Commons Sitting of 23 June 1880

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Graves-end, v. Thomas Bevan, esquire, void Election.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Contagious Diseases Acts (1866–9), appointed.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order) —Considered as amended —Liverpool Corporation (Loans, &c.) *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading —Middlesex Land Registry [142], debate adjourned; County Bridges*[226].
Second Heading —Referred to Select Committee — Bankruptcy Law Amendment*[192].
Select Committee — Fraudulent Debtors (Scotland)*[185], Colonel Alexander and Mr. Webster added.
Report —Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland)*[166–245].
Committee —Report —Consolidated Fund (No. 1)*.
Considered as amended —Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law)*[121].
Third Reading —General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Broughty Ferry)*[83]; Judicial Factors (Scotland)*[162], and passed.
Withdrawn- —Local Inquiries (Ireland) [132]; Sligo Borough* [186].

PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
MR. BRADLAUGH,one of the Members for Northampton, having come to the Table, claiming to take the Oath required by Law, the Clerk explained to
630
him, that after the recent Resolution of the House, he was not authorised to tender him the Oath; and Mr. Brad-laugh having replied that he had no formal knowledge of the said Resolution, the Clerk reported the matter to the Speaker.
Sir Erskine May, addressing Mr. Speaker said: Mr. Bradlaugh claims the right to take the Oath.
MR. SPEAKER: I have to inform the hon. Member that the House at its last Sitting came to the following Resolution:—
"That, having regard to the Reports and proceedings of two Select Committees appointed by this House, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to take the Oath or make the Affirmation mentioned in the Statute 29 Vic. c. 19, and the 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72."
In pursuance of that Resolution I must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw.
MR. BRADLAUGH: Before withdrawing, Sir, I would ask through you —[Cries of "Order !""Withdraw !"] —before withdrawing, Sir, I would ask through you—[Renewed interruption.'] — before withdrawing, Sir, I would ask through you if this House, faithful to its old traditions, will hear me before putting that Resolution in force? There is no precedent for it.
MR. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Member to desire to be heard upon the matter now under the consideration of the House. That is a question for the judgment of the House, and I must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw in order that the House may consider it.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I withdraw, Sir, while it is considered.
Mr. BRADLAUGHwithdrew.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to move that Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard.
MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Motion?
MR. ASHTON DILKE: I will second the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
MR. SPENCER WALPOLE: There is an ambiguity in the Motion which has just been made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) which I think ought to be cleared up before we come to any decision upon the point. The ambiguity is this. In the

631
Motion made by the hon. Member for Northampton he asks generally that Mr. Bradlaugh should be now heard. I think, Sir, that that Motion ought not to be put in that form. It ought to be put in the form that was adopted in the case of Mr. Daniel O'Connell, "That Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard at the Bar of the House."
Mr. SPEAKER: The Question is that Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard; and it is open to the House to declare its pleasure that he should be heard at the Bar.
Mr. LABOUCHERE: I am quite willing to alter the Motion I have made, and to substitute for it a Motion, "That Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard at the Bar of the House."
Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Northampton ask the leave of the House to withhraw his Motion in order to substitue the words he has mentioned?
MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes.
Question proposed, "That the Motion, by leave of the House, be withdrawn,"agreed to.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to move, "That Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard at the Bar of the House."
Question put.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I think, that before we proceed further, the Government ought to give us some advice.
Question again put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard at the Bar of the House.
Mr. BRADLAUGHwas then called in and came to the Bar of the House.
MR. BRADLAUGH: Mr. Speaker: Sir, I have to ask the indulgence of every Member of this House, while, in a position unexampled in the history of this House, I try to give one or two reasons why the Resolution which you have read to me should not be enforced. If it were not unbecoming I should appeal to the traditions of the House against the House itself, and I should point out that in none of its Records, so far as my poor reading goes, is there any case in which this House has judged one of its Members in his absence, and taken away from that Member the Constitutional right which he undoubtedly
632
has. There have been Members against whom absolute legal disqualification has been urged. No such legal disqualification is ventured to be urged by any Member of this House against myself. But even those Members have been heard in their places; those Members have been listened to before the decision was taken against them; and I ask that the House to myself shall not be less just than it has always been to every one of its Members. Do you tell me I am unfit to sit among you? The more reason, then, that this House should show that generosity which Judges show to a criminal, and allow every word he has to say to be heard. But I stand here, Sir, as no criminal. I stand here as the chosen of a constituency of this country, with my duty to that constituency to do. I stand here, Sir—if it will not be considered impertinent to put it so—with the most profound respect for this House, of which I had hoped and mean to form a part, and on whose traditions I should not wish to cast one shadow of reproach. I stand here returned duly, no Petition against my Return, no impeachment of that Return. I stand here returned duly, ready to fulfil every form that this House requires, ready to fulfil every form that the law permits this House to require, ready to do every duty that the law makes it incumbent on me to do. I will not, Sir, in this presence, argue whether this House has or has not the right to set its decision against the law; because I should imagine that even the rashest of those who speak against me would hardly be prepared to put it into the mouth of one whom they consider too advanced in politics an argument so dangerous as that might become. I speak, Sir, within the limits of the law, asking for no favour from this House for myself or for my constituency, but asking here for the merest justice, which has always been accorded to a Member of this House. I have to ask indulgence lest the memory of some hard words which have been spoken in my absence should seem to give to what I say a tone of defiance, which it is far from my wish should be there at all; and I am the more eased, because, although there were words spoken which I have always been taught that English gentlemen never said in the absence of an antagonist without notice to him in advance, yet there were also generous and brave

633
words said for one who is at present, I am afraid, a source of trouble and discomfort and hindrance to Business; and I measure those generous words against the others, and I will only make one appeal through you, Sir, and that is, that if the reports be correct, that the introduction of other names came with mine in the heat of passion and the warmth of debate, that then the Gentleman who used those words, if such there were, will remember that he was wanting in chivalry, because, while a man can answer for himself—and I am able to answer for myself—nothing can justify the introduction of any other name besides my own to make a prejudice against me. I fear lest the strength of this House — exercised, as I understand it to be, with infrequency of judicial exercise—that the strength of this House makes it forget our relative positions. At present, I am pleading at this Bar for justice. By right it is there, upon the benches of this House, that I should make my appeal. It is that right which I claim now in the name of those who sent me here. There was no legal disqualification before the Election, or it might have been made a ground of Petition. No legal disqualification since my Election is even pretended. It is said-—"You might have taken the Oath, as other Members did." I could not help, when I read that, Sir, trying to put myself in the place of each Member who said it. I imagined a Member of some form of faith who found in the Oath words which seemed to him to clash with his faith, but still words which he thought he might utter, but which he would prefer that he should not utter if there were any other form which the law provided him; and I asked myself whether each of those Members would not then have taken the form most consistent with his honour and his conscience? If I have not misread, some hon. Members seem to think I have neither honour nor conscience. Is there not some proof to the contrary in the fact that I did not go through the form, believing that there was some other right open to me? Is that not some proof that I had some honour and conscience? And I ask those Gentlemen who are now about to measure themselves against the right of the constituencies of England, what justification have they for that
634
measurement? Some say I have thrust my opinions upon this House. I appeal here, Sir, to the evidence of Sir Thomas Erskine May, and I can find no evidence of any opinion of mine having been thrust upon this House. I have read—it may be that the reports misrepresent—that the cry of "Atheist" has been raised on that (the Opposition) side of the House. No word of all mine before the Committee, no word of all mine in any document, puts these theological or anti-theological opinions in evidence before the House. I am no more ashamed of my own opinions— which I did not choose—I am no more ashamed of my opinions, into which I have grown, than any Member of this House is ashamed of his; and, much as I value the right to a seat in this House, much as I believe the justice of this House will accord it me before the struggle ceases, I would rather relinquish it for ever than it should be thought that, upon any shadow of hypocrisy, I had tried to gain a feigned entrance here by pretending to be what I am not. In the Report of the Committee, as it stands upon the evidence before the House, what is the objection either to my Affirmation or to my taking the Oath? It is said, "You have no legal right to affirm." I will suppose that it be so. It is the first time the House of Commons has made itself a Court of Law from which there may be no appeal, and deprived a citizen of his Constitutional right of appeal to a Court of Law to make out what the statute means in dealing with him. There is no case in which the House has overridden everything, and put one of its Members where he has no chance of battling for his right to take the Oath. It is possible that some of the lawyers—hon. and learned Gentlemen who have disagreed among themselves even upon that (the Opposition) side of the House —it is possible that they may be right, and that I may be wrong in the construction I have put upon the Oath. But no such objection can come. There is no precedent—there is, I submit respectfully, no right—on the part of this House to stand between me and that Oath which the law provides for me to take, which the statute, under a penalty compels that I shall take, and which another statute, under penalty even on Members of this House themselves if they put me out

635
from my just Return, gives me a right of appeal. But what kind of conflict is provoked here if this Resolution be enforced? Not a grave conflict like that which takes place in a Court of Law, where the Judges exclude passion, and where they only deal with facts and evidence. I do not mean that these hon. Gentlemen do not deal with facts; but, if I am any judge, there have been many things which I can hardly reckon in the category of facts put against myself. I do not mean that they are not right, for hon. Members may know more of myself than I do myself; but, judging myself as I know myself, some of the hon. Members who have attacked me so glibly during the last few days must have been extremely misinformed, or must have exceedingly misapprehended matters. It has been said that I have paraded and flaunted some obnoxious opinions. I appeal to your justice, Sir, and to that of the Members of this House to say whether my manner has not been as respectful as that of man could be?—whether, in each case, I have not withdrawn when you told me? If I now insist on my right to come to that Table, it is because I feel that I should be a recreant and a coward to the constituency which has entrusted me to represent them; and I mean to be as Members have been in the best history of this Assembly. I ask the House, in dealing with my right, to remember how they are acting. It is perfectly true that by a majority they may decide now. What are you going to do then? Are you going to declare the seat vacant? First, I submit that you have not the right. The moment I am there, upon the floor of the House, I admit the right of the House, of its own will and pleasure, to expel me; but, until the time when I am there, I am as yet not under your jurisdiction. As yet I am under the protection of the law. A Return sends me to this House, and I ask you, Sir, as the guardian of the liberties of this House, to give effect to that Return. The law says you should, and that this House should; and, naturally so, because, if it were not so, a majority of Members might, at any time, exclude anyone they pleased. Now, what has been alleged against me? Polities? Are views on politics to be urged as a reason why a Member should not sit here? Pamphlets have been read — I will not say with
636
accuracy, because I will not libel any of the hon. Members who read them—but, surely, if they are grounds of disqualification, they are grounds of indictment, to be proved against me in a proper fashion. There is no case in all the Records of this House in which you have ransacked what a man has written and said during his past life, and then challenged him with it here. My theology? It would be impertinent in me, after the utterances from men so widely disagreeing with me as have been made on the side of religious liberty during the past two nights—it would be impertinent in me to add one word save this. It is said that you may deal with me because I am isolated. I could not help hearing the ring of that word in the Lobby as I sat outside last night. But is that a reason, that, because I stand alone, that the House are to do against me what they would not do if I had 100,000 men at my back? [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] That is a bad argument—an argument which provokes a reply inconsistent with the dignity of this House, and which I should be sorry to give. I have not yet used—I hope no passion may tempt me into using—any words that would seem to savour of even a desire to enter into a conflict with this House. I have always taught and believed in the supremacy of Parliament, and it is not because for a moment the judgment of one Chamber of Parliament should be hostile to me, that I am going to deny the ideas I have always held; but I submit that one Chamber of Parliament, even its grandest Chamber, as I have always held and believe this to be, has no right to override the law. The law gives me the right to sign that Boll, to take and subscribe that Oath, and to take my seat there upon those benches. I admit that the moment I am in the House, without any reason but your own good will, you can send me away. That is your right; you have full control over your Members. But you cannot send me away until I have been heard in my place— not a suppliant, as I am now, but with the rightful audience that each Member has always had. There is one phase of my appeal which I am loth indeed to make. I presume you will declare the seat vacant. What do you send me back to Northampton to say to them? I have said before, and I trust I may say so again, that this Assembly is one in

