to consider what is for the dignity of the House; but I say it also in the character of an old and keen opponent of Lord Beaconsfield; and nothing would be so painful to me, except, indeed, the rejection of the Motion, which I think impossible, as that its grace should be entirely marred by its being made the subject of angry disputation. It has not been unnatural that on a subject of this kind, exciting so much and such varied public interest, criticism should have been busy. But with regard to that criticism, both with respect to what has been done and with respect to what has not been done, I will simply say that my object has been the fulfilment of my duty, and that the fulfilment of my duty has appeared to me to lie in a careful consideration of the rules and precedents applicable to the case. I think that those precedents ought to be liberally interpreted; but, for my own part, in all these complimentary matters I have a great jealousy of additions. There is a temptation, under the influence of feeling, to make such additions, and every addition made on a particular occasion becomes an embarrassment on the next occasion. I will simply say, not that I have interpreted precedent aright-I do not assume that-but I have endeavoured, strictly and carefully, to make it my ground. Everyone will feel that this is not the occasion to attempt an historical portraiture of Lord Beaconsfield. Neither is it the occasion to attempt, especially from this side of the House-but from no side of the House, I will venture to say, is it the occasion to attempt a political eulogy of Lord Beaconsfield. It would be mistaking the purposes for which we have met to-day. I will go a little further and say that the position of the House is in some respects and in part peculiar. I do not know that it has ever happened that a Parliament in sharp antagonism to the policy of a particular Minister has been called upon to accept a proposal of this kind with respect to the Minister whose policy is opposed. At the same time, though there is no case exactly analagous to this, there are cases which make a material approximation to it. When Lord John Russell proposed, in 1850, in a speech of great good taste, a monument to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, he very naturally looked back, not merely to the Mr. Gladstone crisis of the Anti-Corn Law movement which had brought them together, but to the long struggles of 30 years before; and Lord John Russell said, in very becoming language-"I will not enter into the nature of the measures with which his name is associated;" and, again— "This is not the time to consider particular opinions or particular measures." But he also quoted an earlier case, in which it happened that Colonel Barré proposed a public monument to Lord Chatham, to whom he had been not very long before in the sharpest opposition. So that although the features of this case are marked features, yet we are not without guidance from the proceedings of those who have gone before us. This I will venture to say, that it is a case with regard to which we who may be said to form the majority in this House ought to be on our guard against giving way to our own narrower political sympathies. It would be better that propositions of this kind should be altogether abandoned and forgotten than that they should degenerate into occasions for issuing the manifestoes of political alliances or of ordinary partizanship. If I am asked why, endeavouring to look without fear or favour at this case upon its merits and upon nothing else, and desirous to speak the truth without constraint and without exaggeration, I venture to recommend this proposition to the House, and why I think that the same reasons which have led the House to give in the case of other Prime Ministers of this country a testimony such as I now invite to the memory of Lord Beaconsfield should actuate us now, I say that, in my judgment, we have to look to two questions, and to two questions only; and they are, whether the tribute that it is proposed to pay is to be paid to one who, in the first place, has sustained a great historic part and done great deeds written on the page of Parliamentary and National history; and next, whether those deeds have been done with the full authority of the constituted organs of the nation and of the nation itself; and I think that an impartial survey of what has happened will satisfy the House that upon neither of these points is there the smallest room for doubt. It may seem to be a sharp mental transition for us to make, when we pass from the balance of political opinion now prevailing in this House to the balance of opinion that this country, and the man who had so inexisted here two or three or four years tertwined himself in the interests of the ago. But it is right, it is just, it is national heart, as was shown on the occanecessary that we should recollect that sion of his illness, is a man for whom what was done by the late Parliament the House may well do what I now call and what was done by the late Ministry, upon it to do. I have said that, in my and above all by Lord Beaconsfield as opinion, the magnitude of the part the official head and as the guiding played by Lord Beaconsfield, and the spirit of the late Ministry, was done authority with which it was played, are under precisely the same constitutional the only matters to which we ought to title, and with exactly the same charter look; and I press this point specially and authority as that under which as one that many of us might perhaps we now claim to act. I cast behind me forget-namely, that he acted with the for a moment the question what I ap- same authority that we claim ourselves. prove and what I disapprove, what I re- The same Constitution, the same