Commons Sitting of 23 March 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Public Offices Site [111].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Arklow Harbour [96].
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (No. 2) *.

QUESTIONS.

  RUSSIA AND PERSIA—THE FRONTIER QUESTION- SARAKHS.
  MR. JERNINGHAMasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
  1648
  Whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any notice of the fact that Sarakhs, which Baron Jomini stated to Mr. Wyndham on the 20th July 1881 to be a "disputed point," is a Persian fort, which, in the words of Mr. Thomson, our representative at Tehran (1st Sept. 1881), belongs as much to Persia as Kelat or Kuchan, or any other town governed by Persian officials and held by Persian troops?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not thought it necessary to take any notice of the opinion expressed by Baron Jomini as to Sarakhs, otherwise than by presenting to Parliament the despatch from Mr. Thomson to which the hon. Member referred, which shows clearly that Baron Jomini was in error.

  RELIGIOUS DISSENSIONS (GIBRALTAR) —DR. CANILLA.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the steps taken by the Governor of Gibraltar to instal, under protection of the troops, the Vicar Apostolic in the Church of Santa Maria Coronada, were so taken by instructions from, Her Majesty's Government, or on the initiative of the Government; and, whether, in either case, the respective claims and rights of Her Majesty's Government, of the Vicar Apostolic, and of the Roman Catholic community, were previously submitted to a competent legal tribunal; and, if not, what steps were taken to ascertain the legality of the proceedings taken by the Governor?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the Governor was instructed to protect Dr. Canilla from molestation in going to and from the church, and in the performance of Divine offices there. The particular steps to betaken were left to his discretion; but his conduct has been entirely approved. The respective rights of the Crown, the Vicar Apostolic, and the Roman Catholic community were ascertained many years since; but it is, of course, open to anyone affected by the action of the Governor to test its legality by proceedings at law.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: When will Papers on the subject be laid on the Table?
  MR. COURTNEY: They are in an advanced state of preparation.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS—THE PERMANENT STAFF.
  COLONEL WALRONDasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that, non-commissioned officers being required for the permanent staff of regiments of Artillery Militia, it has been determined to transfer all those of twenty-one years' service who are at pre-sent employed with the Artillery Volunteers; and, whether those non-commissioned officers who are not available for the Militia Artillery are to be brought forward for discharge; and, if so, how is it proposed to fill up the vacancies which will be thus caused in the Volunteer Force?
  MR. CHILDERS: NO, Sir; I have heard nothing of any such proposal.

  INDIA—THE INDIAN COUNCIL—THE VACANCY.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is his intention at once to fill up the vacancy in the Indian Council, owing to the resignation of Sir Erskine Perry, or whether he will wait till the return of Sir Ashley Eden from India?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I think it hardly necessary that I should state to the House the reasons which have caused the delay in the appointment of the successor to Sir Erskine Perry. I hope shortly to be able to make the appointment.

  ARMY—ARMY CHAPLAINS ON BOARD TROOPSHIPS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that, while Church of England chaplains are always provided on board Her Majesty's troopships, however small the number of Protestant soldiers, Catholic chaplains are never so provided, however great the number of Catholic soldiers; and, whether he will take steps to ensure that, in providing for the spiritual wants of soldiers on board ship, all denominations shall be put on a like footing, as far as possible?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Army chaplains are in no instance embarked in any of Her Majesty's troopships for the purpose of doing duty. On the five Indian troopships and the three larger of the Imperial troopships, one Naval chaplain
  1650
  is borne on the complement of the ship, who does duty both for the crew and for the troops when embarked. He belongs to the Church of England, as do all the Naval chaplains for service afloat. It would be a matter of extreme difficulty to provide accommodation for clergymen of more than one denomination; but the existing arrangement provides for the needs of the majority of both Services. The shortness of modern voyages under steam has diminished the inconvenience, if I may use the word, of a state of things which the Admiralty would gladly remedy if they could.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—TREATMENT OF PERSONS ARRESTED UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, and why, persons detained in. Limerick, under the warrants signed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, are not allowed to receive the "Leinster Leader" newspaper?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, persons detained under the Protection Act are, by the rules of the prison, allowed to receive the Dublin daily papers, and papers from their own localities. No person from Leinster is at present detained in Limerick Prison.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CASE OF PETER DUNNE.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a report, in the "Leinster Express" newspaper of the 18th instant, of the trial, before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, and acquittal of one Peter Dunne, on a charge of manslaughter, which report concludes as follows:—
  "The jury retired, and after a very brief absence, returned to their box, and handed in a verdict of 'Not guilty.' The verdict was received with great applause in court?
  "His Lordship—In consequence of that display I will order the prisoner to be kept in custody to-night. If there is any such conduct in this court again, I will keep all the prisoners in custody until the close of the Assizes;"
  whether the report in question is correct; and, whether Mr. Justice Fitzgerald acted within his right in detaining in custody, for an offence committed by others, a man already declared to be

