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 debate 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 metaphysics, completed its discomfiture. Both Roman Catholics and advanced Liberals combined against it and ensured its rejection. Mr. 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.]

MR.

R. DISRAELI: Sir, I think it convenient occasionally in a long debate, and especially at the period at which this 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.

position, and ascertain, and accurately as it can, what is the real issue before it. Now, Sir, in the course of this discussion which has occupied much time, but the duration of which ought not to be measured by the time which has elapsed since it commenced, because during that period several evenings have been devoted to other subjects, many admissions have been made and many remarks have been offered by persons of authority which have given to this debate somewhat of that character which, to adopt a now fashionable epithet, may be described as 'bewildering.' We have heard on several occasions that various points which have deeply interested us in the course of this discussion have ceased to be essential; but these declarations have not been sufficiently distinct, nor made, to my mind, from persons of adequate authority. The honourable and learned gentleman the member for Oxford (Mr. Harcourt)' made last night, on the part of the Government, a speech which would have become an Attorney-General. He stated the case of his clients with considerable dexterity. He passed over some portions of the Bill, which I am apt to think are still of great importance, partly by bestowing upon them a parliamentary nickname,; and partly by confidentially informing us that they were dead already.

But we have not as yet received any distinct intimation from any member of Her Majesty's Government to that effect. The debate of last night concluded by a remarkable speech from the Secretary of State for War,3 which has formed the corpus upon which the comments of this evening have been made, and which appears, indeed, to have exercised a considerable influence upon the impending vote. We have been told this evening that the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State surrendered every point of controversy in regard to this Bill. But nobody seems to have remarked some observations which followed those of the right honourable gentleman, and which were made by his chief the Prime Minister, in which he most distinctly disclaimed the inference that any point of any kind had been surrendered. I am sure I have no intention of 1 He was made Solicitor-General soon afterwards. 2 The 'gagging clauses.'

3 Mr. Cardwell.

misquoting the right honourable gentleman. I desire accurately to reproduce his language. The words of the right honourable gentleman were uttered as the House was breaking up, but were faithfully reported. The language of the right honourable gentleman was that the statements which had been so frequently referred to as having been made by Ministers of the Crown respecting the portions of this Bill in which there might be some changes, amounted only to this-that if we entered into committee on the Bill, Her Majesty's Government undertook that all those points should he fully discussed. Not,' as the right honourable gentleman added, that these statements meant that we admit that we were in error, or that we were not disposed to support the propositions which we had made.' I believe I have accurately if not verbally given the remark of the right honourable gentleman. Well, but this ought to induce us to consider our position with considerable caution. Of course if we go into committee all those points will be fully discussed. What on earth else do we go into committee for, but to discuss them ?

Now, I have had rather a long experience of this House. I have seen many important measures brought forward by both sides of the House; I have heard many objections to those measures, I have heard ministers promise and very properly promise, in vindicating the second reading of their Bill, that if the House would only go into committee all those objections. should be fairly discussed. But I have generally seen that when they have gone into committee, not one of those objections has been carried. Now, I am sure that the House will act on the present occasion with the caution which is necessary. Last night, after the speech of the Secretary of State, my honourable friend the member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), with that business-like perspicuity which distinguishes him, said, 'What need is there for any further discussion? We had better at once go into committee. The Government have nothing to propose, and the House may then proceed to business.'

But with great deference that was not the proper course. The interpretation which my honourable friend the member for Northumberland places upon the speech of the Secretary of

State is not the correct one, but is, as I must assume, entirely incorrect. If it had been true, indeed, that Her Majesty's Government had given up every point of importance in their Bill, the proper course for Her Majesty's Government would have been to withdraw the Bill. Not, of course, after a second reading, in order to obtain a vote of confidence. If Her Majesty's Government want to obtain a vote of confidence under such circumstances, they should apply not to a candid,' but to a sincere friend. That is the parliamentary practice. There is the honourable member for Surrey (Mr. Locke King). The honourable member for Surrey, after recent proceedings,' could scarcely refuse to propose a vote of confidence. And this I can say for myself, and many gentlemen on this side, we have no wish to oppose it. If Her Majesty's Government have not the confidence of the House of Commons, I want to know what have they the confidence of? It is a House returned under their auspices. ('No, no.') Well, elected under the exciting eloquence of the right honourable gentleman. When I remember that campaign of rhetoric, I must say I think this House was formally as well as spiritually its creation. The course to which I have referred would be the natural course of proceeding; but really, to ask the House to vote for a Bill which it does not approve, in order to prove its confidence in the Government, is not one which I think would be satisfactory. That which I have indicated is the usual and the constitutional

one.

But, Sir, under these circumstances-there being no proof whatever at the present moment that Her Majesty's Government have relinquished a single clause of this Bill-nothing, if my version of what has occurred be correct, being more certain than that the right honourable gentleman the First Minister of the Crown has stated that all that they are pledged to is that if we go into committee, every point should be fully discussed, while

On March 5, 1873, a testimonial was presented to Mr. Locke King by his constituents. The presentation dinner took place at Croydon; and Mr. Gladstone, who attended, made a long speech in honour of the guest of the evening; especially complimenting him on his 'political independence.” Mr. Locke King, in proposing the health of Mr. Gladstone, declared that the Liberal party had every confidence in him.'