Commons Sitting of 3 February 1881

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee —Resolution [January 28] reported—£2,500,000, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered —First Reading —Poor Relief (Clerical Guardians) (Ireland) * [80]; Consolidated Fund*.
Third Reading —Burial and Registration Acts (Doubts Removal) * [66], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  AFGHANISTAN (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—FAILURE OF ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE.
  MR. BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for India, with reference to his despatch to the Government of India of November 4, 1880, on the failure of the Estimates for the war in Afghanistan, If he can state whether responsibility rests on any Indian officials besides those mentioned as having already resigned, viz.: Lord Lytton and the Military and Financial Members of the Indian Council; whether he has yet been able to rectify "the peculiarity of the procedure for the record of Indian Military Accounts," by which the Indian Government, as late as March 2, 1880, underestimated the cost of the war by the sum of £9,000,000, and, in their Budget of that date, declined a loan and remitted taxation; whether the Indian Government did not discover by the end of March, after an inquiry lasting only a few days, how erroneous were their Estimates of the war; and, what steps he proposes to take to prevent the recurrence of such errors?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Report which the despatch of November 4, 1880, referred to as expected from the Government of India, in accordance with the promise given in their letter of the 1st of June, as to the responsibility which, in their view, attached to the officers by whom the system of Military Accounts had been administered, has not yet been received. The late Government of India explained that the error arose from the Estimate of expenditure for the war having been based on the amount brought to record in the Audited Accounts, instead of the amount issued from the Treasuries for military purposes. Orders have been given that in future the issues for military and other services shall in the Accounts be treated as expenditure. The Government of India discovered in March that their cash balances would be lower than was anticipated; but they did not then know the extent of the error which had been committed. On the 8th of April, the Viceroy reported that the outgoings for the war were far in excess of the Estimate. On the 4th of

  49
  May the Government wrote that the aggregate net disbursements to the Military Department since the beginning of the operations had so far exceeded the normal payments to that Department as to suggest strong doubts of the correctness of its Estimates of the cost of the war. Instructions have been given for alterations in the system of account, and in regard to the duties to be assigned respectively to the Comptroller General and the Military Accountant General, as well as for the preparation of a Report by the former officer explaining any important variations between the Accounts and the Estimates. I have no objection to the hon. Member having, as an unopposed Return, a copy of the Report of the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State for India to inquire into the system of Military Account and Estimate in India, together with the evidence given before that Committee, and of the Orders of the Secretary of State on that Report.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT, 1880—OUT-DOOR RELIEF.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board may not authorise the issue of out-door relief in food and fuel (under section 3, Relief of Distress Act, 1880), in any particular union without (as now) waiting for the receipt of an application from said union; and, whether he will consider the advisability of giving power to the Local Government Board to require any board of guardians to issue out-door relief when necessary, and also continuing the said 3rd section of the Relief Act, amended as suggested up to 31st March 1882?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the Local Government Board could authorize the issue of out-door relief under Section 3 of the Relief Act in any Union without awaiting the receipt of an application from the Board of Guardians; but the Board of Guardians had no such power themselves. Applications had been received from about 60 Unions up to the present for special power in this respect. He was not aware of any Union in which it was necessary or desirable to coerce the Guardians to give out-door relief to able-bodied men.

  BOILER EXPLOSIONS—EXPLOSIONS AT RUABON AND MAIDSTONE.
  MR. HUGH MASONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he would order an official inquiry into the causes and circumstances attendant on the lamentable steam boiler explosion that occurred at Batley on Wednesday 19th January, and is reported to have killed as many as sixteen persons and injured eleven others (ten of those killed being women and children; and, whether the engineer officers of the Board of Trade who attended the inquests consequent on the boiler explosions that occurred at Ruabon on Saturday 20th November, 1880, and at Maidstone on Friday 3rd December, 1880, have reported: and, if so, whether he would allow the Reports to be printed and presented to Members of Parliament?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that the Maidstone Report had been received and was in the hands of the printer. It would shortly be in the hands of Members.

  INDIA—DUTY ON SILVER WORK.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that an important native industry of India is hampered by the duty on all silver work imported into the United Kingdom; and, whether he will consider the question of abolishing the duty upon imported silver work, in the interests of free trade as well as of Indian industry?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that, though this was not a matter of great financial importance, yet, as it was a financial matter, if he refrained from giving any positive answer it would form a somewhat dangerous precedent. He had carefully considered the subject of the bearing of these duties upon silver work imported into the United Kingdom from India; and he would continue that consideration of the subject in the hope that circumstances might enable him at the proper time to make some proposal to the House.

  FRANCE—NEW FRENCH LABOUR CODE —COOLIES (INDIAN) AT LA REUNION.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

  51
  If he can state what is the present position of the negotiations with France relative to the labour traffic between India and the Island of La Reunion; whether, pending those negotiations, the traffic continues; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have yet received the new French Labour Code; and, if so, if he would leave a copy of it in the Library?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The International Commissioners brought their labours to a close, for a time at least, about the end of September last. The French Government were then drawing up a projet de décret, which it was agreed that the British Commissioners should see, to regulate the questions at issue. Lord Lyons has recently pressed the French Government for a copy of this decree, in order that Her Majesty's Government may be enabled to come to an immediate decision as to the continuance of the emigration from India. Her Majesty's Government have not been informed whether the emigration has as yet been prohibited by the Indian authorities; but the season will have closed as usual in October last, although some emigration may have continued by steamers, as the Convention allows. With regard to the "now French Labour Code," I presume my hon. Friend refers to the decree of which I have already spoken.

  PERU AND CHILI—THE WAR—CONVEYANCE OF DISTRESSED BRITISH SUBJECTS FROM CALLAO TO CHIMBOLI.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What answer has been received from Her Majesty's Consul at Callao to the communication which the Foreign Office, in accordance with the statement made by the late Secretary to the Admiralty in the House on August 31st last, addressed to him with reference to the refusal of Captain D'Arcy of Her Majesty's Ship "Shannon" to carry distressed British subjects from Callao to to the port of Chimboti, at the time of the threatened bombardment of the former place?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has been misled by an incorrect report of the reply given by the late Secretary to the Admiralty in August last. Captain
  52
  D'Arcy was called on by the Admiralty, and not by the Foreign Office, through Her Majesty's Consul, for an explanation of his refusal to carry certain distressed British subjects from Callao to Chimboti; but I may be allowed to state that the Foreign Office, to whom Captain D'Arcy's despatch was referred, agreed with the Admiralty in considering that officer's explanation satisfactory.

  AFGHANISTAN—RETENTION OF CAN-DAHAR — MEMORANDUM OF LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether "the means of determining" the policy of the Government for the abandonment of Candahar, stated by the Government to be in their possession, is from oral communication or from written documents; if from the latter, whether the Government will lay these documents upon the Table of the House; whether the Government intend to abandon the Pishin Valley as well as Candahar; to whom and under what form of Government do the Government propose to entrust Candahar and the neighbouring districts after their evacuation by British troops; and, whether, now that a transcript of the Memorandum written by Lord Napier of Magdala has appeared in the "Times" newspaper the Government still intend not to lay it upon the Table of the House?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the information in the possession of the Government, which in their opinion gave the necessary means determining the policy in reference to Candahar, was derived partly from oral statements and partly from written documents; and I have already stated that there is no obligation on the Government, and it is not usual, to lay on the Table of the House confidential memoranda, or notes written by Members of the Council of India, or other authorities whom the Government may think it necessary to consult. I will, however, before the House discusses this question, consider whether it is possible, in this case, to lay on the Table any written information which has been received. The hon. Member-asks what are our intentions with regard to the Pishin Valley as well as to Candahar, and to what form of government it is proposed to entrust Candahar and the neighbouring districts after the

  53
  evacuation? The question of the limit to be occupied by our troops and the form of government at Candahar and the district around it is still under the consideration of the Government of India. I do not think it would be possible within the limits of a question to state to the House what the position of affairs is generally in Candahar and the neighbourhood. I shall be very glad to do so when there is an opportunity of bringing the Question fully before the House. With regard to Lord Napier of Magdala's Memorandum, it would not be in our power to lay it officially on the Table. It has never been officially communicated to me. If it should reach me in an official form, I will consider whether it is possible to include it in the Papers.

  STATE OF IRELAND — PUBLIC MEETINGS — THE DRUMCOLLIHER LAND LEAGUE.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is true that a constable of police entered a private room belonging to the Land League at Drumcolliher, county Limerick, on Tuesday last, and, when remonstrated with for remaining therein uninvited, he stated he would remain there until he was forcibly ejected; if it is true that the parish priest was in the chair at the time, and that there were also present priests, professional men, and some of the largest farmers in the district; and, whether the police are directed to act in this manner for the purpose of exasperating the people into committing a breach of the peace?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) (for Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND),in reply, sai4, that he had not received Notice of this Question, and, therefore, could not reply as to the facts; but with respect to the last portion of it, he could assure the House that in no instance had the police in Ireland been directed to act in such cases in any manner for the purpose of exasperating the people into a breach of the peace.

  STATE OF IRELAND—PROCLAMATION OF COUNTY CLARE
  MR. FINIGANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Upon what grounds and upon what
  54
  informations it has been thought necessary to proclaim the County Clare, which is stated by responsible persons in the county to be in a condition of peace and order?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The County Clare was proclaimed by the Lord Lieutenant because of its unsatisfactory state on the urgent representations of the Lieutenant of the county, the magistrates, and the Constabulary authorities. Those representations were well weighed by His Excellency, and he thought that the county ought to be proclaimed. I am not aware that any responsible person has reported the county to be in a condition of "peace and order." I suppose by "responsible persons" the hon. Member means people publicly responsible for the observance of peace and order.
  MR. FINIGAN: Town Commissioners.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Town Commissioners are hardly responsible for the county of Clare. There are 31 persons in the county who are specially watched over.

  ARMY—REGIMENTAL COLOURS.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, with reference to his reply of the 12th August last, Whether he has during the Recess considered the propriety of placing regiments clothed in red on the same footing as those clothed in green, with respect to "Regimental Colours," by discontinuing the use of such impedimenta?
  ADMIRAL EGERTONhad also a Question on the Paper to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will take steps to inquire if, under the existing circumstances of military warfare, and in view of the great risk to and loss of valuable lives attending the practice of carrying regimental colours into action, it may not be desirable to modify the rules of the service regarding it?
  MR. CHILDERS: With their permission I will also answer the Questions on this subject put by the hon. and gallant Member for East Derby (Admiral Egerton) and the hon. Member for Kinsale. At the end of the last Session my hon. and gallant Friend put a similar Question, and I replied that the use of Regimental Colours would receive full consideration by the military authorities. The inquiries are not complete;

  55
  but before the end of the Session I hope to be able to make a statement to the House on the subject.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—REGULATION OF OUT-DOOR RELIEF.
  MR. METGEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the case that while in England out-door relief may be granted to the family of any person confined in a gaol, in Ireland there is no such power; whether such want of power to grant outdoor relief does not arise from the provisions of the Act of 1847; and, whether, if this is the case, he will take any steps to amend the provisions of that Act?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he had only seen the hon. Member's Question that morning, and he should ask him to postpone it until he had ascertained what was the law on the point.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1879—USE OF DEFECTIVE GLASS MEASURES.
  MR. BARRANasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will sanction the use of glass measures of capacity made prior to the Act of 1879, which are defective to the extent of 50 minims or drops in 20 ounces for veterinary purposes, upon their being marked by the inspector accordingly; and, if not, will the Board of Trade allow compensation for loss of value; and, whether, as the glass measures used by apothecaries and retail chemists and druggists do not alter in any way by use, it may be distinctly understood that any glass measure bearing the mark of verification of an inspector appointed under this Act will be considered a legal measure in any part of the United Kingdom?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, the Board of Trade had no power to interfere with the verification by local authorities of glass measures; but they were, by the assistance of the Pharmaceutical Society and the principal local authorities, preparing suggestions as to the scale of error which should be permitted. The Weights and Measures Act of 1878 provided that a measure duly stamped by an Inspector under the Act should be a legal measure throughout the United Kingdom, unless found to be
  56
  false or unjust. There had recently been a conviction in the case of a measure stamped by an Inspector; but it was quashed on appeal on the ground that the possessor was not aware that it was false or unjust.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS—DULWICH COLLEGE—THE NEW SCHEME.
  MR. CHARLES ROUNDELLasked the Vice President of the Council, The cause of the delay of the Charity Commissioners in submitting a new scheme for Dulwich College?
  MR. MUNDELLA,in reply, said, that the scheme had that day been forwarded to the Governors of the College.

  THE PENAL SERVITUDE COMMISSION, 1879—DISCONTINUANCE OF THE PRISON AT SPIKE ISLAND.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government propose to adopt the recommendation of the Penal Servitude Commission of 1879, and of the General Prisons Board of Ireland, to discontinue the prison at Spike Island?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: In reply to the hon. Member's Question, I beg to say that it is the intention of the Government to discontinue the prison at Spike Island.

  STATE OF IRELAND—CRIME IN WEXFORD.
  MR. HEALTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether attention has been drawn to the fact that on Friday last the Wexford Grand Jury were discharged without being sworn owing to there being no criminal cases to try?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do net know whether the attention of other people has been called to it; my attention certainly has not been called to it.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—THE LISTS.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Why the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury recently issued a Circular to the Collectors of Customs at the principal ports of England and Wales, in which instructions were given to with-

  57
  hold the names of shippers hitherto furnished to daily papers in connection with the regular shipping list?
  MR. J. HOLMS: If the hon. and gallant Member refers to the directions which have been given to omit exporters' names from the Bill of Entry B, the answer to his Question is that such directions were founded on a recommendation made by a Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the work of the Bill of Entry Office last year. That recommendation was made on account of the objection taken by exporters to the practice of publishing their names. I may add that as importers have no objection to their names being published, the names of importers are still published as hitherto.

  SCOTLAND—THE REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH—RE-ORGANIZATION.
  MR. FRASER MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, When the Scheme for the Re-organization of the Register House, Edinburgh, will be promulgated, and in what manner vacancies are proposed to be filled up?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): In answer to the first part of the Question, I can state that the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Register House has been prepared. In answer to the second part of the Question, I beg to say that the Committee have recommended a modified application of the Civil Service system; but further than that I am not in a position to report.

  STATE OF IRELAND—CLOSING OF PUBLIC-HOUSES AT TUAM.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If an order was suddenly given on Wednesday the 26th of January to clear the public houses in Tuam on the evening of the 26th of January, when the town was illuminated to celebrate the termination of a Dublin trial; and, if, on this occasion, there were any indications of a breach of the peace sufficient to warrant so strong a step; and, if not, would he give orders to prevent for the future taxpayers from being seriously interrupted in the exercise of their lawful calling?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that an order had been given to close the
  58
  public-houses at Tuam on the 26th of January. There was sworn information that if they were not closed a riot might be anticipated. There was no reason why the Government should interfere.

  TURKEY—BLACK SEA LIGHTHOUSES.
  MR. C. PALMERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps have been taken at Constantinople to place the lighthouses, lightships, and life-saving establishments in the Bosphorus and Black Sea, and which are mainly supported by dues levied on British shipping, under a satisfactory control and direction of an international or a properly constituted Commission?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have just laid on the Table the last despatch received from Mr. Goschen on this subject, which fully shows the present position of this question.

  POST OFFICE—LETTERS OF MEMBERS.
  DR. LYONSasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will consider the feasibility of franking all outward letters of Members of this House posted on the premises, having regard to the fact that the great bulk of the correspondence of Members arises in the discharge of their duties to their constituents?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, if it were thought desirable to adopt the suggestion contained in the Question, it would not be in his power to carry it out; because by the Act 3 & 4 Vict. c. 96, all provisions with regard to the franking of letters were abolished, and Members of the House were placed in the same position as the general public.

  NAVY—SEAMEN'S RATIONS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether an order has been recently issued to any of Her Majesty's Ships forbidding the seamen of the Fleet to land any of the fresh meat issued to them as rations; and, if there is any special reason for such an order, and by whose authority it was issued?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Commander-in-Chief at Portsmouth last January issued a confidential Memorandum, calling attention to the 648th Article of the Queen's Regulations, which directs that—

  59
  "Provisions or stores are not to be issued on shore, or taken out of the ship, for any other purpose than for victualling portions of the crow when absent on duty, or on other public account; and they are never in any way to be deemed to have become public property."
  This is not a new Regulation. It can be traced in the Admiralty instructions as far back as 1844; and the reason why the Order referring to it was issued was that the Commander-in-Chief had cause to know that it was violated.

  POOR LAW—THE POOR RATE.
  MR. MACIVERasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to an Appeal Case heard in the Court of Exchequer on 28th November 1879 (The Overseers of the Parish of St. Werburgh, Derby, Appellants, and Henry Hutchinson, Respondent), when a decision was given that an outgoing tenant leaving premises before the expiration of the period for which a poor rate is made, and is not followed by an incoming tenant, but the premises remaining unoccupied during the remainder of the period, is liable for the full amount of the rate; whether he is aware that, in consequence of this decision, the Poor Law Auditors in various parts of the Country are compelling overseers to collect the full amount levied under the circumstances; and, seeing that the sixteenth section of "The Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869,"was intended to remedy this anomaly, he is prepared to take steps for the removal of the injustice referred to?
  MR. DODSON: My attention has been called to this case; but I am not aware to what extent, if any, the auditors are requiring overseers to collect the full rates from outgoing occupiers. In those cases where there is a liability' to pay the full rate it is incumbent on the overseers to collect the amount; and if they neglect to do so, it is the duty of the auditors to surcharge the overseers with the deficiency. It has been the law ever since the Statute of Elizabeth that a poor rate becomes due immediately after it is allowed by the Justices; and as it is made to cover prospective expenditure during the estimated period, overseers would be involved in serious difficulty if they could not recover the full amount from the occupier, who might otherwise allege that he was about to quit and
  60
  claim to pay part of the rate only. Section 16 of the Poor Bate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, was not intended to meet the particular case referred to. The intention was not to protect the ratepayers, but to protect the parish by enabling the overseers, in cases where an outgoing tenant had failed to pay the full rate, to recover a proportionate part from an incoming tenant, or where the premises were unoccupied when the rate was made and become occupied afterwards. At present, it is doubtful whether an outgoing tenant can recover any part of a rate which he has paid from an incoming occupier, and to this extent the law may need amendment; otherwise, in the interest of the ratepayers as a body, there would seem to be good reason why the existing law should be maintained.

  NAVY—NAVAL MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Report of the Committee on the pay and position of Naval Medical Officers will be circulated before the next examination of candidates for the Medical Service of the Navy?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Report on the pay and position of Naval Medical Officers will be presented to Parliament when the correspondence on some minor points in the scheme has been terminated with the Treasury. The scheme has, however, virtually been settled, and may shortly be described as follows:— Ever since 1854 it has been understood that the pay and position of Naval Medical Officers shall be 7 per cent better than the pay and position of Army Medical Officers, in order to counterbalance the advantages of the two Services. The position of Army Medical Officers was improved by the late Government on such a scale that there is no difficulty now in obtaining suitable candidates. The scheme which I shall have the honour of laying before the Committee, in moving the Estimates, gives a proportional improvement to Medical Officers in the Navy, placing them on a scale 7 per cent better than the improved scale in the Army. The new scheme of pay, position, and retirement will come into force on the 1st of April next. It may be mentioned that successful candidates will receive full

  61
  pay as surgeons from the moment of entering the Service.

  POOR LAW — VACCINATION — THE HOLBORN BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is true that he has given any sanction to a resolution lately brought before the Holborn Board of Guardians, under which relief would be refused to all paupers who had not been vaccinated?
  MR. DODSON: I have not given my sanction to any resolution by the Holborn Guardians under which relief would be refused to all paupers who had not been vaccinated. Nor do I believe that any such resolution has been passed by them. In view of the spread of small-pox, a recommendation was made to the Guardians that the medical officer, when examining paupers on their admission to the workhouse, should ascertain whether they had been vaccinated, and, if not, that steps should be taken to induce their vaccination as early as practicable; but this is a very different thing from making vaccination a condition of relief, which would be altogether illegal.

  STATE OF IRELAND—PUBLIC MEETINGS—LAND LEAGUE MEETING AT BANTRY.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is true that, on the 24th January, at a meeting of the Bantry Land League in a large storeroom in the town, a couple of policemen were in attendance; whether the head-constable asked permission to have some of his men present at the meeting; whether, on being refused, he stated that he could get a warrant, and insist on attending; whether permission was therefore given to the police to be present; and, if the conduct of the police has the approval of the Government?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I have inquired into this matter, and what appears to have occurred was this. The secretary, Mr. Gilhooly, was standing in the street at Bantry, and on being asked by the head constable whether he had any objection to the head constable and another constable attending the meeting, objected to their doing so and said it was a private room. On this, the
  62
  head constable said he could get a warrant and go in. There the matter ended so far. Soon afterwards the head constable met a prominent member of the Land League, and on telling him that Mr. Gilhooly would not let the constables into the meeting, he said—"Come along, and I'll give you leave." Accordingly they went and were at once admitted. With reference to that part of the Question which inquires "if the conduct of the police has the approval of the Government," so far as I can see the constables were admitted to the meeting voluntarily, and not, as the previous terms of the Question would appear to suggest, under threat of obtaining a warrant. If any such threat had been used, in the circumstances of this case, it would not have had the approval of the Government.

  AGRARIAN CRIME (IRELAND)—THE RETURNS.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would have any objection to submit a Return of Agrarian Crime in Ireland from the 1st day of January 1880, distinguishing serious from trivial offences, and showing the cases in which more than one charge is recorded against the same person or persons; and also showing where more than one person is charged for an offence committed at the same time and place?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that it would be perfectly easy for the hon. Member to get the information he required from the Returns already before the House.

  PARLIAMENT—THE SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, looking to the probability that the sittings of the House may be continued beyond the hours of darkness during which the signal lamp on the Clock Tower would be available, and also with reference to Wednesday and other morning sittings, he will consider the practicability of hoisting a flag on the tower, or using some other signal, to indicate that the House is sitting, during the hours of daylight.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, he hoped he was justified in assuming

  63
  that the House would not often sit until daylight when it met at 4 o'clock, and that it would scarcely be worth while, in his opinion, to act upon the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member so far as the Sittings on Wednesdays were concerned.

  RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT—RELIEF WORKS AT CLONAKILTY.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the reason why the Relief Works recently passed by the Presentment Sessions in the Union of Clonakilty have not yet been sanctioned by the Government?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the works recommended by the Local Government Board had received the sanction of the Government, and that the Board of Works had got the necessary instructions to carry them out.