637
which any man might be proud to sit— prouder, I, that have not some of your traditions and am not of some of your families, but that I am of the people— the people who sent me here to speak for them. Do you mean that I am to go back to Northampton as a Court, to appeal to against you? Do you mean that I am to tell my constituency to array themselves against this House? I hope not; but if it is to be, it must be. If this House arrays itself against an isolated man—it it be its huge powers against one citizen that you are thinking to use—if it must be that, then the battle must be, too. But it is not with the constituency of Northampton alone—hon. Members need be under no mistake-that you will come into conflict. If this appeal has to go forward—if the House of Commons is to override the statute law to get rid even of the vilest of its Members—had you alleged even more against me than against one man whose name was spoken of in this House last night, or had you endeavoured to allege as much against me, still I hold that this House cannot supersede the rights of the people of this country. But not as much is alleged against me as was alleged against that man, in whose case the House itself said that its conduct had been subversive of the rights of the people. I beg you, for your own sakes, do not put yourselves in that position. I have no desire to wrestle with you for justice. I have always believed that, although in moments of Party passion votes may be given which are sometimes repented of — I have always believed that in an Assembly of English Gentlemen having to deal with one, however obnoxious justice is meted out — and I admit I have used hard words in my short life that give men the right to say hard things of me—but is it not better that I should have the right, if within the law, to say them to your face? and, if without the law, then let the law deal with me fairly and properly, and not unfairly, as I submit you are doing now. You have the power to send me back; but, in appealing to Northampton, I must appeal to a tribunal higher than yours—not to the Courts of Law, for I hope the days of conflict between the Assembly which makes the law and the Tribunals which administer it are passed. It must be a bad day for England and for Great
638
Britain if we are to be brought back again to a time when the Judges and those who make the law for the Judges are to try in rash strife what they mean. But there is a Court to which I shall appeal—the Court of public opinion. You say it is against me. Possibly; but then, if it be so, is it against me rightly or wrongly? I am ready to admit, if you please, for the sake of argument, that every opinion I hold is wrong and deserves punishment. Let the law punish it. If you say the law cannot, then you admit that you have no right, and I appeal to public opinion against the iniquity of a decision which overrides the law and denies me justice. I beg yours, Sir, and the House's pardon, too, if in this warmth there seems to be a lack of respect for its dignity, as I shall have, if your decision be against me, to come to that Table when your decision is given. I beg you, Gentlemen, to pause before a step is taken in which we may both lose our dignity. Mine is not much, but yours is that of the Commons of England. I beg you, before the gauntlet is fatally thrown down—I beg you, not in any sort of menace, not in any sort of boast; but I beg you, as one man against 600, to give me that justice which on the other side of this Hall the Judges would give me were I pleading before them.
Mr. BRADLAUGHthen withdrew.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Northampton has presented himself at the Table to take the Oath, and, by the pleasure of the House, has been heard at the Bar. It is now for the House to declare whether the hon. Member should be called in to know the pleasure of the House. It is for the House to express its opinion upon that matter.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, the Question which you have put to the House is, as I understand it, whether the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who has just been heard at the Bar, should be called in to know the pleasure of the House? I am not aware whether any hon. Member proposes to submit any Resolution to the House; but, if not, I hardly understand upon what point it would be necessary, or, indeed, possible, for the House to express any opinion. As I understand it, the House yesterday, after full debate, came to the conclusion that the hon Member could not be allowed either to take the

639
Oath or to make an Affirmation. Against that conclusion of the House the hon. Member has, in the speech to which we have just listened, advanced certain arguments. But they come after the House has arrived at a conclusion, and I am not aware that anything new has been advanced on the part of the hon. Member which had not been previously known to and considered by the House. Under these circumstances, it does not seem to me—but I speak in ignorance of what others may propose to do—that there is any occasion for us to come to any Resolution upon the matter, nor can I gather that there is any communication which it is necessary for the House to make to the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that the matter is one which is left where it stood last night. We have had an intimation from the hon. Gentleman that he proposes, unless the decision of last night is in some shape or other rescinded, to take another opportunity of coming forward and challenging what he claims to be his right. If he should take that course, I presume that the House and you, Sir, will know what is the proper course to be adopted; but, in the meantime, so far as I can perceive, without directions from yourself, or in default of any Resolution which may be moved by others, it does not appear to me that it is necessary that we should take any further action in the matter.
MR. GLADSTONE: I did not reply, Sir, to the appeal made to me just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) because I was in doubt whether, the Question having been put, I could regularly speak. The fact was, I was in doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman had or had not spoken in due submission to the Forms of the House, or whether he had observed the stage which the Speaker had reached in putting the Question. I advisedly abstained from offering to the House any recommendation upon the Question, whether Mr. Bradlaugh should be heard or not? It does not appear to me that it appertains presumptively to me even to presume to take upon myself to give advice to the House in regard to any open question which may arise, or may be likely to arise, under the Resolution at which it arrived last night. I am one of the minority of this House who
Sir Stafford Northcote
640
objected to that Resolution; all of us objected on the ground that we believed it to be impolitic, and some of us upon the ground that we believed it to be illegal. I am one of those who, leaning to the stronger of those propositions, felt that my belief, by even a leaning in that direction, disabled me from offering advice to the House in regard to particulars which may arise in any new or subordinate question connected with the application of that Resolution. For that reason it was that I abstained from offering my advice to the House. Now that Mr. Bradlaugh has had an opportunity of speaking, I may say that it would have been difficult to establish by strict argument the title of Mr. Bradlaugh, or of anyone, to offer observations at the Bar against the judgment of the House, a judgment at which the House has definitively and deliberately arrived. At the same time, I am free to say that I think the House, in hearing Mr. Bradlaugh, exercised a generous indulgence; and I do not doubt that, under the circumstances, it may have been a wise indulgence. Now, I have so far ventured to take upon myself to state exactly what my opinion was upon this question. The matter which has now arisen, as put Sir, by you from the Chair, is of a different character. I entirely agree with the Leader of the Opposition that no new question arises for the consideration of the House. If a new question had arisen, I might have thought it right to act as I acted before; but, at present, I think my duty is, in the first place, to sustain the Chair, whenever I have the opportunity, in the exercise of its authority with regard to this matter, to submit for myself to the Resolution of the House, and to use no indirect or circuitous means of frustrating or impeding the application of that Resolution. It was in acting upon this last expression of opinion that I stated my full concurrence with the Leader of the Opposition, when the right hon. Gentleman said that no new question had at present arisen which called for the judgment of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The position in which the House is now placed is this. The hon. Member for Northampton has presented himself at the Table to take the Oath. I reminded the hon. Member of the Resolution which was passed yesterday, and, having read it, I directed

641
the hon. Member to withdraw. The hon. Member desired, before acting upon my direction, that he might be heard. I submit to the House that the proper course is that the hon. Member should be desired to attend at the Table to receive a final direction from the Chair that he do withdraw—because the hon. Member, if I understand him aright, awaits the final verdict from the Chair after he has been heard at the Bar. Is it your pleasure that Mr. Bradlaugh be called in?
MR. LABOUCHERErose to address the House. ["Order, order !"]
MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the House is now engaged in a formal proceeding—namely, simply to call in the hon. Member for Northampton in order that he may know the pleasure of the House. After the hon. Member for Northampton has been called in, and the pleasure of the House shall have been signified to him, an opportunity will be given to the hon. Member to address the House.
MR. LABOUCHERE: That is precisely the point I wished to raise—what is the pleasure of the House upon this subject?—because I evidently could not raise that question after Mr. Bradlaugh had been called in and told what the pleasure of the House is. As I understand it, you intend to convey to Mr. Bradlaugh that the pleasure of the House is that he be neither allowed to affirm nor to take the Oath. ["Order, order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I must correct the hon. Member. The Question I put to the House is, whether it is the pleasure of the House that Mr. Bradlaugh be called in?
MR. LABOUCHERE,who rose amid renewed cries of "Order," said: I apprehend, Sir, I am in Order. Of course you will tell me if I am not, and I will sit down; but I want to say this. You have, or the House has, heard Mr. Bradlaugh at the Bar. Well, it is just possible that the House may have changed its opinion—[Laughter] —Hon. Gentlemen laugh; but let me ask if they started with the foregone conclusion that what was decided yesterday could not be altered, what was the use of calling Mr. Bradlaugh up to the Bar?
SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAY: I rise to Order. You, Sir, have informed the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that the pleasure of the
642
House is that Mr. Bradlaugh should now be called in. I ask you, after your having twice made that announcement, whether it is now in Order for the hon. Member to raise the question again?
MR. COURTNEY: I understand you, Sir, to put the Question to the House that Mr. Bradlaugh be now called in; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir John E. Mowbray) is not correct in his supposition.
MR. SPEAKER: The Question I put to the House was—"Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Bradlaugh be called in?" If that received the general assent, no doubt Mr. Bradlaugh would be called in at once; but on putting that Question, the hon. Member for Northampton rises in his place, and claims to address the House on the point. Therefore I now call upon Mr. Labouchere.
MR. LABOUCHERE: As you have said, Sir, you asked the House whether it is the pleasure of the House that Mr. Bradlaugh be called in. Well, if Mr. Bradlaugh were called in, and it is the pleasure of the House that he be not allowed to affirm or to swear, would this be stated by you to him? It is that point I wish to challenge. I do not wish to make a long speech, for there have been too many speeches upon the question already. We have had speeches upon the Motion, speeches upon the Amendment, and upon other matters which had nothing to do either with the Motion or the Amendment. I do not think these speeches have changed many views. Hon. Gentlemen came down to vote one way or the other, and I think it was somewhat invidious to raise in an indirect manner the question whether Mr. Bradlaugh should be allowed to take the Oath of Allegiance. Up to the present moment no argument has been specifically addressed to this question. Upon this side of the House hon. Gentlemen spoke in favour of my Motion, that Mr. Bradlaugh should be allowed to affirm. On that side of the House hon. Gentlemen spoke on the Amendment, and made many speeches to show that Mr. Bradlaugh might neither affirm nor take the Oath. But those speeches were not answered here. We have the fact before us that not only the Prime Minister is of opinion that Mr. Bradlaugh has an absolute and perfect right to come to that Table to take the Oath

