Commons Sitting of 3 July 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Bombay Civil Fund [Revenues of India] *.
Select Committee—Report—Settled Land [No. 262].
Committee—Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [157]—R.P. [Twenty-third Night].
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [176]; Bills of Exchange [214],
Third Reading—Petty Sessions (Ireland) * [203]; Public Health (Fruit-Pickers' Lodgings) * [214], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. JOHN DALY.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any special reason for the further detention of Mr. John Daly, Ballyfarnon, county Roscommon, at present a suspect in Enniskillen, seeing that the district is peaceable, and that another man arrested at same time and on same charge has been released?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, John Daly is detained on reasonable suspicion of being guilty as principal of murder. His Excellency, having recently considered his case, decided that he could not order his release.

  AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (STATISTICS)—IMPORTS.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can

  1235
  arrange for the weekly publication in the "London Gazette," of a classified Return of the various articles of agricultural produce imported into this Country, such Return to afford information generally similar to that now given weekly in the Gazette with respect to importations of cotton and corn?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I have been in communication with the Customs on this subject, and I hope to be able to arrange in a short time for the publication weekly, as desired by the hon. Member, of a classified Return of the various articles of agricultural produce imported into this country. Before the classification is definitely settled I will direct a list of the articles proposed to be included to be forwarded to the hon. Member, and shall be glad to receive his observations upon it.
  MR. R. H. PAGETasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he would give directions that a distinction should be drawn at the Custom House between genuine produce and spurious produce?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The question of distinguishing butterine and artificial butter generally from butter in the import statistics has been referred, with other questions of a similar character, to the Statistical Inquiry Committee now sitting. The Committee has not yet reported, and I have not seen the evidence taken; but I hope it may be found possible to make the distinction desired by the hon. Member.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (METROPOLIS)—SMALL-POX.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has been able to ascertain the truth as to the small-pox patient, who is alleged to have gone from Guy's Hospital to the Stockwell Hospital on a public conveyance; and, whether, with the view of preventing the spread of disease, he will endeavour to arrange that the authorities of the various Metropolitan Hospitals shall have ready access to the ambulances provided by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, or by the parochial authorities, for the purpose of conveying infectious persons to the hospitals appointed for their reception?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I have now ascertained that the person referred to came to
  1236
  Guy's Hospital among the crowd of outpatients who resort there, and was found to be suffering from small-pox, and that he was advised to leave and apply for admission to a small-pox hospital through the intervention of the parish authorities, and without exposing himself unnecessarily so as to endanger others. The going to the Stockwell Hospital by a public conveyance appears to have been entirely the man's own act, for which the medical officer at Guy's was in no sense responsible. It is evident that the governing bodies of the London hospitals have at present much difficulty in dealing with these cases when they present themselves, as they have no accommodation for them; and I have now under consideration the arrangements which should be adopted for the temporary retention of patients of this class until they can be removed, and for rendering the ambulances of the managers of the Asylums District and the parochial authorities more readily available for their removal.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—MAJOR BRADDELL.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether ten police were quartered at Coolenelagh, county Wexford, for the protection of Major Thomas Braddell's property last September; whether a mob came and carried off the crop against the remonstrances of the police and sold for £84 for the benefit of the Land League; whether the police were instructed from Dublin not to resist the robbery for fear of a collision; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Government will pay Major T. Braddell for his loss?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the facts are stated with substantial accuracy in the Question. The Government has no intention of paying anything to Major Braddell for the crops in question. It was more than doubtful whether he was entitled to them, and it was not considered right to prevent their removal. I may observe that in the Court of Appeal in Ireland, in a similar case, two Judges held that, under the 8th section of the Act of 1870, the evicted tenant continues entitled to the crops. Therefore the Government cannot undertake to pay for the loss.
  MR. HEALY: I wish to state that the crops were not sold for the benefit of the Land League.

  TELEGRAPH CABLES—PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE.
  MR. MONKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has taken any steps, in concert with other Nations, with a view to the protection and preservation of telegraph cables; and, whether it is proposed to send a representative from this Country to the Conference of European Maritime Countries to be held in the Autumn?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government accepted an invitation from the French Government to take part in a Conference on this subject, which was to have met at Paris on the 1st of last month. The French Government, however, postponed its meeting until the autumn. Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that advantage might be taken of this delay to settle beforehand the scope of the labours of the Conference. They are at present in communication with the French and other Governments concerned, and if an understanding is arrived at on this point they will be represented at the Conference.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS AT BOHOLA, CO. MAYO.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that certain teachers of a new national school at Bohola, county Mayo, have suffered the loss of three or four months' salary in consequence of the requisite forms not having been forwarded in due time to the manager of the school to enable him to return them filled up as required for a certificated school?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the teachers have suffered loss owing to the fact that certain forms which were transmitted to the manager of the school on the 13th of January, 1882, by the Board of National Education, were not returned to that Board until the 27th of March following—that is to say, they were retained by the manager for two months and 14 days. Had they been returned any time before the end of January, the loss would not have occurred.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—THE SEA COAST FISHERIES TRUST—LOANS TO FISHERMEN IN MAYO.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the Trustees to aid Sea Coast Fisheries in Ireland declined recently to make a loan to certain fishermen in the county of Mayo, because they had not paid their rents, although the Trustees had received reports that the applicants for the loan were respectable men, and the securities proposed for the repayment were perfectly solvent?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have asked for a Report on this question, but have not yet received it.

  METROPOLIS—THE THAMES EMBANKMENT OPERA HOUSE.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, What steps are being taken to secure the completion of the building on the Thames Embankment which was originally let for an Opera House?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I beg to inform the hon. Member that the site originally intended for an opera house was let, upwards of a year ago, for the erection of an hotel, private dwelling-houses, or such public buildings as the Metropolitan Board might approve. Requests for extension of time for sending in plans have been made more than once and complied with by the Board, and a further application has been made this morning, which is now under consideration.

  STRAITS SETTLEMENTS—PORT REGULATIONS AT SINGAPORE—THE SPANISH STEAMER "LEON XIII."
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Foreign vessels calling at Singapore are under any legal obligation to comply with any formalities analogous to "clearance," or to give notice to or obtain the permission of any official of the port before departing; if so, whether he would state what the prescribed formalities are, and what penalty or liability attaches to their neglect; and, whether the Spanish steamer "Leon XIII." which carried off three English engineers, ordered by the Supreme Court of the Colony to be sur-

  1239
  rendered under writ of habeas corpus, had complied with all formalities prescribed?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, Singapore is a free port, and we have no reason to doubt that any necessary formalities were complied with by the Spanish steamer Leon XIII. The action of the Court gave the authorities no ground for detaining the vessel, as the process issued was not against the ship, but against the captain, who was left behind when she sailed.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the visit of Her Majesty's gunboat "Swift" to Manila was not directly connected with the manner in which the "Leon XIII." left Singapore, forcibly carrying off three English Engineers, who were under the jurisdiction of the Colonial Courts?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir; it is the case that the gunboat Swift proceeded to Manilla in consequence of a telegram from the Governor at Singapore to the effect that the Leon XIII. had left for Manilla with three British engineers on board, who were alleged to be illegally confined. The British Consul at Manilla, however, was able at once to arrange the difficulty with the Spanish authorities, and the Swift left. I may add that there was nothing unusual in the presence of a vessel of the China Squadron at Manilla, as frequent visits are paid to that port.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—EDWARD AND DANIEL FLANAGAN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether two brothers, named Edward and Daniel Flanagan, of Rathclooney, county Clare, were convicted at the last Cork Winter Assizes, of firing into a dwelling-house, and sentenced to penal servitude; whether the only witness who identified the prisoners was one Michael Molloy, a farm servant, a youth of seventeen, upon whose testimony, according to the charge of the learned judge who tried the case (Mr. Justice Fitzgerald), the case against the prisoners rested; whether the witness Molloy, after the Winter Assizes, was accommodated for some weeks in the police barrack at Ennis, and, while there, stole a watch belonging to a constable, and exchanged
  1240
  it for another at a pawnbroker's; whether, after the police authorities had become aware of this act of theft, they sent Molloy in charge of a constable to Gravesend, and shipped him to Australia, at the public cost; and whether Molloy, while in company with the constable in London, stole from a restaurant a gold-headed cane, which the constable, on discovering the theft, compelled him to return; whether the Government, having lately set at liberty one of the brothers condemned to penal servitude on the evidence of Molloy, will now release the other; and, why the Government, instead of sending Molloy to Australia at the public cost, did not have him committed to stand his trial for perjury and theft?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the earlier part of this Question was answered on a previous occasion by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. The part of it which is new I would answer thus:—The constable who was with Molloy in London is in a distant part of the country, and no answer has as yet been received to the inquiry about the gold-headed cane. One of the brothers was recently released on ticket-of-leave, solely on grounds of ill-health, the doctor having reported his life to be in imminent danger from further confinement.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—JOHN M'CORMACK.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether John M'Cormack, committed from the Petty Sessions of Coolaney, county Sligo, to stand his trial on the charges of mutilating a heifer, the property of his employer, and writing threatening letters to his employer and to himself, will be put forward for trial on those charges at the forthcoming Sligo Assizes; whether the sworn evidence of the said John M'Cormack against two young men named Healy and Cowley, whom he accused of stealing a pistol from him, having been discredited and rejected by the magistrates before whom the charge was brought, M'Cormack will be prosecuted for perjury; and, whether, if so, this charge will be brought forward at the forthcoming assizes?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, John M'Cormack has been returned for trial at the

  1241
  next Sligo Assizes, on the charges of maiming cattle and writing threatening letters to his employer and himself, bail being refused. His evidence against two men, whom he charged with stealing a pistol from him, was rejected by the magistrates; but I am informed that there is no prosecution for perjury pending against him.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—"OWEN v. DAY."
  MR. FITZ-PATRICKasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is acquainted with the Land case of Owen v. Day, heard by the Assistant Commissioners at Abbeyleise, on the 19th December 1881, and the appeal, which was heard by the Chief Commissioners on the 22nd March 1882; whether he is aware that, in this case, the Chief Commissioners departed from the usual rules, which, according to the statement of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, in his evidence before the Select Committee of the House of Lords on the working of the Land Act, was always adhered to, of requiring an evicted tenant, who had applied for an extension of time during which to sell his interest in his tenancy, to lodge in court a considerable portion of the rent due by him to his landlord; whether it is a fact that, on appeal, the rent of the holding, which had been fixed by the Assistant Commissioners at £80, was raised to £100, whereupon the tenant, being dissatisfied, left the premises, leaving a sum of £240 due for rent, a considerable portion of which would have been secured to the landlady had the Chief Commissioners granted the usual order; and, whether, under these circumstances, he is prepared to advise that compensation be granted to Mrs. Owen for the loss thus sustained by her?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, I have inquired into the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member's Question refers, and have ascertained that the tenant was evicted for nonpayment of rent, and had the ordinary time to redeem—namely, six months from the eviction. During that time the Sub-Commission fixed the judicial yearly rent at £80. From this decision the landlady appealed, and as the time for redemption, with a view to a sale by the
  1242
  tenant of his interest, would have expired in ordinary course before the appeal could have been heard, an extension of time to sell was rendered necessary by the fact of the appeal. The result of the appeal was that the judicial rent fixed by the Sub-Commission was raised to the yearly judicial rent of £100. Nothing is known in the Land Commission of the subsequent proceedings of the tenant. Under these circumstances, I am not prepared to advise any grant of compensation.

  IRELAND—COLLECTOR OF COUNTY CESS, LONGFORD.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, previous to the last Spring Assizes in the county of Longford, a candidate offered himself as collector of county cess for the barony of Moydow, and proposed to collect the cess at 8d. in the pound remuneration, while another candidate tendered at 1s. in the pound remuneration; whether the latter candidate was appointed by the vote of a great majority of the grand jury, only three grand jurors voting for the candidate who tendered at 8d. in the pound; whether it is the fact that the sureties of the rejected candidate were not objected to by anyone, and that he had proposed to pay into the bank, or lodge to the credit of the county treasurer, the full amount of the collection; and, whether he has received any information as to the reason for this action on the part of the grand jury?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, all matters connected with the appointment of barony cess collectors rest exclusively with the Grand Jury of the county, who transmit no information on the subject to the Government.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME—THE CORRESPONDENCE.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will lay upon the Table, and print and circulate, all Correspondence which has taken place with himself, or with officials of the Board of Trade, in reference to the experimental works for the Channel Tunnel, beginning with his note of 25th March last?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, all the material Correspondence between the hon. Member, as Chairman of the Submarine Continental Railway Company, and the Board of Trade with reference to the Channel Tunnel experimental works, will shortly be laid upon the Table of the House, together with the other official Papers and Correspondence bearing on the subject. So far as the Board of Trade is concerned, the Correspondence will commence prior to March 25, as some letters which may prove of interest passed before that date. The letter of March 25 referred to by the hon. Member was an unofficial note in reply to a personal invitation to visit the Tunnel—I did not keep a copy of it—and as it does not appear to have any bearing on the questions at issue, or to affect the demand of the Board of Trade for an official inspection by their engineer and solicitor, I should not purpose to include it in the Papers to be laid on the Table of the House.

  EGYPT (DIPLOMACY, &c.)—THE DUAL NOTE.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the object of Her Majesty's Government in signing the joint Note to the agents of England and Prance in Egypt, which stated that the two Governments—
  "Are closely associated in the resolution to avert by their common efforts all the internal or external causes of complication which might menace the regime established in Egypt,'
  and that the dangers which the Government of the Khedive might have to fear would "certainly find France and England united to face them," was only, as stated in the Despatch from M. Challemel-Lacour of the 17th January last (No. 44 of the French Yellow Book), to give M. Gambetta "a proof of the desire of Her Majesty's Government to show itself in accord with France?"
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, With reference to a statement
  1244
  in the "Times" of this morning, whether it is the intention of Government to fill up the vacancy created in the office of Deputy Inspector General of Constabulary by the promotion of Colonel Bruce to be Inspector General; and, if so, whether, considering that the great majority of the force are Roman Catholics, he will appoint a Roman Catholic to the post?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Government have not yet come to any definite conclusion upon this matter.

  SUGAR—FRANCE AND BELGIUM—FOREIGN BOUNTIES.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any changes have taken place recently in the Sugar Laws of France and Belgium, in consequence of the Treaty of the 31st October 1881 between those Countries, in which it was provided that drawbacks on exportation were to be an exact representation of the Duties of Excise; whether, in any Treaty that may be negotiated by Great Britain with Belgium, or any other Continental sugar producing Country, Her Majesty's Government will stipulate for similar provisions; and, whether, as the Treaty with France of the 28th February 1882 gives to the United Kingdom the benefit of every favour, immunity, or privilege, in matters of commerce or industry, which France may grant to any third Nation, Her Majesty's Government would, having in view the Treaty of October 31st 1881, between France and Belgium, regard the export under bounty of sugar from France to the United Kingdom a breach of the Most Favoured Nation Clause in the Treaty of 28th February?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no report has been received of any change of this nature in the Sugar Laws of France or Belgium, but at the request of the Board of Trade inquiry has already been made. In the event of the negotiation of Treaties such as those referred to by the hon. Member, the subject of bounties will receive attention. The third point in the hon. Member's Question has been brought before Her Majesty's Government in a recent communication from the West India Committee to the Board of Trade, and is now under consideration.

  EGYPT (DIPLOMACY, &c.)—THE CONSULATE—THE RECENT MASSACRE AT ALEXANDRIA, &c.
  LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What arrangements have been made to carry on the business of the Consulate at Alexandria, Cairo, and Suez in consequence of the continued absence on sick leave of Sir E. Malet, and the resignation of Mr. Calvert?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Mr. Cartwright, of the Foreign Office, is the acting Agent and Consul General in the absence of Sir Edward Malet. Consul West arrived at Alexandria from Suez on the 29th ult. to act as Consul at Alexandria pending the arrival of Consul Wrench from Constantinople. Vice Consul Faulkner is left in charge of the Consulate at Suez. Consul Wrench will be at Alexandria on the 8th instant, should his health allow him to leave Constantinople; should it not, another gentleman will be immediately sent out from England. Consul Mieville has left for Alexandria to act as Vice Consul in the place of Mr. Calvert. Vice Consul Borg is in charge at Cairo, and Mr. Beaman is with him.
  MR. CAINEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any French subjects were killed in the recent massacre at Alexandria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, a supernumerary dragoman of the French Consulate was killed. It is reported that three other Frenchmen were killed, of whom two are rumoured to have belonged to the Fleet, and three protected French subjects.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government has been informed that during the past eighteen months or two years upwards of 600 foreigners have been appointed to places of profit, whose annual value exceeds £200,000, in the Egyptian administration; and, how many of these appointments were made at the instance of the British representatives in Egypt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Lists of the foreigners in the service of the Egyptian Government, with the dates of their admission and the amounts of their salaries, are given in the Parliamentary Papers, Egypt, No. 4 and No. 6 of this year. For an answer to the second part
  1246
  of his Question I must refer the hon. Member to the reply I made to him on the 23rd ultimo.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked, whether he was not right in saying that 600 foreigners had been appointed within the last two years?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have no information on the subject.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why the British delegate has been forbidden to take part in the investigation into the late riots at Alexandria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the foreign agents at Alexandria had unanimously agreed on the 27th that an inquiry at the present moment is worse than useless, and that the Government should first show signs of its power for good by punishing those whom it knew and acknowledged to be guilty. Her Majesty's Government had already formed a similar opinion on the proposed inquiry, and had instructed the British Agent and Consular authorities to hold themselves aloof from it.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government has taken into consideration the statement forwarded by Sir E. Malet to Lord Granville, that many European usurers are taking advantage of the distressed condition of the Egyptian population to obtain most exorbitant rates of interest for loans, some Greek money-lenders being mentioned as having extorted interest at thirty-six per cent for six months; whether it is a fact that two Greek moneylenders have recently been murdered by villagers near Cairo; and, whether Her Majesty's Government has issued any warning to British subjects to avoid usurious money-lending in the prevailing distress and excitement in Egypt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Mr. Cartwright reported on the 26th that 10 Greeks and three Jews were massacred on that day by an Arab mob at Benha, a town on the road to Cairo. We have no information as to their being moneylenders, and we have not issued any warning to British subjects in regard to money-lending.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can explain why it is that without counting the Maltese, who are specially indicated, so many other foreign names

  1247
  are returned as "Anglais," and no less than ninety-four as "Protegé Anglais," while all other countries put together have not twenty-five protegés among them; and, whether it is consistent with the traditions of our Foreign Office to grant the protection of the British flag so freely to foreigners in foreign countries who are not Embassy or Consular servants?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, British protection is not granted at the present day so readily as that of other Powers; but the Foreign Office do not possess the information necessary to give a reply to my hon. Friend's Question with regard to the foreigners in the employ of the Egyptian Government. We shall, however, be glad to procure the particulars he desires; and Her Majesty's Agent in Egypt will be instructed to report upon the subject.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Despatch was addressed by Lord Granville to Lord Lyons, recording the conversation reported by M. Challemel-Lacour in Despatch No. 44, page 58 of the French Yellow Book on the Affairs of Egypt; and, if so, whether such recording Despatch can be laid upon the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I have already stated that there was such a despatch. It shall be laid upon the Table.
  MR. O'KELLYasked whether the Government would give an assurance that they would not attack Arabi Pasha without consulting Parliament?
  [No reply was given to the Question.]

  STATE OF IRELAND—POLICE PROTECTION FOR CARETAKERS—PATRICK CAHILL.
  MR. LONGasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that police protection had been lately withdrawn from Patrick Cahill, a caretaker, on a Boycotted farm at Ashill, near Tralee, whose murder was reported in the journals of the 29th June?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the facts are these. On the 13th of June Patrick Cahill reported that he had been fired at by a person whom he swore at the time to be John Brosnan. Brosnan was arrested; but thereupon Cahill swore he was not the man. For several days after this two sub-constables were sent to be
  1248
  with Cahill wherever he went for his protection; but he resented this arrangement, and stated that if protection were forced on him he would leave his employment. The men were accordingly withdrawn; but patrols were frequently sent near his house at night without his knowledge. On the evening of the 27th of June he was shot dead on his way home from work. He possessed a revolver, for which the Resident Magistrate gave him a licence; but, so little does he appear to have apprehended danger, he did not carry it with him on the day of his murder.

  VACCINATION—THE ALTERNATIVE METHODS—TRANSMISSION OF TUBERCLE FROM CALF LYMPH.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether the Board is prepared to advise the public which of the two modes of vaccination now in use is to be preferred, viz., the one with the matter derived from arm to arm, or the one with the lymph from the calf recently provided by the Department; and, whether it has been shown that tubercle may be transmitted by such lymph?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, the Board have every confidence, after their long experience, in vaccination from arm to arm; but they have not yet had experience on a large scale of vaccination direct from the calf. Both are believed to be equally trustworthy, but I am not prepared to advise my hon. and learned Friend or any other person which he should select. It is not within knowledge of the Board that tubercle has been transmitted by lymph from the calf.

  ADULTERATION OF FOOD ACT—SUBSTITUTES FOR BUTTER.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has, in accordance with his promise made last year with reference to the importation of butter substitutes, such as butterine, oleomargarine, &c., that he would—
  "At the earliest possible moment endeavour to devise means by which the classification may be altered, and the importation of these things kept separate in the Return,"
  devised means by which this can be done; and, if means have been so devised, he will undertake to put such means into operation?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, he had not lost sight of the question, but he could not settle it on his own authority alone without consulting other Departments.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—ALLEGED MUTILATION OF ANIMALS.
  SIR CHARLES MILLSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the following report of an outrage, in the "Times" of the 29th instant, is correct:—
  "At Ballynore, near Boyle, on Tuesday night, the tails of thirty heifers and eight bullocks, the property of a farmer named Anderson, were cut off, the animals being otherwise mutilated. The reason assigned for the committal of the outrage is that Anderson took a farm from which the tenant had been evicted. Graves were some time ago dug on his land, and notices posted up threatening him with death if he took the farm;"
  and, if any person has been arrested on suspicion of having committed these offences?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the matter has been much exaggerated in the newspapers. The facts are that some hair was cut off the tails of 20 head of cattle, the property of John Anderson. It was carefully cut, and the animals were not injured or mutilated in any way. Before Anderson had taken this farm, rough graves were marked out on it and notices posted warning persons not to take the house portion of the farm. Nobody has been arrested in connection with the matter.