  ARMY—ROYAL HIBERNIAN MILITARY SCHOOL, DUBLIN.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will inquire whether undue severity is used in inflicting corporal punishment on the boys in the Royal Hibernian Military School, Phoenix Park, Dublin; and if there is any foundation for a statement that a child of eight years of age, who was just discharged out of hospital, was beaten so severely for sharing his dinner with another boy that he fainted several times; and, if such should be the fact, by whose authority the punishment was inflicted?
  MR. CHILDERS: I have made inquiry into the statement referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Wicklow, and I believe that whoever has made it to him has greatly exaggerated the circumstances of the case, which occurred in October last. But Sir Thomas Steele has appointed a Committee of the Governors to inquire into the discipline and mode of punishment in the school, and I shall give every attention to their Report when I receive it.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL WAR—LIST OF KILLED.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Secretary of State for War,
  64
  Whether any instruction has been given to Sir George Colley to telegraph the names of officers and men who have fallen in the late action in the Transvaal?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to state that some days ago I telegraphed to Sir George Colley to report by telegraph all deaths of men, as well as officers; and this information, when received, will be immediately published.
  In reply to an hon. MEMBER,
  MR. CHILDERSsaid: I especially telegraphed to Sir George Colley, requesting him to give me, as soon as he could obtain it, detailed information as to the fate of Colonel Anstruther; but up to the time of coming down to the House I have not received a reply to that telegram.

  ORDER—PRIVILEGE—PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL—CLOSURE OF THE DEBATE ON WEDNESDAY.
  MR. J. COWEN: I desire to ask the Prime Minister a Question of some importance; and, to put it clearly before the House, I require to offer a few sentences of explanation, which I trust the House will allow. You, Mr. Speaker, yesterday took upon yourself a very heavy responsibility. You closed a debate when there were Members in the House who, according to the Rules, had still a right to be heard. You said that this exercise of your power was unusual and exceptional. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) asked you under what Standing Order of the House you took that course. You said that you had acted on your own responsibility, and from a sense of duty to the House. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) asked you to allow him to question the legality of the proceedings on a point of Privilege. You refused to permit him to do this. You said the only way in which your authority could be called in question was by a distinct Motion. Now, Sir, a Motion by a private Member of the House cannot be made at the present time, as the Government have absorbed all the time of Parliament. What I

  65
  want to ask the Prime Minister is— seeing the extraordinary, exceptional, and serious character of the step that you, on your own responsibility, took yesterday — whether the Government will give facilities for reviewing your action in this matter? It is not a question of Party. It does not affect the Irish Members alone, but it affects the privileges and rights of the British Parliament; and I trust the Prime Minister will permit the subject to be debated without delay, both in your interest and in that of the Legislature.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I can only say that I enter into all the considerations named by the hon. Gentleman, and admit the force of the general considerations stated in his Question. After an occurrence such as that which has taken place, it is, in the first place, I think, due to you, Sir, and it is, in the second place, due to the universal feeling of the House, and the interests involved, that we should anxiously desire an opportunity, as your judgment and procedure have been challenged, that the final judgment of the House should be pronounced upon it. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly accurate in stating that one large portion of the burden now imposed upon us consists in this—that by a Motion carried in this House we have absorbed all the time and all the opportunities which are ordinarily at the command of private Members. Then, what is the obligation which devolves upon us in consequence of our having, in that sense, possessed ourselves of the whole time of the House? I think the obligation imposed upon us, subject, of course, to our responsibility to this House, is in good faith to present to the House each of the subjects of which we are officially in charge, in proportion to their claim upon the public time. That being so, I must say that, although had such a case as that of yesterday morning occurred in ordinary times, I should have considered that it was urgent, and that it should take precedence of all ordinary Business, and although now I think it should take precedence of all ordinary Business, I must consider we have now in hand Business that is not ordinary. It is Business extraordinary, that the measures now before the House, especially that connected with the safety of life and the
  66
  protection of property in Ireland, and the proposals which Her Majesty's Government found themselves under the necessity of preparing, to enable the House to deal with those measures, should take precedence of every other subject. The moment that we can tolerably escape from these obligations, I should quite agree—no one would be more desirous than I—that we should relieve you, Sir, from any uncertainty, and that we should pay your office and yourself the mark of respect which can be conveyed by our searching for the very first opportunity of discussing the matter referred to in the Question of the hon. Member in preference to the discussion of anything that can be called ordinary Business.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that as the Notice of Motion given by him on this subject now appeared on the Paper, and as he had placed it there for the purpose of raising the question in proper form, and of challenging the legality of a certain act, and as he now learned from the Prime Minister that, although he was aware that the issue was thus raised, he declined to afford the Speaker and the House the earliest opportunity of having that great issue decided, he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) begged to say that he should not be any party to a farce, and he should withdraw the Motion, which the Prime Minister feared to have faced.

  TURKEY AND GREECE—THE GREEK FRONTIER QUESTION.
  MR. BRYCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any foundation for the statement contained in a Reuter's telegram, and published in various newspapers, to the effect that isolated communications are being addressed to the Porte by Mr. St. John, who at present represents Her Majesty at Constantinople?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In answer to the Question of the hon. Member as to whether there is any foundation whatever for a Reuter's telegram in the papers of to-day, which states that isolated communications are being made by Mr. St. John to the Porte on the Greek Frontier Question, I have to say that there is no foundation for this report.

  THE DIVISION LISTS.
  MR. D. O'CONORcomplained that, in the list of the first Division on Tuesday morning, his name was placed among those who voted with the majority. At the time when the Division took place he was not in the House, having gone home after 2 A.M., thinking that there was no prospect of a Division on the Main Question. It, therefore, appeared as if some person had been representing him. In some evening papers he was alluded to as one of the few Irish Members who opposed the Divisions of Irish Members opposite. As he had not taken part in any of those Divisions he wished to make it clear that he had not voted with the majority.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member having drawn the attention of the House to a mistake in the Division Lists, the Lists will accordingly be corrected.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS—QUESTIONS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Speaker, Whether it was not usual for a Member to be communicated with when a Question which had been given in to the Clerk at the Table did not appear on the Paper, or when it was altered? His reason for asking was that a Question which he wished to put to the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not appear on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the terms of the Question to which the hon. Member refers were brought up to the Table yesterday about a quarter of an hour before the House rose. Sufficient time has not been given for determining whether the Question is regular; and I am bound to say, on looking at the Question, that it will require some consideration before it is submitted to the House.

  IRISH LEGISLATION—THE LAND BILL.
  MR. GIVANasked the Prime Minister, "Whether, in view of the great anxiety prevailing in Ireland for remedial measures, he would be prepared on an early day to inform the House and the country of the general details of the proposed Land Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member himself has just heard the appeal made to me to find time for the consideration of another matter of extreme im-
  68
  portance. I can only say this—and I am bound to say it—that, in my opinion, founded upon a pretty long experience, and having reference to matters necessarily of a more or less complicated nature, I am afraid—I wish it were otherwise—there is but one way of safely, usefully, or effectually conveying to the House an idea of the character of the provisions of the measure to which the hon. Member has referred, and that is by a lengthened explanation, accompanied by the act of laying the Bill on the Table. We are anxious, on the earliest opportunity which we can find in the as yet uncleared state of matters, to acquaint the House with the subject referred to in the hon. Member's Question. I cannot at present speak more definitely.

  THE CONVICT MICHAEL DAVITT.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Mr. Michael Davitt was arrested at One o'clock to-day?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. After consultation with my Colleagues the Law Officers of the Crown and the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, I have come to the decision that the conduct of Michael Davitt has been incompatible with the ticket-of-leave by which a convict enjoying the conditional favour of the Crown is permitted to be at large.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Home Secretary which are the conditions of his ticket - of - leave which Michael Davitt has violated?
  Sir WILLIAM HARCOURTgave no answer to the Question.

MOTIONS.
  PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (URGENCY).—RESOLUTION.

    RULES OF DEBATE—DIVISIONS-SUSPENSION OF MEMBERS.
    [It is to be understood that throughout the subsequent proceedings the greatest excitement and confusion prevailed.]
    At half-past Four o'clock, in accordance with Rule 116, by which Motions concerning Public Business are taken before the commencement of the regular Business of the day—
    MR. SPEAKERcalled upon Mr. GLADSTONE.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, in conformity with the Notice I yesterday gave to the House, for the purpose of calling its attention to a subject of considerable novelty, and of the extremest gravity—
    Mr. DILLONrose amid loud cries of "Order!"and "Chair!"
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House.
    Mr. DILLONagain rose in his place. ["Order, order!" "Chair! Chair!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I call on the hon. Member to resume his seat.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: But the hon. Member rises to a point of Order. ["Chair! Chair!"]
    MR. DILLON(who remained standing, though directed by Mr. Speaker to resume his seat): Mr. Speaker, I rise to demand my Privilege—[Renewed cries of "Chair!"and "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Tipperary is disregarding the authority of the Chair—therefore, in the terms of the Standing Order, I Name you, Mr. Dillon, as wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, you have Named Mr. Dillon as wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair; and I therefore move, in conformity with the Standing Order—"That Mr. Dillon be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."
    Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Dillon be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Mr. Dillon rose to a point of Order. I object to the division being taken.
    The House divided: —Ayes 395; Noes 33: Majority 362.—(Div. List, No. 21.)
    MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with the Resolution just passed by the House, Mr. Dillon will withdraw.
    MR. DILLON: I beg most respectfully to— [Loud cries of "Order! Order!"and "Chair! Chair!"]— I rise to a point of Order, and I demand my Privilege, as a Member of this House—[Renewed cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: Under the present circumstances, it is quite out of the question that the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to address the House, and I must call upon him to withdraw.
    MR. DILLON: I most respectfully decline, Sir, to withdraw.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is my duty to carry out the Order of the House, and I direct the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove Mr. Dillon.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say—"Order, order!"and "Chair! Chair!"] [Cries of" Order!"and "Name!"]—in the case of the Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) a debate took place on the Motion, and I rise to speak on this Motion. ["Order!"]
    The Serjeant-at-Arms accordingly, advancing to the hon. Member, invited him to retire; who however refusing, the Serjeant-at-Arms (the principal Doorkeeper and Messengers being in attendance), placing his hand upon the hon. Member, requested his compliance with the Order of Mr. Speaker—
    Whereupon, Mr. DILLON, exclaiming, "If you employ force I must yield," withdrew with the Serjeant-at-Arms.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that, within the Rules followed last year in the case of the hon. Member for Northampton—[An hon. MEMBER: Ah! but he was an Englishman!] There is no doubt, Sir, that you were strictly within the Rules in putting the Motion that Mr. Dillon withdraw; but you declared last year from the Chair that, without specific authority from the House arming you with the necessary power to carry out the Resolution of the House, you could not act; and when the hon. Member for Northampton refused to withdraw, the Prime Minister or someone else got up and gave you, by Motion in the House, which was debated, the authority without which you declared that you could not act. I therefore, Sir, respectfully submit that the conduct now pursued is a violation of precedent, a violation of liberty, an act of illegality; and I contest it as such, leaving it to all whom it may concern to pursue to any extremity they please the penalty of my making this protest. My hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary rose to a point of Order

    71
    that it was within his competence to do. According to the ancient usages and Rules of this House, if any Member rises to a point of Order, the point of Order is heard, and by you, Sir, determined, and then he must take his seat. But my hon. Friend, after again and again declaring that he rose to a point of Order, found himself—[Cries of "No!"]—if hon. Gentlemen say "No!" it is because the clamours which assailed him—themselves violations of Order—prevented them or others from hearing him; but there are a dozen Gentlemen here who can make oath that they heard him. Having thus risen to a point of Order— having been refused from the Chair the liberty to make a point of Order—he has been punished by an illegal exercise of usurped authority. And I adjure the House to pause in this course of illegality, which is being systematically and in combination pursued by a majority. I say that I challenge the production of any precedent for what has happened. My hon. Friend was within his right. He rose to a point of Order; and when that right was attempted to be taken from him, he asserted it by the only way that was open to him—the reign of law being over, and the reign of force having commenced. I say, on my own responsibility, that we have become a mere parody of the Third Empire.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is entitled to rise to a point of Order, and while he confines himself to the point of Order the House will be ready to hear him; but I cannot allow him to digress into extraneous matters in the manner he is now doing.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I shall do exactly what the Rules of the House prescribe. I feel myself in an exceedingly peculiar position, because I rise to protest against the legality of what has been done. It was in no spirit of bravado that I rose to contest in my humble person the legality of what has taken place. I say, Sir, if I was at liberty to rise on this point of Order, so was my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary. Why am I to have a liberty denied to him? I decline to accept any exceptional favour which is not shared by every Member of this House. There is no high or low here. ["Question, Question!"] I again adjure the House to pause in what it is now doing. They
    72
    have sent my hon. Friend from this House, dragging him from his seat—
    MR. SPEAKER: I will at once answer the hon. and learned Member on the point of Order which he has raised. The hon. and learned Member says that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was removed from the House, and that it was done by a special Order of the House. That is perfectly true. Upon that occasion I was unable to act on my own authority on that question because there was no Order of the House. But there is now an Order of the House that Mr. Dillon be suspended, and I am bound to carry out the Order of the House. With regard to the other point of Order raised by the hon. and learned Member, I have to point out that, under present circumstances, it is immaterial whether Mr. Dillon rose to a point of Order or not. Even assuming that to be the case, he was entirely defying the authority of the Chair by his conduct. It is a well-understood Rule that when the Speaker rises every Member is bound to resume his seat. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), in deference to that Rule, resumed his seat—Mr. Dillon remained in his place, and stood there in defiance of the authority of the Chair. It was in consequence of that defiance of the authority of the Chair that he was suspended.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The point of Order being now disposed of—
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANrose, amid loud cries of "Chair, Chair!"
    MR. SPEAKER: I call upon the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.
    THE O'DONOGHUE: I rise to move the adjournment of the House.[Loud cries of" Order, Order!" "Chair, Chair!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House, and is entitled to proceed without interruption.
    MR. PARNELL: I beg to move that the right hon. Gentleman be no further heard. [Cries of "Name him! Name him!"]
    [From this incident forward, the Business of the House proceeded under indescribable confusion.]
    MR. SPEAKER: With the permission of the House—the right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House.
    MR. PARNELL: I insist upon my Motion being put. ["Name, Name!"] Upon a former occasion, it will be in the memory of this House that the right hon. Gentleman himself—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Cork leaves me no option by his conduct. The hon. Member persists in interruption when I have called upon the right hon. Gentleman. If he persists, I shall be bound to Name him to the House.
    THE O'DONOGHUE: I rise, Sir, most respectfully to a point of Order. I have to point out to you that the course taken by my hon. Friend is identical with a course adopted on a former occasion, and that my hon. Friend has simply followed a precedent set him by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself. When an hon. Member rose upon an occasion which will be perfectly within the recollection of the House and was in the act of speaking, the right hon. Gentleman moved that that hon. Member should be no longer heard.
    MR. SPEAKER: I regard the course which is now being taken in the nature of wilful and persistent Obstruction; and I shall, therefore, put in force the Standing Order in relation to that matter. I now call upon the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I now propose, Sir, after the painful scenes we have witnessed, to re-commence the sentence which was interrupted when I was beginning my speech. The duty which I have to perform concerns a matter which is, undoubtedly, of vast importance, and a matter which, unhappily, at every point, is bristling with polemical differences and controversial matters—
    MR. PARNELL: I beg to insist, as a Member of this House, upon my right to move that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister be no further heard.
    MR. SPEAKER: As I have already stated, I regard this conduct as wilful and deliberate Obstruction. [Cries of "Name, Name!"]
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: The Prime Minister was allowed to do what the hon. Member now seeks to do.
    MR. SPEAKER: I Name you, Mr. Parnell, as disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Speaker having Named Mr. Parnell, the Member for the City of Cork, in pursuance of the Standing Order of February, 1880, it becomes my duty to move that Mr. Parnell be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting.
    Motion made and Question put, "That Mr. Parnell be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR, one of the Tellers for the Ayes, came to the Table and stated that he was unable to clear the House for the Division, certain Members having declared to him that it was their intention not to quit their places in the House.
    Mr. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, the Home Rule Members continued in their places as a protest against the illegality of the proceeding.
    Mr. SPEAKERinformed those Members it was their duty to retire from the House into one of the Lobbies, in order to take part in the Division, and that, if they refused to do so, their votes could not be counted; and Mr. Speaker then directed the Division to proceed.
    The Tellers declared the numbers to be: — Ayes 405; Noes 7: Majority 398.

    AYES.

    Acland, Sir T. D.

    Biddell, W.

    Agar-Robartes, hn. T.C.

    Biddulph, M.

    Ainsworth, D.

    Birkbeck, E.

    Alexander, Colonel

    Birley, H.

    Allen, H. G.

    Blackburne, Col. J. I.

    Anderson, G.

    Blennerhassett, P. P.

    Armitage, B.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Armitstead, G.

    Boord, T. W.

    Arnold, A.

    Borlase, W. C.

    Ashley, hon. E. M.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Bailey, Sir J. R.

    Brand, H. P.

    Baldwin, E.

    Brassey, T.

    Balfour, A. J.

    Brett, P. B.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Briggs, W. E.

    Balfour, J. B.

    Bright, rt. hon. J.

    Balfour, J. S.

    Brinton, J.

    Baring, Viscount

    Brise, Colonel R.

    Barnes, A.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Barran, J.

    Broadley, W. H. H.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Brooke, Lord

    Bass, A.

    Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

    Bateson, Sir T.

    Bruce, hon. B,. P.

    Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

    Bruce, hon. T.

    Beach, rt. hon. Sir M. H.

    Bryce, J.

    Beaumont, W. B.

    Brymer, W. E.

    75

    Butt, C. P.

    Egerton, hon. W.

    Buxton, F. W.

    Elcho, Lord

    Cameron, C.

    Elliot, hon. A. B. D.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Ennis, Sir J.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    Errington, G.

    Campbell, B. F. F.

    Evans, T. W.

    Campbell-Bannerman, H.

    Ewart, W.

    Ewing, A. O.

    Carbutt, E. H.

    Fairbairn, Sir A.

    Caring-ton, hn. Colonel W. H. P.

    Farquharson, Dr. B.

    Cartwright, W. C.

    Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

    Causton, R. K.

    Feilden.Major-General B. J.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Fellowes, W. H.

    Cavendish, Lord F. C.

    Fenwick-Bisset, M.

    Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

    Ferguson, B.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

    Chambers, Sir T.

    Filmer, Sir E.

    Chaplin, H.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

    Cheetham, J. F.

    Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W.

    Childers, rt. hn. H.C.E.

    Fitzwilliam, hn. H. W.

    Christie, W. L.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Clarke, E.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Clarke, J. C.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

    Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

    Close, M. C.

    Fort, R.

    Cobbold, T. C.

    Fowler, H. H.

    Coddington, W.

    Fowler, W.

    Cohen, A.

    Fremantle, hon. T. F.

    Compton, F.

    Fry, L.

    Corbett, J.

    Fry, T.

    Corry, J. P.

    Galway, Viscount

    Cotes, C. C.

    Gardner, B. Richardson-

    Cotton, W. J. R.

    Courtauld, G.

    Gibson, rt. hon. E.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

    Cowan, J.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Cowper, hon. H. F.

    Gladstone, W. H.

    Creyke, R.

    Glyn, hon. S. C.

    Crichton, Viscount

    Goldney, Sir G.

    Cropper, J.

    Gordon, Sir A.

    Cross, rt. hn. Sir E. A.

    Gower, hon. E. F. L.

    Crum, A.

    Grafton, F. W.

    Cubitt, rt. hon. G.

    Grant, A.

    Cunliffe, Sir B. A.

    Grant, D.

    Currie, D.

    Grant, Sir G. M.

    Dalrymple, C.

    Greer, T.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Gregory, G. B.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Grenfell, W. H.

    Davey, H.

    Grey, A. H. G.

    Davies, D.

    Guest, M. J.

    Davies, R.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Davies, W.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Dawnay, Col. hn. L. P.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    De Ferrieres, Baron

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Digby, Col. hon. E.

    Hamilton, J. G. C.

    Dilke. A. W.

    Harcourt, E. W.

    Dilke, Sir C. W.

    Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Hardcastle, J. A.

    Dodds, J.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Dodson rt.hn.J.G

    Harvey, Sir R. B.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Hastings, G. W.

    Duckham, T.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir H.

    Duff, rt. hon. M. E. G.

    Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

    Duff, R. W.

    Dundas, hon. J. C.

    Hayter, Sir A. D.

    Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Earp, T.

    Henderson, F.

    Edwards, H.

    Heneage, E.

    Edwards, P.

    Henry, M.

    Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    76

    Herschell, Sir F.

    Maxwell-Heron, J,

    Hibbert, J. T.

    Milbank, F. A.

    Hildyard, T. B. T.

    Mills, Sir C. H.

    Hill,' Lord A. W.

    Monckton, F.

    Hill, T. R.

    Monk, C. J.

    Hinching brook, Vise.

    Moreton, Lord

    Holker, Sir J.

    Morgan, hon. F.

    Holland, Sir H. T.

    Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

    Hollond, J. B.

    Morley, A.

    Holms, J.

    Morley, S.

    Home, Capt. D. M.

    Moss, R.

    Hope, rt. hn. A.J.B. B.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Hutchinson, J. D.

    Illingworth, A.

    Mulholland, J.

    Inderwick, F. A.

    Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Murray, C. J.

    James, W. H.

    Musgrave, Sir R. C.

    James, Sir H.

    Newdegate, C. N.

    Jardine, R.

    Nicholson, W.

    Jenkins, D. J.

    Nicholson, W. N.

    Johnson, E,

    Noel, E.

    Johnson, W. M.

    North, Colonel J. S.

    Joicey, Colonel J.

    Northcote, H. S.

    Kennard, Col. E. H.

    Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Kinnear, J.

    Onslow, D.

    Knightley, Sir R.

    Otway, A.

    Laing, S.

    Paget, R. H.

    Lambton, hon. F. W.

    Paget, T. T.

    Lawrence, Sir J. C,

    Palmer, C. M.

    Lawrence, Sir T.

    Palmer, G.

    Lawrence, W.

    Palmer, J. H.

    Laycock, R.

    Parker, C. S.

    Lea, T.

    Patrick, R. W. C.

    Leatham, E. A.

    Pease, A.

    Leatham, W. H.

    Pease, J. W.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Peddie, J. D.

    Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

    Peek, Sir H.

    Leighton, Sir B.

    Peel, A. W.

    Leighton, S.

    Pender, J.

    Levett, T. J.

    Pennington, F.

    Lewis, C. E.

    Phipps, C. N. P.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Playfair, rt. hon. L.

    Lindsay, Col. R. L.

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Litton, E. F.

    Portman, hn. W. H. B.

    Lloyd, M.

    Potter, T. B.