643
of Allegiance, without any interference on the part of the House; but we have also the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir John Holker), who sits on that side of the House, entertaining the same doctrine.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to call in question a vote of the House unless he is prepared to make a Motion to rescind it.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, I will ask you, Sir, whether I may put this —
"That Mr. Bradlaugh, having been heard at the Bar of the House, he now allowed to take the Oath of Allegiance at the Table of the House?"
I gather that I may put that.
MR. SPEAKER: Such a proposition would be in direct opposition to the vote passed by the House yesterday, and cannot be put.
MR. LABOUCHERE: As I understand it, Sir, you ruled that I could ask the House to rescind the decision which it came to yesterday. That being so, I apprehend that I may move this Resolution. Of course if you say I may not, I may not, and there the matter collapses; but I understand that I may move the Resolution, and, under those circumstances, I am going to move the Resolution. Mr. Bradlaugh is in an exceedingly difficult position—
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask, Sir, whether it is competent for the hon. Member to move to rescind a Resolution of this House without Notice?
MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for Northampton moves to rescind the Resolution passed by the House yesterday he will be in Order.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I will move to rescind the Resolution taken by the House yesterday. I have already said that I did not wish to occupy the time of the House by making a lengthy speech, either legal or otherwise, upon this question; but I will only point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite, as a matter of fairness to Mr. Bradlaugh, what his position is. Mr. Bradlaugh has been elected fairly and legally as the Member for Northampton, and it was his duty to that constituency to do his best to come into the House and to fulfil his duty as their Representative. He was anxious to affirm, because he was under the impression that that would be more pleasing to the House than that
644
he should take the Oath; but when I brought forward the Resolution that he should be allowed to affirm, an Amendment was put and carried that he should neither be allowed to affirm nor to take the Oath. I beg to move to rescind the Resolution of yesterday.
MR. MACDONALD: I second the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), with great pleasure. I feel keenly upon the matter, because I look upon the course taken by the House as an attempt to trample on the rights of a constituency never before witnessed in connection with any constituency in the United Kingdom. If we are not successful in resisting that action, at least we who vote for the Motion will show that a large number of Members are still in favour of civil and religious liberty.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, having been heard at the Bar in support of his claim to take the Oath, the Resolution of the House relative to his claim be rescinded."—[Mr Labouchere.)
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I rise to Order. I wish to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the important proposal which I understand to be made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere.) I understand from the authority of the book to which we commonly look for guidance in these matters that in the case of a proposal to rescind a Resolution, the course pursued is that the Resolution itself should be read to the House, and then a Motion made to rescind it. That Motion, I understand, is now proposed by the sitting Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I wish to ask if that is the right course to adopt on this occasion, or whether it is not necessary that Notice should be given of the intention to take so serious a step as to move to rescind a Resolution of the House?
MR. SPEAKER: On the question of Notice there is no doubt that, under ordinary circumstances, Notice is necessary; but this being a question of Privilege, and one affecting the seat of an hon. Member, Notice in such a case is not absolutely necessary, regard being had to the practice of the House. I will now put the Question.
MR. GORST: I rise to move the adjournment of the debate.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order ! The Question is that Mr. Bradlaugh, having been heard at the Bar in support of his claim to take the Oath, the Resolution of the House relative to his claim be rescinded.
MR. GORST: I move the adjournment of the debate. I do so for this reason. Whether the House requires Notice of this Motion or not, it is obvious that the rules of fair play require that a Resolution arrived at by the House in the small hours of the morning ought not to be rescinded at noon on the same day without some Notice being given. I feel sure that my Motion for the adjournment of the debate will receive the support of Her Majesty's Government.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Gorst.)
MR. NEWDEGATEurged that if over a Motion for the adjournment of the debate was justified it was in this case. The House had given judgment in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh that day, and the House was asked within a few hours to rescind the Resolution which it had come to after two Committees had investigated the subject, and after the subject itself had been fully debated for two nights. Whatever might be the opinions of the sitting Member for Northampton, which had induced him to support his Colleague, he must say that his conduct now was scarcely respectful to the House. That was his opinion, at any rate. Mr. Bradlaugh had had the indulgence of the House as far as it could be granted.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I do not join in the censure which has just been passed upon the sitting Member for Northampton (Mr. Laboucherej. I have no doubt that he, like most of us, felt that whatever choice of difficulties we might make, choice of difficulties is the only course that we have before us. Nor was I in the smallest degree surprised by the judgment given by you, Mr. Speaker, from the Chair, that, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the authoritative usage respecting Notice which is so vital, as a general rule, to the good order of our proceedings, could not be applied against the hon. Member.
646
Therefore, he will not misunderstand the words that I am about to speak. Viewing him as entitled to submit his Motion to the notice of this House upon, his own conscientious judgment, I likewise have endeavoured to give it the best consideration I could at the present moment in the light that is thrown upon it by the consideration of the position of the several parties concerned in this important and critical affair; and, Sir, the judgment at which I have arrived is that no good can be done by persevering in that course. There cannot be the smallest hope that the House will rescind the Resolution of last night. If the House did rescind the Resolution, there is no doubt that it would be with a loss of dignity which I know not whether at some time or other, and under some circumstances or other, it might have to confront. What I look to is the probable issue of the re-affirmation of the Resolution, and at the position in which the mere proposal to rescind it places the House of Commons. I think it is inflicting disparagement upon the House, so far as that can be done by the act of the hon. Member, to make this request at the present time. I perfectly understand the obligation which might be felt by the hon. Member to run the risk of that disparagement if he had in view a practicable object of probable attainment. But he cannot himself so regard it. It practically assumes the character of a challenge to the House to affirm the Resolution at which it has already arrived. I can see no good that is to arise to Mr. Bradlaugh, to the House of Commons, to the constituency of Northampton, to the majority or to the minority of this House, from taking that course; and, therefore, not having shrunk myself from meeting the whole exigencies of this case, so far as I have been able to view and appreciate them, I would most earnestly appeal to the hon. Gentleman to waive this exercise of his right, and to refrain from pressing upon the House a Motion of the adoption of which there cannot be the smallest reasonable hope, and from the rejection of which nothing but inconvenience could arise.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, after the appeal which which has been made to mo by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who has already so nobly supported the cause of religious

647
and civil liberty on this question, and who has stood up so bravely to defend the cause of the right of the constituencies to choose their own Member, without this House being converted into a Court of Appeal, I think that I should be wrong in persisting in this Resolution. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House will understand the peculiar position which I occupy. I have no wish unduly to obtrude myself upon the House in connection with this case. I have no wish to get the House into trouble; but I will point out that it was said by a far higher authority than I am—namely, by the Prime Minister yesterday, that if hon. Gentlemen did not agree to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to go at once to the Table and either affirm or take the Oath, then there was a good deal of trouble in store for them. I shall exceedingly regret it; but I trust hon. Gentlemen will see that it is not my fault. I beg leave to withdraw my Resolution.
Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that Mr. Bradlaugh be called in?
Agreed to.
And MR. SPEAKERhaving ascertained that it was the pleasure of the House that Mr. Bradlaugh should be called in, and Mr. Bradlaugh being at the Table,
MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Bradlaugh, you attended the House this morning with a view to take the Oath. I then directed you to withdraw, and you expressed a desire that you should be heard before you were finally directed to withdraw. The House complied with that application, and you were heard by the House. Having been heard by the House, I have no further orders from the House beyond those which I have already signified. You will now withdraw. MR BRADLAUGH I beg respectfully to insist upon my right as a duly elected Member for Northampton; and I ask you to have the Oath administered to me that I may take my seat. I respectfully refuse to withdraw.
MR. SPEAKER: I desire again to point out to the hon. Member that the orders of this House are that he do now withdraw.
MR. BRADLAUGH: With great respect, Sir, I refuse to obey the orders of the House, which are against the law.
MR. SPEAKER: I have now to appeal to the House to give authority to the Chair to compel the execution of its orders. I have no authority, in a case of this kind, without the orders of the House, to exercise force; and I must, therefore, appeal to the House to give me instructions for that purpose.
After a pause, during which there were loud cries of "Mr. Gladstone"—
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Mr. Speaker, I feel that after what fell from the Prime Minister a little while ago that his position is one which is of great delicacy in this matter, and I entirely sympathize with and feel the force of his observations with regard to the course that ought to be taken in the details of the proceedings which are necessary in consequence of the decision at which the House arrived yesterday, contrary to his advice and to his opinion. Sir, I therefore take upon myself the responsibility, believing that I am thereby taking a course the most convenient to the House, and most in accordance with the feelings of the Prime Minister himself and of others, in making the Motion, which you say is necessary, in order to give you authority in the matter which you have now before you. I therefore will take upon myself to move—though I am not quite sure what the terms of the Motion should be—
"That Mr. Speaker do take the necessary steps for requiring and enforcing the withdrawal of the hon. Member for Northampton".
MR. SPEAKER: According to former precedents the Motion should be—"That the hon. Member do now withdraw."
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Then I make that Motion.
Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Bradlaugh do now withdraw."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
The House divided: — Ayes 326; Noes 38: Majority 288.—(Div. List, No. 27.)
Mr. BRADLAUGHcontinued to stand at the Table while the division was being taken. The numbers having been announced—
MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Bradlaugh, I have now to inform you that it is the order of the House that you do now withdraw.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I submit to you, Sir, that the order of the House is against the law, and I positively refuse to obey it.
MR. SPEAKER: Sergeant at Arms, remove Mr. Bradlaugh below the Bar.
The Sergeant at Arms, advancing to and touching Mr. BRADLAUGH upon the shoulder, requested him to withdraw.
MR. BRADLAUGH(while being removed below the Bar): I shall submit to the Sergeant at Arms removing me below the Bar; but I shall immediately return.
MR. BRADLAUGH,again advancing within the Bar, said: I understand that I am ordered out of the House. I claim my right as a Member of this House—[Cries of "Order, order!"] —I claim my right as a Member of this House to take the Oath and to take my seat. I admit the right of the House to imprison me; but I admit no right on the part of the House to exclude me, and I refuse to be excluded.
The Sergeant at Arms again conducted Mr. BRADLAUGII below the Bar.
MR. SPEAKER: The House has now to deal with a very grave matter. It is for the judgment of the House to say what course is now to be taken with Mr. Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, who, having been called upon to withdraw, refused to obey the order of the House. He was then ordered to be removed by the Sergeant at Arms, and now he again insists upon taking his seat in this House. I have to put it to the House to say what course should be taken with the hon. Member.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I apprehend, Sir, that the question now before the House is one altogether of a different character from that with which we have recently been occupied. It is not now a question of whether the hon. Member has or has not a right to take the Oath or make an Affirmation; but it is a question whether the authority of the Chair, and not only the authority of the Chair, but that of the House itself, is to be supported or disregarded. I am quite sure, Sir, that none of us are disposed to make any personal complaint of the conduct of the
650
hon. Member. We know that he is in a position which calls for our consideration, and that we must make all proper allowance for the course which he may think it to be his duty to take. But we, too, have our duty to perform. Now, Sir, with reference to my own interposition at this moment, I must again apologize to this House for taking upon myself the function which would more properly belong to the Leader of the House; and I make no observations beyond referring to what I said a few minutes ago upon the circumstances which induced him to keep silence, and to leave the initiation of further proceedings to one who is in a less responsible position—namely, myself. Sir, I believe there is no question as to the course which it is my duty to recommend to the House. I make the Motion with regret, because I had hoped that Mr. Bradlaugh, having received authoritatively—and after having had a full opportunity of making his own statements in the House—through you, Sir, the decision of the House and the directions of the House, that he would withdraw; I had hoped that he would have attended to that instruction, and that he would not have put us in the painful position in which we stand of having to enforce the authority of the Chair. I do not know that there is an alternative open to us under these circumstances. It is quite impossible that we can allow the order of the House to be broken repeatedly, and the authority of the Speaker and the House itself to be challenged over and over again; and therefore I shall deem it my duty to move, not in any spirit of vindictiveness, but simply for the purpose of asserting the authority of the House and the Chair—
"That Mr. Bradlaugh, having disobeyed the Orders and resisted the authority of the House, he for his said offence taken into the custody of the Sergeant at Arms attending- this House."
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Bradlaugh, having disobeyed the Order, and resisted the authority of this House, be for his said offence taken into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant accordingly."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have endeavoured to act consistently upon the intention that I announced to the House. I thought it more seemly, and,

