in
1860 and 1861 upon the repeal of the paper duty. It was one
of the most difficult and one of the most important incidents
in the whole of the Free Trade controversy. You know what
sorae of the consequences have been in the establishraent of
that Free Press which bas done raore than any other single
cause for the education of the public raind. Without that
Free Press it is hard to say whether the vast extension of the
1 At the Mansion House, July 29th, 1891. The words as reported in The
Times are, " the play of various portions of our Constitution."

382 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 2
franchise effected hythe BUl of 1884-1885 might not have pro
duced results rauch raore mixed in quality than those we have
actually witnessed. By, and since, the first Beform Act, the
electorate has been multiplied tenfold, and the extension has,
in ray deliberate judgment, unquestionably raised the tone and
spirit of tbe proceedings of tbe House of Comraons. I hope,
nay, raore, I believe, that the House of Lords will not accept
the deplorable suggestion tendered to them by the Prirae
Minister. I believe that they will decline to let their position
in the Constitution be used for so ruinous a purpose. But this
I know well, that if they should be reduced to a policy so
unfortunate, they themselves will be the first to repent of it.
They will raise up a question which will take precedence of
every other question, because upon that alone would depend
whether this country was or was not a self-governing country,
or whether, on the contrary, there was a power, not upon the
throne or behind the throne, but between the throne and the
people, that would stop altogether the action of a constitutional
raachine, now, as we trust, if not perfected, yet brought nearer
to perfection, by the labour, the struggles, the patriotisra, and
the wisdora of many generations.
The question, the important question, is how are we to
decide upon the title to precedence araong the raany subjects
that are before us. In connection with precedence, oue name
that would leap to the lips of any man addressing you is the
name of Ireland. As to the title of Ireland to the precedence,
there is no question at all about it — it is a raatter fixed and
settled and deterrained long ago, upon reasons which, in ray
opinion — and what is rauch raore, in the opinion of the people
— cannot be refuted, cannot even be contested.
There is another question which I think the Liberal party,
with rauch reason, are disposed to place in a very forward rank,
and that is the question of registration. The question of
registration is one that diverges, severs itself into two branches
— one of thera the araendraent of registration, properly so
called, the necessity for which is urgent; and the other, the
establishment of the principle of ' one man one vote.' It is

1891J FUTUBE POLICY OF LIBEBAL PABTY 383
impossible at this nioraent to lay down positive rules, but it
seeras to me that there is much to be said in favour of tliis dispo
sition to give to Parliamentary registration a very forward place
among the objects of Liberal movements, and the reason is
this : It is not raerely an improvement in your legislation, it is
an improvement in the instruraent by which you legislate. Tt
raakes Parliament fitter for its work, and even if a little tirae
— I hope not rauch — but if a little tirae were to be lost upon
carrying good Bills for the improvement of registration, you
might say that the tirae was well disposed of, on the same
principle, or that principle upon which a raan spends a little
tirae in sharpening or in stropping his razor before he shaves
himself. But I go to a more complex subject — a subject which in
cludes and involves many subjects, but which undoubtedly has
forced itself into a position araong the very foremost, and which
can best be presented to you at this tirae of day by the use of
the single word — labour. We have performed on behalf of
labour, that operation which is the most essential of all, by the
enfranchisement which, in 1885, added three raillions to the
constituencies of this country. But there is much remaining
to be done. One of the things essential to be done is, the
rectification and reforra of what is terraed the lodger franchise,
a franchise which, constituted as it now is, works entirely in
favour of tbe wealthy lodger, and has provisions most unfavour
able to the labouring raan who is a lodger too. And to such
an extent does this evil prevail in tbe raetropolis — I see one of
its raembers here, I think, to-night — to such an extent does
this evil prevail in the metropolis, in consequence of the utter
insufficiency of the law for the enfranchisement of lodgers, that
the metropolis is represented in a proportion highly unsatis
factory as between its population and its voting list, as com
pared with the other portions of the country. That is the first
item I have to mention in the matter of labour. And the
second item I should put down as necessary to be considered
is labour representation, as to which I think you will all
heartily agree. There ought to be a great effort of the Liberal

384 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 2
party to extend the labour representation in Parliament. That
representation, so far as it has gone, has been thoroughly and
entirely satisfactory. It has done immense good. I can hardly
say that it wants or that it admits of an addition of moral
force, but an addition of numerical force to that representation is
not only desirable, but in the highest degree urgent I tell you
frankly that, in my opinion, nothing proves more distinctly the
soundness of the heart and raind of the people of England, than
the good choice they have made of their labour representatives.
That being so, I say, let us give scope and roora enough to
choose a few more men, who, I doubt not, will be of the sarae
kind. I say a few — I hope they will not be a very few, but a
good raany, and I believe that that sentiraent is a sentiraent
that the whole Liberal party entertains. I ara quite sure that
as far as regards those who at headquarters, if I may use the
phrase, are charged with the central raanageraent of the con
cerns of the party, they will not lag behind, but will exhibit
the utmost disposition, whenever a constituency is favourable
to the claims of a labour candidate, to forward the accoraplish
raent of their desire. But I proceed. If we are to have more
labour merabers, more labour candidates and members, there are
certain consequences which follow from the adoption of these
just principles.
For instance, oue consequence that follows from it — a con
sequence that might very well be defended upon its own
grounds, but which is very rauch strengthened by the intro
duction of a large number of labour candidates — is that which
has long been a favourite idea with the Liberal party, naraely
— that the necessary expenses of election should not be drawn
from the pockets of the candidates, but from the public funds.
It is a public work, and the cost of it justly appertains to the
public to discharge. But that is not the only consequence of
the sarae kind which appears, to rae at least, to follow frora the
adraission of labour candidates in large nurabers, as a good
thing not for theraselves only, not for their own great class
only, but for all classes and for the State at large. I place the
extension of the nuniber of these labour raerabers upon a ground

1 89 1] FUTUBE POLICY OF LIBEUAL PABTY 385
no narrower than that It is for the benefit of us all that there
should be a considerable increase of the nuraber of labour
members in Parliaraent Well, if that is so, are they to be
fined for conferring this boon upon the public ? It is a boon
given to the public.
Why should they, and how can they, bear the expenses
which necessarily attend their election to the House of
Coramons and tbeir residence in London ? Is it fair to say
that the constituencies, the respective constituencies, should bear
those expenses ? It would be perfectly fair if those constituencies
were only conferring a benefit on theraselves. But our ground
is that they are conferring a benefit on the State, and if they are
conferring a benefit on the State, and if labour candidates, frora
the very definition of the term, are, in raost cases, persons who
are not in a position to bear the charges of residence in London
apart from their horaes and their usual occupations, I say
nothing can be stronger, nothing can be raore irresistible than
the claim of such persons — of persons chosen by the constitu
encies, whose right to choose we admit, and wbo, in tbe case
supposed, are exercising that right in a specially beneficial
manner. Nothing, as I hold, can be clearer than the title of
such raen — raen whose private raeans are inadequate to the
perforraance of the public duty put on thera — to receive such
aid from the public treasury as may be necessary in order to
enable them to discharge the task which, for the public benefit
as well as under public authority has been iraposed on thera.
I do not enter into the other questions connected with the sub
ject of a pecuniary provision of this kind. I only state, and
state with very great confidence of conviction, the proposition
which has just proceeded frora ray lips.
There is, however, another branch of this question, gentle
men, that we must uot forget Although rural interests are
little connected with the town of Newcastle, I have no doubt
they are very familiar to many of the merabers of the Federa
tion. I will run very rapidly over tbe different points belong
ing to this branch of the great subject of Labour, though, iu my
opinion, they are points long ago inscribed in the Liberal creed
2 B