    Loder, R.

    Powell, F. S.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Powell, W.

    Lubbock, Sir J.

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Lusk, Sir A.

    Price, Captain G. E.

    Lyons, R. D.

    Pugh, L. P.

    Mackie, R. B.

    Puleston, J. H.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Pulley, J.

    Macliver, P. S.

    Ralli, P.

    Macnaghten, E.

    Ramsay, J.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Ramsden, Sir J.

    M'Clure, Sir T.

    Rankin, J.

    M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

    Rathbone, W.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Reed, Sir E. J.

    M'Laren, C. B. B.

    Reid, R. T.

    M 'Laren, J.

    Rendel. S.

    M'Minnies, J. G.

    Rendlesham, Lord

    Makins, Colonel W. T.

    Repton, G. W.

    Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

    Richard, H.

    Mappin, F. T.

    Richardson, T.

    Marjoribanks, Sir D. C.

    Ritchie, C. T.

    Marjoribanks, E.

    Roberts, J.

    Marriott, W. T.

    Robertson, H.

    Martin, B. B.

    Rodwell, B. B. H.

    Mason, H.

    Rogers, J. E. T.

    Massey, rt. hon. W. N.

    Rolls, J. A.

    Master, T. W. C.

    Ross, A. H.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Round, J.

    77

    Roundell, C. S.

    Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury-

    Russell, Lord A.

    Russell, Sir C.

    Trevelyan, G. O.

    Russell, G. W. E.

    Verney, Sir H.

    Rylands, P.

    Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

    St. Aubyn, W. M.

    Vivian, A. P.

    Sandon, Viscount

    Vivian, H. H.

    Sclater-Booth,rt.hn.G.

    Walpole, rt. hon. S.

    Scott, Lord H.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Scott, M. D.

    Walter, J.

    Seely, C. (Lincoln)

    Warburton, P. E.

    Seely, C. (Nottingham)

    Warton, C. N.

    Severne, J. E.

    Waterlow, Sir S.

    Simon, Serjeant J.

    Watney, J.

    Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

    Waugh, E.

    Smith, A.

    Webster, Dr. J.

    Smith, E.

    Wedderburn, Sir D.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Welby-Gregory. Sir W.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Whalley, G. H.

    Stanhope, hon. E.

    Whitbread, S.

    Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

    Whitley, E.

    Stanley, hon. E. L.

    Whitworth, B.

    Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

    Wiggin, H.

    Stanton, W. J.

    Williams, B. T.

    Stevenson, J. C.

    Williams, S, C. E.

    Stewart, J.

    Williamson, S.

    Summers, W.

    Wills, W. H.

    Sykes, C.

    Wilson, C. H.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Wilson, I.

    Tavistock, Marquess of

    Wilson, Sir M.

    Tennant, C.

    Winn, R.

    Thomasson, J. P.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Thompson, T. C.

    Woodall, W.

    Thornhill, T.

    Woolff, S.

    Thynne, Lord H. F.

    Yorke, J. R.

    Tillett, J. H.

    Tollemache, hon. W. F.

    TELLERS.

    Torrens, W. T. M' C.

    Grosvenor, Lord R.

    Tottenham, A. L.

    Kensington, Lord

    NOES.

    Callan, P.

    Synan, E. J.

    Cowen, J.

    Labouchere, H.

    TELLERS.

    M 'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Nolan, Major J. P.

    Martin, P.

    Power, R.

    O'Shea, W. H.

    MR. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that several Members who had given their voices with the Noes when the Question was put, had, when the Tellers proceeded to clear the House for the Division, refused to quit their places;—and Mr. Speaker submitted the conduct of such Members to the consideration of the House.
    MR. GLADSTONErose, and said: I rise to a point of Order—[Cries of "Chair, Chair!" "Name, Name!"] The right hon. Gentleman resumed his seat without further speech.
    MR. SPEAKER: In pursuance of the Resolution of the House, Mr. Parnell will now withdraw.
    MR. PARNELL: I respectfully decline, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw. I con-
    78
    sider that the course that has been adopted is of an arbitrary character, and is opposed to the Privileges of the Members of this House.
    Thereupon Mr. SPEAKER directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove Mr. Parnell from the House.
    Accordingly, the Serjeant-at-Arms, by the direction of Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Resolution of the House, advancing to the hon. Member, invited him to retire.
    MR. PARNELL: Sir, I respectfully refuse to withdraw unless I am compelled to do so by superior force.
    Then the Serjeant-at-Arms (the principal Door-keeper and Messengers attending) placed his hand upon Mr. Parnell, who thereupon rose and withdrew with the Serjeant-at-Arms.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I think it right Sir, to take the quickest possible notice of the communication which has just been made by yourself from the Chair. You have acquainted us with the fact that, during the late division, certain hon. Members, who had challenged the judgment of the House, declined to withdraw from the House and take part in the division. That, I apprehend has been done by hon. Members who were in the House when you put the Question and when you ordered the House to be cleared. We are unaware who those hon. Members are. That is a practical objection towards taking any substantive notice of their proceedings— which, I must say, I respectfully hope will not be repeated. [Cheers, and cries of" Yes; it will be!"] If that proceeding should be repeated, I respectfully hope you will support the House, and will find means of preventing a flagrant contempt of the Rules of the House and the Orders of the Chair. I will not prosecute this subject further. If the House thinks fit, I will resume my seat in order to give some other hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their opinion with regard to it. Cries of "Go on!"] I quite understand that I have hit the sentiment of the House in saying that this incident will be seriously noticed hereafter, although we are not in a condition to notice it at the present moment. I will, therefore, do my best to resume the unfortunate sentence that

    79
    has boon bisected and trisected. I will not inflict on the House the whole of that sentence; but I will, for a practical purpose, refer to one portion of it—that is, the closing portion of it, in which I said that the matter, which it was my heavy misfortune to approach, was a matter bristling at every point with polemical considerations and controversial matter that might become, unless great care be taken, a practical impediment to the calm and deliberate consideration of a very serious question—
    MR. FINIGAN: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I rise to move that the Prime Minister be no longer heard. [Cries of" Order!"] I do so, Sir—["Chair!"and" Name, Name!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I regard this as an act of wilful and deliberate Obstruction, and disregard of the authority of the Chair; and I, therefore, Name you, Mr. Finigan, as disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    Mr. FINIGAN,Member for Ennis, having been Named by Mr. Speaker as disregarding the authority of the Chair—
    Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. Finigan be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR, one of the Tellers for the Ayes, again came to the Table and stated that he was unable to clear the House, because several Members refused to quit their places.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: We contest the legality of this proceeding.
    Mr. SPEAKER thereupon directed those Members to follow the direction of the Tellers, and he admonished them that by remaining in the House, they were resisting the authority of the Chair, and cautioned thorn of the consequences that their conduct might entail upon them; and then Mr. SPEAKER directed that the Division should proceed.
    The Tellers declared the numbers:— Ayes 405; Noes 2: Majority 403.— (Div. List, No. 23.)

    NOES.

    Callan, P.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    TELLERS.

    Nolan, Major J. P.

    Power, E.

    Lord RICHARD GROSVENORreported to Mr. SPEAKER the names of those Members who had refused to quit their places in the House and take part in the late Division.
    Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that those Members whose Names had been reported to him had been cautioned by him, that, by their conduct, they were disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    MR. SPEAKER: In pursuance of the Resolution of the House, I have to call upon Mr. Finigan to withdraw.
    MR. FINIGAN: Mr. Speaker, I most respectfully decline to withdraw, unless expelled by force.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am bound, in pursuance of the said Resolution, to direct the Serjeant to remove Mr. Finigan.
    The Serjeant-at-Arms accordingly (the principal Doorkeeper and Messengers attending) advanced, and, placing his hand upon the hon. Member, requested him to withdraw; who refusing, the Serjeant-at-Arms beckoned to his assistants. Whereupon Mr. Finigan arose and withdrew with the Serjeant-at-Arms.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that during the Division several Members declined to leave the House and take part in the Division. I called upon them to take part in the Division, and cautioned them that if they declined to take that course, in obedience to the practice of the House, I should consider that they were disregarding the authority of the Chair. I am bound to state that it appears to me that after an admonition of that kind I have no other course open to me but to Name those Members who have disregarded the authority of the Chair, and I now Name them to the House:—
    Mr. Barry, Mr. Biggar, Mr. Byrne, Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Daly, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Gill, Mr. Edmond Gray, Mr. Healy, Mr. Lalor, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. M'Coan, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, The O'Donoghue, The O'Gorman Mahon, Mr. O'Sullivan, Mr. O'Connor Power, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Smithwick, Mr. Alexander Sullivan,

    81
    and Mr. Timothy Sullivan; and thereupon Mr. SPEAKER severally Named each one of those Members as having disregarded the authority of the Chair.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Order of this House of February, 1880, and in consequence of the declaration you have just made from the Chair, it becomes my duty to make a Motion for the suspension of the following Members (naming them). I have to move that they be severally suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of the day's Sitting.
    Motion made, and Question put,
    "That Mr. Barry, Mr. Biggar, Mr. Byrne Mr. William Corbet, Mr. Daly, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Gill, Mr. Edmond Gray," Mr. Healy, Mr-Lalor, Mr. Leamy, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. M'Coan, Mr. Marum, Mr. Metge, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, The O'Donoghue, The O'Gorman Mahon, Mr. O'Sullivan, Mr. O'Connor Bower, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Smith-wick, Mr. Alexander Sullivan, and Mr. Timothy Sullivan, he severally suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOURrose to a point of Order, and inquired of the Speaker whether the House could divide with regard to all the Gentlemen named at once? ["Order!"] In asking that question, he did not mean to express a doubt that all the Gentlemen named were equally guilty.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is a question, not of Order, but of convenience.
    MR. GORSTinquired whether, under the Standing Order referred to by the Prime Minister, the Question to be put must not be the suspension of a single Member, and not of a number of Members?
    MR. J. COWENwished to know whether a Member ought not to be Named twice before he could be suspended?
    The House proceeded to a Division.
    Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR again reported to Mr. Speaker that certain Members refused to take part in the Division, and to withdraw from their places in the House.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: We contest the legality of the whole proceeding.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: The division is illegal.
    MR. SPEAKERrepeated to such Members the admonition and caution which he had previously given.
    The Tellers reported the numbers:— Ayes 410; Noes 6: Majority 404.— (Div. List, No. 24.)

    AYES.

    Acland, Sir T. D.

    Biddell, W.

    Agar-Robartes, hn. T.C.

    Biddulph, M.

    Ainsworth, D.

    Birkbeck, E.

    Alexander, Colonel

    Birley, H.

    Allen, H. G.

    Blackburne, Col. J. I.

    Anderson, G.

    Blennerhassett, P. P.

    Armitage, B.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Armitstead, G.

    Boord, T. W.

    Arnold, A.

    Borlase, W. C.

    Ashley, hon. E. M.

    Bradlaugh, C.

    Bailey, Sir J. R.

    Brand, H. P.

    Baldwin, E.

    Brassey, T.

    Balfour, A. J.

    Brett, P. B.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Briggs, W. E.

    Balfour, J. B.

    Bright, rt. hon. J.

    Balfour, J. S.

    Brinton, J.

    Baring, Viscount

    Brise, Colonel R.

    Barnes, A.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Barran, J.

    Broadley, W. H. H.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Brooke, Lord

    Bass, A.

    Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

    Bateson, Sir T.

    Bruce, hon. B,. P.

    Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

    Bruce, hon. T.

    Beach, rt. hon. Sir M. H.

    Bryce, J.

    Beaumont, W. B.

    Brymer, W. E.

    75

    Butt, C. P.

    Egerton, hon. W.

    Buxton, F. W.

    Elcho, Lord

    Cameron, C.

    Elliot, hon. A. B. D.

    Campbell, J. A.

    Ennis, Sir J.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    Errington, G.

    Campbell, B. F. F.

    Evans, T. W.

    Campbell-Bannerman, H.

    Ewart, W.

    Ewing, A. O.

    Carbutt, E. H.

    Fairbairn, Sir A.

    Caring-ton, hn. Colonel W. H. P.

    Farquharson, Dr. B.

    Cartwright, W. C.

    Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

    Causton, R. K.

    Feilden.Major-General B. J.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Fellowes, W. H.

    Cavendish, Lord F. C.

    Fenwick-Bisset, M.

    Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

    Ferguson, B.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

    Chambers, Sir T.

    Filmer, Sir E.

    Chaplin, H.

    Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

    Cheetham, J. F.

    Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W.

    Childers, rt. hn. H.C.E.

    Fitzwilliam, hn. H. W.

    Christie, W. L.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Clarke, E.

    Folkestone, Viscount

    Clarke, J. C.

    Forster, Sir C.

    Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

    Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

    Close, M. C.

    Fort, R.

    Cobbold, T. C.

    Fowler, H. H.

    Coddington, W.

    Fowler, W.

    Cohen, A.

    Fremantle, hon. T. F.

    Compton, F.

    Fry, L.

    Corbett, J.

    Fry, T.

    Corry, J. P.

    Galway, Viscount

    Cotes, C. C.

    Gardner, B. Richardson-

    Cotton, W. J. R.

    Courtauld, G.

    Gibson, rt. hon. E.

    Courtney, L. H.

    Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

    Cowan, J.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Cowper, hon. H. F.

    Gladstone, W. H.

    Creyke, R.

    Glyn, hon. S. C.

    Crichton, Viscount

    Goldney, Sir G.

    Cropper, J.

    Gordon, Sir A.

    Cross, rt. hn. Sir E. A.

    Gower, hon. E. F. L.

    Crum, A.

    Grafton, F. W.

    Cubitt, rt. hon. G.

    Grant, A.

    Cunliffe, Sir B. A.

    Grant, D.

    Currie, D.

    Grant, Sir G. M.

    Dalrymple, C.

    Greer, T.

    Davenport, H. T.

    Gregory, G. B.

    Davenport, W. B.

    Grenfell, W. H.

    Davey, H.

    Grey, A. H. G.

    Davies, D.

    Guest, M. J.

    Davies, R.

    Gurdon, R. T.

    Davies, W.

    Halsey, T. F.

    Dawnay, Col. hn. L. P.

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    De Ferrieres, Baron

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Digby, Col. hon. E.

    Hamilton, J. G. C.

    Dilke. A. W.

    Harcourt, E. W.

    Dilke, Sir C. W.

    Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Hardcastle, J. A.

    Dodds, J.

    Hartington, Marq. of

    Dodson rt.hn.J.G

    Harvey, Sir R. B.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Hastings, G. W.

    Duckham, T.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir H.

    Duff, rt. hon. M. E. G.

    Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

    Duff, R. W.

    Dundas, hon. J. C.

    Hayter, Sir A. D.

    Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Earp, T.

    Henderson, F.

    Edwards, H.

    Heneage, E.

    Edwards, P.

    Henry, M.

    Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    76

    Herschell, Sir F.

    Maxwell-Heron, J,

    Hibbert, J. T.

    Milbank, F. A.

    Hildyard, T. B. T.

    Mills, Sir C. H.

    Hill,' Lord A. W.

    Monckton, F.

    Hill, T. R.

    Monk, C. J.

    Hinching brook, Vise.

    Moreton, Lord

    Holker, Sir J.

    Morgan, hon. F.

    Holland, Sir H. T.

    Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

    Hollond, J. B.

    Morley, A.

    Holms, J.

    Morley, S.

    Home, Capt. D. M.

    Moss, R.

    Hope, rt. hn. A.J.B. B.

    Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

    Hutchinson, J. D.

    Illingworth, A.

    Mulholland, J.

    Inderwick, F. A.

    Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

    Jackson, W. L.

    Murray, C. J.

    James, W. H.

    Musgrave, Sir R. C.

    James, Sir H.

    Newdegate, C. N.

    Jardine, R.

    Nicholson, W.

    Jenkins, D. J.

    Nicholson, W. N.

    Johnson, E,

    Noel, E.

    Johnson, W. M.

    North, Colonel J. S.

    Joicey, Colonel J.

    Northcote, H. S.

    Kennard, Col. E. H.

    Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

    Kennaway, Sir J. H.

    Kinnear, J.

    Onslow, D.

    Knightley, Sir R.

    Otway, A.

    Laing, S.

    Paget, R. H.

    Lambton, hon. F. W.

    Paget, T. T.

    Lawrence, Sir J. C,

    Palmer, C. M.

    Lawrence, Sir T.

    Palmer, G.

    Lawrence, W.

    Palmer, J. H.

    Laycock, R.

    Parker, C. S.

    Lea, T.

    Patrick, R. W. C.

    Leatham, E. A.

    Pease, A.

    Leatham, W. H.

    Pease, J. W.

    Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

    Peddie, J. D.

    Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

    Peek, Sir H.

    Leighton, Sir B.

    Peel, A. W.

    Leighton, S.

    Pender, J.

    Levett, T. J.

    Pennington, F.

    Lewis, C. E.

    Phipps, C. N. P.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Playfair, rt. hon. L.

    Lindsay, Col. R. L.

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Litton, E. F.

    Portman, hn. W. H. B.

    Lloyd, M.

    Potter, T. B.

    Loder, R.

    Powell, F. S.

    Lowther, hon. W.

    Powell, W.

    Lubbock, Sir J.

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Lusk, Sir A.

    Price, Captain G. E.

    Lyons, R. D.

    Pugh, L. P.

    Mackie, R. B.

    Puleston, J. H.

    Mackintosh, C. F.

    Pulley, J.

    Macliver, P. S.

    Ralli, P.

    Macnaghten, E.

    Ramsay, J.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Ramsden, Sir J.

    M'Clure, Sir T.

    Rankin, J.

    M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

    Rathbone, W.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Reed, Sir E. J.

    M'Laren, C. B. B.

    Reid, R. T.

    M 'Laren, J.

    Rendel. S.

    M'Minnies, J. G.

    Rendlesham, Lord

    Makins, Colonel W. T.

    Repton, G. W.

    Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

    Richard, H.

    Mappin, F. T.

    Richardson, T.

    Marjoribanks, Sir D. C.

    Ritchie, C. T.

    Marjoribanks, E.

    Roberts, J.

    Marriott, W. T.

    Robertson, H.

    Martin, B. B.

    Rodwell, B. B. H.

    Mason, H.

    Rogers, J. E. T.

    Massey, rt. hon. W. N.

    Rolls, J. A.

    Master, T. W. C.

    Ross, A. H.

    Maxwell, Sir H. E.

    Round, J.

    77

    Roundell, C. S.

    Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury-

    Russell, Lord A.

    Russell, Sir C.

    Trevelyan, G. O.

    Russell, G. W. E.

    Verney, Sir H.

    Rylands, P.

    Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

    St. Aubyn, W. M.

    Vivian, A. P.

    Sandon, Viscount

    Vivian, H. H.

    Sclater-Booth,rt.hn.G.

    Walpole, rt. hon. S.

    Scott, Lord H.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Scott, M. D.

    Walter, J.

    Seely, C. (Lincoln)

    Warburton, P. E.

    Seely, C. (Nottingham)

    Warton, C. N.

    Severne, J. E.

    Waterlow, Sir S.

    Simon, Serjeant J.

    Watney, J.

    Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

    Waugh, E.

    Smith, A.

    Webster, Dr. J.

    Smith, E.

    Wedderburn, Sir D.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Welby-Gregory. Sir W.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Whalley, G. H.

    Stanhope, hon. E.

    Whitbread, S.

    Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

    Whitley, E.

    Stanley, hon. E. L.

    Whitworth, B.

    Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

    Wiggin, H.

    Stanton, W. J.

    Williams, B. T.

    Stevenson, J. C.

    Williams, S, C. E.

    Stewart, J.

    Williamson, S.

    Summers, W.

    Wills, W. H.

    Sykes, C.

    Wilson, C. H.

    Talbot, J. G.

    Wilson, I.

    Tavistock, Marquess of

    Wilson, Sir M.

    Tennant, C.

    Winn, R.

    Thomasson, J. P.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Thompson, T. C.

    Woodall, W.

    Thornhill, T.

    Woolff, S.

    Thynne, Lord H. F.

    Yorke, J. R.

    Tillett, J. H.

    Tollemache, hon. W. F.

    TELLERS.

    Torrens, W. T. M' C.

    Grosvenor, Lord R.

    Tottenham, A. L.

    Kensington, Lord

    NOES.

    Callan, P.

    Synan, E. J.

    Cowen, J.

    Labouchere, H.

    TELLERS.

    M 'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Nolan, Major J. P.

    Martin, P.

    Power, R.

    O'Shea, W. H.

    NOES.

    Callan, P.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    TELLERS.

    Nolan, Major J. P.

    Power, E.

    NOES.

    Callan, P.

    Cowen, J.

    TELLERS.

    Labouchere, H.

    Macdonald, A.

    Nolan, Major J. P.

    Macfarlane, D. H.

    Power, P.

    M 'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    NOES.

    Nolan, Major J. P.

    TELLERS.

    Blake, T.

    Callan, P.

    Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR also reported to Mr. Speaker that Mr. Molloy, Member for the King's County, had, in addition to the other Members who had refused to take part in the late Division, declined to withdraw from his place in the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with the Resolution of the House, I have now to direct Mr. Barry to withdraw.
    MR. BARRY: I respectfully decline to withdraw unless removed by force.
    MR. SPEAKERthen directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove Mr. Barry.
    The Serjeant-at-Arms (the principal Doorkeeper and Messengers attending), accordingly removed Mr. Barry from the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: In accordance with the Resolution of the House, I have now to direct Mr. Biggar to withdraw.
    MR. BIGGAR: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to decline.
    Then the Serjeant-at-Arms, by the direction of Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Resolution of the House, removed Mr. Biggar from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKERthen directed Mr. BYRNE to withdraw.
    MR. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I very respectfully decline to withdraw.
    Mr. BYRNEwas then, by direction of Mr. Speaker, in pursuance of the Resolution of the House, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. WILLIAM CORBET, Mr. DALY, Mr. DAWSON, and Mr. GILL were severally directed by Mr. Speaker to withdraw, and refusing to do so, were, by the direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKERthen directed Mr. EDMOND GRAY to withdraw.
    MR. GRAY: I decline in any way to recognize these illegal proceedings, and to with draw without the application of force.
    Mr. GRAY was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. HEALY to withdraw, who, refusing to do so, was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. LALOR to withdraw.
    MR. LALOR: I must decline to withdraw unless compelled by superior force.
    Mr. LALOR was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. LEAMY to withdraw.
    MR. LEAMY: I beg respectfully to decline to withdraw from this House, to which I have been sent by the people of Waterford to represent them, unless compelled by superior force.
    Mr. LEAMY was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. LEAHY to withdraw.
    MR. LEAHY: Mr. Speaker, I decline to withdraw.
    Mr. LEAMYwas, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY to withdraw.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: As I believe these whole proceedings are unconstitutional and illegal, I decline respectfully to leave the House unless constrained by superior force.
    Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. M'COAN to withdraw.
    MR. M'COAN: I beg respectfully to decline unless removed by superior force.
    Mr. M'COAN was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. MARUM to withdraw.
    MR. MARUM: I decline to leave unless compelled by superior force.
    Mr. MARUM was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. METGE to withdraw.
    MR. METGE: Mr. Speaker, I protest against this act of English injustice to Ireland, and I refuse to leave the House.
    Mr. METGE was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. NELSON to withdraw.
    MR. NELSON: Mr. Speaker, I respectfully decline to retire unless removed by force.
    Mr. NELSON was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR to withdraw.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: With great respect, I protest against this proceeding as a violation of my rights as a Member of the House, and I decline to withdraw unless compelled.
    Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR to withdraw.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I protest against all these proceedings as unjust and tyrannical, and, I am afraid, leading to bad consequences; and I decline to leave the House unless compelled by superior force.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed The DONO-GHUE to withdraw.
    THE O'DONOGHUE: Mr. Speaker, as I am not conscious of having done anything to disqualify me from sitting here as the Representative of the electors of Tralee, I most respectfully decline to withdraw unless removed.
    The O'DONOGHUE was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed The O'GORMAN MAHON to withdraw.
    THE O'GORMAN MAHON: Mr. Speaker, it is 50 years ago since I was sent hereby the same constituency (Clare) which I have the honour to represent now, and upon their part, and upon the part of the "county of emancipation," I decline to stir from this House unless removed by superior force.
    The O'GORMAN MAHON was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed. Mr. O'SULLIVAN to withdraw.
    MR. O'SULLIVAN: This will not be the first time that I have been illegally arrested by British authority; but it will not deter me from raising my voice on all occasions against what is unjust and unfair; and, therefore, I will not leave the House unless compelled.
    Mr. O'SULLIVAN was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. O'CONNOR POWER to withdraw.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I will withdraw only in obedience to the law of force which you have established in place of legality in this Assembly.
    Mr. O'CONNOR POWER was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. RED-MOND to withdraw.
    MR. REDMOND: As I regard the whole of these proceedings as unmitigated despotism, I beg respectfully to decline to withdraw.
    Mr. REDMOND was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. SEXTON to withdraw.
    MR. SEXTON: I denounce these proceedings as unconstitutional and tyrannical, and I shall not desist from the assertion of my right as an elected Representative of the people unless compelled to do so by superior force.
    Mr. SEXTON was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SMITHWICK was directed by Mr. SPEAKER to withdraw; and, refusing to
    86
    do so, was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN to withdraw.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, you have overthrown the ancient liberties of the House, and have established a despotism. I decline to withdraw.
    Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN was, by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER then directed Mr. T. D-SULLIVAN to withdraw.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: As I regard these proceedings as an outrage on the rights of Members of Parliament, I respectfully decline to withdraw, except under compulsion.
    Mr. SULLIVAN was, by direction of Mr. SPEAKER, removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms from the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that the Tellers have reported to me that Mr. Molloy was present, but took no part in the last Division. I have no other course but to Name Mr. Molloy as disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    MR. GLADSTONE: You, Sir, having Named Mr. Molloy under the Order of February, 1880, I move that he be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting.
    Motion made, and Question put.
    Resolved, That Mr. Molloy be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting.—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    [Mr. MOLLOY had already withdrawn from the House.]
    MR. GLADSTONEthen rose to move his Resolution, but had uttered a few words only, when—
    MR. O'KELLYmoved that the Prime Minister be no longer heard.
    MR. SPEAKER: I Name Mr. O'Kelly as disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    MR. GLADSTONE: You, Sir, having Named Mr. O'Kelly—
    MR. CALLAN: I rise to Order. Unless my hearing is defective, no person has been Named; and I presume that

    87
    until some Member of the House has been so Named, it is not competent for the Prime Minister, notwithstanding his despotic disposition, to make any such Motion.
    MR. SPEAKER: I Named Mr. O'Kelly as disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    MR. GLADSTONE: You, Sir, having Named Mr. O'Kelly as having disregarded the authority of the Chair, under the Order of February, 1880, I move that he be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's Sitting.
    Motion made, and Question put;— and, after the voices had been given, Mr. SPEAKER declared that, in his opinion, "the Ayes have it;" Mr. CALLAN alone declaring for the "Noes." But upon a Division being directed, no second Teller appearing for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that "the Ayes have it."
    Resolved, That Mr. O'Kelly be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting.—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Mr. SPEAKER thereupon directed Mr. O'Kelly to withdraw, which he having refused to do, the Serjeant-at-Arms, acting by direction of Mr. Speaker, removed Mr. O'Kelly from the House.
    MR. GLADSTONEagain rose to move his Resolution—
    MR. O'DONNELL: I move that the Prime Minister be no longer heard, in order to prevent his continued calumnies of my country.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to Name you, Mr. O'Donnell, as wilfully obstructing the Business of the House and disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That Mr. O'Donnell be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."— (Mr. Gladstone.)
    The House divided:— Ayes 311; Noe 1: Majority 310.—(Div. List, No. 25.)
    Lord RICHARD GROSVENOR stated that Mr. Richard Power and Mr. O'Shaugh-
    88
    nessy had refused to leave their places in the House and take part in the late Divison.
    MR. SPEAKERthereupon directed Mr. O'Donnell to withdraw.
    MR. O'DONNELL: With great respect, I decline to withdraw, as a protest against Liberal tyranny and unjust ruling.
    The Serjeant-at-Arms accordingly, upon Mr. Speaker's direction, removed Mr. O'Donnell from the House.
    Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that Mr. Richard Power and Mr. O'Shaughnessy had been admonished by him, and cautioned for their conduct in refusing to take part in the late Division; and then Mr. Speaker Named Mr. Richard Power and Mr. O'Shaughnessy as having disregarded the authority of the Chair.
    Resolved, That Mr. Richard Power and Mr. O'Shaughnessy be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting.—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Mr. SPEAKER thereupon directed Mr. Richard Power and Mr. O'Shaughnessy severally to withdraw, which direction each Member having refused to obey, the Serjeant at Arms, acting upon Mr. Speaker's direction, removed them from the House.
    MR. GLADSTONE,resuming, said: I have already said, Sir, that I dismiss from the purview of my duty on this occasion any review of the scenes that have lately taken place; but, in saying that, do not let it be supposed I, for one moment, imply that, in my opinion, they have no bearing upon the proposals to which I invite the attention of the House. On the contrary, I trust that their silent eloquence will have a large influence on the judgment of the House, and the course which it may be inclined to take with regard to the proposals of the Government. My intention is to avoid altogether epithets of praise or blame. Nothing can be more widely divergent than the opinions prevalent among the majority and the minority as to the conduct of one another, and as to the interests of which each are respectively in charge. But with these matters I do not intend to meddle in the slightest

    89
    degree. They form no part of my case. My case is one that rests upon facts that are capable of being presented in the very driest form to the notice of the House. I am able to renounce, for the purposes of the present occasion, all review of the conduct of individuals; and I must endeavour to describe, in the driest terms I can command, what is the situation of the House. It will be agreed that the responsibilities of this House are measured by its powers; and as to its powers, the very first of them, I may say, in the order of nature, are its powers over its own Members for the regulation of its own proceedings. Our position, I may briefly remind the House, is altogether peculiar, and no just analogies—at all events, no sufficient analogies—can be found to apply to it from the practice of any other country in the world. There is no other country in the world in which for two or three centuries a Parliament has laboured steadily from year to year, in the face of overweening power, to build up by slow degrees a fabric of defence against that overweening power, for the purpose of maintaining and handing down intact that most precious rule of perfect liberty of speech, to which it is impossible to attach too high a price, and with respect to which we make no other demand than this—that it shall be exercised, not according to what we think reasonable, not according to what we think moderate, but simply according to the possibilities that must limit the condition and the action of a Representative Assembly. But there is another point equally vital, which it is necessary to bear in mind, if we wish to measure and gauge accurately the position of this House, as compared with other Assemblies. Other Assemblies have duties that are important, indeed; but in the mass—in the bulk—they are trifles as light as air in comparison with the duties of the British House of Commons. The British House of Commons has undertaken work with which the shoulders of human beings at any period of history and in any country in the world never have been charged. The consequence is that the very mass and amount of these duties is the measure of your weakness. Obstruction elsewhere is a jest and a plaything; Obstruction here has it in its power to place fatal, insurmountable obstacles in the way of your discharging
    90
    your primary obligations. Why? Because, your duties being so many, the insufficiency of human strength, under the most favourable circumstances, places you at the mercy of those who may think fit, in the discharge of what they term their conscientious obligations, to use the Rules of debate for purposes to which they are easily capable of being applied—for the purpose of blocking the way over which you have to travel, and of rendering it impossible, within the limits of the time accorded to us as human beings, to attain to the essential matters for the transaction of which we are sent here. Liberty of speech, Sir, is not to be depreciated in anything that we say or do; but it has to be addressed to a certain end—namely, the performance of public duty; and if the liberty be so used as to render the performance of that duty impossible, it must be brought within such limits—I do not say as to licence, for that we have never touched—as those who have been within this Chamber to-night may very well know—as not to debar us absolutely from fulfilling the first duties of our Parliamentary existence. And it is the first conditions of Parliamentary existence for which we are now struggling. It is not in any spirit of optimism; it is not that we may clear the road of our arrears; it is not that we may come to an ideal state, that we now propose the alteration of your Rules. It is that we may not utterly fail in that which is the very first and most elementary portion of our task; it is that we may attain to the first condition of dignity—nay, more, of decency; and that we may not be compelled to render such an account of our proceedings to the country and to our constituencies as would cover every one of us, individually as well as collectively, with condemnation and dishonour. What are the facts, briefly and drily stated, of the situation before us? Sometimes it appears to be supposed, or rather taken for granted, in Questions put in this House, that those who are invested with the powers of government in this country from time to time have some faculty confided to them, by the exercise of which they can manufacture time as a manufacturer manufactures yards of cotton. I am inclined to think at times that if we could reverse the proceedings of a wise Pope, and recover those 11 days that he lost for us,

    91
    by obliging the Calendar to conform to the laws of astronomy, those 11 days might enable us to make some way with the arrears of Business. But has the House ever considered what are the days and hours at our command? First, let it be said that it is not a charge of indolence that could ever be brought against the British House of Commons. It is confessed and admitted on all hands—I do not speak of this Parliament, but of all —that there is no Legislative Assembly in the world that works itself so pitilessly, so remorselessly, as the British House of Commons. If that be so, it follows that the measure of what is done by the House is somewhere about the utmost measure of human strength and capacity. But let us go into the regions of possibility; let us, with an enormous licence, imagine for a moment that it was possible for us to devote every day in the year to the work to which we now usually devote six or seven months, and that out of every 24 hours you could give 12 to the discharge of your Parliamentary duties, and if you did so the calculation is a very simple one. Deduct one-seventh for every seventh day—you have very good reasons for deducting that seventh day, for unless you did it, most of you would be dead before the end of the first year—there are about 3,750 hours, which might, it is conceivable, be used for the purposes of Parliament at all times. And if 650 Members of this House were each of them to plead the very moderate power of addressing the House for six hours in the course of every Session—that is no very lengthened period of time—six times 650 gives 3,900 hours, or 250 more than, upon a supposition almost impossible, it could be made to yield. What is the meaning of the language that we hear about the liberties of speech? The liberties of speech! Liberty as to the quality of speech—Yes! Let none endeavour—unless under necessity, which we have never had, and are not likely to have the faintest glimmer — let none endeavour to narrow the liberal bounds that surround us in that respect. And as to the quantity of speech, it must be regulated, not by the fancies of men, but by the necessities of the case, and in accordance with the discharge of the duties which we are sent here to discharge. Our position is wholly unexampled; and I do not think I exaggerate when I say that the ques-
    92
    tion of the adoption of new Rules to increase the power of the House, and to increase it effectually over those of its Members, who may be unwilling to recognize that power, is now for us a question of honour or dishonour, and in that sense—the only true sense—a question of life or death for the Parliament. How long have we been here? We have entered on the fifth week of the Session. We have had four such weeks as never opened, I believe, a Parliamentary Session in this country, for the extent and continuity of their labours. One-sixth of the whole Session gone—irrevocably gone! And what progress have we made? Our progress is this—that Her Majesty having called us together, and, in the language of Constitutional Government, having told us that a subject, in her judgment, of the utmost moment, connected with the fulfilment of the very first duties of civilized society—namely, the maintenance of peace and order in Ireland — demanded our prompt and effectual attention, the measure of the prompt and effectual attention that we have been able to give to the subject is that now in the fifth week of the Session —one-sixth of the time that will probably be at our disposal having gone —we have made just one step in the direction in which we intend to go, having passed one single initiatory stage of a Bill; and yet this has not been for want of attention or effort on the part of any Party in this House. I take this opportunity of offering to hon. Gentlemen opposite my respectful thanks, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, for the fidelity, and self-denial, and self-sacrifice with which they have come here, night after night —aye, and through night after night— to perform what they deemed to be their duty to their country. My thanks are, at least, equally due to all those whose political confidence it is our highest honour to possess, and from whom, on the present occasion, we have received the most loyal and the most enthusiastic support. But with all these efforts of all persons of authority, and of almost all private and individual Members of the House, the result is that, under a pressure of the very highest the Executive Government could put on to secure the despatch of work, the despatch which has been effected is, that before approaching one of our ordinary duties, before

    93
    attempting to touch upon any special questions of the greatest importance, such as what are termed remedial measures, the vital and momentous question, for instance, of land legislation for Ireland —before we could whisper a word in the House of Commons as to the character and nature of those measures, we find ourselves entering upon the fifth week of the Session with only the sorry record of our labours to place before the world of a single stage of a single Bill, and that, necessarily, a measure of coercion, though also one of protection for Ireland, which we regard, I will not say as securing her welfare, but as securing to us the opportunity of opening a fail-field from which we may legislate for her with advantage. What has been the further result of the action by which this delay has been occasioned? Private Members have been shut out from opportunities of bringing forward questions in which they take an interest; and I can assure the House that no one can feel more deeply than I the severity of the sacrifice which we have called upon them to make, and no one was more unwilling to make the claim, and accept the boon generously as it has been given. All that they have done, however, has been of avail only to secure for us that mere unit of accomplished labour to which I have referred. Eighteen nights, including one Sitting of 22 hours, and another of over 40— [An hon. MEMBER: 41]—have been devoted entirely to a single subject, with the exception of the first night—that of the debate on the Address—which must, in any case, have been occupied by Members in the exercise of their just right of criticizing the Royal Speech and the conduct of the Government during the Recess, and another to the discussion of the affairs of the Transvaal. With those exceptions, every night has been occupied with the direct aim of reaching the result that has now been brought about, and almost invariably on the same class of topics. Two nights, indeed, were occupied with the Electoral Franchise in Ireland, and that subject was raised wholly and solely in the interest of what is called, in the scientific language of the day, the Department of Obstruction. It was not from the value attached to the Electoral Franchises in Ireland, or a claim that they were so urgent, that they required
    94
    nights to be consumed in discussing them when we had an Irish Land Bill; but it was for the purpose of contributing to that aim which I now call the House to take into its firm determination to defeat. I need not dwell upon the fact that, as regards the homelier subjects of Supply and the Mutiny Act, and every other necessary matter, we have not stirred a step. Yet these, though they may not constitute the glory of Parliament, are what light and water are to a well-organized and healthy household. These conditions we have not been able to touch—conditions which we cannot longer refrain from touching, and conditions which, when we touch, the very attempt to touch will infinitely multiply the means of Obstruction, unless you, by a wise vigour, interpose, and give the securities that the case demands. Well, and by whom, let me ask, has this been done to which I have called the attention of the House? It has been done in spite of the efforts of the majority of this House. I suppose I may say, roughly, that about 500 Members of the House, of all Parties, have recorded their votes freely and repeatedly against Obstructive procedure—the proceedings which have brought us to the present pass. I will not even call them Obstructive proceedings; I will call them —I do not want to give unnecessary offence—claims of speech unlimited in the multitude of the times of its repetition, which, under the name of liberty of speech and privilege, have been an effective instrument, and have placed us in our present predicament. And what have been the forces arrayed in urging the demands which were thus made? What is the authority with which they have been pressed upon us? Have these demands been backed by the voice of the nation? There have been times when very small minorities in this House have represented the national feeling?— times happily passed away never to return. Securities have been taken in the laws and institutions of the country which render such a contingency absolutely impossible. But I doubt whether any of those who have not reflected on the subject are aware how slight is the authority in comparison with that wielded by minorities in Parliament of old which can be pleaded in defence, or in palliation of any of

    95
    these proceedings. Who, Sir, have shared in them? Not the Representatives of Scotland. Unanimously every man who represents a Scotch constituency, knowing the sentiments of his countrymen, as well as giving effect to his own convictions, has been opposed to these proceedings. Not the Representatives of Wales. Wales, like Scotland, has been unanimous in opposing them. Not the Representatives of England. Of the counties of England, not a single Representative has been found on one single occasion joining in those operations. Of the great towns of England, one single Representative there has been that has approved the policy of resistance—I allude to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen)—but he has, I believe, held himself aloof from what are called in common parlance Obstructive Divisions and debates. No one, I may add, has spoken with greater terseness and point and vigour —and I am bound to say it is no more than a debt of justice — against this policy for nullifying the existence and duties of Parliament through the pretended medium of privilege of speech than the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for the town of Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). In fact, I believe there is but the casual exception of one single English Representative who has had any share in the proceedings which are the sole cause of the position in which we are now placed. But there is a practice encouraged very much in one quarter of the House, and allowed to pass current far too freely—the practice of speaking of "the Irish Members." If it were true that it was the Irish Members who had obstructed, we must all feel that it constituted at least a case of difficulty. The case of difficulty entirely disappears when, examining the matter, we find that by the unerring testimony of figures this has not been done by the Irish Members—unless, indeed, by the Irish Members you only moan a minority of the Irish Members—a body that I believe cannot, by any fair licence of calculation, be extended beyond 46. These have been the agents—believing themselves to be actuated by the highest motives—I do not question that for a moment—these have been the agents in bringing about this interference with the honour, duties, and efficiency of Parliament. I suppose it will not be disputed
    96
    that 46 is less than a moiety of the 103 Irish Members actually sitting in this House. That is the case as to the situation, and as to the means by which that situation has been brought about. Is the force of the motive with which I address you a common and an ordinary force? Is the appeal, I may say the demand, which I now urge upon you, a common and ordinary demand? Do I exaggerate when I say that this is no trifling question? no contest of a light and secondary nature, so far as the House of Commons is concerned? Neque enim levia aut ludicra petuntur pramia, sed certant de vita et sanguine. It is a question whether you shall do your duty — that duty which the country has sent you here to discharge. What man here, I would ask, possesses a spirit so little elevated that he would willingly come here, occupy time, and hold station and position and sit as the simulacrum of a legislator, knowing the vast demands which the interests of the nation make upon him, and yet go on contentedly while conscious that it was impossible for him to meet those demands, even in a measured and reasonable degree. My belief is this—and I hope I shall not state it too strongly, though I own I should use strong words in referring to the condition of the House— that we have been passing through the stages of pain, embarrassment, and even of discredit, and that the stages which remain, unless you arrest this fatal descent, are the stages of just ridicule, of disgrace, and of contempt. That being so, let us now come to the question of the terms of my Motion. In a situation of that kind, it appears to me that almost the first dictate of common sense is that the remedy which is most prompt and most effectual—so as it be not unjust —is the best one; and that to sit here bandying to and fro small arguments upon secondary questions, as may be properly done in a Committee of the House or elsewhere, when what may be called speculative improvements and. almost ideal standards are are in view, would be a course unworthy of this House. There are, I believe, but two modes of procedure, which have been recently referred to by yourself from the Chair. The one is arming this House with strong and efficient powers of intervention with the course of its own proceedings from time to time; the

    97
    other is making the experiment of placing power over our procedure in the hands of the Speaker. Let me say here that, as regards this subject, we have drawn largely on the generous confidence of our friends. We have not been able, amid the circumstances of the times, to hold with them the communication we could have wished. It would have been our desire and duty to ascertain, as exactly as we could, in what current their inclinations and opinions went. We have been obliged to trust to their generous and loyal confidence. With regard to others, upon whom we have less claim, and who, at the same time, have great claim on us, on the ground of the public interests involved, we have made greater efforts; and I do not hesitate to say it was the first intention of the Government to move in one of those directions which you, Sir, have described—the direction of arming the majority with greater and more efficient powers, to be used from time to time; and we only desisted from it when we found it was not likely to be acceptable to a large section of the Members of this House, whom we were desirous, if we could, to keep in hearty union with ourselves on a subject which touches the common interests of us all. We are not ashamed to own that we altered our method of procedure; and that we reverted to that mode of procedure for which, I believe, a great deal is also to he said on the merits—namely, the method of arming the Chair with a large discretion. Unless we arm the Chair with a large discretion, there is no use in arming it at all. I decline, for one, to be a party to ineffective proceedings. I could bear going on and suffering, if it were the will of the House to persevere and suffer, for a long time. We have suffered for a considerable time, and it has been by no impatience of mine that that term has been brought to a close; but in deference to what I believe to be the general and also the just feeling of the House. What, Sir, has been your conduct? You, Sir, have watched these debates with a vigilance which imposes, I must say, too great a strain upon average and ordinary human nature. In the most intelligent attempts to draw the invisible line between the relevant and irrelevant, you have observed, Sir, a temper both remarkable and conspicuous. There are those among us who
    98
    have been, if I may say so, almost impatient of your patience—little knowing, under the surface of that patience, what resolution and what courage there lay hid. Believing, Sir, that you have the entire confidence of the House, we ask the House to lay down this Rule—that when the process is gone through— which process shall be carefully guarded to prevent the oppression of one Party by another—then a state of things shall for a time come into existence under which the House shall be content to repose in your hands its power over its own procedure, believing that thus, and as I believe personally thus only, is it possible to meet the arts, both of direct and the subtler art of indirect Obstruction. The Motion that I have made explains itself to those who will have the patience to peruse it. The enacting part of it comes to this—that the power of the House for the regulation of its Business on the—
    "Several stages of Bills and upon Motions, and all other matters, shall he and remain with the Speaker until the Speaker shall declare that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent."
    But I am not now speaking of these last words. I am only speaking of the essential part of the provisions—the constitution—the state of things in which, for a time, on grounds to be severely tested by the vote of a very largo majority of the House, the House shall be content to make over its powers and to be guided by Mr. Speaker. I feel that the Speaker would have it in his discretion to lay before us the Rules which he had laid down for himself in the exercise of those powers. I feel that in laying down those Rules there will be an elasticity in this form of procedure which the other form of procedure for strengthening the hands of the majority would probably not be found to possess. And as, on the one hand, it would and must be necessary, when we make any enlargement of those powers, to place some confidence in the hands of the majority, so if we ask the House to repose power in the hands of the Speaker, we must also repose in him the confidence we should have reposed in the majority. Our object is to maintain, as far as we can, the moral unanimity of the House. I have noticed Amendments placed upon the Paper proposing variations from our proposed method of

