Commons Sitting of 25 July 1877

MINUTES.
— Select Committee — Army (Royal Artillery and Engineer Officers, Arrears of Pay), Earl Percy and Mr. Campbell-Bannerman disch., Sir John Hay and Lord Frederick Cavendish added.
Public Bills—First Reading—Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment* [264].
Committee discharged—Referred to the Committee of Selection—Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Joint Boards) * [248].
Committee—South Africa [195]—R.p.
Withdrawn — Permissive Prohibitory Liquor * [42]; Roads and Bridges (Scotland) (No. 2) * [72].

PERMISSIVE PROHIBITORY LIQUOR BILL.— [BILL 42.]
(Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Sir Thomas Bazley, Mr. Downing, Mr. Richard, Mr. William Johnston, Br. Cameron, Mr. Dalway.)
PERMISSIVE PROHIBITORY LIQUOR BILL.— [BILL 42.]

  SECOND BEADING.
  Order for Second Beading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONgave Notice that he would take the earliest opportunity next Session of asking leave of the House to re-introduce the Bill.

QUESTION.
  RUSSIA AND ENGLAND.

    QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. WHALLEYsaid, he had placed in the hands of the Clerk at the Table the Question which he had desired to ask on the previous evening, and which, had he been permitted to place it on the Paper, he would have prefaced with an expression of regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had altogether declined to answer it.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that if the hon. Member now proposed to ask the same Question which the right hon. Gentleman declined to answer yesterday he was altogether out of Order.
    MR. WHALLEYsaid, he did not complain of the excellent judgment of the Gentleman who sat at the Table; but the Question which he proposed to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was—Whether any communications had been made to Russia by Her Majesty's Government indicating the point at which they would deem it necessary to take hostile action, with a view to obtain the objects of the Government by negotiation instead of force? He did not know if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would think it right to give an Answer; but it would relieve him (Mr. Whalley) and many others of any further trouble if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inform the House what were the relations existing between this country and Russia with regard to the war now going on in the East, and any other information which he might think it desirable to give to the House.
    The CHANCELLOE of the EXCHEQUER: I cannot think it convenient or for the interest of the public service that I should answer Questions of the nature of that put by the hon. Member for Peterborough. I do not wish to complain of his being desirous to obtain information; but I am obliged to say, in the interest of the public service, that it is not a Question that I can answer. If

    1797
    there were any information which Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable to give to the House, we should take an opportunity of doing so.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SOUTH AFRICA BILL, [Lords.] [BILL 195.]
  (Mr. J. Lowther.)
  SOUTH AFRICA BILL, [Lords.] [BILL 195.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    On Motion that the Preamble be postponed,
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Government were pressing forward this Bill with objectionable haste. They had not supplied the House with the information absolutely necessary for the full and fair examination of the details of the Bill or to enable them to judge of the policy or necessity of the measure. Very little light had been thrown on our relations with the Dutch or with the Natives, or upon the annexation of the Transvaal, by the Under Secretary, who was conducting the Bill through the House in a perfunctory, light, and airy, though agreeable manner. In the debate last night several points had been raised which required elucidation; but almost the only matter noticed by the Government was the statement made with respect to Sir Henry Barkly in the early part of the evening, and that was met in the usual official style, by declaring that Sir Henry Barkly was a most valuable public servant. Before proceeding further with this Bill, the Delegates from South Africa ought to get a hearing from this honourable House. The hon. Member was proceeding to discuss the question of the annexation of the Transvaal, when—
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was out of Order in discussing the question of annexation. The Question was that the Preamble of this Bill be postponed.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was desirous that the House should not proceed with the Bill until they had heard what the Delegates from South Africa had got to say, and for that purpose he would move that the Committee report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. — (Mr. O'Donnell.)
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the subject of the annexation of the Transvaal which the hon. Gentleman sought to introduce had no connection with the Motion before the Committee.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, his whole action with respect to the Confederation scheme would be altered if the Government afforded that information regarding the entire question which the House of Commons was entitled to have.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the observations of the hon. Member must be confined to the Question whether the Preamble should be postponed or not, and that he could not go into subjects which were not before the Committee.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he merely wished to refer to the Republic, and to give other reasons why the Committee should not be proceeded with.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had stated as the ground of the Motion he had made that, in the first place, no adequate information had been afforded by the Government with regard to the admission of the Transvaal State to the advantages of British connection. Now, he (Mr. Lowther) held in his hand several large Blue Books which had been for some time on the Table of the House, and which contained the fullest information in the possession of the Government, and carried it down to the latest moment at which communication had been held with South Africa. Further than that he did not see how it was possible the Government could go. The hon. Gentleman had also stated that full information had not been given by the Government as to their policy on this subject. Now, whatever criticisms had been passed on his observations on the second reading of the Bill, they almost uniformly pursued the course of deprecating the length at which he had dwelt on this subject of the Transvaal. He stated last night why he had felt it to be his duty to take the first opportunity of giving to the House the views of Her Majesty's Government on that point. But the fact was, hit high or hit low, there was no giving the hon. Gentleman satisfaction. The hon. Gentleman had

    1799
    also passed some criticisms on the taste of the observations he had made last night. No one was a fair judge in his own cause, and therefore he would most cheerfully bow at any time to the judgment of the hon. Member on a matter of that kind; but he would venture to suggest that such criticisms would more appropriately have come from any hon. Gentleman who had heard that speech— he was in the recollection of the Committee when he ventured to express a doubt whether the hon. Gentleman was in his place at the time. When the hon. Gentleman talked of "the airy, light, and perfunctory" manner in which he had stated the policy of the Government, he must remark that he had to trespass on the indulgence of the House for upwards of three-quarters of an hour, during which the hon. Gentleman was not in his place. He could only say that the fullest information in the possession of the Government had been candidly and without the least reserve placed in the hands of the House, and that the fullest explanation of the Bill had been given which his humble powers enabled him to give. He must thank the House for the kindness with which they had listened to him and the indulgence with which his observations had been received. He could only assure the hon. Gentleman that any remarks he might make with respect to the clauses of the Bill would be most fully and candidly considered, and any contributions the hon. Gentleman might make towards the improvement of the Bill would be most cordially accepted. He hoped in these circumstances the hon. Gentleman would accept this explanation and withdraw his Motion.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwas sorry that the subject of the transfer of the Transvaal had got mixed up for the second time with the question of the Confederation of South Africa. The Cape Colony had some 200 square miles of territory—quite enough for management, without taking the responsibility of the government of Central Africa. The question of Confederation was of itself one of enormous importance, as it involved the settlement of South Africa and the position of the Whites towards the Blacks, and he felt disappointed that the Leader of the House had not thought this a matter of sufficient importance to deal with last night. He still considered
    1800
    that no pressing necessity had been shown for pressing this Bill in such a hurry at the fag-end of the Session—on the contrary, the extreme importance of the Bill made it very desirable that it should not be passed this year, and especially as the South African Colonies had not asked for it. But he felt bound to yield to the majority of the House, and therefore he was willing to proceed with the Bill in Committee provided reasonable concessions were made by the Government in some of the clauses. The hon. Member was about to refer to certain clauses, when—
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the hon. Baronet would not be in Order in discussing any Amendment which had been placed on the Paper and which would come on in its regular course.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was willing to proceed with the Bill in Committee, and hoped that the hon. Member for Dungarvan would not press his Motion to report Progress. The hon. Member proceeded to say, that some observations in praise of Sir Henry Barkly were made last night; but after reading in the Blue Books of the conduct of Sir Henry while in the Mauritius he felt bound to hold a different view of his conduct.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that any reference now to the conduct of Sir Henry Barkly at the Mauritius upon the question of reporting Progress would not be in Order.
    SIR GEOEGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should adhere to his opinion upon the conduct of that gentleman, but he hoped that the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan would be withdrawn.
    MR. BIGGAEcontended that the Government ought to make the necessity for this Bill clear to the House, and they had not yet done so. Then there ought to be proper time for discussing it. He understood that the people whom the Bill would affect were anxious to be heard at the Bar of the House by counsel, and it would only be fair that the House should hear what they had to say against the Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOE of THE EXCHEQUER: A question has been raised by the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan which demands the consideration of the Committee, and it is this—whether this is the right and proper way in which measures should be discussed. It is generally understood that in proceed-