  CONVICT PRISONS (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENT OF INSPECTORS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in accordance with the recommendations of Lord Kimberley's Commission, that independent outside inspectors should be appointed to the convict prisons of the Country generally, men of representative character and position were appointed in England by the then Home Secretary, Sir Richard Cross; whether outside visitors were subsequently appointed for the Irish prisons, the appointments only being for one year; whether these appointments have long since expired; and, if he would explain why they have never been renewed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the hon. Member is under a misapprehension; the appointments have not been suffered to lapse. The Visitors to the Irish Convict Prisons were first appointed for one year in September, 1880; and in October last the appointments were renewed for another year.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—ACCOMMODATION FOR WITNESSES.
  MR. HINDE PALMERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware of the want of proper accommodation for witnesses who are compelled to be in waiting at the Central Criminal Court; and, whether it is the duty of the Home Office and the Corporation of London, or one of them, to see that arrangements are made for the reasonable convenience of those who are bound to attend at the Central Criminal Court?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the Home Office has nothing to do with the matter. It belongs entirely to the Corporation of London. The Corporation, however, I am informed, are conscious of the inconvenience of the present state of things, and have made arrangements to alter it.

  THE THAMES RIVER—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that Mr. Abernethy, C.E. and Dr. Williamson, F.R.S. two of the members appointed on the Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of the Thames, have already prejudged the questions to be submitted to the Commission, Mr. Abernethy having stated, on the 7th of December 1875, at a meeting of the Institution of Civil Engineers—
  "As Sir Joseph Bazalgette was present he wished to take the opportunity of expressing an opinion he had long formed, that the half measure of discharging the sewage of the Metropolis in the Thames at Crossness would eventually turn out a source of great pollution to the river;"
  and further, having appeared before the Commission appointed to inquire into the presence of deposits in the Thames, arising from sewage at Crossness, as a witness to support his former expressed

  1251
  opinion as to pollution, and Dr. Williamson having expressed opinions to the same effect in reports to the Conservators of the Thames, stating that
  "The Metropolitan Board of Works have carried the nuisance a little further down the river,"
  and—
  "That the decomposition of organic matter in these mud deposits (meaning mud deposits alleged to be deposited from sewage thrown into the Thames from the works of the Metropolitan Board of Works) keeps up a constant source of pollution of the river;"
  and, whether, under these circumstances, the Government will reconsider the constitution of the Commission?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, when those two gentlemen were placed upon the Commission the Government were not aware that they had expressed any opinion upon the question; but even if they had been aware that such was the case it would not have altered their decision. The hon. Member must be well aware that the mere fact of having expressed an opinion is no disqualification for a Member of either branch of the Legislature acting on a Committee, or for such Member or any other person serving upon a Royal Commission. In the present case, the opinions quoted appear to have been expressed some years ago, and having regard to the professional eminence and the high character of the gentlemen referred to, the Government cannot for a moment suppose that they will fail to discharge the duty of a quasi-judicial position with complete impartiality.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ELEMENTARY SCHOOL FEES.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether differential fees in Elementary Schools are sanctioned by the Education Department; and, whether it is within the power of the magistrates to decide judicially the amount of fees which ought to be paid for children in Elementary Schools, fixing them in just proportion to the means of the parents, and irrespectively of all other consideration?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Education Department does sanction differential fees, and there is no objection to school fees varying in proportion to the means of the parents. The magistrates have no power to fix school fees. They
  1252
  can only decide when appealed to whether there is a reasonable excuse for a child's absence from school if the parents plead inability to pay the fee prescribed for him.

  STATE OF IRELAND—POLICE PROTECTION FOR CARETAKERS.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" of the 29th, that some time ago a change was made in the regulations of the Government in consequence of which police protection was withdrawn from caretakers, and they were told that they must take care of themselves?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The latest arrangement on the subject, which is now being acted on, is that which was communicated to the Emergency Committee and the Property Defence Association on the 3rd of May. That arrangement is that all applications for protection for caretakers shall be made directly to the County Inspector of Constabulary in the county in which the protection is required, and the nature and extent of the protection to be granted will thereupon be decided by the County Inspector in consultation with the Resident Magistrate. This arrangement was made with a view of avoiding all unnecessary delay in such cases where delay might prove a source of serious danger. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no ground for the apprehensions expressed in the Question.

  CRIME (ENGLAND AND WALES)—ALLEGED MURDERS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that another corpse, apparently that of a man who had been murdered and flung into the water, has been discovered in the Thames near Horsley down Stairs; whether it is true that deep stabs were found to have pierced the face and body; and, whether he intends to bring in any measure for the better detection and prevention of crime in England?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, according to the information I have received, it does not appear probable that this was a case of murder. But as the inquest is sitting either to-day or tomorrow it would not be well, I think,

  1253
  for me to express an opinion on the subject.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would repeat the Question in a week's time. Might he ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was true that a well-dressed woman was found yesterday morning with her face battered and blood streaming from her, and whether she was taken to the London Hospital, when it was found she had been stabbed, and where she died soon afterwards? Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman any reason to believe that this was a case of murder?
  [No reply.]

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCELS POST.
  MR. MONKasked the Postmaster General, Whether the statement which appeared in the newspapers on Friday last respecting the parcels post was correct?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, although the paragraph to which my hon. Friend refers is in the main correct, it may be well to explain the exact position in which the matter now stands. The proposed scheme does not, as stated, require to be sanctioned by the Treasury, the sanction of the Treasury having been obtained before the scheme was submitted to the Committee of Railway Managers, by whom it has been unanimously accepted. The decision of this Committee will, I understand, be submitted for confirmation to a meeting of the representatives of the Railway Companies on Wednesday next. The terms as to the proposed division of receipts, as well as weights and charges, are correctly given in the paragraph referred to. If an agreement is arrived at between the Railway Companies and the Post Office, it will be necessary to introduce a Bill, and I hope I shall shortly be able to give Notice of the introduction of this Bill.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked if this arrangement extended to Irish railways?
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that the Irish Railway Companies had acted in conjunction with the English Railway Companies on this matter.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE SUB-COMMISSIONERS—MR. WYLIE.
  MR. BRODRICKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
  1254
  land, Whether, in view of the necessity of keeping judges free from all suspicion of bias towards former and future clients, the Government have communicated with Mr. Wylie as to his retention of the office of Sub-Commissioner in county Tyrone, the county from which a substantial part of his professional business came; and, whether the Government will take steps to remove this grave cause of alarm and criticism as to the judicial working of the Land Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitz-patrick) also has a Question on the Paper referring to this matter. I have received a letter from Mr. Litton, writing on behalf of the Commission, which is too long to read at Question time, though it sums up the views of the Commission in a clear and concise manner. I have already laid it upon the Table of the House, and it will be in hon. Members' hands very shortly.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—BERNARD BEIRNE.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the name of the ex-suspect recently caught illegally drilling near Kilmore, county Roscommon; for what offence he was originally imprisoned; and, what course it is proposed to take with him?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the name of the ex-suspect is Bernard Beirne. He was arrested on the 5th of November, 1881, under the Protection Act, on reasonable suspicion of intimidating others against payment of rent. He was released on the 2nd of May. He was brought before a magistrate on the charge of illegal drilling and was discharged by him.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POSTMASTERS AND THE LAND LEAGUE—THE POSTMASTER AT MILFORD, CO. CORK.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Postmaster General, Whether Mr. Matthew Murphy, of Milford, county Cork, has been appointed postmaster of that town since his release as a suspect; and, if so, whether such an appointment does not involve a departure from the recognised procedure of appointing to

  1255
  offices under the Government only persons of good character? In putting the Question, the hon. Baronet remarked that the Question had been answered by the Government once in the negative and once in the affirmative.
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, I do not think that I have answered in a contradictory way. What I said was that I was making inquiries. My answer now is that as soon as the Land League was proclaimed to be illegal, I issued a notice to all persons in the service of the Post Office to say that they were forbidden either to continue or to become members of the League, and that if they did so they would be dismissed. Mr. Murphy was arrested just at the time this notice was issued. As there is no evidence that he was connected with the Land League after the notice was issued, and as he has given a promise in writing to have no connection with it in future, I thought it was only fair that he should be reinstated in the Post Office at Milford, which he formerly conducted satisfactorily.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—REVISION OF THE IRISH STATUTES.
  MR. FINDLATERasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Since the Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Acts (41 and 42 Vic. c. 57, and 42 and 43 Vic. c. 24) were passed, so far back as the years 1878 and 1879, and the preamble of said Acts stated that they were passed with a view to the preparation of a revised edition of the Irish Statutes, whether any difficulty, and, if so, of what nature, has interposed to prevent, up to the present, the publication of such revised edition; and, whether immediate steps will now be taken to give effect to the provisions of the statutes referred to?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, before I can recommend the publication of an edition of the Irish Statutes as revised by the two Acts referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, I must satisfy myself that the revision is exhaustive. This I hope to do when the House rises, but the pressure on my time has, as hon. Members will recognize, absolutely prevented me from doing so earlier. This, Sir, is the only obstacle.

  THE NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE—COMPLETION.
  MR. FIRTHasked the First Commissioner of Works, When the new Law Courts will be ready for occupation; why the unsightly scaffolding which now remains in front of finished parts of the building is not removed; and, why the clock-case has remained empty for four years?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, the contractors will, I believe, be in a position to hand over the buildings to the Government in about a month; and the Courts will in every respect be fit for the occupation of the Judges at the commencement of the Michaelmas Term. Till the buildings are given up by the contractors, I have no power to remove the scaffolding. The clock, I hope, will be completed by the time it is wanted—namely, when the Courts are occupied.

  IRISH CHURCH TEMPORALITIES FUND—THE ACCOUNTS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, By what authority the accounts of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund, which are required by the 37th section of c. 42, 32 and 33 Vic. to be prepared annually, in order to be transmitted to the Controllor and Auditor General within three months of the expiration of each year for audit and report, have been delayed?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the change in the year of account was made by the Treasury at the instance of the Land Commission, who wished all their accounts to cover the same period. It might have been in stricter accordance with the Statute to have required the accounts to be rendered for a broken period of three months, instead of for 15 months, in making the transition; but it was thought this would be needless and troublesome formality.

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS—THE DULWICH COLLEGE SCHEME.
  MR. GRANTHAMasked the Vice President of the Council of Education, Whether he can name a day on which an Address can be moved to Her Majesty on the subject of the Dulwich Scheme; and, if not, what steps he will take to enable the subject to be brought before

  1257
  the House during the period of forty days, at the expiration of which the scheme will become Law?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Dulwich Scheme was laid on the Table on the 1st of June, and the statutory period will not expire till the 31st of July. It is not incumbent on the Government to find an opportunity for discussing these schemes; and my hon. and learned Friend will not expect me, in the present state of Public Business, to ask the Prime Minister for special facilities for that purpose. I shall be very glad, however, to assist him, as far as I am able, to find an opportunity for bringing the scheme before the House. I have conferred with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Roundell) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), and they are willing to withdraw their opposition to his Motion, so that it may come on after half-past 12 o'clock on some night that may be mutually agreed upon. My hon. and learned Friend is aware that this scheme has occupied years of negotiation and deliberation to bring it to its present stage, and it would be a real calamity to the interests of education in the locality if a final settlement were not now arrived at.

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS)—THE PAPERS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Government expected to present the next Papers on Egyptian Affairs?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I have laid the Papers on the Table to-day. They will be distributed to-morrow morning.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: How far do they go?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Papers are brought down to the end of May.
  MR. BROADHURST: Will the hon. Baronet see in future that all Papers in French are translated into English?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The despatches are usually translated; but in the present instance there are one or two Memoranda in French, which were drawn up abroad, and which, being rather lengthy, have not been translated, as their translation would cause delay in the presentation of the Papers.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to a letter addressed to the Editor of the "Times" by Mr. Wilfrid Scawen Blunt on Saturday July 1st; whether he will lay upon the Table Sir E. Malet's Despatch of the 24th December referred to in that letter, or any other Despatches or communications bearing upon Mr. Blunt's employment in any negotiations with the Chiefs of the Egyptian Army; and, whether he can state to the House the substance of the explanation which Mr. Blunt states that he was authorised on the 9th January to give of the Joint Note from the English and French Governments?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Papers relating to Mr. Blunt shall be laid before Parliament, and shall be prepared at once.

  METROPOLIS—THE PARKS—THE PUBLIC OFFICES SITE BILL AND ST. JAMES'S PARK.
  LORD ALGERNON PERCYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, as it appears from Schedule No. 2 of the Public Sites Bill that it is proposed to appropriate a certain portion of St. James's Park, he can state whether any portion of the Park at present in the enjoyment of the public will be thus appropriated; what the exact extent of such portion will be; and, whether any land will be thrown into the Park to compensate the public for the amount of which they will thus be deprived?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, if the noble Lord will refer to the plan which I have placed in the Library, he will find that, if the extreme limits be adopted, a plot will be taken from the Park equal to somewhat less than half a pole. On the other hand, it is proposed to throw into the Park nearly half-an-acre. The Park, therefore, and the public will be gainers by the difference.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—CONSTITUTION OF THE APPEAL COURT.
  MR. GIBSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the appeals to the Irish Land Commission have been almost systematically heard before two only of the Commissioners, whether the

  1259
  Irish Land Act gives all suitors in the Land Court a right to have their cases
  "Re-heard by all three Commissioners sitting together, except in the case of the illness or unavoidable absence of any one Commissioner, when any such case may be heard by two Commissioners sitting together;"
  and, whether, since it is of special importance that in the first year of the administration of the Land Act its appeals, which will settle and elucidate its principles and working, should be heard before the three Commissioners selected by the Government and approved by Parliament, the Government will take steps to have the clear requirements of the Land Act as to the hearing of appeals complied with, and to ensure that suitors shall not, save in exceptional cases, be deprived of their right to have their appeals heard before the three Commissioners?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am under the impression that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been quite accurately informed. As a matter of fact, I learn on inquiry that the greater proportion of appeals have been heard, not by two, but by three Commissioners. Recently, however, in consequence of the necessity of having one of the Commissioners in Dublin for the discharge of official business, it has been necessary to have appeals in country places heard by two Commissioners. The Commissioners believe, and the Government concur with them, that this is strictly in accordance with the law, and that when a Chief Commissioner is compelled by important business to be in Dublin, that is unavoidable absence under the section of the Act. But when appeals have been heard by two Commissioners, one of the two has invariably been the Judicial Commissioner.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he received, under date 22nd June, certain resolutions from the gentlemen conducting the experimental works undertaken with a view to prove the possibility of connecting England and Trance by a tunnel, which resolutions it is understood were by him referred to the Secretary of State for War and the President of the Board of Trade; whether he can now state whether the further prosecu-
  1260
  tion of the experiments, under such reasonable conditions as the Board of Trade may prescribe, will be allowed, or if it has been decided that the tunnel would "endanger national security;" and, whether he is now ready to reply definitely on the question?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the First Lord of the Treasury has asked me to answer this Question, and accordingly, in reply to my hon. Friend's last Question, I have to repeat what I have several times stated within the last few weeks—namely, that the Report of the Scientific Committee on the Channel Tunnel has been received, and that it will be carefully and deliberately considered by Her Majesty's Government, in connection with the Report of the Military Advisers of the Government, before a decision is arrived at as to the course to be pursued, and as to the course we shall recommend Parliament to adopt on the whole subject. We have now received the very careful and voluminous Report of the Duke of Cambridge as the Military Adviser of the Government; but the question is one of such extreme importance that I cannot undertake to say on what day the final decision of the Government will be arrived at. When, however, they have come to that decision, it will be forthwith communicated to Parliament. With regard to the small experimental tunnel now being pushed on under the sea, the Company constructing it, under the auspices of my hon. Friend the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin), are in communication with the Board of Trade, and the only advice I can give to my hon. Friend is to comply with the notice he has received from the Board of Trade and discontinue operations.
  SIR EDWARD WATKIN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to which notice he refers? Does he mean the notice I received on Sunday morning?
  MR. E. W. HARCOURT: Are we to understand that the President of the Board of Trade gave a promise that nothing would be done in the matter until the House had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the subject?
  MR. CHILDERS: The Notice I referred to was to discontinue these operations. As to that, I conceive there is no doubt that Notice has been given and that it ought to be obeyed. With respect

  1261
  to the Question of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Harcourt), I suppose he alludes to the declaration which has been made more than once here that nothing whatever can be done with regard to the Channel Tunnel without the approval of Parliament, and that Her Majesty's Government object to any Bill for a Channel Tunnel being proceeded with until they have arrived at a decision as to the advice they would offer to Parliament in the matter.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881.
  SIR WALTER B.BARTTELOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the atrocious character of the murders now almost daily committed in Ireland, the Government are taking energetic measures, with the large forces at their disposal, to apprehend the murderers, and to prevent the recurrence of these terrible crimes; and, whether, considering that the Protection of Life and Property Act, 1881, is still in force, any use is being made of that Act?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with respect to the first part of the Question, I have no hesitation in saying—indeed, I think the character of Lord Spencer may be a guarantee for it—that every effort will be made by the Government in the disposal both of their civil and military means for the repression of outrages in Ireland; but it will not be convenient or advantageous that I should enter upon details which would convey information to those for whom it is by no means intended. As to the second part of the Question, the Protection of Person and Property Act is still being enforced. Lord Spencer regards it as an Act proper to be used in cases in which it can be employed advantageously, and upon that principle he will act should a case arise.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: May I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether any new warrants under that Act have been issued since the resignation of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster)?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, three of the cases in which warrants have been issued have occurred since the resignation of my right hon. Friend.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: May I ask who signed the warrants?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the warrants were signed in Ireland with my full knowledge. The three warrants referred to were issued in consequence of the outrages which occurred subsequent to the resignation of my right hon. Friend.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: I beg to ask my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he is in a position to give the House any information in reference to the serious disturbance which is reported to have occurred at Listowel on Sunday?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am not in possession of much information on the subject, but the last news I received was as late as 4.52 P.M., and I will read what I have to the House—
  "Telegram No. 1.—From Colonel Brackenbury to the Chief Secretary.
  "Dublin Castle, July 3, 3.25 P.M.
  "Serious riot at Listowel yesterday. A constable fired four shots on mob from revolver. No one injured."
  "Telegram No. 2.—From same to same.
  "No particulars beyond those already sent received as to riot at Listowel."

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—THE RECENT SUSPENSION OF IRISH MEMBERS.
  MR. CALLAN: I beg to ask the Chairman of Committees of Ways and Means, Whether the statements contained in the semi-editorial paragraphs in The Observer and in The Standard of this morning, to the effect that his action in suspending 16 Members on Saturday morning was based on their course of proceedings during the debates on the Prevention of Crime Bill, extending over a period of 19 days—I have to ask whether that information was supplied on his authority or at his suggestion; and, if so, whether the statement in question is a correct version of the grounds upon which he named the 16 Members on the morning of Saturday last?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish, with your permission, Sir, to ask you a Question arising out of the following passage from the semi-official work of Sir Erskine May on Parliamentary Practice, at page 380 of the seventh edition:—
  "In the Commons the Chair (at the Table) is generally taken by the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. If a difference should arise in the Committee concerning the election of a Chairman, it must be determined by the House itself, and not by the Committee. The Speaker resumes the Chair at once, and a

  1263
  Motion being made 'that A. B. do take the Chair of the Committee;' the Speaker puts the Question, which being agreed to, the Mace is again removed from the Table, and the Committee proceeds to business under the Chairman appointed by the House. On the 2nd of February, 1810, the Speaker having left the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. W. Smith, addressing himself to Mr. Ley, the Clerk, begged to say a few words to the House. The Speaker interposed and explained that if any difference of opinion arose on the subject of who should be called to the Chair, it could not be discussed in the incomplete state in which the House then was. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then called upon Mr. Lushington to take the Chair, and Mr. W. Smith upon Mr. Davies Giddy; whereupon the Speaker immediately returned to the Chair and said that now was the time to propose who should be Chairman of the Committee."
  I have to ask you, Sir, in view of this precedent, whether it will be open to me, when the Motion is made for you, Sir, to leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee on the Prevention of Crime Bill, to move "That Mr. Courtney do take the Chair?"
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Before you, Sir, answer that Question I wish to ask you another. It is whether the Chairman of Committees is entitled, while the Chair is being temporarily occupied by another Member of this House—being a subordinate Member of the Government—to vote on the Bill in the very Committee of which he is Chairman? I wish, Sir, to point out that on Saturday, in a Division on an Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman voted for the Government, and his name is in the Division List—"The Right Hon. Lyon Playfair." The two Tellers against his view of the Question were Mr. Arthur O'Connor and Mr. O'Sullivan, who on his return to the House were almost immediately afterwards suspended by him. I think it right, Sir, to say that I have received from the right hon. Gentleman a letter in which he states that he has not the slightest recollection of having voted. ["Oh, oh!"] I accept that as an understanding that he will not do it again. ["Oh!" and laughter.] I hope the supporters of the Government will not render it necessary for me to take a step which I am perfectly ready to take. [Ironical cheers.] I see that the Home Secretary is cheering in his usual offensive manner. ["Order!"]
  SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAY: I rise to Order, Sir. My hon. Friend rose to put a Question, but instead of doing so he is
  1264
  raising a debate on what took place on Saturday, reading a letter which he has received from the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and then making observations on the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I am not raising a debate at all, Sir. My right hon. Friend is mistaken. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the Chairman of Ways and Means, while being Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House on a Bill before the House, being temporarily absent from the Chair, and replaced by a Member of the Government, is entitled to vote in a Division, and if there is any precedent for it?
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: Before you give an answer to that Question, Sir, will you permit me to ask the hon. Member, in order that all the facts of the case may be laid before you, to read the whole of the letter of which he has only read a paragraph?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: The letter is as follows:—
  "I understand that you intend to ask a Question about my voting in Committee while Mr. Courtney was in the Chair. I was very careful to go into the Room behind the Chair on several occasions so as not to vote. I have not the slightest recollection of having done so, though I see my name marked in the Division List."
  I think it is right to add that I myself saw the right hon. Gentleman in the Lobby.
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Northampton, I have to say that he has put to me a Question upon a point of Order not now arising, and it is not my duty to answer any Questions but those which arise immediately out of the Business of the House. Under the circumstances, however, it may be convenient to the House that I should state that the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, according to the practice—the immemorial practice of the House—may invite another Member to take the Chair, who proceeds to exercise the authority of the Chairman. That course is frequently taken, and has received the approval and sanction of the House. The hon. Member asks me a further Question—Whether, on the Motion that I do leave the Chair, to go into Committee on the Bill, he would be entitled to move that some Member of the House, other

