Court of Requests in India. (Hansard, 5 July 1879)

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
moved, as an Amendment, to leave out sub-section 3. These courts only existed in India, and they were most useful. He could not see why, therefore, they should not be made available to soldiers as well as 1627 civilians. It very often happened that officers going home sold their furniture and equipments to another officer, and then could not get the money. The mere threat of a summons before the court of requests would very often be enough to insure payment.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
was not personally acquainted with the working of these courts; but he understood they were to protect individual officers and soldiers where there were not courts for small causes. The law had been in existence for some considerable time, and as it had worked very well he thought they had better not interfere with it.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
highly approved of the courts, and it was because they were such excellent things that he wished to extend their influence.

§ MR. HERSCHELL
pointed out that there might be some difficulty, in a court consisting of officers, in one officer suing another. There might be a question about the impartial nature of the inquiry. That, he imagined, was the reason for the exclusion of actions between officers and soldiers.

MR. SULLIVAN
thought the possibility was the other way. If a court composed of officers was competent to deal with claims between civilians and military men, surely, it could deal with questions in which both parties were military men. Why should the Courts in Westminster be held competent to try questions between civilians, if the same thing did not hold good for military men also? It was not, however, a question of importance; but was simply a matter of convenience.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
thought the reason suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) was the true one. To strike out these words would also be to act in opposition to the spirit of the former clause, that courts martial should not consist of officers of the same regiment.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
pointed out that there was not the slightest necessity that these officers should be of the same regiment. Nothing was easier than to get them from another regiment, and to make the persons in the suit pay the travelling expenses.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
said, that, although he had had very great ex- 1628 perience of military men in India, he had, curiously, never had his attention drawn to this law at all. The existing law worked very well, and it would surely be dangerous to change it in a hurried way. Clearly, it was a longstanding policy, not to allow officers who had incurred debts to recover them in this way, and as it might be contrary to good feeling he thought it better to keep the law as it was.

§ MR. BIGGAR
pointed out that the alteration was suggested for the convenience of officers, and to give them a speedy remedy; otherwise, they might have to go to the Law Courts, and be put to an expense for lawyers and so on.

§ MR. PARNELL
asked, whether the time had not now come to ask the Government fairly to report Progress? It was a Saturday Sitting, and, of course, if the Government chose, they could go on he, (Mr. Parnell) supposed, all Sunday; but, looking at the progress made, and the very important questions settled, and the number of hours the Committee had been sitting, and that that was the usual time for suspending the Sitting by the Standing Orders on other days, he would ask, whether the Government would now object to report Progress? He begged to move that.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, undoubtedly they had been sitting for some time, and they were making progress. As, however, the Committee were now fairly engaged upon the Bill, it would really be a saving of time if they were allowed to continue the Sitting, and to work through the clauses now before them.

§ MR. PARNELL
added, that perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say how much of the Bill he wished to get through?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
replied, that, of course, he did not wish to keep them sitting to an unreasonable hour—not after 11 or 12. If they were allowed to go on and make real substantial progress with the Bill they might rise earlier.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to keep them there till 11 on Saturday. 1629 He would respectfully suggest to the Committee to re-consider whether that was reasonable; and next, whether it was practicable? He thought, considering the progress made, they might now be allowed to go home.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
hoped the Motion to report Progress would not be persisted in. If it were an early period of the Session, the suggestion would be perfectly legitimate; but they must consider the general condition of Public Business. They had been engaged for the greater part of the Session upon the Bill. It had received very thorough discussion from some hon. Members; and though some hon. Gentlemen might fairly object, and assert that these discussions had been drawn out to a considerable extent, still, no doubt, great and material improvements in the law had resulted, more especially in regard to flogging. But the condition in Parliament of Public Business had now become almost intolerable, and he was sure hon. Members did not wish to make the House the laughing-stock of the public. He was not disposed to join in the cry that there was other important Business besides this Bill before the House. There was one measure which he was very anxious to see carried, the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill. [" Question, Question! "] There were other measures which he should be very sorry to see dropped, such as the Valuation Bill, a measure which was of great importance to those of them who lived in the country.

§ MR. SHAW
thought they had some reason to congratulate the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) upon the specimen which he had just given them of obstruction. He did not see what a lecture on Public General Business had to do with reporting Progress. Of course, some people were born orators, and others were made orators by experience. On this question he had every wish to help the Government; but he also had some consideration for hon. Gentlemen who had been sitting there all day, and were now asked to sit till 12. He suggested that they should adjourn till 9; and after they had eaten their dinners he would be quite willing to sit till 12, or they might do some more Business, and adjourn at 8 o'clock.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
suggested that they should go on with the Bill up to Clause 144, the last of the Indian clauses, after which there were some important Amendments which must give rise to considerable discussion. As they had worked very hard, he thought they might be allowed to go after that. Personally speaking, he was quite prepared to sit there till Monday morning, if necessary; but he hoped the Government would not make any attempt to push the measure in that way.

§ MR. ASSHETON
thought they ought to do a fair day's work. When the House met on Saturdays it usually sat at 12 o'clock; but on this occasion, owing to circumstances to which he need not allude, it did not meet till half-past 1. He, therefore, thought it might fairly go on for some considerable time further.

§ SIR ARTHUR HAYTER
observed, that they were now on Part IV. of the Bill, and that there were no important Amendments which were likely to occupy any considerable time until they came to Clause 166, which was the first clause in Part V. He thought they might fairly go on until they reached the end of Part IV.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would willingly agree to that, if the Committee would proceed with its work at once.

§ MR. BIGGAR
asked how many clauses were contained in Part IV?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, the proposal was to go on up to Clause 165.

§ MR. BIGGAR
did not think the proposition was at all reasonable. They had already been there six hours, and he thought hon. Members were entitled to some rest. He did not think the Government had any right to complain of the progress which had been made with the Bill, considering all the time that had been wasted by the Government themselves. [" No, no! "] Why, what had been done last week? Long discussions, it is true, had taken place on some Amendments; but, on the other hand, a long discussion had taken place as to the production of the cats. What had been the result of that discussion? The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty came down yesterday and agreed to what had been fought for, apologizing for what had 1631 taken place before, so far as the right hon. Gentleman himself was concerned. The Valuation Bill was of no importance until they had a satisfactory tribunal in the counties to carry it out; while the Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Bill was a very short matter. He thought they might go to the end of Clause 144, which would, he believed, satisfy the hon. Member for Meath.

§ MR. PULESTON
hoped the Government would not give way. He could inform the Committee that a number of hon. Members on one side had arranged to remain in their seats to assist the Government in getting the Bill through the Committee. He hoped the Committee would, therefore, sit and do its work.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
, while disapproving of any such arrangement being made, pointed out that this was scarcely a proper point at which to report Progress. It would be better to go on until they came to a suitable point to raise it.

MR. SULLIVAN
also thought they should go on until they came to some substantial Amendment. He should object to any proposition to go to this particular clause, or to sit till that hour; but there was a good deal in the Bill which they might get through, and he was willing to make progress till a reasonable hour. It was their duty to pass any Amendments to which they could not make fair exception.

