of the government of Ireland, and this question of the relations between the landlords and tenants of Ireland never were, never ought to have been, and I trust never will be party questions. I was therefore rejoiced to find that it was not left to the regular Opposition, whose motives might be, as they always are, misconstrued, to ask the opinion of your lordships on this grave subject. Notice was given to move the rejection of the Bill by one who bears an illustrious name,' and we learn that the noble earl did not stand alone; but that he had some, perhaps many, political friends who sympathised with him. If the motion of the noble earl for the rejection of the Bill had been one of which the tendency was in any degree to arrest that great policy which now for nearly forty years has been supported by Parliament with respect to the relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland, I certainly should not have supported it. But brought forward as it is, I feel it is my duty to do so, and that the views of myself and my friends on this subject ought not to be misunderstood. I confess myself that there is one more reason which makes me anxious that this Bill should be rejected, and that is the mode in which it has been introduced to the notice of the country and of Parliament. There have been rumours, ambiguous voices, circulated about for a considerable time that some large measure was about to be introduced or would be in due time, which would affect the character of the landed constitution of the country. Sometimes it was to be a great measure for Ireland; sometimes we were assured upon authority, though not the highest, that England would not escape the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers. Upon every occasion there have always been some of their many supporters in Parliament who have exulted at the introduction of the Bill, and who have announced not only their hope but their conviction that the ministers next year would deal in the same spirit, but in a far larger way, with the question of land in England. A gentleman the other day was summoned to one of the greatest honours of the State-to be a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council-he himself a distinguished member of Parliament and one of the Administration; and after he had taken his 2 Mr. Chamberlain.

2

1 Earl Grey.

seat at the Board, he went to another board, to a political dinner presided over by no less a personage than the Lord President of the Council,' and here the new Privy Councillor, in language of the most inflammatory character, denounced the land, denounced the landlords of England, and said they had got a majority of the cabinet in their favour, and next year there would be a complete revolution of the land laws. The Lord President of the Council on that occasion did not reply to his right honourable friend, but, as far as we can judge, the views of his right honourable friend had the moral support certainly of his presence, and, as we feared, of his convictions. I know well there is a party hostile, and avowedly hostile, to that constitutional position which in our system of Government had been accorded to the landed interest. They are men who would sooner see a Government established by the application of abstract principles than resting upon the influence of tradition and upon the strength that results from experience. I do not believe this is a numerous party, but it is an intellectual party. It is intelligent and persevering, and it is actuated by that enthusiasm which novelty inspires, and by all that energy which I believe is a characteristic of minorities. This is the first time in the history of England that the leaders of this party have found a seat in the councils of the Queen.

My lords, I look upon this Bill as being what military men would call a reconnaissance in force. It is a reconnaissance in force to see what is the feeling of Parliament and of the people of England upon the present tenure of land in England, and upon the constitutional position in our system of government of the landed interest. It has been a most effective reconnaissance, though I cannot say it has been a very successful one. If they wished to know what is the opinion of the colossal majority of 170 in the House of Commons gained at the last general election with regard to this subject, they have learned that two-thirds of the majority on that occasion either kept away or voted against them. They have learned, also, that the Bill has been sent up to this House by a majority consisting merely of that section of the members of the House of Com

1 Lord Spencer.

mons who treat the Bill itself avowedly with contempt, and who, with courageous candour, tell us they only adopt it because they consider it merely as a step to assist them in the transference of the soil from the legal possessor to the casual occupier.