651
upon the whole, more advisable that recommendations should be made to the House as to the steps for it to take in the process in which it is engaged, by those who have been parties to the original decision, rather than by one of those who had most objected to it and most lamented it. But at the same time, though it was no part of my duty, I think, to advise the House in the matter, yet the Mover of the Resolution and those interested in it have a fair right to expect that it should be viewed by me, and those immediately around me, with entire candour, and candour compels me to admit that I see no other course that could have been taken by those responsible for the decision of last night than the course which is described in the Motion just submitted to the House. I cannot myself think it right to attempt to resist the House ineffectually at each step in a consistent effort to give a perfect accomplishment and consummation to the Resolution at which it has arrived. I know not whether the decision will be disputed; but admitting that it follows logically and necessarily out of what has been already done, and moreover nothing could be more unsatisfactory to all parties, nothing more unseemly than the prolongation of the scenes such as we have lately witnessed, I can enter no objection to that Motion, considering it as being in reality involved in its essence in the previous proceedings of the House.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not rise, Sir, to oppose the Resolution. I think it, however, a somewhat strange thing that a citizen of this country should be sent to prison for doing what eminent legal Gentlemen on this side, and an eminent legal Gentleman on that side of the House say he has a perfect right to do. ["No, no!"] Well, I do not know whether hon. Members opposite mean to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General is not an eminent legal authority on such a point. That is the view taken by that hon. and learned Gentleman. I say it is a somewhat hard thing that anyone should be put in prison for doing what a general consensus of legal opinion in this House holds to be his duty and his right. But, as the Prime Minister has stated, it is useless to oppose the Motion, because
652
Mr. Bradlaugh has come into conflict with a Resolution of the House, be that Resolution right or wrong. I, regretting as I do, the necessity that has been forced on the House, and regretting the Resolution that has been passed by the House, do not think I should be serving any good purpose in opposing the Resolution, or in asking the House to go to a vote on this question. I believe myself that the sending Mr. Bradlaugh into custody will be the first step towards his becoming a recognized Member of this House.
MR. BRADLAUGH: Mr. Speaker, I ask through you, Sir — [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot be heard without the leave of the House.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I ask through you, Sir—["Order, order!"]
MR. COURTNEYdesired to put a point which might deserve a little consideration. As he understood the Motion which had been proposed to them, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was to be taken into custody forresisting an Order of the House. That, of course, they all expected would be fulfilled; but it occurred to him that if they could put a recital in that Order that the hon. Member disputed the legality of the action of the House in refusing to allow the Oath to be administered to him, it would then be competent for Mr. Bradlaugh, being in custody, to move for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and on the return of that Writ, a question of the utmost importance— namely, the legality of that refusal— might possibly be raised. They were undoubtedly on the eve of a contention between the House and the Courts of Law, and there ought to be no backwardness on the part of the House in facing the consequences of its own action. He (Mr. Courtney) himself voted with the minority on the previous night; but he was of opinion that the Resolution then carried, though impolitic, was legal; but as the hon. Member's contention was that that Resolution was illegal, he thought there should be, as he had suggested, the possibility of inserting a recital to the effect that the hon. Member for Northampton disputed the legality of the action of the House in refusing to allow the Oath to be administered to him.
MR. A. M. SULLIVANpointed out that the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Courtney's) suggestion raised an issue which was not now before the House. Mr. Bradlaugh was about to be committed, not for his refusal to take the Oath, but for his refusal to withdraw when ordered to do so by the House; and nobody could say there was any precedent for putting on the books of the House a recital in connection with an Order for withdrawal. It occurred to him (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) that if the question as to taking the Oath were to be raised in any way that would enable the House as well as Mr. Bradlaugh to try it, Mr. Brad-laugh himself could raise the question by walking into the Lobby and giving a vote or by taking his seat in the House; but any Member of the House who refused to obey an Order of the House thus conveyed to him by the Speaker would be in exactly the same position which the Member for Northampton now occupied. He understood that the committal was for disobedience to the Order of the House, and for nothing else.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he thought it was important that they should have on the record all the circumstances connected with the giving of Mr. Bradlaugh into custody, for it would be in the power of the House, by making a mere general Return that he was given into custody for disobeying the Order of the House, to evade all consequences of law whatever, as a Court of Law would not go behind the Return. But he took it that the majority would not shrink from the responsibility of their action. Having stepped between Mr. Bradlaugh and the discharge of what he considered to be his Parliamentary duty, they ought not to be afraid to have clearly on record what were the circumstances in connection with the giving of Mr. Bradlaugh into custody, in order that he might have an opportunity of asking the Courts of Law whether the action of the House was or was not an illegal obstruction. A proper Resolution to this effect could not be drawn up on the spur of the moment; but it was clear that those who felt strongly that the House was entering on an illegal course of action, in defiance of the warning of one of its oldest Members—
MR. FINIGAN: Sir, I rise to Order. I wish to know whether a gentleman
654
who is taking notes at the Bar is doing so with the cognizance of the House?
MB. SPEAKERmade no reply.
MR LYULPH STANLEYresumed, and said that he and others wanted to have all the circumstances placed on the records of the House, so that the legal question might hereafter be properly raised. He did not think that ought to be decided on the spur of the moment, and he suggested that there should be an adjournment in order to give time for the consideration of the matter.
MR. MACDONALD: I rise again, Sir, to call your attention to a gentleman who is now, and has been for some time, within the limits of this House taking notes, and I wisk to know whether that is by your authority or the authority of this House?
MR. SPEAKER: The shorthand writer referred to by the hon. Member is present by the authority of the House, and he is taking down—not the debates of the House, for that would be dearly out of Order—but simply the proceedings with reference to this matter, which is a matter of Privilege.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYsaid, he would move the adjournment of the debate, as it was impossible at that moment to settle a Resolution in a form that would raise the whole matter.
MR. MACDONALDseconded the Motion. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was entitled to have a clear record of the proceedings if he intended, as he (Mr.Macdonald) hoped he did intend, to appeal at once to a Court of Law to vindicate his right to sit in the House. The hon. Member appeared there, largely supported by the working men of Northampton; and as representing the working men of the town of Stafford he (Mr. Macdonald) claimed that the hon. Member might have every justice done him, and that he might have the proceedings clearly recorded. Hon. Members on the Opposition side had had the courage, on the previous night, to go into the Lobby to deprive Mr. Bradlaugh of his right, and to deprive the town of Northampton of its right to return him; and if they did not have the courage to allow the whole matter to be placed on the records of the House, he (Mr. Mac-donald) said that they would be acting in a spirit of cowardice unworthy of a great Assembly. [Cries of "Order!"J He was under the order of the Speaker,

