introduction of another scheme. Our contention was that they were defects inherent in the principle of the measure which created within the United Kingdom a separate and an almost independent Parliament, and a separate and almost independent Government. I think that our contention has been to a great extent borne out by the experiences of the last two years."

Sudden Conversion.-At a meeting at Carlisle, March 21, 1888, Lord Hartington said: "Speaking in the name of my brother Liberal Unionists, we do not believe in the principle of passive obedience; and if in former times Liberals, or the predecessors of Liberals, have refused to pay passive obedience to any temporal Sovereign or any spiritual Pontiff, we are not, in these later days, going to offer passive obedience to any political leader, however great his services may have been, or however much we may respect and venerate his character. The manner in which the majority of the Liberal party was converted to these new doctrines reminds me of those miraculous conversions of the heathen of which we read in the history of the Middle Ages, when sometimes in one day thousands of pagans were converted by the miraculous eloquence of some missionary preacher; or perhaps they remind one no less of the conversions when whole nations embraced the faith of Mahomet at the point of the sword. I think we have a right to doubt, to some degree, the genuineness and the depth of a conversion so sudden and so complete. We have no right to doubt the sincerity of the converts who fully believed, or, at all events, thought they fully believed, in the new doctrines; but we, to whom faith is not quite so easy-we who want to be convinced before we are converted—have a right to refuse to take the fact of their sudden and complete conversion as a reasou why we should modify our own unconvinced opinions."

Rebellion against Parliament.-The following remarks were made at a gathering of Liberal Unionists and others at Inverness, October 3, 1888: "I want to know what is the foundation upon which the influence and power of the Parnellite party rests? The first thing which brought the Parnellite party into a position of prominence and power was Parliamentary obstruction. Now, Parliamentary obstruction is nothing but flat rebellion against Parliament. It is an attempt not only to lower the dignity of Parliament, but to impair its usefulness and bring into contempt its procedure, and destroy the confidence which members of Parliament used to entertain in one another-in fact, to lower and discredit Parliament. I must say I shall never forget, and I don't think I shall easily forgive, the mortal injury which has been inflicted on, and the insidious poison which has been instilled into, our Parliamentary system by the tactics of that faction which in an evil day obtained a place in our Parliament on equal terms. And I shall never cease to wonder at the conduct of that statesman who, during fifty years' connection with the affairs of his country, has won his greatest triumphs in the House of Commons, in condoning and apparently forgetting the injury that has been inflicted, and that has been attempted to be inflicted, upon the dignity and power and usefulness of the House of Commons."

Inconveniences of a Two-sided Chamber.-Lord Hartington spoke as follows at a meeting of Liberal Unionists at Liverpool, December 18, 1888, taking the opportunity of reply to a speech delivered a few days before by Mr. Gladstone at Limehouse: "There was the usual attack upon the Liberal Unionists, and I scarcely know whether it is worth while to refer to the reiteration of the complaints which are brought against us because we still insist on sitting, where we have a perfect right to sit, on the front Opposition bench and on the Opposition side of the House. I will not say anything about the generosity of an attack of this kind. Some of us have occupied the seats, and have had a right to occupy the seats, we now occupy for a much longer period than most of those who sit by the side of and around Mr. Gladstone. I myself may, perhaps, remind you that I was called upon, I think now more than fourteen years ago, to occupy the seat upon that bench under very responsible circumstances; * and I do not know that there is any particular or special reason why I should resign the seat, to which I consider myself to have a perfect right, because it is not altogether convenient to Mr. Gladstone when he turns round to find himself confronted by a sturdy Liberal Unionist. But it is a very trifling and a very unimportant subject, upon which it is not worth while to dwell. The fact is that the arrangements of the House of Commons are not very convenient, and it is difficult for three parties to dispose themselves to their mutual satisfaction in a chamber which has only two sides. That fact has led before now to very curious combinations and arrangements in the House of Commons, and no doubt will lead to more ; and I really do not know whether there is anything more anomalous in the present arrangement than in what took place no later than in the last Parliament, when the most enthusiastic supporters of the Government then in power (that of Mr. Gladstone) sat below the gangway on the Opposition side of the House, by the side of the Conservatives who were engaged in the most strenuous opposition."