    1801
    ing with Bills, the discussion on the principle of the measure is taken on the second reading. If the principle is then affirmed, and it is desired again to challenge it, another opportunity is afforded of discussing the principle on the Motion for going into Committee; if the House again affirms it, the House then goes into Committee, and the Committee proceeds to discuss the various clauses, and to decide the several questions as they arise. Of course, it is competent to a Member, for sufficient reason, to move to report Progress; but I doubt whether sufficient reason has been shown on this occasion, as the hon. Member has only expressed a desire to raise again questions which were discussed upon the previous stages of the Bill. This Bill is one of an important character, but so far it is merely permissive. It was discussed on the second reading; and though no doubt it is true my hon. Friend (Mr. Lowther) did not think it necessary to enter at very great length upon the question, he regarding it as a permissive Bill, yet there was a discussion in reference to the Transvaal. There was a large majority last evening that affirmed the principle of the Bill; but before the division was taken my hon. Friend made a full and able statement of the grounds upon which the Bill is founded. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) moved an Amendment; but it did not indicate any hostility to the Bill. The debate lasted all the evening and some very important speeches were made, but nothing was said, which seemed to require a reply from me. I can see no justification for the delay proposed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell)—any objection of that character, if taken at all, should have been taken on the second reading; and the proper course now is to proceed with the discussion of the clauses; and as there is no justification for reporting Progress I hope the hon. Member for Dungarvan, whose object is the same as our own, will withdraw his Motion, and that the Committee will be allowed to proceed with the Bill. I can assure the House that the Government are prepared carefully and candidly to consider all questions that may affect the Native races.
    MR. WHALLEYjoined in appealing to the hon. Member for Dungarvan to
    1802
    withdraw his Motion. There were good reasons why the Committee should proceed with the Bill in the ordinary course of Business, and there were good reasons why the Bill should be passed this Session. He thought one reason in reference to the subject to which the right hon. Gentleman had just referred was this— that the gentleman who had had much to do with this matter in South Africa occupied an exceptional position; but he had been a successful administrator at Natal for 30 years, and was looked upon by the Natives as their father, and therefore it would be well that such an experienced man should have the conduct in settling the affairs of the Native race. It would be a great misfortune if the Bill should not be passed this year.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the Preamble of the Bill referred to certain Colonies and States in South Africa, and in the 4th clause the Transvaal Republic was mentioned, and it was therefore a part of the material upon which the Bill was founded;—that being so, the freest room ought to be allowed for discussing the whole subject. He desired, however, that his opposition to the measure should be distinctly regulated by Parliamentary rule and tradition—the House must be bound by the majority, otherwise there would be an end to all Parliamentary government — and he should abide by the vote of the majority. He was greatly disappointed, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not given any reason for going on with the Bill this year. Why should it be passed this Session? Nothing would be gained by it. They would lose a week in discussing it, and when passed into law it would be a dead letter. He hoped there would be some further explanation.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Liskeard, I think I may say that the reason why the Government are proceeding with the Bill this Session is that the state of affairs in South Africa is of a critical character;—critical especially in this—that there is reason to apprehend possible disturbances amongst the Native races; and it is the opinion of the Government, especially of the Colonial Secretary, that the best course to take to arrest any danger which is apprehended is to promote the confederation of these different Colonies. There

    1803
    has been a great deal of communication between the Representatives of the Government in the various Colonies in South Africa and the Government at home, and an arrangement has been very nearly arrived at between them and the Colonial Secretary as to the kind of measure which should be proposed. The object which the Government have at heart is to bring about that confederation, when approved by the Colonies and the Colonial Minister, with as little delay as possible. When a scheme has been agreed upon it will be presented to Parliament for its sanction; but if a scheme were presented now there would be a very great loss of valuable time. It is desirable, therefore, that Parliament should affirm the principle of confederation, and indicate to the Colonies the general basis on which they will sanction confederation at a future time. This Bill has passed one House, and passed the second reading in this House; and Parliament has therefore pointed out the principles upon which confederation ought to proceed, and has affirmed that it will be prepared to sanction confederation' on those principles. This Bill, therefore, will be for the guidance of the Colonies; and if it should be allowed to go on it will be, with the discussions which will take place, of the highest value in any arrangement which may be made by the Colonies within themselves. I hope I have answered the Question of the hon. Member. The Bill is of a permissive character. It imposes nothing upon the whole or any single Colony, but leaves them all free to accept the suggestions made—the object being to put the suggestions in a form which would afterwards receive the sanction of Parliament. For the sake of the general interests of the Empire I hope we shall be allowed to proceed with the discussion, and that it will go on in a business-like spirit. The Government will give ample time for the consideration of all the clauses.
    SIR GEOBGE CAMPBELLasked when the clause which was to deal with the representation of the Native races would be put on the Paper? He had heard with satisfaction that it was to be dealt with, and that there would be full opportunity to discuss it; but the stage of Report would not afford it if the clauses were to be galloped through in Committee.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was glad to hear a suggestion of rapid progress. The question would be properly raised on Clause 25, to which there was an Amendment by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). He was in communication with the right hon. Member for Bradford about the terms of an Amendment to be mutually agreed upon.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken fairly, but had not satisfied him. It was admitted that negotiations with the Colonies were going on. The second reading of the Bill would indicate that Parliament approved the principle of Confederation, and the clauses would show upon what lines Parliament was prepared to go; but there was nothing in the Bill to show how the Native question was to be dealt with except that it was to be referred to the Legislature of the Confederation.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, he thought the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was perfectly frank and undeniable, and he could not comprehend why the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney) should get up and state his opinions again. He took it for granted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to a period subsequent to the negotiations in the Papers before the House. He took it for granted when the Government stated that there were good reasons known to the Colonial Office why the Bill should be passed, that the House ought to come to the practical conclusion that the Government were in possession of information which they were not prepared to lay before the House, but which justified them in pressing the Bill forward. [Interruptions.] Surely the question which initiated this Bill had been already discussed. He had called attention to the question himself; but as it had been initiated by the Colonial Office, that Office could not but maintain the position which it had taken up. As to the manner in which the Native races were to be treated, he could not conceive a greater mistake in policy than that the House should lay down hard-and-fast lines as to the way in which that question should be settled. Lord Carnarvon had shown that he was actuated by a spirit of humanity, and they could not but believe that he would arrange the matter on principles which the House

    1805
    would support, and lie was willing it should be left in Lord Carnarvon's hands. At the same time, he sympathized with the position of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell), and with the desire which had been strongly expressed on both sides of the House that they should put such provisions in the Bill as would secure the Native races from anything like tyranny or any infringement of their rights. He hoped that those who were opposing the Bill would give it a fair and straightforward opposition. Certain hon. Members were opposing it on the ground that they were asked to adopt the federal principle in relation to the Colonies which the House was unwilling to apply to the United Kingdom. He sympathized with those Members who desired to relieve the Imperial Parliament from the pressure of local business, and he believed that any reasonable proposal to that effect would be considered in the House. He did not say that a cut-and-dry scheme, which they were not prepared to think was consistent with Imperial interests, would be adopted; but anything like a reasonable scheme would be considered, and he should be prepared to give it, to some extent, his support. But he did not conceive that that question could at all be dragged into this discussion. The hon. Member having been much interrupted in his speech by cries proceeding chiefly from benches behind him, said he did not conceive why he should be interrupted — he was saying nothing irrelevant to the Question. They had listened last night to objections urged against the Bill ad nauseam, and he hoped they would now be allowed to proceed with the Bill in Committee.
    MR. MONKsaid, he had interrupted the hon. Member because they were anxious to proceed with the consideration of the Bill, and he and others with him thought that hon. Members who had addressed the Committee were abusing the Forms of the House for the purpose of delaying the progress of the Bill.
    MR. E. JENKINS, with much heat, rose and said: Sir, I rise to Order. I deny that I have abused the Forms of the House. I move that those words be taken down.
    MR. PARNELL: I second that Motion. I think that the limits of for-
    1806
    bearance have been passed.—["Hear hear!"] I say that I think the limits of forbearance have been passed in regard to the language which hon. Members opposite have thought proper to address to me and to those who act with me.
    THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER: I move that these words be taken down also—that "the limits of forbearance have been passed in regard to the language used towards the hon. Member." I think the House is entitled to an explanation of that expression.
    MR. PAENELL: I rise to Order. I wish to ask, Sir, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is in Order in submitting a fresh Motion before the former one has been settled?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The proposal of the hon. Member for Dundee is not strictly speaking a Motion—it is not a Question which can be put from the Chair, but is a proposition on which it will be my duty to take the general opinion of the Committee. I may perhaps, however, be relieved from any further obligation in the matter when I state that it appears to me that the words of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) were not in themselves a breach of Order. If the hon. Member for Gloucester intended to impute to the hon Member for Dundee, or any other hon. Member, any malicious intention of abusing the Forms of the House, that imputation would, no doubt, have been out of Order; but it did not seem to me that the words of the hon. Member were so intended, and I think that, perhaps, under the circumstances, the Committee will be satisfied if the hon. Member can give an assurance to that effect.
    MR. MONK: I imputed no malicious intention to the hon. Member for Dundee. ["Hear, hear!"] I have nothing to add to what I have already said—that I think that some hon. Members have abused the Forms of the House in order to prevent the Government from making progress with this Bill in Committee. [Cheers.] It is a Bill with regard to which the House has decided by an enormous majority that it should go into Committee, and I think it is time that this discussion should cease, and that the Government should be allowed to go on with a measure which they consider of importance to the interests of the country.
    MR. COURTNEY: I repudiate altogether the idea that I have in any way abused the Forms of the House, or that I have sought unnecessarily to delay the progress of this Bill, and the words of the hon. Member do appear to me to involve a question of Order.
    MR. PAENELL: Sir, it is a dangerous thing for me to attempt to speak in this House; but I think I have reason to complain of the persistent interruptions with which I have been met by certain hon. Members while I have been attempting to discharge my duties, and of the intimidation to which many of the Members of this House resort in order to prevent me from discharging my duty. [Loud cries of "Hear, hear!" and "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in Order in accusing hon. Members of this House of intimidation. The hon. Member must withdraw the expression. [Cheers.]
    MR. PAENELL: I was expressing my opinion, Sir, that intimidation has been used towards me—["Order!"]— by the English Press. [Cries of "Hear, hear!" and "Withdraw!"] I express my deliberate opinion, Sir, that deliberate intimidation has been resorted to towards me by the Press of this country in order to coerce me, and to prevent me from doing what I consider my duty; and so long as I have the honour of a seat in this House I shall not allow myself to be prevented from speaking what I may think it necessary to speak, or from taking such steps as I may think necessary. ["Order! order! withdraw!"]
    MR. ONSLOW: I rise to order. You, Sir, have ruled that the words of the hon. Member for Meath attributing intimidation to Members of this House should be withdrawn. They have not been withdrawn; and I ask you, Sir, whether it is right that the hon. Member should be allowed to go on with his remarks until those words have been withdrawn?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member for Meath to say that the observation he made had reference to the Press of this country. I understand that the hon. Member expressly disclaims his intention of applying these words to any Members of this House, and I do not think it necessary to carry the matter any further.
    MR. PAENELLsaid the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) was wrong in supposing that he or those who acted with him objected to the passing of this Bill because the plan proposed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) for the union of England and Ireland had not been properly considered by the House. He did not object to the Bill on that ground; but he had called attention on the previous night to the inconsistency of the Government, which endeavoured to force the South African Colonies to confederate, while they refused even to consider a measure brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick to carry out a similar plan as regarded England and Ireland. ["Order!"]
    MR. PULESTONrose to Order. He desired to ask whether the hon. Member was acting in conformity with the Rules of the House, in introducing a subject which was extraneous to the Question before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is discussing in a very wide and unusual manner the Motion to report Progress; but as the Bill establishes the principle that he wishes to see adopted elsewhere, I cannot say that I think he is out of Order. At the same time, I must point out that it is very unusual to move to report Progress upon the Motion that the Preamble of a Bill be postponed.
    MR. PAENELLsaid, he was afraid he had not been able sufficiently to explain himself, owing to the persistent interruptions and calls to Order of Members opposite. No doubt those hon. Members were actuated by honourable motives and intentions, but the result was merely to protract the debates which they were desirous of shortening. He had been endeavouring to explain his charge of inconsistency against the Government in pressing this scheme on the South African Colonies when they refused to consider the plan of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick with regard to the relations between England and Ireland. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to the subject of the federation of the United States of America and to the conduct of the Federal Government towards the Southern States at the close of the Civil War, when—
    THE CHAIRMANagain called the hon. Member to Order, and said that