386 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 2
We have done, perhaps, no more than justice to the Govern
ment in acknowledging that they deserved well of the country
by passing a County Councils Bill ^ ; but we are not satisfied
with the County Councils Bill, except for the principle it
embodies. It is based upon the principle of local government,
and just as in the case of the Household Suffrage Bill of 1866
it fell to the Liberal party to lay hold upon the acknowledg
ment of the principle, and then, in spite of opposite influences,
to give it full effect, so we now lay hold on the principle of
County Councils. And we affirra that it is among the high
and indispensable duties of the party, when it has the necessary
power and influence in Parliament, to proceed to provide for
the establishment of district councils and parish councils, and
thereby to bring self-government to the very doors of the
labouring men throughout the country. Further, I will add
boldly that it will be their duty to enact compulsory powers
for the purpose of enabling suitable bodies to acquire land
upon fair and suitable terms, in order to place the rural popu
lation in nearer relations to the land, to the use and profit of
the land which they have so long tilled for the benefit of
others, but for themselves almost in vain. That also is among
the great duties which lie before you in connection with the
labour question.
Let me add yet one more, though the subject is a coraplex
one, and does not bear being unfolded here — that which is
known as the reforra of the land laws, a great subject, both
econoraical and political. That reform of the land laws, that
abolition of the present systera of entail, together with just
facilities for the transfer of land, is absolutely necessary in
order to do anything like comraon justice to those who inhabit
the rural parts of this country, and whora, instead of seeing
them, as we now see thera, dwindle frora one census to another,
I, for ray part, and I believe you, along with me, would heartily
desire to see maintained, not in their present number only, but
in increasing numbers over the whole surface of the land.
I ara afraid, ladies and gentlemen, I have tried you severely
1 The Local Government Act, 1888.

1891] FUTUEE POLICY OF LIBEBAL PABTY 387
upon these subjects. But one word more I raust say, though
it will be a very brief one. I don't intend to enter as the
utterer of a definite judgment upon the difficult questions that
have been lately raised with regard to the hours of labour
further than this : All persons, I am sure, have witnessed with
satisfaction aud sympathy — ay, with the liveliest pleasure —
the large reductions in the amount of toil exacted from our
fellow-subjects and fellow-citizens which have been achieved
within the last twenty or thirty years. We wish well to all
further reductions which can be achieved without violation of
the rights of any raan. We wish in an unqualified manner to
see the progress of such changes, for the lot of labour it is
absolutely certain will, as long as this human dispensation
lasts, continue sufficiently severe, and it ought to be a subject
of unraixed joy to us that there have been iraproveraents which
have not militated against the principles of liberty.
Upon the further question whether it is possible to pass a
compulsory law binding upon all labourers for reducing their
labour to a certain time, or by a certain number of hours, I
would say, before uttering a word on that principle, that I
should be very glad to be assured that those who now receive
for long hours very low wages were to receive, in full at least,
those low wages for the short hours. But, gentleraen, it will
require more than a mere niajority in certain trades that are
highly organised — it will require more even than a majority in
all trades all over the country, so to bind the minority that
they shall be the subjects of coercive proceedings if they are
unwilling, or if they find theraselves unable in justice to those
¦ dependent upon them, to conform to the new standard. I give
no absolute judgment upon a question which has not yet, I
believe, by an appeal to tbe country been sufficiently examined;
but I recommend much circumspection, and rauch careful
exaraination before proceeding to steps, or even to the recom
mendation of steps, which may prove to be at once premature
and irretrievable, and which therefore ought not to be hastily
adopted. Now, gentlemen, I have named to you the name of Ireland.

388 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 2
You will not be surprised if I think it requires to be more than
merely named. I always observe that instead of getting tired
of the name of Ireland, our Liberal meetings hail with eager
ness the mention of it, for this reason, no doubt, araong others,
though not for this reason alone, that they know that the
constitutional machine never can do its work until the great
Irish question is disposed of.
It is the language of our opponents at present that the
Governraent deserve well of the country for these reasons:
first, that they are going to introduce a Local Government Bill
for Ireland; and, secondly, that their poUcy in Ireland has
been successful. A very few minutes wUl not be thrown
away upon some examination of these propositions. A Local
Government Bill is to be introduced, but it is to be introduced
in consequence of what may fairly be called a deathrbed
repentance, for this is the sixth year of the Parliament. There
was a pledge at the last general election to have no coercion.
There was a pledge not to engage British credit for the pur
chase of Irish land, and there was a pledge to have local
government in Ireland. They have spent the first five years
in breaking two of their pledges,^ and in the sixth year, when
in articulo mortis, they have a scheme for redeeraing the third
pledge, and so large is the clemency of the Liberal party that I
ara sure their altered resolution will be received with open
arms. We rejoice in their intention to do right, even at the
last rainute of the eleventh or twelfth hour. I admit that one
of the reasons why we rejoice is this, that whatever local
government they establish in Ireland raust assist the Irish
people in the demand for tbeir national rights. Every
popularly- elected body in Ireland, whatever you may call it,
will be a new focus of thought, and will give a new vent for its
expression. You may say it will be one of exciteraent or of
agitation, but a focus it will be of soraething or other which
will tend in the direction of the fulfilraent of the national wisli.
And as we have seen the raode in which Toryisra received free
' By passing the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1887, and the Land
Purchase Bill, 1891.