  1651
  innocent of the offence charged against him?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, I have seen different reports of this case in The Irish Times and Daily Express; and I am, therefore, not prepared to admit the accuracy of the report as stated in the Question. I must entirely disclaim any right on the part of an Attorney General to review, in reply to a Question, the judicial action of a Judge; but at the same time I may, perhaps, be permitted to add that there is every reason to conclude that in what actually took place the learned Judge acted quite legally.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether, as an act of law, a Judge was entitled to punish a prisoner for a demonstration in Court?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR, IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Question was based upon an incorrect assumption. The Judge did not punish an acquitted person. An acquitted person was detained until the Judge ordered his discharge. It was not certain whether another charge might be against him, or that his release would cause a breach of the peace, against all of which it was the duty of the Judge to guard.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether a Judge had any right to detain an acquitted person for either one or two days?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)repeated that he was not prepared to abide by the accuracy of the report referred to.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE CITY OF WATERFORD.
  MR. R. POWERasked the Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the charge of Lord Justice Fitzgibbon to the Waterford City Grand Jury, in which he complimented them on the peaceful state of the city, and in which he stated
  "that the bills to go before them were very few in number, and there was not one of them which required any special directions from him;"
  and why he still considers it necessary to keep so peaceful a town under the provisions of the Coercion Act?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir,
  1652
  the Executive in Ireland have reason to know that the City of Waterford cannot at present be withdrawn from the operation of the Protection Act.

  BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—MR. BOYLAN AND CAPTAIN L'ESTRANGE.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he has taken any steps in reference to the assault alleged to have been committed upon Mr. Boylan, National School Teacher, by Captain L'Estrange, R.M.; and, whether he will order an independent inquiry into all the circumstances of the case?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the Board of National Education has directed an independent inquiry into this case; and, therefore, the Chief Secretary for Ireland must defer further consideration of the subject at present.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—CONSTABLE MOLLOY.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the inquiry into charges made against Constable Molloy, of Fahy Police Station, King's County, instituted by the county inspector, has yet concluded; and if he will state the result?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the Inspector General has caused the necessary steps to be taken for this inquiry; but it has not yet been disposed of.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—JUDICIAL RENTS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether Returns of "Judicial Rents" will be continued; and, if so, at what intervals; and, whether, in Returns of Sales, a column giving the gross tenement valuation will be given?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), Sir, the hon. Member asks me whether Returns of "Judicial Rents" will be continued, and, if so, at what intervals; and whether, in Returns of Sales, a column giving the gross tenement valuation will be given? and I have in reply to inform him and the House that Re-