    1809
    the hon. Member's remarks must be in some way pertinent to the Question before the Committee. The policy of the American Government could have nothing to do with this Bill.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, the treatment of the White and Native races was a subject of great importance. This Bill ought not, therefore, to be passed in its present shape, and no further time should be lost in discussing it. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to the subject of the White and Native races in South Africa, when—
    THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member that he was travelling beyond the question. It was open to the hon. Member to bring up a clause or propose Amendments on the subject of the White and Native races when the clause relating to that subject came before the Committee.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair—that the Question now before the House was that the Committee should report Progress, and that he could take another occasion for discussing the relations between the White Colonists and the Native races— and he would now state why he thought the Government ought not to waste any more time over this Bill, but proceed to finish other questions of national importance before they took in hand this new job. He desired to say that the scheme for the confederation of the South African Colonies was a part of the selfish policy of the British Government—their want of consideration for the wishes of others, and their total disregard of the interests and requirements of the Colonies themselves. The hon. Member, who spoke amid much confusion, and who was twice called to Order by the Chairman, was understood to say—As it was with Ireland, so it was with the South African Colonies, yet Irish Members were asked to assist the Government in carrying out their selfish and inconsiderate policy. Therefore, as an Irishman, coming from a country which had experienced to the fullest extent the results of English interference in its affairs and the consequences of English cruelty and tyranny, he felt a special satisfaction in preventing and thwarting the intentions of the Government in respect of this Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERimmediately rose and said: Sir,
    1810
    I move that those words be taken down by the Clerk at the Table.
    The words having been taken down by the Clerk at the Table,
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I apprehend, Sir, that it is now the course to move that these words be brought under the notice of the House. I therefore move that you, Sir, do leave the Chair, and do report the words of the hon. Member for Meath to the House.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report the same to the House," put, and agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKERhaving resumed the Chair,
    MR. RAIKES: Sir, I have to report that during the progress of the Committee the hon. Member for Meath used these words, which were afterwards, by direction of the Committee, taken down by the Clerk at the Table—that is the hon. Member for Meath, regarding the progress of the Bill in Committee, expressed "his satisfaction in preventing and thwarting the intentions of the Government in respect to this Bill." It was also ordered that I should report these words to the House.
    MR. PARNELLrose to speak; but being called to Order, sat down.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It was upon my Motion, Sir, that those words were taken down, and I wish to state to you and the House as properly constituted, yourself in the Chair, the circumstances under which these words were used, and the reason why I desired that they should be taken down by the Clerk at the Table. The question which was under consideration of the Committee was a Motion that had been made by the hon. Member for Dungarvan as soon as the House had gone into Committee on the South African Bill that the Chairman should report Progress. Considerable discussion had taken place upon that Motion, and several hon. Members had taken part in that discussion, and had ranged in their observations very far beyond the Motion itself. They had embarked in discussions on the principle of the Bill, which, as I consider, had been legitimately discussed and affirmed by the House both upon the second reading and upon the Question that you do leave the Chair; and in addition to that the

    1811
    hon. Member for Meath had travelled so far from the subject of discussion, as to have at least twice given occasion for the Chairman of Committees to call upon him to confine his observations to the subject which was properly before us. In the course of his observations the hon. Member made reference to a statement which I had made previously in the discussion in Committee, in which I had stated what the grounds were upon which the Government proceeded, and the reason why they desired that this Bill should be proceeded with. I had stated, among those grounds, that it was important for Imperial interests and for the interests of the Colonies in question that the Bill should be proceeded with forthwith. The hon. Member for Meath, in his observations, ignoring entirely my statement that it was for the interests of the Colonies that the Bill should be proceeded with, asserted that it was for Imperial, or, as he described it, for selfish interests, that the Government desired to proceed with the Bill; and he went on to use the words which have been taken down, that he therefore felt satisfaction in preventing and thwarting the action of the Government." Sir, I desire, on the part of not only the Government, but as I believe of the whole House, to call your attention to the difficulty in which we are placed in conducting Public Business by proceedings such as those which have taken place this morning, and which are not altogether without precedent on recent occasions—[Cheers]—and I desire to give Notice that on Friday next, at the beginning of Business, I shall submit a Motion to the House with reference to the course of Business, and shall make a proposal which I hope may have the effect of facilitating Business. At present, if I am in Order—as I believe I am—I will conclude with the Motion—
    "That the hon. Member for Meath be suspended from his functions of speaking and taking part in the debates of this House until Friday next."
    MR. BIGGAErose to address the House, but on cries of "Order!" resumed his seat.
    MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding further in this matter, according to the practice of this House, I think it would be right that the hon. Member for Meath should be heard in his place; and, after
    1812
    having heard what the hon. Member may desire to address to the House, then, if it be the wish of the House, it will be proper that I put the Motion from the Chair.
    MR. BIGGAEhaving again risen—
    MR. SPEAKER: I call upon the hon. Member for Meath. If the hon. Member does not wish to have the advantage of speaking on this occasion, it will be my duty, according to the practice of the House, to call upon the hon. Member for Meath to withdraw.
    MR. BIGGAR: I rise to Order. ["Order!" "Sit down!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Meath intend to address the House?
    MR. PARNELL: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know whether there is any use in my addressing the House on the present occasion. I think the House has already decided the matter in its own mind without waiting for any observations that I may have to make. But perhaps it might be well for me to state my opinion as to the course that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has thought proper to take on this occasion, and also my views on the subject generally. And, first, I ask you, Sir, whether, as a matter of Order, the Motion just proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be put without due Notice being given, in accordance with the Forms of the House? If any hon. Member objects to it?
    MR. SPEAKER: I called upon the hon. Member to give any explanations as to the words reported to have been used by him in Committee; and any observations he may have to make must be confined to that matter.
    MR. PARNELL: Well, Sir, with regard to the words themselves, I believe they were correctly taken down with the exception of one word. I think I used the word "interest" instead of "satisfaction;" and I wish to point out to the House the circumstances under which I made use of those words—words which I believe I was thoroughly justified in using notwithstanding the very extraordinary and unprecedented course the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt himself justified in taking. I regret that in addition to moving that these particular words be taken down he did not move that all the words I had used just previously to those words should be taken