  1265
  than the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, do take the Chair. I think that he would not be entitled to make that Motion. With respect to the Question of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, I am not aware that the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means has ever voted in the Committee; but, at the same time, I am not prepared to say he is not entitled to vote. The House is aware that the Speaker himself is entitled to vote.
  MR. ONSLOW: You will recollect, Sir, that when you put the Motion to the House the other day that certain Gentlemen should be suspended it was impossible for any Member to raise a point of Order. I wish to ask whether it is competent for the Chairman of Ways and Means to suspend any hon. Member of this House for retrospective action, which he considers has been of an obstructive nature; and also whether the time to take cognizance of the misconduct of a Member should not be at the time when he has committed—or is considered to have committed—a breach against the Rules and Orders of this House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have a copy of the Standing Order before me, under which I understand the Chairman acted at the last Sitting of the House. I see no limitation in that Standing Order on the discretion of the Chairman. Some light is thrown on this matter by what took place in this House last Session. If the House will allow me, I will cite an opinion of my own given under somewhat similar circumstances last Session. The right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) appealed to me on the 31st of January, 1881, pointing out in the earlier part of his observations that numerous Motions of a dilatory character had been made, and concluded with these words—
  "I put it to you, Sir, whether all these speeches, if they be taken, not one by one, but in combination, do not show that there is a decided combination for the purpose of wilful and persistent Obstruction? ['No.no!'] I would ask further, whether, under this Order of the House, you have not the power of putting a stop to these proceedings? I would venture also to suggest that under your inherent power as Speaker you have the absolute power of dealing with the matter. …. I now beg to ask you, Sir, whether, by your inherent authority as Speaker of this House, you have not power to put a stop to these proceedings; and also,
  1266
  whether you have not, under this particular Order, the power of saying, taking in combination the speeches of hon. Members and the whole course of the debate, that this mode of carrying on the debate is not, in the terms of the Rule, persistent and wilful Obstruction of the Business of the House?"
  My reply was as follows:—
  "The principal question which the right hon. Gentleman has put to me I understand to be this—What is wilful and persistent Obstruction of the Business of the House, so as to bring a Member wilfully and persistently obstructing within the operation of the Standing Order to which reference has been made? Now, I will say this. I can well understand that although Members speaking to the Question before the House may speak altogether in Order with respect to that Question, still, I can well understand that Members may enter into a combination to effect a purpose which would bring them within the operation of this Order; and if I found that there was a distinct and clear combination on the part of Members of this House wilfully and persistently to obstruct the Business of the House by combination, I should consider that this Standing Order would apply. I am bound to say that the course of this debate has brought before me evidence of that combination, in so far as to bring Members wilfully obstructing within the operation of the Standing Order."—[3 Hansard, cclvii. 1943–4.]
  Those were the words which I addressed to the House last year, and it appears to me that they have a clear bearing upon the question now before it.
  MR. ONSLOW: With the permission of the House, I desire to explain that, in putting the Question I have done, I merely desired to obtain the ruling of the Speaker on the point, and that I did not wish for one moment to impugn the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means.
  MR. HEALY: I wish to ask you, Sir, with reference to the ruling which you have just read from the Chair, as to what took place last year when you acted upon the declaration which you then made, whether it is not the fact that there was not a single Member suspended last year under the circumstances of the ruling which you then gave? I wish to ask whether the suspensions which took place last year were not made because certain hon. Members refused to leave the House and go into the Division Lobby; whether it is not the fact that no suspension took place last year for Obstruction, and whether there was any precedent whatever for the Chairman's action, inasmuch as there never has been a suspension in this House before for Obstruction?
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the hon. Member for Wexford, I have to point out that on the occasion to which I have now made reference I did consider myself at liberty to Name to the House the considerable number of Members who, in my opinion, had obstructed the Business of the House wilfully and persistently; but, acting on my own discretion, I did not take that course.
  MR. DILLON: I desire to ask you a Question, Sir, on a matter of Privilege. I desire, first, to inform you that on Saturday last, on coming down to take my seat in this House, I was stopped by the doorkeeper, and told that I could not enter. I wish now to ask, having taken this, the very earliest opportunity possible to me, as I have been up to this excluded from the House, whether I am not entitled to bring this conduct of the doorkeeper under your notice as a matter of Privilege?
  MR. SPEAKER: The doorkeeper acted under the authority of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and he was strictly within his right. There can be no question as to the proper conduct of the officer of the House. The House had ordered a certain number of Members to be suspended by name, and it was the clear duty of the Serjeant-at-Arms to take care that those Members did not return to the House.
  MR. CALLAN: Sir, as I now see the Chairman of Committees in his place, I beg to ask him whether the information contained in semi-editorial paragraphs in The Observer of yesterday and The Standard this morning, to the effect that his action in suspending 16 Irish Members on Saturday morning was on account of their conduct during 19 days of the Committee—I have to ask whether that information was supplied by his authority or at his suggestion; and, if so, whether the statement in question is a correct version of the grounds on which he Named the 16 Members on the morning of Saturday last?
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: I may say that to neither paper mentioned, nor to any of the reporters, as far as I know, did I communicate the slightest information.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Sir, there are some portions of the record in the Votes and Proceedings issued to Members this morning the correctness of which I contest. I wish to know whether now would
  1268
  be the time to dispute their correctness?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to make a Motion on the matter he can do so in the ordinary way by calling attention to the Votes and Proceedings, but he cannot do so without Notice.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Can I not contest the correctness of the statement in the Votes and Proceedings at this time, or are we to assume that the correctness is admitted?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Would it not be competent for the hon. Member to move that a certain portion should be struck out by the Clerk at the Table?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have stated that the proper course for the hon. Member to take is to give Notice of Motion in the ordinary way.
  MR. CALLAN: Sir, perhaps it may be within your memory, in the month of July or early in August, 1879, I, finding that the Votes and the Division List were incorrect with reference to the then Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, by your direction drew the attention of the House to the matter, and that immediately on the very next morning, by your direction, the Votes were cancelled and a new set issued in correct form. I wish now to ask whether it is not competent for an hon. Member to draw attention to the Votes in a similar manner? My reason for wishing to do so is this—on the morning of Saturday last, at 10 o'clock, the Chairman of Committees—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, I understand, puts to me a Question arising out of a point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen). If I rightly remember, on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers, some error was pointed out in regard to the insertion of a name, and the alteration was made. But that is no precedent for treating the matter which the hon. Member for Newcastle desires to bring before the House as a question of Privilege. He can, of course, take what action he thinks proper in the matter; but what I understand him to claim is to deal with this question as a question of Privilege.
  MR. CALLAN: The question raised in July, 1879, was the omission of the names from the Division List of the hon.

  1269
  Baronet the then Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, and my Notice to-day is with reference to the insertion of a name in the Papers which was not read from the Table.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now entering into a debate. He has put a Question to the Chair, and having received an answer from the Chair in reference to the point, he must be content.
  MR. GORST: Sir, I wish to ask, upon a question of Order, whether the object of the hon. Member for Newcastle is not to secure the correctness of the Records of the House; and whether he would not, therefore, be justified in now calling your attention and the attention of the House to any inaccuracy in the record of the proceedings?
  MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) desired to make a Motion on a question of Privilege which he would be out of Order in doing. If I have not correctly understood him, perhaps he will explain.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: My object, Sir, was to call attention to the record of proceedings. In a Report made by the Chairman of Committees to you, Sir, there were four hon. Members Named for wilful Obstruction in this House, although those hon. Members were away from the Committee at the time.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to bring such a matter before the House, he must do it by way of Motion. As I understand, the hon. Member has already given Notice of such a Motion.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Will you allow me to explain, Sir? It is quite true that I have given Notice of my intention to make a Motion with regard to the case of four of the hon. Members who were suspended on Saturday; but I now desire to call attention to the cases of other hon. Members who were suspended at the same time. [Loud cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"]
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I wish to ask you, Sir, on a point of Order, whether, when the Chairman of Committees Names to the House a certain number of Members as having been guilty of wilful Obstruction, it is competent for the Minister of the Crown who rises to move the Motion of Suspension to add to those names the name
  1270
  of an hon. Member not mentioned by the Chairman of Committees; and, whether, when the Chairman of Committees put the Motion to the Committee without that name added by the Minister, it is competent to submit to you, Sir, a list of names containing again the name of the hon. Member not mentioned on either occasion in the Resolution?
  MR. CHILDERS: I presume, Sir, the Minister referred to is myself, and I beg to state that I moved the suspension of those Members only who were included in the list of the Chairman of Committees. [Cries of "Oh!"]
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain exactly what I mean. The list of names of Members Named by the Chairman of Committee did not include my name. The right hon. Gentleman—
  MR. CHILDERS: If am applied to—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: If the name of the hon. Member for Longford was not upon the list of the Chairman of Committees, the hon. Member should not have been reported to the House as having been guilty of wilful Obstruction.
  MR. CHILDERS: If I am applied to, I may say that I did not know before to whose name the hon. Member for Longford was referring; but I am able to state distinctly, from my recollection, that the name of the hon. Member was included in the Chairman's list. The paper from which I read was handed to me by the Chairman of Committees. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Personal malice!"]
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: May I be allowed to explain? The Chairman of the Committee did not Name me in the list of Members, neither in the first list nor in the second. Afterwards I went round to the Chairman of Committees and asked him if my name was on the list, and he said it was not.
  MR. HEALY: It was personal malice. [Cries of "Order!"]
  Mr. JOSEPH COWEN and Mr. MAGNIAC here rose amid loud cries of "Order!" and shouts from the Home Rule Benches.
  MR. SPEAKER: If interruption of that kind continues from the quarter of the House from which it proceeds, I shall feel it my duty to take notice of it.
  MR. MAGNIAC: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask you whether the hon. Mem-

  1271
  ber for Wexford is in Order in imputing "personal malice" to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War?
  MR. HEALY: May I be allowed to ask the hon. Gentleman how he knows to whom I addressed those words? [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"]
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: As the name of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) appears not to have been in the list which was read by the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move that the name of the hon. Member be erased from the record of the House's proceedings.
  MR. CALLAN: I rise to second the Motion. ["Order!"]
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: Sir, the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) came to me and asked whether his name was included in the list read by the Secretary of State for War from the Table. In looking over the list, I certainly did not see it at first, but afterwards I pointed out to the hon. Member that his name appeared in another line, and that it had been read by the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. CALLAN: On the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle I wish to state that I was present on the occasion, and heard the names read.
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no Question before the House. Is the hon. Member asking a Question on a point of Order?
  MR. CALLAN: No, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: Then the hon. Member must resume his seat.
  SIR JOHN HAY: I hope, Sir, I may be permitted to put a Question to the Chairman of Committees. I wish to ask him whether it is still his opinion that the name of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) was inserted erroneously in the list for suspension?
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: No, Sir; it was certainly not inserted erroneously, from the circumstance that the hon. Member spoke a great many times, and moved a great many Amendments during the consideration of the Bill in Committee. The right hon. and gallant Member alludes to a private conversation I had with him, in which I stated my own regret that I had been obliged to insert the hon. Member's name, because I did not think the hon. Member spoke so often or was so obstructive as some of the others.
  SIR JOHN HAY: I was present in the House for 22 hours, and during that time the hon. Member for Kilkenny spoke only once. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot refer to that matter now.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish, Sir, to refer to the Minutes of the Votes. We have it there stated that the Chairman of Committees called the attention of the Committee to the fact that certain Members had been guilty of Obstruction, and that thereupon he Named those Members to the Committee, upon which Naming a vote of the Committee was taken, and that vote was reported to the House. The record then proceeds to state how you, Sir, put from the Chair a similar Question to that which had already been put in Committee, and the House voted upon that Question. The Votes then relate how Mr. Playfair then reported to the Speaker that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), sitting in his place, had insulted the Chair by saying that the action taken by it was an infamy. What I wish to submit is that the Speaker of the House has only one voice, and that is the voice which the House gives to him. The Chairman of Committees similarly acts on instructions received from the Committee. I submit that, in regard to the suspension of the Members, he carried out the directions of the Committee; but when he proceeded to report to you that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had done as he accused him of doing, then he was not acting according to the record upon any instruction or Motion of the Committee; and I wish to ask whether the Chairman was within his right in making a report as from the Committee which he had no instructions to make?
  MR. SPEAKER: I apprehend that the Chairman of Committees acted according to his duty. He considered the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan irregular and disorderly; and as Chairman of Committees he was bound to report that conduct to me, so that the House might take what course it thought proper in the circumstances.
  MR. PARNELL: On the point of Order, Sir, I wish to ask whether the proper course for the Chairman of Committees to have adopted under the circumstances mentioned would not have

  1273
  been to have directed the Assistant Clerk to take down the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), to have brought them before the Committee, and to have obtained the directions of the Committee regarding them; and whether the Chairman of Committees, in taking upon himself to make the report to the House without having previously obtained the directions of the Committee, was not proceeding ultra vires? I wish to ask, further, whether the only power the Chairman of Committees has, with, regard to making a report to the House as to the conduct of any Member without special direction of the Committee, is when he has Named that Member to the Committee, and is empowered by the vote of the Committee to report that name to the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: No doubt the ordinary practice is that the words objected to in debate, and considered disorderly, should be taken down. That is only when the House is in debate, or the Committee is in debate. Upon this accusation the hon. Member was not in debate. The debate had been closed, and the only course open to the Chairman was to do what he did, and report the matter to the House, so that the House might take such notice of it as it thought proper.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask you, Sir, whether there is any precedent in the whole history of this House for such conduct, and whether any Chairman of Committees has ever previously reported words used by a Member during the Sitting of the Committee without having previously had the words taken down and read to the Committee, thus affording the Member in question an opportunity of withdrawing them, or of contradicting the correctness of the report?
  MR. SPEAKER: I cannot, without searching the Journals of the House, say whether there is or is not any precedent for the conduct of the Chairman on this occasion. This I will say, that there is no precedent for the proceedings which took place in this House on Saturday.
  MR. O'DONNELL: As to the question of precedent, is it not a fact, Sir, that in. the year 1837 the Speaker of the House, complaining that the House refused to obey him, threatened to leave
  1274
  the Chair and his Office unless the House became more orderly?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to submit, Sir, that as the record of the proceedings will be entered on the Journals, and remain as a precedent, it is of importance that it should be correct. There appears to be no mention on the Minutes of the fact of which you, Sir, appear to be somehow in possession—namely, that the interruption of the hon. Member for Dungarvan took place at a time when the Committee was not in debate. Should not the record be amended so as to include that fact?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already twice said, and now say again, in answer to the hon. Member, that if any hon. Member thinks proper to challenge the entry in the Votes, it is open for him to do so. I have to say, also, as I have already said to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), that such proceeding would not be a question of Privilege.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  PARLIAMENT—MR. O'DONNELL.
  Order read for the Consideration of Mr. O'Donnell's conduct on Saturday last, as reported by the Chairman of the Committee on the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the House is generally aware, I believe, of the subject-matter on which the Order of the Day is founded. It is referred to on page 627 of the Votes as follows:—
  "Mr. Playfair then reported to Mr. Speaker that Mr. O'Donnell, the Member for Dungarvan, sitting in his place, had insulted the Chairman, saying that the action taken by him was an infamy. Mr. Speaker thereupon addressed the House, and stated that it was his duty, in consequence of the Chairman's report, to submit the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell to the judgment of the House. Motion made, and Question put, 'That the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell be taken into consideration on Monday next.'"
  I rise, I believe, in conformity with precedent and with, convenience, to take the liberty of suggesting to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that it might be advantageous if he were to take this opportunity of submitting any statement on the subject of the proceedings in question which he

  1275
  may think himself called upon to make.
  MR. HEALY: I wish, Sir, to ask a question on a point of Order. I wish to know whether the Motion which the Prime Minister has submitted is a matter of Privilege; whether, if it be a matter of Privilege, the consideration of it will be prolonged as a question of Privilege or not; if it be so, whether Notice to that effect was given on Saturday; and whether Privilege can be made the subject of a Motion; also, if it be not a question of Privilege, whether there is not on the Votes of the House a Resolution that the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill shall have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion until the House shall otherwise order?
  MR. SPEAKER: The House ordered that this matter should be taken into consideration to-day. It is a question of Privilege, and the proceeding is quite in Order.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I received a communication, signed by the Clerk of the House, informing me that my conduct would be taken into consideration. I sit here awaiting the taking of my conduct into consideration.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) has been appealed to in a manner which, I believe, is usual, and which, I trust, was not discourteous. At least, if it were discourteous, that was contrary to my intention, and I do not believe it was discourteous. The hon. Member has, however, declined to afford the House the assistance of any explanation. [Mr. O'DONNELL: No, no.] The hon. Member, I say, has declined to afford the House the assistance of any explanation anterior to its consideration of his conduct. Sir, under those circumstances, we approach that consideration necessarily with very great disadvantage. The hon. Gentleman appears to have cried out in the course of the proceedings of this House, but not in the course of the debate, that the conduct of the Gentleman who was in charge of the proceedings of the House as Chairman of Committees was an infamy. [Mr. O'DONNELL: No.] If I have not in my power the means of obtaining the elementary facts of the case it is a clear proof how desirable it was that the hon. Member should have afforded us an explana-
  1276
  tion. If the hon. Member is ready to give it I shall be most ready to retire in order that it may be given, for I feel keenly the disadvantage under which we are placed and the necessity which that disadvantage might impose upon us, and which otherwise might have been mitigated.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not take it that I intended to be discourteous when I said that I wait here to answer any accusation which may be brought against me.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The accusation is upon the Votes. There is there recorded not only an expression which, of course, involves a matter of opinion—namely, that the Chairman had been insulted—but there is also recorded the fact that the hon. Gentleman cried out under the circumstances I have described that the action taken by the Chairman was an infamy. The hon. Gentleman says he waits to have some accusation made against him. Much less acuteness than is possessed by the hon. Member would have sufficed to show him what it was. It. is the simple fact of his having declared in his place, though not during a debate, that the course taken by the Chairman was an infamy. That is the accusation, and I bound to say that, unexplained, it is a very severe accusation, a most grave accusation, and I must take the accusation as it is before me, without explanation, without apology, without regret, as being a statement of conduct which is deliberately adhered to. The hon. Gentleman has the opportunity of correcting me, but I understand that his conduct is deliberately adhered to.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I am quite prepared to answer the instant a charge is formulated. I may add that I was suspended before any proceedings were taken, or any reference was made to me. I am not aware what proceedings took place after 16 Members, myself included, were violently driven from our deliberations in this House.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think the hon. Gentleman does not understand. With what he has termed his previous conduct I have, upon the present occasion, no concern whatever. I apprehend that I should entirely mistake my duty—which is to become, if I can, the organ of the reasonable sentiment of the House—I should entirely mistake my duty were I to go back upon proceedings

  1277
  entirely anterior to and independent of the subject-matter to which our attention is immediately called. The hon. Gentleman might have been perfectly inaccessible to any just charge, or he might not. I do not enter into that; I have nothing to do with it. What I have to do with is this. A certain proceeding having been taken by the constituted authority of the House, who was in the Chair, presiding over our deliberations, the hon. Gentleman, not in debate, but during the Sitting of the House, and in his place, designated that proceeding as an infamy. It is not in the slightest degree necessary for me to use language of heat on this occasion. Without using any language of heat, I must say that if upon any occasion a Member of this House desires to challenge the proceedings of the constituted guardian of the debates of the House for the time, his absolute duty to himself, to that guardian, and to the House is to make that challenge in a regular manner, and if it be a challenge in the nature of a censure then the principle which I have stated applies with an enhanced force. If the hon. Member thought that the proceeding of the Chairman of Committees was open to animadversion, his course, I apprehend, was plain. It was to give notice of a Motion on that subject, and in a regular method to call the attention of the House to it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has on the Paper a Notice that at a quarter-past 4 o'clock he would move—
  "That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Order for Consideration of the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell be postponed till after the Notice of Motion relating to the Business of the House (Urgency)."
  I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, not having carried that Motion, is in Order in discussing the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell himself?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already stated that this is a question of Privilege, and it takes precedence of other matters. The right hon. Gentleman is quite in Order.
  MR. O'DONNELL: On the question of Order and Privilege, I have received a communication from the Clerks of the House, stating that my conduct will be taken into consideration. I want to have some official information from you,
  1278
  Sir, from the Chairman of Committees, or from the Leader of the House, as to the nature of the charge. When that charge has been made I am prepared, at the call of the House, at once to make my statement.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House has already made an Order that this matter should be taken into consideration to-day. The House is now considering the matter, and the proceedings are quite in Order.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I rise, Sir, to ask a question which may facilitate the proper discussion of this matter. I think it is usual, when questions of Privilege arise, that a Motion should be made founded upon the conduct of the Member whose conduct is called in question. That Motion is usually not of a punitive character in the first instance, but only to the effect that his conduct is a breach of the Privileges of the House. It is then open to the Member in due form to volunteer any explanation he may think proper, and the other Members are also in possession of their privilege, because they can address the House on the original Question. Having got through that stage, the House can subsequently determine whether it is necessary to go any further.
  MR. SPEAKER: This debate is not on a Motion, but on the Order of the Day. The House has actually ordered that this matter should be taken into consideration to-day, and unless it is prepared to stultify itself the House must proceed with this Order.
  MR. GLADSTONE: As to the method of procedure, I am ready, Sir, to attend to the slightest suggestion from you; but I believe what I have thus far done is in conformity with the usages of the House. Whatever Motion is made, it must be made with grounds to support it. The reasons bearing upon the case must be adduced, and the disadvantage under which we stand, through not knowing what explanation the hon. Member might be disposed to offer, would be precisely the same whatever Motion bearing upon this case may be made. I say it is the plain duty of a Member of this House, who wishes to challenge the proceeding of the constituted director or guardian of its debates, to challenge it in the most regular manner by a Motion. On this occasion, unfortunately, that was not done,