§ Mr. PARNELL
was quite content to go on until they reached some Amendment which required discussion; but he considered the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne) was one which required attention and consideration; although, as the matter related to India, it was one on which many hon. Members were ignorant. There were, however, certain matters in Clause 145 in which ho (Mr. Parnell) took considerable interest, and if the right hon. Gentleman would go as far as that clause he would then be willing to report Progress. They had already sat up to the time at which, ordinarily, the House would adjourn. [Sir WILLIAM EDMONSTONE: Oh, oh!] The hon. and gallant Admiral said " Oh, oh! " but he (Mr. Parnell) was sure that he would be willing to respect the wisdom of his ancestors, who had 1632 made these Standing Orders. He did not wish to inconvenience the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he must point out that they had already been there a very long time, and were becoming exhausted. If the right hon. Gentleman would give them an interval of two hours, or even an hour, so that they might go to dinner, it would show some consideration; but he (Mr. Parnell) objected to this Bill being forced upon them in the way it was, by a sort of vi et armis process, or to ask them to submit their Amendments when they were faint with hunger.

§ MR. E. JENKINS
suggested to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that they should go on until they reached some substantial Amendment. One or two important Amendments, he understood, were likely to be accepted by the Government.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
also hoped they might be allowed to go on.

§ MR. PARNELL
understood that it was not possible for them to adjourn for an hour, and then resume the Sitting. [An hon. MEMBER: No, we cannot, and if we could we should not.] He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be stubborn, as the Government had not been treated badly that day. Many most important Amendments had been withdrawn, and considerable progress had been made. He, therefore, had no other course but to press his Motion to a Division.

§ MR. R. POWER
hoped that the Government would not keep them there all night. The Committee ought to remember that the greatest obstruction to this Bill had come from the Treasury Bench. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might sneer and laugh; but the Government had wasted the best part of one night in discussing the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and then had taken no action in the matter. They had wasted the best portion of another night by refusing to produce the cats; the very 1633 next day had had to give way to the general feeling of the Committee. If they went on till 9 o'clock, they would do all in their power to facilitate progress.

§ COLONEL STANLEY
said, if hon. Gentlemen would address themselves to the Question before the Committee, they would get home long before 9. He intended to leave out Clause 145, and he had no objection to the Amendment on Clause 146. The remainder of the clauses in Part IV. were merely procedure clauses; and he did not think it was unreasonable, there being so few Amendments down, that they should proceed to the end of that Part.

MR. SULLIVAN
remarked, that this debate was beginning to take a turn that he did not like. An intimation had been plainly made across the floor of the House that an organization was in existence to provide the Government with a sufficient amount of physical force to snatch the Bill through. It was clear that there was this organization in existence. [" Oh, oh! " and No, no! "] Yes, that intimation had been made plainly and frankly by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Puleston), and he (Mr. Sullivan) honoured the hon. Gentleman for his candour in making the statement. If the Government were going to try and sweep the Bill through in this way, he would advise them to consider the matter before they began to get warm and lose their tempers. They had better really do at the beginning what, if this scene were continued, they would find at 11 o'clock had not been done. He would appeal to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to let them go on until they came to some substantial Amendment likely to require much discussion. When he fought, if he was forced to fight, he liked to fight with his back against a rock; and he did not wish to fight until he was forced. The Government ought not to meet them in this spirit of sitting till 11 or 12 o'clock, in conjunction with the intimation that an organization had been prepared to force the Bill through. That could only result in failure. If they might go on till they came to an important Amendment, he was quite ready to sit till 12 o'clock on Sunday night to resist any unfair attempt on the part of the Government to carry out the design which had just been so unfortunately avowed.

§ MR. ONSLOW
had not been asked to lend himself to any system of organization, and his hon. Friend (Mr. Puleston) merely said that his object was to assist the Government in passing the Bill. If hon. Members would allow the Government to take a certain number of clauses that afternoon, in all probability there would be no need for another Saturday's Sitting.

§ MR. SHAW
heard the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) say quite distinctly that he was prepared to sit all night. That was not the way to facilitate Business. He (Mr. Shaw) was quite prepared to help the Government, and if they would name an hour which was not unreasonable he would be quite willing to assent. For instance, ho would not object to 9 o'clock, or even to 10, in order to get the Business done; but already they had spent an hour in these discussions, in which it would have been much easier to have gone on with the work.

§ MR. HERSCHELL
said, he came down to the House that day, because, as he served on the Committee on the Mutiny Act, he felt bound to give such assistance as he could. He was not in the least disposed to sit there. He had been working hard all the week, he had not been in bed any night before three o'clock, and he was not disposed to work any harder than was necessary. Still, he did feel that unless they made more progress than 10 clauses a-Sitting their self-sacrifice would be thrown away, and the Bill would be thrown over. He thought the suggestion that they should go on until a substantial Amendment was reached was a fair one.

§ MR. MONK
hoped the Government would not agree to the suggestion that they should go on to a certain hour, because they all knew the way in which work could be stopped from their experience in the past. They ought to go on until some fair and reasonable progress had been made, and he was himself perfectly ready to sit until 12 o'clock.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he was not unwilling to accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell)—to go on with the Bill until they came to a substantial Amendment; but the Amendment proposed to the present clause by the hon. Member for Leith was one of very much import- 1635 ance, and he did not think that either the hon. and learned Member for Durham or himself was a good judge of it, because it was an Indian question. But even if they went on until they came to a substantial Amendment, how did he know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would fulfil his promise? The difficulty was, the Government never considered any Amendment which came from that side of the House as important. There was evidently an attempt being made that night to carry the Bill through by physical force. [" No, no! "] It was all very well for hon. Members to say " No, no!" but that had been admitted by an hon. Member opposite. He (Mr. Parnell) remembered very well what came of the 26 hours' Sitting on the African Bill, and he saw that precisely the same arrangements were being made now as on that occasion. He was not going to wear himself out as uselessly as he did then, but intended to keep up his strength. He should not speak again; but he should use every Form which the House allowed in order to prevent the Bill being hurried through Committee without being properly discussed. He could assure the Government that it would take them much longer than 26 hours to press the Bill through Committee by physical force. During the 26 hours' Sitting, he and several other Irish Members were, unfortunately, subjected to great provocation and the most scandalous charges; and, of course, it was not in human nature to stand some of the things which wore said to them at that Sitting.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he must point out to the hon. Member that what he was now stating had no reference to the subject before the Committee.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought there was every reason for his course, which he intended to end in a Motion to report Progress. He submitted that they would never reach an Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered important, because he considered none of them important. He (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends had been left repeatedly in minorities of 15, 25, and 35—none of them having exceeded 40—yet now it turned out that they had been right all along, and that the Government had been wrong. For instance, the whole of the evening of Thursday was spent by one or two of the Irish Members, until 1636 the conscience of the Committee was aroused; and when it was aroused, after a time the Chancellor of the Exchequer attempted to turn the whole question into a personal matter; yet the effect of that discussion was that the Government had now made fresh announcements, and had actually gone so far as to give great hopes that the flogging clauses would be entirely withdrawn. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to act up to his word as an English Gentleman, and to keep the pledge which he gave to the House. [" Oh, oh! "] Well, did hon. Gentlemen mean to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not an English Gentleman? On the 19th June the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that no objection would be made to any fair discussion on the principle of each clause as it was reached; but was it fair that they should be asked to go on discussing clauses when they were exhausted in this way, and when they had been in the House since half-past 1, and when they had been in the House also up to half-past 3 during the week? This was simply a monstrous proposition. Now, the Government were asking the Committee to do that which was directly contrary to the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When the Bill was introduced, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War anticipated it would take three days' discussion; to that he (Mr. Parnell) replied that it was impossible to discuss such a Bill in the time, and to that the Government at last agreed, and so on throughout the history of the Bill. He wished to argue the Bill fairly and fully; but if, instead of argument, the Government were determined to resort to force, why they would use what little force they had in return. Of course, they would be beaten in the end; but they would fight very hard. There was not a single thing he had done through the whole history, since he first commenced his opposition to this law four years ago, in a minority of three or four, that he regretted, or that had been proved to be wrong, although the majority had thought so at the time. Therefore, he could not regard the opinions of educated and intelligent Gentlemen on this subject so highly as he might on others.