    99
    procedure. The Leader of the Opposition has proposed Amendments which vary from our proposal in four particulars. The first is, that the proposal can only be made by a Minister of the Crown; the second is, that it shall only affect the proceedings of the House in relation to some particular Bill, Motion, or other Question; the third is, that the majority by which the new powers or restrictions are to be introduced shall be a majority consisting of not less than one-half of the whole House; the fourth is, that the special powers shall continue to exist until such Bill, Motion, or Question shall be disposed of, or until the House shall, by a like majority, and on Notice given, otherwise determine. Of course, we knew nothing of those Resolutions until they were placed on the Notice Paper; and it has not been an easy matter for us to give them consideration under the limitations of time and the necessities of communication which such subjects require. Where we can clearly see our way we will at once, without making any difficulty at all, meet the right hon. Baronet. Where we cannot see our way, where we are honestly in doubt, or where we anticipate, as in one case, insurmountable difficulties, I hope they will show a similar disposition to meet us. As to the suggestion that the proposal should only be made by a Minister of the Crown, I think it is open to a great deal of discussion both ways. I am inclined to view the suggestion with a great deal of favour; but I am also inclined to view it with some little jealousy. At the same time, I would ask those who do me the favour to pay any regard to my conclusion on the matter, to lay aside that jealousy to some extent—because, after all, this proposal must necessarily be a proposal, in its essence, to a considerable degree experimental; and because this proposal is submitted to you by a Minister of the Crown, speaking to you with the authority of his position, and speaking to you under circumstances which, I will venture to say. rarely can be found. Consequently, I propose the Motion in the terms in which it stands on the Paper, with words put down to attain the object of the Amendment, by saying, "If, upon Notice given, a Motion be made by a Minister of the Crown." Well, then, Sir, there is another of the changes proposed to
    100
    which certainly we could not accede in its terms as it stands—that which requires an absolute majority of the entire House to decide any alteration of this kind in your procedure. Over a large portion of the Session it would make it practically impossible to take action. The Resolution could not be carried; but if all that were meant were this— that a number should be inserted quite large enough to prevent a Government from abusing its powers at a time when it acquires an unusual command over Public Business—as, for example, by inserting a number which would require that the majority should consist of not less than 200, so that there must be a House of 200, I would not say that would not abate my objection to it. I think it would in such circumstances; but still not in circumstances of the utmost gravity. But for the sake of obtaining that concord which, next to efficiency and justice, we covet above all things, I think we would accede to that. If I do not now propose it, it is because it differs from what is here set down in the Amendment; and, consequently, I do not know it would have the effect I desire. Then there is another part of the Amendment with the purpose of which, I must confess, I very strongly sympathize, and that is — though I think the words have probably been chosen somewhat hastily, and might be so modified as more fully to attain the purpose — the Amendment at the close of the Motion of my right hon. Friend—
    "Until such Bill, Motion, or Question, has been disposed of, or until the House shall, by a like majority, and on Notice given otherwise determine."
    The essence of that is evidently that there shall be not one mode, but two modes of bringing this special state of things about, and to lighten the Speaker's responsibility, while not depriving the House of the advantage of the exercise of its judgment. I am going to propose other words; but they are words that Gentlemen will see have not the effect of crippling, but of widening, the powers for which they ask. My words would be this—Our Motion should run down to the end, as it does run, and then add this—
    "Or until the House shall so determine upon Motion, which, after Notice given, may be

    101
    made by any Member and put without Amendment, adjournment, or debate, and decided by a majority."
    The House will see that that very considerably enlarges the power of intervention; but that which we cannot agree with is the limitation of its operation to a particular Bill, Question, or Motion. We believe—and I do not speak at random—we have done our best to act in conformity with the most impartial as well as the most learned authorities. This Motion is not made with the slightest intention of crippling our proceedings, and it would not have that effect. The only mode, as it seems to us, of meeting the resources of that new art — the latest invention of the 19th century — known as Obstruction, is to give a power to wise and judicious hands which may be exercised as necessity from time to time may require. Otherwise, Obstruction might be so pitted against Business that no Business can be done. Now, Sir, I hope that self-conceit does not beseem a great Assembly, yet self-respect does be seem a great Assembly; and it does appertain to self-respect when we stand on our trial before the world, which is teeming in every quarter with comments on our recent deplorable proceedings. After much patience and long - suffering we have addressed ourselves to this necessary work, and have determined to meet the difficulty, not with a half-measure or with a weak and paltry proposal, but with something which shall attain the end we have in view. I have now stated two out of the four points proposed. I will at once rely on the generosity of the House, and embody them in the Motion that I make. As you have heard, we are perfectly open to consider a reasonable arrangement; and if I have not embodied the change, it is only because I was not sure whether I might not be doing that which not un frequently happens, that in doing a kind act you are only aggravating the offence, and creating difficulty. I believe I have now stated nearly all that is necessary for me to put before the House upon this subject. Anxious as I have been to save the time of the House, yet I feel it impossible to submit proposals of much importance without entering into some details as to their character to tender again this admission, that I believe I am asking a
    102
    minority of the House to place some reliance upon the spirit of equity and the sense of honour of the majority. I do not think that feeling can be separate from any proceedings of this kind; but this I must say, that they are not dependent only upon the honourable and equitable feelings of the majority, considered as individuals; because there is an atmosphere of honour and equity within these ancient and traditional walls, there is a dominant inflow of those influences from every part of the country, and these influences would all array themselves on the side of the minority, and would, as I believe, bring within due bounds any majority which was disposed to abuse their power over the minority. Making that admission on the one hand, and making it in larger terms than some would, I now close this address by making the most earnest appeal that it is possible for a man or a Minister to make. I have been nearly half a century in this House, and you will believe me when I say I am not indifferent to its honour. Personally, my prospective concern in this arrangement is small. My lease is all but run out; but there are those here who, for years, even for generations, will live, as I hope, to render honourable and splendid service to their country. The House of Commons has never since the first day of its desperate struggle for existence stood in a more serious crisis —in a crisis of character and honour, not of external security, but of character and honour, which are its essence. As you value the duties which have been committed to you, as you value the traditions you have received, as you esteem highly the interests of the vast Empire for which you work, I appeal to you not too nicely and microscopically to discuss this and that secondary improvement upon which we might differ for ever, but without hesitation, without delay, after the challenges that have been addressed to you, after what you have suffered to-night, to rally to the performance of a great public duty, and to determine that you will continue to be, as you have been, the mainstay of the power and glory of your country, and that you will not degenerate into the laughing-stock of the world. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, if upon Notice given a Motion be made by a Minister of the Crown that the state of Public Business is urgent, and if on the call of the Speaker 40 Members shall support it by rising in their places, the Speaker shall forthwith put the Question, no Debate, Amendment, or Adjournment being allowed; and if, on the voices being given he shall without doubt perceive that the Noes have it, his decision shall not be challenged, but, if otherwise, a Division may be forthwith taken, and if the Question be resolved in the affirmative by a majority of not less than three to one, the powers of the House for the Regulation of its Business upon the several stages of Bills, and upon Motions and all other matters, shall he and remain with the Speaker, until the Speaker shall declare that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent, or until the House shall so determine upon a Motion, which after Notice given may be made by any Member, put without Amendment, Adjournment, or Debate, and decided by a majority."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I can assure the House that I feel very strongly the great responsibility which rests upon myself individually, as well as upon those with whom I act, with regard to the proposals which have been made to us by the Prime Minister. Those of us who listened to the eloquent speech with which my right hon. Friend entranced the House during the half-hour before you, Sir, temporarily left the Chair, must have felt the very great force and cogency of the appeals which the Prime Minister made to this House to throw aside, as far as possible, all prejudices and narrow views in order to meet a great and increasing emergency. They must have felt that the appeal gathered additional force from the fact that it was made by one who not only stands at the head of this House in point of ability and position, but who, for a length of time, has taken a leading part in the proceedings of former Parliaments, and is distinguished by this—that he has as much as, and perhaps I might say more than, any Member of this House, in former times, stood up nobly, in the face of opposition sometimes of the most formidable character, in defence of the rights and liberty of speech, and especially of minorities, in this House. If any man could be qualified by the record of his Parliamentary life to come forward with authority, for the purpose of claiming such alterations as may be necessary, and which may impose some restrictions upon the hitherto unfettered liberty of Parliament, it is
    104
    the present Prime Minister, who has shown himself on not one, but on many occasions, prepared both to assert, and by his own conduct to vindicate, the rights of a minority under all circumstances of opposition and of overwhelming force, and, sometimes, of misrepresentation and misconception. I do not think it necessary, because my right hon. Friend's history is so well known to us all, and we are all proud of the part that he has played in Parliamentary life for so many years, to go back in detail to the cases to which I have thus alluded, and of which we are so well aware. I refer to them now because I am myself in a position which imposes upon me, to some extent, at all events, the especial duty of endeavouring to represent and to make good the case of those minorities whose interests have in times past been so well supported by my right hon. Friend. And, Sir, if. I am able in any way to advance those doctrines which, on so many occasions, he has so eloquently pleaded and defended so powerfully, it will be to me a source of great pride and satisfaction. Now, Sir, I am quite ready to admit that I entirely agree with, and accept fully, the greater part of the opening observations of my right hon. Friend. I agree with him that it is our duty now to consider how we are to arrange our Business so as to make this House worthy of the name which it has gained in the nation, and to retain for it the power and the authority which it is of so much importance that it should possess. I agree with him that the recent scenes that we have witnessed in this House, and some upon former occasions, are of such a character as to demand that we should take exceptional measures if we are to maintain the order and the decency of our proceedings, and the dignity of the House, which it is, above all things, necessary to maintain. And this I will say—that the respect which this House has, and ought to have, in the eyes of the nation must depend, not only upon the order and decency of our proceedings, but also upon their freedom and efficiency. It would be a sad change if we were to give up that somewhat irregular freedom of discussion and debate which distinguishes the British House of Commons from the greater part of similar Assemblies in other countries—if, for the sake of as-

    105
    suming decent apparel, we were to throw away our working clothes, as if we were ashamed of them, and always appear in our best dress suit. We must be prepared, if we are to give expression to the opinions of all classes in this country, if we are to be a Representative Body of all classes of the country, and the great bulk of the nation, and of those classes who are not directly represented here, but are indirectly represented, and who look to us to plead for their interests—I say, we must be prepared to insist, and should not be doing our duty if we did not insist, on retaining those things which are more than mere forms, which are the substance of the dignity and honour of Parliament, and which really give life and vigour to our proceedings. I was glad to hear an expression of my right hon. Friend, when he told us, in making his proposals, that it would be well to take care to prevent the oppression of one Party by another. That, I say, is an object of importance second to none. I freely grant that, as a general, almost an universal, rule, it is the duty of a minority, after having fully and fairly, and to the last point, fought a cause which it has to defend, to give way to a majority; but when I call to mind the position of the British House of Commons, and consider how far a majority here, temporarily representing a particular view, can be regarded as representing the majority of the nation, I do feel it most important not to adopt any measure or any Rules which would place the Party for the time being in a minority at the mercy, not of the Whole House, but of the Party of the majority. And, Sir, I especially apply that doctrine to the circumstances in which we now stand, for the purpose of urging upon the House of Commons that, while it ought not to be slow or unwilling to adopt any new arrangement by which its will can be better expressed than by the machinery which we at present employ, and while I am perfectly ready to admit that there is a great deal to be said for the principle embodied in the Resolution before us—namely, the principle that we should transfer from the Whole House to the hands of our respected Chief Officer, the Speaker, the authority of dealing in certain cases with our Forms of procedure—it is of
    106
    the highest importance that that transference should be taken, not merely by one Party overruling another Party, but by a general consensus of opinion on the part of the House. What we have to complain of is, not that small bodies of men, representing opinions which are at variance with those of the great body of the House, have urged with persistency, ability, and energy their views, but that in some cases there has been, and there is, a great and growing tendency on the part of certain Members to increase the number of cases in which the disposition is not to fight out the questions at issue fairly and on the grounds of argument and reason, but to avail themselves of the Forms of the House, to turn those Forms to purposes for which they were never intended, and to obstruct ordinary Business, in order to force the House to particular conclusions which it would not otherwise adopt. I quite agree that it is of the utmost importance we should take measures to prevent, or at least to check, that evil. It hardly needed the eloquent language of the Prime Minister to impress that upon us. He touched a tender place in our minds by reminding us of the 11 days which he said he wished he could recover. Perhaps we have acquired some peculiar views within the last week, and have been inclined to doubt the name of each particular day. The truth is that the House is, at the pre-sent moment, in a position to bear its own testimony to the evil with which we have to contend; and it is not, therefore, necessary that great speeches should be made on the subject, for we have only to consider and to look around and see what has been going on for the past few weeks in this House since the meeting of Parliament. Now, Sir, it is a great advantage for a Minister, when he comes forward and asks us to adopt what he considers the best remedy he and his Colleagues can devise for the evils he points out, to be able to plead urgency; but there is also a danger which may arise from that very fact, and it is this— that we are hardly in a condition at this moment to consider calmly the many important questions which are 'involved in the proposals before us. I do not, however, advance that argument as any plea for delay. I agree with my right hon. Friend when he said that the remedy we should adopt was that which, being the

    107
    most just, was also the most prompt. Only this I would say: Promptitude, undoubtedly, is of very great importance; but justice and appropriateness are of still greater importance. And I warn the House that we should upon this occasion be very careful how we should adopt a Rule which we are not satisfied is the proper Rule to be adopted under the circumstances; or, still more, if we are prepared to accept—as I frankly say I am prepared to accept— the basis of the Government proposal, I think we ought not to be restrained by any false shame or any fear of possibly being misunderstood or misconstrued from insisting upon, I will not say the right, but the duty of this House in its own interests, and in the interests of the nation, to criticize somewhat narrowly the proposals that are made to us, and to insist, if need be, upon taking the sense of the House upon those points which we may deem essential, and as to which we may find it impossible to come to an agreement. I earnestly trust that that may not be necessary. I earnestly hope we may be able to come to an agreement here and now. Because I feel that, if anything is adopted, it is of the highest importance that it should be adopted by something like unanimous assent. But if we are to have that unanimous assent, it must be an assent which we find ourselves able to give from our hearts; and I am not prepared, simply for the sake of getting an early and unanimous vote, to give up some points on which I fear we have not yet arrived at a unanimous conclusion. I do not at all despair, in spite of some expressions which fell from my right hon. Friend, of being able yet to arrive at such a conclusion. But we must see. Two of the important points in the shape of Amendments of which I gave Notice have been, as I understand, more or less substantially accepted by the Prime Minister, and an offer has been made—an advance towards an arrangement—of the third; but on the fourth I am afraid we have not yet come to so satisfactory a settlement, though I still hope that that may not be out of reach. I shall address myself mainly to what appears to me to be the principal point of difference between us; but before I do so, I wish to take notice of some observations that were made by
    108
    my right hon. Friend in the earlier part of his speech, when he referred to the alternative which you, Sir, set before the House some days ago, when you said that you considered it would be necessary for the House to pursue one of two courses—either to arm a majority of the House itself with greater powers than it now possesses, or to place powers in the hands of the Speaker. My right hon. Friend went on to say that it had been the intention of the Government to move in the direction of the first of these alternatives, but that on consultation and communication which he had had, intimating sufficiently clearly that it was with myself, as representing those who sit near me, and after the opinions I had expressed to him, the Government had changed their view and were now disposed to place powers in the hands of the Speaker. Now, it is perfectly true that my right hon. Friend, acting in accordance, as I think, with the general and beneficial understanding which prevails between those who take leading parts in the House, did communicate to me some time ago the ideas which were then entertained by the Government, and I told him then, frankly, that, although it was impossible for me to speak with any great confidence as to the feelings of my Friends until I had had an opportunity of conferring with them, still, judging from such indications as I was able to collect, and from my knowledge of the sentiments of a large number of Gentlemen, I was of opinion that it was not likely that the House would be ready to accept the general principle of what is called the cloture, but that if it were proposed with reference to a special purpose—if it were proposed, as I may say, ad hoc —I thought there would be a great disposition on the part of many hon. Members to put aside any scruples they might entertain and endeavour to come to some arrangement. Afterwards my right hon. Friend proposed another course. I have not expressed any preference for that course over the other; but in both cases I hold the same opinion—namely, that it is necessary that the powers which the House might be asked to assume to itself, or to place in the hands of the Speaker, should be adopted with some reference to particular subjects of debate. I have never assented to the doctrine that, either on the Motion of the Prime

    109
    Minister or anybody else, the mere assertion that the state of Public Business is urgent is in itself a sufficient ground for our divesting ourselves of all control over our Business and Landing it over to any other authority, however much we may respect it. I have felt that an appeal might very fairly be addressed to Parliament by a Minister of the Crown, who might indicate that there were circumstances which rendered it, in the opinion of the Executive Government, of great national importance that particular measures should be dealt with in an exceptional manner, and to that my Amendment points. Let me point out to the House the difference between the proposal of my right hon. Friend and my own. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we ought not to deal with proposals of this sort precisely in the way in which we deal with the clauses of a Bill in Committee. But, at the same time, the difference between us here is one, not merely of form, but of substance, and we must be free to discuss it in detail. It is proposed that upon the initiative of somebody, who we now all agree shall be a Minister of the Crown—on a declaration by that person that the state of Public Business is urgent, the House is to proceed at once to vote whether it will or will not give up its powers to the Chair, without having any explanation whatever as to the causes which led to the statement that the Business was urgent, without any opportunity of putting any question to elicit the reasons for this great surrender, and without the power of obtaining any assurance as to the limits within which those powers are to be applied. Well, that being so, it is a Rule of great importance. I admit that there would be an inconvenience in having a full debate on the subject at that stage; but if that would be inconvenient, it is all the more important that the statement upon which we proceed to vote should be self-explaining. If we are not to be told by the Minister who makes the proposition why he considers the state of Public Business urgent, and if we are not to be allowed to canvass the matter, we shall find ourselves voting very much in the dark, because the statement that the Public Business is urgent is one which may be applied in a very great variety of circumstances. It may arise when treason
    110
    is on foot, or when foreign invasion is threatened, and when there is the greatest possible need for urgent speed and for setting aside all the Rules by which we are bound; or, it may be, that the Public Business may be stated to be urgent when we are in the month of August and grouse shooting is approaching, and when there are several Bills of an interesting character, which Ministers do not like to go to the country without carrying through, and when it may very alluringly be said—"If we are to get away in decent time, let us vote urgency, and hurry through the Business. Well, Sir, I endeavour to meet that danger in what I consider to be the most proper way— first of all, by proposing that the Minister of the Crown should state so far the grounds on which he claims urgency; or, at all events, say that it is a matter of public interest that this or that particular measure should be considered as urgent, and accordingly be proceeded with without delay. Even if you do not adopt the words of my Amendment, with regard to the limitation of these powers to the several stages of Bills, Motions, &c, the introduction of the words themselves into the original statement of the Minister, as to the grounds on which he pleads urgency, would have two effects. It would, in the first place, explain to the House why the Motion was made; and it would further operate as an instruction to the Speaker, in the exercise of the powers so vested in him, that he was to have regard to the progress of that particular Business and not of any other. The Prime Minister has admitted my claim that the proposal should be made by a Minister of the Crown, adding that he could not help feeling that there might be some scintilla of jealousy in giving such a power to the Representatives of the Executive in this House. I can quite understand that jealousy, and it is because I feel that jealousy that I desire so far to limit the power of the Minister as to make him give his reasons before raising the plea of urgency. There is another point on which we have made an approach towards agreement, but have not fully arrived at one. The proposal I have made in one of my Amendments is this —that the majority by which the power is to be transferred to the Speaker shall be a majority consisting of not less than

    111
    one-half of the Whole House. I do that for more reasons than one. First, because I think it is right, if the House is to hand over its powers to any other authority than itself, that should he the act, not of a casual majority of the House, but of a large proportion of the House itself. It has been said there may he a difficulty at certain seasons of the year in getting an attendance of half of the Whole House. That is just one of the grounds on which I feel this jealousy. When is it it would be so difficult to get the attendance? Not at a period like the present. When there is Business of great importance, of which due Notice has been given, hon. Members are ready to attend in their places. In one division of this Session there were 437 hon. Members, including Tellers, in one Lobby, and 59, including Tellers, in the other. This is far more than the proportion I speak of; and on several recent occasions we have had in the two Lobbies very much more than one-half of the House. But when you come to the month of August or July, we have to deal with a state of things in which a large number of hon. Members are exhausted or absent; and when we meet some day, or perhaps just before we rise at a late hour some night, Notice may be given that a Motion of Urgency will be taken as to some particular Business, at half-past 4 o'clock next day. It is quite possible that, with a desire to get rapidly through Business of interest, but not of overwhelming importance, Government may be tempted to propose a Resolution that the Business is urgent. Now, I wish to guard against that by two proposals—One is that they shall state the ground on which they ask for the declaration of urgency, so that the House may judge of the real importance of the Business; and the other is that the House shall consent, not by a mere majority of three-fourths of those present, but by a substantial portion of the House itself. I have stated generally my readiness to accede, so far as I am concerned, to the basis of the Government proposals. I am quite prepared to intrust to you, Sir, who have so well deserved it at the hands of the House, a trust which will mark the sense of the House in your thorough impartiality, firmness, and discretion in the exercise of your powers. We are perfectly satisfied that, in intrusting such powers to
    112
    you, Sir, we intrust it to one in whose hands they will not be abused, but will be turned to the account for which they are intended. Let me add, and it is but due, that among the many reasons which are to be urged in favour of adopting some course of this kind, in order to prevent the recurrence of such melancholy scenes as those we have recently witnessed, I may put, as one of the very highest class, the feeling which I am sure animates every Member of this House—that it is not right that you should be exposed to the great personal strain and fatigue which you have so gallantly borne during the last few weeks. I am glad to see the Prime Minister has returned to his seat, for this reason among others. I am particularly anxious to ask from him some further explanations on one or two points which are not yet made quite clear. I did not interrupt him in his eloquent speech, because I felt it would be inappropriate to break in upon his high argument by a question of detail. Yet, before the House agrees to the Resolution, it is necessary we should know what it is we are agreeing to, and we must be told a little more distinctly what is expected to be the operation of the Resolution. It is said that the powers of the House are to be and remain with the Speaker. I wish to know, more clearly than we are told, what is meant by the powers of the House? I do not understand in what way the Resolution is to work. Is it to come into operation merely by a vote, without any debate at all? Are the powers the Resolution would confer to be new powers, which the Speaker may from time to time call into existence without any vote at all? Are these powers to be powers which already exist and have been developed in any form at all, or are they to be new powers which the Speaker may from time to time initiate, on the assumption that if the House chose to assert those powers it would have them? We ought to be told in what way they are to be exercised. It is in the power of the House to vote the suspension of the Standing Orders, to set aside its Regulations, to declare that all the stages of a Bill may be taken in one day, and to do many other matters of that kind. Are all these powers to be transferred to the Speaker in a lump? Are we to have no kind of voice in the power which