  1279
  and that was the first point of error of judgment, if I may say so, on the part of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan. The next point of error was that that challenge was made in a manner which I believe to have been entirely irregular and unauthorized. It was made in language of a character totally unsuited to the debates of this House, even as between Member and Member; but still more so as between a Member of this House and the Speaker in the Chair, or the Chairman of Committees, who, in Committee, exercises the same authority for the time as is given to the Speaker. To apply to such a person the expression "infamy," even if it had been attempted to be done in a more regular manner, would, it appears to me, constitute so grave a breach of the ordinary usages of this House as to demand its most serious notice. Now, how do we stand? These two points appear to me to be sufficiently grave; but the hon. Gentleman has, as I think, most unfortunately, put upon us the necessity of considering the third point. He says he wishes to know what is the accusation against him. The accusation against him has already, before the meeting of the House, been placed under his view. It is contained in the printed Votes, and is to the effect that the hon. Member said that the action taken by the Chairman of Committees was an infamy. When the hon. Member for Dungarvan calls for an as accusation and declines to reckon as an accusation this most grave allegation, I have no choice but, for the time at least, to consider him as admitting, adhering to, and affirming the words which he has unfortunately made use of. If the hon. Gentleman deems that such words, irrespective of the manner of their usage, and still more when combined with the manner of their usage, constitute no charge, and are within the liberties of the Members of this House, I must own I cannot resist the conclusion, though I arrive at it with regret, that such a fact is a fact calling for the most serious notice of the House, requiring someone on the part of the House to make a Motion, which I have undertaken to do by virtue of the Office I hold, which upon the facts as they stand before him shall give effect to what he believes to be the probable, natural, and just sentiment of the House. As the hon. Gentleman ad-
  1280
  heres to the improper words he used, and declines to offer any explanation or defence of them, I wish to submit the following Motion—"That Mr. O'Donnell be suspended from the service of the House for fourteen days."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. O'Donnell be suspended from the service of the House for the term of fourteen days."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. SPEAKERhaving put the Question,
  MR. HEALY: I beg to ask you, Sir, whether the Motion does not require a Seconder?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have put the Motion to the House; I have not thought it necessary to call for a Seconder.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Sir, I am at last indebted to the justice of the Premier for a statement of the charge brought against me. With regard to the statement in the Votes, I have heard the accuracy of those Votes impeached on all sides to-day; and in a matter of such gravity, I felt it was due to the House, and I venture to think it was due to the accused person, to know what were the terms of the accusation, and the precise scope of the charges made against him. As I gather from the Premier, the terms of the accusation made against me in my absence on Saturday last, I have to state that those words are seriously inaccurate, and change and alter the drift, purport, and object of my remarks. In the course of the explanation I have to make, I trust I shall say nothing that will savour of unseemly bravado; but I trust I shall be allowed to state with accuracy and fullness what I did say, and to explain the reasons why I made such observations as I did. I throw myself, without fear, upon the justice of the House and of the country—and whether it be the decision of the House to altogether reject, to minimize, or increase the measure of punishment suggested by the Premier, I am quite prepared, in all humility, but in all firmness, to accept the consequences. Sir, I did not, as alleged, assert that the action of the Chairman was an infamy. I stated, I admit, several matters, some of which directly impugned the conduct of the Chairman; I said, addressing the Chair—"You sin against all the traditions of your Office." I admit the irre-

  1281
  gularity of my apostrophe to the Chair; but I had no opportunity of making a defence. I was in the House sitting quietly listening to a debate when I found myself Named as guilty of Obstruction. I had received no Notice of such charge; and during all my proceedings in this House I could perceive nothing in the conduct of the Chair towards me that led me to imagine for an instant that I was not considered by the Chairman an orderly Member of the House, lawfully exercising the duty I was sent there to perform. I specially meant by that statement that, in my opinion, the duty of the Chair is to warn an offender of transgressing the Rules of the House before any proceedings were taken against an alleged offender. I understood it was the common right of all Members of the House to expect to receive such warning in clear and unmistakable terms. I remembered that when the Standing Order invoked against me was introduced by the Leader of the House, he expressly declared that no Member would be punished under it who had not been expressly warned that he was transgressing the Orders of the House, and that it was only for persistent disobedience, after warning, that a Member was to be proceeded against. I desired emphatically to declare that Mr. Lyon Playfair, in suspending me without a syllable of warning, was acting in a manner in which none of his Predecessors would have acted. I have been in this House under a Chairman of Committees of undoubted ability and high impartiality—a Gentleman as opposed to me politically as one man can be to another—and I say with the most absolute confidence that had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes) been Chairman of Committees, I should not have been suspended without receiving the most distinct notice of the danger I was incurring. I meant to say that when I said that the Chairman sinned against the traditions of his Office, and I am prepared for the consequences of such a statement. I also said, not in particular reference to the Chairman, but as a matter of self-defence and exculpation, though, undoubtedly, that self-defence and exculpation were intended to impugn the Chairman's conduct—"I have been absent all night, and I have been foully Named as guilty of Obstruction."
  1282
  I claim the right to explain what I meant when I said so. I meant, as a fact, I had been absent all night; and when I said I had been foully Named as guilty of Obstruction, I meant to say that in all my action during that operation of the Sitting, and all the previous Sittings, I acted independently and honestly in the discharge of my duties to my constituents, and according to the most cherished traditions of Order. I beg to remind this House that, in reference to the discussion of the Crimes Promotion Bill—the new Coercion Bill—I never professed to expect anything from prolonged discussion or debate upon its provisions. I did not, in the slightest degree, cast any reflection upon any of my hon. Colleagues from Ireland when I made that statement on my own behalf; but I did say that it was hopeless to expect any amendment of that Bill, and I did recommend, before this assembled House—and it is within the knowledge of scores of Members—my hon. Colleagues from Ireland to let that Bill pass without any attempt at amendment. I begged them to let the Bill pass in all its unmitigated brutality. I urged my Colleagues to appeal to the Irish people. I said that the opinion of the Irish people among themselves was the only defence against the horrors of this brutal Bill. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are welcome to disagree with me in my estimate of the matter of that Bill; but I have a right to say what I stated in this House as to what my wishes were in regard to that Bill. I feel, at the same time, that my hon. Friends did their duty well and nobly in endeavouring, with hope against hope, to obtain an amendment of that Bill; and I feel that if the eyes of the Government had not been judicially darkened, they would have seen in the suggestions of my hon. Friends multitudes of occasions for making that Bill what it is not now—a Bill for the prevention of real crime in Ireland. I have put down a list, as I could gather them, of the votes I have given and speeches I have made in connection with this Bill during the past week, and I find, Sir, that, on Friday, during the time previous to my suspension, out of the whole 13 Divisions taken on that day I was present at only four. I find, Sir, that among the Members who voted with me on those occasions, and who were not

  1283
  suspended, were—I take the names from the lists of the House—Mr. Cowen, Sir Wilfrid Lawson, Mr. Errington, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. M'Laren, Mr. Jesse Collings, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. C. Russell, Mr. Caine, Mr. Brooks, Sir David Wedderburn, and Sir Patrick O'Brien. Those hon. Members were among my Colleagues in some or all of the Divisions; and when I said I had been "foully-suspended," I referred to the distinction then made between Irish and English Members by the Chairman. Not a single one of the English Members who went with me on those occasions through the Lobbies was suspended by the Chairman of Committees; and I venture to say, Sir, that the records of the Divisions will prove that hundreds of English Members have voted as often and more often than I upon this subject; and those English Members had not the excuse I had, that I was standing up for the liberties of my country. I might also say, in further explanation of the statement that I was "foully suspended," that I find the name of a distinguished Irish Member, a true and sterling Irishman, who, however, sits on the Liberal side of the House—I mention the hon. and gallant Colonel who sits for the County of Galway—as voting—and to his honour be it said—some 13 times against Government during that Friday night, and some 32 times in all against Her Majesty's Ministers, and in furtherance of that purpose which is falsely described as Obstruction in other Irish Members. All honour to that gallant Colonel who sits for the County Galway. But why those foul distinctions? With regard to my votes on Thursday, I voted only six out of nine times, on Wednesday only once—I am not aware how many Divisions took place on that day—and on Tuesday only twice in eight Divisions; and I say again that there are hundreds of English Members in this House who voted far oftener than I did. With regard to my speeches, in almost all cases, the observations that I addressed to the Committee upon the clauses before the Chair were strictly observations of a conversational and brief description according to the special and recognized manner of addresses that ought to be used in Committee. So far from obstructing the Committee by lengthened speeches, five out of six were half-a-minute or one-minute or two-minute observations, in
  1284
  answer to direct provocation coming from the Government, and especially from the Home Secretary, who was always ready to break out into invective against the Irish Members and their country. It was against those speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was always ready to make them, whether relevant or irrelevant, that I several times addressed the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was the agent provocateur of the Treasury Bench, and it was against him that on Friday I made a couple of short observations and one lengthy speech. But that lengthy speech was on a most important question, the question of exempting certain districts and certain individuals from charges for extra constables and from the blood tax, matters of the utmost importance, on which I conscientiously did my utmost to make my meaning clear, and in which I did not repeat a single observation. On Thursday, I made a couple of brief observations by may of protest to the offensive remarks of the Home Secretary, who, instead of addressing himself to the Question before the House, accused the Irish Members in so many words of opposing the Bill out of sympathy with crime. In reply to that charge, I compressed my observations into the smallest possible compass. I also addressed a few words to the Committee in answer to the observations of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who spoke of the soil of Ireland as wet with innocent blood. It is not for me to deny that unhappy fact; but I felt it my duty to state that other lands were also wet with innocent blood, and that against them no extravagant measures of coercion were proposed. I expressly mentioned on that occasion the discovery on that day of some more corpses in the River Thames as a reason why—["Question!"]—these continual taunts should not be addressed to Irish Members. My replies were in each case couched in the fewest possible number of words. During the whole debate upon Wednesday I did not utter a single word; and on Tuesday I asked a couple of questions, and made a five-minute speech. That is the whole of my contribution to debate during the past week. To complete my explanation, I will state that one series of observations were of the most necessary kind. Sir,

  1285
  there was an Amendment before the House for the purpose of introducing a certain reform in the Bill. ["Question!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not thought it right up to this moment to interpose, because I am quite aware that the House is always ready to extend its indulgence to any Member whose personal conduct is under consideration. I am bound to say that the hon. Member is drawing very largely upon the indulgence of the House.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I understood that I was Named, and, as I said, foully Named, on the charge of cumulative Obstruction.
  MR. SPEAKER: The question of the hon. Member's being Named is not now the Question before the House, and it is only in consideration of the personal position of the hon. Member before the House that I have allowed him to refer to these matters. I beg, however, to say that the Question before the House is the conduct, not of the Chair, but of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I was explaining nothing, Sir, but the identical words used, which were not the words imputed to me. That is what alone I was doing, and, Sir, having stated that, I not only stated that I had been absent all night, and had been foully Named as guilty of Obstruction, but I also said that a certain statement that had fallen from the Chair was an infamy. Sir, the charge against me is that I asserted that the action of the Chair was an infamy. I said that a certain statement was an infamy. Was that statement the statement of the Chair? Sir, I was sitting in the House when I saw the Chairman of Committees apparently take up a paper, which I presumed had been prepared for him, and read from that paper a number of statements relating, among other things and other times, to facts and times when he (the Chairman) was not in the House. Sir, Mr. Lyon Playfair did not, in relation to these facts and to these times, act on his own personal knowledge, but on what had occurred when he was not in the House. He acted on the faith of reports which were made to him, and the statement embodying those reports, which were false reports, was the statement that I characterized as an infamy. Sir, in particular reference to the clause under con-
  1286
  sideration, the Chairman spoke of the 19 hours that had been occupied, and stated that during those 19 hours and at other times a limited number of Members had systematically frustrated the progress of Business by proposing Amendments, some of which were practical and fair, but of which by far the greater number were only intended to raise by new forms questions which were already decided by large majorities. Those Amendments had been made the occasion for endless arguments, and were evidently framed to waste time. Sir, with regard to a large portion of the conduct and arguments referred to by Mr. Lyon Playfair, Mr. Lyon Playfair was not in the House at the times referred to, and I characterized that statement as an infamy. And I challenge any proof on the part of the authors of those reports to show cause why they should not be censured by this House for falsely and feloniously misleading a high official of the House. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: If I understand the argument of the hon. Member correctly, it is to this effect—that while in the Committee he used the words infamy as applied to the Chair, he now proposes to strengthen that argument by the assertion that his conduct was false and felonious. I am bound to ask for an explanation from the hon. Member. If I take a correct view of what he said I shall call upon him for an apology to this House.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Sir, you have entirely understood my argument as the very thing that it was not. I am asserting now, and I meant to convey then, that false reports had been submitted to the Chairman of Committees, and that those false reports misled the Chairman of Committees. [Cries of "By whom?"] Most probably by Her Majesty's Government. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The indulgence which has been given by the House to the hon. Member has been very great, and I feel bound to say now that that indulgence cannot any longer be extended, and I shall call upon him to keep close to the Question before this House, which is his own conduct, and not the conduct of the Chairman.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I have just stated that my whole conduct consisted in characterizing as an infamy the false reports

  1287
  submitted to the Chairman. Sir, I studiously decline to characterize the share in the proceedings taken by the Chairman of Committees when I made that statement, which was addressed—and which was only part of the statement which was addressed—personally and directly to the Chairman of Committees—namely, "You sin against all the traditions of your Office." With regard to my assertion, to my statement, to my solemn declaration—for I wish it to be understood that I made it in all solemness and earnestness—that that statement which had been read to the House was an infamy, I meant and mean to include within that solemn declaration the cowardly inciters to the force and tyranny which were practised against the Irish Members last Saturday, and I name Her Majesty's Government as the guilty authors.
  MR. SPEAKER: The conduct of the hon. Member is now under the consideration of the House, and, according to the usual practice, the hon. Member for Dungarvan will withdraw.
  Mr. O'DONNELL thereupon withdrew from the House.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIR: Sir, I do not intend to take any part in the debate before the House. I simply wish to give it what I hope will be an impartial narrative of what took place with a view of guiding the decision of the House; but I think I may be permitted, in the first place, to answer the statement which has been made by the hon. Member for Dungarvan with regard to the false reports which are said to have been given to me by the Government. I may state that the whole responsibility for the action taken on Saturday last rests with me alone. No one single Member of the Government knew the action I was about to take. I did not mention it to a single Member of the Government, or to a single Member of the Opposition; and whatever responsibility attaches to that action is due to me alone. There were no reports of any kind made to me. I judged by the evidence before me, and acted upon it. I wish simply to give a narrative of the facts. There had been protracted discussions on the 17th clause. Of those protracted discussions I took a view quite different from that which existed in the mind of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. I wish to state this
  1288
  difference, because I think it constitutes a large instigation of what he has said. To my mind, these protracted discussions gave the evidence that what I considered Obstruction was increasing, while the hon. Member for Dungarvan believed that my Naming him was on account of protracted discussions on that clause; and he, feeling that he had not taken an active part in them, thought the action of the Chairman in Naming him was unjust. Well, I felt at the time that he used those words that I was sorry to be obliged to consider it my duty to report the direct attack which he made upon the Chair, because I was quite convinced he used those words in great heat and while labouring under a sense of injustice, and under a misapprehension of the action I had taken. I can assure the House, to which is left the decision of this case, that it was with great pain that I felt I was obliged to report them to the House, and that no effects remain in my mind except the regretable incident that had occurred, and that it was a necessity of my Office to make a report to the House of the transaction which had occurred.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose to submit an Amendment to the House. He did not think that anyone could complain of the tone which had been adopted in this matter by the Prime Minister, who had expressed his regret at having to make this Motion, and only made it because, as he said, the hon. Member for Dungarvan preferred to explain his conduct after rather than before the Motion was made. He thought that, after the explanation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, the House ought, to a certain extent, to modify the conclusion at which it had previously arrived with reference to the conduct of that hon. Member. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He respectfully asked hon. Gentlemen to preserve a judicial composure. For his own part, he should not have used the word "infamy;" but hon. Members must always remember that that House was composed of English and Irish Members—[Cries of "And Scotch Members."]—yes, of course, and Scotch Members. The Scotch were even more cautious than the English in the use of words, and Irish Members were not always so cautious as the English. When, therefore, Irish Members used words, they did not always

  1289
  use them in the sense in which the English and Scotch might apply them. They must always take the most moderate view that could apply in judging of their language; and upon consulting Webster's Dictionary, which was, he believed, a very high authority on the English language, he found that "infamy" was defined as "something held in abhorrence." Doubtless the hon. Member for Dungarvan had held in abhorrence the conduct of Her Majesty's Government on Saturday last, and had used the word "infamy" in reference to their action; but that was a very different thing from deliberately insulting the Chair. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!"] He would point out another reason why they should look fairly—[Cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"] If hon. Members chose to interrupt him in that way he could waste an hour, and he told them that he meant to speak. He confessed that he entirely agreed with the Prime Minister that the word "infamy" was unsuited to debates in that House; but a precedent had been set for the use of the word by a most respected Member of the Conservative Party (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who, a few days ago, had characterized the transaction known as the "Kilmainham Treaty" as being unexampled in its infamy. He would only point out to the House that the hon. Member for Dungarvan, under what the Chairman of Committees had very honourably to himself admitted was great provocation, used words which were used by an English Member a few days ago towards those Gentlemen whom on this side of the House they must respect without his being called to Order by the Chair, or without a protest from any Member. In these circumstances, it seemed to him they ought to temper justice with mercy; and that it would be desirable, instead of taking the words of the Resolution of the Prime Minister, to leave out all the words after "that," and substitute these words—
  "The Chairman of Committees having Named Mr. O'Donnell for obstructing the Business of Parliament, he being absent from the House during the greater part of the Sitting during which the alleged offence was committed, and not having previously received any warning from the Chair, this House is not prepared to take notice of the language imputed to the hon. Member, and passes to the next Order of the Day."
  MR. CALLANseconded the Motion.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sure that I am in Order in asking permission to refer to the terms of the hon. Member's Amendment before it is put from the Chair, but the question I wish to put upon it is—[Loud cries of "Order!" amid which the right hon. Gentleman resumed his seat.]
  MR. SPEAKER: If, as I understand, the right hon. Gentleman is rising to a point of Order, he is entitled to put a question to the Chair.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do rise to a point of Order. The question that I wish to put to you, Sir, is whether this Amendment does not introduce, as part of a subject-matter for the consideration of the House on this occasion, the conduct of the Chairman of Committees, and if it does, then whether the Amendment is within the scope of the debate?
  MR. SPEAKER: This Amendment does by implication, if not directly, call in question the conduct of the Chairman of Committees, and in that sense, no doubt, it is out of Order. It is out of Order—first, because it is scarcely relevant to the Question before the House; and, beyond that, it is out of Order because it raises substantially the same questions that are proposed to be raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) and, I think, the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay). I could not, therefore, put this Amendment as it is now framed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am quite ready to leave out any portion of it that may be ruled out of Order.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that he should not proceed with the Motion relative to this matter which stood upon the Paper in his name, but desired to give Notice that on a future day he should move a Resolution to the effect—
  "That this House is of opinion that in any case of Obstruction, it is the duty of Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, to Name every Member separately at the time that it takes place, and that the conduct of the Chairman of Committees in Naming collectively a number of Members, some of whom were absent, without notice, and without specification of the offence of each Member, is not warranted by the Standing Order of February 22, 1880, is subversive of freedom of debate, and deserves the censure of this House."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, the House is, I think, placed not only in a painful, but in a somewhat em-

  1291
  barrassiug situation by what has occurred in this case. In the first place, it is placed at a great disadvantage in consequence of the ordinary course not having been pursued on this occasion. According to ordinary precedent, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), having been notified that his conduct on Saturday last would be brought under the consideration of the House, and having received from the Notice placed upon the Table the fullest information as to the nature of the charge made against him, should have made such a statement, or given such an explanation, or made such an apology as he might have thought right before the House proceeded to consider his case, which it would then have been able to do with the advantage of knowing what the hon. Member had to say upon the subject. I greatly regret that the hon. Member for Dungarvan has not thought it right to take that course on the present occasion. The matter has, however, been so far met by the Prime Minister, who, rising and speaking on behalf of the House generally, clearly and distinctly explained to the hon. Member what the charge against him was, at the same time stating what his views on the subject of that charge were. That charge having been in no way met or answered by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, the Prime Minister considered it to be his duty to submit to the House a Motion of Censure upon the hon. Member. That Motion having been made before the explanation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, we have now to consider what that statement of the hon. Member amounts to. As far as I can understand it, the hon. Member has given us some explanation of the circumstances under which he used the words attributed to him; but he has not in any way withdrawn those words or apologized for them. To a certain extent, he has endeavoured to alter the charge against him—that is to say, he states that he used the words in question in reference, not to the conduct of the Chairman of Committees, but of someone else, by whom he said the Chairman of Committees had been misled. The hon. Member, therefore, contends that he meant to offer no insult to the Chairman of Committees. Still, I must say, notwithstanding this explanation, that the language of the hon.
  1292
  Member, whatever may be the allowance that may be made for him in the circumstances in which the words were used, was not such as was consistent with the Rules of Parliamentary debate. It does seem to me that, having regard to the fact that we must maintain the authority of our presiding Officers in the very difficult and arduous duties they have to perform, the House ought to mark its determination to support its Officers in such circumstances as those now under the consideration of the House. The questions raised by the hon. Member opposite, and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), are questions which, no doubt, ought to be brought forward and considered, and are matters upon which we shall have to pronounce an opinion in proper time; but, looking at the circumstances of the case, the question now for consideration is the propriety or impropriety of certain words used by an hon. Member which have not been withdrawn, and for which an explanation has been offered which, to my mind, does not remove their objectionable character. These words stand before us, neither withdrawn nor apologized for, and it does seem to me that the House is left without an alternative in the matter.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I presume, Sir, that my Amendment will be considered in Order if I take out, as I have done, the words which you hold to be objectionable?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is bound to confine himself to the Question now before the House.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he wished to submit an Amendment to the Resolution of the Prime Minister, the object of which was to delay taking action in the matter. He did this because the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton could not be put. He did not ask the House to pronounce any opinion on the language of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). They could not fairly do it, as they had not before them the circumstances under which the words were used, and the Speaker would not allow them to refer to proceedings that had taken place in Committee, and had prompted the expressions complained of. For his own part, he never joined in any course of procedure that would