    1813
    down, because it would have saved me the necessity of repeating to the House what I felt it my duty then, in the circumstances of the case, to state. I was alluding, Sir, to the circumstances under which this Bill had been brought forward. I stated that no motive with regard to the interests of the Colonies was apparent to me from the way in which the Government had brought forward this Bill; but it appeared to me that the Government of this country had followed the selfish precedents that had always guided successive Governments in their treatment of subject and Native races. I need not refer to history to support the accusation that successive Governments of this country have always treated those whom they thought they could bully and oppress without reference to their interests. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must caution the hon. Member that he must not use words of menace to the House.
    MR. PAENELL: I do not know whether these were words of menace, but I have no intention of offering any words of menace to this House or to anybody else. I shall not follow the example set me in that respect in these last few days by the English Press, and certainly as I think on the part of Members of this House. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. J. R. YOEKE: The hon. Member has repeated that ho has been subjected to menaces on the part of Members of this House. I move that the words be taken down.
    The Motion having been put and agreed to, the words were taken down by the Clerk at the Table.
    MR. PAENELL: Let me know, Sir, what these words are. ["Order, order!"]
    MR. J. R. YORKE: The hon. Member stated that he had been subject to menaces on the part of Members of this House.
    MR. PAENELL: I did not use those words.
    SIR CHAELES RUSSELL: I rise, Sir, to say that the words quoted were the words used.
    MR. MACDONALD: I rise to Order. Those were not the words used.
    MR. PAENELL: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not use the words stated.
    MR. SPEAKER, taking the Paper handed to him by the Clerk at the Table,
    1814
    said: The words reported to have been used are these—that the hon. Member "had been subjected to menaces on the part of Members of this House." I desire to know whether the hon. Member for Meath admits the accuracy of those words?
    MR. PAENELL: I did not use those words. ["Oh, oh!"] I distinctly deny it. But, at the same time, I am ready to repeat—
    MR. SPEAKER: I have already stated to the hon. Member that he is at liberty to address the House upon the words reported to have been used by him in Committee of the House; but any observation he desires to make must be confined to those words, and those words only. If he is not prepared to make any observation upon those words, I must call upon him to withdraw.
    MR. PAENELL: I was proceeding to explain the circumstances which induced me to use the words, and I was pointing out to the House that it was necessary for me to go into historical examples in order to prove that successive English Governments have always been utterly disregardless of those inferior and weaker nations and countries with which they have come into contact. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: These observations are not pertinent to the Question before the House, and if the hon. Member persists in departing from the instructions I have given him—namely, that he must confine himself to the words he is reported to have used in Committee, I must call upon him at once to withdraw. [Cheers.]
    MR. PARNELLthereupon withdrew.
    MR. SPEAKER: The words which were used by the hon. Member for Meath were to this effect—he stated "his satisfaction in preventing and thwarting the intentions of the Government with respect to the Bill before the House." Those words are before the House. Now, the House is perfectly well aware that any Member wilfully and persistently obstructing Public Business, without just and reasonable cause, is guilty of a contempt of this House; and is liable to punishment, whether by censure, by suspension from the service of this House, or by commitment, according to the judgment of the House. Having stated this, I must leave the con-

    1815
    duct of the hon. Member for Meath to the just judgment of this House.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Speaker, I feel very much— and I am sure the House will feel very much—the position in which we are placed. They will feel with me a great reluctance in any way to appear to interfere with absolute freedom of discussion on the part of hon. Members, and a great unwillingness to take notice even of cases in which freedom of discussion has been carried so far as to degenerate into—what I may call—licence and obstruction. But, Sir, I feel that we have a duty to perform—[loud cheers]—and I feel that the character of this House is at stake. [Cheers.] No one, I am sure, could be more reluctant than I am to propose or to countenance any measures which could be described as violent, or hasty, or vindictive measures;—but I do feel that it is my duty—holding, as I do, a position in this House, which makes me, in a certain sense, primarily responsible for the conduct of Business —I do feel that it is necessary to propose that we should consider in some way the causes which have recently prevented the progress of Public Business, and to call attention especially to what has taken place to-day. Sir, what I propose to do is on Friday next to submit some proposition to this House with reference to some points of the conduct of Business generally. I will not at present describe more particularly what I shall propose; but, in the meantime, I feel it to be my duty to propose that distinct notice should be taken of the conduct of the hon. Member for Meath—[Cheers] —and I therefore shall propose this Resolution to the House—
    "That Mr. Parnell, having wilfully and persistently obstructed Public Business, is guilty of a contempt of this House; and that Mr. Parnell for his said offence be suspended from the service of the House until Friday next."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Parnell, having wilfully and persistently obstructed Public Business, is guilty of a contempt of this House."— (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. WHITBREAD: Sir, I desire to make a few remarks on this matter— which is a matter of serious importance to the House and the country. No one can complain of any want of patience exhibited by the Leader of the House,
    1816
    and no one can have a word to say against the extremely temperate address which he has just made to us. But I am not quite sure that the whole of the course which he has proposed to us is the right one to take. It is extremely desirable that the House should be unanimous, or nearly unanimous, on whatever course of action it may determine to take. Now, I will say for myself that I am one of those who have long seen that the temper and patience of this House have been tried almost beyond endurance—I may say that I think it is not possible that the House of Commons, with due regard either to its own dignity or to the interests of the country, could continue without taking notice of the obstruction which has been persistently and deliberately, day after day, and night after night, offered to its proceedings. But, Sir, I think that whatever notice is taken of this obstruction, and whatever step is taken in consequence of it, it should not be taken in haste, nor until after due Notice has been given. To the first part of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman I have not much objection—I think that the hon. Member for Meath has been guilty of contempt of this House: but the latter part of the Motion involves taking a step which, although it may become necessary, and might be justifiable if we could not meet the difficulty in any other way, yet is one which I think ought not to be taken without due Notice. It is a step which, if taken in a House which is not full, and without the weight and authority of the Leaders of the Opposition, is one which might be regretted afterwards. The right course, I think, would be to defer, at all events, that part of the Motion until Friday or tomorrow. I am very desirous that what I have said should not lead to division or conflict in the House; and if the right hon. Gentleman sees reason for accepting this suggestion, I believe it is one which will be acceptable generally to both sides of the House. But I wish to add another word with reference to any action which may be taken in the matter—and that is, that I hope that nothing will be done in derogation of the general limits of the rights which protect minorities-rights which we have found by long experience to be necessary to the due protection of minorities in this House. It is possible that those rights may be

    1817
    abused; but if once you embark on a course of limiting the rights of minorities, I invite you to consider that it may not be possible to stop until you have so curtailed those rights as practically to destroy the action of minorities altogether, and reduce them to the position of being unable to state objections, or even to move Amendments. I can never consent to a general limitation of the rights of minorities. I hardly know any ground on which the House could be called upon to make such a sacrifice. With these views, I would recommend to the serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and the House whether it would not be better that we should have at least 24 hours for the consideration of this grave matter, before we enter on the course that has been proposed.
    MR. SULLIVAN: Sir, I am in the painful position of being unable to speak for the hon. Member for Meath. The hon. Member has not entrusted his case in my hands, inasmuch as on the threshold of these proceedings he came into a conflict with myself which, if it did not sunder our friendship, has certainly estranged our action in this House. I have differed with him in regard to the line of action which he has pursued; but, Sir, there is a grave issue raised by the Motion before us—one which strikes at me, which strikes at you, and which strikes at the liberty and independence of every Member of this House. The words of the hon. Member for Meath have been taken down, and upon those words he is, so to speak, to be put upon his trial here to-day. I was not in the House when those words were spoken, but I have seen the words as entered on the Paper on the Table of the House; and if all that my hon. Friend said was that he was glad to have resisted the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, I—though I am slow to put myself in unfavourable antagonism to this House, fully conscious of the responsibility of doing so—yet I am bound to say that I, too, may feel it to be my duty to resist the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. That which would take from me the right of opposition, would leave me in the position of being no longer an independent Member of this House; and I should have to tell those in Ireland who sent me here, that unless I am allowed to object to and resist the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, they had better
    1818
    keep me at home in Ireland. What was it that brought down the noble Lord, who leads the Opposition in this House, on the occasion of the India Title Bill, if it was not to resist and thwart the intentions of Her Majesty's Government? That opposition may take various forms —of criticism or of resistance—but the House would have forgotten its own history, if it does not recognize the right of opposition—the right of individual Members to grapple hand to hand with the intentions of the Government—to trample those intentions under foot if they can:—and it is the legitimate right of every Member of that House to do so. With regard to the words of my hon. Friend which have been taken down, I challenge the House to say if he was not within his right in using them— unless my hon. Friend is to be tried upon something which is suppressed, and does not appear on the face of the indictment. If he is to be tried on those written words, surely this, the highest constitutional Court in the British Empire, will try him in a constitutional spirit by those words that have been taken down. Now, what Minister of the Crown will rise and state that it is a breach of Order for a Member to say that he wishes to resist—not the Business of the House, for that is not upon the Paper—but to resist the intentions of the Government? Are you going to lay down a rule, by precedent, so fatal to your liberties as to prevent all resistance to the intentions of the Government? The intentions of the Government! We thought a few months ago that the Government intended to go to war for Turkey. What brought down the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich to the House, if it was not to resist from his place the intentions of the Government, as he understood those intentions. To "thwart" the intentions of the Government was his purpose —he avowed and proclaimed it from platforms throughout the country. Was he out of Order? Why were not his words taken down, and himself called upon to answer for contempt when he struggled against the Government on the floor of this House? And what more than he did is on the Paper to-day? I hope that, although for the moment heat and temper may seem to prevail, Members of this House will in the end judge of this matter in a liberal spirit as