655
and not under the order of the Opposition. Till he had his condemnation, his language would be "No." He said again that they would be acting in a spirit of cowardice. The meanest subject in the Realm had the power to appeal to a Court of Justice; but by the course proposed the hon. Member for Northampton would be deprived of that right. He (Mr. Macdonald) therefore cordially seconded the Motion for adjournment, so that the whole matter might be put in such a form as would give the hon. Member an opportunity of bringing his case before the Courts of Law.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— {Mr. Lyulph Stanley.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, his reasons for abstaining from taking part in the discussion were similar to those of the Prime Minister; but it might be expected that he should say a few words with respect to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). He understood that suggestion to relate to the probability of the action of the House being reviewed by means of legal proceedings, and the phrase used by the hon. Member was that the House was on the verge of coming into collision with the Courts of Law. He apprehended that there was, in fact, no such probability. He understood the case to be this—that Mr. Bradlaugh, having received directions from the Speaker, with the full acquiescence of the House, to withdraw from the House, had thought it right, in order to maintain the claim which he had made, to refuse to withdraw. He (the Attorney General) apprehended that that was clearly an act of disorder and contempt. He supposed Mr. Bradlaugh had so done for the purpose of maintaining what he considered to be his right; but clearly it was a contempt of the House not to obey the order to withdraw. He would not enter into a legal question; but he apprehended that there were decisions over and over again, well known to them all, that a Court of Law had no power to review such proceedings of the House. The House had that in he rent power which every Court had, to maintain order within its walls, and to prevent its orders from being treated with contempt. There
656
could, therefore, be no power of reviewing the proceedings of the House. He understood his hon. Friend who had made the suggestion to wish it to be shown on the Warrant that Mr. Bradlaugh had acted in the exercise of a bonâd fide claim of right to remain in the House. He was sure that the House would be unwilling to take any course that would prevent the hon. Member for Northampton from raising any legal right which he thought he might possess, and that, considering all the circumstances of the case, the House would be very careful to see that the hon. Member should be in no way prejudiced by a refusal to bring all the facts of the case before the Court that was said to have power in the matter. But there could be no possibility of any injustice being done to the hon. Member by refraining from setting out in the Warrant the reasons for the Order, for, supposing there was a right in the Courts of Law to review the decisions of the House, against which view he protested, he presumed it would be done by moving for a Writ of habeas corpus, and that application would have to be made on affidavits, stating distinctly the whole of the proceedings. He thought, therefore, that it would be contrary both to the practice and the dignity of the House to enter on the warrant of commitment the course taken by Mr. Bradlaugh, but only the order made by the House, and he could assure the House that in doing so they would not be prejudicing any claim made by the hon. Member.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYasked leave to withdraw his Motion for an adjournment, because he understood, from indications on the other side of the House, that if the matter came before a Court of Law the facts would be stated as fully and fairly as possible.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, Mr. Bradlaugh wished him to state that on coming to the Table and on being asked to withdraw, he said—"I positively refuse to obey the order of the House, as not being according to law." All that Mr. Bradlaugh asked was that those words should be on the face of the proceedings. He (Mr. Labouchere) hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would not object to that. They might be useless; but in that case they would only be surplusage, and could do no harm. There could be no doubt

657
that Mr. Bradlaugh did say those words.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed.
MR. FINIGANsaid, that as an Irish Member, sent to that House for the purpose of obtaining guarantees for the liberties and freedom of Ireland, he could not see that he should be supporting the principles of liberty by in any way consenting to the imprisonment of a Gentleman over whom, he contended, the House had no jurisdiction. Until Mr. Bradlaugh had taken his seat within that House as a Member, he was convinced that, if not from a legal point of view, yet from the point of view of justice, the House would be acting in an impolitic and unjust manner if it condemned to imprisonment a Gentleman over whom it had no control. He had heard many arguments in that House for and against Mr. Bradlaugh; but he had not heard from any of the legal or non-legal speakers a tittle of evidence to prove that Mr. Bradlaugh had no right to take an Oath in that House. Therefore, until the House had had time to calmly consider the question, and in order that some judicial opinion might be taken on the case in the interests of justice, as a supporter of the liberties of his own country, and an opponent of any form of tyranny whatever, he moved the adjournment of the debate.
MR. BIGGARseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Finigan.)
MR. NEWDEGATEpointed out to the hon. Member that, while he enjoyed the privileges of a Member of the House, it was contrary to the authority of the House, and to the authority of any Legislative Assembly, however democratic it might be, to interrupt the exercise of its authority, not only over a Member, but over any other person who interrupted its proceedings.
Question put.
The House divided: —Ayes 5; Noes 342; Majority 337.—(Div. List, No. 28.)
Original Question proposed.
MR. PARNELLsaid, he had not taken any part in the debate on this
658
question up to the present moment, because he had found that his opinions upon it were not shared by the great majority of the Irish Members. Although he had felt it right to vote in the division of the previous day, and in the various divisions that had taken place that day, he had not up to that point deemed it right to obtrude himself upon the House. But they had now reached a stage at which he felt it was his duty to say a few words in explanation of the vote he had given. The Resolution which the Speaker had put from the Chair asked the House to decide that Mr. Bradlaugh be committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms—in other words, that he be imprisoned. He asked hon. Members to consider the position in which they would be placed if the House adopted the Motion. They had not decided that Mr. Bradlaugh's seat be declared vacant, and if they imprisoned him, they put themselves in this position—that either they would have to leave the question alone with reference to the vacation of the seat for Northampton, or else they would have to adjudicate upon it during the imprisonment of the principal person concerned. If they did not proceed to vacate the seat they inflicted a grievous injury upon the constituency of Northampton by depriving it of the opportunity of being represented in that House. If, on the other hand, they proceeded to consider the question of vacating the seat, they would have to do so during the imprisonment of Mr. Bradlaugh, whose case they would have to decide behind his back and without affording him an opportunity of saying anything in his own defence. But his (Mr. Parnell's) object in rising, more particularly at that time, was to point out to his hon. Friends from Ireland that if they voted for the Motion before the House, they would vote, as he believed, for a Motion repugnant to the feelings of the people of the Southern, Western, and Eastern divisions of Ireland. He could not believe that the Irish constituencies would desire their Members to vote for the imprisonment of anybody. They knew the last time that Motion was made it was made against the late Mr. William Smith O'Brien, who was taken to the place to which he supposed the hon. Member for Northampton would be taken. He could not help

659
thinking that there were alternatives to the course which it was proposed to adopt—such, for example, as excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from the House—and that there was no reason to imprison the hon. Member and do an injury to the constituency. He would conclude as he had begun, by saying that he did not believe the Irish constituencies would wish even an Atheist to be imprisoned.
MR. A. MOOREsaid, he protested against the false issues which had been raised. They did not imprison this man because of his religious opinions. An Order had been given to him to withdraw, and he had refused to obey that Order. Such a proceeding was clearly a breach of the Privileges of the House, which would be only exercising its legitimate authority by acting upon the Motion now before it. He denied that the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) was the true or real issue before the House.
THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he was sorry to be obliged to differ from his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) on the course he had taken in this question. On most subjects he was quite ready to allow his hon. Friend to speak for him; but on this occasion he must positively decline to do so.
MR. PARNELLsaid, he rose to explain. ["Order, Order!"]
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) was in possession of the House; but he understood the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) to rise merely to make an explanation.
MR. PARNELLsaid, that he wished, with the permission of his hon. Friend (The O'Donoghue), to explain that he had not attempted to speak for any hon. Member but himself.
THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that of course he did not for a moment wish to deny his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) an opportunity to explain; but he certainly understood him to say that the course which many Irish Members had taken, or were about to take, would be disagreeable to their constituents in the South and West of Ireland. He (The O'Donoghue) entertained no doubt whatever that the course which he had taken and intended to take would be in accordance with the wishes and feelings not only of his constituents but of the great majority of the people of the South
660
and West of Ireland. The facts of the case had not been put before the House quite fairly. Mr. Bradlaugh was ordered to withdraw, and in defiance of the Rules of the House he declined to do so. He (The O'Donoghue) thought he was doing his duty to the House and to his constituents in voting that every necessary step should be taken to compel Mr. Bradlaugh to conform to the Rules of the House.
Question put.
The House divided —Ayes 274; Noes 7: Majority 267.—(Div. List, No. 29.)
Ordered, That Mr. Bradlaugh, having disobeyed the Order, and resisted the authority of this House, be for his said offence taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant accordingly.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL INQUIRIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Fay, Sir Harcourt Johnstone, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Dr. Cameron, Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)
  LOCAL INQUIRIES (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 132.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. FAY,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it was designed to provide for the establishment of a tribunal for the conduct of local inquiries relating to Private Bills in Ireland. He did not claim to be the author of the Bill. It was drawn by his hon. Friend the Member for Tip-perary (Mr. P. J. Smyth), but handed over to him (Mr. Fay) when his hon. Friend was unable to come to the House in time for the presentation of the Bill. It was highly probable that the idea of introducing the measure had its origin in his hon. Friend's mind, probably to a great extent, in words spoken by the right, hon. Gentleman now at the head of Her Majesty's Government, when he was appealing to the sympathetic heart of Mid Lothian. Of course, no one should be tied to the ipsissima verba of an electioneering speech no more than the more social Members of that House should be tied to their after-dinner speeches; but still the expression of the Prime Minister's feeling on the subject-matter of the Bill strongly advised some local machinery for relieving the House of Commons such as the Bill recommended. Now,

    661
    neither he nor his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary meant at all to come forward, and, in answer to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, cry out "Eureka." On the contrary, they humbly submitted to the House what they considered a fair suggestion. The question was no new one. It had been mooted in that House more than once; and on all occasions the concession had been made by the House that there existed a necessity for some reform in this direction. As to carrying out the desired measures, their proposal did not in any way invade the ancient Prerogatives of Parliament. It was no new scheme, repealing Acts of the House deliberately passed, or establishing, as against old precedents and old tribunals, new laws and new organizations. The Bill merely proposed that, to provide facilities for legislation on Private Bills in Ireland, they should change the venue of the existing tribunals in that and the other House, as regarded certain component parts thereof, from London to Ireland. They should establish a branch of the Private Bill Office in Dublin, to be called the "Irish Private Bill Branch Office," for the deposit of Irish Private Bills, subject to regulations by Standing Orders, to be made from time to time for that purpose by each House of Parliament; that Private Bills originating in the House of Lords should be referred to a Committee consisting exclusively of Irish Representative Peers, or Peers of Parliament connected with Ireland by having a residence in that country; that Private Bills originating in the House of Commons should be referred to a Committee composed exclusively of Irish Members of Parliament, and that these Committees should hold their sittings in Ireland, at such convenient places as they might select. As the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had, to a great extent, practically conceded the merits of the claim which he now advanced, it was not his intention to go into details upon the question, and he should be as brief as possible in his remarks. But there were three points which occurred to the Irish mind in regard to Private Bills. He alluded to Railway, Gas, and Tramway Bills, and all Bills of that class. Now, the points which had provoked a very strong expression of feeling in Ireland in respect of these measures were (1)
    662
    the serious inconvenience attending the promotion of such schemes in London; (2) the large drain of money from Ireland into London; and (3) that the great expense attending the promotion of smaller schemes, such, for instance, as small trams, had operated to prevent a great many valuable improvements from being effected in the country. These were all very serious grievances. As to the inconvenience, that was probably the smallest matter; but he would say much valuable evidence was lost by the fact that many men of position and great business engagements fought very shy of being kept knocking about the Lobbies of the House for weeks, perhaps, awaiting to be called as witnesses. But as to the drain from the country, first, from a general point of view, he found that it was calculated, when this matter was under discussion in 1871, that, from 1800 to 1870, 681 Irish Local Acts were passed. That did not include the rejected private measures. Well, take them at another 681, he would calculate the loss in cash to Ireland for legal and other incidental costs at nearly £3,000,000. Add to this travelling and hotel expenses of witnesses, and those interested in the Bills, and the sum would probably represent close on £6,000,000 lost to Ireland. That, in itself, to a poor country, was a severe loss. As regarded the witnesses' expenditure, he might add that it was wonderful how men accustomed to humble homes and meagre fare dropped at once into views about grand hotels and choice brands of wine when they came over as such witnesses. Enthusiastic Englishmen ascribed this fact to the instantaneously refining feeling of London society; others, more prosaic, believed it ascribable to the fact that every witness thought corporations and projectors of companies fair game for plunder. But the expense of promoting Bills by small townships had been something enormous; and he could heap up instances of the evil. He should take as a present illustration one of the last made townships in Ireland—that was Drum-condra. Its rating was £13,000 only; its conversion into a township cost £1,700 under the present system. There were other township creation expenses equally bad, including Rathmines, Sligo, £14,000; Clonmel, £20,000; and he might also refer to the cost of the Dublin