  1293
  conflict with the Rules of the House, or even strain them. He thought if a man became a Member of an Assembly he was bound to comply with the conditions of membership. It was folly for him to kick against their Regulations. If he could not comply with them, he had no right to enter. He had always, therefore, while he had been in that Chamber, refused to take part in any doings calculated to bring its proceedings into disrepute. He did not believe either that strong language was necessary to enforce strong opinions. It was possible for a man to entertain the most advanced views, and to put them before opponents in words that need offend no one. Invective need not be vulgar. He said this, not because he was passing censure upon the observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan, but to guard himself against any supposed or implied sympathy with personalities or offensiveness in discussion. But, having said it, he wished to add that language quite as strong as ever was used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan had been used in that House and passed unnoticed. There was a memorable occasion when the Prime Minister of the day had been accused of forming an "infamous coalition." Mr. Martin, a Member of some importance in his time, called Mr. Wilkes a "cowardly scoundrel," and was not reproved for it. Mr. Duncombe described the conduct of Mr. Gouldburn towards the late Lord Durham as "base and cowardly," and he was upheld in the use of these words by the House. Many other instances might be cited; and, therefore, it was incorrect to say that language quite as strong as that attributed to the hon. Member for Dungarvan had not been used on other occasions under excitement and pressure, and had gone unchallenged. [Cries of" Divide!"]
  MR. HEALYbegged to draw the attention of the Speaker to the conduct of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. James). He asked if it was in Order for the hon. Member to act as the leader of a number of other hon. Gentlemen in creating a disturbance while the hon. Member for Newcastle was speaking?
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN, continuing, said, the subject had been so hedged round with restrictions by the Speaker
  1294
  that it was impossible to discuss it adequately. The House could only fairly consider the force of the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan when they were able to debate all the circumstances that led up to it, and the action of the Chairman which called forth the offending expression. As they could not do this, any lengthened debate would not only be useless, but impossible. The object of his Amendment was practically to adjourn the consideration of the question until such time as the conduct of the Chairman of Committees could be brought under review. He had given Notice of a Motion to effect this, and he invited the House to withhold their condemnation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan until that more ample debate took place. He, therefore, begged to move as an Amendment—
  "That this House is not prepared to take notice of the language imputed to Mr. O'Donnell, and passes to the next Order of the Day."
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is not prepared to take notice of the language imputed to Mr. O'Donnell, and passes to the next Order of the Day."—(Mr. Joseph Cowen.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. PARNELL: I had intended, Sir, to have moved an Amendment of almost the same character as that which the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) has just moved. It runs in these words—
  "That this House declines to express an opinion with regard to the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell until it has been afforded an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the Notice of Motion relating to the suspension of Members standing in the name of Mr. Cowen."
  Now, Sir, I submit for the consideration of the House that we approach this question under circumstances of very great difficulty. Owing to the ruling which you, Sir, have felt it necessary to give, we are not entitled to discuss the antecedent conduct of the Chairman of Committees in reference to the question of the suspension of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. I cannot help saying that it is necessary for us to

  1295
  look at this transaction as a whole, and to consider the action of the Chairman of Committees on Saturday morning under circumstances which are well known to the House. But I cannot see how we can possibly discuss the question of the suspension of my hon. Friend unless we are allowed to discuss the whole question. The Motion made with regard to the words alleged to have been used by my hon. Friend is undoubtedly one of great importance; but so, also, is the Motion which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle. If the hon. Member for Dungarvan used the objectionable words, it is quite right that they should be brought under the notice of the House; but the hon. Gentleman has practically raised a two-fold defence. He denies that he used the words complained of in reference to the Chairman of Committees, and he justifies the use of these words, not against the Chairman of Committees, but against Her Majesty's Government, by reason of the events which followed. It is, therefore, impossible for us to discuss this matter satisfactorily or fully unless we are allowed to take the question as a whole, and to inquire into the very grave action of the Chairman of Committees on Saturday morning last. It is all very well to talk of the action taken against a section of Irish Members. You must recollect that the day may come when the Oppositions in this House—when even Her Majesty's Opposition—may be as few in number as the Irish Members are now, and when you may regret that you have lightly sanctioned proceedings against Irish Members, and created precedents which will undoubtedly be used against English Members afterwards. I can call to mind many reforms which have been obtained in the history of England and in the House by the stubborn action of minorities as small as, and even smaller than, the minority which was suspended on Saturday morning last. Without discussing the question whether the Chairman of Committees was justified or not, but merely observing that a Motion stands on the Order Book of the House impugning his action, I maintain that the suspension of 25 Members was a very much graver occurrence than the words attributed to the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The deprivation of the
  1296
  Constitutional rights of 25 constituencies by the action and at the will of an Official of the House in a manner unprecedented in the history of Parliament—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is aware that I have already ruled that the conduct of the Chairman cannot be discussed upon the Motion now before the House, and I am sorry to observe that he has not attended to my ruling.
  MR. PARNELL: I do not wish to discuss the conduct of the Chairman; but I think that before we finally discuss the Motion with regard to the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, we ought to have a discussion of the Motion of which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle has given Notice. I do not wish in the slightest degree to say whether the conduct of the Chairman of Committees was right or wrong; but I wish to impress upon the House the difficulty of discussing the question now before us until we have had an opportunity of discussing the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle. Before the House is invited to come to a conclusion on the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, we should have before us the whole question of Saturday morning's suspension, although now I do not wish to impugn the conduct of the Chairman on the present occasion. I respectfully submit, however, that I am entitled to point out that the action of last Saturday morning was of a very grave character. ["Oh!"] Yes; I say it was an occurrence the gravity of which cannot be over-estimated; and we ought to have a speedy and early opportunity of discussing the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle. I wish to ask if the Government does not think that that Motion, and several other Motions of a similar nature now standing upon the Notice Paper, should not be discussed before we are asked to give our decision on the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for the City of Cork is not confining himself to the Question before the House, but is anticipating discussions that may arise on other Motions, and he is not entitled, as he knows perfectly well, to do so.
  MR. PARNELL: What I wish to explain to the House is, that I think we

  1297
  ought to have an opportunity of discussing the Motion of the hon. Member for Newcastle before we finally dispose of the Motion before the House. I am not expressing any opinion as to whether that Motion is right or wrong; I am simply saying that it involves questions of a very grave character which we ought to have an opportunity of discussing before we proceed with the discussion of the Question immediately before the House. I do not see how it is possible to arrive at a just conclusion upon the Motion of the Prime Minister unless we can discuss that question as a whole. You, Sir, have ruled that it cannot be discussed as a whole. I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he does or does not think it desirable that a Motion of the character of that of the hon. Member for Newcastle should remain upon the Paper sine die without some full, fair, and free opportunity of discussing it? That is simply my position; and it is one which will recommend itself to the judgment of many Members of the House. With reference to the original question contained in the Motion of the Prime Minister, I wish to point out that since my hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan has been directed to leave the House, the Chairman of Committees has made a statement of an important character, which my hon. Friend has not been able to hear. That statement was to the effect that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was mistaken in imputing to the Government certain reports upon which he had acted, and that he had acted entirely on his own responsibility. It is just possible that if my hon. Friend had had the opportunity of hearing that statement he might have been able to make such an announcement to the House as would have altered the view it takes of his conduct; but, not having heard the explanation of the Chairman, the Motion has been made that my hon. Friend be suspended for 14 days, thus depriving his constituents of his services for that period at a most critical period in the history of Ireland; and I shall hope that the Government will allow the matter to stand over until we have had the opportunity which we desire of discussing the general question, because without such an opportunity I feel that we could not fairly deal with the Motion before the House. Therefore, for this
  1298
  reason, I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, because it will give an opportunity of discussing the question as a whole, and enable me and my hon. Friends to take such a course as we think right. Unless the question be discussed as a whole, no decision of this House on the conduct of the hon. Member can be regarded as satisfactory.
  SIR JOHN HAY: I shall not detain the House, Sir, for more than two minutes. Many hon. Members who are now in the House were not present when the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) used the words imputed to him. I was present, Sir, 14½ hours, and saw and heard all that took place. I proceeded, soon after the 16 Members were Named to the Committee, to remonstrate with the Chairman for having included in the list of Members suspended the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), for instance, who had only said a word or two during the whole night's Sitting. While the Chairman was reading over certain names previous to the division, the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), in an unintentional manner, uttered the words, "It is an infamy." I did not consider that the words were addressed to the Chairman at all. If I had thought he had used the words with reference to the conduct of the Chairman, I should certainly vote for the Motion now before us; but having been present, and having heard what took place, and for other reasons, which I am not allowed to allude to now, I shall support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he felt that he was in a somewhat similar position to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, having been, in his opinion, suspended without having in any sense resorted to Obstruction. He quite agreed with the statement just made by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay), who said the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan were not applied to the Chair at all. The face of the hon. Member was turned entirely away from the Chairman, and the remark that escaped him was made more in communing with himself than to anyone near him. He would, therefore, support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle, because that

  1299
  should be first discussed before they should be asked to give their decision with reference to the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The sentence proposed was a severe one, and in order to avert it he should support the Amendment.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he trusted that the House would listen to a few words from some of the Members on the Home Rule Benches with reference to the Motion that had been made as to the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. That House was not fit to judge of the conduct of any man if it lost its patience. As a rule, the House was anxiously indulgent to any of its Members whose conduct had been impugned by the Government, and which, if proved, involved penal action. He hoped the House would not lose its character in that regard. They had just heard the Report of the Chairman of Committees. The entry on the Minutes made by the Clerk was to the effect—
  "Mr. Playfair reported to the Speaker that Mr. O'Donnell, sitting in his place, insulted the Chair by saying that the action taken by him was an infamy."
  His hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan had been asked to offer an explanation of his conduct to the Chair. His hon. Friend had explained. He had repudiated the words imputed to him, and no confirmation had been brought forward of those words having been used. He had heard the actual words of the hon. Member, and he could say they were not the words ascribed to him. A Predecessor of the Speaker in the year 1870—Sir Frederick Norton—in that year used certain expressions derogatory of the character of an hon. Member, and Mr. Cornwall desired the words to be taken down. There was a general conversation at the time, and as there was a dispute about the words, Lord North said the words should be erased. The expressions complained of were—
  "When I expected candid treatment from that Gentleman I was mistaken, but I do not now expect candour from that Gentleman."
  What did the Speaker do on that occasion? The Speaker rose and said, as the words had been reported to be erroneously entered he allowed an alteration. There had been a dispute about the words used in this case. It was denied that the hon. Member for
  1300
  Dungarvan had used the words in the sense stated, and therefore the record should be corrected. The hon. Member did not say that the action taken by the Chair was an infamy. What he said was that the report made was an infamy. They had now heard for the first time that the names of the Members to be suspended had been handed by the Chairman to the Secretary of State for War, and that was the same paper which the Chairman had originally in his hand. The Home Rule Members had seen the paper passed to the Secretary for War, and they saw it brought into the House and given to the Chairman of Committees before it was used. Under the circumstances, the hon. Member for Dungarvan said he had been unjustly suspended. He was precluded from doing justice to the merits of the case by the Rules of the House; but he thought they were perfectly entitled to say, under the circumstances, that they should not pursue the discussion any further, inasmuch as the hon. Member for Dungarvan had not had a fair opportunity of vindicating his conduct. He would only add that whatever vote the House might give he, for one, would not consider that it put any slur on the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
  MR. HEALYasked whether he should be in Order in moving to amend the Amendment by omitting all the words after the word "O'Donnell," and inserting—
  "Until there has been an opportunity afforded to the House to express its opinion on the Notice of Motion relating to the suspension of Members, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newcastle?"
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would not be in Order in moving an Amendment to an Amendment. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle became the Main Question, then it would become open for him to do so.
  MR. HEALYwished to know whether, in the event of the Prime Minister's Motion being carried, the suspension would come within the terms of the Standing Order of February, 1880, which provided that if a Member was suspended a third time, he should be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of the Session? He presumed he would have an answer to that question from some Member of the Government. With regard to whe-

  1301
  ther the hon. Member for Dungarvan was justified or not in applying the term "infamy" to the action of the Chairman, he thought if the hon. Member for Dungarvan expressed that opinion he had good grounds for it. He presumed from the course taken by the Prime Minister that he thought the crime of saying that the Chairman of Committees was guilty of an infamy was adequately met by suspension for 14 days. He thought, however, it might be argued that if his hon. Friend was not justified in using the word "infamy," the punishment proposed by the Prime Minister might be deemed inadequate. Was it in accordance with the dignity of the House that there should be a graduated scale of rewards and punishments for actions done inside the House? One hon. Member got 14 days for saying that the action of the Chairman was infamous, while another obtained a Baronetcy for supporting Her Majesty's Government. He protested against this system. If the offence of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan was a grave one, he did not consider that 14 days' suspension was an adequate punishment for it. [Sir FREDERICK MILBANK: Move six months.] That suggestion proceeded from an hon. Member who had received a Baronetcy for supporting the Government. The remark did not befit an hon. Member who had been rewarded with a Baronetcy for his sustained support of the Government. If the House rose to the height of this great occasion, it would expel the hon. Member for Dungarvan, an expulsion his hon. Friend would consider equally an honour to the House and to himself.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was afraid that the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), however well - intentioned it might be, might lead the House to believe that his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan admitted using the words attributed to him. The hon. Member had stated distinctly that he applied them to the conduct of the Government, and not to the Chairman of Committees. The question was whether the application of such a term to the conduct of the Government called for the censure of the House. He believed that the word infamy had been often applied to the conduct of Governments, and had not been ruled out of Order.
  MR. WILLISsaid, he would not have risen to address the House had it not been for the statement of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). He was sitting just below the hon. Member for Dungarvan when the hon. Member used the words, which he addressed distinctly to the Chairman. The words were—"It is an infamy. You have sinned (or are sinning) against all the traditions of your Office." Take the words "It is an infamy," together with the context, and it was certain that the words were addressed to the Chairman, and not to the Government.
  MR. CALLANwould not have addressed the House but for the statement of the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. The hon. and learned Member was very excited at the time, and wished to apply Cromwellian action to the Irish Members. The words of the Chairman in announcing the suspensions—["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: This question cannot now be discussed. I am surprised at the hon. Member taking the course after what I have stated.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had taken the words down at the moment—the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and they were these—
  "It is an infamy; I have been absent all night, and now I find I am foully Named as being guilty of Obstruction. You sin against all the traditions of your Office."
  Question put,
  The House divided:—Ayes 199; Noes 35: Majority 164.—(Div. List, No. 231.)
  MR. SEXTONrose to Order, and asked whether the present suspension of the hon. Member for Dungarvan would be considered as a suspension under the Standing Order of February, 1880, so that if he was suspended for a second time it would be for a week, and if for a third time for the remainder of the Session?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have no hesitation in answering the hon. Member's question. The Motion before the House is not made under the Standing Order to which he refers, and therefore it would not apply, and would not be operative under the Standing Order.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 181; Noes 33: Majority 148.—(Div. List, No. 232.)
  Resolved, That Mr. O'Donnell be suspended from the service of the House for the term of fourteen days.

MOTIONS.
  PARLIAMENT—ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I rise to move that the Orders of the Day, subsequent to the Order for Consideration of the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), be postponed till after the Notice of Motion relating to the Business of the House (Urgency).
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he rose to a point of Order. The First Order of the Day, as put down by the Government themselves, had been disposed of, and he wished to know from Mr. Speaker whether, under the Standing Order of May, 1881, the Motion of the right hon. Member could come on until after the other Orders had been gone through? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could have moved his Urgency Motion before the First Order had been disposed of, but he submitted that it was not competent for him to do so now.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Order of the Day with reference to the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was brought forward, and treated as a question of Privilege. When I called upon the Clerk at the Table, I called upon him to read "The Order of the Day with reference to the conduct of Mr. O'Donnell." I did not call on the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day generally, and I adopted that course expressly for the purpose of enabling the right hon. Gentleman in the ordinary way to make his Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Orders of the Day be postponed till after the Notice of Motion relating to the Business of the House (Urgency)."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. HEALYasked whether it was competent for any hon. Member to discuss the Motion?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it would be quite in Order to debate the Motion.
    MR. HEALYsaid, in that case he desired to point out that the Government had not vouchsafed a single argument
    1304
    or explanation in favour of the course proposed to be adopted. It was very desirable, however, that they should have the reasons of the Government for making the Motion. They had heard that the Prevention of Crime Bill was considered to be of such extreme urgency that it was desirable to proceed with it from day to day; but he did not think that the declaration of the Urgency Rules would very much expedite the measure, for the discussion that would ensue must necessarily consume a considerable time. Last year when Urgency was proposed the debate was not very prolonged, for Members from Ireland had been expelled by a very summary procedure. At the present moment the Government had only expelled one Irish Member. A considerable number remained, and by making the proposal for the re-adoption of Urgency in all probability the Crimes Bill would not be expedited. He would like just to point out, too, that the chief questions remaining for the Committee were questions raised by the Government themselves. There were six or seven pages of Amendments down on the Paper, but every one of them was placed there by the Government, and as the extraordinary Motion which was now being proposed was made in reference to matters to which not a single hour's consideration had been given, that was gagging the House in advance. Again, the only discussion that would be necessitated on Report would be a discussion arising out of the conduct of the Government. The Home Secretary, not having sufficient knowledge or information of the subject of which he was left in charge, had almost invariably referred any Amendments that were suggested to Report. What was the result of that? Why, that they did not know whether or not they would have an opportunity of discussing those concessions which had been promised, or of ascertaining if the concessions themselves would be inserted in the form they were led to believe they would be. He held strongly that the Home Secretary did not intend to give the House the exact concession he promised, and that when they came to the Report stage they would find a very different clause to that which was expected by hon. Members generally. So far as he was aware, there was no intention, either on Saturday or in the future,

    1305
    of giving any questions before the House more than a reasonable amount of discussion. But when the Government flourished their Motions like a red flag in the face of a bull, they could not but expect that opposition would be generated. Of course, they were bound to suspect the motives of the Government when they took a course of this kind.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it will be my duty to give my reasons for the course I am now pursuing when I come to propose that Urgency be adopted by the House.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 27: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 233.)

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (URGENCY).—RESOLUTION.
MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, to move the Resolution standing in my name—
"That the Resolution of the 3rd February 1881, relating to Urgency in the Business of the House, be revived."
I said just now that in making this Motion I should give the reasons on which it is founded; but I shall feel it to be consistent with my duty, and, indeed, imposed upon me by my duty, to state them with the greatest brevity. If hon. Members will have the kindness to follow the few words I am about to say, I think that they will say that our reasons do not stand in need of any explanation. The points which I ask the House fairly to consider are these:—In the first place, the great importance and the character of the Bill for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland; secondly, the fact that the Bill has been for 23 days in Committee of this House; thirdly, the extreme necessity, even were it not in relation to Ireland alone, of proceeding with the consideration of other Business, and especially with the important measure with regard to arrears in Ireland; and in the fourth place, the terrible state of the country, which must fill with horror the mind of every man who can feel himself responsible for interposing one hour's delay in the way of legislation with regard to it. I only add this statement—that I propose this Motion at the present time with respect to Urgency in view of one Bill only, because in re-
1306
spect of one Bill only have I had any proof afforded me that it is necessary. We have already delayed long before making this Motion; and now that it is made, bearing in mind the circumstances and the character of the Motion, I am content, Sir, without length and development of statement, to place my Resolution simply in your hands.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Resolution of the 3rd February 1881, relating to Urgency in the Business of the House, be revived."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
MR. CHAPLINsaid, he would have been content to suffer the Motion to pass without remark if he had clearly understood from the Prime Minister that the Resolution was to be distinctly limited to the Bill for the Prevention of Crime. He thought that they ought to have a distinct understanding from the Government that the Resolution was not to be applied to the Arrears Bill. He considered that the expressions used by the Prime Minister were a distinct menace that under certain circumstances he would admit the plea of Urgency to the Arrears Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said, "At present I only propose to ask Urgency for the Crime Prevention Bill." What was he (Mr. Chaplin) to infer from that? That when the time came for discussing the Arrears Bill, Urgency would be asked in order to pass it at once. That was exactly the ground of his opposition at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman might wish to apply Urgency not only to the case of the Crime Prevention Bill, but to that of any Bill.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, Urgency would only be asked in case of necessity connected with the Business of the House.
MR. CHAPLIN: But what the right hon. Gentleman might regard as a necessity in connection with the Business of the House might be regarded very differently by hon. Members. He certainly, for one, would not consent to a Motion for the Urgency that was demanded now until they had a distinct assurance that it was not demanded on this occasion for the purpose of being applied to a Bill such as the Arrears Bill.
MR. PARNELLsaid, he begged to move the addition of the following words at the end of the Resolution:—

1307
"Provided, That so much of the Resolution, as requires that the Question be resolved in the affirmative by a majority of not less than three to one, be dispensed with."
The Prime Minister had stated just now that if he found that the Arrears Bill required Urgency, he would make a proposal to extend the Resolution to that Bill, but that at present the Resolution of Urgency was confined to the Prevention of Crime Bill. He begged to remind the Prime Minister that it would not be in his power unless this Proviso were adopted to extend Urgency to the Arrears Bill, because his supporters were not numerous enough to secure a majority of 51 in a House of 300 Members. He proposed to leave the provision, with regard to 300 Members, intact; but he asked the Government to agree to the addition of this Proviso. If the Prime Minister's declaration in reference to the passing of the Arrears Bill were made bonâ fide, the right hon. Gentleman would show it by now securing the power to apply Urgency to that measure.
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Question, to add the words "Provided, That so much of the Resolution, as requires that the Question be resolved in the affirmative by a majority of not less than three to one, be dispensed with."—(Mr. Parnell.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. PLUNKETsaid, that it was a little inconvenient that this process, which would alter this provision, which would altogether alter the character of the Prime Minister's Resolution, should be proposed without any Minister of the Crown being present.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. PLUNKET, resuming, said, he did not suppose that the Government were going to assent to that Proviso, and he merely rose to elicit some information from them on that subject.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that nothing could have been more distinct than the Prime Minister's statement that he proposed to revive Urgency in the same form as that in which it was introduced last year. The views of the Government on the subject generally were well known. They did not propose
1308
to apply this Rule except on the particular occasion in question.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he could not reconcile the statement of the Prime Minister with regard to applying Urgency to the Arrears Bill with the attitude the Government were taking now. With regard to this statement, he would be very much obliged to the Home Secretary if he would inform him how they proposed to carry out this Motion of Urgency? In order to obtain Urgency they would require to have a majority of 3 to 1 in a House of not less than 300 Members; and if the Arrears Bill were put down for Urgency, the House would certainly contain more than 100 Members of the Conservative Party, and, accordingly, they would defeat any attempt on the part of the Government to declare Urgency with regard to the Arrears Bill. It should not be forgotten that last year a proposal to vote Urgency in connection with Supply was defeated by the Opposition. Any attempt to obtain a vote of Urgency for the Arrears Bill would be destined to fail unless a proposal such as that made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, should be agreed to. He thought that the Government were acting inconsistently with their own professions, and that they would be acting more wisely for themselves, and more in accordance with their promises, if they accepted the Resolution of his hon. Friend that it should be carried by a simple majority.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was the only Conservative Member who voted for Urgency for Supply last year; but he must decline to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork City, out of regard to the freedom of the House. In dealing with the rights of minorities they ought to act with the greatest caution.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, no doubt this proposal has been made by the Government in the sense stated by the Home Secretary, and as was stated by the Prime Minister—that is to say, it is a revival of the Rule which, after a good deal of discussion, was adopted in the last Session. It would, of course, be quite unfair to the House if any course were adopted without Notice for a change in that Rule, and I presume the Government and the majority of the House will adhere to the Rule as it was passed. I wish to point