popular joice in and what I regret. We are here liberties, the same franchises, the same to act on the part of the nation, and principle of acquiescence in the will of to maintain that description of action the majority placed him in a position, which is suitable to, and which is re- first at this box in this House and quired by, the nation's continuous life. then in the House of Lords, to give The career of Lord Beaconsfield is in effect to the policy that he believed many respects the most remarkable in to be for the good of his country, our Parliamentary history. For my own as those which have now placed other part, I know but one that can fairly be men in his position to give effect to compared to it in regard to the emotional what they, with equal sincerity, desurprise-the emotion of wonder, which, sire to recommend for the approval of when viewed as a whole, it is calculated| Parliament. This somewhat dry portion to excite-and that is the career, more of my duty, which has led me to direct especially the early career, of Mr. Pitt. the attention of the House to these two Lord Beaconsfield's name is associated points, which I deem to contain the whole with at least one great constitutional estimate of the case, is now, I think, change, in regard to which I think it concluded. As I have said, I will not will ever be admitted-at least, I never attempt anything like an historical can scruple to admit it-that its arrival retrospect. It would not be fair, and was accelerated by his personal act. I it would not be just, even if it were apwill not dwell upon that, but upon the propriate, in point of time, that I should close association of his name with the do so-I, who have been separated from important change in the principle of the Lord Beaconsfield by longer and larger Parliamentary franchise. It is also as- differences than, perhaps, ever separated sociated with great European transac- any two persons brought into constant tions, great European arrangements. I contact in the transaction of Public put myself in the position, not necessa- Business. It would not be fair to him, rily of a friend and admirer who looks it would not be fair to his friends, with sympathy upon the action of Lord that I should endeavour to draw a picBeaconsfield, but in the position of one ture which must be more faintly coloured, who considers the magnitude of the part and, I must add, which must be difwhich he played on behalf of this coun- ferently coloured if executed by my try; and I say that one who was his hand than that which they could fairly political friend might fairly have said of claim.. But yet, Sir, I will allow myself him when he came back from Berlin- some satisfaction in dwelling upon "Aspice, ut insignis spoliis Marcellus opimis matters in which I feel it is pleasurable Ingreditur,victorque viros supereminet omnes." to myself, and on which I also think it My duty is to look at these things in the is useful for us all, to dwell. The demagnitude of their national and his- ceased Statesman had certain great qualitorical character, and it is when so look-ties on which it would be idle for me to ing at them that I have not a doubt that the man who for seven years sustained the office of Prime Minister, the man who for nearly 30 years led, either in one House or in the other, a great Party in enlarge; his extraordinary intellectual powers, for instance, were as well known to others as to me; but they are not the proper subject of our present commendations. But there were other great quali ties, not intellectual-not merely intel- the domestic affections, and made him, lectual, in the sense of being disas- in that respect, an example to the sociated from conduct-qualities imme- country in which he lived. In expressdiately connected with conduct with ing a hope that this debate may not be regard to which I should say, were I a unduly lengthened, I wish that my conyounger man, I should like to stamp the tribution to it may be confined within recollection of them upon my mind for the limits of necessity. I believe, if the my own future guidance, and with regard House has been kind enough to listen to which I will say, to those younger to the few words I have used, I have than myself, that I would strongly re- set before them all that it is necessary commend them for notice and imitation.-perhaps all that it is warrantableThese characteristics were not only written in a marked manner on his career, but were possessed by him in a degree undoubtedly extraordinary. I speak, for example, of his strength of will, his long-sighted persistency of purpose, reaching from his first entrance on the avenue of life to its very close, his remarkable power of self-government, and last, not least, his great Parliamentary courage, which I, who have been associated in the course of my life with some scores of Ministers, have never seen surpassed. There were other points in his character on which I cannot refrain from saying a word or two. I wish to express the admiration which I have always felt for his strong sympathies with his race, for the sake of which he was always ready to risk popularity and influence. A like sentiment I feel towards the strength of his sympathies with that brotherhood to which he thought, and justly thought, himself entitled to belong-the brotherhood of men of letters. It is only within the last few days that I have read in a very interesting book, the "Autobiography of Thomas Cooper," how, in the year 1844, when his influence with his Party was not yet established, Mr. Cooper came to him in the character of a struggling literary man, who was also a Chartist, and he who was then Mr. Disraeli met him with the most active and cordial kindness-so ready was his sympathy for genius. There was also another