The "Privilege of Speech."-Speaking in the adjourned debate on the Closure resolutions, in March, 1882, the Marquis of Hartington observed of the Government proposals: "The principle is that the time of the House belongs not to every individual member of the House, but to the House itself. It is the assertion of the principle that the privilege of speech is a privilege to be exercised-which the House permits to be exercised for its own instruction and for its own information, in order to form its own opinion; and that it is not a personal privilege to be used quite irrespective of the convenience and of the efficiency of the House. Privilege of speech is not a personal right attaching to the position of a member of Parliament. If privilege of speech is a personal privilege, I presume it belongs to every member of the House-every member has a right to make use of it in an equal degree. But, if every member made even but a sparing use of this privilege, the question would be brought to

*Lord Hartington had long occupied the position of leader of the Liberal party (then in Opposition) after Mr. Gladstone's so-called resignation." (See p. 371.)

a reductio ad absurdum. If the right can only be exercised by a few, and owing to the forbearance of the vast majority, on what ground can it be said that this is a personal right at all? .. Liberty of opinion and freedom of discussion exist not only in this House, but in the country. Any man may speak when and where and what he likes, provided it be within the law; but outside this House he must find his own audiencehe may say what he likes, but no one is bound to listen; but here, those whose duty detains them are obliged to listen, whether they wish or no. The privilege that is claimed is not a privilege of free speech; it is not the privilege of saying what one wishes to say and others wish to hear; it is the privilege of appropriating an appreciable portion of time, precious and valuable time, for which possibly the House has very much better employment. The principle contained in this resolution is a principle of which it is impossible to exaggerate the importance-the principle that the time of the House belongs to the House itself, and that the privilege of speech is to be used for the convenience and advantage of the House, and not for the personal convenience or advantage of any member."

Unrecognised Agents of Government.-The Marquis of Hartington, in addressing the University of Edinburgh on his installation as Lord Rector in 1879, said: "Much governed as we are, centrally and locally, public administration would, in my opinion, utterly break down were it not for the unrecognised forms of government which have grown up among us, created by no legislation, nor even inherited from our ancestors. In these days civilised nations are led rather than governed. They are led by their reason, by their feelings, by their passions; but they are led by their necessities and their desires, by their fears, and by their hopes; and the men who lead them, and thus have a share in and render possible the task of government, are the authors and journalists, the members of learned professions, the employers and organisers of labour, and their innumerable subordinates, by whom in regular gradations the armies of industry and of commerce are marshalled. These are amongst the most powerful, if not the most conspicuous, agents of government at the present time. And if the influence of these unrecognised rulers is necessary and powerful at home for the proper working of our social arrangements, how much more necessary are they for the maintenance of that complex system, without precedent in history, which is called the British Empire ? "

WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER.
(1818-1886.)

A Candidate for the Leadership.-Mr. William Edward Forster, son of a well-known minister of the Society of Friends, was head of a manufacturing house at Bradford, for which town he was first sent to Parliament in 1861, after unsuccessfully contesting Leeds two years before. In the Ministry of Earl Russell in 1865, he became Under Secretary for the Colonies; and he filled the office of Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education in Mr. Gladstone's Administration a few years later, introducing the Education Act of 1870, and the Ballot Act of 1872.

On the temporary retirement of Mr. Gladstone from the leadership of the Liberals in 1875, Mr. Forster was put forward as his successor by many members of the party, but the choice eventually fell upon the Marquis of Hartington. Mr. Gladstone returning to power in 1880, Mr. Forster was appointed Chief Secretary for Ireland, with a seat in the Cabinet; but resigned the office in May, 1882, disapproving of the change in policy with regard to Irish affairs which had then been determined on by the Ministry, especially with regard to what was called "the Kilmainham Treaty." While in the Irish Office, he narrowly escaped assassination on more than one occasion.