1309
out to the House, with reference to what has been said by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), that he observed that last year, after Urgency had been voted in the case of one Bill, it was asked for again by the Government for the purpose of facilitating certain Votes in Supply, and it was refused—that is to say, it was not acceded to by a sufficient proportion of the House. I must remind him that the consequence was, not that the measures which were important, and held to be important by the Government, failed; but, on the contrary, we were able to do without what is necessarily inconvenient and altogether abnormal—a condition of Urgency,; and I feel perfectly sure that the same will be the case in this House on all occasions—namely, when a Resolution for Urgency stands on the Paper; and if an attempt is made to apply it to a measure in which it does not appear to the House to be required, they will resist an infraction on the liberty of debate. It would be a very great misfortune if it were otherwise—and certainly it is one which we ought not to incur without our attention being specially drawn to it—to hand over to the majority for the time being, which may happen to be a very small majority, the power of shutting up the whole freedom of debate in the House. When you have before you a measure which in itself appears to the great majority of the House to be urgent, we are prepared, as we were last Session, and as we should be prepared again, to sacrifice something for the freedom of debate, in order to promote that important measure. This is what is now proposed to be done, and will be done, I understand, with reference to the Prevention of Crime Bill. Of course, the other measures to which reference has been made are not included in this Resolution; but it would be possible, if the House should be convinced at any future time, and the Government were to make the demand upon us for Urgency in regard to any other measure, and if a majority of three-fourths were convinced that that course was necessary, it would be applicable. But we do not anticipate, and I do not understand that the Government anticipate, that anything of that kind is likely to be required, though, if the Government take that course, it would be for the House to say whether or not
1310
they would assent to it. I do not understand that we at all sacrifice our liberty, and I myself protest in advance against any Motion that might be made on the part of the Government to apply Urgency where it was not manifestly clear it was necessary. But, in the present circumstances, you have a case of very pressing necessity. The case has been stated shortly by the Prime Minister, and with it everybody is familiar. You have before you a Bill for the prevention of crime and outrages upon Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland; and considering how long that measure has been under discussion, and how long it is still possible, under the ordinary Rules of debate, to keep it from the decision of the House, I do not think that the Government do an unreasonable thing in asking for Urgency for the purposes of that Bill. I feel quite satisfied that the other measures will be advantaged in one respect by the passing of this Motion for Urgency. The Prevention of Crime Bill will be got out of the way sooner than it would be otherwise, and there will be more time for the discussion of other measures; but when we come to discuss those measures, we hold ourselves entirely free to exercise our discretion with regard to the circumstances to be presented to us as calling for Urgency. The Prime Minister is not in his place, or I should have been very glad to take the opportunity of asking him to give us a little more light than he has yet done with regard to the other Business of the House which he is asking us to facilitate. I think, when we are adopting the Rule of Urgency, and acting on Rules for the maintenance of discipline amongst Members, we are in a position to call on the Government, and ask whether it is their intention to proceed with those Rules, and especially one of those Rules which they have laid before us with regard to Procedure? I wish the Government to take notice that we are giving every facility for the conduct of important Business. We are quite sure they are making this demand in thorough good faith, and not intending to make a demand for anything beyond it. But, at the same time, they will observe that we most clearly hold them responsible for making provision in the remainder of the Session for the bringing forward of such measures as it may be necessary still to discuss, and allowing

1311
us to discuss them under fair and unrestricted regulations. In proposing that Urgency should be granted, we make a very considerable surrender, not only with regard to the proceedings upon the Bill in respect of which Urgency is asked, but we make a surrender in respect of the powers which we gave to the Speaker to deal with other Business, in order, while Urgency continues, to facilitate the progress of the particular measure in question. For instance, last year, in the Rules the Speaker laid down there was a provision that, so long as Urgency continued, the Motion for adjournment during Question time should be absolutely prohibited unless the House should give assent. We cannot help feeling that at the present time there are circumstances, and there may be other circumstances, which from time to time may render it very necessary for us to introduce, on short Notice, perhaps without any Notice at all, questions for discussion upon matters of the very highest importance; and I think we ought not to be placed in a position in which it would be impossible for us, under the Rules of Urgency, to bring forward questions such as may arise. And I venture respectfully to submit to you, Sir, the importance of making some provision, in any Rules you may lay down, which would prevent the absolute exclusion of matters of prime importance, of pressing and sudden gravity, which may arise during the period that Urgency is still in existence.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he would be very glad to see the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork carried, because he believed no measure was so deserving of Urgency as the Arrears Bill. At the same time, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as it might look like sharp practice if, as no Notice had been given of it, the House were thus taken by surprise.
MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he regretted that he could not agree with the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). In the opinion of the Government, both the Prevention of Crime Bill and the Arrears Bill were urgent, though not in an equal degree. The attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition meant that while the Conservatives were willing to concede Urgency for any amount of repressive legislation, they did not hold out a shadow of hope that in any
1312
remedial Bill laid on the Table by the Government they would recognize a measure which was urgently called for by the present condition of Ireland. It had been observed by his hon. Friend who last addressed the House that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had given no Notice of his Amendment. He would remind the hon. Member that the House had been engaged during the last two or three days in doing a great many serious things without any Notice. The real point of the matter was this—was it necessary that the House should declare the Arrears Bill of the Government equally urgent with the Prevention of Crime Bill? He believed, for his own part, that both these Bills were equally urgent, and he felt persuaded that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork afforded the only means of securing Urgency for the Arrears Bill, the Government would let slip an opportunity that would not occur again. He wished to know why the Government were so anxious to shut the stable-door now that the steed had been stolen? If Urgency was necessary to-night, it was necessary on Thursday last; and why did not the Government then ask for it, and avoid the suspension of 25 Members of the House? He thought he was justified in calling attention to that peculiar mode of conducting the Business of the House. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister had frequently been invited to ask for Urgency, but had steadily refused to do so; and it was not too much to say that up to a certain point the discussion had been encouraged rather than curtailed, and then, without any Notice, the Chairman, who had been watching the proceedings, thought it his duty to suspend 25 Members of the House. It would have been more statesmanlike on the part of the Government if they had shown a little foresight. They were always behind time in asking for repressive measures, and they always hurriedly put the padlock on the door when the steed was 20 miles off. He confessed that, seeing the extraordinary power which the Chairman of Committees and the Speaker were permitted to exercise, he did not see the necessity of Urgency at all. If they had taken measures at the proper time they would have averted the discredit of suspending 25 Members, for it must be a discredit

1313
to any Legislature to disfranchise 25 constituencies to obtain several important clauses of a Bill. Now, he could not be accused of assailing the forbearance of the Government. His complaint was that the Government had waited too long, and had then acted hastily and suddenly.
MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Sir, the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) speaks of the word "urgent" as if it had only one meaning. There is no doubt whatever that the Arrears Bill is a Bill, in a certain sense, as respects the permanent interests of Ireland—in fact, probably more urgent than the Prevention of Crime Bill. But as respects the mode of action in the House it is not nearly so urgent; and the urgency with regard to its effect upon Ireland being admitted, I should deny altogether any proved necessity for the claim for Urgency in respect of that Bill in this House. The hon. and learned Member for Mayo, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) know the Government is pledged to the course they now ask the House to adopt. The Government could not accept the Amendment, and it would not be fair to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House and to the House in general. Will anybody deny that Urgency is required for this particular Bill? The hon. and learned Member for Mayo has spent several minutes in chastising the Government because they did not ask for Urgency at a much earlier period, and he said he should be told the Government were forbearing. But does he, as an Irishman, blame the Government for its forbearance? Surely, it is not a creditable thing in the House of Commons that its ordinary Rules should be suspended, and that Urgency should be required for the passing of a Bill which—what can I say—more than nine-tenths of the House are favourable to. That is not a thing which is creditable; and yet the Government is to be blamed, because it hoped that Irish Members sitting in that part of the House, knowing the condition of their country, would not oppose a Bill that many of them have admitted to be necessary. ["No, no!"] I do not say they admitted that every clause was necessary; but they admitted, many of them—I do not know how many admitted in private—but they did admit in public, that some measure
1314
was necessary, with the view of repressing the terrible crimes by which Ireland has literally been disgraced. Surely, Irish Members are not to blame the Prime Minister because he hoped they might take a reasonable view of this question. They have not taken a reasonable view of it. They have, by a most ingenious system, apparently without violating any law of the House, by a small minority, made it impossible to pass this Bill through the House; and, finally, after the scenes of the last few days, it has become necessary to ask for Urgency, and I believe, except that small handful of Members, the House is ready to grant that to the Government. The Arrears Bill consists of very few clauses. If the Government supposed, as well, that that Bill would be received by Members in that quarter of the House with the pertinacious hostility with which they received the Prevention of Crime Bill, then they might find it necessary to ask for Urgency in regard to it. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: But could they carry it?"] That is a matter I make no prophecy about. If they would not be able to carry it, it may be an additional reason why they should not ask for it. But let that pass. I judge from the discussion which took place on the second reading of that Bill that there can be no kind of opposition made to it, such as Irish Members have made to the Prevention of Crime Bill. The only difference between hon. Members and ourselves, so far as I remember, was that they objected to public money being handed over to pay arrears, as a gift, and proposed instead that money should be advanced as a loan. But, as we understood, they proposed that the loan should be of such a character that it would require a microscope to discover between a loan and a gift. [Mr. GIBSON: No, no!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks as if he thought I had exaggerated the case, or rather diminished too much the difference between us. However, it is not a matter like this great Bill that we have been discussing. It is a very different question. We have the authority of a laborious Committee in another House, and the authority of Members on this Front Bench, that, in regard to this question, and some matters connected with the land in Ireland, other proceedings and other legislation may before

1315
long be necessary. I have, therefore, great confidence myself, much more than I had, in hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway with regard to the Crime Bill. I have considerable confidence with regard to hon. Gentlemen that in the Arrears Bill they will make a fair and a manly opposition to that which they disapprove of, and that they will bow, as we all ought to bow, to the expression of the will of the majority of the House, and that they will offer no factious opposition to the measure. If that be so, and if the Government are of that opinion, they are surely justified in not asking for Urgency. I venture to say that if hon. Members below, who are so anxious for the Bill now, but do not appear to have been the least anxious during the last five weeks—I venture to say that if they will give as steady a support to the Bill as they have given opposition to the Bill now before the House, I am quite sure that, whatever may be the eloquence, or the combination, or the confidence of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Arrears Bill will not be long in passing through this House, and going to another House, where I hope it may meet with the fortune which we expect for it here. I think the hon. and learned Member for Mayo may be satisfied, from the explanation I have given, that it is impossible for the Government to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It would be breaking off from pledges, and there is no kind of necessity shown to the House, nothing in the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or in the nature of the Bill, which would justify the Government in departing from the course which they have laid down.
VISCOUNT NEWPORTsaid, that, in separating himself from his Party on the question before the House, he hoped he would not be suspected of a wish to delay the progress of the Bill; but he did not think, judging from the experience of last year, that the Urgency Rules would really expedite the passage of the Bill through the House, and he thought they were dangerous in principle, as involving the principle of the clôture, to which he was strongly opposed. In his opinion, it was unnecessary to enforce such Rules until it became clearly apparent that every existing means for dealing with Obstruction had been exhausted.
MR. GORSTsaid, it was quite evident that the Government came down with that Motion to the House because they were ashamed of the scene in which they had been engaged. He was sure that an all-night Sitting must have been singularly distasteful to many Members of the Government, and especially to the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) in his capacity of Secretary to the Treasury, in which he had to arrange the Business of the House. He said that because when an all-night Sitting was proposed by the late Government, the proposal to bring Members in relays was stigmatized by the hon. Gentleman as "rowdyism." The hon. Member for Liskeard was thus obliged to have recourse to a method which he formerly styled rowdyism. Then the Postmaster General, whose general fairness and honour was recognized by all, had in the same Parliament said that the plan of bringing relays of Members was perfectly unconstitutional, and that if the Government introduced relays it would not be only three or four Members whom they would have to meet. Yet the right hon. Gentleman had been driven to sanction what he had formerly called an unconstitutional proceeding. It appeared to him that, although a Liberal Administration had been in Office nearly three years and commanded a large majority in the House of Commons, there had been more infringement of the ordinary Rules of Procedure of the House, and more recourse to methods which they had themselves stigmatized as rowdyism, than during all the previous time that he had been a Member of that House. The Government had come to the conclusion that they could not get their measures through without recourse to the Rules of Urgency, which had before been tried and abandoned. Urgency would not be required if there had been an honest attempt to carry out the Resolutions of his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon of the 28th of February, 1880. Last year appeals had been made by Members on his side of the House, both above and below the Gangway, to the Chairman of Ways and Means to apply that Order of the 28th of February. But the Chairman persistently denied that he had power to put that Resolution in force for the purpose of putting down Obstruction. Why? Because the Government wished to discredit his right hon. Friend's Resolu-

1317
tion as useless and inoperative. Yet they had an all-night Sitting, and a terrible power had been exercised, which the Chairman, and, he believed, the Speaker, believed themselves to possess. If the Chairman and the Speaker had the power of suspending 25 Members in a batch, what necessity could there be for Urgency? The right hon. Baronet's Rule was declared to be feeble, and Urgency was introduced. But now an immense weapon was placed in the hands of the authorities of the House, and he could not understand what the Rules of Urgency were wanted for. Let the measure proceed to a third reading, and if there were any wilful Obstruction, let the obstructing Members be suspended. It appeared, however, from the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that the Government had pledged themselves to the adoption of Urgency for the Prevention of Crime Bill.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No.
MR. GORSTsaid, he demurred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interruption, as he was not in the House at the time the speech was made.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to state that the Prime Minister had said so. ["No!"] I heard the Prime Minister make a statement on the subject.
MR. GORSTasked the Home Secretary to do him the honour to listen to what he was saying. He referred to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He hoped it would be distinctly understood that if Urgency were now conceded, it would be for the purpose of expediting the Prevention of Crime Bill and for that only. Then the Bill would go on smoothly.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he joined with the' right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin in congratulating the Home Secretary upon the patience which he had exhibited in the Parliamentary fight of Friday. Indeed, he might quote the line of Juvenal—"Si rixa est, ubi tu puisas, ego vapulo tantum" He thought there was necessity for the adoption of Rules of Urgency; but if adopted they ought to have a clear understanding that they should only be put in force during the remaining stages of the Prevention of Crime Bill. After the scenes of Friday and Saturday the Government
1318
were justified in their demand as far as the Crime Bill was concerned, because it was the duty of the House to give the exceptional power the Government asked for, in order to carry out the government of Ireland; but that was not the case with regard to the Arrears Bill, which hon. Members on that side of the House would strongly oppose, although that opposition would be strictly fair. [Cries of "Divide!"] He had not taken up much of their time on this question, and trusted he should be allowed to hope they would have the opportunity of expressing their strong objection to the Arrears Bill when it came on without being hampered with Rules of Urgency.
SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he rose to make an appeal to the Government, and it was that they would not pledge themselves to confine Urgency to the Bill before the House, but would, apply it to other Bills for which Urgency might be requisite. The hon. Member who had just sat down thought that they should meet the opposition to the Crime Bill with Urgency, but, at the same time, thought that any Bill to which he was opposed Urgency was not applicable. Looking at the declarations that had been made by some of the Colleagues of the hon. Gentleman sitting below the Gangway, it seemed to him that it was not improbable that opposition to the Arrears Bill might be carried to a point, he would not say of Obstruction, but to the point of persistent opposition, and that it might he most necessary that Urgency should be applied to that Bill also. He had no hesitation in applying Urgency to the Crime Bill, and as he thought it necessary that the remedial measure which the Government proposed to couple with it should be passed in a reasonable time, he hoped that the Rule of Urgency would be applied to the Arrears Bill also.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 184: Majority 143.—(Div. List, No. 234.)
Original Question again proposed.
EARL PERCYsaid, that there appeared to be great doubt in the minds of many Members of the House as to the purposes for which the Government required Urgency. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of

1319
Lancaster had given one version of the limits within which this power of Urgency was to be used, from which the Home Secretary could not refrain from expressing his dissent. It was, therefore, most important that the House should have a clear and distinct understanding upon this point. He had hitherto voted in favour of measures to put an end to that which they all deplored—Obstruction in its worst and most violent form—and he was by no means disposed now to refuse to give the Government the power they asked for under the Urgency Rules. It was, however, important that the House should not drift into a position of continual Urgency. He could not forget that last year, no sooner had the House voted Urgency for one purpose than the Prime Minister came down and asked that it might be granted for another. In these circumstances, he thought that the House ought to limit the Motion for Urgency precisely to the measure to which they meant it to apply. He begged to move to add at the end of the Resolution before the House the words, "in reference to the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill."
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words "with reference to the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill."—(Earl Percy.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not know that the noble Lord was in the House when the Prime Minister spoke, or when the Leader of the Opposition spoke. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Head of the Opposition, though he was bound to say he did not always seem to be so regarded by the noble Lord—
EARL PERCY: What right has the right hon. and learned Gentleman to make such a statement? I must ask him to explain.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is my opinion, and I am entitled to express it.
EARL PERCY: Explain, explain! [Cries of "Order!"]
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that if the noble Lord had been present he would have known the Leader of the Opposition understood the Prime Minister exactly in the same sense as that
1320
which he (Sir William Harcourt) had expressed, and that the Leader of the Opposition had declared himslf satisfied with the Prime Minister's statement. All who had spoken from that Bench had asked the House to agree to a Resolution couched in precisely the same terms as the one which had been agreed to last year. True it was that this declaration of Urgency was asked for generally; but Her Majesty's Government had stated that they, on the present occasion, intended only to apply it to this Bill, because they did not contemplate that obstruction would be offered in respect to any other Bill. In asking for this power exactly as it was granted last year, it was only intended at present to apply it to the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Bill. That was the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and by himself, and he understood that was perfectly comprehended by the Leader of the Opposition, and that the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think, Sir, there ought to be a distinct understanding on this point. When the question was originally referred to by the Prime Minister—I think last week—it was understood that the object in renewing the Motion was to enable the Prevention of Crime Bill to be proceeded with. He proposed to renew the Resolution of last year. What was that Resolution? It was one framed with considerable care, and after a good deal of discussion on Amendments moved by myself and others on this side, so that there might be proper safeguards to the application of Urgency to any particular measure. We understood the object of the Prime Minister, when he introduced Urgency this year, was to get that power which he had last year—that was, the Rule that Urgency might be declared by a separate vote, which would require, not only a vote of three-fourths majority, but also one in a House of 300 Members. We also had a clear understanding from the Government in making this proposal that it was their intention to ask that the Rule should be granted for this particular Bill only. Of course, we were aware that if we gave the Rule in the same terms as that of last year it would be competent to the Government, if occasion arose, to propose it for anything else; but then they would have to run the gauntlet, and take their chance of se-

1321
curing a three-fourths majority. The Government did commit the gross indiscretion last year to ask for this power in respect to Supply, and the House did not assent to it; and I feel sure that if they were to ask for it in regard to a measure in reference to which we thought there would be no necessity for it the same result would follow. My noble Friend (Earl Percy) wishes to limit the Resolution to the present Bill. We must bear in mind that the Government this evening loyally stood by the proposal to limit the Resolution to the form which it took last year by rejecting the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). We must remember that if that objection had been accepted we should have been placed in an extremely difficult and humiliating position. We should then have found that the great safeguard of three-fourths majority was struck off, and that we were at the mercy of the House whenever it chose, by a majority of 1, to adopt the Resolution. I think, therefore, that on this side we are bound by the fairness of what the Government has done. We called upon the Government to adhere to the Resolution of last year, and I think we should have had a right to complain if they had not done so. As regards the particular question of the Arrears Bill, I can only reserve my opinion; but I may say that I do not think the Government will be able to make out a case for the adoption of the Resolution in regard to it. But upon this particular measure we must feel that there is a real necessity for it, and that there is no other way available by which we can so expeditiously pass that Bill. I trust that the House will abide by the form of the Resolution as it was passed last year, so that its scope may be confined to the particular measure now before the House.
MR. DILLONsaid, he should oppose the vote for Urgency. It should be remembered that that day a Petition had been presented to the House by an influential body elected by the people, praying the House not to expedite the passage of the Prevention of Crime Bill through the House, as it was calculated to create serious danger, not only to Ireland, but to the Empire at large. The House should bear in mind that that Bill was of a more complicated character than the Land Bill of last year, and that
1322
the Land Bill had been met with quite as much opposition as the Crime Bill, if not with more opposition. In view of the gravity of the measure, then, before the House, he did not think it was just to take note of the number of speeches and Amendments that had been made, and to propose Urgency on that account.
MR. CHAPLINsaid, it was all very well for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to sneer at his noble Friend who proposed this Amendment for not following his Leader, but he would venture to say that that sneer was utterly undeserved. There was not a more loyal supporter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon than the noble Lord. He (Mr. Chaplin) was surprised at the expression of the Secretary of State, for, if he remembered rightly, there was no one more singularly deficient in loyalty to his own Leader than was the right hon. and learned Gentleman some few years ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in moving the Resolution. He was present at the time, and the effect produced on his mind was totally different from that stated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. So much was that the case that he felt bound to rise and ask for some explanation. He understood that the Prime Minister desired Urgency also for the Arrears Bill. If that were so, the Amendment of his noble Friend became doubly necessary; and he could not understand what objection there could be to adopting it. The effect of the Prime Minister's Motion, if it were carried, would be to enable the Government to ask for Urgency on any measure they pleased, while the effect of the Amendment was to limit that application. It was not proposed to alter the form of the Resolution, but to limit that form, so that it should apply only to the Irish Crime Bill, and not to the Arrears of Rent Bill. One supporter of the Government after another had got up and expressed delight at the prospect of getting Urgency for the Arrears Bill. From past experience, he knew how amenable to pressure the Government was; but he hoped that the Rules of Urgency would be strictly limited to the Crime Bill. If, however, the noble Lord went to a division, he

1323
should record his vote in favour of the Amendment.
MR. RATHBONEsaid, he thought it would be better if the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down would leave the leadership of the Conservative Party in the hands of the recognized Leader. He would remind hon. Members that each fresh application of the Rule would have to be made in a House of 300 Members, and supported by a three-quarter majority; and it was impossible for the Government to get a three-quarter majority without the support of the Opposition.
MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that the Home Secretary had stated that Urgency was asked for generally with a view of applying it to the present occasion. He wished to ask the Speaker if it would be necessary again to obtain a three-quarters majority in a House of 300 Members before the Rule could be applied to any other Bill?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the same Forms would have to be gone through for the purpose of obtaining Urgency for another Bill as were gone through for the first.
MR. LYULPH STANLEYhoped the noble Lord would press his Amendment to a division, in order to show how many loyal supporters there were opposite of the right hon. Baronet.
EARL PERCYsaid, that on certain occasions some degree of independence of action was perfectly compatible with loyalty to the Leader of a Party. He asked the permission of the House to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No, no!"]
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 259; Noes 31: Majority 228.—(Div. List, No. 235.)
Resolved, That the Resolution of the 3rd of February 1881, relating to Urgency in the Business of the House, be revived.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I beg to give Notice, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that he will move the second Resolution, "That the state of Public Business is urgent," to-morrow, at 2 o'clock.
MR. PARNELL: I rise to Order. I wish, Sir, to ask you, whether, as the
1324
House has by Resolution given precedence to the Notice of Motion relating to the Business of the House, and has carried the first part of the Motion reviving the Resolution of 1881 as to Urgency, the other Orders of the Day can be proceeded with before the second part of the Motion is moved, as it is part of the Motion to which the House has expressly given precedence?
MR. SPEAKER: The House has considered the Motion of the Prime Minister, and has disposed of it. It is proposed that the second Resolution should be taken to-morrow at 2 o'clock. That is, therefore, disposed of; and I have now, in ordinary course, to call upon the Clerk to read the Orders of the Day.
MR. PARNELL: I believe, Sir, you do not apprehend my point. ["Oh!"] It is entirely my fault. The Resolution agreed upon by the House is one giving precedence to the Notice of Motion "relating to the Business of the House (Urgency)." I find that the Motion which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is headed in this way:—"Business of the House (Urgency);" and, secondly, that that Notice of Motion is divided into two heads—namely, under the first head the revival of the Resolution of the 3rd February, 1881, and, under the second head, "That the state of Public Business is urgent." These are the Notices of Motion to which precedence has been given by the Motion which we have already adopted; and the point I wish to raise is whether, in the event of the right hon. Gentleman postponing the second part of the Resolution, "That the state of Public Business is urgent," the other Orders of the Day can be proceeded with at this Sitting?
MR. SPEAKER: I have no hesitation in saying that it is quite open to the House to proceed with the Orders of the Day in the usual course. Nothing has occurred to prevent that course being taken.
MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose amid loud cheers and cries of "Order!"
MR. SPEAKER: I can only hear the hon. Member on a new point.
MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: It is a new point. It is whether I would be in Order at this stage in moving the adjournment of the House?
MR. SPEAKER: Certainly not.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 157.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 30th June.]
  [TWENTY-THIRD NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Sir FARRER HERSCHELL in the Chair.