THE CHAIRMAN
reminded the hon. Member that it was only by the indul- 1637 gence of the Committee he had been permitted to continue his remarks. He must point out that these observations were not in Order. Had the hon. Gentleman concluded with the Motion?

§ Mr. PARNELL
said, he was under the impression there was a Motion before the Committee; but if there were not he would move it.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
observed, that if the energy and ingenuity which had been spent by hon. Members in discussing whether they should go on had been exercised in proceeding with the clauses, they would probably have pretty nearly by that time have got through their work. In reference to the suggestion that there was an attempt on the part of the Government to force the Bill through the House, he wished to say that the proposition to go on to the end of Part IV. was made by an hon. Member on the other side, which seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) a very reasonable one, considering the Amendments on the Paper, and considering that it was made by a Gentleman who thoroughly understood the Bill. He believed that an hour or so would fully suffice to complete that part of the Bill. He also entirely repudiated the charge of organized obstruction. Certainly, a certain number of hon. Gentlemen had arranged to sit during the dinner hour; but that was all that had been done. It was entirely with the Committee to decide whether they would or would not make progress; and he would call attention to the remarkable fact that in the last Division 76 Members were in favour of going on, against 5 for not doing so, which proved that force was not being used in order to continue the work of the Committee.

§ Mr. BIGGAR
moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair. They had already been seven hours at work, and material progress had already been made; yet they were asked to pass some 30 clauses more, without any reference to Amendments which might be proposed on them. That was a thoroughly untenable contention; besides which it was impossible to debate the merits of particular Amendments when a Committee had been sitting for seven hours and was tired out. Recently, on an Amendment, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War made an answer which had no reference to the Amendment, which showed that he was, even then, physically unfit, to some extent, for the proper consideration of these Amendments. Their object was not merely to pass a Bill, but to make an Act as nearly perfect as possible. As far as he was personally concerned, he did not wait to hear the debate on agricultural depression the previous night, with which he might have been more or less—probably less—edified. He thought the primary reason of agricultural depression was the enormous rents charged by landlords.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that the hon. Member was not in Order in referring to the debate of the previous night upon another question.

§ MR. BIGGAR
replied, that he was only pointing out what he would have said if he had spoken.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
asked whether the hon. Member was not avoiding the decision of the Chair?

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, on that branch of the subject he had really said all he wanted to say. Instead of waiting for that debate he went home to his lodgings; and, therefore, he was now in such a frame of mind that he was prepared to sit down as long as the Government might think it convenient. He had no private engagements that evening, and he would sit there until any time, rather 1639 than allow the Government to pass the Bill unargued and unexamined. He had no Amendments down himself; but there were many down in the name of hon. Members not present.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that some progress had been made with the Bill tonight, and there he was of opinion that the further consideration of the measure might well be now adjourned until Monday. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, proposed to continue sitting some few hours longer; and, for his own part, he (Mr. Biggar) was quite willing to go on. He, and those who acted with him, formed a very small Party, and by continuing to sit for some hours longer only about half-a-dozen of them would be inconvenienced; whereas, on the Government side of the House, some 60 hon. Members were subjected to the inconvenience of a prolonged Saturday Sitting. The balance of inconvenience, therefore, rested with the other side of the House. He did not know whether that argument would or would not influence hon. Members opposite; but there was also the inconvenience to the Chairman and to the officials of the establishment. He had not heard the Government offer any argument in support of the principle of tired-out Members of Parliament attempting to legislate. It certainly was not for the interest of the country that hon. Members should undertake to do that which was virtually impossible—namely, to pass a good measure when they were worn out. It was far better to have a good Bill, after due consideration had been given to it, than a bad one, hastily passed on a Saturday afternoon. For these reasons, he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be as well that Progress should be reported, and that the Committee ask leave to sit again, to take the further 1640 clauses of the measure into consideration on Monday. It was altogether impossible to give a Bill of this importance the fair and full consideration which it deserved after such a prolonged Sitting, when they were all tired out. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to wish that they should take the clauses which he asked them to pass without examination.

§ MR. GRAY
said, that in discussing the clauses of the Bill he had been most anxious not to unduly take up the time of the Committee; but he now felt called upon to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power). For his own part, he should give his best attention to any Amendments on the Bill which might be brought forward either that evening, or in the course of to-morrow. He had left the House some hours ago, thinking there was no necessity for his presence; but a message had been sent to him to the effect that Divisions were being taken on the adjournment, in consequence of an hon. Member on the left—on the Government side—having stated in his place publicly in the House that relays of Members had been organized to enable the Government to force the Bill through at that Sitting.

§ MR. PULESTON
rose to Order. The hon. Member was misquoting the observation he (Mr. Puleston) had made. He denied that he had stated that the Government had organized relays of Members to enable them to force the Bill through at that Sitting. [" Order, order! "]

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston) was not entitled to rise to Order to correct a matter of fact. The hon. Member could state his case further on.

§ MR. GRAY
said, that it was within his recollection that, two years ago, a similar attempt had been made by the Government to force a measure through that House during a single Sitting by means of physical force. He was at that time one of a small minority who opposed that attempt, and he had resisted it to his utmost. He was prepared to adopt a similar course now, and as often as it might be necessary to do so; because such an attempt on the part of the Government was unconstitutional, and utterly destructive to the liberty of Parliament. That these attempts would be made had been 1641 spoken of and had been written of. They were not matters of gossip. It was complained that there had been undue criticism of the Bill, and that there had been so-called obstruction; but those who had made these complaints could not deny that substantial Amendments on important points had been carried by those who had criticized the measure, and whose criticism was objected to. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now wished to compel them to pass some 20 odd clauses more of the Bill, whether they wished to do so or not, and that on a Saturday, the only night which hon. Members had at their disposal, and perhaps would force them to sit all through Sunday. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was at all justified in adopting such a course; and, for his own part, he should resist to the utmost every such attempt on the part of the Government. He was not one of those who thought that, in all circumstances, a small minority was justified in resisting the will of the majority; but there were occasions—and that, in his opinion, was one of them—when a minority, however small, was amply justified in availing itself of all the Forms of the House to resist, à outrance, all attempts to force a measure through without time being given for its due consideration. This was an occasion of the kind. The Government had refused to listen to the arguments of his hon. Friends. He wished to point out, however, that they were all in a good humour so far; if the discussion degenerated into a wrangle, as it did on Thursday, he doubted if the Government would come out of it with any greater credit than they did that night.