A Painful Duty.—In moving for leave to introduce "A Bill for the Protection of Persons and Property in Ireland" (sometimes called "the Coercion Bill"), January 24, 1881, Mr. Forster said: “This has been to me a most painful duty; I never expected that I should have to discharge it. If I had thought that this duty would devolve on the Irish Secretary, I would never have held the office. If I could have foreseen that this would be the result of twenty years of Parliamentary life, I should have left Parliamentary life alone. But I never was more clear than I am now that it is my duty; I never was more clear that a man responsible, as I am, for the administration of the government of Ireland ought no longer to have part or share in any Government which does not fulfil its first duty-the protection of person and property, and the security of liberty."

Mr. Forster and the House of Lords.-Mr. Forster's remarks upon the House of Lords, in September, 1880, gave occasion for much comment, being interpreted as a denunciation of the one House by a Minister sitting in the other. The Upper House had just rejected the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill, on the ground that it had been sent up from the Commons too late to receive due consideration; and this had occurred after the recent rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. On the Appropriation Bill nearing committee in the Commons, Mr. Parnell moved that it be an instruction to the committee to insert a clause reviving an important section of the Registration measure; but the Speaker pointed out that it was contrary to established usage to add such a tack-on to a money bill, as it was equally contrary for the Lords to amend such a measure. Mr. Forster then rose to say that the Government could not accept the proposed instruction, for the reason named by the Speaker. "On the other hand," he continued, "the members of the majority in the House of Lords must not be surprised if such an interference as this, with the endeavour of the House of Commons to change the mode of electing its members, should lead many men in and out of that House to consider whether the frequent repetition of such action did not call for some change in the constitution of the Upper House, or suggest that it might be advisable or even necessary. The only reason given for that action on the part of the other House was that there was not time to consider the question. If the course adopted by the Lords in this case were to be very often taken, it would become exceedingly difficult for the It seemed to him that this was one of those cases

two Houses to go on.

in which the House of Lords ought not to put forward the argument of personal inconvenience, in order to prevent the passing of a Bill sent up from the Commons at any period of the session from being thoroughly considered. At any rate, the country would not forget these two facts. The House of Commons was the hardest worked assembly of law makers in the world. On the other hand, there probably was no assembly of law makers which had so much power, with so little demand upon its time, as the House of Lords. Nor could it be forgotten that the Commons were the representatives of the people, whilst the power of the Lords was simply owing to the accident of birth. It was, therefore, not too much to ask that when the House of Commons sent up measures to the other House, their lordships would give the consideration necessary for those measures, without pleading personal inconvenience. He could not help thinking that in some respects the House of Lords had not sufficiently realised their responsibility, but he thought that they were more likely to do so in future." These remarks elicited much cheering from Ministerialists" below the gangway," and from the Irish members.-Sir Stafford Northcote rose immediately after, and expressed his amazement that a responsible Minister of the Crown should throw out suggestions of the kind just heard; and on the following evening, in the House of Lords, Earl Granville, in reply to some observations, said he had thought it necessary to have some communication with his colleague (Mr. Forster) on the subject, and that gentleman had stated he had not asserted that he believed a reform in the House of Lords advisable, but that such a reform might have to be considered under certain conditions. "At the same time," continued Earl Granville, "I must add that my right honourable friend also informs me that in saying this much he was only expressing his own opinion, and had no intention whatever of expressing the opinion of the Government, or of committing them to any course of action." The subject then dropped.

Resignation of the Irish Secretaryship.-After resigning the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, in May, 1882, Mr. Forster stated to the House of Commons that he had received her Majesty's permission to put before the House his reasons for that step, and that foremost amongst these reasons was the determination of the rest of the Government to release the three Irish members (Messrs. Parnell, Dillon, and O'Kelly) from their imprisonment under the Protection Act of 1881. In his explanation he said: "The same reasons which obliged me to vindicate the detention of these gentlemen, on the ground of the prevention of crime, make me now object to their release, because I believe that tends to the encouragement of crime. Let the House do what is right, but let it not try to buy obedience to the law by concessions. Surrender is bad, but a compromise or arrangement is worse. I think we may remember what a Tudor king said to a great Irishman in former days: 'If all Ireland cannot govern the Earl of Kildare, then let the Earl of Kildare govern Ireland.' He thought it better that the Earl of Kildare should govern Ireland, than that there should be an arrangement between the Earl of Kildare and his representative in Dublin Castle. If there is one

G G