feeling, Sir, lying nearer to the very centre of his existence, which, though a domestic feeling, may now be referred to without indelicacy-I mean his profound, devoted, tender, and grateful affection for his wife, which, if-as may be the case-it deprived him of the honour of public obsequies-I know not whether it did so-has, nevertheless, left for him a more permanent title as one who knew, amid the calls and temptations of political life, what was due to the sanctity and strength of Mr. Gladstone for me to say; but there is one slighter matter to which I wish to have the satisfaction of referring. The feeling I am about to express is not a novel feeling. It is one which I have for many years entertained, and which has been founded partly upon the private communications of my friends. There is much error and misapprehension abroad as to the personal sentiments which prevail between public men who are divided in politics. Their words may, necessarily, from time to time, be sharp; their judgments may occcasionally, may warrantably, may necessarily be severe; but the general idea of persons less informed than those within the Parliamentary circle, is that they are actuated by sentiments of intense antipathy or hatred for one another. Sir, I wish to take this occasion-if, with the permission of the House, I may for a moment degenerate into egotism upon a subject much too high for it-of recording, in this place and at this hour, my firm conviction that, in all the judgments ever delivered by Lord Beaconsfield upon myself, he never was actuated by sentiments of personal antipathy. It is a pleasure to me to make that acknowledgment. The feeling on my part is not a new one; but the acknowledgment of it could hardly have been made with propriety on an earlier occasion, and hon. Members must excuse me for having thus obtruded it upon them. Now, Sir, I again call the attention of the House to the fact that what we have to look at to-night is the greatness of the man, the greatness of the offices sustained by him, the greatness of the part he played, the greatness of the actions associated with his name, and, finally, the full and undisputed Constitutional authority which he possessed for those actions, whether they were according to our sense and taste or not that full plenary Constitutional power which authorized beforehand and sanctioned afterwards what he did. These are the essential considerations that ought to guide us; and I feel convinced--unless it be my own grievous fault, and if so I can but regret it-that I have said enough to show the Committee that they will do well and wisely to accept-and to accept in a kindly spirit-the Motion I have the honour to submit for a public monument to Lord Beaconsfield. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, in rising to second the Motion which has just been proposed, I shall say but a very few words, because I am sure I shall best fulfil the wishes of the House, and best respond to the spirit in which the Motion has been made, if I abstain from anything that can, in the slightest degree, derogate from the tone which has been given to the discussion by the speech just delivered. If I could contemplate, which I cannot for a moment do, that this Motion should not meet with the general-let me say, I hope the unanimous-acceptance of the Committee; if I could contemplate that it would not be accepted in a spirit and in a manner that would be satisfactory to those who long to see this mark of honour paid to one they love, at least I should feel that one monument, and that one of a higher character than any that could be carved in stone or marble, has already been erected to the memory of Lord Beaconsfield in the speech we have just heard. That speech has been nobly expressed, and, still more, it has been nobly conceived. I venture to say that in this tribute paid to the memory of a sharp political opponent, by one who has been for so many years engaged in the very severest of political contests, we have a record which will be an honour not merely to the speaker, not merely to him of whom the words were spoken, but an honour, as I think, to the British House of Commons. A true key has been struck to our political life and political contests-and I may venture, taking up the last words of the Prime Minister, and speaking as one who has had a very large share of the private confidence and the intimacy of our lamented and distinguished Friend for many years, having been one who has sat by his side in the midst of contests, and who has also had the privilege of sharing his confidence in private and retired moments, I can entirely and from the bottom of my heart confirm the saying of the Prime Minister, that in all those contests, ready as he always was to enter into the battle, sharp as sometimes his words were in the course of action, there was nothing in his mind, nothing in his spirit, that was unworthy of a generous antagonist. No personal feeling, I believe, was ever allowed by him to warp his sentiments of admiration for his chief political rival. Sir, I feel that this is not a moment at which I could properly address the Committee as I should wish to do. This is not a moment for the indulgence of private feelings. We have, indeed, been connected together on occasions of contest and of public debate; but yet there is so much beside that and behind that to those who were intimate with Lord Beaconsfield, that it would be painful to ourselves to attempt to parade the feelings that exist among us. There was much in him to love. There was much in his sympathy and his readiness at all times to give advice, to enter into every difficulty, however trifling it might seem, to encourage where encouragement was needed, and to utter words of warning when he thought them necessary, that