  1653
  turns of judicial rents will be continued. The next one, I believe, will be issued after the Easter Recess, and include the rents fixed up to the 10th of April next. With reference to the last inquiry in the hon. Member's Question, the Chief Secretary for Ireland will see whether it can be complied with.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—CASES OF MESSRS. RYAN AND EGAN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Irish Executive have reconsidered the case of Mr. Joseph Ryan, of Cappancur, Tullamore, arrested under the Coercion Act on the 2nd November 1881, and still detained in prison; whether there is anything in the condition of the Tullamore district, lately visited by him, to account for the continued incarceration of Mr. Ryan; and, whether the release, some three months since, of Mr. Henry Egan, of Tullamore, who had been arrested a few days before Mr. Ryan, is to be taken as evidence of the undisturbed condition of the Tullamore district?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the case of Mr. Ryan is before the Executive at the present time. Mr. Egan's case was considered and disposed of on its individual circumstances.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—TREATMENT OF PERSONS ARRESTED UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is true that, on or about the 15th ultimo, Mr. John M'Cormack, a prisoner under the Coercion Act in Clonmel Gaol, submitted to the Governor of that gaol a letter addressed to the Member for Sligo, and the Governor brought the letter back to Mr. M'Cormack, informing him that he could not take it upon himself to forward it, "as it contained charges against the police in Tipperary," but that he would send it on to Dublin Castle, and the authorities there would decide if it should be forwarded or not; what became of the said letter; whether it is the determination or wish of the Executive that letters addressed to Members of Parliament, and containing complaints against the police, shall not be delivered
  1654
  to the persons to whom they are addressed; and, whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland has considered the propriety, in every case in which a letter written by, or addressed to a "suspect," is detained by the prison or Dublin Castle authorities, of informing the writer of the fact?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, Mr. M'Cormack submitted to the Governor of Clonmel Prison a letter addressed to the senior Member for Sligo, and was informed that the Governor could not take on himself to forward it; but would send it on to the authorities at the Castle. Accordingly he did so; and they still have the letter, I suppose. It certainly is not the determination or wish of the Executive that any letter addressed to a Member of Parliament, or anyone else, whether containing complaints against the police or any other complaint, shall not be delivered to the person to whom it may be addressed. Each case must be, and is, considered and determined by its own circumstances. The last inquiry in the Question of the hon. Member is addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland personally; and I must request him, therefore, to put it to my right hon. Friend when he is in his place.
  MR. SEXTONasked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would inquire where the letter addressed to him now was?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the case is governed by the prison rules. I will make inquiries respecting the letter, and communicate with the hon. Member.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—TELEGRAPH OFFICE SUPERINTENDENTS.
  MR. MACFARLANE(for Mr. GRAY) asked the Postmaster General, If it is a fact that the Superintendent of the Belfast Telegraph Office is about to be appointed to the vacant superintendentship of the Dublin Telegraph Office; whether such appointment is not contrary to the regimental system of promotion hitherto observed, by which the vacancies at the respective offices were filled up by the appointment of officers attached to the staff in which the vacancy occurred; whether a similar violation of that system of promotion did not also re-

  1655
  cently occur by the promotion of a clerk from Newcastle-upon-Tyne to the post of technical officer at Dublin, thereby depriving the Dublin Telegraph Office of three promotions; whether the contemplated promotion of the Superintendent at Belfast to Dublin will deprive them of four promotions; whether it is a fact that on several occasions the Dublin telegraphists have received the thanks of the London Secretary for the creditable manner in which they have performed their duties; and, if he will state to the House why they are now punished by depriving them of their legitimate promotion?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that it is the case that the Superintendent of Telegraphs at Belfast has been appointed Superintendent of Telegraphs at Dublin, in the room of an officer transferred from Dublin to Belfast. There is nothing unusual in such an appointment, and the Dublin officers are not prejudiced by the change. The appointment of technical officer was recently created at Dublin, and a clerk from Newcastle-on-Tyne was promoted to it. I consider it of great importance in the interests of the Service that no strict line of demarcation should be laid down; but that there should be freedom of transfer, not only between office and office in the same part of the Kingdom, but between one part of the Kingdom and another. In several instances officers have been brought from Scotland and Ireland to fill appointments in England; and, in the same way, I think it desirable to have an opportunity of sending officers from England to Ireland and Scotland, when, as in the recent case of the clerk detached from Newcastle-on-Tyne, the interests of the Service appear to be promoted by it. I am pleased to be able to state that on more than one occasion within the last year or so the Dublin telegraphists have received thanks from headquarters in London for the creditable manner in which they have performed their duties.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CARLOW COUNTY.
  MR. MACFARLANE(for Mr. GRAY) asked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that of thirty-eight magistrates for Carlow county thirty-four are Protestant and four are Catholic,
  1656
  while the enormous proportion of the population is Catholic; and, whether it is a fact that all the magistrates are either landlords or land agents?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, there are 46 magistrates in the Commission of the Peace for County Carlow. Of these, 40, I understand, are of the Protestant, and six of the Catholic persuasion. Most of these magistrates are landlords, and some few are agents; but I am not able to ascertain whether there are any who are neither landlords nor agents. If this Question of the hon. Member is meant to suggest that any competent person has been excluded from the Commission either on religious or any other ground, I can only say that the names of the late and present Lieutenants of Carlow County, the late Lord Bessborough and Mr. Kavanagh, are sufficient guarantee that no such unworthy motive ever influenced them in their nominations to the Lord Chancellor for the Commission.