    663
    Trunk Railway, amounting to £54,000. He could multiply incident after incident if he so desired; but he should now point out that the result of this was that a great many small improvements in Ireland were prevented from being carried out. By way of illustration he might mention that in many parts of Ireland small links were wanted to connect them with existing railways. These gaps could not well be filled up by the making of railroads. In point of fact, they would not pay; but if they could get Tram Bills at a very cheap price— say for a few thousand pounds—they could in many cases connect towns which were now almost inaccessible. These trams would be extremely suitable, especially in the mountainous districts, where the circumstances of the country would not afford a short railway to meet the nearest stations or mountain roads. Well, in these cases the companies promoting schemes would, under the present system, be out of pocket half the amount of money that would be required to form the line before they were in a position to lay a rail; for it would have to be spent in London on high fees to London lawyers, and luxurious living. That was a very serious defect. As regarded the reclamation of waste lands the very same thing would happen. He (Mr. Fay) himself was about projecting a company for the reclamation of certain slob-land. It would, he believed, have been a great commercial success; but everyone seemed anxious to avoid an immediate investment of ready money for expenditure in London. Send them back to Ireland, where their legal expenses would be about one-tenth of what they were here, and their witnesses and other expenses infinitesimal. From the point of knowledge of the facts, surely the Irish Peers and Commons were the best judges of Irish wants and Irish witnesses. For his part, when, six years ago, he came first to that House a very glutton for work, he found himself appointed a Member of a Committee on a mixed group of Welsh, English, and Scotch Bills. His first look at the Paper finished him, and he had never served on a Committee since. The Bill that headed the list was a railway from some place in Wales to some other place in the same Principality. The two names were composed of the letters C F B and W thrown together, apparently without any regard
    664
    to pronunciation. He had never heard of them before or since, for he had a fixed idea that the Bill was a sort of conundrum intelligible only to Welsh people. The next Bills were either Scotch or English, relating to waterworks, and a turnpike in places he had never heard of. He asked himself could he conscientiously do his duty in respect of a Bill about which he knew nothing and cared less; and he considered it his duty to plead professional engagements and leave room, perchance, for some Welsh Gentleman, who might solve the puzzle of the Welsh names, or for some Scotch or Englishman who took an interest in the water supply or turnpikes affected by these Bills. He maintained that with a system such as he advocated the expenses would be so materially reduced that they would be able to undertake measures for the improvement of land and for giving greater facilities for locomotion to people throughout the country. Well, now, what could be the objection to trust Irish Peers and Members with these local inquiries? Had the Irish Peers shown themselves open to corruption, or had the Irish Members, of no matter what politics, a single shadow been thrown on their honour as Committeemen of this House, and they had acted as such ever since the Union? Surely, if such was the case, they might be trusted in their own country to do their own work. Look to the whole controlling parties of Ireland — Judges, Superior and County Courts, magistrates, corporations, Poor Law Boards—where was there a spot upon their reputation? But they might say—What about the Provisional Order system of the Local Government Board? The answer was—The Irish people would have none of it; they would not have a few unsympathetic paid clerks, unacquainted with the people and their wants, deciding on the wishes of the elective bodies, whether corporate, company, or otherwise. They had never worked in harmony with the people, and their dealings with local bodies had been very unsatisfactory. It would be a misfortune if a practical measure like the present were not accepted by the Government, or, at any rate, so far favoured as that they would be disposed to institute an inquiry into the necessity of establishing such a system as he proposed. He would, indeed, be sorry to impede in any way Her Majesty's Government in the discharge

    665
    of those duties which this short Session rendered urgent. Should Her Majesty's Ministers see their way to the appointment of a Committee on the subject, or the more extended one indicated by the speech of the Prime Minister at Mid Lothian, he would be perfectly satisfied. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."— (Mr. Fay.)
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he had had no intention of interposing in the debate at so early a period, although his name was on the back of the Bill, and he only did so because no one else had risen. He regretted that the Treasury and the front Opposition Benches were both alike conspicuous by their emptiness, for this was a Bill of great importance; and what he wished to insist upon was the necessity of some legislation of this kind, not only for Ireland, but for Scotland and England. They felt in Scotland quite as much as was the case in Ireland the need of some local tribunal to dispose of their Local Bills. As to the details of the measure, he would not enlarge upon them, or discuss whether they ought to remedy the evil by perambulating Committees of this House, or a system of legislation by Provisional Order; but he contended that if they were to set to work to devise the very worst possible system of Private Bill legislation, they could hardly by any possibility devise a worse than the system which at present prevailed in Parliament. His own experience in connection with the city he represented had been as unfortunate as had been the case of Dublin in the instances referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Pay). Glasgow was continually in the Committee-rooms upstairs, and was always spending large sums of the money of the ratepayers in expenses, either when obliged to come there for needed improvements, or when dragged there by its neighbours. What sort of tribunal did they find? Those cases in which the city was interested, involving enormous sums of money and enormous interests, might be disposed of before a tribunal consisting of a majority of Members who had never sat upon a Private Bill Committee before. He (Dr. Cameron) himself had sat upon one group of Private Bills on a Com-
    666
    mittee on which three Members were new Members who knew nothing whatever of the proceedings of the House of Commons, and knew nothing of the traditions or the Rules which regulate them. So long as they had learned Gentlemen of the long robe to guide them, they did not go very far wrong; but when the opposition to a Bill was withdrawn they found themselves in a mess in settling the clauses. One clause after another came up, and the whole discussion then turned on whether these clauses were approved of by Mr. Speaker's counsel or by Lord Redesdale's counsel. Were those Gentlemen, however able or however eminent, to be the tribunal to settle clauses materially affecting the interests and liberty of the lieges in this country, and was it the function of a Committee simply to endorse their views? No worse tribunal could, in fact, be devised than that which now existed. They had no need to go further than that day for an example. There were a number of Committees upstairs; but in consequence of the interesting scene being transacted in this House about Mr. Bradlaugh, the Members of those Committees left the Committee-rooms, and the persons who had the Private Bills there were obliged to keep over for another day their witnesses, to refresh their counsel, and to have the whole of their business retarded. If they had perambulating Committees, going about the country and instituting inquiries, they would, of course, report to this House, and then legislation would proceed on precisely the same lines as it did at the present moment. He did not say that would be the best possible solution of this question; but it was a very simple solution. It did not deprive the House of its jurisdiction. It simply left the Committee to take evidence in Ireland, instead of in a Committee-room of this House. An eminent authority, the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson), while Chairman of Ways and Means proposed another system — that evidence should be taken by a perambulating Commission, or other tribunal, and that upon that evidence legislation should proceed by way of Provisional Order. That system was not open to the objection of local legislation originating in Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board, which he objected to quite as strongly as anyone. He thought a

    667
    system might be devised upon the lines proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester, which would meet the difficulties of the case quite as? well or better than this Bill. But assuredly something should be done, and that speedily. The want which this Bill was introduced to supply was a want participated in to the full extent by Scotland and England, quite as much as it was by Ireland. He believed that the want of some such provision for the settlement of local questions as was contained in this Bill had done more to strengthen Home Rule, in the sense in which the expression was generally used in Great Britain, than any other thing. [Mr. PARNELL dissented.] The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) shook his head. There was no necessity for introducing any acrimony into the discussion of this question. But in Glasgow a great number of persons were constantly complaining of the necessity of coming up to London to settle every small question, and were asking if Home Rule would not do away with that necessity and difficulty. It would; but that was not the question before them. The question was whether it could not be equally well settled by such a proposal as that contained in the Bill, and whether the Members of the House could not find themselves more in accord in adopting such a proposal than by waiting until they could carry the more extensive and radical measures of Home Rule. He had great pleasure, as the Representative of a Scotch constituency, in supporting the Bill; and he trusted that the Government would deal with the question involved in its principle speedily, and not with reference to Ireland only, but with reference to Scotland and England also.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that, so far his experience went, the Committees of the House of Commons and Lords did justice with regard to all Private Bills. As regarded the clauses which were inserted, they were, in all cases scrutinized by the counsel of the Chairman of Committees in the one House and of the Speaker in the other, who could be entirely relied upon. Committees of the House were very jealous of local inquiries, and he had seen them upset after considerable outlay. Local inquiries had worked satisfactorily enough when their deci-
    668
    sions were given effect to in Provisional Orders; but, otherwise, they had generally resulted in failure, of which Lord Dalhousie's Commission was a remarkable illustration. He thought, however, that a good deal of unnecessary expense was incurred in bringing witnesses to London to give evidence on merely local questions.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, in the few observations which he would make he would confine himself to the effect the proposed Bill would have if adopted upon the great industrial efforts and improvements made in Ireland. He might instance railway companies; and he could state that if it were not for the great expense attending Private Bills a great many more railway works would be set on foot. In the Bill recently before Parliament it was proposed that the extension of railways should be left to presentment sessions; and if a local inquiry was held in every case, it would have the effect of preventing the adoption of chimerical or bogus schemes. There was another important point—namely, the reclamation of waste lands—-and in these he included lands which were only partially drained. To carry out to any extent a scheme for the reclamation of land it was necessary to come to Parliament for fresh powers to undertake them, and this would involve a great cost, which would have the effect of preventing any action from being taken. Inquiries held in Ireland then would facilitate such useful operations as the drainage of waste lands. Then in regard to the fishing population, a great deal could be done in the way of starting some 10 or 12 fishermen to maintain a number of boats together. Under present circumstances, that would necessitate great expense; but local inquiry would do much to meet the difficulty, and it was admitted by a Gentleman on the Treasury Bench that some change in the present system of dealing with Private Bills was desirable. He thought it would not be difficult to define the remedy. If local inquiries with regard to the development of Irish industries could be established, he had no doubt that substantial benefit would result therefrom. If the House did not approve of the details of the Bill, he hoped that it would affirm the principle.
    MR. P. MARTINhoped the House would affirm the principle of the Bill