§ MR. PULESTON
said, he rose in consequence of the remarks which had just been made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gray) in reference to the statement which he had made. The hon. Member was in error in assuming that he (Mr. Puleston) had said that the Government had arranged for relays of hon. Members to come down and relieve each other for the purpose of enabling the Committee to sit all through the night. He had never said anything of the kind. He had, as he had already explained privately to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), simply got up in his place, and stated that he, amongst others, had arranged to remain so as to insure 1642 that a House should be kept for the conduct of Business, and that, having made that arrangement at great inconvenience to themselves, he hoped that the Leader of the House and others would enable them to carry out their object—that of making substantial progress with the Bill. That was the arrangement that had been entered into. There was no secret agreement of any sort. It was the desire of hon. Members on that side of the House, as well as on the other, that the Business of the House should be carried on, and he hoped that they would be allowed to attain that end tonight, so that no more of these exceptional Sittings would be required.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that he hoped that they were not going to have a repetition that night of the discreditable proceedings of 1877. He had been away from the Committee for the last three or four hours, and he sincerely regretted that he had left, because he should have wished to have argued the point as to the propriety of reporting Progress at a reasonable hour. That being Saturday night, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would assent to the proposal for adjourning; for he, like the majority of people, was in the habit of making different arrangements on the Saturday from those of Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, when he expected to be in the House until late. It was ridiculous for the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Puleston) to talk about relays of Members being brought there by the Government to enable the Committee to sit up all night.

§ MR. PULESTON
said, he had already positively denied that he had made any such statement.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he was glad to hear the hon. Member say so. He hoped that the Government would not resort to any such practice. Two of the clauses which the right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to pass in this hasty manner had been postponed, and he had several very important Amendments to propose on them; and he hoped that the Government were not going to try and force them through in a thin Committee. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to have some little mercy on hon. Members and on himself, on a Saturday night, and not to require them to sit to an unreasonable hour.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
said, he was bound in fairness to the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken (Major Nolan) to say that the remarks made by the hon. Member for Devon-port (Mr. Puleston) did appear to hon. Members on that side of the House unfortunate, because they certainly were liable to be misunderstood. He did not himself understand the hon. Member for Devonport to say anything about relays of Members being brought down to the House.

§ MR. PULESTON
said, that he had never used the word " relays."

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
said, he had not understood the hon. Member to use the word; but it was, nevertheless, just possible that some such construction might be placed upon the words he had used. Considering the hypercritical mode in which hon. Members opposite had treated the Amendments which had been proposed by hon. Members on that side of the House, he thought that they themselves should be somewhat guarded in the expressions they used. At the time the hon. Member made his remarks, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had said to an hon. Friend near him that he expected that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say—" Save me from my friends." The matter, however, had now been made clear by the statement of the hon. Member, and it ought to be accepted that the hon. Member did not intend to imply that the Government were prepared to force the Bill through by means of physical strength. That being so, hon. Members on that side of the House might consent to waive the point, and the painful impression which the language of the hon. Member for Devonport had left upon their minds having been removed he hoped that they might now get on with the Bill.

§ MR. RITCHIE
, said, that he desired to point out to the Committee that this Bill was a very urgent matter, inasmuch as he understood that the present Act expired about the 25th or 26th of this month, and that, therefore, it was absolutely necessary that either this or another Bill should become law before that time. The occasion, therefore, being urgent, hon. Members should agree to get on with the Bill until a reasonable hour for adjourning had arrived. He was satisfied that if substantial pro- 1644 gress were made with the Bill the Government would have no desire to keep hon. Members in attendance beyond a reasonable hour. He, therefore, asked hon. Members opposite to assist the Committee in getting on with the Bill, so that they might dispose of at least some clauses, instead of wasting their time making Motions for the adjournment of the Committee. He might remind hon. Members opposite that they might just as well be discussing the provisions of the Bill as to spend time in wrangling over the hour for adjourning. If the Government desired to go on until a reasonable hour for adjourning had arrived, he was sure that the hon. Members around him would support them. In the circumstances of the case, the Government might have expected to have received some support from those who usually occupied the Front Bench on the Opposition side of the House; but he regretted to see that its sole occupant was the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins).

MR. SULLIVAN
said, that he understood that the Government were willing to adjourn at a reasonable hour; but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to fix any particular hour for adjourning, through fear that hon. Members who sat opposite to them might avail themselves of the opportunity of talking out the Bill. He was anxious to offer a suggestion to the Government which would prevent that course being adopted, and that was, that when a certain number of clauses had been passed the Committee should report Progress. He was in favour of making a sensible progress with the measure; and, therefore, he would repeat what lie had said an hour or two ago to hon. Members who had moved to report Progress. He promised the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that if he would allow the discussion on the clauses to go on until a reasonable hour for adjourning had been reached, if there was any attempt on the part of the Government to force the Bill on beyond that time, he would vote with him to the last. Clause 141 was now under consideration, and if that clause and Clauses 142, 143, 144, 145, and 146 were disposed of, he should consider that reasonable progress had been made with the Bill on a Saturday Evening Sitting. He made the proposition in the hope 1645 that both the Government and his hon. Friends would consider it a reasonable settlement of the dispute between them.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not appear disposed to come to any compromise on the question; and, therefore, he felt bound to state for the information of those hon. Members who had entered the House since the discussion had arisen how matters stood. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who had sat in his place without intermission since the Chairman had taken the Chair, had moved to report Progress about a quarter past 7 o'clock. The hon. Member had very reasonably pointed out then that ho was physically tired, and that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill was also very much exhausted by his labours, and that, therefore, it was only reasonable that Progress should be reported. But what was the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the proposal? He said that he would agree to report Progress when 24 clauses had been passed; and ho more than insinuated that if those clauses were not agreed to he would withdraw that offer. In his (Mr. Biggar's) opinion, that offer could scarcely be regarded as being a very liberal one. With reference to the observation of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), that this was a very urgent Bill, it appeared to him that it was far more important that a measure of this kind, which was permanently to supersede the existing law, should be a good and well-considered one, than that Parliament should be able to get through a large number of crude measures during the present Session. The practice of passing Bills hurriedly through the House led to an enormous waste of time, because some half-a-dozen Bills had afterwards to be brought in to amend and re-amend and to consolidate the first ill-considered measure; and thus the same thing had to be done over and over again, because it was deemed necessary to press Bills through that House as rapidly as possible. He submitted that any Bill that came before that House should be strictly and carefully examined from one end to the other, and then it would not require to be amended subsequently, and would not give rise to the unfortunate differences 1646 of opinion which lawyers and Judges so frequently entertained with regard to the meaning of Acts of Parliament. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) had adverted to the controversy which had arisen in that House with regard to the South African Bill. That measure had been pushed through that House by means of physical force, practically unexamined in its details, and the result was—the annexation of the Transvaal and the present Zulu War.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that he must remind the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that the Question before the Committee was that Progress should be reported, and that, therefore, he would be out of Order in adverting to the state of affairs at the Cape.

