and not only to consider its state of combination and confederacy against the law, but also to devise means for suppressThat was the way in which the question was

ing the same.

put before us. Now, however, we are told it is not to be a secret committee; but have the Government well considered the effect of making such an announcement to the world, and expressing an opinion that it was necessary to have a secret committee to consider the condition of a portion of Ireland? Why, the telegraphic cable must have flashed the announcement to America forty-eight hours ago, and what do you think must have been the effect of it on those treasonable confederacies which are always in action-and are at this moment in action, as we know-against the authority of England? What must have been the effect of such an announcement? It must have produced a conviction in their minds that the Government found the whole state of society in Ireland undermined, and that the authority of the Queen was in imminent danger. To announce forty-eight hours after this that it is not the intention of the Government to propose a secret committee, indicates a tone of levity in dealing with a great question which ought not to pass unnoticed.

Surely a minister who proposes a secret committee on the condition of Ireland, by that proposition alone incurs the gravest responsibility. Now, to-night we find it is not to be a secret committee, and then, to our great surprise, we find that it is also a committee which is not to devise means for remedying the evils complained of. Then what is the committee to do? Observe the description of this district of Ireland, where there are not only these evils, but these spreading evils-observe the description of it given by the Minister. It is brief and terse in the extreme. He tells us it is intolerable. He tells us the state of Ireland is intolerable (No, no!)—that the state of a great portion of Ireland is intolerable, and therefore will want inquiry (No, no!). Well, that the state of a county in Ireland is intolerable. Is it reduced to that? Is a county in a state so intolerable that you must come to a senate to ask for a committee to inquire into it? Can you not get out of the difficulty without coming to the House of Commons, and

asking it to appoint a secret committee to devise means to govern a county?

Well, Sir, secrecy is given up and devising means is given up; so the question is, 'What is this committee to do?' Every impartial member on either side of the House must have felt the difficulty, and asked himself that question. Why, the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant gave us ample explanations as to the various means by which he might have gained complete information on all points which the Government required to guide them in order to meet the evils of this district; and, indeed, under the very Act which we passed last year, they have powers-extraordinary powers; so that, for instance, if there is a felony committed in a district, they can summon witnesses before them and examine them, even although such witnesses may not be connected with the felony. Why, what power has a committee of the House of Commons compared with this power? I would impress on the House the inexpediency of assenting to a committee which is to relieve the Government from their responsibility as an executive.

But the noble lord, who says he will never appear in the sheet of a penitent and holding the taper of remorse, told us to-night that, whatever the original intentions of the Government were, it is not their intention now to ask this committee to devise any means to suppress the evils of which they complain, and which they describe as intolerable. I would say myself at once that, so far as I am concerned, I am perfectly prepared to support the Government in any demand they may make upon their own responsibility to terminate an evil which they describe, and I believe justly describe, as intolerable. There is no need to enter into an antiquated history of the horrors of Ribandism to induce the House of Commons to come to this conclusion. We know the evil. We know the evil. We have long heard of the evil and of the perpetration of these new crimes and these new horrors; and I was only astonished that in Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne they were not referred to with more distinctness. We have recently had from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland an announcement with reference to them which prepared us for the legislation which I suppose

the Government will come forward and propose; and if the Government would come forward and propose a remedy, I think I might venture to answer for every gentleman on this side of . the House that he would give it an unflinching support.

The evil is intolerable and ought to be put down, and we are prepared to support Her Majesty's Government if, in the exercise of their constitutional functions, they come forward' and propose a measure instead of asking the House of Commons to enter upon an inquiry into the matter. The matter is urgent,. and the business of a committee is necessarily always long. A committee-to do what?-to examine officers of the Government, to examine magistrates, to call for information from a miscellaneous multitude of witnesses? Why, a committee of inquiry for such purposes is always in existence. It is the cabinet of the Queen. They have the best information, and they are selected men, who are supposed to be most competent to decide on that information; and on the results of their deliberations and on their convictions they ought to introduce a measure and not move for a committee, when the state of an Irish county is intolerable. Let the standing orders be suspended if the case is urgent.