    113
    a majority is to empower the Speaker to exercise? Again, there is another question—What is to be the effect of the Resolution when the House is in Committee? That is a point of very considerable importance, and it is one of great difficulty. Considering that the Obstruction of which we have had cause to complain has arisen largely in Committee, it is important we should be told how far the powers proposed to be given to the Speaker can be exercised when the House is in Committee. Is the Speaker to lay down Rules, and will the Committee, in any way, be bound by those Rules? Again, will the House, in any way, be informed of these Rules before or after they are applied? I presume it will not be until after; but still we should like to know what is the way in which it is expected that the Resolution will operate. In Committee hon. Members have the power of moving over and over again that the Chairman report Progress, and that he leave the Chair. Is the Speaker to lay down the Rule that those Motions are not to be made, or only under certain circumstances and restrictions? We shall be leaving the powers of the Speaker very large indeed, if we adopt the Resolution as it stands, without some further directions, such as I propose, as to the particular measure or Business for which it is intended that power should be given; and I think that you, Mr. Speaker, will find yourself embarrassed in the exercise of that power. I regret that it is not in my power at once and without reservation to accept the proposal of my right hon. Friend, which is already before us. I have made these observations in no captious spirit. I have spoken with no intention of obstructing progress, but rather with an earnest desire to express the doubts which occur to myself, and stating the points on which I think more clearness and definite direction are required, to endeavour still further to improve the Resolution, which I admit has been already considerably improved in the hands of its Mover. To put myself in Order, and to raise the points in the most convenient way, I propose to move my Amendment as it stands upon the Paper—namely, to substitute for the words "that the state of Public Business is urgent," the words—"That any Bill, Motion, or other Question then before this House is urgent, and that it
    114
    is of importance to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay."
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out the words "a Motion be made by a Minister of the Crown that the state of Public Business is urgent,"in order to insert the words" a Minister of the Crown shall declare in his place that any Bill, Motion, or other Question then before the House is urgent, and that it is of importance to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay,"—(Sir Stafford Northcote,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I wish, Sir, to offer a few words of explanation with reference to what has fallen from my right hon. Friend who has just sat down. I understand that my right hon. Friend thinks it would be necessary that the Minister should state, for the information of the House, the special cause for entering into the question of urgency; but the mode which my right hon. Friend proposes in that regard appears to be somewhat doubtful, and will probably be attended with injurious consequences. I do not know whether the Amendment now moved is to be followed by a series of other Amendments. If not, it would not be difficult to devise means of carrying out the general object. If the desire were simply that the responsible Minister of the Crown should make some statement as to the cause of urgency, that is a matter which may probably be fairly considered. Before any other Motion is made, it would not be difficult to devise words for the purpose of securing some statement of the grounds for urgency; but it will be simply asking him to reverse his whole argument and, in my opinion, deprive his proposition of its efficiency. Two questions have been put by my right hon. Friend. One was as to the nature of the duties of the Speaker, whether the Speaker would be able to dispense with, or modify Standing Orders; and the other as to Committees. For my own part, I have no authority to construe the words of the Motion; but, so far as the intention with which it was framed was concerned, the words have been so chosen as to save the several stages of the Bill. The power is only given to exercise upon the several stages, implying that those

    115
    several stages must take place. In other respects the Speaker would be able to qualify the Standing Orders. With respect to Committees, I must apologize to the House for inadvertently omitting to refer to that subject. Any Committee of the House is entirely under the direction of the House; it derives all its powers and rules from the House, and has no power to modify them; but must receive any modification from the House. Under these circumstances, I think the words are adequate to convey to the Speaker the powers intended. With regard to the enlargement of the powers of the Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, bearing the same proportion to the enlargement of the powers of the Speaker, I apprehend that if the proceedings in Committee of the Whole House are to be modified under this Resolution, they will, undoubtedly, be modified according to Rules which will be laid down for the Chairmen of Committees by the Speaker of the House. As to the production of Rules for the exercise of these powers, it would be impertinence on my part to presume to speak. I merely signify my own conjecture. Probably the Speaker would find it becoming and convenient to frame, and submit to the House, any Rules for the regulation of its proceedings, with fitting elasticity, which he might find desirable to devise from time to time.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he must express his regret that it had at last become necessary to alter their Rules for the conduct of Business; and he hoped his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would see his way to accept the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote). So far as he (Mr. Dillwyn) understood them, he considered them of great importance. It was essentially necessary that there should be a general statement by a Minister of the Crown as to the urgency of the Business. He understood that to be the effect of the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEexplained that he desired to add to his Amendment words more distinctly stating the limits of the Speaker's power.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Do I understand that my right hon. Friend desires to strike out certain words and insert others?
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Yes; I propose to strike out the words "the state of Public Business is urgent."
    MR. GLADSTONE: That would break up the whole of the Resolution.
    MR. DILLWYN,resuming, said, he also very cordially supported the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman as to the large section of the House which should be required to constitute the majority; but instead of saying the half of the House, which was a varying and uncertain quantity, he would prefer a fixed number—say 300—to constitute a House, which would satisfy all Parties. There ought, certainly, to be a large section of the House agreed on a question involving the rights and liberties of private Members; and the House voting urgency should be a tolerably full one. He (Mr. Dillwyn) had been an Obstructive himself sometimes; but he always held that what was Obstruction in the middle of the Session was very often duty at the end of it. The urgency then was to get away. With regard to Business of urgency, he, for one, was jealous of giving special powers to any Government, for at the end of the Session Bills were, even under the ordinary regulations, hurried through the House; and such hasty legislation generally brought up a crop of amended Bills at the commencement of the following Session.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was very glad to hear that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) met the approval of his hon. hon. Friend Member for Swansea. He thought they were much indebted to the Prime Minister for the attention he had given to this subject, and he hoped he would remember the great importance of Notice in such a matter, in the event of the Prime Minister requiring to command the support of 300 Members. He also thought that the power under these Resolutions, which certainly ought to be exercised by the House, should also be given to private Members. The respect for the House among the people of the country was the result of a conviction that it was the highest development of self-government; and should that conviction be destroyed, the respect of the people for that House would also be gone. If there was any suspicion that they were transferring their powers to the Executive Government the greatest

    117
    jealousy would be felt, on which faction would work with great effect. If they did not come to a decision on the subject that night, they might have a repetition of the melancholy scenes which occurred in the early part of the evening.
    MR. SHAWsaid, that as the proposed Standing Order was intended very much for the regulation of Irish Members, he, as an Irish Member, wished to say a word or two upon it. He fully agreed as to the necessity of some such regulation, for the way in which the conduct of Business had been left hitherto was most unfair to any Gentleman occupying the position of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. The very fact of having a Speaker in any Assembly implied that he possessed the power of conducting the proceedings of that Assembly. But the circumstances in which the right hon. Gentleman was placed, without any Rules to guide his conduct, threw a great amount of unpleasant responsibility upon him. The present state of things was also unfair to Gentlemen, many of them young and without experience, who, coming to that House with a firm belief in their principles and having no distinct Rules to guide them, were naturally tempted to forget or violate the spirit which should rule Assemblies like that when they had not the letter before them. He, therefore, concurred that there should be some such regulation as the one now proposed. He would also join in what had been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newdegate) as to the necessity of full and ample Notice. For example, he (Mr. Shaw) lived. 500 miles away. The Ministers of the day might be very anxious to carry a particular measure, and might give Notice in the ordinary way. But he thought that ample public Notice should be given, or such Notice as would enable every Member of the House to be in his place when the liberties of the Assembly were about being transferred; for although they might have the fullest confidence in the judgment and wisdom of the Gentleman now occupying the Speaker's Chair he might be succeeded by someone of less temper and discretion. As to other Amendments, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) that the making of such proceedings should decidedly lie with
    118
    the responsible Minister; but he did not think the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite went far enough in implying that the Minister should explain the grounds upon which urgency was declared. To simply declare urgency in any matter was not to explain the grounds on which the demand for that urgency was based. Therefore, the grounds ought to be fully and amply stated. He was also strongly of opinion that there should be present at least half the House, and yet he was averse to any fixed number. He thought the words of the right hon. Gentleman would amply meet this objection and ought to be adopted. When the House parted with its powers for an indefinite time—powers, it might be, of great importance—-and when the privileges of minorities, who were often in the right, were placed entirely in the hands of one man or of the Government, those privileges ought to be protected. There was no reason why the number should not be put at 350 instead of 300. He also thought the Order ought to be a Sessional Order in the sense that the necessity for it would have disappeared; for he hoped most sincerely when there should be better legislation, and when a better understanding should arise—-for there was no want of good feeling, though there were many misunderstandings—that they would be able to revert to that freedom of debate which they had enjoyed up to the present.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was desired by his right hon. Friend and Colleague to go to the extreme point in meeting the views of hon. Gentlemen, and especially of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not think that right hon. Gentleman had any reason to complain of the course taken up to the present. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that, out of the four proposals he had made as the basis of the arrangement, three had been taken. That was going a long way towards that unanimous concurrence which could not be reached by one side having all it desired, and making no concession to the other. But he was instructed by his right hon. Friend to say that of the four points the right hon. Gentleman opposite might have three and a-half. There was one point raised by the right hon. Gentle-

    119
    man in which there seemed to be considerable force. The right hon. Gentleman said that the original Resolution was to the effect that the state of Public Business was urgent, but did not say anything as to the grounds. That seemed a reasonable objection, and, therefore, in the declaration made by the Minister of the Crown, there should be a specification of the reason why urgency was declared—that was to say, what were the Bills or Motions, or the character of the Business, which led to the declaration of urgency. Therefore the Government would not be averse from taking the words of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, not as a substitute for the words in the original Resolution of the Prime Minister, but in addition to them. That would be to leave the framework of the Resolution as proposed by his right hon. Friend, but to add that declaration on the grounds which the right hon. Gentleman opposite desired. He (Sir William Harcourt) thought that to be as much as the Government could be expected to assent to; for he did not entirely agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Shaw), if he would allow him to call him so, that the Minister should make a full explanation; because, if he were to do that, it would not be to the advantage of Public Business, in that it would be impossible to prevent persons from entering into argumentative statements, which would provoke and, in most cases, require a reply. But, by admitting that formal declaration on the part of the Minister, there would be reached what the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to desire—a sort of instruction to the Speaker as to what was the subject-matter with respect to which he should exercise his delegated authority. He (Sir William Harcourt) must point out to the House, in order to be perfectly fair and candid, that they made this declaration for the purpose of giving a direction to the Speaker; but they could not assent to the subsequent Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman to incorporate the words "in relation to such Bill, Motion, or other Question," leaving out the words "upon Motions and all other matters," for that would seem a very serious alteration. If they did not add those words, they would not be able to prohibit a great number of things not relating to
    120
    the Bill or Motion when persons were desirous of obstructing Business. Nothing would be easier than to raise an obstructive debate upon a Private Railway Bill, for example, at 4 o'clock; and that debate might go on for a week, and so prevent the urgent Business from coming on at half-past 4. He hoped the House would not think the Government were stiff in their opinions. They desired to meet every reasonable proposal; and they desired also, what was very essential after what had happened that night, that the House should come to a unanimous conclusion. The Amendment the Government were willing to accept would be in effect to insert after the words "Minister of the Crown" the words—
    "Who shall declare in his place that any Bill, Motion, or other Question then before the House is urgent, and that it is of importance to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay."
    But they would not omit the words "a Motion be made that the state of Public Business is urgent."
    MR. SPEAKERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford North-cote) proposed to persevere with his Motion?
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEthought that, under the circumstances, he would do better by withdrawing it, and accepting the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, in that case, he proposed to add, after the words "Minister of the Crown," the following words:—
    "Upon which Motion such Minister shall declare in his place that any Bill, Motion, or other Question then before the House is urgent, and that it is of importance to the public interest that the same shall be proceeded with without delay."
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 2, after the word "urgent," to insert the words "upon which Motion such Minister shall declare in his place that any Bill, Motion, or other Question then before the House is urgent, and that it is of importance to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL STANLEYhoped that the House would not think him desirous of obstructing or delaying the debate if on a matter of so great importance, he urged the necessity of arriving at a clear understanding. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) had said that the Government were willing to concede three points out of four; but their concession was to be measured not by its numerical, but by its intrinsic value, and there were still several points as to which a complete agreement did not exist. The main question was with regard to the declaration of urgency. He (Colonel Stanley) wished to know whether a declaration of urgency on a particular Bill was to carry either with it, or after a particular time, a declaration of urgency in respect of all matters before the House. The present occasion was a case in point. Here was a Bill in which urgency was one of the prime factors; but was it to be understood that, from this time to the end of the Session, every Bill introduced either by the Government or by private Members composed a matter of urgency? That was a point upon which he and his hon. Friends near him felt some doubt, and on which the House ought to be more clearly informed. Though not so old a Member of the House as many hon. Gentlemen, he had had some experience on this matter. It had been his fate to conduct a Bill through Committee which had taken the longest time occupied by any Bill brought into the House; and certainly that, and many other causes, would not dispose him at all to be opposed to the measure which the Government might think it necessary to propose for transacting Public Business quickly and regularly. But there was just this fear—that, whereas they had appeared to consider discussion everything and legislation nothing, they might go to the opposite extreme of regarding legislation as everything and discussion as nothing. That would hardly be fulfilling the duties from which the "Parlement" derived its name, and it was necessary that they should have regard to their ancient privilege so far as it did not interfere with the proper conduct of Business. He could quite understand the argument of the Government that although urgency might be voted in respect to a Bill, that alone, under certain
    122
    circumstances, would not be sufficient; and that it was quite possible that that Bill might be so surrounded and blocked by discussion on other measures that the object which could not be directly attained by those who were opposed to the particular Bill might be attained indirectly. The balance appeared to some of them to be too strong on one side, if it was held that, by reason of the urgency of a particular measure, every measure which stood on the Paper might, at the discretion of the occupant of the Chair —and the discretion of the present Speaker he would be the last to question —be treated as urgent. The House might thus, so to speak, be placed in a state of siege; and from that moment to the end of the Session every measure might, as he understood the Resolution, be passed as a matter of urgency. Hon. Members who sat on the Conservative Benches were anxious that on a question of this magnitude the difference between the two sides of the House should be reduced to the vanishing point. The Resolution would, he supposed, be passed, in the first instance, as a Sessional Order. He was anxious that it should be passed in a form that would be palatable to those who were most sturdy in standing up for the independence of the House; and while it should tend to facilitate the Business of the Government and the country, it should not be applicable to purposes to which he granted the Government might not themselves wish it to be applied, but for which it might, nevertheless, come to be used. It was desirable to avoid the danger which was happily unknown in our Parliament; but which was known to similar Assemblies elsewhere, under the name of "log-rolling," by which Members who had particular crochets or Bills to forward might engage to support other measures, provided their own proposals were included in the matter of urgency. He should be glad to have these points made perfectly clear.
    MR. DODSONhoped that he should be able to remove some of the hesitation which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down (Colonel Stanley) still felt in regard to the Resolution proposed by the Government as modified by the Amendments suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote). As

    123
    had been already stated, there were means of opposing a Bill, however urgent or important, otherwise than by directly opposing it. They knew very well the facilities which the Forms of the House afforded, and how much they might be multiplied, with a little ingenuity, by opposition, or even only by discussion raised on other questions and other measures. The Government, therefore, held it to be absolutely essential to the value of this Resolution that it should declare that the state of Public Business was urgent, and that urgency should be applied to the matters before the House generally. But after the Amendment which had been adopted at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), the Minister who made the Motion would state to the House, and thereby instruct Mr. Speaker, what particular Bill or Bills or what particular Question or Questions were urgent, and in favour of which he asked the House to adopt that Resolution. Under the Resolution, a state of urgency of the Public Business generally would be declared. No doubt, Mr. Speaker would then have the power of applying those Rules at his discretion to whatever portion of the Business of the House he might find it necessary to apply them, in order to secure the promotion without delay of the particular Bill or Bills, or the particular Question or Questions, in favour of which urgency was asked; but he was sure the House would have every confidence that the right hon. Gentleman would not abuse that large power should it be vested in him. His right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had pointed out how, if a particular Bill was declared urgent, and if nothing else was declared urgent, that Bill might be blocked, for example, even if it were the first Order of the Day, by the raising of a long discussion at 4 o'clock on some Private Bill. Under the Resolution, if such an attempt were made, the Speaker would be able by his authority to prevent it. He did not think the House had any reason to apprehend that the general powers to be applied in a particular case would be unnecessarily applied to other measures. He thought the House might rely on it that the disposition of the Speaker would naturally be, not to press on, under the Urgency
    124
    Rules, measures other than that for which urgency had been asked; but to put those questions aside until the urgent question was disposed of. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that the operation of the Rule would last through-out the Session; but the reign of urgency would only last until the Speaker, an independent authority, declared that the state of Business was no longer urgent, and the right hon. Gentleman would be anxious to relieve himself from responsibility and to make the declaration at the earliest moment possible. There was also an alternative course by which the House itself might put an end to the state of urgency. On the whole, he (Mr. Dodson) did not think there was sufficient reason for the apprehensions which seemed to be entertained. He believed that in this matter the House might safely trust to the discretion of the Speaker, and its own power, not to maintain the state of urgency longer than was absolutely necessary.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he should like to make one practical suggestion, or, rather, to ask a practical question which might assist the House in arriving at a unanimous conclusion. When the Bill which was declared urgent in the Order Book was disposed of, would the Rules then apply to the other Notices on the Paper or not? They were all willing to grant the powers for an urgent Bill; but would granting the powers for one Bill involve the granting of the powers for other Bills? A declaration from the Government on this point would go far to remove objections on the Opposition side. He would, therefore, suggest that some such words as "for the purpose of passing the measure alluded to" should be inserted.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, having been challenged, he could have no hesitation in saying that the Rule would apply to the measure for which urgency was claimed and to no other. He would not deny that, according to the words as they stood, and under the powers given by the Resolution, the Speaker might abstractedly commit an indiscretion and go against the spirit of that Resolution; but the motive of it, which was clear, was to give despatch to a certain question, which, in the view of the House of Commons, required it, and not at all in any manner or

    125
    degree to give special urgency or despatch to other questions where it was not necessary.
    MR. CHAPLINconsidered that, in a matter of that importance, the powers proposed to be given to the Speaker should be clearly and distinctly defined. He, therefore, thought that the words proposed to be added would answer the purpose of making them so; and as a matter of Business, though he did not question the honour of the majority, he thought they ought to be accepted. He hoped his right hon. Friend (Sir E. Assheton Cross) would adhere to them.
    MR. J. R. YORKEwished to understand whether, in the power which the House was about to confer upon the Speaker, he would be able to declare at any stage of a Bill that the Business before the House was urgent when the debate had proceeded to an undue length, and that he must interpose to prevent its continuance?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he apprehended the discretion would be in the hands of the Speaker to refer the question to the House, at such a time as he might think the debate should be closed. At the same time, no Gentleman who would be chosen by the House would dream of exercising power in an arbitrary manner for the purpose against the will of the House.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERS,who spoke amid considerable interruption, wished to say in corroboration of the remark made by the Prime Minister, that one might look through the history of the House of Commons without finding a single instance in which a Speaker had abused his authority, or had had his ruling challenged on the occasion that he ruled; though, of course, his conduct might be censured by vote of the House. He did not like the introduction into a Standing Order of the expression "Minister of the Crown," as it was not known to Parliament.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he must ask the House to consider, as honest and straightforward men, what was the meaning of the Resolution. When the Prime Minister gave Notice of his Resolution, and when it appeared in print, it was the universal belief that the discussion on the matter of so much magnitude could not be completed under less than two or three days; and he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was certainly not willing,
    126
    as one of a minority who had to defend a part of the United Kingdom which was not in much favour just now, to agree to, or assist at, the destruction of the Constitution of the country, or to allow such haste to be shown without a protest. The Constitution had occupied ages in its growth; but it now seemed that it might be destroyed in a night. All the newspapers had said that the discussion would occupy some time; but the contrary now appeared to be the case, and the reason why it was so was perfectly clear. They were going to rush the Resolution through the House, because they were afraid that certain hon. Gentlemen who were now absent would return. They, however, might rest assured, for those hon. Gentlemen could not come back by the clock, but not until after the end of that Sitting, so they need not be in such a desperate hurry. The morning before the Speaker exercised, for the first time, an unusual power. He stopped a debate. ["Hear, hear!"] He (Mr. Mitchell Henry) took that cheer as meaning that the House was unanimous in opinion that the Speaker was right. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, he, too, thought the Speaker was right. He thought extreme diseases required extreme remedies, and things had come to such a pass as to necessitate something in the shape of a coup d' etat. But now they were further asked to place despotic powers in the hands of the Speaker, such powers as had hitherto been unknown in a Constitutional Parliament. The Speaker had been looked upon hitherto as the servant of the House, and the guardian of the rights of minorities, but never as the arbiter of the debates. If they wanted to have the means of closing debates, let them do it upon the authority of the House itself; let them adopt the cloture. But the Resolution was not yet positively in grammatical form, and they were about to deliver up the liberties of the House of Commons into the hands of one man. He must say that he would rather see the culture at once established than that that should take place. The essence of the new Rules was that the Speaker should regulate debate. The Speaker, therefore, supposing the Resolution to be passed, might, if he should choose to do so, stop the debate on the second reading of the Coercion Bill after the

