ency in Ireland without a struggle. How can you suppose it? How is it to be prevented? It may occur, probably, when the union between the two countries which is to be partially dissolved to-night may be completely dissolved; for it is very possible that, after a period of great disquietude, doubt, and passion, events may occur which may complete that severance of the union which to-night we are commencing.' But what of that? I do not suppose that if there were a struggle between the Roman Catholics and the Protestants of Ireland to-morrow, even the right honourable President of the Board of Trade,2 or the most fanatic champion of non-interference, can suppose England would be indifferent. What I fear in the policy of the right honourable gentleman is that its tendency is to civil war.

I am not surprised that honourable gentlemen should for a moment be startled by such an expression. Let them think a little. Is it natural and probable that the Papal power in Ireland will attempt to attain ascendency and predominance? I say it is natural; and, what is more, it ought to do it. Is it natural that the Protestants of Ireland should submit without a struggle to such a state of things? You know they will not; that is settled. Is England to interfere? Are we again to conquer Ireland? Are we to have a repetition of the direful history which on both sides now we wish to forget? Is there to be another battle of the Boyne, another siege of Derry, another Treaty of Limerick? These things are not only possible, but probable. You are commencing a policy which will inevitably lead to such results. It was because we thought the policy of the right honourable gentleman would lead to such results that we opposed it on principle; but when the House by a commanding majority resolved that the policy should be adopted, we did not think it consistent with our duty to retire from the great business before us, and endeavoured to devise amendments to this Bill, which I do not say would have effected our purpose, but which at least might have softened the feelings, spared the interests, and saved the honour of those who were attacked by the Bill. In considering these amend' Prophetic. 2 Mr. Bright.

ments we were most scrupulous to propose nothing that could counteract and defeat the main principles of the policy of the right honourable gentleman. We felt that to do so would be to trifle with the House; would not be what was due to the right honourable gentleman, and could not effect the purpose we had before us. There was not an amendment which, on the part of my friends, I placed on the table, that was not scrupulously drawn up with this consideration; there was not one of those amendments which, in my opinion, the right honourable gentleman might not have accepted, and yet have carried his main policy into effect. What the effect of carrying these amendments might have been, I pretend not now to say; but at least, if they had been carried, or if the right honourable gentleman himself had modified his Bill in unison with their spirit, there was a chance of our coming to some conclusion which would have given some hope for the future.

I ask the House to recollect at this moment the tone and spirit in which these amendments were received. Rash in its conception, in its execution arrogant, the policy of the right honourable gentleman, while it has secured the triumph of a party, has outraged the feelings of a nation. If the right honourable gentleman had met us in the spirit in which we met him, at any rate we should have shown the Protestants of Ireland that, whatever might be the opinion of the majority upon the State necessity of the policy of the Government, there was a desire in Parliament to administer it in a spirit of conciliation towards those who, as all must acknowledge, are placed in a position of almost unexampled difficulty and pain. But not the slightest encouragement was given to us, no advance on our part was ever accepted by the right honourable gentleman who has insisted upon the hard principle of his measure, and it has become my duty upon this, the last day, to comment upon the character of that principle, and the possible consequences of its adoption. I know very well the difficult position in which we are placed to-night. I know very well it would be more convenient if we did not ask for the opinion of the House to-night, and allow this third reading to pass unchallenged; but I confess I could not reconcile that course with

my sense of public duty. If this 'Bill be what I believe it to be, it is one which we ought to protest against to the last, and we cannot protest against it in a manner more constitutional, more Parliamentary, more satisfactory to our constituencies and to the nation than by going to a vote upon it.