§ Mr. BIGGAR
said, that he must respectfully submit to the Chairman that the subject to which he was adverting was one which had considerable bearing upon the Question before the Committee. It was perfectly indifferent to him to what time the Committee sat that night; but what he contended was, that the very fact that the Chairman had stopped him showed that he had been as long in the Chair as any Chairman should be asked to sit.

THE CHAIRMAN
rose to interrupt the hon. Member.

§ MR. RITCHIE
Order, order!

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
said, he also rose to Order. Was the hon. Member in Order in making such a reflection as that upon the conduct of the Chairman?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the language of the hon. Member, as he understood it, was unseemly, and did not appear to him to be such as the Committee ought to hear addressed to the Chairman, upon whose conduct and ability to be in the Chair it seemed to reflect. What he understood the hon. Member to have said was that, from his manner of conducting the Business of the Committee, it appeared that the Chairman had been long enough in the Chair. Language like that ought not to be addressed to the Chair; and, therefore, the expression ought to be withdrawn.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that, of course, he was willing to withdraw any language that he had used which could be construed into a reflection upon the conduct of the Chairman.

§ SIR ALEXANDER GORDON
rose to Order, and said, that the hon. Member should be called upon to withdraw the words he had used reflecting upon the Chair.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that the hon. Member had withdrawn the expression. He must protest against these attempts, on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), to exercise terrorism over hon. Members. The hon. Member, he must repeat, had withdrawn the words. [An hon. MEMBER: He has not.]

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
rose to Order. Was the hon. Member for Meath justified in using the word "terrorize," as applied to the action of Members of the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the word " terrorize " was not a proper one for the hon. Member for Meath to use towards any Member of the Committee, and, therefore, he should withdraw it.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, certainly he would withdraw the word; only the word he had used was " terrorism, ' and not " terrorize. He wished, however, to point out to the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon) that the hon. Member for Cavan County (Mr. Biggar) had distinctly withdrawn—[An hon. MEMBER: Disclaimed.] [" No, no!"] —the expression which had been objected to as being supposed to reflect upon the conduct of the hon. Gentleman in the Chair. [Mr. ASSIIETON CROSS: No!] He begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; but the hon. Member for Cavan County had distinctly withdrawn the expression.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, he must point out to the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) that he was not speaking to a question of Order, but to one of fact. The hon. Member for Cavan County (Mr. Biggar) had better speak to the question of fact, being best able to do so. He (the Chairman) had certainly not understood the hon. Member for Cavan County to withdraw the expression. He, therefore, thought it would be proper for him to state that he did so now.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, it appeared to him that the Committee were proving rather clearly that the time had arrived 1648 when Progress should be reported. Several Members of the Committee—["Order, order! "]

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the hon. Member for Cavan County had used an expression to which exception had been taken by other hon. Members, on the ground that it reflected upon the Chair, and that the hon. Member had risen, he (the Chairman) understood, with the view to withdraw that expression. He thought, therefore, that the hon. Member, before he offered any further remarks, would see that it was only respectful to the Committee that he should withdraw the expression.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that he freely withdrew any expression which could be supposed to reflect on the conduct of the Chair, although he really did not exactly recollect the words he was supposed to have used. The discussion, however, that had just taken place proved to him that certain bon. Members of the Committee were, from some cause or another, not in a fit state of mind to closely examine the details of this Bill. What he wished to point out to the Committee, with the leave of the hon. Gentleman in the Chair, was this—that the proceedings which had resulted from the South African Bill afforded an illustration of the dangers which often followed upon hasty legislation. They were now asked to pass 24 clauses of an important Bill, after the Committee had been sitting for nearly seven hours. He, therefore, felt bound to warn the Committee against hasty legislation, and he wished to illustrate his argument by showing what had been the result of the South African Bill. He did not wish to refer to the policy or impolicy of the Zulu War, much as he objected to it, because that must be argued on some future occasion by those who were more qualified than he was to speak upon it; but he wished to point out, with reference to the South Africa Bill, that a great many clauses—

§ MR. RITCHIE
rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member for Cavan County was in Order in referring to affairs in South Africa after the ruling from the Chair?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the point of Order to which he had thought it his duty to call the hon. Member for the County of Cavan's attention was that he was not entitled upon this question to deal with South African politics. He had 1649 informed the hon. Member that he would be out of Order in adverting to that subject on the Motion for reporting Progress. He could not, however, say that the hon. Member was out of Order in referring to what had occurred during the passing of the South African Bill as a precedent.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, that his intention, in referring to the South African Bill, was merely to exemplify the evils of hasty and ill-considered legislation, and that he had no desire whatever to refer to South African politics on that occasion. There were other hon. Members who wore far more competent to deal with South African politics than he was, and, therefore, he would not offer any remarks upon that subject; but, at the same time, he might go so far as to say that events which had recently occurred in South Africa had resulted mainly from the policy put forward in that Bill and confirmed by it. Had the arguments put forward at the time of the passing of that Bill by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) been attended to and acted upon by the Government of the day, probably matters at the Cape would have been in a very different position from that in which they now stood. And yet Her Majesty's Government was now proposing to pursue precisely the same course with regard to the measure before the Committee as was adopted in reference to the South African Bill—namely, to force it through Committee as rapidly as possible. Thus, while only four or five clauses of the Bill had been got through in six or seven hours, while hon. Members were fresh to the work, the Government now asked them to pass some 24 clauses at the end of a prolonged Sitting. He did not know what was in those clauses, for he had not read them; but he was satisfied from the Amendments on them, which had been placed on the Paper, that there was a good deal of work to be done before they could be got through. It was then past 9 o'clock, and probably, if the clauses down to Clause 146 were passed, the Government would consider that 10 o'clock was a sufficiently late hour for the Committee to sit. But the proposition that they should take 20 additional clauses was a most unreasonable one; and he should not advise the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), whose opinion on this 1650 subject he valued so highly, to yield to what the Government proposed.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that he had only one remark to make in reply to what had fallen from hon. Members opposite, and that was that this was not a question of hasty legislation at all, nor one upon which the opinion of the Committee had been invited by a Notice upon the Paper, but of proceeding with the consideration of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some two and a-half hours ago, adopting a suggestion which had come from the other side of the House, had said that ho did not propose that the Committee should sit to an unreasonable hour, and that, under any circumstances, they should not go beyond the end of Part IV. What was the position of affairs at that moment? They were then on Clause 141, and, with reference to that clause, one Amendment only had been placed upon the Paper, which had been substantially accepted by the Government. This was not a question of passing 20 or 30 clauses, but whether the Committee should go on with the Bill, or should be compelled to listen to the same thing over and over again. He thought that the country would understand that four or five hon. Members said that, entirely contrary to the constantly expressed wish of an enormous majority of that Committee, they were determined that the Bill should not be proceeded further with that evening.