    127
    delivery of only one or two speeches. There was only one circumstance that could arise of sufficient urgency to render it necessary to put such power in the hands of the Speaker. That circumstance would be one affecting the safety of the Kingdom. Was the Prime Minister to have the power of moving that the state of Business was urgent, when he wished to pass a measure, such as a Prisons Bill or a County Boards Bill, at a late period of the Session? If the Resolution were passed that night, did any hon. Member think it would go forth to any part of the United Kingdom, or abroad, as anything but an unjust and unfair advantage taken in the absence of hon. Members who had made themselves troublesome to the House, and whose indiscretion and want of temper had so far committed them that, in being absent from the House, they were parties to an injustice on their country which never could be remedied. He said such proceedings would be unworthy of the British House of Commons. Let them wait. Let them debate the Resolution before them as they would any other common Resolution; let them have it in print, in black and white, so that they could consider it fairly before they passed it. Cries of" Agreed!"] Hon. Members might interrupt him as much as they liked. He could not help it if hon. Members were in such a frame of mind that they would not give even decent attention to a man who was pleading on behalf of the whole of the representation of one part of the United Kingdom. The Resolution, as he had said, ought to be printed, and they ought to have a night to think over it. [Cries of " Hear, hear!"and" Question!"] If ever there was an occasion on which a weak and feeble voice advancing the plea that he was advancing ought to receive attention, it was now. ["Agreed!"] Their attempts to put him down would not put him down, for his sense of duty had nerved him to the task, and these interruptions did not reflect credit on those who made them. He had pleaded that the Resolution should be submitted to the House in black and white. Who could adduce any reasons why that should not be the case? He thought he knew what hon. Members were saying in their own hearts. They were excusing themselves, and saying—"If we grant this delay, we shall get these troublesome men back before
    128
    the question is settled, and they will discuss it." Was that worthy of the traditions of this Parliament? It was not. He should move that that House do now adjourn.[Cries of "Oh, oh!"] no should say rather that the debate be now adjourned; and al though he might not be able to find a Teller, yet it should not be said that he had not acted up to his duty to his constituents. ["Oh, oh!"] He understood that unworthy sneer. He did not expect, as hon. Members had of late often told him, that he would represent his constituents again; but that unworthy sneer seemed to infer that a seat in that House was to overcome a sense of duty. Yet, even if there was not one present to take the same view as himself, he would protest in the face of that House and in the face of Europe—had not the Prime Minister told them the eyes of Europe were upon them now?—against that attempt to commit what he must call a foul injustice to the representation of Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, it was an injustice to pass this Resolution in the absence of hon. Members, whose conduct had caused them to leave the House under the direction of the Speaker. He moved the adjournment of the debate, in order that they might have an opportunity of duly considering the Resolution of the Prime Minister as amended and modified again and again by a sort of half-and-half conversation by Ministers across the Table.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Gentleman second the Motion?
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he rose for the purpose of seconding the Motion just made for the adjournment of the debate. Without intending to occupy the time of the House for any considerable period, he thought that upon such an occasion as this he was entitled to be heard. His hon. Friend the Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) and himself, with a very few others, represented at that moment the whole of the constituencies of Ireland. Both of them entertained views that were, to some extent, different from those of the majority of the Irish Members; and their views, for the most part, were in unison with those of Her Majesty's Government. He thought that further time ought to be given for the consideration of the Resolution. In the course of the evening the suspension of some 30 or 35 Irish Members had taken place. All of them were

    129
    entitled to have a voice in the affairs of Ireland, and the Resolution now submitted to the House would have an important bearing upon those affairs. The Resolution itself was about to be put to the House in a form which differed from that which it originally assumed. The words had been entirely altered, and after having made anxious inquiry, he had been unable to find any hon. Member who could tell him what the precise force of the Resolution as it now stood was. ["Hear, hear!"] Those cheers convinced him that there were many other hon. Members around him who agreed with him, and who would be prepared to support the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Galway. There had been nothing very serious in what had occurred to-day beyond a certain amount of informality; but, in view of the present Resolution, the consequence of which had fallen upon the Irish Members in their exclusion from the House, made it a matter of serious importance that a vote should not be taken now. The informality which had occurred had, in his opinion, been amply atoned for by the exclusion of his hon. Friends from the House during the present Sitting; but he hoped that advantage would not be taken of that fact to press the Resolution with unnecessary haste. It would be most impolitic to prevent the Irish Members from having a voice in the consideration of this most important Resolution. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway told the House that he did not move the adjournment of the debate because he was in sympathy with all the movements of the Land League. Indeed, his hon. Friend had expressed a doubt whether, on that ground, he would be acceptable to his constituents at the next election. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was in a somewhat similar position; but he cared very little whether he was accepted by his constituents or not. But he was of opinion that the House was acting now under a feeling of strong prejudice towards the Irish Members. He did not believe that that prejudice was destined to have a very long life, especially when hon. Members on both sides were able to reflect with what patience and assiduity most of the Irish Members had attended to the Business of the House and advocated the cause of their country. He ventured to say that it would not be long before that re-
    130
    flection would come to hon. Members, and they would then see what an unbecoming act it was on the part of the House to hurry this Resolution forward. He asked the House to consider for a moment what the effect of the Resolution would be. Its object was to confer upon the Chair very extensive and arbitrary powers, which did not exist at present, to close any debate. He was speaking in the presence of accomplished lawyers, and although he fully admitted that the House had a right to regulate the order and manner of its proceedings, he entertained grave doubts as to the legality of the means by which this power was now sought to be placed in the hands of the Speaker. Up to this moment no such Rule had ever been placed upon the Orders or Regulations of the House. ["Question!"and" Agreed!"] That was the Question, and the proposal of Her Majesty's Government was not by any means agreed to. On the contrary, he believed that in more than one quarter it would be found that it was disagreed to. He deeply regretted that hon. Members, in the present state and temper of the House, should think it becoming to shut out or sneer down any one who was prepared to stand up in behalf of a cause which had just been deprived of its chief advocates. He thought the great majority of the House ought to sympathize with the position in which he stood as an Irish Representative. What he wished to contend was that the House ought to assume for itself the discretionary power which it proposed to confer upon the Chair. That was a question which ought to be fairly considered and discussed. At any rate, if such a step was not to be taken, let them, at any rate, take time to consider whether the Resolution was one which ought to be passed or not. Certainly, they ought not to pass it in the absence of the 35 Irish Members who had been suspended from the Sitting of the House, and who, being deeply interested in the question, ought to have a fair opportunity of discussing it. It had never been his object to waste time. He would appeal to the Speaker, or to the House, or to the Head of Her Majesty's Government, whether that was not so; and, under all the circumstances, he trusted that hon. Members would not allow the proceedings of the House to be stained by an act which would be regarded

    131
    throughout the length and breadth of Ireland as a tyrannical exercise of power. He begged to second the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Mitchell Henry.)
    MR. A. MOOREventured to think that the course which Her Majesty's Government now proposed to take was entirely unprecedented. It must not be forgotten that the private Members of the House had privileges. He admitted that the Treasury Bench was only too ready to grasp those privileges; but in this case private Members had not even been asked to give up their privileges, and he objected to be treated as if he were before the Star Chamber. At the present moment nobody knew what the contents of the Resolution were. It had been cooked up, and passed and repassed across the Table from the Government to the Opposition, and from the Opposition back again to the Government; but no hon. Gentleman was able to see in black and white what was really the nature of the proposition. Under such circumstances, he did not think the House ought to consent to forego its privileges. So far as the Irish Members were concerned, it would be useless to say anything in their behalf, as at present they were not in favour with the House; but he did venture humbly and respectfully to protest against this sudden proposal for the absorption of the privileges of the Irish Members.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend seems to be entirely under a misapprehension as to what has taken place in regard to the Resolution. If he will read the Votes which he holds in his hand he will find a Notice of Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), and that Amendment I audibly accepted; and it has been put from the Chair as an insertion in the Motion, with the exception of a simple grammatical form which was altered. With that exception it is the same as the Notice on the Paper.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am glad to be able to avail myself of the Motion for adjournment, in order to make some remarks on the position in
    132
    which we stand, and to express my hope that we may be able to come to a conclusion this evening. While fully sympathizing with those who desire as much time as possible for the consideration of the subject, I feel that, in the discussion which has been going on, we have certainly not been losing time, but on the contrary; and, in a matter of so much importance as this, I feel the wisdom of the saying of one of our ancestors "Let us go slowly, that we may make the more haste." Now, Sir, I think this matter is approaching a point at which we may hope to arrive at a settlement. I have endeavoured, as far as I am concerned—and so have my hon. Friends near me—not to look at the matter from a Party point of view. I understand that we have come to a substantial agreement, which may be easily put into language to this effect— that, in the first place, the introduction of the Motion which is to declare urgency is to be a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, who shall declare in his place that certain Business —which he will specify—is urgent, and that it is important to the public interests that the same should be proceeded with without delay; and that when that declaration has been so made a Motion shall be made that the state of Public Business is urgent. I quite understand that the Government wish to keep in these words; and they keep them in for the convenience of being able to move, by a second Resolution, that a state of public urgency has arisen. But, while they make a Resolution in broad and general terms that the state of Public-Business is urgent, they admit that they agree with the great body of independent Members that the urgency of public affairs, although couched in general terms, is for a particular Business— that is to say, not for the purpose of getting on with every kind of Business; but only for the purpose of getting on with one particular kind of Business. I have suggested that the powers to be given to the Speaker should be qualified by using the words—"That the powers of the Speaker should be in relation to the particular Business, Bill, or Motion." The Government, I understand, object to that; and object to it on what I must admit is a strong ground. They say that if you confine the powers of the Speaker to a particular Business, Bill, or Motion,

    133
    you would not shut out any action to obstruct a Bill indirectly—that is to say, by obstructing measures that may happen to stand on the Paper before the particular Business you desire to proceed with. Now, we do not at all desire, if power is to be given to the Speaker, to tie his hands so as to make the power practically of no use. On the other hand, we do not wish to give the power in such a way that it might be used for purposes for which it was not intended. Suppose the first Bill on the Paper for the night is a Bill for which urgency is pleaded, and there is another measure standing below it, against which stands a Notice of opposition, which would prevent its being brought on after 12.30, then I ask, in the event of the discussion on the first Bill going beyond half-past 12, and the other Bill then being brought on, would it be possible to apply the Re-solution already agreed to as to urgency to the second Bill also, so as to enable it to be taken up, notwithstanding the 12.30 Rule? In order to make the matter clear, I think we might come to an arrangement in this way. I would not press the Amendment of which I have given Notice in line 9, to insert in line 9 the words—"in relation to such Bill, Motion, or other Question." I shall be content if the Government will agree to insert in the last line but one of the Motion—line 2, page 7, after the words "shall be and remain with the Speaker," the words—"for the purpose of proceeding with such Bill, Motion, or other Question." That would leave Mr. Speaker free in the application of these Rules; but it would also directly point to the purpose for which the Rules were to be used. Then, if that is agreed to, and we have the agreement of the Government in regard to the mode in which the power is to be exhausted and surrendered, I think we get the Resolution into a shape in which we can generally agree to it, provided we can agree upon one point more, and that one point more is by what majority the Rules are to be put in force. I think I understood Her Majesty's Government to say that they would be ready to take a fixed majority, and I think my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) mentioned a majority of 200. Now, I think 200 is decidedly too small. I think that the claim we have put forward that the majority should consist of not less than one-half of the House is not an un-
    134
    reasonable claim; but I fully recognize the force of the point put by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) that it might be sufficient if, instead of taking a majority of the House, which would be about 330, we were to take a fixed majority. If the Government are prepared to make an alteration in their Resolution, and to fix the majority at 300, I really think we might come to some decision to-night. I hope the Government will take these proposals into consideration. There is another point quite outside, which is only a matter of convenience. I would suggest to the Government whether there is any use in keeping in the words—"If, on the call of the Speaker, 40 Members should support the Motion by rising in their places." These words, I take it, were originally inserted before it was intended that Notice should be given. It is now required that Notice should be given, and I scarcely think that these words are necessary. I have no objection to them; it is only a matter of taste; but they seem to mo to be now superfluous. With regard to the Notice, I think that that is a matter of great importance. There should, at all events, I think, be an understanding that Notice should be given publicly, and that it should be given with one clear day's notice. I do not desire to press it as a matter to be inserted in the Resolution; but I hope it will be understood that the Notice is to be given in that way.
    MR. SHAWsaid, he rose merely for the purpose of saying that he thought the words moved by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) were a very great improvement. Nothing could be more objectionable than to leave such Rules as these undefined. The more they could define it the better. There were one or two things which had not been fully explained. He did not fully understand whether the powers to be conferred by the Resolution were to centre in the Speaker or otherwise. He also hoped that the Government would require 24 hours' Notice to be given before any Public Business was declared to be urgent. That would enable it to appear upon the Votes. Even then, it would only be a very short Notice for some Members of the House. It required 18 hours' continuous travelling to get from Ireland to Westminster, and it would take a great many Members from Ireland a much longer time. It

    135
    would be exceedingly objectionable that such a Resolution as this should be passed by the House, and should seem to be framed for only one section of it. There was no reason why ample Notice should not be given. If the Resolution were applied at once it would appear as though it had been arranged for one section of the House only; and nothing could be more objectionable than such a course. In regard to the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), if his hon. Friend went to a division he should certainly support him, for he thought that it would only be a matter of taste—a matter almost of common decency—to wait until the restriction that had been placed on some Members of the House, and which prevented them from attending in the discharge of their duties, had been removed. ["No!"] Some hon. Members might not like it; but he was quite sure it would be the better course, and it would read better in the papers to-morrow morning, and do better in the long run. Personally, he did not much care how it was. As he had said, he believed it would, in the long run, be found to be right, and it would give to those hon. Members who were now absent an opportunity of criticizing the proposed new Rules. If they obstructed, the House could do again what it had done before. The Government were supported by a large and strong majority when they put down the Irish Members before, and, in all probability, they would be similarly supported again. At all events, he was ready to place on record his feeling that it was only right and proper that the debate should be now adjourned.
    EARL PERCYwould not detain the House a moment. If they were all agreed, as he fancied they were, the main object they had now in view was to pass the Bills which Her Majesty's Government had in hand. He should be the last person to place any obstruction in their way. But if they were asked, at one Sitting, to pass a Rule which should be made either a Sessional or a Standing Order of the House, he thought they would be establishing a very dangerous principle and precedent. If it was said that this Rule was to pass to-night, for the purpose of removing the obstruction to which the Government measure had been subjected
    136
    —a measure which they all desired to see pass, and which had been subjected to an exceptional obstruction which they all condemned—then certainly the sooner they passed it the better. He would, however, suggest to Her Majesty's Government that they should limit the operation of the Rule either to the period during which these Bills were before the House, or else to, say, one month or two months from the present date, so as to give the House an opportunity of re-considering it within a certain time, when they would be better able to approach the details of the Resolution. In that case he thought they would do wisely to vote against the Motion for adjournment, and he would support Her Majesty's Government in the proposition they made. But if, on the other hand, the Resolution was to be made a Sessional Order, he wished to remind hon. Members of this—which, no doubt, many of them had themselves observed—that Sessional Orders almost invariably tended to become Standing Orders; and he thought it would be establishing a dangerous precedent to pass a Sessional Order in a matter of such extreme importance at one Sitting He, therefore, trusted that Her Majesty's Government would agree to some such proposition as that which he had shadowed forth. He had no doubt that they would have a majority in any case; but he was satisfied that they would get a much larger majority if they followed the course which he had suggested.
    MR. LITTONremarked, that, with regard to the question of adjournment, he was sorry to be compelled to differ with other hon. Members who came from Ireland; but he had asked himself, and he asked the House, what object was to be gained by an adjournment of the debate? The ordinary ground on which an adjournment might be pressed upon the acceptance of the House he took to be this—that there was a difference of opinion existing in the House which Members were anxious to bring before the House, in order to elicit further discussion. But it occurred to him that there was no difference of opinion on the main question, that some such Standing Order ought to be adopted in order to enable the Business of Parliament to be properly transacted. If he were right in saying this—namely, that there was very little difference of opinion in the

    137
    House upon the present question, there could be no reason for adjourning the debate, seeing that the House had practically made up its mind. It was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) that there was a special reason why the debate should be now adjourned; and the special reason he took to be this—that a certain number of Irish Representatives, who had thought fit to commit a sort of political suicide during the present Sitting, might be present. Now, if the hon. Members who had thought it their duty to take the step they did early in the evening had done so under circumstances of surprise, if any real excuse could be advanced for their persistent disrespect towards the Chair, or if the act of the Chair had been anything out of the ordinary course of procedure, then he would be inclined to join his hon. Friend the Member for Galway in saying that it was desirable that a matter of that importance should be discussed by the House in the presence of those who might be so much affected by the result. But the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had been on the Paper for the whole of the day; and Notice of it had been given some time yesterday. Every hon. Member had the full consciousness that the Motion was to be discussed that night, and that probably a decision would be arrived at in the course of the Sitting. It was open to those Gentlemen who felt themselves justified in taking the course they did to have abstained from taking that course, if they cared to discuss the Motion, and they had deprived themselves of the sympathy of the House in regard to their necessary absence at the present moment. There was another reason why the Motion for adjournment should not be pressed, or, at all events, if pressed, why it should not be agreed to, and that was that if the debate were adjourned the same process of suspension might have to be gone over again. It was suggested by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) that the debate should be adjourned until tomorrow, in order to afford the 35 Gentlemen who had been suspended an opportunity of coming back to the House for the purpose of expressing their opinions. The suggestion of the hon. Member for the County of Cork amounted, practically to this—that if the same scenes
    138
    should be re-enacted again to-morrow there should be again a further adjournment. He was of opinion that such a course would be highly objectionable. If the argument was good for the adjournment of a House in which the opinion upon the question under discussion might be said to be almost unanimous, the same course of Obstruction might be pursued again with the same consequences; and then the argument as to the absence of these Gentlemen, if it was an argument now, would have equal force, and, further, would have received, to some extent, the sanction of the House, by the House having yielded to it on the present occasion. Therefore, it seemed to him that the proper course to take, where there was no ground for adjournment, in order to elicit the opinion of the House, was to allow a vote to be taken at once upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, in the ordinary course of Business, wholly irrespective of the unfortunate accident or transaction which had taken place during the evening, and in that way terminate an episode which had been so painful to all of them, and which he sincerely hoped would never be witnessed in the future.
    MR CALLANthought it was probably owing to the old saying that whenever one Irishman was placed on the spit another could be got to baste him that the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton), in improving upon it, had shown himself ready to roast, not one, but a whole holocaust of Irish Members. The unanimity also with which Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition agreed, whenever any measure was brought before the House for infringing the rights and time-honoured liberties of private Members, was wonderful. The Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, having made use of an old English saying that they should proceed slowly in order that they might make more haste, he also would impress upon hon. Members the advisability of acting upon the equally well-known and sensible advice, to "sleep on it" before coming to a decision upon the question before the House. If Her Majesty's Members followed that advice, their decision would go to the country in a form that would entitle it to more respect and authority than if it emanated from the

    139
    Radical section of the House; and he appealed to the House not to be led away by the rabid hostility of the Manchester School, with regard to whom it might be said, that "those whom God wishes to destroy he first dements." The incidents which had occurred were the results, not of concerted action, but of momentary indiscretion and difference of opinion. They were the work of a moment, and was it right that the House, in order to visit this upon the Irish Party, should destroy Parliamentary liberties? He was aware that the Radical Party were ready to put down the occupants of the Treasury Bench; but he trusted that no animosity towards Irish Members would allow the Conservative section below the Gangway to refrain from supporting the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. The debate on the first reading of the Coercion Bill had been suspended by the interposition of the Chair, due to conspiracy of the Opposition Benches.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the Question before the House is, "That the Debate be now adjourned," and that he is not entitled to enter into the matter to which he is referring.
    MR. CALLANwas advising the House to sleep upon the Motion of the Prime Minister, because he had never seen a Motion made by any Prime Minister which was not laid upon the Table of the House in the same terms as those in which it was put from the Chair. He had been surprised to see the right hon. Gentleman placing in the hands of Mr. Speaker a Motion which had not been laid upon the Table of the House— altering his proposal without condescending to ask the House whether it was their pleasure that such alteration should be made? The Motion, as originally announced, made it competent to any hon. Member to move, upon Notice, "That the state of Public Business is urgent;" but it had been since altered in such a way as to give special privileges to a Minister of the Crown. That important change, he submitted, could only be made by way of Amendment; and he should, therefore, support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. J. COWENsaid, he remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr.
    140
    John Bright) once observed, in the late Parliament, that whenever the two Front Benches so rapidly agreed in their opinion there was every ground of suspicion that they were wrong, and about to commit some grave mistake. It was quite clear that the two Front Benches were agreed on this Resolution. They had struck up the bargain very hurriedly, and the very hurry and unanimity between them ought to make hon. Members on both sides of the House—who were independent of the official Parties— suspicious of what was about to be done. For his part, he submitted that the Rules of the House required amendment. He had always contended that they required to be altered and adapted to the changed conditions and circumstances of modern legislation. The work of Parliament had increased, and the character of that work had changed. But, in addition to that, the character of Parliament had undergone a transformation. In previous times, the House possessed more or less the character of a club. The Members lived and moved in a certain social circle. The extension of the franchise had led to the admission of those who were clear of the conventionalities common in the class to which he referred. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "Oh, oh;" but it was beyond dispute that that alteration in the character of the House had created much of the recent friction; and he (Mr. J. Cowen) undertook to say, further, that it would continue the friction. All these things, therefore, pointed to the necessity for change in the procedure of Parliament, if its Business was to be transacted effectively and with moderate rapidity. But they had to take into account the conditions and circumstances under which the proposed change was to be effected. No one could conceal from himself the fact that this amendment in the Rules was about to be made for the purpose of accomplishing a definite end, and that end was the passing of a Coercion Bill for Ireland. ["No, no!"] Gentlemen said "No, no;" but he challenged them to deny his accusation that the proposal for amending the Forms of the House would never have been attempted at this moment, if it had not been for the purpose of getting them altered so as to enable the Irish legislation to be pro-