The noble lord has made some reference, from that richness of precedent with which he has been crammed on this occasion, to what occurred in 1852, and in the midst of the distress of this regenerating Government of Ireland, supported by a hundred legions, and elected by an enthusiastic people, in order to terminate the grievances of that country and secure its contentment and tranquillity, he must needs dig up our poor weak Government of 1852, and say, 'There was Mr. Napier, your Attorney-General, he moved for a committee, and you were a member of that cabinet.' If I had had a majority of one hundred behind my back I would not have moved for that committee. I did the best I could, and I passed a good Bill by a respectable majority.

But was the situation in which I was placed similar to the situation of Her Majesty's present ministers? Look for a moment to the relations which this Government bear to the House of Commons with regard to the administration of Ireland.

The right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) was elected for a specific purpose: he was the minister who alone was capable to cope with these long-enduring and mysterious evils that had tortured and tormented the civilisation of England. The right honourable gentleman persuaded the people of England that with regard to Irish politics he was in possession of the philosopher's stone. Well, Sir, he has been returned to this House with an immense majority, with the object of securing the tranquillity and content of Ireland. Has anything been grudged him? Time, labour, devotion-whatever has been demanded has been accorded, whatever has been proposed has been carried. Under his influence and at his instance we have legalised confiscation, consecrated sacrilege, condoned high treason; we have destroyed churches, we have shaken property to its foundation, and we have emptied gaols; and now he cannot govern a county without coming to a Parliamentary committee ! The right honourable gentleman, after all his heroic exploits, and at the head of his great majority, is making Government ridiculous.

If he persists in this absurd suggestion I shall leave it to fortune to decide what may be its results. If he will bring forward a measure-an adequate measure-a measure which will meet the evil, he will be supported. The late Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant knows very well what is the measure that will meet the evil, because he plaintively asked the magistrates at Meath what he should propose to help them out of their difficulties; and they met in quarter sessions, passed a resolution, and told him what was necessary. What the magistrates told the late Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant will be the groundwork, the gist, and the pith of the measure which Her Majesty's Government must bring forward. Under certain circumstances they will have to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act; but after the flashy speeches of the right honourable gentleman opposite upon that subject, we must have a Parliamentary committee as a veil in order that he may save his self-love.

369

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION BILL (IRELAND), March 11, 1873.1

[This Bill was introduced by Mr. Gladstone on February 13. It was generally believed at the time that Cardinal Manning had induced Mr. Gladstone to think that the Catholics would accept the Bill; but that it was thrown over under peremptory orders from Rome. The lebate on the second reading, the rejection of which was moved by Mr. Bourke, began on March 3, and after lasting four nights ended in the defeat of the Government by a majority of 3-the Ayes being 284, the Noes 287. It had been supported at first because Mr. Gladstone was understood to say the Roman Catholic hierarchy would accept the compromise. A declaration from the Roman Catholic bishops published on February 28 destroyed all expectation that the Bill would be a settlement of the question. The exclusion from the teaching of the new University of theology, ethics, and metaBoth Roman Catholics and physics, completed its discomfiture.

Mr.

advanced Liberals combined against it and ensured its rejection. Disraeli spoke on the last night of the debate, and his speech, according to the Times, turned the scale. Mr. Cardwell had said on a previous night that the Government were ready to make all concessions that were required in a Liberal direction. Many members, however, did not happen to hear what fell from Mr. Gladstone afterwards, just as the House was breaking up. The Prime Minister said that the statement of the Secretary for War only meant that Government would be perfectly willing to consider certain questions in Committee. Mr. Disraeli acted on this rather untimely explanation with practised skill, and brought it up again on the last night to bear upon those wavering Liberals who, doubtful from the first of the intentions of Government, had been nearly reassured by Mr. Cardwell's declaration.]

R. DISRAELI: Sir, I think it convenient occasionally in

a and especially at the

has arrived, that the House should take a general view of its This speech is reprinted from Hansard's Debates by permission of Mr. Hansard.