1891] FUTUBE POLICY OF LIBEBAL PABTY 389
education this year, and in which it has received some previous
measures, so we shall see what sort of a smile the Tory and
Dissentient countenance will put on when the Iri.sh Local
Governmeut Bill is presented. One thing we know : this BUl
will not be a real affirmation of the principle of equal rights.
If I have gathered correctly the intentions of the Government
from the public journals, it has been announced already that
no control, of the police will be allowed to the Irish people.
Well, but what is control of the police ? First of all, it is that
of which in Newcastle I have myself enjoyed the advantage
to-night, in obtaining access through admirably ordered streets
-to the great building in which we are assembled. The towns
of this country have full control of the police, and the counties
of this country are acquiring it, and very soon will have it in
full. Gentlemen, it is idle to talk of local government without
control of the police. Control of the police means raaking
local provision lor the safety of life and property, and I affirm
that the whole history of local government, frora its cradle to
its majority, has been the history of a system devised for this
purpose before all others — the purpose of enabling the inhabi
tants of each district to make provision for the security of their
own lives and properties. If you talk of a system of local
government which does not include a power to the people to
secure their lives and property through the police, you raight
just as well talk of establishing a House of Comraons, and yet
depriving it of the power of regulating and deciding the taxes
¦of the people. I think, under these circurastances, that we at
any rate can afford to wait with perfect calraness and satis
faction the production of the Local Governraent Bill of the
Government. And you may depend upon it that what we
shall do when it appears is what we have done on all occasions.
We shall endeavour to resist and to arrest what is bad ; to
extend and develope -what is good, and to make it subservient
to the purposes of sound and enlightened government
, Then you are told also that there has been a. great success of
,the systera of governraent that has been pursued for the last

390 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 2
five years in Ireland. I do not accept that assertion. I
believe it to be perfectly untrue, and I will give you a very
few particulars in support of my disbelief. You will admit
that I have got a long way in ray speech without troubling
you with a single figure. I will give you two or three as I
now draw near the close, and I think they are tolerably
instructive. When our opponents talk of crime in Ireland, you must
understand that the word bears a totally diff'erent meaning to
what the word means in England. They do not mean murders,
robberies, arsons, rapes, housebreaking, and the like ; they
mean resistance to the payment of rent. That is the inter
pretation of the word crirae. I admit that out of the refusal
to pay rent crime has grown ; but then it should be punished
as crime, whereas the sole policy of the present Government
has been not to punish crime, not to wait to see whether
opposition to the payraent of rents believed to be unjust or
impossible developes into crime, but to interfere with private
Uberty in a manner which in this country would not have
been tolerated for a raoraent. They would not have dared
here to interfere with it, and to have prevented these combina
tions which are the only weapons that a poor people, and a
people like the Irish people, can resort to in self-defence.
Crime, then, pray if I use the word, remember, means these
agrarian corabinations. Now, it is the case of these agrarian
corabinations which have received but too rauch of justification
from the old laws and the old administration of Ireland, which
at times undoubtedly have assumed the most formidable char
acter and have been a great plague and curse to the country,
while themselves springing out of other evils the nature of
which it is not possible now to examine and set forth.
But, gentlemen, the present Government have never had to
face a serious state of crime in comiection with these combina
tions. In 1885 there were 944 agrarian offences, and that was
an increase of no less than 182, or about 20 per cent, upon the
preceding year. In 1885 the Tories carae into office, and,
proceeding under that view, with that increase of 20 per cent.

1 891] FUTUBE POLICY OF LIBEBAL PABTY 391
they declared that they would have nothing to do with the
imposition of Coercion upon Ireland. In 1886 there was a
further but very much smaller increase. The Election was
over; the compact with the Irish National party was at an
end. The increase was 112, or say about 10 or 12 instead of
20 per cent The Tories introduced their Coercion BiU.^ I will
go presently to the cause, the circumstances, under which that
increase took place. For the present I only refer to its amount.
In the last five years the number of 1056 has been happily
diminished to 519, or by one-half. This is trumpeted as a
marvellous, as an unprecedented, an alraost rairaculous success,
which nothing but the very cliraax and perfection of statesraan
ship could have effected. I see ray right hon. friend. Sir
George Trevelyan,^ who was in Ireland with Lord Spencer,' and
what happened then ? When Lord Spencer went to Ireland,
and when a Liberal Coercion Bill was passed, the nuniber of
offences was not a thousand — it was 4439 ; and that number of
4439 was reduced not to one-half, it was reduced to one-sixth.
The number in the year 1884, the last year of unbroken
Liberal Government, was 762.
But I cannot leave the matter there. I admit that there
was a sraall increase in the number of offences in 1886, and I
ask you two questions : first, to what causes was that increase
due ; and, secondly, to what is due the removal of the increase
and the substitution of a diminishing process ? That increase
was due to two causes. The first was the prevalence of an
extreme severity of distress in the year 1886, and the total
incapacity of a large portion of the peasant occupiers to pay
their rent That was the first cause ; and we know perfectly
well that if extreme distress occurs in any district of this
country, some increase of off'ences against the law will infallibly
follow. But there was another cause, and it was this : In
1886, Parliament was entreated and conjured from various
quarters of the House to make some provision — at least sorae
1 The Criminal Law (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1887.
' Chief Secretary for Ireland, 1882-84.
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, 1882-85.

392 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 2
temporary provision — for meeting this great and heavy pres
sure of distress in Ireland. But Parliament absolutely refused
to raake such a provision.^ The House of Commons did then
what the House of Lords had done in 1880, when they were
asked to provide compensation for disturbance. They refused
to adopt a timely raeasure that would have adjourned the
difficulty until a full examination had been made and a sub-
. Stan tive remedy could be applied. The consequence was that
an increase of illegality followed that misconduct of the Par
liament, that utter and absolute refusal of the Parliament to
do its duty in 1886 by making a temporary provision for the
incapacity of many Irish occupiers to pay th«ir rent; and that
was the cause, and the sole cause, of the increase of offences.
The chief responsibility of that increase of agrarian crirae, such
as it was, rests upon the Government of Lord Salisbury and
the Parliament of 1886.
And why have these offences diminished ? First of all,
.because the period of distress has passed away, and with that
period of distress the disposition to offence, which of course it
stimulated, has passed away also. Secondly, because Parlia
ment in 1887, after the increase of offences had taken place,
passed a remedial Act, a supplement to the Land Act of 1881,
and in some iraportant respects an extension of the Land Act.
The consequence has been that the Irish people have received
under the operation of that measure a great amount of relief
from difficulties which they were unable to surmount, and
therefore the rate of agrarian offences has largely dirainished.
These are operations with which all persons are farailiar who
have looked into the history of crirae, meaning thereby agrarian
crirae, in Ireland. As to general crime, I beUeve I am correct
in saying that Ireland does not present a diminution. Accord
ing to an account which has been supplied rae by a gentleman
who has himself undertaken the responsibility of authorsliip on
the subject, there is, on the contrary, a small increase of
ordinary crime in Ireland within the last few years, but of
that you hear nothing. No crime seeras to be iraportant for
^ Mr. Parnell's Tenant's Relief Bill was thrown out by 297 to 202.