    669
    before them. The present was not the first time that that grievance which Ireland and Scotland suffered with respect to Private Bill legislation had been brought before the House. In 1871, on two occasions, both by Bill and by Motion for a Select Committee, made by the late Member for Dublin (Mr. Pim), the subject had been exhaustively discussed; and during that discussion not a single Gentleman stood up in the House to entirely defend the present system of Private Bill legislation. The right hon. Gentleman the present President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson), who at that time had control, to a certain extent, over that legislation, himself admitted it was costly and inconvenient, and, as he then contended, only that time should be granted, in order that the Amendments in the system in the direction of having those inquiries conducted in the localities interested, should be fully considered. The present Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) had also pleaded for delay, and Colonel Wilson Patten said that no doubt Ireland in this respect suffered from a serious grievance. In fact, during the entire of that debate, the only defence of the continuance of the present system was rested on the difficulty of at once planning a mode of procedure which would satisfactorily discharge the functions of Private Bill Committees. Of course, he (Mr. P. Martin) could understand the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) defending the present system; but even the hon. Member prejudiced, though he not unnaturally would be in favour of the present system, was forced to admit that very great additional and unnecessary cost was incurred in consequence of the inquiry being held in London. No stronger argument could be urged in favour of an alteration in the system. If this grievance was experienced in England, how much more severely would it be felt in Ireland? He did not intend to enter on a general discussion on Private Bill legislation, as they were now dealing with it as it affected Ireland. Briefs were prepared for counsel in Ireland, and then put into the hands of a Parliamentary agent, who himself charged special fees for the preparation of evidence as if he had done it all, so that in many cases Irish and Scotch suitors were subjected to a double series of
    670
    charges. But it was not merely that this serious and additional cost was imposed in respect to agents and the expenses incident to the attendance of witnesses on the Irish and Scotch suitors. There was but too much reason to find fault with the adjudication of the Committees in consequence of the want of knowledge of the localities as to local requirements. To give one or two instances, he might remind the House of the fact that a Committee sat for 23 days to determine a matter of great importance to Ireland-— namely, the erection of a Central Station in Dublin. Some £50,000 were expended in the strife of the competing schemes before the Committee. In the end the Committee sanctioned a site, which anyone acquainted with Dublin would have known to be the most impracticable and the least desirable of any of those suggested. As a result they had no Central Station at present in Dublin. Then there was another instance in the Dublin Trunk Railway. He would not, however, weary the House by giving other examples to show the system had checked industrial enterprise, and worked in a most unsatisfactory way so far as Irish interests were concerned. The common sense of mankind was in favour of the principle; while it had been conceded by the House that, if possible, local inquiries should always be conducted on the spot, and every facility be given for making proper inquiry. The abuses of the present system were very great. They all knew that though witnesses to depose to the facts of the case had been brought over from Ireland at great cost, yet, in consequence of the absence of counsel, who generally held briefs in several cases on at the same time, before different Committees, in many instances those witnesses were not examined, and the truth was not elicited. Great advantage would accrue if the inquiry was conducted in the locality, not unfrequently, from the Members of the Committee being enabled to themselves visit and form their own judgment on the matter, to be subjected to their determination. They would not be obliged to so much depend, as at present, on the statements made either by counsel or engineers. Everyone would agree that a man's own eyesight was better than a statement made by the ablest counsel. Under those circumstances, he trusted the House would agree to the second read-

    671
    ing of the Bill. It simply established a principle of a general character, and certainly would be of enormous advantage in relieving the House of what had been over and over again complained of —not from one side, but from both sides of the House—namely, that they undertook a vast quantity of Business which they found it utterly unable adequately to perform. The noble Lord the present Secretary of State for India, in strong terms, had regretted the House had to undertake Business which it was totally unable to discharge. That was the strongest argument for the transfer to local bodies of a great portion of the legislation undertaken by the House; and the noble Lord said the House would give a favourable consideration to any proposal which might desire to transfer to local bodies business of a character which might be transacted by them. The Bill was not one introduced by a section of Irish Members alone, but had received very general approval; and he hoped, under these circumstances, the House would agree to its second reading.
    MR. FOLEYsaid, he thought the Bill was necessary, not so much in the interest of railway companies, or the promoters of various undertakings, as in the interest of the ratepayers who had to pay for them. He contended that great cost was incurred, in many instances, when difficulties arose, without the ratepayers frequently having an opportunity to express an opinion until the measure was absolutely adopted. In his own township, a loan of £10,000 was required, and it cost £6,000 to obtain that loan; so that the ratepayers had to pay £16,000 when they could only expend £ 10,000. He believed local inquiries on the spot concerned would obviate many of the present difficulties and inconveniences; and he therefore trusted the House would agree to the second reading of the Bill.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
    ARREST OF MR. BRADLAUGH.
    The Serjeant at Arms informed the House that, in obedience to the Order of the House of this day, and in conformity with Mr. Speaker's Warrant, he had taken Mr. Charles Bradlaugh into his custody.
  LOCAL INQUIRIES (IRELAND) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Debate resumed.
    SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEsaid, his experience was that it was not at all advisable that the whole of the Private Bill Business of the country should be transacted upstairs; and he thought the measure of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Fay) was well worthy of consideration, and might be extended to Scotland, and, perhaps, to portions of England. The present system was a great scandal, and on the ground of economy alone a complete change was necessary. It was a system which common sense and public opinion would not long tolerate, especially as it had a tendency to restrict industrial enterprise. It formed one of the strongest arguments for Home Rule. Complaints were also frequently made of the arbitrary ruling of the autocrat in "another place."
    MR. BLAKE,in supporting the Bill, said, there were many useful enterprises that were rendered impossible or were retarded on account of the expense and inconvenience of the present system of Parliamentary inquiry. As an instance, he would refer to the case of Waterford, from whence a Bill was presented for the benefit of the town, which the Commons passed, but which the Lords rejected through mere capriciousness. The expenditure for the promotion of this Bill—£1,400—fell upon the promoters, and the locality was deprived of a Bill which would be of the greatest possible advantage. If the preliminary stages of the Bill had taken place in Ireland instead of London, Waterford would now be deriving one advantage of having a most useful measure in operation.
    MR. LITTONsaid, the measure before the House was one upon which Irish Members were almost, if not entirely, unanimous, and great weight ought, he thought, to be attached to the fact that Gentlemen representing large constituencies in Ireland were of the same opinion on the subject. It was not only the matter of expense in connection with large undertakings; but rather in many of the small matters that the grievance was felt. The cost of promoting schemes moderate in themselves was so great that many small improvements, which would have brought great and last-

    673
    ing benefit to Ireland, could not be carried out on account of the expense. Many small but still important matters would be brought forward if there was a local tribunal in Ireland which could deal with them, and that was a thing most seriously felt. As the Bill was to be confined entirely to Ireland, he thought it would at any rate be a step in the right direction if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland were to indicate the intention of the Government to deal with the question By doing so, he believed that the Government would take away this grievance from Ireland. On the whole, the measure was one of great practical importance and utility, and he hoped it would be supported.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he desired to interpose at the present moment, and to state the opinion of the Government in regard to the measure. With the principle of the Bill he had no fault to find; on the contrary, he entirely agreed that greater facilities should be given, if possible, in regard to the passing of Acts dealing with local matters. There was no doubt at all that legislation by Private Bills, not only for Ireland, but also for a great part of England and the whole of Scotland, was attended with very considerable needless expense and delay, arising from the necessity of conducting the inquiries in London, instead of in, or, at all events, somewhere near, the locality with respect to which the undertaking in question was promoted. He thought it would be very desirable to diminish the expense, and so extend the facilities, by having some local tribunal to inquire into the facts on which the promoters of the measures relied as entitling them to give effect to their schemes. It had been for some time one of the features of our system, that all inquiries of a judicial or of a semi-judicial character should be conducted as near as possible to the place concerned. But, whilst he entirely agreed with the principle of the Bill and in the desirableness of the object which his hon. Friend (Mr. Pay) sought to attain, he regretted to say that when he passed on to the mode in which he sought to embody his intentions and to carry them into effect, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) was obliged to differ from him altogether. Whatever tribunal might ultimately be
    674
    chosen as the best, the present attempt to combine Parliamentary action with local inquiry only increased the difficulty. It was now proposed that local inquiries should be conducted in Ireland by a Committee of each House, sitting in Dublin or elsewhere in Ireland. Now, let the House consider how this would work. With Private Bills the first reading, and the second reading, and, in fact, the several stages, followed very much the course taken with Public Bill legislation. Suppose the Bill now before the House became law, the course would be this. A Private Bill would be introduced and read a first time and second time, suppose in the early part of the Session. It would then, according to the proposed Bill, be submitted to a Committee who would hold their inquiry during the long Parliamentary Recess. Thus, the progress of the Bill after the second reading would be stopped until August or September. An inquiry held in Dublin, or Armagh, or elsewhere, upon an Irish Bill might, and probably would, be a more efficient inquiry than if conducted in London. But, having got thus far, and reached, say, October, the Committee would have to wait and make its Report to the House in the following February. After that a third reading might, no doubt, be had before the close of that month. But then the Bill must be sent to the Lords, and there would have to go through the same process with a similar occupation of time; so that, in reality, it would take over two years to pass a measure of the kind. He thought that was a mode of dealing with the difficulty which would be very little, if at all, better than the existing method. There were, indeed, considerable inconveniences now, and he was quite willing to admit them. They were, he felt, difficulties which it was desirable to avoid and overcome; but he could not see in the provisions of the Bill before the House, any reasonable prospect of accomplishing this. To attempt to conduct local inquiries by Committees of the House would probably increase the difficulty; for, though it might be that some expense would be thus avoided, it must certainly cause increased delay. Therefore, although he accepted the principle stated in the Preamble of the Bill that something ought to be done, he could not accept its provisions. It was impossible, however, to accept a measure