greatly endeared him to us. Sir, it would, of course, be still less appropriate, indeed, it would be an outrage upon the House, were I at such a moment to attempt to draw anything like a political character of Lord Beaconsfield which should be in the nature of a political eulogium. I distinguish such occasions as the present, characteristic as they are of the British House of Commons and of the British nation, from those eulogiums which are sometimes passed in foreign countries at the funerals of men who have borne a distinguished part in party warfare, when the opportunity is seized for promoting and glorifying political differences and political parties. We have nothing of the sort here. We are here engaged for a moment, pausing in the midst of our political strife, in placing a wreath on the bier of a champion who has fallen among us, and whom all on both sides are prepared to honour. If there were anything in this proposal that seemed to pledge the country or the House to any approval or any particular policy of Lord Beaconsfield, I can quite understand that there would be difficulties raised in many quarters to paying a tribute which might | Offices of State; and to assure Her Majesty be misunderstood. That, however, is that this House will make good the expenses not the case. We are now doing honour attending the same.”—(Mr. Gladstone.) to a man whose rare gifts we all admire, MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, the Prime and which have been acknowledged by Minister in bringing forward this Moall who have had any opportunity of wit- tion has sought to elicit the opinions of nessing their display. We are doing the Members of this House. Acting as honour to a man who never quailed be- the Leader of the House, and as the fore danger, who never allowed himself Chief Adviser of Her Majesty, the right to be disheartened by defeat or dis- hon. Gentleman has submitted this Recouraged by difficulty, but who always solution; and, at the same time, has kept a high standard before him-whe- stated the reasons and arguments in its ther it approved itself to all men or not favour with his usual ability. The right I will not say-and who never under hon. Gentleman has recognized with any difficulties or under any circum- regret the fact that the Resolution will stances lost sight of or shrank from the not meet with general concurrence on standard he so displayed. He was one this side of the House. I can fully unwho, when he came to the post of dig- derstand that feeling of regret, because, nity to which he had so fairly fought his unless a Resolution of this kind meets with way over the greatest obstacles and what may be fairly called general conunder the greatest discouragements, com- currence on both sides of the House, manded the respect not only of the perhaps it would be better that it should people of his own country, but the re- not be put. But the right hon. Gentlespect of those among whom he took his man is not only the Leader of this House place as the Representative of Greathe is the Successor of the late Lord Britain in the affairs of foreign countries. Sir, we have been reminded that the public honours which it was desired should be done to him at his funeral were exchanged for a funeral of a more private character that was in accordance not only with his written instructions, but with the whole spirit of his life. He was one who, above all things, rejoiced in that retirement of which he was allowed to enjoy so small a portion, and his heart was in the home and the sepulchre in which his body is now placed. But we know that although his funeral was private, and there was nothing in the nature of an invitation to the nation to attend it, yet all England was there, and that the hearts of the people, whatever may be their ranks or distictions, were turned to Hughenden on that day. I venture to say that whether or not a monument is erected to him, either in this or any other place of public notoriety, the name and fame of him whom we have lost is secure in the memories of Englishmen and will never perish. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of Saint Peter, Westminster, to the Memory of the late Right Hon. the Earl of Beaconsfield, with an Inscription expressive of the high sense entertained by the House of his rare and splendid gifts, and of his devoted labours in Parliament and in great Sir Stafford Northcote Beaconsfield in the high position which he held. He was, also, for a long time, the noble Earl's political antagonist. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think of the policy of his Predecessor, it is not surprising that on such an occasion as this he should allow generosity to outweigh all other considerations. Nor do I think that any of those who are opposed to the Resolution will think of complaining that the right hon. Gentleman has brought it forward. It is true that certain organs of the Press, which habitually misrepresent the opinions of the Prime Minister, complain that he has not done enough on the present occasion. On the other hand, there are many in this part of the House who consider that the right hon. Gentleman has done too much. This shows how difficult it is in a question like this to satisfy all. No one would demur for a moment to the terms which the right hon. Gentleman has used in speaking of his Predecessor, and still less to the words of affectionate memory in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has alluded to one with whom he had so long been in personal and political alliance. We should all be ready to aid in perpetuating the memory of a statesBeaconsfield, if we could do so with a man so distinguished as the late Lord conscientious regard to our own duties. We admire the perseverance and energy |