i89i] FUTURE POLICY OF LIBEEAL PABTY 393
exhibiting tiie state of Ireland iu the view of the present
Government, except that, which touches tiie collections of the
rents of the landlords. But, gentleraen, there is another con
sideration which has operated raore powerfully still in disposing
the Irish people towards habits of legality. I am sorry to say
that during these five years it is beyond dispute the Irish
people have necessarily beconie raore and raore estranged from
the administration of the law, as regards the judicature of the
¦country, as regards the magistracy, as regards the constabulary.
For many long years there has not been a tirae when the people
have been more alienated from the action of many members of
those bodies, and, above all, frora the spirit at headquarters
which for the raost part controls and governs thera. But
another counteracting cause of happier origin and happier
spirit has powerfully worked upon the Irish people, and that
is the friendship of the people of Great Britain. They have
.seen the conduct of the Liberal party, and they have interpreted
¦that conduct as the true index of the sentiment of the country
at large. It is for us to carry to a decisive issue the question
whether they are well justified in the inference which they so
draw. But, at the stage which matters have now reached, can we
make no appeal to those who oppose us ? Can we do nothing
to reach their understandings, or to move their hearts ? In
•the hours of silent reflection, and apart from all excitement of
•passion and of controversy, I ask myself, what is the motive
that induces our opponents to persist in this, for them, hope
less contest ? Usually a great party engaged in a great battle
•has some great object before it. What is the object that
addresses itself to them? Is it because they are governed by
fear of the Irish nation ? Well, the Irish nation are under five
millions, and they are always fond of assuring us that out of
this five miUions two raillions are resolute on their side. Then
how strange the position ! Two raillions of Irishraen faced by
three raillions \^¦ho it is supposed have diabolical intentions to
oppress thera ! But behind these two raillions — a minority one
would think not wholly incapable of making some effort at

394 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 2
self-defence — behind these two millions there are thirty-five
millions of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen, not one
of whora would tolerate for a moment the slightest indication
on the part of the Irish majority to oppress the Irish minority.
Could fear be at the root of this position ? WeU, if it is not
fear, is it for the reputation of the country that the old policy
towards Ireland is continued ? WeU, gentlemen, the reputation
of a country is measured by a standard which we can easily
get at ; it raeans what its neighbours think of it The repu
tation of Eussia at this moment is probably very high with
certain parties within Eussia itself, but would not, I am afraid,
be quite so high if raeasured by the general opinion of the
civilised world. But where is the general opinion of the
civilised world, where is the reputation of England, with refer
ence to its conduct to Ireland ? A conderanatory verdict haa
long ago been pronounced, and in the whole public opinion and
in the whole literature of every civilised country on this or on
the other side of the Atlantic, you cannot find a single excep
tion to the rule that every corapetent, every creditable, every
weighty, every decent witness admits, and for generations has
proclaimed, in terms most unqualified, that the long inveterate
conduct of England towards Ireland has grievously lowered its
high character and has been unworthy of its general fame.
Is it, then, because tbey think their policy contributes to the
strength of an erapire ? But the strength of an empire consists-
in the union of the entire country and all its inhabitants, and
it is not strength but weakness which results, and must result,
from corapelling the people of Ireland to continue in permanent
alienation from the legislation of this country on those matters-
which lie nearest to their heart, and which they believe to be
the most vitally connected with their interest. Is it, then, to-
the interest of the public purse ? WeU, the public purse is a
question on which I should always endeavour to speak with
strict accuracy ; but I will venture to say that a sum not less,.
probably more, than three mUlions of money is annuaUy thrown
into the sea under the operation of our present legislation to
wards Ireland, which would be retrieved if that legislation

1891] FUTUEE POLICY OF LIBEBAL PABTY 395
underwent a beneficial change. And unhappUy this is not
merely money wasted, but money spent if not for the purpose
of producing, yet with the effect of producing, alienation and
estrangement, and the value of which, could it be stated as a
money value, is far greater than the waste.
Well, lastly, gentlemen, we have the fact of the arrears of
public business. You never can overtake the mass of work in
which you are already involved, and which increases from year
to year, until this terrible Irish controversy is out of the way.
The effect of it has been, during the whole of ray political life,
that a fraction of the population of the United Kingdom,
hardly amounting to one-eighth or one-ninth part, necessarily
consumes an enormous portion of its legislative time, and
makes it impossible for it to perform its proper office. Well,
gentlemen, you have corae to the period at which it is quite
clear that there must be either friendship or enraity with
Ireland. But I wish to call your attention to one important
circumstance, and it is this : There has been, unfortunately, that
alternative before England for centuries ; but in other ages,
when enmity and not friendship was chosen as the alternative,
it was the enmity of states or of classes, and not the enmity of
peoples. But you have arrived at a point decisive in your
history ; and now for the future — if, say after the next election,
this enmity is to continue — it will be the enmity of peoples
and not of states. To see one country oppressed by the rulers
of another state is heartrending. But, gentlemen, this is not a
question of cruel tyrants ; this is not a question of selfish
oligarchies. Six millions of you, by your votes, determine the
course which the Imperial policy is to follow, and with that
power you must accept the duties and the responsibilities
which belong to it If Ireland is oppressed hereafter it will
be oppressed by you, by the people of this country, aud allow
me to say that the spectacle of one people oppressing another
is a spectacle the saddest, the most heartrending, and perhaps
the most revolting which the wide surface of the earth can
present to the human eye. I will never believe that this great
nation will place itself in such a position. And in truth.

396 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [OCT. 2
gentlemen, this friendship has been considered, and has, as we
think, in some degree been decided. The declaration has been
made, and raade in favour of friendship. It has been made in
the raost constitutional raanner, by the exercise of the elective
franchise, and by the results obtained at the polls. Those
results, which for a long time were overlooked or ridiculed by
the organs and the voices of our opponents, they now begin to
see and to admit to be soraewhat formidable to their plans, and
the only refuge which remains to thera is in " the play of other
parts of the constitution." No, gentlemen, we believe that those
elections which have tested here, there, and everywhere, in
constituencies of every possible variety, the sense of the people,
have afforded us a safe indication of that which is to come.
The sense of these constituencies has been declared, and what
has it said ? It has uttered words of soberness, of justice, and
of truth. But there are some ears in this world to which un
happily that which is sober, just, and true has but a slow and
partial access. Let thera, then, reflect on this ; the verdicts
that the constituencies have spoken are not only that which is
sober, just, and true, but also they speak what everyone will
understand : they speak the inevitable. Upon these verdicts
Ireland relies. You have watched the conduct of Ireland in
.the difficult circurastances of the last nine raonths, and that
conduct I do not hesitate to risk saying on your behalf has
evoked in every breast a responsive voice of syrapathy, and an
increased conviction that we raaj' deal freely and yet deal
prudently with our fellow-subjects beyond the Channel. Such
is your conviction. On her side she reposes in full trust on
the evidence of the recent facts ; she believes that when the
opportunity arrives, the general sense of the country will ratify
tbe judgment that has already been given at nearly a hundred
points of its surface ; she believes that the entire people of
Great Britain will, by a great and decisive majority, deterraine
to raeet and to dispose of those deraands which are now made
upon them, she believes, alike by their honour, by their interest,
and by their duty before God and man.