§ MR. HERSCHELL
said, that he was sorry that the lion. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) should have thought it necessary to make the reflection he had done upon the state of the Opposition Benches.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said, that in making that reflection he had only been referring to the Front Bench.

§ MR. HERSCHELL
said, that it scarcely came well from an hon. Member, whom he (Mr. Herschell) saw for the first time that evening, to make any such reflection upon the empty state of the front Opposition Bench. He himself had been there at considerable personal inconvenience, doing his best to assist in the passing of this measure, which, upon the whole, he believed to be a desirable one, in the interest of the public. As regarded sitting to an unreasonable hour, he had frequently formed one of a very small minority in favour of report- 1651 ing Progress, when he felt that there was an undue attempt to force a measure on. It could not, therefore, be said that lie was one of those who was afraid of being in a minority, or who desired always to act with the majority in unduly pressing forward a measure of this kind. He fully agreed that there were many cases in which, where a question of principle was involved, a minority was justified in using all the Forms of the House to enforce their views. There was only one occasion on which he had joined in sitting up to a very late hour, and then, certainly, he did sit up all night, and that was when he was assisting the majority of the Irish Members to pass a Bill which, it was said, had the approval of the Irish people generally. He, therefore, felt that, in these circumstances, he had a right to make an appeal to the Irish Members then present. There was, undoubtedly, a general desire to go on with the Bill to a reasonable hour, and when that hour arrived he would join them in moving that Progress should be reported. He had no doubt that the present discussion had originated in the fear that some sort of organized pressure was about to be brought to bear by the Government.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that that was certainly the case.

§ MR. HERSCHELL
said, that, if when two or three hon. Members thought that the time had arrived when it was not desirable to proceed further, they adopted a course calculated to prevent the further progress of a Bill, the result would be that it would always be in the power of a very few Members to set at naught the wishes of the majority, which would be most inconvenient, and would greatly interfere with the transaction of the Business of that House. If that position of things was reversed, hon. Members below the Gangway would think that they were being hardly dealt with. He proposed that they should go on with the Bill, say, for an hour from that time, when he would join in the desire that Progress should be reported.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) had put many matters before the Committee with his usual ability; but he had forgotten one very important one—namely, that this was Saturday, when working men were accustomed to have a holiday. He had himself worked 1652 hard during the week, and he was anxious to obtain some little relaxation from his labours. There was, however, another point to which he desired to draw attention. There were 13 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, which was crammed to overflowing, so much so, that the Secretary to the Treasury was obliged to sit elsewhere, the Under Secretary of State for India was obliged to stand behind the Chair, and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, finding no place for him in the House, thought it better to remain outside. Looking to that side of the House, what did they see? Why, there was not a single one of its usual occupants on the front Opposition Bench, the only hon. Members on it being the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) and another hon. Member. Was that a fair state of things? Did not the state of the front Opposition Bench indicate that the Sitting was an exceptional one? Why had the Government fixed upon Saturday for taking the Bill? For the last 14 or 15 years there had not been a real Saturday Sitting. During the whole of that Parliament no Saturday's Sitting bad lasted beyond 12 or 1 o'clock, and he believed that Saturday Sittings were unknown during the previous Parliament. How could the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer feel himself justified in pressing any important principle involved by the Bill, when the Leaders of half the country were conspicuous by their absence? He believed that the course adopted by the Government with regard to the South African Bill had inspired the officials in all parts of the Empire with undue confidence, and bad resulted in war. He was afraid that the course which the Government were now taking with regard to this measure would inspire those who were the heads of the administration of the Army with undue confidence, and that the result would be much to be regretted. He had objected very strongly to the Bill when it was first introduced; but he was now beginning actually to have an affection for it, it having been so much improved by the Amendments which had been introduced into it by his hon. Friends below the Gangway. But if the Government intended to force the Bill through, it would be perfectly impossible for himself and his hon. Friends to contend against 1653 them; they were too strong for them. If the usual occupants of the front Opposition Bench were staying away because they did not know that there was to be a prolonged Sitting of the House on the Saturday, it was deplorable; but if they did know it, and remained away in the face of that knowledge, it was still more deplorable. He wished that the Government would make some reasonable proposal as to the number of clauses which they would be content to pass; but as to taking all the clauses down to Clause 165, that was rather too strong a proposal. An hon. Member had suggested that they should stop at Clause 149, because there was an important Amendment to be proposed in Clause 150. He (Major Nolan) thought that something between Clause 146 and 149 would be a satisfactory compromise.

MR. J. COWEN
said, that he entirely sympathized with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell), and he would appeal to hon. Members to cease this needless talk. If any principle were at stake, he could understand the opposition that was offered to the measure; but, really, there was no principle whatever at stake on that occasion. It was only fair to state, after the observations that had fallen from hon. Members on that side of the House, that it appeared to him that, instead of endeavouring to get the Bill through by the use of physical force, the Government appeared to have submitted it to the Committee in perfect good faith. This really was not a measure of the Government, but of the House itself, brought in for the purpose of improving the regulations of the Army. The Bill, indeed, had originated in the remarks of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) with regard to the Mutiny Bill; and, therefore, instead of opposing it, that hon. Member should have struggled to get it passed, in order to put an end to the objectionable parts of the Mutiny Bill which he himself had condemned. In his opinion, a very unnecessary resistance had been offered to the proposal of the Government that they should progress with the Bill up to a point where substantial opposition would arise. Ho would appeal to hon. Members not to continue their minute and tedious criticism of the Bill, and to allow the will of the majority to prevail. If the rights of the minority 1654 were to be continued to be respected, the rights of the majority must receive equal consideration.

§ MR. MONK
said, that since he had had the honour of having a seat in that House he had never heard such sheer and absolute nonsense as that which had been uttered by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan).

§ MR. CALLAN
said, he rose to Order. Had the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) a right to say of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Major Nolan) that he had addressed " sheer and absolute nonsense " to the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) had expressed the opinion he had formed of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) in rather strong and in rather unusual language; but he could not say that the language of the hon. Member exceeded the limits of Parliamentary debate.

§ MR. MONK
said, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had spoken of the conduct of the Government as an endeavour to intimidate that side of the House.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, be rose to Order. He wished to ask when he had used such an expression, which he did not remember having uttered?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) could not rise to Order on a question of fact.

§ MR. MONK
said, that the hon. and gallant Member had pointed to the fact that the Treasury Bench was full, whilst the front Opposition Bench was empty; but that was the natural consequence of some four or five hon. Members announcing that they would avail themselves of all the Forms of the House for preventing the further progress of the measure that night. Many hon. Members on that side of the House were unwilling to allow a few hon. Members to make use of such threats for the purpose of intimidating the House.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that he rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) was entitled to charge hon. Members with attempting to intimidate the House?

THE CHAIRMAN
said, that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would at once see that he was not in Order in making use of the expression.

