the newspapers; and he was therefore glad to have an opportunity of relieving his friend's mind as to the condition of the Government. He seemed to have adopted the view that the Government considered itself stronger because it had lost the services of the very distinguished orator who had been leader of the House of Commons, and who had shown remarkable ability for the duties of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord R. Churchill had become much impressed with the grant of the Estimates. His colleagues did not differ from him as to the desirability of keeping down the public expenditure; but it appeared to them that his noble friend's means of doing it would be rough and indiscriminate, and that it would not be conducive to real economy, while it would be injurious to the public service. The Government, however, hoped that the separation would not be permanent. As to Mr. Goschen, he had felt that not only on account of his financial ability, but also because of his views on the Union, his presence in the Cabinet was desirable. He was of opinion that, in the face of this great burning question, all minor differences should for the moment be sunk; and as one could not expect to divide the political world into two halves, he had been as anxious to get into the Cabinet as many distinguished Liberal supporters of the Union as he could induce to join it. To have given the leadership of the House of Commons to Mr. Goschen would not have been desirable, and that rendered it necessary for him to hand over the First Lordship to Mr. Smith. He acknowledged with thanks the concern shown by Lord Granville for his health, but stated that, owing to the more extensive use of the telegraph and other circumstances, the duties of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs were less onerous than they had been.

Turning to the question of Ireland, Lord Salisbury added that he expected some expression of opinion from Lord Granville as to the "Plan of Campaign." They had a right to know whether the inheritors of some of the proudest traditions of English statesmen did or did not falter in their denunciation of a scheme of deliberate robbery. "We have the duty," he added, “of maintaining law and order for the sake not only of the loyal population, but also for the population which break it; and we have the duty of securing the loyal population from such a change in the constitution of the country as shall place their dearest interests in peril. It is idle to talk of leaving the Irish people to govern themselves. You know very well that they will not govern themselves, but that the majority will govern the minority in a manner utterly inconsistent with its rights, and in a manner utterly fatal to all its industrial and commercial hopes.' Lord Salisbury further suggested that Lord Granville's challenge to the Irish peers to express their opinions on the governing of Ireland would come better from him when the measures of the Ministry for strengthening the criminal law were before the

House. The enemy which Parliament had now to meet in Ireland was not the same as that which had to be encountered a century ago. Organised dishonesty had there reached a pitch which it never had attained at any former time, and until there was a rapid and sure way of dealing with it there could be no restoration of law and order. The Prime Minister concluded his speech by a pointed reference to two matters pertaining to the state of foreign affairs. He denied emphatically that the Government were engaged in any attempt to bring about the restoration of Prince Alexander as ruler of Bulgaria. They recognised that the re-election of that prince was not within the range of practical politics. As to the rumours of a European war, he said that, though no person could fail to see elements of danger in extensive armaments by great nations, such circumstances had not become more acute since the date at which he entered the Foreign Office; and the opinion of our ambassadors at Berlin and Paris was that the aspect of things was not warlike, but pacific.

The Earl of Selborne, who for some years had been Mr. Gladstone's Lord Chancellor, followed, and in warm terms declared that if there were not a tyranny over the Irish people, the honesty and integrity and good faith between man and man in Ireland were such that there would be no need of extraordinary legislation. What, he asked, had happened to prevent this? "It is the establishment of a tyranny in Ireland, of an organised despotism, of a conspiracy against morality and law, and that it is that has interrupted the favourable prospect that offered itself in the autumn. What interrupted the improvement in the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland? After the proposals of the late Government, and simultaneously with the effect it is suggested they had on the frequency of crime in Ireland, you have a new declaration-the Plan of Campaign. The name in itself is significant of the nature of the thing. The tenants are now not to pay their landlords; they are to pay onehalf, or as much as they please, to the agitators, to be spent by them in continuing their agitation." Passing on next to the repeated intervention of "certain members of Parliament, not Irish members only," between landlords and tenants when the former were ready to accept what the latter could afford to pay, and were on the eve of paying, Lord Selborne declared that such conduct was unscrupulous cruelty. As for the Plan of Campaign, Mr. Gladstone, in 1881, when the No Rent manifesto came out, had said, "This is the first time in the history of Christendom that a body of men has arisen who are not ashamed to parade in Ireland the doctrine of public plunder." And in the previous autumn (1886), just before the Plan of Campaign was produced, Mr. Gladstone, in his pamphlet speaking of the moral forces by which England and Scotland had secured their political triumph, had written, "It is the potent spirit of legality which has done all this, or has enabled it to be done." Another

of his colleagues, Earl Spencer, in one of his speeches had said, "We have to see that law and order are maintained, and we cannot allow anarchy in that country;" and he proceeded to point out how inextricably entwined were English and Irish interests. "Why, then," asked Lord Selborne, "have not these things been denounced? Why do not the late Prime Minister and his colleagues declare, If these things are done, we will have nothing to do with people who do such things'? So long as this denunciation is not forthcoming the inference I draw is that your lordships and every one in the country who thinks that government is necessary, that there cannot be government without the maintenance of law, nor government if persons can impose their own wills against the law of the land upon their fellow-countrymen-those who think this, whether in this House or in the other House, or in the country, must feel it their duty to support this Government or any Government who will perform the primary duty of government, and oppose any Government that will not. If the choice lay between declaring the Imperial Parliament powerless to enforce the first duties of government in Ireland, powerless to maintain the law against those who avowedly set it at defiance, powerless to protect loyal citizens who wish to pay their debts and do their duty against the intimidation that would prevent them-if the choice lay between this and granting the demands of the Separatists, I, for my part, would far rather not give Ireland what is called Home Rule, handing her over to the domination of those who seek to accomplish their ends by means which we condemn. I would far rather give her complete independence, when at least we should be free from the responsibilities of government. To pretend to maintain the Imperial connection while renouncing the performance of the first duty of a Government-the protection of the liberty and property of the loyaland abandoning the loyal to the tender mercies of those who set law at defiance and trample upon liberty, would, in my opinion, be a worse thing than total separation.'