THE CONDITION OF THE RURAL
POPULATION
London, Decembbe 11, 1891
A Conference ot more than 400 agricultural labourers was held in London
on December lOth, under the auspices of the National Liberal Federation.
The experiment was a novel one. After the delegates had been entertained
at breakfast at the Holborn Restaurant, Mr Gladstone addressed them. Dr.
Spence Watson presided on the occasion.
De. Spence Watson and Gentlemen, — You, sir, in speaking
frora the chair, have but confirraed as the highest authority,
the accounts which have reached me frora every quarter, in
sorae cases from e-ye-witnesses, of the character of the proceed
ings which have marked this memorable conference, and have
assured rae of that which I had confidently anticipated, and
that which I know now as established beyond doubt, that
these proceedings have been signalised throughout by all the
features which are the legitiraate raeans and sure precursors of
-victory — I raean by union, by raoderation, and by decision.
I believe, gentlemen, that you know your own minds too well
for rae to be able to render you on this occasion any substantial
service. I can hardly claira rayself to be a practical raan in
the rural administration of this country, but I have lived long
in rural districts, and have had many opportunities of obser
vation, and I feel with you that the time has come when a course
of efforts should be comraenced tiiat is not to terminate with
any single crisis, or occasion, but only with the attainraent of
the just ends which are in view. The best I can hope to do is
to present to you that view of your question which suggests
itself to a practical raan occupying a position which at all
events has given hira the advantages of a tolerably long experi
ence, and in which I hope I may say that he has not been, and

398 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [dec. i i
is not at the present moraent, altogether wanting in sympathy
with every section of the people.
In my view the labour question is of a very long range
indeed. That great controversy which has mainly occupied
and agitated the public raind for the last six years — the subject
of Home Rule for Ireland — is really part of the labour contro
versy, because you know very well that the bulk of those on
whose behalf you and we have been struggling are either
labourers themselves in the strictest sense of the word, or are
small farmers in a condition essentially analogous to that of
labourers. That is the first, and I will venture to say the
foremost, division of the great labour question. Then there
comes the subject which Dr. Watson assisted so ably in the
discussion of at Newcastle,^ and that was the consideration of
another great branch of the labour question — what I raay call
the organised labour population of the country. Because you
must recognise the fact — that which has been the fact, but
which I hope is to be so no longer — that while many of the
trades of this country, to their own great advantage, and to our
great advantage, and the advantage of the nation and the State,
have established among themselves powerful and effective
¦organisations, you, on the contrary, have until now been little
more than an aggregation of individuals, and you who present
to us the great subject of rural labour and the condition of the
rural population, you while, perhaps, you have the most to do
in the just preparation of your raeans of action and in bringing
thera to the front, you, I think, also present, as far as Great
Britain is concerned, the raost urgent case of aU. I call it the
raost urgent case, and I think the proof of that urgency is
obvious. The proof of it lies in the constant raigration of the rural
population into the towns. I do not speak of the whole of that
migration, because undoubtedly the trades of this country —
associated with its vast, world-wide commerce — must and ought
to expand, and I am thankful to say do expand, under the
influence of sound and liberating legislation, much faster than
' See the preceding speech in this volume.

1891] CONDITION OF THE RURAL POPULATION 399
we can expect the rural industry to expand. Sorae overplus —
if there were an overplus — of the rural population no one could
be sorry to see pass into the towns to meet their demands, but
the case which we have before us is far more than that. We
have in many parts of the country not only a stationary but a
decreasing rural population. I look upon that decrease of the
rural population — call it what you like, and explain it as you
like — as a great national calamity. There are no efforts that
ought not to be raade ; there are no just sacrifices that ought
not to be encountered, in order that, proceeding upon sound
principles, we ma}"-, if possible, endeavour to keep the rural
population at horae so long as they wish to stay there. The
process by which that state of things can be stopped — leaving
the rural labourer in a condition in which he can hardlj^ hope
to keep his wife and children even with an insufficient supply
of the necessaries of life — is to restore his moral and his social
freedom. This question of labour is one of many branches —
far more branches than I am able to set adequately before you
-^more, probably, than you, in your rapid but well filled meeting,
have been able thoroughly to discuss. I will only enumerate
some of those branches first which are common to the two
great divisions of the labour question — I mean the organised
labour and the rural labour. That is the phrase I adopt, and
you will understand it for the sake of distinction so far as the
present moraent is concerned. When I look to those two
branches, I will mention only in order to set rapidly aside the
points in respect to which their direct interests are interests in
common, and bear upon the sarae subjects of legislation.
For instance, there is the question of election charges.
When, very often at a great personal sacrifice, candidates receive
the suffrages of the constituencies and are sent to Parliaraent —
an end which has been raost beneficially attained to a liraited
extent, and which we all hope will be attained to a much
wider extent — we have to take care that they shall not be met
with the frightful, not absolutely insurraountable, for courage
has surmounted it — but the frightful difficulty connected with
defraying the expenses of Parliamentary life for men whose lot

400 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [dec. ir
is the lot of labour. That has been a point of great iraportance.
The rural labour of the country and the organised labour of the
country in the raining and raanufacturing districts have been
directed at the present day straight to this sarae point.
Another point is one which is wider still, and that is the
division of the rates. Local rates have increased — have in
creased mostly for good cause. I think and hope that the
people get value for their money, but the increase of these rates
makes more urgent that which was always just — that which in
the year 1872 the Governraent of the day proposed^ and en
deavoured to attain, but were defeated, partly, perhaps, by the ¦
crowd of business, but yet more by the deterrained opposition
of the Tory party — I raean this iraportant division of rates,
always just, but now, in consequence of their increase, more
urgent than it has ever been. They embrace another impor
tant class, whose affairs can hardly be discussed, I think, on
account of the liraitation of tirae within the corapass of this
meeting, I mean the farraers. For them this is a matter of great
consequence, and I am sure they will understand that if on this
particular occasion the attention and exercise of your minds is
concentrated upon questions affeqting the rural labouring popu
lation, it is not because we forget or depreciate the interests of
the farraers, and are not anxious to see those interests proraoted
by every just and reasonable raeans.
There is one other question on which tbe coraraon interest
reaches to both branches of the labour of the country, and also
concerns the labouring population of Ireland, and that is the
law of conspiracy. That is a question with regard to which I
earnestly hope that we shall very soon see our way, though I
ara not very sanguine so far as the residuary terra, what I may
call the death-bed period of the present Parliaraent is concerned.
But, undoubtedly, I hope that in regard to that law of con
spiracy, which has undergone a vast araendraent on behalf of
the organised labour of the country, but which still requires
extensive change— a change wiU at the very earUest period be
1 The proposal was made by Mr. Stansfeld, the President of the Poor Law
Board.