I know well that it is difficult to persuade some minds that the opinions which are now circulated with great confidence are opinions that ought to be resisted by all those who love the greatness and the glory of their country. There is at the present day too great a tendency to believe that it is impossible to resist the progress of a new idea. There is a fashionable phrase now that everything is inevitable, and that every event is the production of a commanding cause of Nature which human will cannot resist. The despotism of public opinion is in everybody's mouth. But I should like to know, when we are called upon to bow to this public opinion, who will define public opinion. Any human conclusion that is arrived at with adequate knowledge and with sufficient thought is entitled to respect, and the public opinion of a great nation under such conditions is irresistible, and ought to be so. But what we call public opinion is generally public sentiment. We who live in this busy age and in this busy country know very well how few there are who can obtain even the knowledge necessary for the comprehension of great political subjects, and how much fewer there are who, having obtained that knowledge, can supply the thought which would mature it into opinion. No, my lords, it is public sentiment, not public opinion, and frequently it is public passion. My lords, you are now called upon to legislate in a heedless spirit, by false representations of what is called the public mind. This Bill is only the first in a series, the results of which will be to change the character of this country and of the Constitution of this country. The argument that you cannot stop upon this ground, urged by my noble and learned friend, has never been answered. If you intend to stop upon it you were not justified in making this proposition. The proposition is one I think most dangerous to the country, and I trust your lordships will this night reject it. If you do that you will do a deed for which your country will be grateful, and of which your posterity will be proud.

PROTECTION TO PERSON AND PROPERTY BILL (IRELAND), March 1, 1881.

[Crime in Ireland had advanced to such a dreadful pitch during the late autumn and winter that Parliament was called together the first week in January in order to take measures for the prevention of it. It was natural that the late Minister should consider the inflammatory language of the late Opposition during the autumn of 1879 as responsible for a good deal of the mischief.

Having referred to the failure of the remedial legislation for Ireland in the past, Lord Beaconsfield avowed that he hesitated to pronounce a dogmatic opinion as to the causes which had rendered this measure necessary; but he believed they were first, the great suffering of the people from bad harvests; next, the appeals made to their passions at the last general election by politicians who impressed upon them that their sufferings were due to the late Government; and, lastly, the organised proceedings of conspirators in a foreign land, who passed to and fro from America to Ireland.]

THE

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: I rise to support the Bill, but I must say I do it with reluctance. I support the Bill because I think it is necessary-absolutely necessary. My lords, I gather that in the nineteenth century, in the very heart of our country, in the United Kingdom itself, such a state of things exists as certainly justifies, and not only justifies, but renders it absolutely necessary, that a measure of this kind should be brought before your lordships. The periodical disquietude of Ireland has been accounted for at various times by various causes. When I first entered public life, nearly half a century ago, there was great Irish disquietude. We were then told by great authorities, philanthropical and political, that the cause of that disquietude was political, and that the only remedy for it would be to extend to a portion of the community those civil privileges which were enjoyed only by a part

of the population. But the political disquietude of Ireland reappeared in a few years, and we were then told that the cause was not political, but ecclesiastical, and all philosophers and politicians applied their minds to the consideration of remedies. They commenced by abolishing tithes ; they ended by abolishing the Church, which those tithes were intended to support. We are now told that the cause is very different-that it is. agrarian or territorial; and generally speaking we are led to believe that the remedy is in fact to transfer the property of one class to another. Now, my lords, I should be very sorry, after such experience, and the failure of even the wisest and most experienced statesmen, to attempt to discover the sole cause of this state of affairs in Ireland. I would not for a moment pretend dogmatically to lay down my opinion as to the cause, but I think it will not be presumption in me if I attempt on this occasion to indicate what I think are the immediate causes which have produced disquietude, discontent, and outrage in Ireland.

I think there are three causes to which the present state of affairs is to be attributed. In the first place, there has been great suffering in Ireland from a series of bad harvests. But Ireland has been visited before by famine, and yet it did not result in such a condition of outrage and lawlessness as exists at the present moment. At a former period England contributed to the relief of distress in Ireland with a readiness which cannot be too highly appreciated, and the good nature of the Irish people themselves combined for the purpose of alleviating the distress. As far as the present instance of distress is concerned, when that distress began to pinch the people I do not observe that there was organised disaffection. The Irish people know very well that sterile harvests were not peculiar to Ireland during the last few years, and that they extended to all European countries and even beyond the limits of Europe; and England, which was the one country which sympathised the most with Ireland, was perhaps the one which suffered the most from that calamity. Then how is it that the present unfortunate state of things has been brought about in Ireland, when on former occasions it has been avoided? This brings me to the second