We know very well you will have a great party triumph, a huge majority, and we shall have what is called 'loud and continued cheering.' But remember this, that when Benjamin Franklin's mission was rejected there was loud and continued cheering, and Lords of the Privy Council waved their hats and tossed them in the air; but that was the commencement of one of the greatest struggles this country ever embarked in; it was the commencement of a series of the greatest disasters England ever experienced. And I would recommend the House to feel at this moment that this is not a question like the paper duty, not a party division upon some colonial squabble; we are going, if we agree to this Bill tonight, so far as the House of Commons is concerned, to give a vote which will be the most responsible public act that any man on either side of the House ever gave. You may have a great majority now, you may cheer, you may indulge in all the jubilation of party triumph; but this is a question as yet only begun, and the time will come, and come ere long, when those who have taken a part in the proceedings of this House this night, whatever may be their course and whatever their decision, will look upon it as one of the gravest incidents of their lives, as the most serious scene at which they have ever assisted. I hope when that time shall come, none of us on either side of the House will feel that he has by his vote contributed to the disaster of his country.

SPEECH ON ADDRESS, February 8, 1870.

[At the meeting of Parliament in 1870, the condition of Ireland was so bad that it hardly seemed possible that it could be worse. Disestablishment had stimulated lawlessness; and the situation was in fact almost parallel to what we witness at the present moment.]

MR.

R. DISRAELI: Mr. Speaker,-The Speech from the Throne promises the introduction of many important measures, but I think, Sir, this is hardly an occasion when it would be convenient to the House that we should enter into any general criticism upon them. I will, therefore, only express a hope that when those measures are brought forward we shall find they are treated by Her Majesty's Government in a manner not unworthy of their importance. Nor, indeed, should I have ventured to trouble the House at all to-night, had it not been for some passages towards the end of the Speech which refer to the condition of Ireland. Those passages, I confess, appear to me to be neither adequate nor altogether accurate. Her Majesty's Government acknowledge that the condition of Ireland is not at all satisfactory; but, while admitting it is bad, they remind us that on previous occasions it has been worse. They tell us that they have employed freely the means at their command for the prevention of outrage—a statement which the House must have heard with satisfaction from so authoritative a quarter, because certainly the popular and general impression was to the contrary. As I understand the language, which to me seems involved, and certainly is ambiguous, the Government inform us that, contingent upon their passing certain measures, they will resume the duty of a Government, and protect life and property. I confess I am sorry to see in a document of this imperial character that any body of men who are responsible

ministers of the Crown are of opinion that to protect the life and property of Her Majesty's subjects is a contingent duty.

Now, with respect to the condition of Ireland, and why I think this notice of it by Her Majesty's Government is neither adequate nor accurate. Unquestionably before this we have had murders in Ireland, and assassinations and mutilations, and violence in all its multifarious forms-threatening notices, secret societies, turbulent meetings, and a seditious press. All this has happened before. But on all previous occasions when such disorders have pervaded that country reasons have been alleged, and if not universally, have been generally adopted by influential persons in the country as explanatory of their occurrence. I remember, Sir, that when I first came into Parliament-thirty years ago now, and something more I am sorry to say-the state of Ireland was most unsatisfactory; and then it was commonly alleged that it was in a great degree to be attributed to what was called the maladministration of justice, and the conduct of high persons on the judicial bench was impugned and defended in this House, and recriminations were indulged in with all the animosity of party conflict. Well, no one can pretend now that the scenes of outrage which extend over a considerable portion of Ireland can be attributed to the maladministration of justice. For the last ten years-I may say twenty and even more-the administration of justice in Ireland has been as just, as pure, and as learned as in this country; and I say this, well knowing that those who sit upon the bench in Ireland have, in the majority of cases, been appointed by the party opposite, and that most of them are members of the Roman Catholic community. Generally speaking, too, if you take also a large view of the conduct of juries. in Ireland, particularly under the trying circumstances of the last few years, the law has been vindicated by them with courage and loyalty. Maladministration of justice, then, cannot be alleged to-day as the cause of the crime and outrage which prevail in Ireland at this moment. Another cause which used to be alleged was religious dissension. People said—' What can you expect from a country where you allow the minority of the people great privileges in respect of their religion, and permit