1 891] CONDITION OF THE BUBAL POPULATION 401
brought about, for it is one that bears directly upon personal
liberty and upon the right of the labouring population to
combine by every means that the general principles of law
perrait, for the purpose of giving the greatest value they can
to their labour, the comraodity they have to dispose of. At
present you bave a special law of conspiracy — what is called
the coraraon law of conspiracy; and under cover of this coraraon
law, whether owing to neglect or to prejudice, there have grown
up proceedings which have flowed from the raere will and
personal notions or leanings of particular judges that have
becorae in the aggregate extremely averse to the liberties of the
people. We raust get rid of that coramon law of conspiracy.
We must let every raan know what is and what is not an
offence by clear enuraeration, and we must provide for the rural
population of this country, as well as for the population of
Ireland, tbat nothing shall be a crime in relation to the prose
cution of labour interests because it is done by a combination
of raen, unless it be in itself an offence against the letter and
spirit of the law of the land.
I have mentioned these — there raay be many others, but I
cannot atterapt an exhaustive enumeration, and I now come to
the special field in which your present raoveraents are to be
conducted. Ah ! gentleraen, the condition of the rural popu
lation of this country in the present, and yet raore in the past,
is a subject of painful reflection, and I ara going to detain you
for a few minutes with matter which I feel to be interesting —
unless I deprive it of its interest by defects of comraunication —
with respect to forraer years, and to show you what your fathers
have gone through. I certainly am not here to darap your
effort,? — and, if I were, it would be in vain — or to say you have
nothing to do in procuring iraproveraents. You have much to
do, but I wish to point out that something has been already
done, and to indicate to you— although I indicate it with
feelings of pain, of recoil, almost of horror — what has been the
condition of the rural population of this country, by two or
three, I think, authentic intiraations. Do not be afraid if
I carry you back as far as the year 1767. I do not mean to go
2 c

402 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [dec. i i
on continuously from that tirae ; I shall proceed by skips and
jumps, or, as the fashion is now to say, by leaps and bounds.
I am going to read to you a few lines which are copied frora a
stone now existing in the park at Hawarden. The iraraediate
occasion of the carving of this stone was the rebuilding of
a mill ; but for some reason or other, and I certainly cannot
regret it, there were inscribed upon the stone these remarkable
words, which any one may verify by reference to the stone.
The appearance of the stone is just like the headstone of a
grave, and the inscription begins thus : — " Trust in God for
bread, and to the kiug for protection and justice. This mill
Avas built in the year 1767." Then corae the reraarkable words,
" Wheat was this year at 9s., barley at 5s. 6d. a bushel. Luxury
was at a great height and charity extensive, but the poor were
starved, riotous, and hanged." Now, pray bear in mind that is
not meant as an inflammatory inscription. This mill is a raill
close to the house in which we live, belonging to the property.
It was raeant, I believe, as an honest description of the state of
things, and observe this, it is not speaking of what are called the
dangerous classes, but of the poor, which means the masses of the
people, and the description given of them is that luxury above
thera was at a great height, that charity also was extensive, but
that of the body of thera the characteristics were three — that
they were starved, that in consequence of their being starved,
and no one can wonder at it, they were riotous, and that the
only cure for rioting was that they were hanged.
I corae down from 1767 to 1812 — that I think was the year
— and ray incident is this. I was attending a dinner privately
given to a certain body of rainers who were about to open a col-
lierj^ and this dinner was attended by a very old and reraarkable
old man, who had worked in the collieries of the district 40 years
before. The date of the dinner was about 1850, or a little after
1850, and the period to which he refers was the period of 1812.
I am pretty sure that that was the year — whether it was the
year before or the year after it does not much signify — and that
old raan raade, in a few -words, one of the raost reraarkable
speeches I have ever heard. He described the change which

1 89 1] CONDITION OF THE EURAL POPULATION 403
he had lived to see in the condition of the people, which, in
that district, I think is rather favourable than otherwise ; and
he described what it was in 1812. In 1812, 1 think, he stated,
and I beUeve (though it seems now almost incredible, I have seen
it verified frora public sources), wheat was at the enorraous price
of 20s. a bushel ; five tiraes over what, not at the present
moment, because it has risen a little, but -«'hat for several years
past you have paid for the staff of life ; and potatoes — the other
principal element of their subsistence — were at a corresponding
price. That was not only a bad state of things, it was a hor
rible state of things, and no word short of horrible is fit to
describe it But recollect that for a long, long time, until light
began to be thrown upon the dark places of the land by the action
of a free Press-Flight such as has been thrown, to quote a
particular instance, on the present position of the rural popula
tion in sorae districts by the correspondent of the Daily News ^ —
I do believe that the bulk of the upper and wealthier classes
were in total ignorance of the real condition of the people, and
the marvel is that even unconquerable, inexhaustible fortitude
and patience kept them silent through such a period, and
allowed the whole country to be filled with the vaunts of raili
tary glory, and allowed those who had the means of making known
their sentiments to habitually declare that never had there been
iu the history of England a time so great and grand as that ;
that our constitution was the envy of the world ; and that
happy were they who lived within the borders of England.
Gentlemen, that was cant. I do not say it was wilful false
hood — I am sure it was not — but it was unconscious, gross, and
monstrous untruth, and we have to blush when we look back
upon such a state of things. I raust raention that ray old
friend stated the wages of the period when wheat and potatoes
were at these raonstrous prices. I cannot be absolutely certain
to a shilling, but my firm belief and conviction is that the
miner's wages — which, of course, as they ought to be, because
of the more disagreeable work, were above the agricultural
1 A series of articles in this journal, entitled " Life in Our Villages," and
beginning in August 1891, had attracted much attention.

404 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [DEC. 1 1
wages — were not more than lis. a week. These are serious
and sad things to consider, but it is a satisfaction to be able to
say, that while that good old raan recorded a beneficial change,
that change has continued and extended, and instead of a wage
of lis. a week for rainers — probably representing 9s. for agri
culture — the present wages of that district are 18s. for agricul
ture, and 26s. on the average for rainers.
I come now to ray third testiraony. I think I ara really
giving you — without any attempt at detail — testiraonies that
are of sorae point and weight. The third testiraony was one
that carae casually to rae one day, travelling on the Great
Western Eailway, when I found myself in a compartment
with a Suffolk coimtry doctor. This, again, was a few years
after 1850. I cannot say exactly how raany — probably about
1855 or 1856. Now, the repeal of the Corn Laws had done
much for wages in many parts of the country, but no in
fluences tending to a rise had, at that time, I think, crept
into the rural districts. At any rate, I remember that the
raedical raan — a raan of decided intelligence, who was a parish
doctor in Suffolk — said to rae, " I assure you, sir, on the abso
lute ground of ray raedical experience and knowledge, that of
the whole labouring population of the parisb there is not a
raan, a woman, or a child who has food sufficient for the main
tenance of full health." These are deplorable, most deplorable
facts. I rejoice to think we are rising above such a level as
that, and I hope you think I have been justified in mentioning
historical circurastances of such deep, though of raost painful,
and I raight almost say shameful, state of things. Now, ground
has been raade in that respect In regard to the raeans of subsis
tence for raany classes, iraraense ground has been made, though
for some classes and for sorae parts of the country, undoubtedly,
that ground has been more than limited.
But I must refer to ground raade in another direction, which
ray hou. friend in the chair was kind enough to raention, assign
ing to me a much greater share of honour than I deserved, but
unquestionably the enactraent of the franchise for the rural dis
tricts in 1884-85 — after a desperate effort, you will remember, in
the House of Lords to defeat it — that change, by the deterniina-