Thus personally challenged, Earl Spencer, in behalf of his former colleagues, replied that as several members of Parliament were going to be put upon their trial in connection with the Plan of Campaign, he did not think it proper that it should be gone into fully, lest, while the important trial was pending, the parties should be prejudiced. But he should not shrink at the proper time from giving his opinion on this or any other subject. At the present he would content himself with denying that Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues were bound to agree with all the views taken by Irish members who might have supported the late Government.

"As to anarchy," he said, "I maintain that no Government can be tolerated which allows anarchy to prevail in this country, whether it appear in the form of crime and outrage, or in that of illegal conspiracy. I denounce all illegal conspiracies, and

I believe that no Government can continue to control the affairs of Ireland for any time which neglects its fundamental duty— that of protecting the property, rights, and liberties of her Majesty's subjects. I confess that I think the correspondence between General Buller and the different agents reflects the highest credit upon the humanity and discretion of that distinguished man. I lament immensely that he was not successful. But is it possible for the Government to be carried on if the energy and skill of our officers are to be employed in settling disputes between landlord and tenant? I have had a long experience of Ireland-eight years is a long time; and though I was for a long time misled by that delusion, I have come gradually and sadly to the conclusion that in many parts of Ireland the people are in thorough sympathy with all the principles of the Nationalists. I fear that this delusion has been going on too long. I despair of governing Ireland by what is called resolute government, as it is opposed to all the feelings and wishes of the people."

After a few words from Lords Ashbourne and Herschell on the legal aspects of the "Plan of Campaign" the address was agreed to.

In the House of Commons many nights had to be spent before a similar result was obtained, but before the ordinary business was entered upon, Lord Randolph Churchill rose to explain the circumstances which had forced him to withdraw from the Chancellorship of the Exchequer.

"I resigned that office on Dec. 20 last because I was altogether unable to become responsible for the Estimates presented by the departments for the support of the army and the navy in the coming year. Of course, sir, it would be idle to deny what has, I fancy, become fairly well known-that there were other matters of grave importance on which it was my misfortune to hold opinions differing from those of Lord Salisbury. Those were matters, in my opinion, perfectly susceptible of accommodation and contraction; but this question of the Estimates was incapable of such accommodation for the reason, sir, that I was deeply and repeatedly pledged by many a speech which I had made in various parts of the country to a policy of retrenchment and economy, because I was convinced from what I had learnt in the Treasury that such a policy was not only necessary but perfectly feasible; and because, viewing those pledges, it was impossible for me usefully to retain the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Government in whose policy effective retrenchment found no prominent place."

He proceeded to say he could not make his explanation of an elaborate character, for it might then tend to degenerate into a kind of indictment of the Government, which, on the whole, would be neither useful nor becoming. But he would state this detail that the amount of the Estimates presented to him by

the two departments exceeded 31,000,000l. for the coming year for the support of the army and navy. Moreover, he had also to give his consent, and he did give a reluctant consent, to unusually large supplementary Estimates for those two services. In the ten years, from 1874 to 1884 the average expenditure on the army and navy amounted to 25,000,000l. a year; and that standard was closely adhered to during those ten years. In the three years 1885-6, 1886-7, and the coming year 1887-8, the average expenditure had risen to over 31,000,000l.-an increase perfectly sudden, within the lapse of only one year, of about 6,000,000l.

In other words, this jump of taxation in time of peace meant an increase of threepence in the income tax. When he urged upon his colleagues the reasonableness of returning to something like a normal rate of expenditure, he did not anticipate any large immediate reduction; but when they resolutely refused to make even a beginning of retrenchment, he felt that he was forced by a power greater than party ties, forced by what he had said in the country, forced by the knowledge he had acquired at the Treasury, to offer his resignation. There was in addition some doubt in his own mind whether the foreign policy of the Government was as thoroughly peaceful as he thought it ought to be. If it were so, there was no need for such extensive armaments. On the other point, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be satisfied that the money voted by Parliament was properly spent, Lord Randolph could feel no satisfactory assurance; and in support of this he enumerated some of the principal departmental scandals of recent years.

In 1883 there had been the exposure of scandalous defects in the Commissariat department during the first campaign in Egypt. There was subsequently, with respect to the second Egyptian campaign, the exposure of the brittle swords, bent bayonets, and jamming cartridges. Next that came, in connection with the financial management of the Admiralty, that grave scandal attaching to the Government that left office in 1885, that the Admiralty was discovered to have spent a large amount without the knowledge of the Treasury, and apparently without its own knowledge. Then followed the very serious evidence which was given to the House and the public by the total failure of three most expensive ships-the Ajax, the Agamemnon, and the Impérieuse-to fulfil the expectations of their designers, although they had cost no less than a million and a half of money.

After referring to the rumour that he had resigned in haste, Lord R. Churchill read the correspondence which had passed between Lord Salisbury and himself, from which it appeared that the principal increase was in the army estimates for cannons required for the defence of our coaling stations, military and mercantile ports.

Mr. W. H. Smith, in addressing the House for the first time