  STATE OF IRELAND—SEIZURE OF IRISH NEWSPAPERS.
  MR. MACFARLANE(for Mr. GRAY) asked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact, as stated in the "Irishman" of the 11th instant, that the police at Ballybunnion lately seized a placard and copy of that paper on the ground that they were illegal, and returned them the next day on the ground that they were not illegal; and what, if any, instructions have been issued to the police on the subject?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, a sub-constable at Ballybunnion took possession of a copy of The Irishman newspaper and placard on the 6th of this month at the shop of Mr. Lavery. He submitted them to his constable, who directed him to pay for the paper. He did so the following morning, and Mr. Lavery took the money. No special instructions have been issued on the subject.

  TUNIS—TREATY RIGHTS.
  MR. MACFARLANE(for Mr. GRAY) asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact, as stated in "Vanity Fair" of the 11th instant, that the French Agent at Gabes has secured for a French house the mono-

  1657
  poly of all the Esparto grass in the district; and, if so, whether this involves any infringement of English Treaty rights with Tunis?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received information to the effect that a concession of portions of the esparto districts of Tunis has been granted to a French house. As such a concession would probably be a virtual grant of a monopoly of the sale of the article, and, therefore, an infraction of the rights secured to this country by the Treaty of 1875, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris has been instructed to call the attention of the French Government to the report.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE POSTMASTERSHIP OF BOHERMEEN.
  MR. METGEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state the grounds upon which Mary Malinn was deprived of the office of postmistress to the district of Bohermeen, in the county of Meath, she having held that office for the last six years with the sanction of the Secretary to the Post Office, Ireland, no charge having ever been brought against her in her official capacity, her father having held the same office for a period of between thirty and forty years, and her brother being at present in the service of the Post Office; whether it is not the case that she had received certificates of character from her parish priest, and also from a neighbouring magistrate; and, whether any influence had been brought to bear on the Secretary of the Post Office, in order to have her removed from the said office, and, if so, the nature of such influence?
  LORD RICHARD GROSVENOR: Sir, I can add very little on this subject to what was stated a few days ago by the Postmaster General. The post office in question was reported to the Treasury as being vacant by the death of John Malinn, and in due course the vacancy was filled by an appointment which was duly approved by the Post Office authorities. As regards the latter Question, I am unable to say what influence has been brought to bear on the Secretary of the post office; but, as I before stated, the vacancy was caused by the death of John Malinn, and the post office was never held by Mary Malinn.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. KENNEDY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the time has arrived when Mr. William Kennedy may be released from prison, seeing that he has been there more than a year on a charge of being suspected of having committed an offence which the prisoner undertakes to prove could not possibly have been committed by him?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, on the 8th of this month Mr. Kennedy applied to be released, on the ground that he was about to quit this country, and His Excellency ordered his release accordingly.