1891] CONDITION OF THE BUBAL POPULATION 405
tion of the people of this country, was carried, and it was carried
in connection with the secret vote. I ara afraid that without
the secret vote it still would have been very advantageous ; but
undoubtedly the secrecy of voting was the necessary comple
ment of that legislative change, and the necessary guarantee of
the independence and liberty of the working-man. And here I
wish to say one word more. For a considerable tirae after the
enactment of secret voting, it appeared to rae, and I believe it
was the case, that the country labourers felt a great deal of
distrust. They thought that in sorae way or other the vote
would be discovered. Now, I ara the last man to say to the
labourer that if he is asked about his vote he should give a
misleading answer, but I think the less answer he gives the
better. He may depend upon it — experience has proved it, and
he is coming, I am thankful to say, to feel it raore and raore
every day — that unless he himself chooses to declare his vote,
which he is perfectly entitled to do if he thinks fit, no man
living can find it out Parliament dealt honestly and care
fully with that subject, and surrounded the enactment with
provisions that secured its efficiency, and its efficiency means
the absoluteness of its secrecy. This is an important change ; I
may say that it is the master-key of the situation. It is by means
of this franchise, and this just infiuence in the councils of the
State, that you are enabled to tread your path with firraness and
with a consciousness of strength. By means of that just political
influence, rely upon it that no very long time wU! elapse before
you attain in the main all the just objects which you have in view.
I shall not attempt to go through the detail of all the items
that have been so clearly and ably set forth in the proceedings
at Newcastle, and in other proceedings, but I think that I am
not far wrong in saying that, at the present moraent, so far as
your feelings have a centre they are centred very rauch in that
little phrase- the estabUshraent of Parish Councils. I ara led
to desire the establishraent of Parish Councils raainly by two
considerations. The first is that they are the necessary com
plement of any good system of local governraent A good
system of local government is the best accompaniment and

406 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [DEC. ii
guarantee for a good systera of central governraent But also
local government must be brought horae to your own doors.
There are, as has been well pointed out, a multitude of pur
poses for which it is impossible tbat a County Council should
be efficient, and if it attempted to be efficient in those raatters
it would lose the efficiency which undoubtedly it possesses for
other valuable purposes. It is as the compleraent of your free
dora that I wish, in the first instance, for Parish Councils ; but
I wish thera for another reason which is raore material. I ask
myself what is the principal imraediate aira for which this
reraarkable conference has been brought together ? After the
facts that have been laid before us as to the condition of the
agricultural labourer and his power of supporting hiraself
and his wife and children in raany portions of the country, I
do feel that the iraproveraent of his raaterial condition is the
central and vital object which has raost of all brought you here
to-day. It is, in my opinion, very dangerous to talk to raen about
improving their material condition through public legislation
unless you clearly see your way. I do not pretend to see my
way as to everything that might be desired. There are diffi
culties in the road, without doubt, but we do see our way, I
think, as to a very iraportant iraproveraent in the condition of
the rural population. Now, these councils, as you have been
told most justly — and I will not dwell upon the particulars
except to pass through thera — raust have the control, for
•example, of parish charities, the care of roads, footpaths, coni-
•mons, and rights of way. Bights of way, for example, are most
material to be preserved. Private interest is always awake
looking for the opportunity of extinguishing them here and
there. How is the County Council to stop that ? How is even
a District Council in a large county to stop that ? You
want raen who know the ground yard by yard and inch by
inch, and it is nonsense to talk about circuses i as alternatives
1 Lord Salisbury, iu a speech at Birmingham on November 24, 1891, said:
" If, among the many duties the modern State undertakes, the duty of amus
ing the rural population should be included, I should rather recommend a
circus or something of that kind." This remark had been the subject of
much discussion.

1891] CONDITION OF THE BUBAL POPULATION 407
to Parish Councils. I raention that not as a thing of vital
principle in itself, but as a clear, defined, and manifest purpose,
which requires a local authority conversant with the minutest
details of space and of local history ; and a Parish Council,
parish assembly, call it what you like, if it is a true and effi
cient parish asserably — call it a vestry, or what you like ; I do-
not want to quarrel with any narae whatever so long as the
thing is good and effective — but this is one of those instances
which show the real practical utility which these Parish Coun
cils have in view. Then, again, there is the question of sanitary,
or rather insanitary, dwellings, and the question of schools.
Greater independence is desired by the parents of children ;
and that also is a subject requiring much consideration. Then
I touch very tender ground, but it is a subject that lies deep
in the hearts of most of the rural population, that which is
indicated by the words " the workhouse."
It is a lamentable fact if, in the midst of our civilisation
and at the close of the nineteenth century, the workhouse is all
that can be offered to the industrious labourer at the end of a
long and honourable life. I do not enter into tbe question
now in detail I do not say it is an easy one ; I do not say
that it will be solved in a raoraent ; but I do say this, that until
society is able to offer to the industrious labourer at the end of
a long and blaraeless lil'e soraething better than the workhouse,
society will not have discharged its duties to its poorer raem-
.bers, and the aims of this remarkable conference will not have
been fully attained. But, as I have said, we are here to look
not simply on the ideal — though the ideal ought never to be
put wholly out of view — but at the practical ; and I do say
that the Parish Councils, in ray opinion, constitute the straight
road, the necessary road, and the only road, to our installing
the labourer in that which is raost of all vital to hira in the
imraediate irapioveinent of his condition — naraely, the freer
access to and use of the land. I think the opinion araong
you and araong those who sympathise with you in the country
does not recognise it in any way sufficient to that which has