§ MR. MONK
said, that he at once withdrew the word " intimidating." But when hon. Members said that they intended to use all the Forms of the House with the object of stopping the further progress of the measure that night, it seemed to him something approaching intimidation. If the Forms of the House were to be used in that manner, it would be utterly impossible for legislation to go on. He thought that England, Scotland, and Ireland would want to know why the House of Commons was to be prevented from continuing the legislation of the country. The absence of the Leaders of the Opposition had been referred to; but he begged to state that there were a sufficient number of Liberal Members present, who were prepared to support a Conservative Government in carrying on the Business of that House—[Cheers and counter-cheers]—aye, and they were ready to stay to any hour of the night, or even, if necessary, of the morning, in order to support that Conservative Government when, in their opinion, that Government was doing its duty to the country. He protested altogether against the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) attempting to dictate to the House at what time they should rise, or whether the Committee should go through three, or four, or five clauses of the Bill. For his own part, he should prefer to follow the advice of the authorities who had charge of the Bill.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, that it was always unpleasant to be attacked once by an hon. Member; but it was rather pleasant to be attacked twice. He recollected that when the South African Bill was under discussion—he was not ashamed of that measure, although hon. Members opposite did not appear to be very proud of it—he had been attacked by the hon. Member (Mr. Monk) with all the bitterness of which he was master. When the hon. Member attacked him the second time it must be put down to political differences, and he was glad to say that he differed from the hon. Member on general politics as much as possible. The hon. Member appeared to think that hon. Members below the 1656 Gangway should act in the same way) whether the front Benches were full or empty. When their proceedings had arrived at such a stage that the hon. and gallant Admiral behind the Treasury Bench (Sir William Edmonstone) yawned, it was clear that the time had arrived when they should adjourn. He wished again to remind the Government that, in consequence of previous hasty legislation, the country had been put to the expense of many millions of money, which would have been saved had the arguments of the Opposition been listened to.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had kindly given them his opinion, when, unfortunately, he was not present during the discussion, and, therefore, did not thoroughly know the facts. What had happened? The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked to have a certain number of clauses passed, or that the Committee should sit until a certain hour. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: I did nothing of the sort.] He (Mr. Biggar) would not contradict the right hon. Gentleman; but the Secretary of State for the Home Department certainly said that they must work until a reasonable time, meaning 11, or 12, or 1, on 24 clauses. That was rather a Jewish bargain. His hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), who, it must be remembered, had been in the House the whole of the day since half-past 1, had offered to go up to Clause 146. They were told there were no Amendments on the rest of that Part IV.; but he (Mr. Biggar) knew of some important Amendments to Clause 150 to be proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leitrim (Major O'Beirne). Besides, there might be many important Amendments of which Notice was not on the Paper. He never offered advice, because it was always considered a thing of no value; but he did think it was not in the interests of Public Business that clauses should be passed through Committee without examination.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
wished to correct one of the statements the hon. Member had just made. At 7 o'clock a conversation arose as to whether the Committee should proceed or not; and he himself, then speaking in very general terms, said ho thought the Committee had better go on to a reason- 1657 able hour. He declined to name any hour. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bath (Sir Arthur Hayter) suggested that they should go to the end of Part IV., and that proposition was accepted by the Government, on condition that they went on at once. On that proposition the conversation ensued which had lasted to the present time, very nearly three hours. He never asked the Committee to sit to an unreasonable hour, and Part IV. certainly could have been completed in half-an-hour or so, certainly long before the time which they had now reached. He merely would ask the Committee whether they had not now had sufficient amusement, and whether they would not now go on with the few clauses? It must be remembered that it was not the pleasure of the Government that they should go on in this way. It was no pleasure to them to sit on a Saturday, and they knew that hon. Members sat at great inconvenience. They had much better go on, without saying how long they would sit, or at what particular clause they should stop.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had just come to the House, having found to his surprise that the light in the Clock Tower was still burning. Seeing that, he took it for granted that something important was going on, and holding it his duty to be present he accordingly came to take part in the discussion. He found, however, that the subject in dispute was whether the Committee should sit for one or two hours longer on Saturday or not. He agreed that it was not a convenient thing to sit on a Saturday at all; and they only did so because it was of public importance that they should get on with this Bill. It raised several questions of high interest, and he was glad to say that they were in a more satisfactory position in regard to them than at the beginning of the day. But it seemed to him almost absurd to meet on Saturday and not to try to do Business. Now, as he had said, the real question they were discussing at present was, whether they should sit an hour or two longer or not. There was, he was sorry to hear, an hon. Member absent who had an important Amendment to propose. But he suggested whether that hon. Member's opinions might not be represented by his Friends, so as to allow them to proceed. But what they had really to consider was how they 1658 were going to get through the Business. That was a matter of vital importance. There wore only three or four Amendments on the Paper in Part IV., which he understood were accepted by the Government, and then they got to the Part where it was proposed they should leave off. Hon. Members must remember that they might discuss amongst themselves whether they were right or wrong, and he would not say which was which; but he would point out that the country was forming an opinion about the House which was exceedingly unpleasant. They were beginning to institute comparisons between what went on at Westminster and what went on at Versailles, and he did not like those comparisons. Hon. Gentlemen ought to recollect that the House of Commons was the greatest Representative and Parliamentary Assembly which had ever existed. They had a very high character to maintain, and he not consider they would act quite consistently with that character if they thought that when they met on a particular day it was important to discuss at great length the question whether they should sit half-an-hour or, perhaps, two or three hours longer before the Sitting was suspended.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the suggestion now made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), that they should go on until they came to important Amendments, was one to which he had assented a long time ago. He would make no bargain with Government whatever. He would remind the Committee that when there was a proposition that they should go on until they came to a certain clause which they intended to dispute he had risen to support it. At the time he was not sufficiently fortunate to catch the Chairman's eye, and the temper of the Committee had not reached the point which it afterwards attained. He then suggested that they should go on as far as Clause 146, although there were some debatable points between the point where they then were and that clause. He was willing to do so still. After that he would ask that Progress should be reported, as he hoped to make some important alterations on Clause 147. He would like to say a word in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), whose opinion he always valued. He had rather chided them for the 1659 course they had taken. But he (Mr. Parnell) would remind the Committee that neither the hon. Member for Newcastle nor the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had been present until quite lately, and did not know what had taken place. He might now repeat, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, that they had expressed their willingness to go as far as 147 at a quarter past 7. They had even offered to go on until then, if the Government desired it; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said" No, we shall go on till 11 or 12, or as soon as we come to Clause 165 we shall consider whether we have done enough." Now, that he (Mr. Parnell) did not think right; after they had sat on Saturday for a greater number of hours than they had ever before sat on a Saturday, he did not think it reasonable to ask them to treat that day as an ordinary week-day, and as if they had met at a quarter-past 4, instead of half-past 1. Let them look at the work that had been done. As to all this talk by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, lie (Mr. Parnell) did not know whether " contemptible " was a Parliamentary word, and, therefore, he would not use it; but it certainly was utter nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to talk of a small minority being opposed to a vast majority. Their (the Irish) Party consisted of 60 or 70 Members, of whom they had 10 present; while, with all their vast majority, forsooth, the Government had only between 60 or 70, so that there was just as good a proportion of one Party as of the other, and that being so the right hon. Gentleman need not talk about his " vast majority." What had this small and insignificant minority done? Had it not compelled the vast majority, over and over again, to admit that they were wrong—that was, the small and insignificant minority, by insisting upon what they knew to be right and just, had beaten this great Conservative Party with its following of Members who would go into the Lobby without knowing anything about the question, who would fight as blindly as any Party ever fought in that or any other age? They might talk about the character of the House of Commons as much as they pleased. Was there ever, he would repeat, any Party in any Legislative Assembly which ever voted 1660 so blindly as the present majority of the Government. He (Mr. Parnell) and his small and insignificant minority, had shown to the whole country that that majority, with its opinions, was not worth a farthing, while they had been repeatedly forced to admit that they had been wrong, and that they had been wasting the public time. They had held out against their own convictions; against every dictate of reason, of common sense, and justice; and only when they had been driven back, only when they could hold out no longer against the force of public opinion, had they admitted that they were wrong. That was the worth of their great Conservative majority.