    1819
    between Gentlemen and Gentlemen. But I now ask you whether you are really trying the Member for Meath on the words which have been taken down, or are you not trying him on what he has been doing for the last two months? If for what he has been doing in those months, and not on the words that have been taken down, then that is fair and manly; but, if so, why not put that issue on the Paper? The Clerk of the Table holds in his hand the only record upon which you can take action, and hon. Members avow they are going beyond that record. Try my hon. Friend, but not without putting the issue in proper form. I deny your right to do it; and if that is "the intention of the Government," I will resist it to the utmost. Try the Irish Member fairly, and condemn him if you will. Parliament is omnipotent; but I protest test, as a Member of this House, against the notion that I am not to be permitted to discuss public matters in this House freely and independently, and free of the peril of being brought up for contempt by the vote of a majority. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I will not imitate my hon. Friend, although I am not speaking for him— but I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to his consideration as Leader of a House having a grand history and noble traditions, to pause and move slowly in what he is putting his hand to to-day. He is putting his hand to a matter as serious as has been undertaken by any Minister of the Crown for hundreds of years. These privileges of this House, the usages and liberties of Members, are not the creation of a single mind, but are the growth of a course of centuries—but to-day, because a Member has brought on difficulties in the exercise of his privileges—and I regret, I candidly avow, the manner in which they have been put in force—but are you, because of these difficulties, to cut down in an hour those rights and privileges which have come down to us, the growth of 400 years? I submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this course must not be taken on resentment at the expense of the hon. Member for Meath. The right hon. Gentleman has acted with a fairness, a spirit of consideration, and a calmness which does him great honour; and I am bound to admit that, as an individual and as a Member of the Government, he has been the last
    1820
    to move—at all eventsin any way of which we could fairly complain. I can hardly believe, when I consider how as a Minister of the Crown, he had been so ready to calm down the heated feelings arising in debate—I can hardly credit that this Motion has his entire concurrence; but I fear it may be forced upon him by the feelings of resentment of others around him. I ask the House not to put any part of the Question to-day, but let it all wait until Friday. The House has been ready to do strong things in a moment before this, but has been ready to be more moderate after time for reflection. Let us, then, come to the discussion on Friday, after a few days' rest. Let hon. Members who are not now here have time to learn what has transpired; and then on Friday you will come to act not in a manner which would be misconstrued in Ireland as an act of vengeance. Approach this act on Friday with the gravest deliberation, and you will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that you did not in heat and haste take a course which would be fatal to the liberties and the independence of private Members.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I very much regret not having been present in the House at the time when the words in question were used, and I regret still more that my noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition is not here to give us that counsel and advice which are always given without heat and in a wise and sensible manner. But I feel it impossible to be silent after the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suppose that no one could do a more unpopular thing at this moment than attempt to interpose between the wrath of the House and the hon. Member for Meath. I do not feel called upon in any sense to be the champion of the hon. Member for Meath, because during a somewhat long course of Parliamentary life I have never known so persistent an obstruction of the Business of this House, or so great a trial of its patience, as that inaugurated and continued by the hon. Member for Meath and his Friends, and oftener than once I have thought during recent occurrences that the time had arrived when this House, in consideration of its own dignity and credit, would be obliged to take some steps in reference to the continuance of that obstruction. But

    1821
    let us ask ourselves plainly and calmly what we are really going to do on the present occasion. I cannot get rid of this idea—that it is proposed to take certain words which have been used by the hon. Member for Meath, and upon those words to punish him, not for the utterance of those particular words, but because of the conduct which he has been pursuing. Even if that is not the intention in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is that not the colour which will be put upon our procedure by a very large portion of the people of this country? I believe the hon. Member for Meath ought to be arrested in his course of obstruction of the Business of this House; but it is most desirable that in so arresting him we should act in a manner to secure as great a unanimity as possible in this House, and, as far as possible, a general support from the public outside; and I believe, by taking hold of particular words and founding upon them a Motion to punish the hon. Member for Meath, we may give reason to the country to suppose that we are not punishing him for what we really do wish to punish him for, and may be establishing a precedent which we may hereafter regret. There is something else. What are those words themselves? If the words of the hon. Member had been that he took an interest and satisfaction in obstructing the Business of the House, that would have been a plain and intelligible reason why the House should interfere, but to take an interest in thwarting the intentions of the Government is a different thing. I have been some years in the Government, and I have never heard it disputed that Members had a right, although I have often heard Members say that they meant to employ every method to thwart the intentions of the Government. Do hon. Members not recollect what was done in connection with the Army Purchase Bill, the Ballot Bill, and the Jews Bill, and are we to be told now that the intentions of the Government are not to be thwarted? I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is a man of calm mind and dispassionate judgment, will see on reflection that he has made a mistake. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Gentleman behind him, and still more to Gentlemen on this side of the House, whether they would
    1822
    not be false to the traditions of the Party to which they belong in adopting a proposal which, in so many words, says that an hon. Member has incurred the displeasure of the House and should therefore be punished, because he wished to thwart the intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers, That, I am sure, is not the object of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Certainly not.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: If the hon. Member is to be punished for obstructing the Business of the House, let that appear in the indictment. But my main reason for rising was to impress upon my right hon. Friend the great desirability of following the advice given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whit-bread) and interpose some delay to the discussion of this question. The House will lose nothing by that. A great deliberative Assembly like this ought to move calmly and deliberately, and especially in regard to any alleged infringement of its own privileges. My right hon. Friend will lose nothing, the House will lose nothing; the House and the country will gain something by proceeding in this matter with due deliberation. I do not want to move any Amendment, because I do not want to appear as taking any action against the right hon. Gentleman; but I ask him to allow some delay, and to take care, in proceeding to vindicate the Rules of the House, in order that its Business may be carried on without unseemly, or improper obstruction—to take care that these Rules are vindicated in a spirit consistent with the calmness and dignity which should characterize this deliberative Assembly.
    MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I so entirely concur, Sir, in most of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) that I am sorry my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) should have introduced into the advice he has given to the House something of a discussion upon what has occurred which rather entered into the merits of the case than into the question of the Adjournment of the Debate. My right hon. Friend, like myself, was not present when the words in question were used; but he has discussed the meaning of those

    1823
    words in a manner which would rather tend to show that he had been present, and had observed the context and the effect of the words as bearing upon the former conduct of the hon. Member for Meath. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has proposed two Motions in a particular form, one of which only is now before the House—it is to the effect, that by wilful and pertinacious obstruction the hon. Member for Meath has been guilty of a contempt of this House. I will not enter at this moment into a discussion of the merits of that Motion, but what it comes to is this —that the hon. Member for Meath having, in the opinion of a great majority of the Members of this House, persistently taken a course of obstructing the Public Business—which the House has shown by majorities that it was desirous to proceed with—and in this particular instance, by taking that course in reference to a Bill now before it which is not in accordance with the usual mode of discussing its provisions, his offence culminated in an expression which, looking to his conduct and the context of his observations, bore the interpretation that he was thwarting and obstructing the Business of the House. ["No, no !" and "Cheers!"] Well, a Government measure which the House adopted by an enormous majority, of which the House has possession, and with which the House desires to proceed. Therefore the Motion is a justifiable one and the indictment is on the face of it. There is no attempt or desire, as the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) seems to imagine, to shirk the position which the Government occupies —namely, that, in taking advantage of the words which the hon. Member used as the culmination of a long course of obstruction, they did in the Motion propose to censure that long course of obstruction. That being so, I quite admit to the hon. Member and others that it would be better the House should proceed calmly and without heat or passion to the consideration of a question of this character. It is a very grave question to interfere in any way with the freedom of speech of any hon. Member, or to declare any Member guilty of contempt of this House without good cause. I will, therefore, if the House permits me, move that the debate be adjourned until Friday.
    CAPTAIN NOLAN, in seconding the Motion, said, Sir, I wish to point out to the House the position in which they will be landed if they take the advice which has been tendered to them by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I may remind the House that they were told by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) that if money was to be voted for taking part in the war in the East, he would offer every obstruction in his power to the Government, and, if necessary, sit till Christmas to prevent its being voted. This was a threat of "obstruction" of the most violent and serious kind, to be offered under circumstances which might be of the most serious and urgent character; and if you now suspend, or by implication threaten to expel the hon. Member for Meath, will you afterwards suspend and threaten to expel the hon. Member for Hackney, who pledged himself openly to a course of obstruction, which the hon. Member for Meath has always disavowed? If you pass the Motion before you to-day, you will prevent a constituency from expressing its opinion on this particular question, in which it would have the deepest interest, and you will place a whole arsenal of weapons in the hands of all who choose to obstruct the Government. By your action in reference to the Tipperary election you transferred the Representative of that county from this side of the House to your own—["Question!"]—and I believe it is the plan of the Government now to gain a third Irish vote—and three votes are often important on a division. ["Oh, oh!"] I believe that the annoyance caused to the House by the hon. Member for Meath on the previous evening is the real cause of the course that has been taken against him. The hon. Member endeavoured to dissuade the hon. and gallant Member for Water-ford (Major O'Gorman) from proceeding with his Motion to report progress. He (Captain Nolan) did not wish to go into the same Lobby with him on that Question—both he and the hon. Member for Cavan endeavoured to dissuade the hon. Member for Waterford from going on, but, failing in that, he felt it his duty to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The course now taken by the Government is, I think, only revenge for what took place last night.
    MR. GATHOENE HAEDYreminded the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had moved to defer the discussion of the question until Friday.
    CAPTAIN NOLAN: I wish only to observe that the Secretary of State for War made it the gravamen of his charge against the hon. Member for Meath that he had obstructed a Bill which had the support of the House, large majorities of which had signified their desire that it should proceed. That was not stated by way of argument by the right hon. Gentleman, but as a matter of fact; but he trusted that when the question came to be discussed, the House would approach the discussion in a different spirit, and not in connection with the past proceedings of the hon. Member for Meath. I read only half-an-hour ago in the Library the words of your Predecessor, Sir, in relation to a matter which the hon. Member for Meath has often fought in this House—namely, the transaction in it of Public Business at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning. ["Question!"] Why, is it the Question. My argument is, that the whole of the proceedings of this day are connected with that action of the hon. Member for Meath, and as to that I have only to point out to you, Sir, that your Predecessor in giving evidence before a Select Committee on the Business of the House said that nothing could be more injurious for Parliament and the country than this habit of transacting Public Business after 1 o'clock. My hon. Friend has had to submit to great personal annoyance merely because he has resolved to endeavour to give effect to the course recommended by your Predecessor.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Gathorne Hardy).
    MR. CALLANsaid, the hon. Member for Meath had consistently declared that he had no intention of obstructing the Business of the House; but now besides judging his hon. Friend for the words taken down, there seemed to be a manifest intention of punishing him for conduct which it was alleged he had been guilty of in obstructing the Business of the House. This proceeding reminded him of the verdict of the jury in the north of Ireland, who were empannelled for the trial of a man for murdering an
    1826
    Orangeman. For the defence the man supposed to have been murdered was called, but the jury found a verdict of guilty, and when the Judge asked the foreman how they could possibly find such a verdict, he replied,—"Not guilty of murder, my lord, but he stole my grey mare." The hon. Member for Meath was about to be put upon his trial not for thwarting the intentions of the Government, but for the course he had pursued, and which was not alluded to in the Motion. He remembered that when the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was before the House a similar determination to oppose the progress of the measure was declared, because it was said to be a penal measure directed against the whole Catholic population of the country. The Bill was supported by "a large majority" of the House; but those who opposed it were not held to have offered any "obstruction to the Business of the House." But now the Secretary of State for War appeared to hold that to oppose a measure that was favoured "by a large majority of the House" was a contempt of the House. And the Secretary for War seemed to desire to court martial this House. But before they voted on this Motion there was one question he should like to ask the Speaker—What would be the position of the hon. Member for Meath until Friday next? An important Irish question was coming on for discussion to-morrow—and he should like to know whether the hon. Member for Meath would have a right to take part in that debate? The answer to the Question would decide many Irish Members as to how they should vote.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid that, pending the judgment of the House on the Main Question before it, the hon. Member for Meath was at liberty to enter the House and take part in the proceedings.
    MR. HERMONsaid he did not think there was any particular crime in the words that had been taken down. At the same time, it could not be denied that there had been consistent obstruction of Business and a trifling with the time of the House. He did not think this was the time to raise the question; but they would require soon to consider whether something should not be done to prevent the time of the House being trifled away. He did not think that the words which had been taken down ought to be made the foundation of the Reso-