408 MB GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [dec. ii
been done in the way of improvement in our law.^ It is con
deraned as inefficient.
We want, not a norainal acknowledgraent of a corapulsory
principle with regard to the taking of land ; we want that
principle of compulsion absolutely erabodied in effective pro
visions. As respects gardens — the first, the raost vital, and the
most useful of all eleraents, so far as they go, though possibly
more iraraediatelyassociating itself with the letting of cottages —
and as respects allotraents, it is the Parish Council, and the
Parish Council alone, through which a good systera can be made
effective. Whether it should be done entirely by the authority
of the Parish Council I will not ask, because it is evident that
as we have in view the establishment of a higher council or
authority — a County Council, or District Council, or Parish
Council — the division of powers between them is a matter of
considerable anxiety and great importance ; and it raay be that
the Parish Council would not in every case be strong enough
to wield these compulsory powers without some assistance
from the higher authority. I will not enter into that ; but it is
through these public institutions of local governraent, and
through theni alone, that we can do anything effective, and
anything upon a large scale, for iraproving the access of the
labourer to the land and his freer use of it for his own benefit.
I have seen lately a declaration by raerabers of the Governraent
that they are thinking whether it will be possible to enable the
rural population to becorae purchasers of sraall holdings.
That is all very well, but we haye not reached the point, and the
rural population in the less forward districts have not quite
reached the point at which they think so ranch about purchase
as they will think about occupation and use. It is through
the council that the occupation and use will be raade easy.
And here let me refer to an important point. As far as I
know, although Toryism, which, as you know, now includes
what was once Liberalism, for shortness I call it all Tory
ism — there is no use in beating about the bush in these
matters and wasting time — Toryism, having conceded the
' An Allotments Act had been passed in 1887.

1 891] CONDITION OF THE BUBAL POPULATION 409
principle that a local authority is in some way or
another to have the power of purchase, has, I believe,
shown a uniforra jealousy of an arrangement of law under
which the council would be enabled not only to purchase, but
also to take land upon lease. Now, I own it is my opinion —
you are practical men, and are better judges of it, perhaps,
than I ara — that the power of taking land upon lease for a
sufficient tirae and with proper provisions for the termination
of the lease would be very valuable additional power. It
would simplify the matter. It would avoid aU difficulties as
to the raising of considerable sums of raoney, and when once
the Parish Council— the pubUc authority, that is the best
phrase — the public local authority is in practical possession of
the land, you will see what they can do. They can regulate
the rents, they can make provision not only against extra
vagance of rent, but for adequacy in the holding ; they can
also raake provision for a reasonable security in the tenure.
That is a point upon which very likely many landlords would
be jealous ; but having the local authority for their tenant, and
having the security of the rates for what the local authority
have to pay them, the local authority would have its hands
free to regulate the concession of land in every way, in every
condition that appertains to its security and its profitableness,
and in every way which the best interests of the people raight
direct. I do not boast in this raatter, for my time has been pretty
weU occupied in Parliaraent with one thing and another, and
I adrait I have no right to take a forward place with regard to
this great question of the access of the labourer to the land
— a gigantic question which I hope we shall see assuraing in
practice, as it always must have in thought, large dimensions.
It is a comfort to me, so far as it goes, that some time ago —
naraely, in 1832, when I was already coraing into Parliaraent,
and when my political ideas generally were certainly not
arranged upon precisely the same scale and model as that
upon which they are now based — it is a comfort to me that I
did, in addressing the electors of Newark, a very large pro-

410 ME GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [dec. 1 1
portion of whom were rural labourers, express ray strong
opinion that the labourer ought to have much freer access to
the land by means of allotting to hira reasonable portions of it.
So that it is no new opinion which I ara broaching before you
this day. You can compute the profit which will attach to
the judicious use of these allotments. If the labourers are in
corapetent to raake use of thera by their own spare time, and
by the occasional labour of their wives and growing children,
well, I am very sorry, but you will have done your duty. My
belief, however, is that they are perfectly competent, and that
they will make use of them, and that, as far as I have
seen, the estiraate of £10 an acre of substantial profit which
would be effected from these sraall holdings is not an un
reasonable estimate. It is quite as likely, with an industrious
man, to be below the raark as above it.
I mention here with great honour — I am speaking now
of the manageraent simply of the labour population — the
name of Lord Tollemache.^ He was a Tory, but as an em
ployer he was an excellent man. I do not know whether
he was a successful or a popular manager of his estates in
all respects^that I do not touch on — but I know his manage
raent with regard to labour, and he told rae himself very
many years ago what it was. He had an estate in Suffolk
and one in Cheshire — both large estates. In Suffolk he gave
every raan half an acre of arable land. In Cheshire, where
the people were conversant with the management of cows,
he gave, besides the half-acre of arable land, either two acres
or three of grass for the cow. That idea of two acres or
three acres for the cow has got of late into very queer
company, and I believe that one gentleman^ who propounded it
did, in a Select Coraraittee of the House of Coraraons, vote
against repealing the law for restricting the raoveraent of land
in the raarket, certainly an odd way of going to work. But the
1 Died December 10, 1890 : " He was the finest practical agriculturist in
the country. . . . Lord Tollemaohe's action in providing each of his cottage
tenants with three acres and a cow was the origin of that historical phrase "
— The Times, Dec. 11, 1890.
- CoUings, one of the members for Birmingham.

1 89 1] CONDITION OF THE BUEAL POPULATION 411
special reason why I mentioned Lord Tollemache is this, and it
is a point of great iraportance, inasrauch as the moral and
social influence of the farmer in the parish is deservedly great.
He told me that, when he started his half-acre plan in Suffolk,
it was raet with violent opposition. The farraers believed that
this scheme would demoralise the labourers and ruin and break
down the cultivation of the farms. He told rae also that after
he had lived a few years through the practical working of his
scheme, there was a complete revolution of opinion araong the
farraers. and thev found- without_exception, as I understood

ERRATUM.
P. 410, Note 2, /or CoUings read Mr. Jesse CoUings.

greatest value. I only assure you that the opinion I expressed
in 1832 is ray opinion still. All the changes which have
taken place in ray political creed, or any appendages to it —
well, these changes have not tended to raake rae less willing
than I was then to see the labourer, who works so hard and so
well for others, acquire the power of putting the spade into the
land for his own advantage ; and, though there are difficulties in
our way, though the path of legislation is beset and encurabered
with obstacles, allow rae to say that I look forward to the issue
with cheerful faith. I will not define the moment, or attempt
to describe the raeans; but I say that now we have a con
stitutional raachinery whioh, before any very long time, will

412 MR GLADSTONE'S SPEECHES [dec. ii, 1891
assert its own efficacy, and its own sufficiency for the attain
raent of every just end. And I do believe that we are approach
ing a period when we may hope to see industry in our rural
districts placed in such a position as to have room and verge
enough for a good provision for wife and faraily, and for the
exercise of a reasonable forethought; -when the circurastances of
the labouring man raay iraprove without the least diminution
of, but on the contrary with the growth of, every guarantee for
his independence ; and when the rural population raay sit down
under the shadow of beneficent legislation with confidence in
the laws, and with confidence in the Legislature, to live and
die in contentraent and in peace.

end of vol. X.

Printed by T. and A. Constable, Printers to Her Majesty
at the Edinburgh University Press.

3 9002 00539 4870