  NEW CLAUSES.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) moved, in lieu of Clause 19, to insert the following Clause:—
  (Summary procedure for offences under Act.—14 and 15 Vic. c. 93.)
  "(1.) Any offence against this Act shall be punishable on summary conviction, and may be prosecuted—

  (a.) Within the police district of Dublin Metropolis in manner provided by the Acts regulating the powers and duties of justices of the peace of such district or of the police of such district; and

  (b.) Elsewhere in manner provided by 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851,' and the Acts amending the same, subject nevertheless to the provisions of this section.

  (2.) The proceedings for enforcing the appearance of the person charged shall be the same, and the evidence for both the prosecution and defence shall be taken as depositions in the same manner as if the offence were an indictable offence; but, save as aforesaid, the procedure shall be the same as in the case of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
  (3.) A charge for an offence against this Act shall be heard and determined—

  (a.) Within the police district of Dublin Metropolis before a divisional justice of that district; and

  (b.) Elsewhere before two resident magistrates in petty sessions;

  And in this Act the expression 'court of summary jurisdiction acting under this Act' means any such divisional justice or two resident magistrates.
  (4.) The petty sessions held by two resident magistrates may be held at any place fixed by law for the holding of petty sessions, and on such days as may be from time to time determined in the prescribed manner.
  (5.) Where a person is convicted summarily of an offence against this Act and sentenced to any term of imprisonment exceeding one month such, person may appeal against such conviction
  1326
  to a court of general sessions held in pursuance of this section, but the proceedings before a divisional justice or two resident magistrates, on a charge for an offence against this Act, shall not be renewed in any other manner, whether by means of a writ of certiorari or otherwise, and such appeal shall, save as hereinafter otherwise provided,—

  (a.) Be subject, except in the police district of Dublin Metropolis, to the provisions to which an appeal under 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851,' is by section twenty-four of that Act, and any enactments amending that section, made subject; and

  (b.) Be subject in the police district of Dublin Metropolis to the said provisions, with such modifications therein as may be prescribed for the purpose of adapting the same to the circumstances of that district.

  (6.) For the purpose of hearing and determining appeals under this section general sessions of the peace shall be held at the prescribed times and places, and at such general sessions the chairman of the county shall sit as sole judge of the court, and shall hear and determine any such appeals which are brought before him, and shall have the jurisdiction and powers of a court of quarter sessions, and the decision of such chairman, whether as to the jurisdiction of the justice or magistrates or otherwise, shall be final and conclusive.
  (7.) Any depositions taken at the hearing of a case before the divisional justice or two resident magistrates may be admitted in evidence on an appeal in that case.
  (8.) The expression 'chairman of the county' in this section means a county court judge and chairman of the quarter sessions of a county, and includes a recorder."
  New Clause (Summary procedure for offences under Act 14 and 15 Vic. c. 93,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Richard Power.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought that the Government had treated the Committee, and especially the Members who sat upon those Benches, with great unfairness. They had come down there on the distinct understanding that it was intended to proceed with two Resolutions in reference to the Urgency of Public Business, one of them declaring that the state of Public Business was urgent. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government had paid so little attention to the matter that they had not a sufficient number of Members in attendance to

  1327
  carry a Motion of Urgency. Under these circumstances, he thought the Government were treating the Committee with contempt. The Irish Members had come down there under the natural impression that the two Resolutions upon the Paper would have occupied the entire Sitting. In view of that fact, they had not had time to put Amendments on the Paper in reference to the important clause now under consideration; and he thought it was not an unfair demand to make that the Committee should not be asked to proceed further with the consideration of the Bill that night.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would remind the hon. Member that if the second Motion had been put it would have been put without debate, and that certainly not more than a quarter of an hour would have been occupied in disposing of it. Therefore, all the complaint he had to make was that they would have been a quarter of an hour later than they were in occupying exactly the same position they occupied now. Consequently, the statement of the hon. Member that the Irish Members had been in any way injured by what had taken place was not borne out by the facts of the case. With regard to the clause, it had been on the Paper sufficiently long for Amendments to be put down. Some observations had been made upon the number of Amendments which had been put down in his name. Certainly, a considerable number of Amendments had been put down originally in his name, but he had since thought that it was better they should be put down in the name of the Attorney General for Ireland; and he did not see why hon. Members below the Gangway should complain of the length of those Amendments, because in almost every case they were Amendments which had been put down at the request of the Irish Members, and in order, as far as possible, to meet their views.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he wished to ask a question upon a point of Order in reference to this clause. The clause itself related to summary procedure for offences under the Act, and it also gave a right of appeal under the Petty Sessions Act. He had moved on the old clause two Amendments in reference to the right of appeal and to the appointment of a shorthand-writer, so that the
  1328
  grounds of the appeal might be clearly conveyed to the Court; but he had found when he went to the Bill Office that all the Amendments which had been put down in regard to the Bill, and which stood upon the Paper last week, had been summarily wiped out, and therefore the Amendments of which he had given Notice had disappeared. He wished to know whether it was not proper that the Amendments, of which Notice had been given, to the old 19th clause should be placed upon the Paper applicable to the new 19th clause?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he could only repeat his former remark that the new 19th clause had been on the Paper now for many days. Hon. Members, therefore, had had an opportunity of seeing what the Government proposed to substitute in lieu of the old 19th clause, and could have put down their Amendments to this clause; in point of fact, several Amendments had been placed upon the Paper in regard to the present clause. The hon. Member ought to have seen that the old clause never would be put, but that it would be struck out; and it would be extremely inconvenient to put down all the Amendments to the old 19th clause, when that clause was intended to be struck out of the Bill. Hon. Members who desired to propose Amendments could not possibly be at any disadvantage, because they had had an opportunity of putting down Amendments to the present clause.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he had no objection to raise to the proceedings that were being taken with regard to this clause; but he would suggest to the Prime Minister that, as there had been, a little difficulty in carrying the question of Urgency that night, it would be better to meet on Tuesday at 4 o'clock instead of at 2. It was quite evident that a considerable number of Members belonging to the Liberal Party were absent.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, the hon. Member was not addressing himself to the Question before the Committee.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he would raise the point to-morrow.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the Irish Members found themselves quite unable to go into this clause, for the simple reason that they had not been able to get their Amendments inserted upon the Paper.

  1329
  No doubt it was generally understood that the old clause would not be persevered with, but it was not generally expected that the new clause would have been reached as soon as it had been. So far, the Irish Members had not been able to study the nature of the clause, and they had not put any Amendments upon the Paper at all. It was therefore unfair to ask them to go on moving Amendments which were not upon the Paper, and which it would be difficult at that hour of the night for the Committee, and for the Government, to understand. He did not think there was any practical advantage in the Government going on with the Bill that evening. They evidently had not intended to do so when they came down to the House that night, and the only reason why they had reached the Prevention of Crime Bill at all was the accident of their not being able to muster a sufficient number of Members to pass their Urgency Resolution. To-morrow, at 2 o'clock, it would be possible to go on with the Bill under the new system; but he did not see the reason why the Government should wish to force the Committee to go on with the Bill at that moment. Under all the circumstances, there was practically nothing to be gained by going on; and after the late hours the House had been keeping last week, an early adjournment would be appreciated. He would therefore advise the Government to consent to reporting Progress now, and to-morrow they might be able to obtain the requisite number of Members to enable them to carry their Urgency Resolution.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would suggest to the Government that it would be convenient to close the Committee and move the new clause under the Urgency Resolutions upon the Report. In that way they would expedite Business, and he believed that all the clauses that now stood upon the Paper could be just as advantageously moved upon the Report as they could be in Committee.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that the Irish Members were placed in a disadvantageous position, because, although the new clause had been on the Paper for several days, the Government had not until quite recently made the alterations which they had promised in them. It had been made evident that the Committee would not accept the clause as it
  1330
  originally stood, and therefore it became necessary for the Government to place new clauses upon the Paper. He did not see that the Government would suffer any injury if they consented to report Progress now; on the contrary, they would obtain one of those interstices which they had expressed their desire to obtain between the various stages of the Prevention of Crime Bill, so that they might proceed with that further question they professed to be so anxious to promote, and upon which they set so much store—namely, the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, or if not, although that stood upon the Paper as the second Order of the Day, they might proceed with the third, which was the Business Resolutions. It did not appear at all likely that very much progress would be made upon the 19th clause that night, however much the Government might persist in forcing it on. There might be some more unseemly scenes produced, but he thought there would be more real progress in regard to Public Business made if the Government consented to report Progress.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, that. Clause 19, although technically a new clause, was not really a new clause at all, but the old clause with Amendments suggested by hon. Members below the Gangway themselves. It went practically over all the old ground covered by Clause 19, and its only new aspect was to be found in the Amendments which the Government had adopted for providing a machinery for appeal. Under these circumstances, he thought the Committee might consent to make progress by passing the clause.
  MR. SHEILsaid, the Attorney General for England had, in the course of the proceedings of the Committee, stated that ample opportunity would be afforded for placing Amendments to this clause upon the Paper, so that the questions raised by the clause might be fully discussed upon a future occasion. That being so, it was unfair to press the clause now, seeing that it had been really morally impossible, owing to circumstances which had recently occurred, to plane Amendments on the Paper at all. No doubt the old clause was virtually the same as the new clause, except in one or two respects, and therefore the Amendments which had been originally on the Paper in regard to the

  1331
  19th clause ought now to be put in a position in which they might he discussed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he rose to a point of Order. He thought he was right in saying that the name of the Chairman (Sir Farrer Herschell) was upon the back of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman was now presiding as Chairman of the Committee, and he wished to know whether it was in Order for a Member whose name was upon the back of a Bill to act as Chairman of the Committee engaged in the consideration of it?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he was not aware of any Rule of the House that would prevent him from presiding.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the name of the Chairman of "Ways and Means was always on the back of all Money Bills.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)wished to contradict the statement of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil), that the Government had promised ample time in the future for the discussion of this clause. The Prime Minister had promised that the clause should be postponed until the next Sitting, and that promise had been kept. The Amendment of the hon. Member was upon the Paper, and it had been there for some time, and there was no reason why they should not discuss it.
  MR. SHEILsaid, his Amendment had been on the Paper for the last two weeks; but he did not see what that had to do with other Amendments which were not upon the Paper. The hon. and learned Gentleman evidently did not understand the argument. The argument had nothing to do with his (Mr. Sheil's) Amendment at all; but it applied to the Amendments which were not on the Paper, but which would have been on the Paper if it had not been for the extraordinary action recently taken by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he would support the Motion for reporting Progress. It was quite true that at half-past 12 o'clock on Saturday morning they passed over the opportunity of discussing the old 19th clause, and since then it had been perfectly impossible for hon. Members to put down Amendments to the new clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Uni-
  1332
  versity of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had more than once urged that it was impracticable to discuss Amendments in manuscript. The only Amendment which he (Mr. Leamy) had to move was submitted to the Committee on Friday morning, and the moment he moved it the Home Secretary said it was quite evident that it was moved for the purpose of Obstruction, because it had not teen put down on the Paper, but had been moved in manuscript. How were Irish Members to know that the same objection would not be raised now?
  MR. HEALYsaid, he could not perceive any advantage the Government would obtain by insisting on the Bill being proceeded with that night. No doubt they would have passed their Rules of Urgency if they had had their men at hand; but the Home Secretary, not having his men in hand, had dealt with the House as gently as a sucking dove. The Government to-morrow would have their Rules of Urgency, and they could, at any moment, order the debate to be stopped at 12, or 2, or 3 o'clock, or any hour they chose. Then, what was the advantage of going into this new fight? As far as the Irish Members were concerned they were ready to meet the Government. If the Government wanted another all-night Sitting they were ready to let them have it. They did not regard themselves as beaten. If they had been beaten at all they had been beaten by brute force. They thought the men who had been beaten were those who had had to resort to an all-night Sitting. Like a man who played a game of chess, and because he could not win the game, beat his opponent upon the head, the Government had been engaged in hitting the Irish Members on the head. They were again quite ready for the Government. If the Government wanted another all-night Sitting the Irish Members were ready and prepared to meet them.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 269: Majority 243.—(Div. List, No. 236.)
  Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Government must perceive that Irish Members had not had an opportunity of putting down

  1333
  Amendments. With regard to Clause 19, they had placed several Amendments on the Paper, and, of course, the postponed Amendments could only hold good upon that clause. It was rather unfair on the part of the Government, after kicking Irish Members out of the House on Saturday, to expect that they should have been able to put down the Amendments which they intended to move to this clause. He thought that Irish Members had been extremely moderate in their proposals. They had done their best with this wretched Bill, and, as far as he was concerned, he did not wish to have anything more to do with it. Irish Members could not fight in irons. He had himself fought the Bill as long as he was able, and he should have continued to do so had it not been for the course which the Government had pursued. The Government were in error in supposing that he and his Friends were willing to continue the discussion to suit the convenience of the Government during the day and night. Such a proposal was something which Irish Members were not prepared to submit to. Under the circumstances, he would move, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Mealy.)
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it was desirable that the Committee should be informed how long the Government wished to continue the discussion on that occasion. What progress did they desire to make? Did they want to have another all-night Sitting? For his own part, he did not wish to proceed at all that afternoon with the second reading of this clause. The Government had moved for Urgency in this matter, but they had not yet obtained it, so they must not be surprised if Irish Members did not care very much about facilitating the progress of the Bill on that occasion. Under the circumstances, he did not think they should be asked to go on. He confessed that he had not had an opportunity of studying the clause in such a way as to enable him to go on with the discussion at that moment. They had been informed that an opportunity would be afforded to them of putting down Amendments to the clause; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman must see that no
  1334
  such opportunity had been afforded, because they had been suspended from the service of the House on Saturday, and, under those circumstances, it was quite impossible that the Amendments could be placed on the Paper. That evening was the first opportunity they had had, since the great progress which was made with the Bill on Saturday last, of considering the new clause. He hoped they should receive some explanation from Her Majesty's Government with regard to the course they intended to pursue.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to think that the Government had the design of pressing through this clause by means of numerical strength, and without any regard to the convenience of hon. Members; but the Government had no such intention. At 10 minutes past 11 the House was in a position to resume the consideration of the clause without reference to the Rules of Urgency. And what the Government desired was that two or three hours should be taken to continue the discussion. But hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that there had been a violation of the engagement given on Saturday, although he was bound to observe that the engagement then given had been strictly fulfilled both in letter and in spirit. A complaint had been made on Saturday that it was the intention of the Government to press the whole of the clauses, both new and old, through Committee at that Sitting, and it was stated in reply that it was only the old clauses that would be pressed, and that Monday would be given to the new clauses. The hon. Member said there was no time to discuss the new clauses on Monday, but there he entirely differed from him. It appeared to him that there was no need to have expended three hours in the discussion of the first question which had occupied the House that evening; and with regard to the second question, it was only owing to the rising of an hon. Member not connected with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that it had not come on much earlier than it did. But, surely, that was no reason, in the present pressing state of public affairs, for the waste of fresh time. He hoped he had made it clear to hon. Members opposite that there was no ground for the misapprehension that the Government intended to take another all-night

  1335
  Sitting, and press through the new clauses, regardless of the convenience of hon. Members. Therefore, he hoped the hon. Member for Cork City would discourage his Friends from taking the course which had been indicated.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, with reference to this new clause, no one but a man acquainted with the practice of the law in Ireland could understand it. There had been already 27 Amendments put down with reference to the clause, and if any Member of the Committee cast his eye over the wording, he would see that it was absolutely absurd to expect that a lay Member of the Committee could deal with it on so short a Notice. It therefore appeared to him desirable that the consideration of the clause should be postponed. He had no doubt that when the Committee resumed its labours the remainder of the clauses could be got through in a few hours, and that the Report stage could be concluded in one day. There was really no need, under those circumstances, for carrying on the discussion. One of the Amendments to the clause stood in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum), who had been of great assistance during the progress of the Bill in Committee, and who, he believed, had supported some of the Amendments of the Home Secretary, against the views of hon. Members on that side of the House; but the Committee would remember that he had been suspended from the service of the House during his absence, and while he was actually in bed. The clause, as he had already pointed out, was altogether of a technical character, dealing as it did with the procedure of the Law Courts in Ireland, and could only be dealt with efficiently by men acquainted with the law. Under the circumstances, he asked the learned Attorney General for Ireland to postpone the clause until to-morrow for the purpose of securing the attendance of the hon. Member for Kilkenny.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, that the whole of these Amendments could be discussed on Report, and, that being so, he put it to the Government whether it would not be better to make a golden bridge for the use of Irish Members and allow the discussion to take place at the stage he had suggested?
  MR. PARNELLasked, whether in that case the Report would be taken on
  1336
  that day week? Would the right hon. Gentleman allow that interval to elapse for the purpose of considering the Amendments to be put down on the Report of the Bill? If the right hon. Gentleman acceded to the proposal, he believed it would effect a considerable saving of time, and the Government could, in the meantime, make some progress with the Arrears Bill. They would, upon the plan indicated, probably be able to carry the Prevention of Crime Bill on Monday or Tuesday, next week. The Bill would probably leave the House on Tuesday week, and then the remainder of the week could be given to the discussion of the Arrears Bill. He did not think the Government would get the Bill through the House any sooner by hurrying Irish Members on to the Report, because the result of that would be that they would not be able to frame the Amendments, which were necessary, in their opinion, to this clause, and fresh delay might, in consequence, arise. If the Government could see their way to postponing the Report till Tuesday week, he believed that the Bill would in the end be sooner disposed of.
  MR. GRAYsaid, on Saturday the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister gave an assurance which he now said had been fulfilled. On Saturday he did not think the right hon. Gentleman at all contemplated taking the new clause on that day, and he (Mr. Gray) had asked him whether he would place those hon. Members who had been suspended from the service of the House, and had not been able to place their Amendments in the hands of the Clerk at the Table, in the same position with regard to the new clause as they then occupied in relation to the old clause? The right hon. Gentleman gave a reply of so full and ample a character, that he confessed to a difficulty in fixing in his mind the precise meaning attached to it; but he had taken it to be an assurance that those Members would be placed in the position which he had referred to. However, from what the right hon. Gentleman now said, it appeared that he had not intended to convey that impression.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that when that appeal was made to the Prime Minister he immediately rose in the expectation that there might be some misapprehension, and asked if this clause would be taken on Monday, an