    1827
    lution at which the House was asked to arrive.
    MR. WHALLEYmaintained that all the obstruction in dispute was due to the action of the Government themselves and not to individual Members of the House. He had not been always able to act with the hon. Member for Meath; but he had sometimes done so, and he believed that what was called obstruction had often been in accordance with the interests of the public and the opinions of the highest authority. The Government had themselves to blame for the delay in the progress of Public Business.
    MR. DILLWYNwished to know, first, when the terms of the Resolution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to move on Friday would be laid before the House; and, in the next place, whether the discussion on both the important questions involved would be taken on the same day. Not a moment's time should be lost in giving Notice of the Resolution, which might be of vital importance.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid he did not agree with what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. His hon. Friend said the obstruction which he regretted had been greatly due to the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government. As a Liberal Member, he felt bound to say that, so far from that being the case, Her Majesty's Government had shown great forbearance.
    MR. WHALLEYdenied that he had said so. He said that Her Majesty's Government were responsible for not dealing with a remedy for the obstruction—namely, by taking care that the Business of the House should be conducted at an earlier hour.
    Sir JOHN LUBBOCKwas glad he had misunderstood the hon. Member; but the distinct impression left by his observations on the mind of many Members was that he blamed Her Majesty's Government. He wished, as a Liberal Member, to say that the Government had acted with great forbearance and tact as well. A great deal had been said about punishing the Member for Meath. Now, he was not prepared to say what course he should adopt when the conduct of the hon. Member came to be considered; but whatever course he took he should not be guided by any wish to punish the hon. Member. He
    1828
    did not regard the Motion as brought forward with respect to the conduct of one Member—but to put a stop to recent objectionable practices, by which the whole Business of Parliament had been impeded, much to the injury not of this country only, but of Ireland and the whole Empire.
    THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERsaid, as they were all well agreed on the propriety of adjourning their decision, he hoped it would not be considered necessary to prolong the discussion. He wished, however, to say that it was not to be supposed that the Motion which he had made and the Resolution which he intended to propose on Friday were founded on the words, taken in themselves, which had been used by the hon. Member for Meath, but were to be taken in connection with the whole course of recent proceedings. He should not, however, enter into that subject at present. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he had to state that he hoped at the Sitting of the House of Commons to-morrow, to give Notice of the Resolution or Resolutions which he proposed to move on Friday. He proposed to move them as a matter of privilege, and as such they would take precedence of the other Business; and, in order that there should be no difficulty in having a full discussion, the Government would propose that instead of having a Morning Sitting the House should meet on Friday at the usual hour of four o'clock, and that the Question should be first disposed of.
    MR. BIGGARdenied, on behalf of the hon. Member for Meath and himself that they had ever obstructed the Business of the House. [" Oh, oh!"] So far as his experience went, the greatest obstruction to Business had arisen from the interruptions of hon. Members on the Government side of the House. ["Oh, oh!"] He would suggest that the Motion in reference to the hon. Member for Meath and the Motion of Adjournment should both be withdrawn —for this reason, that the words used by the hon. Member for Meath were not un-Parliamentary or as strong as he had often heard used on both sides of the House. The Government would not improve their position if they endeavoured to obtain from a House in which they had a majority a vote against a

    1829
    Member of that House. As late as last night a very much worse thing was done by a Member of the Government towards him (Mr. Biggar) than anything that was done by the hon. Member for Meath. He did not wish to expose what was done to the world; but if this Motion was persisted in, he should consider it his duty to bring the conduct of a Member of the Government before the House; and, without using threats, he might say that he thought the Government would consult their own dignity and character, as well as the character of the House, by not proceeding any further against the hon. Member for Meath. It had been assumed that obstruction had taken place. That, however, he had always denied on his own part, and the Member for Meath had denied it also. ["Oh, oh!"] In fact, a charge had been brought against them which had not been proved. ["Oh!"] He denied distinctly that he had been guilty of obstruction, and when the time came he should be able to give his reasons for saying so.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that though the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) had seconded the Motion for Adjournment, he did not approve of it, and did not wish his seconding it to be taken as an acquiescence in it. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) did not sympathize with the view of the Secretary of State for War, that this matter should be decided without any regard to the effect that the restrictive action proposed to be taken might have on people outside. He, on the contrary, thought that matter well worthy of consideration, for the position of Irish Members in that House must not be disregarded. Their position did not correspond with that of Members generally, because the presence of Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament arose from the violent and forcible destruction of the right of self-government which the Constitution and the faith of an English King had guaranteed to the people of Ireland. That was the position they occupied—perhaps not in the English sense, but certainly in the Irish sense. If they were now going to pass such restrictions as would destroy the remnant of constitutional power which they had considered it right to allow Irish Representatives, they would be simply throwing aside the veil of constitutional forms, and exhibiting before the world the
    1830
    shining steel with which the power of the English Government in Ireland was maintained. The language used by the hon. Member for Meath was perfectly Parliamentary. The hon. Member for Meath, who was now charged with obstruction, objected to proceeding with important Business after half-past 12 at night, and to carry out that policy he had been obliged to oppose measures which were admittedly good because they were not likely to get justice done to them if discussed at a late hour. If they could name any one measure of that kind which the hon. Member for Meath had opposed before that hour, then, and then only, could they fix upon him a charge of obstruction disrespectful to that House. He reminded the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that until ho placed the hon. Member for Meath in that position he could not destroy his privileges, which were as sacred as those of the right hon. Baronet himself.
    MR. GRAYhoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to withdraw the original Motion and allow the Motion for Adjournment to be withdrawn also. He thought the course which the discussion had taken had shown to the Government that they had not taken much by their hasty proceedings. It was very hard for a young Member to know what was, or was not contempt— he would not say of the House—but contempt of Her Majesty's Government. It appeared to him that the future policy of the Government, as indicated by the present proceeding, was to support authority by summary suspension or expulsion. Perhaps it might be easily followed up by execution. It was quite clear that the language used by the hon. Member for Meath was not un-Parliamentary according to any Rule which had existed up to that day; and it was quite clear also that the right hon. Gentleman had since recognized that it was competent for a Member of the House to use that language, for he had made one Motion to the House to-day, and he had announced that he would bring forward a new Resolution to-morrow. They would, therefore, have two Resolutions brought before the House —the hasty one proposed to-day, and the other one which was to be moved on Friday. He (Mr. Cray) did not know whether it would, according to the new