§ MR. CALLAN
thought a great deal of this unseemly altercation might have been avoided. Only one thing had led to more disorder and altercation than even the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that was the conduct of one who, placed in a position of authority in the House, had allowed un-Parliamentary language to be used. When he (Mr. Callan) entered the House, ho heard the words " sheer nonsense."—{Mr. PARNELL: Utter nonsense.] — Yes, " utter nonsense," applied with reference to what had been said by an Irish Member. When the Chairman had been called upon to decide upon it, he had ruled that the hon. Member was not out of Order in using it. The result was, that they had heard the same phrase applied to one of the Leaders of the House. Thus they had seen the Chairman, sitting calmly and judicially in the Chair, and allowing, without the smallest sign of objection on his part, language to be used, which, when he was called upon to decide, in the case of the Leader referred to, he was forced to admit was un-Parliamentary and should have been withdrawn. There was a feeling amongst his Friends that fair play was not administered—[Cries of " No, no! " and interruption.] If you will allow me to conclude my sentence—

SIR UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH
rose to Order. He submitted that if a question was to be raised respecting the conduct of the Chairman it must be heard with Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

THE CHAIRMAN
I must say that the observations of the hon. Member for 1661 Dundalk (Mr. Callan), as far as they apply to myself, are such as I should naturally be reluctant to impugn; but I must point out to the Committee that it will be impossible, either for myself or for any other Member of this House, to discharge the duties imposed upon them by the House, if such a direct attack can be made upon the fairness of his conduct, without being noticed and dealt with by the Committee or by the House.

§ MR. CALLAN
Excuse my interrupting you, Sir. On Thursday night, we had an example of the disadvantage of interrupting a Member in the middle of a sentence. ["Order, order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
I must point out to the hon. Member for Dundalk that my attention has been particularly directed to the observation which he has used, charging me, in direct terms, with not giving fair play. ["No, no!" "Order, order"] I, in reply to the inquiry of the hon. Baronet (Sir Ughtred Kay-Shuttleworth), pointed out to the Committee my opinion with regard to that phrase? I have left it to the Committee to pronounce what course they think proper to take with regard to the expression used.

§ MR. CALLAN
I beg pardon; I was interrupted in a sentence. The language I used, and the words "fair play," were not intended to apply to you, Sir, but to our treatment by the Government. I did not intend to apply to you, and had I done so I would fearlessly avow it, and, if necessary, defend it. The language I used was applied to Her Majesty's Government—that fair play did not seem to be administered by that side of the House to hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side. If you wish to take down the words, so that their accuracy may be unquestioned, I will write them for you.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
I rise to Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman to be rising for the purpose of withdrawing or explaining the words that had been objected to. I did not myself precisely catch what the words were; but I understand them to have been to this effect—that the charge upon the Chair—[" No, no! On the Government."] — Very well, then, instead of interrupting me, if the hon. Gentleman will rise, and say that he did not charge the Chair—[Mr. PARNELL: He has said so.]—or did not intend to 1662 impute to the Chair any unfairness—[Mr. PARNELL: He has said so already.] —I imagine we shall be satisfied; but I understand the general tenour of the hon. Gentleman's observations to be a complaint against the fairness of the Chair.—["No, no!"]—[Mr. PARNELL: Against your fairness, not of the Chair.] If that is distinctly understood, my objection falls to the ground. Any charge against the Government is one thing, as to which we are not surprised; but it is impossible that we should allow the position of our Chairman to remain impugned by any hon. Member without a distinct disclaimer from that Member. As regards ourselves, we are quite content to leave our conduct to the opinion of the Committee.

§ MR. CALLAN
I decline to be lectured by the Chancellor of the Exchequer into any course of procedure that I myself may not think fit to adopt.

§ MR. PARNELL
I rise to Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has spoken on the point of Order, and I think that other hon. Members in this House are also entitled to speak on the point of Order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan). The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not hear him. He admits that he did not hear, and yet he calls upon the hon. Member to disclaim doing that which he has never done. What were the words of the hon. Member for Dundalk, when he was interrupted in the middle of his sentence? His words were these—" that fair play was not administered." When he had got as far as that, he was interrupted at once by the hon. Member—[Loud and continued interruption.]—Now, I shall recommend hon. Members of the Committee to take the advice offered to them the other evening by the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), to have a little patience, and not to interrupt a Member—even although he is a poor Irish Member, who can, perhaps, be easily trampled upon—in the middle of his sentence. This will save a good deal of time and trouble. The hon. Member for Dundalk, in this case, was saying that "fair play was not being administered;" and the conclusion of his sentence would have been" by the Government."

§ MR. RITCHIE
thought the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had quoted words to which exception had not been 1663 taken. What he (Mr. Ritchie) understood the hon. Member for Dundalk to say, with reference to the Chairman's conduct in the Chair, was that he came into the House and heard language used by hon. Members of that House that was altogether un-Parliamentary, without being called to Order.

§ MR. O'DONNELL
rose to Order also. He had, in the first place, to say that he was quite satisfied that the observations of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) were not addressed to the Chairman's conduct in, or management of, the Chair. Had there been any reason to find fault with that conduct, the Constitutional course for bringing that conduct before the proper authority would have been fearlessly adopted. But his hon. Friend had no reason to take exception to the Chairman's conduct, and all the attempts of hon. and right hon. Members to throw them aside from the path of Order would utterly fail. They were quite satisfied with the Chairman's ruling, and the only thing that ever tended to weaken his authority was that his rulings were ingeniously misrepresented by the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the House. He (Mr. O'Donnell) ventured to suggest that there should be no further reference to words that were not taken down immediately on their being uttered—that being the Rule of the House. The only question in dispute was that with regard to the Chairman's ruling, and it arose out of a misconception. There was no objection to that ruling. He suggested, therefore, that the question of Order should be let alone, and that the clauses should be proceeded with. A little Business might be proceeded with. Let there be no further waste of time in recrimination.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he wished the Committee to understand that he was not moving Amendments to these clauses, because he felt that it would be quite useless to do so.