  1337
  arrangement which would give Members ample time for putting down their Amendments. That point was distinctly raised by him in order that when Monday came there might be no misunderstanding; and the right hon. Gentleman replied that the new clauses would be discussed on Monday. That was clearly understood. With regard to the other point raised, as the House had now voted that the Rule for Urgency should come into operation, it would be absolutely inconsistent with the position taken up by the Government in this matter were they to listen to the story that the Bill ought to be put off for a couple of days, because the Committee would be aware that Urgency was only voted for the express purpose of going on with this Bill from day to day.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that, after he had been suspended on Saturday, he sent Notices of Amendments to this clause by a messenger to the Clerk at the Table, who refused to receive them.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he rose to make a suggestion to the Government and to English Members with reference to the present discussion. The proposal he had to make might not be a very popular one, still he thought that moment most favourable for laying it before the Committee. Some Irish Members had brought in a Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland, but they had been obliged to wait for several months without getting an opportunity of bringing it forward before half-past 12 o'clock in consequence of Notices of Opposition appearing on the Paper. The suggestion he had to make was that the Committee should suspend its labours at that hour (12. 15) in order to allow the Bill to which he had referred to be proceeded with.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he must point out to the hon. Member that the question he was raising was out of Order on this Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it would be for the convenience of the Committee that there should be an understanding as to the progress to be made with this Bill. The Government had thought fit to ask Urgency to be applied to it, and he believed that the almost unanimous feeling was that Urgency should be granted. But having regard to the precedent of last year, it must be remem-
  1338
  bered that the Committee stage was followed by the stage of Report on the succeeding day, and he thought it desirable that the House should be given to understand whether the precedent of last year would be followed in the present instance. The House felt generally that this was a measure which required the minutest attention, and that, although nothing should be done with regard to it in a precipitate manner, no delay should be allowed to intervene between the present stage and the passing of the Bill. Urgency having been applied for, it was most desirable that there should be a distinct understanding that the further stages of the Bill should be prosecuted from day to day, due regard being had, of course, to the deliberation which certainly ought to be accorded to it.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was not in his power at that moment either to affirm or to dispute the statement of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to what happened last year. It might possibly be, although it surprised him very much to learn it, that the Report of the Bill referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was taken on the day succeeding that on which the Committee closed. If that was so, it was a thing almost unexampled. The intention of the Government was to proceed with the Bill as rapidly as they could, but with due deference to the proprieties of discussion. It must not be forgotten, however, that many Amendments would probably be proposed, and that a very important clause had recently been added to the measure. The Bill, moreover, had to be reprinted. For his own part, he should be most glad to proceed with the Report on the day after Committee; but it was impossible at that moment to speak with absolute certainty as to the day on which the Report would be taken, because that must depend upon the day when the Committee could be closed. He did not think the plan suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), for postponing the Report until that day week, could be acceded to without virtually departing from the understanding established all along with the object of expediting the Bill.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he should like to be quite clear in his own mind as to the meaning of the Prime Minister. He assumed that this Bill, like all other Bills of equal magnitude and importance,

  1339
  would undergo the process of reprinting. No doubt the Bill could be redistributed to-morrow afternoon. The Land Act of last year, which was longer and more complicated than the present measure, was kept going de die in diem and reprinted as the Committee thought fit, and he had little doubt that the same arrangement could be made with regard to this Bill. Suppose the Committee were to close that evening, would the Report be taken to-morrow? He thought the Committee should not be left in a state of uncertainty, and be merely told that the matter would have to be considered when it arose. Of course, they knew that everything when it arose had to be considered; but he would point out that they were then within a measurable distance of the end of the Bill, and were therefore entitled to something like a definite and clear statement as to when the Report would be taken.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had spoke with more absolute confidence of the progress of the Bill than his (Mr. Gladstone's) experience of the House accorded with. He should wish that the Report stage should be taken after an interval of one clear day from the reprinting of the Bill, because it would be unreasonable to ask Members to go on with the Report until they had had an opportunity of putting down their Amendments. If the Bill could be reprinted and circulated on the day after the labours of the Committee came to an end, then he thought the Report could be taken the next day.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the Peace Preservation Bill was committed on the 9th of March, and ordered, as amended in Committee, to be taken into consideration on the 10th.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that the raising of this question as to the time between the conclusion of Committee and Report was irregular, and had nothing to do with the question of leaving the Chair. He objected to having a matter arranged between the Front Benches in tones that the rest of the Committee could know nothing about it. The Leaders of the Conservative Party had suggested that the Government were not free to enter into engagements upon that subject on the present occasion, because the Govern-
  1340
  ment were fettered by pledges which they had voluntarily given with regard to the time to elapse between the conclusion of Committee and Report. He recollected distinctly that some weeks ago the Prime Minister stated he would avail himself of any interval that should present itself between the different stages in the progress of the Bill, and mentioned that he looked forward to an interval between Committee and Report. Now the matter was being debated as if no such pledge had been formally given by the Government. That expectation was, at least, expressed by the Prime Minister, and the pledge ought to be borne in mind before the Committee entered into an irregular discussion upon that point. With regard to the question as to whether the Chairman should leave the Chair, the answer which the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) gave to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was conclusive, for he pointed out that it was utterly impossible for Members of the House who were suspended on Saturday to have placed Amendments on the Paper already, if they desired to alter any portion of the Bill; and he added that, being unable to enter the House himself, he sent his Amendments to the Clerk at the Table, who, however, refused to receive them. Could it be said that that hon. Gentleman, or other hon. Gentlemen similarly circumstanced, were free to enter upon the discussion of this clause as if nothing had happened? He hoped the suggestion of his hon. Friend would be accepted by the Government. It was not exactly the number of hours that had been spent to-night in discussing public matters, but the point was the deep interest which all Members of the Committee felt in the subject under discussion; and he ventured to say that the Committee was more excited by what it had gone through from 4 o'clock than if it had been sitting twice as long on any ordinary occasion. Under those circumstances, he was free to make an appeal, not at all founded on his own convenience, because he could not claim to have given that close attention to the Bill which some of his Colleagues had given, but because it would be wise and prudent to allow the Motion to be carried, in order to come back to the work at 2 o'clock the next day with something like a readiness to discuss it.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, that hon. Members were not in a position at this time of night to proceed with this matter, and he thought the Government ought to give way, especially as they would, at 2 o'clock, have any amount of pressure available to enable them to force the Bill through in a few hours.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he would like very much to know whether hon. Members opposite entertained the idea of practically closing the Committee and bringing up new clauses on Report? He gathered from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that that was intended. If that was made clear, time might be saved, and they might avoid going twice through the same thing—first in Committee, and then on Report. In that way they could get to Report as early as if they went on with these clauses in Committee; and it would be a gain to all parties, because then they would reach that point, and, at the same time, save a great deal of time. Having Urgency to-morrow, they could go on with these clauses in Committee, and get through Committee during the day; and in the interval for reprinting the Bill they might consider these points and get Report on Thursday or Friday, taking the third reading within the week. If any inconvenient labour could be avoided by taking Report and postponing all these clauses to Report, and fixing Thursday, or even to-morrow night, for Report, they could ultimately get the Bill through this week in the same way as if they went on with these clauses in Committee. If that met the view of hon. Members, there would be no difficulty, and they would have no ground for saying that they had not ample time before Report on Thursday. The House would hardly be in a position to discuss these clauses to-morrow; and, therefore, he would propose that they should be postponed until Report, and that Report should be taken on Thursday.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, that the new clauses, which the right hon. Gentleman was too ready to dispose of, were clauses of a very serious character. For instance, there was a new clause relating to special juries in special cases. The Committee would bear in mind that a very lengthened discussion took place on the abolition of trial by jury, and the substitution of a new tribunal. When they had got rid of the first part of the Bill,
  1342
  they knew what the tribunal was which the Government proposed to substitute; but now they found, by the new clause, a proposition to have special juries in criminal cases. If that proposal had been in the original Bill, it would have led to a considerable discussion. He believed the clause had been proposed with a view to meet the suggestion of hon. Members from Ireland; but now the Home Secretary proposed that all these clauses should be thrown over until Report, and disposed of, he presumed, on Thursday. But these clauses were of so much importance that it would be utterly impossible to dispose of them, with adequate discussion, in one Sitting. Then there were several other clauses; and there was an advantage in taking these clauses in Committee, rather than on Report. The Committee would have a double opportunity of considering the working of the clauses; and for this reason it was most desirable, even if those clauses had to be considered subject to the Rules of Urgency, that they should be taken in Committee and again on Report. If they were taken in Committee, Irish Members might hope for the assistance of a great number of the supporters of the Government; and if the Government found that to be the case, they might be influenced to adopt the view of Irish Members, and reject or modify the clauses. It would be a mistake to agree to the suggestion of the Home Secretary.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was disposed to consider the suggestion made by the Home Secretary, and to dispense with the discussion of this clause in Committee, taking it on Report, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would postpone Report until Friday. That would be a fair arrangement, which would meet the views of most of his hon. Colleagues.
  MR. METGEsaid, that on Saturday the Government met the Irish Members by a mechanical majority, and forced them outside the House, and he felt that he should stultify the trust reposed in him by his constituents if he accepted any compromise. The Irish Members were there to oppose coercion, and he should oppose it by every means in his power. He was not going to put off these clauses to Report. He opposed coercion now, and he would vote against it whenever he had an opportunity of doing so. He

  1343
  would put no trust in pledges controverted over and over again; and for this reason, if he had to go into the Lobby by himself, he should oppose the suggestion.
  MR. STOREYsaid, the suggestion made by the hon. Member opposite would have the effect of giving an additional day for the consideration of the Arrears Bill. Although that might not be quite agreeable to Conservative Members, he thought it would be agreeable to a large number of the supporters of the Government below the Gangway, and to a large section of opinion in the country. He did not speak for himself, for he was sure that the consideration of that Bill would not be agreeable to him; but he would say what he had to say about it hereafter, having gathered the opinions of hon. Members and of people in the country. He believed it would be a great relief to the multitudes of Liberals in the country if two or three days could be obtained to make substantial progress with the Arrears Bill, instead of being troubled with this everlasting coercion.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he could not understand, if the Government agreed to postpone Report till Friday, how they could justify asking the House for Urgency to-morrow. He had made inquiries as to the printing of the Bill, and he was informed that it was practically reprinted, with the exception of a new clause, and that it could be circulated within a few hours of the termination of the Committee stage.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEsaid, he hoped the Committee would not listen to the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Storey). The discussion during the last half hour had shown that the more the Government held out the olive branch the more was demanded of them. He believed that not only this House, but the Liberals of the country, would call upon the Government and require the Government to go on with this Bill, and try to put a stop to what was taking place not only in this House but in Ireland. He hoped the Government would go on with the measure without any delay, and not listen to hon. Members below the Gangway on either side, who held out the promise that if Report was taken on Friday they would agree to this or that proposal. He was sorry to have to say he could not believe them.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he entirely agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He hoped that Friday might be fixed for Report. He must protest against the tone imported into the discussion by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down. The original idea of the Government was that certain progress was to be made tonight, and that the Committee was to be resumed to-morrow. He and his hon. Friends were willing to accept an arrangement by which an entire day would be saved for the business. If the Committee were proceeded with further tonight, no one would contend for a moment that the Amendments could be got through. They would have to resume Committee to-morrow, and, according to the Government's contention, they could not take the Report till Friday. He would conclude by making an earnest appeal to the Government to withdraw the new clauses in reference to the change of venue. Surely the Government had power enough in their hands when they had abolished trial by jury. The withdrawal of these clauses would be a reasonable concession, and one calculated to remove a great deal of bitter and angry feeling.
  MR. SHEILsaid, the past experience of the Irish Members taught them to look with considerable suspicion on any suggestion made by the Home Secretary. That being so, they ought to pause before they accepted the proposition which the right hon. and learned Gentleman now made, and which he had made so often during the progress of the Bill in Committee—namely, to defer the further consideration of the matter until they reached the stage of Report. Before a Bill reached the stage of Report it was presumed it had been thoroughly threshed out in Committee. If these new clauses were only brought up on Report, hon. Members would only be allowed to speak once upon them. He hoped the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would pause before he adopted any such suggestion as that now made by the Home Secretary.
  MR. MAGNIACsaid, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had said words had been used on the Liberal side of the House which were not calculated to promote harmony in the Committee,

  1345
  or facilitate the progress of the Bill. He appealed to the Committee whether the conduct of Irish Members to-night was calculated to promote harmony. The Committee had been discussing since 10 minutes past 11—now very nearly two hours—whether they should proceed with the Business or not. Every day the country was asking the question why the House of Commons allowed the present state of things to continue. His hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Whitbread) a few days ago addressed a very earnest appeal to the Irish Members opposite, an appeal which ought, on account of the hon. Gentleman's experience and well-known kindliness of disposition and sense of justice, to carry great weight. [A laugh.] Hon. Members sitting on the Irish Benches opposite might laugh, but this was no laughing matter to those Members who represented English and Scotch constituencies. The reason why his hon. Friend made that appeal was that he (Mr. Whitbread), as well as himself (Mr. Magniac), had been asked by their constituents why an effort was not made to transact the Business of the country in a straightforward and business-like way. He hoped the Government would stand firm, and insist upon the proper transaction of the Business of the country. When hon. Members opposite talked about the conduct and words of the Liberal Members not being such as to promote harmony, he would like to know how harmony was going to be promoted if the Committee was to do its Business in the present contemptible manner. [Cheers from the Irish Members.] The hon. Members who cheered that remark seemed to forget that the whole weight of the responsibility rested upon themselves; they alone were responsible that the Business of the House of Commons was being conducted in a manner that any Vestry would be ashamed of. The Business of the House ought to be conducted orderly and regularly; and hon. Members ought not to be interrupted by the unseemly remarks which were only too prevalent. He, and many who sat around him, were getting tired of the present mode of proceeding, and they were determined, as far as independent Members could be determined, that it should not continue any longer. He spoke, perhaps, with greater weight, because he was an insignificant
  1346
  Member of the House. ["Hear!"] Well, it must be remembered that the majority of the House was made up of insignificant Members—Members who were content to cast in their lot with the rank and file of the House, and who did not think it necessary on every occasion to put forward their own private and small views on the great questions which came before the country; they were content to transact their Business on the great traditions which had governed the procedure of the House. He sincerely hoped the Leaders of the House would see that the time had now come when a firm stand must be made against the present attempt to undermine the practice of the House, and that they would show themselves determined that the Business of the country should be conducted in a proper, respectful, and dignified manner.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, it was all very well for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac) to say they ought to be harmonious in their proceedings. What would the hon. Gentleman think if he was turned out of the House by a tyrannical and cowardly majority?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): I must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw that expression. He has applied the term cowardly to the majority of the Members of this House, and I must call upon him to withdraw it.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, that, of course, he would immediately withdraw the word cowardly, and he would say tyrannical, and not very courageous majority. The Committee had done all they could to exasperate the Irish Members. ["Oh!"] Yes; there was a deliberate attempt on Friday night to exasperate the Irish Party; and when the hon. Gentleman talked about this country thinking this and thinking that, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that he (Mr. R. Power) and his hon. Friends had a country to think of; and he would remind the hon. Gentleman that hundreds of thousands of people were looking forward anxiously to this struggle of the Irish Members with the House of Commons. The Irish Members would betray the trust reposed in them if they did not make every effort, and use every Form of the House, to defeat the measure now under consideration.
  MR. T. T. PAGETsaid, that, as one of the rank and file of the House, he begged to endorse every word that had fallen from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Magniac). The Irish Members talked of their country; but the English Members had a country, and every day the feeling of indignation was increasing at the manner in which the Business of the House of Commons was conducted. As a unit in the House, he sincerely joined with his hon. Friend (Mr. Magniac) in the hope that the Government would now stand firmly.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he thought that if the present Motion were withdrawn, and the Chairman were to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, they might take a division which would satisfy hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and bring up the new clauses on Report.
  MR. CALLANsaid, although he had been suspended, he found, on careful investigation, that he spoke upon only a few of the clauses, and upon those which in a peculiar manner affected the financial position of his constituents. In reference to the new clauses which had been placed on the Paper, he noticed there were eight pages of them, and two of them related to special jurors and change of venue. These particular clauses opened up a very large subject, which could not be properly considered in the short time remaining to the Committee to-night. They could be much better discussed in Committee than on Report, and it would greatly facilitate the Business if they adjourned now, and took the new clauses in hand to-morrow. The Government would pass their Urgency Resolution to-morrow, and they would find that they would have everything just as they desired. Certain observations had been made as to the feeling of the country. He knew it was the intention of some hon. Members to stir up the feeling of this country as much as they could against Ireland; but the Irish Members had their constituents to study, and as long as their constituents stood by them they would stand by their constituents. Liberal Members talked about holding out the olive branch. The olive branch was held out to the Irish Members on Friday night. He hoped the Irish Party and the Irish people, whether they were in England, Ireland, or Scotland, would repay the offer of the
  1348
  olive branch by giving the Liberal Party a right good thrashing at the next Election.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: Ayes 22; Noes 184: Majority 162.—(Div. List, No. 237.)
  MR. METGEsaid, he would move that Progress be now reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Metge.)
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it would, perhaps, be well if his hon. Friend (Mr. Metge) would withdraw his Motion, and allow the Committee to proceed until they came to some contested point.
  MR. METGEsaid, he would bow with humility to the Chairman of his Party if he could do so conscientiously, The battle was not sought by the Irish Members, and, representing a constituency which he knew approved of what he was doing with regard to this measure, he must press his Motion.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Committee must deplore the waste of time that had taken place, and the absolute barrier that was being presented to the transaction of Business. Notwithstanding the great provocation that was offered to the majority of the Committe, he felt that they would do wisely in acceding to the Motion: The Bill would be taken to-morrow at 2 o'clock.
  Motion agreed to.
  COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he would now repeat the suggestion which he made earlier in the evening—namely, that the House should meet at 4 o'clock to-morrow, instead of 2 o'clock. The Government intended to take a vote with reference to Urgency, and there was a greater chance of the requisite number being present if the House assembled at the later hour.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had no doubt the suggestion was made in perfect good faith; but there had been a distinct understanding that the House would meet at 2 o'clock to-morrow, and he was really too late now to alter the arrangements.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS (MONEY) BILL.— [BILL 176.]
  (Mr. Courtney, Lord Richard Grosvenor.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 27th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 8 (Power in Board to expend moneys for sundry purposes during year ending 31st December, 1883).
  MR. MONKsaid, that, having made his protest, which was a very ineffectual one, against what he considered a clear breach of faith on the part of the Government in refusing to assent to this Bill being referred to a Select Committee, the late Secretary to the Treasury (the late Lord Frederick Cavendish), having promised it should be so referred, he had withdrawn his Amendments to this clause, and to the Bill generally.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he must deny, once more, that a breach of faith had been committed.
  MR. WARTONasked why the Bill was brought in this year earlier than usual, if the Government did not consider that a pledge was given by the late Lord Frederick Cavendish that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee?
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG moved the insertion of the following new Clauses after Clause 7:—
  (Power to Board to contribute to improvements at Hyde Park Corner.)
  "8. The Board may, from time to time, up to the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, expend for the purpose of contributing towards the expenses of the improvements for facilitating the passage of traffic at Hyde Park Corner, and of all works and other matters necessary or incidental thereto now in contemplation, and about to be commenced and completed by and under the authority of the First Commissioner of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, such moneys as they may think fit not exceeding the sum of twenty thousand pounds. All moneys expended by the Board for the purposes aforesaid shall be deemed to be expended under the authority of section one hundred and forty-four of 'The Metropolis Management Act, 1855,' and the enactments altering, amending, or affecting the same: Provided always, That the moneys to be expended and the consolidated stock to be created by the Board for the purposes mentioned in this section shall be raised
  1350
  and created by them from time to time in such amounts and at such times only as the Board shall actually require and as the Treasury shall approve for the said purposes.
  (Power to Board to expend moneys for the purposes of "The Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers) Act, 1882."
  "9. The Board may, from time to time, up to the thirty-first day of December, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three, expend, for the purposes of 'The Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers) Act, 1882,' such moneys as they may think fit, not exceeding eighty-four thousand pounds: Provided always, That the money to be raised, and the consolidated stock to be created by the Board for the purposes mentioned in this section, shall be raised and created by them from time to time, in such amounts, and at such times only as the Board shall actually require, and as the Treasury shall approve, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the said Act in a proper and efficient manner."
  New Clauses brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made and Question, "That the said new Clauses be now read the second time," put, and agreed to.
  New Clauses agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE (re-committed) BILL.
(Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Lewis Fry, Sir Hardinge Giffard, Mr. Monk)
[BILL 211.] COMMITTEE.
[Progress 27th June.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 7 (Address to drawee).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 19, to leave out "or," and insert "of."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 (Bills prohibiting transfer, &c.)
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 3, line 26, before "between," insert "as."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 53, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 54 (Duties of holder as regards drawee or acceptor).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 20, line 25, leave out "shall not be," and insert "is not."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 57, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 58 (Liability of drawer or indorser).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 21, line 37, leave out "is in the nature of a new drawer, and."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 59 to 68, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 69 (Alteration of bill).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 24, line 34, leave out "by any person whatever."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 70 to 75, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 76 (Rules as to sets).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 27, line 35, leave out "shall be," and insert "is."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 (Rules where laws conflict).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 28, line 23, leave out "shall be," and insert "is."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 (Presentment of cheque for payment).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 29, line 25, leave out "was or was not justified," and insert "acted reasonably."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 80 to 83, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 84 (Crossing a material part of the cheque).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 30, line 27, leave out "shall be," and insert "is."
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 85 to 100, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 101 (Bills and notes under twenty shillings).
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Clause struck out.
Remaming clauses agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Clause inserted after Clause 106:—
(Parole evidence allowed in certain judicial proceedings in Scotland.)
"In any judicial proceeding in Scotland, any fact relating to a bill of exchange, bank cheque, or promissory note, which, is relevant to any question of liability thereon, may be proved by parole evidence: Provided, that this enactment shall not in any way affect the existing law and practice whereby the party who is, according to the tenor of any bill of exchange, bank cheque, or promissory note, debtor to the holder in the amount thereof, may be required, as a condition of obtaining a sist of diligence, or suspension of a charge, or threatened charge, to make such consignation, or to find such caution as the court or judge before whom the cause is depending may require.
"This section shall not apply to any case where the bill of exchange, bank cheque, or promissory note has undergone the sesennial prescription."
Schedule.
On the Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, the following Amendment made:
Schedule 2, page, at end, add—
Enactment repealed as to Scotland.
Session and Chapter.
19 and 20 Vic. c. 60, in part.
Title of Act and extent of repeal.
"The Mercantile Law (Scotland) Amendment Act, 1856," in part (that is to say):—
Sessions 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 16.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PUBLIC OFFICES SITE [ANNUITIES AND EXPENSES].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, of any terminable annuities which may become payable to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, in respect of Crown Lands; as well as the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any expenses which may be incurred by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings, under the provisions of any Act of the present Session for the acquisition of property, and the provision of new buildings for the Admiralty and War Office.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

BOMBAY CIVIL FUND [REVENUES OF INDIA].
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the making provision for the transfer of the Assets and Liabilities of the Provident Branch of the Bombay Civil Fund and other funds to the Secretary of State for India in Council, and of charging the Revenues of India with the liabilities of the said funds and the payments of annuities and pensions.
Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

POST OFFICE-MAIL CONTRACT (SCRABSTER, SCAPA, AND STROMNESS).

  RESOLUTION.
  Resolved, That the Contract entered into with the North of Scotland and Orkney and Shetland Steam Navigation Company, for the conveyance of Hails between Scrabster, Scapa, and Strom-ness, be approved.—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.