    1831
    Rule sought to be laid down, amount to a contempt of Her Majesty's Government, to suggest that in the course they had adopted that day they had committed something like contempt of the House—he did not, therefore, say so, but he was free to hold his own opinion. He would, however, say that they had not shown due respect to the House, and it would better become their own dignity to withdraw their Resolution. They had sprung a mine on the hon. Member for Meath. They had acted in haste—they would have time to repent at their leisure between that and Friday. It was not fair to have the Motion, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acknowledged he had intended changing, hanging over the hon. Member for Meath. Let the Chancellor of of the Exchequer frame his indictment between this and Friday, and when he then brought forward a duly considered Motion on the grave constitutional question involved, he had no doubt it would be suitably met. He himself had heard the hon. Member for Meath disavow the charge of obstruction-—it would be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prove him guilty. The House of Commons was at liberty to restrict its own privileges; but it was quite clear from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman that no action could take place upon his Resolution as submitted to the House. Therefore, he would ask, what was the good of having it on the Paper? It should be withdrawn. It would be in the recollection of the House that the right hon. Gentleman was invited some time ago to take into his consideration the question of amending the Rules of the House, and he refused. Government had acknowledged that the course they had taken to-day had not been caused merely by words used to-day, but that it had been contemplated by the Government for some time —that, in fact, the Government had been lying in ambush for the hon. Member.
    THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I never said anything of the sort. What I said was, that I did not propose this Resolution because of the mere words that were taken down, but for those words in connection with the whole of the proceedings of which they formed a part.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not use the
    1832
    language, the Secretary of State for War did, for the right hon. Gentleman had distinctly intimated that it was intended to punish the hon. Member for Meath, not merely for the words to which exception had been taken, but for his previous conduct. The Government, as he was pointing out, had been invited to take this into their consideration, but they declined, and now they sprung this mine upon the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to take it into consideration until next Session, thus giving themselves time to consider the whole question, and to approach it calmly and properly. But now it appeared they had all the time been considering the conduct of the hon. Member for Meath, and had come to the conclusion of catching him on some particular words on the first opportunity that offered. He did not know whether that action on the part of Her Majesty's Government was in contempt of the House of Commons, but he thought it would have been more respectful to the House if the Government, having this intention in their minds, had given some Notice before springing this mine on the hon. Member for Meath. He therefore hoped that the two Motions would be withdrawn, and thus they should be able to approach the discussion on Friday untrammelled by the Motion now before the House. It would be ridiculous to have two sets of Eesolutions—that of to-day, and the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman was about to frame. Let him bring forward his indictment after Notice on Friday, and the House could then deal with the great constitutional question involved.
    MR. O'DONNELLreminded the House that it was he who moved to report Progress in order to obtain certain information from the Government which as yet he had not received. This occurred previous to the hon. Member for Meath appearing on the scene. Before the hon. Member for Meath intervened speeches had been delivered by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other Members, and his (Mr. O'Donnell's) recollection of the speech of the hon. Member for Meath was not the same as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's in regard to the context of the words quoted. The specific charge against the hon. Member for Meath was, that he

    1833
    had spoken slightingly of the intentions of the Government with regard to a large portion of the policy of the Government, particularly their policy respecting Ireland, that he entertained no feelings but those of the most rooted hostility and detestation—["Oh, oh!"] —and they were perfectly at liberty to move that those words be reported.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were so jealous of the rights of majorities totally ignored the rights of a minority in Ireland, consisting of upwards of a million and a half of people. He meant the Protestant population of Ireland. He denied that those Gentlemen were entitled to speak in the name of the Irish people.
    Motion agreed to; Debate adjourned till Friday.
    South Africa Bill (Lords) again considered in Committee.
    Moved, That the Preamble be postponed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Major 0'Gorman.)
    MR. PAENELLsaid, that when the proceedings on this same Motion were interrupted by circumstances to which he should not further allude, he was about reminding the Committee that, as an Irishman whose country had experienced similar, and even worse, treatment than that which the Government proposed to mete out to the South African Colonies, he had a special interest in endeavouring to thwart and prevent the objects of the Government in reference to those Colonies. He should now continue and endeavour to show that his statement of the proceedings of the Government in this instance was correct. The preliminary proceedings of the Government were far from unobjectionable. What course did they pursue? When they determined on this scheme of annexation and Confederation they sent out to South Africa a gentleman named Froude, who had made himself conspicuous by the way in which he had misrepresented and calumniated the people of Ireland. They need not stop to scrutinize the past career of Mr. Froude. He was a person called a historian, and his history would
    1834
    have greater value if he had not endeavoured to draw false deductions from facts, and if he had not suppressed the truth in a great many instances. It was to be regretted that Mr. Froude had employed his undoubted talents in misrepresenting and falsifying events which had happened in Ireland. The Government in choosing this instrument for their designs in South Africa showed a true appreciation of the man. His first step was to obtain, by means of a "caucus," an expression of what was called the public opinion of the colonists; but that, and his whole proceedings, were directly contrary to the axiom that federation must be spontaneous and not forced. The Government, however, acted on the immoral doctrine that the interests of the people of South Africa were subservient to the interests of the Empire at large. The House was asked to sanction the annexation of the South African Republic, not because it was for the benefit of the Colonies, but because it was alleged that it would be beneficial to the Empire generally.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the annexation of the South African Republic is not covered by the Preamble of this Bill.
    MR. PAENELL: I think the subject of confederation is covered by some of the clauses.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Another opportunity may arise to consider the question, but it cannot be discussed on the Preamble, which is absolutely without any reference to annexation.
    MR. PAENELLunderstood from a former ruling of the Chairman that a Member was entitled to discuss the principle of a measure on the Motion that the Preamble be postponed. Therefore he thought he was entitled to refer to the clauses of the Bill which contemplated the confederation of the South African Republic, in order to show that the action of the Government was improper and unjust.
    THE CHAIRMANagain pointed out that the question of the annexation had nothing to do with the clauses of the Bill which dealt with confederation. The annexation was an accomplished fact. It was an unusual, inconvenient, and undesirable course to enter into the general subject on the Question that the Preamble be postponed; but he did not

    1835
    think himself at liberty to say that the hon. Member was altogether out of Order in pursuing that course.
    MR. PARNELL: Sir, it may be necessary sometimes for the House to do that which is unusual, inconvenient, and undesirable. The confederation of these States is contemplated in this Bill within a certain time.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member seems to confound two different things, annexation and confederation. The policy or acts of the Government with regard to the former are not in any way in this Bill.
    MR. PARNELL: Then if I am not allowed to refer to annexation I shall refuse to discuss the matter at all.
    MAJOR O'GORMAN: The Transvaal was annexed without the knowledge or consent of this House, and it is extraordinary to say it must not be spoken of.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out that the question of annexation is not the subject now before the Committee.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: The Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Waterford to report Progress was made distinctly to elicit an opinion from you, Sir, as to the extent to which we can discuss the general scope of a Bill at this stage. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on having achieved his object, and suggest to him to withdraw the Motion.
    Major O'GORMAN: At the special request of my hon. Friend the Member for Mayo I will withdraw it.
    MR. PARNELL: Before the Motion is withdrawn, I wish to submit a Question on a point of Order. I wish to know whether we can discuss the contemplated confederation of the Transvaal Republic on the Motion that the Preamble be postponed?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already stated that the consideration of the principle of a Bill on the Motion that the Preamble be postponed is exceedingly inconvenient. The object of the Motion for postponing the Preamble is to avoid discussions on the principle which might arise, but I should not feel it to be my duty to interrupt any hon. Member who thought it imcumbent upon him to discuss the principle. As far as the prospective confederation of the Transvaal is concerned, that is within
    1836
    the purview of the Bill, but the annexation, which has been already effected, is not.
    MR. BIGGARreminded the Government that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) had asserted that they kept back information which the House ought to have laid before it; was there any foundation for that statement? Then the Secretary of State for War said that they ought not to interfere with the progress of the Bill because the House decided to go into Committee by a large majority. That was true; but the statements for and against it were made to an audience of about 20 Members. Was any value to be attached to the largeness of such a majority?
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that during the whole of his address on the previous night he did not say a word against the principle of the Bill. He objected, however, to the manner in which the scheme of confederation was proposed to be carried out. The hon. Member accordingly proceeded to discuss the general question at great length and read many extracts from Papers, public documents, and newspapers. The hon. Gentleman paid no attention to continued cries of "Order!" and the great impatience of the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member was certainly entering into a very wide field of discussion, and he hoped he would confine himself to the Question before the Committee.
    MR. O'DONNELLcontinued, stating that they had repeatedly asked the Government for information that had not been furnished. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted on a misapprehension of what he had said. He did not object to the principle of confederation, but he objected to the House being asked to proceed upon so little information. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies had charged him with not being in his place when the statement on behalf of the Government was made; but although absent compulsory he had made himself thoroughly acquainted with all that the hon. Gentleman had said. The Government had said they had placed before the House all the information in their possession. Surely, the particulars of the interviews between the delegates from the Sovereign State of the Transvaal and the Colonial Secretary, when

    1837
    the Government was placed in possession of much important information, should have been laid before the House. He had seen those delegates, and he believed that their representations to Lord Carnarvon were of the most serious and important kind. They told him (Mr. O'Donnell) that the people of the Transvaal were essentially a Republican and Democratic people, opposed to official nomination and class government and to the exercise of autocratic dictatorial authority. Then, again, the House should have information as to the position taken up in respect to this question of confederation by the Government of the Cape. Was it true that a strongly centralist and anti-confederative Government was in power in the Cape, and that Bills were before the Cape Parliament for annexing without confederation a large territory in South Africa? He also wanted to know before this Bill was proceeded with what were the relations between the Colonies in South Africa and the Native tribes in respect to the important question of extradition? A remarkable case had recently occurred, in which a Zulu lad, accused of murdering a White man in Zululand, had been sent to Natal and returned to the Chief Cetewago, because the Governor of Natal said he had no jurisdiction to deal with him. A despatch from the Governor upon this case was suppressed from the published Papers. A judicial murder had thus been committed, for there were undoubtedly great extenuating circumstances under which the lad had killed his White master. The lad was returned under some wretched Extradition Treaty, and was put to death without trial.
    LORD FEANCIS HERVEYrose to Order, and asked was it competent to the hon. Member to enter into a discussion of matters that had taken place in Zululand?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the observations of the hon. Member ranged over matters of the widest diversity, and which had no connection with the question immediately before the Committee. While he had not thought fit to interrupt him more frequently, he must understand that he was making a wrong use of his privileges in travelling over this wide field.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he should not continue the subject much further,
    1838
    but he desired to read a passage in connection with this Zulu case.
    THE MARQUESS OF HAETINGTON: I think, Sir, that after you have several times called upon the hon. Member to desist, as you have done, from a certain line of argument, it is not competent for him to pursue the course he is doing. I think, Sir, he ought not, as a Member of this House, to contravene your position as Chairman. Your authority, Sir, I hold, ought to be supported. I submit the hon. Member ought not to continue a course of argument which you have decided is out of Order.
    SIR ANDREW LUSK: I have sat, Sir, for a long time in this House, and one thing above others I have observed —namely, that we have always been accustomed to respect the authority of the Chair. We must, if we are to conduct our debates, have order, and we cannot have order without respecting the Chair.
    MR. PAENELLsaid, he had always endeavoured to respect both the Chairman and the Speaker. He had listened to his (the Chairman's) interruptions— ["Oh, oh!" and "Withdraw!"]—interruptions not initiated by him, but caused by request of hon. Members on both sides; and he did not observe that he had in any instance ruled that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was out of Order and that he should desist from going into certain matters. Had the Chairman done that, the hon. Member for Dungarvan would willingly have deferred to his request and his dictation. He protested against hon. Members calling others to Order in general terms, without taking the trouble to show in what way the Rules of Order had been violated.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Francis Hervey) had appealed to the Chairman to determine whether the hon. Member for Dungarvan, in pursuing a line of argument upon the criminal law of Zululand, was or was not entering upon a matter germane to the present discussion. The Chairman intimated to the hon. Member for Dungarvan that he was going into a matter which had no immediate connection in the present phase of the discussion. Thereupon the hon. Member for Dungarvan proceeded to say he wanted to make further observations on that very point. [Mr. O'Donnell: No!] The hon. Member's