    675
    merely because the recital of its object was correct. It was necessary to see that the object was likely to be attained. Now, here, he must say, he could not find in the enacting clauses any principles, except that of committing inquiries to a Parliamentary Committee sitting during the Recess, thereby causing the difficulties to which he had alluded. He admitted that the present was a state of things which should not continue, and he hoped before very long means would be devised to put an end to it, so that Inquiries as to the desirability of constructing railway, water, and other works for particular localities should be conducted by some process the better part of which would be conducted on the spot and not in the House; but he could not see his way to accepting the method proposed in the Bill. He hoped, under those circumstances, the Bill would not be pressed.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, if these proceedings had taken place in a Committee Room, and had the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) been in the position of Chairman, the decision which he had just announced would have found expression in a phrase very favourable to the progress of a Bill— namely, "The Preamble is proved." The necessity of legislation was admitted, and such legislation could not be very long delayed. He regretted very much that the hon. and learned Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth), who introduced the Bill on a previous occasion, was precluded by form from taking part in the debate. He had only arrived at a time when the proceedings of the House were somewhat interrupted, and so had not yet taken the Oath. Had he been present, he would have been able to suggest Amendments which might be introduced in Committee, and which would remove those difficulties to which the Attorney General for Ireland had referred. Those difficulties, especially the delay, were, no doubt, of a very substantial character; but he would have expected from a Gentleman holding the position of the Attorney General for Ireland, and who admitted the principle, that he would have given the House the benefit of his known experience, and have suggested a way in which the difficulties could be removed. He, however, had not done so; but he had dimly referred to some machinery by which
    676
    those inconveniences could be removed, and these private measures dealt with in Ireland. Now, he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) would have the assent of the whole Home Rule Party in giving the right hon. and learned Gentleman this warning and this information—that it would be found utterly impossible to transfer to any but an elected Irish body, and to a body possessing the hereditary qualifications for legislation like the Irish Peers, the right to deal with Private Bill legislation. There was in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech the foreshadowing of an idea of a new Board of officials of some kind. ["No, no!"] He feared there was a suggestion foreshadowed that, by means of official machinery, this Private Bill Inquiry might be worked out. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law): No, no!] He feared that suggestion would be made, for, apparently, there was no idea of using the legislative force that came from Ireland; but let this be borne in mind by those who considered the measure—no attempt to transfer to Irish officials the jurisdiction over Private Bills now enjoyed by the House of Commons in London would be entertained by the Home Rule Party. There was an easy means of remedying the defects the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to; but not by the machinery of the Local Government Board, the Board of Works, or any new Board formed by their side. If it was right and desirable that Irish Peers and Irish Members should consider Irish Bills in Committee in Dublin, it was equally desirable and necessary that they should discharge other duties with regard to Private Bills, and there would be no difficulty about it, as they would meet there after the sitting of Parliament. But he wished to take advantage of the admission of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that some remedy was required to ask what was proposed, and to assure him that any transference of the kind he had mentioned would meet with uncompromising opposition.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I can only repeat to a great extent the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law). I think the case of the necessity for reform in this matter has been most abundantly proved. It is quite clear there is very great inconvenience in having all these inquiries

    677
    conducted in London; and my belief is that if the House were to inquire thoroughly into the matter of Private Bill legislation, they would find that this inconvenience applies to England and Scotland as well as to Ireland. That, of course, is a very much larger question, and I do not suppose that the Mover of the Bill, or the hon. Members whose names are on its back, would expect us, on a Wednesday afternoon, at this time of a short Session, to be prepared to propose that any great change should be made with regard to Private Bill legislation. Still, I think the case is the strongest for Ireland; and I not only hope that some way may be found to remove this grievance, but I think some way must be found. I have very carefully looked through the Bill to see if there was any way by which one could support the second reading without pledging oneself to the particular mode in which it is proposed to meet the grievance; but I must say I failed to find it. Sometimes, in these Wednesday discussions, we take a very wide view in regard to second readings if a Bill tends in the right direction, and we find any leading clause in it which enables Members to vote for the principle, as it were, and which is often clone with the knowledge that the vote means that the House thinks the question ought to be dealt with, and that the Government will then take the subject up. Even if this Bill were read a second time to-day, there would not be the slightest chance of its becoming law in the present Session in the present state of Public Business. When I come to look through the Bill, I find nothing but the Preamble to which I could pledge myself, or to which I think the House would be prepared to pledge itself. But, then, you cannot vote for the second reading of the Bill solely on the Preamble. When I come to the clauses, I think there is a good deal that is open to the objections raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. At any rate, it would require close consideration before the House would pledge itself to that mode of meeting the want. I think that if the House passes this Bill, they will be pledged to meet this grievance by Parliamentary Committees sitting in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr, O'Shaughnessy) has
    678
    said he is strongly in favour of that plan, and has almost said that no other plan can succeed. Is not that going rather too far? It is possible that the result of inquiry may be that both English and Scotch Members would like to find some other tribunal to conduct their inquiries, and then I do not suppose that Irish Members would prefer Parliamentary inquiry any more than English or Scotch Members. The manner in which the hon. and learned Member has touched it has made it a very big question indeed, not to be decided offhand merely as a Bill to remove inconveniences. Again, we have heard a great deal about county government. That is a question which, has created great interest in England and in Ireland, and it may, perhaps, be supposed that one effect of a reformed system of local government would be that some of these matters would really be taken up by the County Boards. I do not think Irish Members would wish, to bind us to such an extent that, if that came up, we should be in the position of having pledged ourselves that the subject should not be thus dealt with. In connection with county government in Ireland, I do not want to give any precise statement. I think it is a matter that requires careful consideration; but I confess I have looked forward to the time when in this respect all the Three Kingdoms shall have a tribunal to conduct all those inquiries, which tribunal would ultimately defer to the House of Commons. I hope my hon. Friend who has brought this forward will be content with the interesting discussion we have had, and I will pledge the Government to a careful consideration of the matter. I cannot do more. There are so many things to be done and so many things to be said with regard to Ireland, and the time for doing this is so short, that we cannot hope to deal with the question this Session; but I hope we may before next Session find time for proper consideration of the matter, and with profitable results. We, and in that connection I include my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, believe that the evil is felt in Ireland, and we are determined to see how it can be met. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Bill, or the House may be placed in a false position. I hope the Bill will be with-

    679
    drawn; otherwise I shall feel it my duty to move the Previous Question, and, as a matter of form, I must take that step now, in the possibility of the hon. Member not complying.
    Motion made, and Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaw no reason why Irish professional men should not have the advantage of conducting these inquiries in their own country. At the same time, he thought Irish Members should be content with the assurance given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and withdraw the Bill. He was satisfied that whatever the right hon. Gentleman said he meant.
    MR. M'LARENsaid, he took an interest in this Bill, because the same principle as was contained in it was applicable to Scotland. There was in it a demand that had been made there for many years. The evil was felt very strongly indeed in the North, and a desire for some such arrangement was almost universal amongst those who had to do with private legislation. He did not, however, agree with the clauses of the Bill, as he thought it would be easy to establish a better plan.
    An hon. MEMBER wished to suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that, as he had expressed his approval of the principle of the Preamble, he would, probably, when they came to deal with the measure, as promised by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, find it useful to look into the provisions of two Bills which were brought in on this subject in 1872 by Mr. Pim and others, because he thought that, to a certain extent, the first part of the Bill was defective. By looking at the Bills to which he referred, many valuable suggestions might be received by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    MR. FAY,out of deference to the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, asked leave to withdraw the Bill. He was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the cordial answer he had given.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill withdrawn.

  MIDDLESEX LAND REGISTRY BILL.
  (Mr. Hopwood, Mr. Gregory, Sir Thomas Chambers.)
  MIDDLESEX LAND REGISTRY BILL.

    [BILL 142.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HOPWOOD,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that it originated in the wants of a large number of building societies, who were much interested in the proper registration of land titles, and the object of which was to make a registry which had existed for more than 100 years, and was confessedly in a most complicated and useless state, a working registry, assuring people interested in the purchase and conveyance of land something like certainty of title by establishing a system of registration similar to what prevailed in Scotland. The Bill was practically that which the Judge Advocate General (Mr. Osborne Morgan) introduced last Session, and he trusted it would meet with favourable consideration at the hands of the Government. The Bill commenced by repealing the statute of Queen Anne relating to the registration of land, and proposed to bring the matter under the direction of the Lord Chancellor as far as the regulation of the system was concerned. It further proposed that all the necessary local description of the property should be registered, and that its operation should extend not merely to the county of Middlesex, its original limit, but to the Metropolis generally, as defined by the Metropolis Local Management Act. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, that at the commencement of last Session he, as Chairman of the Committee which had sat to consider this question, had introduced a tentative measure, founded on the Scotch system. The Bill now before the House was practically the same measure; and speaking, as he did, on behalf of the Government, he found himself in the awkward position of having to oppose its second reading. In the language of the late Prime Minister, "a good deal had happened" since the time of which he had spoken, and the Govern-

    681
    ment had promised to lay before Parliament measures dealing with the whole question of land transfer, of which this question of registration formed a part. Under those circumstances, it could hardly be expected that at this stage of the Session they would be prepared to enter into a piece-meal discussion of this particular measure. He trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfied with his promise that the Government would give the subject their best attention, and would not press his measure.
    MR. GREGORY,approving of the principle of the Bill, expressed his regret that the Government were not prepared to accept it at once; but trusted they would deal with the question at as early a period as possible.
    SIR HENRY JACKSONhoped there would be time before the House adjourned to move a direct negative to a Bill which, although an apparently innocent, was really a most objectionable measure. It was an amiable attempt to patch up a system which every lawyer knew by experience to be very costly, and, if not mischievous, at best useless in its effect, and instead of amending it would, by continuing the system of registration of assurances, tend to keep back the reform of land transfer, which, in his judgment, depended entirely on registration of title. He begged to move the rejection of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir Henry Jackson.')
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. HOPWOODsignified his willingness to withdraw the Bill.
    MR. CHARLES LEWISthought it scarcely satisfactory that, because the Government entertained some grand views on the subject of the reform of the Land Laws, all practicable measures dealing with the question were to be set aside. He condoled with the right hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) and with the right hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hop wood), at having the duty cast upon them of stifling with their own hands their own offspring; but he trusted that next Session the measure would be reintroduced.
    And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.

    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS (1866–9).
    Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the Contagious Diseases Acts, 1866–9, their administration, operation, and effect:"—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
    Ordered, That all Reports and Returns thereto relating be referred to the Committee.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee, That they have power to receive evidence which may be tendered concerning similar systems in British Colonies or in other Countries, and to report whether the said Contagious Diseases Acts should he maintained, extended, amended, or repealed.—{Mr. Secretary Childers.)
    And, on July 9, Committee nominated as follows:—Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, Mr. STANS-FELD, Colonel ALEXANDER, Sir HARCOURT JOHNSTONE, Viscount CRICHTON, Mr. BURT, Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY, Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Mr. BRASSEY, Mr. COBBOLD, General BURNABY, Sir HENRY WOLFE, Mr. ERNEST NOEL, Colonel DIGBY, and Mr. WILLIAM FOWLER: —Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
    House adjourned at Five minutes before Six o'clock.