    141
    ceeded with. If hon. Gentlemen on that side were so anxious to get the Forms of the House changed, why did they not take steps to get it done earlier? In last Parliament the late Government made repeated attempts to amend the Regulations. The present Leader of the Opposition submitted many projects for that purpose; but they received small encouragement, and less support, from the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. They were criticized minutely, then disparaged, and not unfrequently rejected. Nothing could surpass the patience and good temper that had distinguished the late Leader of the House. He was troubled with almost intolerable opposition and obstruction; but he never was tempted to press unjustly upon the rights of the minority. They all knew how the occupants of the Opposition side in the last Parliament availed themselves of every Rule at the command of hon. Members to delay Government procedure as well as the Business of Parliament. Now, the present Ministry had not been in Office more than a few months, and yet they desired to alter those very Rules, in a most drastic and radical form, for the purpose of carrying the measures they had charge of. The circumstances of the situation were altogether exceptional and painful. No one could have witnessed the proceedings of the House without being moved by what had taken place. ["Oh, oh!"] He was astounded at hon. Members crying "Oh, oh! "and at their jeering comments. There was nothing in his Parliamentary or public career that had ever stirred him more painfully than the scene he had been a witness of that day. He asked hon. Members whether they realized the full significance of what had taken place? The Representatives of the Irish people, right or wrong, had left their seats in Parliament under a sense of injustice, if not of indignity. They were smarting under the effects of their expulsion; and, in their absence, the House was going hurriedly to pass a Resolution that directly struck at their privileges and liberties. He asked hon. Gentlemen— professing Liberals and the chosen champions of English political freedom —if they conceived that such a course was either fair or generous? For better or for worse, their Irish countrymen were united with them. There were
    142
    differences of character, and probably hostile interests, between them; but they were bound to each other by the common ties of nature and political connection; and it was their duty, instead of irritating their Irish Colleagues, to strive to rub off the corners of their prejudices and antagonisms, and allow the legislative machinery to move on with less friction than it hitherto had done. It was impossible at that time to discuss the merits of the case before the House. All he could do was to lodge his protest, a solemn and serious one, against their legislating in a panic—against their bartering away the liberties of Parliament under fear—and with a shabby desire to seize an advantage occasioned by the absence of the Representatives of the Irish people.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I do not think the observations just made by the hon. Member for Newcastle ought to induce the House to assent to the Motion for adjournment. The hon. Member has himself admitted that there is a very strong reason for an alteration of some kind in the Rules of the House, and I believe that the great majority of hon. Members are of the same opinion. The question has been discussed at some length this evening; and what reasons does the hon. Member give why this House should not proceed with the debate on the Motion of the Prime Minister? Has he alleged that there is a great difference of opinion in the House upon the subject? He has not done so, and cannot do so. Although there may be some difference of opinion between the two sides of the House as to the precise details, and the form in which this Resolution is to pass, the hon. Member himself admitted that, practically, there was a substantial agreement as to its nature. Why, then, are we to postpone it for consideration? The hon. Member for Newcastle says we are to do this because of the absence of a certain number of Members of the House. Sir, I can admit no validity in such an argument. I admit that the absence of those Members ought not to induce us to hurry over a discussion of this kind, if there were any substantial difference of opinion amongst us; but that has not been alleged. On the other hand, I will never admit that the absence of Members, not through any accident, not through misfortune, but through mis-

    143
    conduct and deliberate disregard of the Rules of the House, and of the authority of the Chair—I cannot admit that absence caused by such reasons constitutes any ground for postponing a decision at which we are otherwise prepared to arrive. I have heard no reason urged in support of the adjournment except that of the absence of certain Members, and I can see no validity in that argument. If the House were to require further time for discussion, if there were substantial differences of opinion, I could understand the demand for adjournment; but I believe it has been admitted by almost all who have taken part in the discussion that there is something very nearly approaching unanimity upon this Resolution. I cannot see any reason whatever why we should adjourn. The hon. Member for Newcastle referred to what took place in a previous Parliament upon this question; but the hon. Member, who, I believe, was not so constant an attendant of this House as others, has, it would seem, an imperfect recollection of what took place. He has said that the right hon. Gentleman opposite bore Obstruction with very great patience, and in that I can perfectly support him; but the hon. Member seems to forget, notwithstanding the great patience that was shown by the late Government in the matter of Obstruction at the time, that in the last Session, a little more than a year ago, the right hon. Gentleman opposite thought it necessary to bring forward Resolutions dealing, to a certain extent, with the Rules of the House, especially relating to Obstruction. Well, the hon. Member for Newcastle says the late Government met with very little support from us in their opposition to Obstruction. I absolutely deny that assertion. The Resolutions which the right hon. Gentleman brought forward were almost unanimously supported by those Members who now sit upon this side of the House who were in the last Parliament; and the only criticisms—or almost the only criticisms which we made on those Resolutions wore to the effect that we did not think they would be as effectual for their purpose as those who brought them forward seemed to suppose they would. The right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary and myself pointed out that those Resolutions were extremely inadequate to deal with Ob-
    144
    struction as it at that time existed. Nay, more; on that occasion I said I should do no more than point out to the House why these measures were inadequate; that I should not press my suggestions for Amendments, but should leave the responsibility with the Government. At the same time, as I have said, I was of opinion that they would not find these measures adequate to deal with the evil which we recognized. I defy any hon. Member to point out any occasion on which the Opposition in the late Parliament put any obstacle in the way of, or thwarted in any way, the attempt of the late Government to deal with this question; and I should like to know on what instance the hon. Member relies when he says that those who now sit on this side gave a lukewarm support to the late Government in any effort made to grapple with this difficulty.
    MR. CHAPLINagreed with a great deal that had fallen from the hon. Member for Newcastle; but he did not understand him when he said that a bargain had been made between the occupants of the two Front Benches in that House, because he had been waiting for some considerable time and with great anxiety to know what were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the propositions that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He might say for his own part, and he believed he might say on the part of many hon. Members who sat on that side of the House, that he and they viewed with the deepest repugnance the Resolution, modified as it had been up to the present by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. He held an opinion similar to that expressed by a noble Lord—namely, that the course they ought to have pursued should have been to have limited the Resolution to matters of primary and Imperial importance mentioned in the Gracious Speech from the Throne; but, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the unmistaken-able and manifest feeling on each side of the House, he and many others had sunk their individual opinions in their desire to facilitate the restoration of peace and order to the House. He thought, therefore, they had, at least, the right to ask that some Member of the Government— he cared not whom it was—should state distinctly and categorically, whether they

    145
    would accept the Amendments of his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford North-cote). By the answer to that question he should be very much guided in the vote he should give. One word in reply to an observation and a challenge made by his right hon. Friend opposite, as to the conduct of the late Opposition when the right hon. Baronet below him was Leader of the House of Commons. He would give him the instance he wanted. He remembered an occasion when his right hon. Friend was in difficulties, when he was attempting to restore something like order. How was he met by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright)? Why, instead of giving the Government the assistance they had a right to claim, that prominent Member of the Opposition counselled the Leader of the House to have a little patience — a little patience at a time when the patience of the House had been long exhausted, and when the forbearance of the House was the wonder and amazement of the world. That was how the right hon. Gentleman was met by a Member of the present Government, when he was placed in difficulties such as the Government are now dealing with; and he thought the Prime Minister would, at all events, exonerate the Opposition from the charge of adopting similar tactics.
    MR. LABOUCHEREconfessed that he had not thought that the amiable disposition of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite towards the Treasury Bench would last for long. It seemed that no sooner were the Members of the House reduced, no sooner—without any wish to say anything disagreeable to those not now amongst them—had the bone of contention been removed, than at once the Members of the Opposition fell into what they considered their proper position, and commenced attacking in every way the Treasury Bench. He had an Amendment on the Paper, and as the object of the House was to arrive at a solution of this question as quickly as possible, he took it that they would hear, without absolutely unmixed regret, that he was unable to put that Amendment, owing to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had put a previous one. He was precluded from putting his Amendment, and, that being so, he was not going to waste the time of the House by
    146
    making a speech upon it. He might, however, be allowed to say, in justification of his Amendment, that it appeared to embody the views of the Prime Minister before he had a conference with the Leader of the Opposition. After that conference the Motion the right hon. Gentleman brought forward seemed to embody his views. He had been somewhat surprised to hear the Prime Minister say that there was no difference of principle between the cloture, as proposed in his (Mr. Labouchere's) Amendment, and as the right hon. Gentleman originally intended to propose it to the House, and his present Resolution. But the culture reserved to Members of the House their own liberties; whereas the Resolution placed them entirely in the hands of the Speaker ["Hear, hear!"] An. hon. Gentleman behind him said "Hear, hear!" and he had no doubt that the House felt the very greatest confidence in the Speaker. This Resolution of the Prime Minister was owing to the confidence they had in him; but he ventured to say that before 50 years were over—[Laughter] —well, before 20 years were over, if Members liked that better, they would find that the proverb "good kings are more dangerous than bad kings" was true also in regard to Speakers. Even before the present Speaker ceased to reign over them, it was very possible that they might have reason to regret this Resolution. He could imagine a case—and though he hoped it would never occur, yet he could very well believe it possible—in which an hon. Member, in an excited House, might rise, he would say, for instance, from the Front Opposition Bench, and endeavour to dictate to the Chair the ruling on a certain point, and the ruling of the Speaker might make hon. Members indignant that he did not submit to their orders, and they would then take up their hats and troop indignantly out of the House, insulting both the Speaker and the House. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members seemed to say "Oh!" but he was only supposing a case which he hoped would never occur; and he came to the direct Question, which he supposed was the adjournment of the House. Certain hon. Gentlemen were in favour of the adjournment, and had given reasons in support of their view. He took it, however, that the vast majority of Members were opposed to that

    147
    adjournment. They had been talking a great deal about expediting Business; and it seemed to him that it would expedite Business, if they were at once to take the division on the Question of adjournment, and then a division on the Main Question.
    MR. WHITBREADdid not intend to follow that herring which the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) had attempted to draw across the question. He would not follow him into the strictures he had passed upon the conduct of the Government when they were in Opposition during the last Parliament. But he felt it necessary to protest against one assertion of the hon. Member for Newcastle. The hon. Member had said that it was only because they wished to pass a severe and, as he thought, an unnecessary, measure for Ireland, that this Resolution was framed and proposed. Now, against that he (Mr. Whit-bread) protested; and he would tell the hon. Member that if their object had been to pass the measure, and that had been their object alone, a very much more simple and drastic, and a much more effectual step might have been taken than that which the Prime Minister had proposed to the House. The proposal of the Prime Minister had not reference to these Bills alone. It had reference to any or all measures that might be urgent, and he begged hon. Members to take this distinction to heart. He supported the Resolution, and thought that under the circumstances it was the least the House could do to regain control over its own proceedings. He supported it, not in order that they might be enabled to carry a severe measure for Ireland, but in order that they might bring back into the House that freedom and liberty of discussion, not for one section or portion of the House, but for all—that liberty and freedom which those who had sat in Parliament before had loved and honoured. The hon. Member for Newcastle asked them whether they had any feeling—whether it was not a painful sight they witnessed to-night? He would tell the hon. Member that he (Mr. J. Cowen) had not a monopoly of the feeling of pain at what had occurred. He (Mr. Whitbread) never witnessed, and never thought when he entered Parliament that he should live to witness, so sad a scene as that. It had not been without difficulty,
    148
    not without deep thought, that he had brought himself to be a party to such a grave alteration of the Rules as was proposed in the Resolution. He had been driven to it by one thing, and by one thing only—namely, the stern necessity of the case, and that same stern necessity drove him to impress upon them that this was not a time for hair-splitting over little differences, that it was not a time for each man to air his crotchets. They all had their plans—as many Members as there were in the House so many plans there were—for dealing with Order; but it was a time when they ought wisely to accept such an agreement as was possible. He would toll the hon. Member for Newcastle, who asked for an adjournment, that in his humble opinion—and he believed it was the opinion of the vast majority of the House—this thing would not brook delay. They could not and would not allow the Business of the House to be any longer obstructed, and its authority, and the authority of its Speaker, to be set at nought. They must bring back their own control over their own Business as speedily as they could.
    MAJOR NOLANsaid, a great many Members seemed to have lost sight of one of the original grounds on which the adjournment was proposed. Very few hon. Members knew what was the proposition before the House at the present moment; and it would, therefore, be desirable that they should have it on the Paper before them before they were asked finally to decide. What had taken place to-day between the two first Front Benches? According to usual custom, when Amendments were on the Paper, they wore taken one after the other in regular order. Instead of that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had had a private conversation—it was almost a private conversation, for hon. Members sitting where he (Major Nolan) was could hardly hear a word of it—with the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench. Possibly the members of the Press had heard that conversation, and those sitting near the right hon. Gentleman; but it had not reached the other end of the House. An understanding was apparently arrived at. After that the Home Secretary (as well as he could hear) got up, declaring that he could easily put the Amendments and the Resolutions together, that the thing was very simple.

    149
    The right hon. Gentleman went to the Table, having had the advantage of hearing what had been said, and endeavoured to put the thing in proper form; but seemingly he had to give it up and say that someone on the opposite Bench should do it. Well, it had not been done; and he did not think, if Members of the House had to pass a qualifying examination on the subject, and their seats depended upon it, there would be four of them who would not be plucked when questioned as to what had occurred. That was one reason why there should be an adjournment; but there was another of equal importance. The hon. Member (Mr. Litton), two ex-Cabinet Ministers, and one Cabinet Minister made much of the value of unanimity on this matter; but he did not think it would be of much advantage, seeing that a considerable number of Members who would have opposed it were not present. The vote given to-night might be unanimous; but over 30 Members who protested against it had been excluded from the debate. The present unanimity rather reminded him of the story of Narvaez, the Spanish Minister, who, on his death bed— ["Oh!"]—the story was a serious one —who, on his death bed, was waited on by the clergyman administering the consolations of religion. The clergyman said he hoped the dying man would forgive his enemies; and the other, who had gone through a stormy life, replied that he had no enemies. It appeared to be so extraordinary a thing that a man who had been mixed up in public affairs should have no enemies that the clergyman remarked upon the fact, expressing his surprise. The Minister, however, explained the matter by saying—"I have no enemies, for I have shot them all." The Government might carry their Resolution by an unanimous vote, because those who would have objected were absent. It would be a generous act, and would go a great way towards removing the bad impression which that evening's occurrence would create if the Government would grant an adjournment. He was sorry that he had been listened to with impatience; but, at the same time, he had thought it his duty to support the Motion for adjournment.
    MR. GORSTsaid, it was a very curious commentary on the words of the hon. Member for Bedford, who had exhorted the House and his Party to return to the days
    150
    of calm deliberation, that when he rose for the first time that evening to put a question to the Government upon which the votes of many Members on that side of the House would depend, he should have some difficulty in getting a moments' hearing. The question he wanted to ask the Government was, whether they did or did not agree to the suggestion made by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote)? The right hon. Baronet had clearly and distinctly placed before the Government certain Amendments to which he asked their attention; but no Member of the Government who had spoken in the debate since the question was put to the Government had thought it right to answer the question of the right hon. Baronet. As he had said, the votes of a considerable number of Members on that side of the House would depend on whether the Government would yield to the suggestions of the right hon. Baronet or not. If they were disposed to agree to the Amendments of the right hon. Baronet, those Members would be willing to let the Main Question be decided then; but if they were not agreed, those suggestions were of such importance that they ought to be discussed bythe House. Every point which the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition had put forward was a vital point.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Baronet very clearly stated the changes which he thought it would be desirable to make in the Resolution; but the right hon. Baronet did not present a pistol to our heads and say—"These are my terms; I require you to say Aye or No to them;" but the hon. and learned Gentleman, apparently a rival in the same camp, now gets up and demands that we shall say whether we do or do not intend to act on the terms suggested. That is the exact question put forward to-night by the hon. and learned Gentleman. We are willing to give a fair consideration to what has been said; but it would not be regular, when we are engaged on one of the earlier Amendments to the Resolution, to accept any such compromise.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —-Ayes 28; Noes 371: Majority 343.—(Div. List, No. 26.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Words inserted.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) move any further Amendment?
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I propose to leave out in line 2 the words —"And if on the call of the Speaker 40 Members shall support it by rising in their places."
    Amendment agreed to; words left out accordingly.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The next Amendment I have to move, is after the words, "majority of not less than three to one," to add the words, "which majority shall consist of not less than 300 Members."
    Amendment proposed, in line 8, after the word "one," to insert the words "which majority shall consist of not less than 300 Members."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DILLWYNthought there had been some little misapprehension in regard to the few words which he had said at the beginning of the debate, as to the number which, in his opinion, would be sufficient to constitute a majority. He rose now for the purpose of correcting that misapprehension. What he had intended to convey to the House was, that the majority should be that of a House consisting of not less than 300 Members. He had never anticipated that the majority itself should be 300. His object was to provide against a small pocket majority—against a number of Ministers coming down and running through important Business in a thin House at the end of the Session. To guard against this, he thought that the number of Members in the House at the time the Motion was made should never be less than 300. That would, he thought, be quite sufficient. He should certainly have liked to see a provision that the majority should not be less than 200; but if they required that there should be 300 Members in the House that would be a sufficient security.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the House would not entertain the view that a House of 300 Members would be sufficient to pass a Resolution of such extreme importance. If such a regulation were laid down it might be that the
    152
    Resolution would be passed by a bare majority—151 to 149.
    An hon. MEMBER: It would be necessary that the majority should number 225.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: Even then it would be shown that with a majority that amounted to very little more than one-third of the entire House there were 75 Members against the proposal. He thought that, under all the circumstances, the limitation suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) was the most fair limitation—namely, that the majority itself should be one of 300.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) said the House were going to vote that 151 Members should have the power of bringing into operation this very important Rule. But it has been pointed out that he had completely misunderstood the matter, and that the number was not 151, but 225. The hon, Member, however, is just as much scandalized at the larger number as he was at the smaller. The proposal which the Government are willing to concede is, that the Resolution should not be moved in a House consisting of less than 300 Members. The House well knows that a number of Bills of vast importance, and many changes in the law of the highest importance, have been carried by majorities of less than 225. It would weary the House to go through a list of such measures. Therefore, I really cannot think it is reasonable to say that a majority of 225 is not competent to establish an urgent case of the kind contemplated by the Resolution. Suffering as we have been, I do not think it is advisable that we should clog the whole of the machinery by requiring a larger majority. In the months of August and September it would be very difficult to get some 400 Members gathered together in order to enable the House to get through the Public Business. I am quite willing, however, to carry concession to the utmost point; but I cannot consent to agree to an absolute majority of 300. I would, therefore, propose an alteration in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend to provide that the majority should be in a House of not less than 300. I would propose to leave out four words, "which majority shall

    153
    consist," and to insert the words, "in a House of not less than 300."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "which majority shall consist," and insert the words "in a House,"—(Mr. Gladstone,) —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'which majority shall consist' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I will not detain the House for a moment further than to say that I feel it impossible to assent to the change proposed by my right hon. Friend. It seemed to me so important that the House should part with its power only by a real and substantial majority of the House that I had, in the first instance, proposed that the majority should not consist of less than one-half of the entire House. I am willing to substitute for that number 300, which is below one-half of the entire House; 225 would be little more than one-third of the House. I cannot help thinking that the observations of the Prime Minister warns us of the precise danger which I mentioned as the one we had to avoid. He says that in the months of August and September it would be difficult to get any considerable number of Members together for the purpose of expediting the Public Business, except on special occasions of the highest importance. Now, as I understand the object of the Resolution, it is not to be moved with the general view of expediting Business, but only to meet special cases of public urgency and importance. I regret that I shall feel it necessary to divide the House upon the matter.
    MR. R. H. PAGETwas anxious to say a word in support of the observations which had been made by his right hon. Friend below (Sir Stafford Northcote). The House was asked now to make an important change in its orders, and they had arrived at a stage when it was possible to come to some agreement. He took it for granted that the Resolution would only be made use of in a case of urgency, and in very exceptional instances. It did not appear upon the face of the Resolution itself; but he presumed that it would be necessary to give some Notice. He wished to know what that Notice would be. He took it for
    154
    granted that, in a matter of this exceptional importance, the Notice to be given would be sufficient to enable Members to be summoned. If that were so, and sufficient Notice were given to enable Members to be summoned to their places, there was no reason why the figure 300 should not remain as the majority by which the Resolution could be put in force. He hoped, in view of this consideration, that the right hon. Baronet would persist in his Amendment, and not consent to any diminution of the figure 300.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 150; Noes 234: Majority 84.—(Div. List, No. 27.)
    Words "in a House" inserted in the said proposed Amendment.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'in a House of not less than 300 Members' be there inserted."
    MR. NEWDEGATE: In consequence of the House having decided that a majority of 300 shall not be required to give effect to the Resolution before the House, I desire to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, to whom we are all so much indebted. The old practice of the House, when about to decide so grave a question as the transfer of so large a proportion of its powers as the Resolution before the House purports was, that there should be a Call of the House. When I addressed the House before, I ventured to emphasize the importance of adequate Notice of any intention to act upon this Resolution. Indeed, unless for the exceptional circumstances under which the House finds itself placed, and that this Resolution is to be only a Sessional Order, that is to terminate with this Session, I should have entertained a very different opinion with respect to this proceeding. When I supported the view of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), he proposed that the majority requisite to bring this Resolution into effect should not be less than 300; and I consider that the requirement of such a majority was very nearly equivalent to requiring a Call of the House; but now that the House has departed from the requirement of a majority of 300 to bring this Resolution into operation, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman

    155
    the Leader of the House whether, in the event of a future proposal to enforce this Resolution, it will be competent to any hon. Member to move for a Call of the House?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEproposed to insert the words—"For the purpose of proceeding with such Bill, Motion, or Question." He said these words would give a general direction as to the object with which powers should be used.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 10, after the words "with the Speaker," to insert the words "for the purpose of proceeding with such Bill, Motion, or other Question."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would agree to the Amendment. In answer to the question of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), he must say he was sometimes sorry that the practice of making a Call of the House had been given up; but there would be nothing whatever in these Resolutions to prevent any hon. Member raising the question of a Call of the House.
    Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That, if upon Notice given a Motion be made by a Minister of the Grown that the state of Public Business is urgent, upon which Motion such Minister shall declare in his place that any Bill, Motion, or other Question then before the House is urgent, and that it is of importance to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay, the Speaker shall forthwith put the Question, no Debate, Amendment, or Adjournment being allowed; and if, on the voices being given he shall without doubt perceive that the Noes have it, his decision shall not be challenged, but, if otherwise, a Division may be forthwith taken, and if the Question be resolved in the affirmative by a majority of not less than three to one, in a House of not less than 300
    156
    Members, the powers of the House for the Regulation of its Business upon the several stages of Bills, and upon Motions and all other matters, shall be and remain with the Speaker, for the purpose of proceeding with such Bill, Motion, or other Question, until the Speaker shall declare that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent, or until the House shall so determine, upon a Motion which, after Notice given, may be made by any Member, put without Amendment, Adjournment, or Debate, and decided by a majority.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I rise to move the second Resolution: "That the state of Public Business is urgent;" and, in conformity with the terms of the first Resolution, I, being a Minister of the Crown, declare, in my place, that the Bill for the Protection of Life and Property (Ireland), now before the House, is urgent; and that it is of importance to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That the state of Public Business is urgent.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  WAYS AND MEANS.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL.
    Resolution [January 28J reported, and agreed to: —Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. PLAY-FAIR, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time.

    POOR RELIEF (CLERICAL GUARDIANS) (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MOORE, Bill to facilitate the appointment of Clerical Guardians of the Poor in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MOORE, Mr. P. J. SMYTH, Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE, Mr. ERRINGTON, Colonel COLT-HURST, and Mr. MOLLOY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 80.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.