    1839
    denial would not avail against the recollection of the whole Committee. The hon. Member said that he would not continue the subject on which he was called to Order much further; but that he wanted to read a passage connected with that very point.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to Order.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was in possession of the House, and would not yield to the interruption of the hon Member for Dungarvan. He had once or twice endeavoured to place on record, for the information of the people of England and Scotland what was going on in this House, and the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), the Leader of the Irish Party, had forcibly described the "humiliating position" in which the House was placed by the conduct of the hon. Members for Meath, Dungarvan, and others. He would now once more recite what had been the course of proceeding with reference to this Bill. Yesterday it was in the stage for going into Committee. An Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). A full debate took place on that stage—and it was very proper that a full debate should take place. The hon. Member for Dungarvan made an oration he (Sir William Harcourt) believed more than two hours in length. ["No, no!"] The House knew perfectly well the value to be placed on those negatives. ["Hear, hear!"]
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved that the words of the hon. and learned Member be taken down.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member for Oxford is speaking to Order, and cannot be interrupted on that point. If the hon. Member for Dungarvan wished to speak after the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had finished he would be able to do so.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTresumed. He was stating the protracted debate which took place yesterday, in which the hon. Member for Dungarvan addressed the House at very considerable length—he believed for two hours; whether it was a few minutes more or a few minutes less was of little importance. A division was taken, in which a very large majority negatived that Amendment. The minority was 22. It had been the practice—not the universal,
    1840
    but the general practice — when the House by an overwhelming majority had decided against an Amendment of that character not to put the House to the inconvenience of another division. However, that was not the course taken by certain Members of the House on that occasion. A second division was taken, and the minority on that division was 5. He supposed, it was hardly possible for the House to express in a more definite way its will on the subject. The next stage was that the House should go into Committee, which it did to-day. The first step in the Committee was one which was generally considered a formal one—the Motion that the Preamble be postponed. Upon that arose a discussion to which he would not at present further refer; but thereupon the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Major O'Gorman) moved that the Chairman report Progress, and thereon an attempt was made to renew the whole discussion. At length the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) appealed to the hon. and gallant Member for Waterford to withdraw his Motion. The hon. and gallant Member for Waterford agreed to do so. Upon the Question that the Motion for reporting Progress should be withdrawn the hon. Member for Dungarvan took occasion to deliver another protracted speech, in addition to the one which he made yesterday upon the whole of the Bill, and proceeded to discuss matters which the Chairman had pronounced to be perfectly irrelevant to the Question before the Committee. He (Sir William Harcourt) recited these things because he thought it was an advantage to the public that they should know what was being done persistently day after day in that House. These were not proceedings for the purpose of discussing the Bill — they were proceedings for the purpose of defying the authority of Parliament— [Cries of "No!" and "Hear, hear!"]— of bringing the House of Commons into contempt—["No!" "Hear!"]— and of destroying that great engine by which the British Empire was chiefly maintained, and the course pursued was part of a system not to discuss measures bond fide, but to waste time.—[Cheers.]
    MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to assure you, Sir, that I did not in the slightest manner intend to dispute your authority or ruling. If I went back upon my

    1841
    previous sentence it was simply to complete it and to make it clear. As for the language of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, I will not follow his deplorable example.
    LORD FRANCIS HERVEY: I again rise to Order, Sir. I rose to Order when the hon. Member for Dungarvan was entering upon a subject which in no way related to the Question before the Committee, and was reading from a newspaper an extract. You ruled against the hon. Member; yet no sooner were the words out of your mouth than he proceeded to read from the very document which he had before read from. That, I hold, was a gross defiance of your ruling. I quite agree with all the words that have fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford. I think, Sir, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be doing his duty to the House on Friday next unless he includes other names than those of the hon. Member for Meath in the Motion he is to submit.
    MR. PARNELL: I hold, Sir, that no Member is entitled to examine my motives or intentions without adducing proof of their statements. The hon. Member was proceeding, when—
    MR. GOLDSMID: Sir, I rise to Order. I think we have had enough of this kind of discussion. I hope such a one will not occur again. If the two hon. Members for Meath and Dungarvan are to engross the time of the House in this way they will find that they are not propitiating the favour of the House. They will gain a much more attentive hearing and do more real service to their constituents if they will conform their speeches to the manner in which the debates of this House have been hitherto conducted. There will then be no necessity for altering our Rules. I hope the common sense of the hon. Gentlemen will prevail, and that the Committee may now be allowed to proceed with the Bill.
    THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I would only remind hon. Gentlemen that the whole question will be brought forward on Friday next, when full opportunity will be given to discuss the whole subject. This being so, it will be better that we should proceed to business.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had brought a grave charge against the hon.
    1842
    Member for Meath and himself. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had since expressed his regret for having in any way opposed the ruling of the Chairman. ["Order! Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the point of Order had been disposed of, and he hoped therefore the Committee would now allow the Motion for reporting Progress to be withdrawn, and proceed with the Bill.
    MR. BIGGARhere rose to address the Committee, amid cries of "Order!"
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member was out of Order in attempting to address the House.
    MR. O'DONNELLalso rose—but was ruled to be out of Order.
    At length—
    Question, That leave be given to withdraw the Motion to report Progress, put, and agreed to.
    Motion withdrawn.
    Question again proposed, "That the Preamble be postponed."
    MR. PARNELLrose, and again proceeded, amid expressions of great dissatisfaction, to discuss the whole subject of the Bill.
    MR. WHALLEYrose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member for Meath was in Order in repeating over again the whole arguments he had advanced at the earlier period of the evening?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member was not technically out of Order; but he was most severely testing the patience of the Committee.
    MR. PARNELLaccordingly proceeded —disregarding frequent interruptions and calls to Order. He said he required to exercise caution, as he did not know when or on what occasion the Leader of the Government might start up, and with tones and words of indignation move that his words be taken down and submitted to the sure and speedy vengeance of the House.
    MR. GREGORYrose to Order. Was this language in Order?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Meath was not in Order in the language he had used.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he had only wished to express his timidity in discussing the Bill, and he hoped the Com-

    1843
    mittee would forgive him if he did not do justice to it. He proceeded at great length to argue that the Dutch Boers hated the English rule.
    MR. E. JENKINSrose to Order. The Question before the Committee was not whether the Preamble should be adopted, but whether it should be postponed. He had to remind the Committee that last year, when the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles Dilke) was proposing to discuss the principle of the Commons Bill on this very Motion that the Preamble be postponed, it was held that the discussion must be confined entirely to the postponing of the Preamble.
    MR. PARNELLcontinued to address the House for some time.
    Mr. BIGGAR and Mr. O'DONNELLrose to address the House, but were ruled to be out of Order.
    At length—
    Motion agreed to; Preamble postponed.
    I.—Preliminary.
    Clause 1 (Short title).
    MR. O'DONNELLmoved that the Bill should be called "The South Africa Confederation Bill," instead of "The South Africa Bill."
    Amendment moved, in line 23, after "Africa," insert "Confederation."— (Mr. O'Donnell.)
    MR. J. LOWTHERopposed the Amendment. It might be that the Colonies would prefer a Federal union to confederation.
    MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the Amendment was superfluous. It seemed to be forgotten that this was a permissive Bill.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not see why the Amendment should not be accepted.
    After short discussion,
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2 (Application of provisions referring to the Queen), agreed to.
    II.— Union.
    Clause 3 (Declaration of Union and provision for its completion).
    MR. PARNELLmoved an Amendment to insert, before "agree," the word "voluntarily."
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the word was quite unnecessary. The States would only confederate voluntarily.
    MR. PARNELLcontended that securities should be given that the States should not be forced to confederate. What means did the Government intend to adopt to provide for a voluntary confederation? He desired to secure that the confederation should take place only with the consent of the whole people —by a kind of plébiscite.
    MR. BIGGARrose to address the House, but—
    It being now a quarter to Six of the clock,
    Debate adjourned till Friday.
    House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.