  NAVY—GREENWICH HOSPITAL SCHOOL—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESasked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Whether important changes are contemplated in the administration and management of Greenwich Hospital School; and, if so, whether he would lay the Report of the Committee upon the Table of the House before these recommendations are carried into effect?
  SIR THOMAS BRASSEY: Sir, considerable difficulty having been experienced in obtaining suitable employment for boys educated at Greenwich School, a Committee of Inquiry was appointed to investigate the matter. Their suggestions as to dietary and training in seamanship have been adopted. There are other suggestions of a more organic character which have not as yet been considered. The Report shall certainly be laid on the Table before any final action is taken.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—BLASPHEMOUS PUBLICATIONS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a series of articles recently published in the "National Reformer," of which the Junior Member for Northampton and Mrs. Besant are the editors, under the heading of "The Christ of Dr. Ave-ling," and over the signature of W. J. Birch, and in particular to a passage in the "National Reformer" of March 5th

  1659
  1882; and, whether he will refer to the Public Prosecutor the question of preferring an indictment for blasphemy against the editors of the "National Reformer?" He had intended to give extracts with the Question; but the Speaker, in the exercise of, no doubt, a wise discretion, had ordered them to be struck out. That being so, he had sent to the Home Secretary complete copies of the journal referred to, in order that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might judge as to whether those pernicious publications should not in some way be suppressed.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I have answered more than once Questions of a similar character. In my opinion, a Government prosecution of this character will do more harm than good. If the hon. Member will take the trouble to read the celebrated case of the prosecution of Hone, I think he will come to the same conclusion.
  MR. HEALYasked why the paper was not seized in the same manner as the United Ireland had been?
  SIR HENRY TYLERgave Notice that he would ask a further Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman on Monday, and hand to the right hon. and learned Gentleman some further Papers of the same nature, which he (Sir Henry Tyler) thought would convince him that it was very desirable that some steps should be taken in the matter.

  NAVY—GUNPOWDER HULKS IN THE MERSEY.
  MR. CAINEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the recommendations of the Committee appointed to inquire into the safety of the Gunpowder Hulks on the Mersey, as embodied in their report dated August 1881, are to be carried into effect; and, if so, when?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it has been decided to carry out the recommendations of the Committee, and on the 24th of February a final letter was addressed to the manager of the powder hulks, who represents the owners of the magazines, pressing for a definite reply as to the date when the owners will be prepared to carry out the conditions. A letter has recently been received from the manager, promising to give attention to the matter, and stating that he is in communication with the various
  1660
  owners, who reside in various parts of the Kingdom.

  STATE OF IRELAND—EVICTIONS, &c (VISCOUNT GORMANSTON'S ESTATE) —VISCOUNT GORMANSTON'S AGENT.
  MR. METGEasked the Attorney General for Ireland, having regard to the fact that Mr. H. McDougall, agent to Lord Gormanston, did a few days ago set fire with his own hands to the houses of a number of tenants whom he charged with having taken forcible possession, but which charge he failed to substantiate, Whether such action, taken without legal decree, was a criminal action punishable by Law; whether, even if a legal decree had been obtained, it was an illegal action to take possession by means of firing the houses over the heads of the tenants; whether such action on the part of the agent, being likely to lead to a breach of the peace, would come within the provisions of the Protection of Life and Property Act; and, whether he intends to take such steps in the matter as may tend to a maintenance of Law and order in the district?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, it appears that these tenants were evicted for non-payment of rent last year, and the period for redemption expired last December. The holdings thenceforth became the property of the landlord, discharged of the tenancies, and the tenants were merely trespassers by re-entering, even though they did so peaceably and without force. They were, I understand, then dispossessed without breach of the peace and without excitement; and the agent, being in absolute possession of the houses, was entitled, if the landlord thought fit, to destroy them without committing any breach of the Criminal Law. Under these circumstances, it is not proposed to take any step in reference to the matter.

  AFFAIRS OF EGYPT—THE PAPERS.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why the Egyptian papers promised some time ago have not yet been presented, and when they will be in the hands of Members?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, there has been some unavoidable delay, owing to the necessity of communicating

  1661
  with Her Majesty's Embassies; but the Papers are ready and will be distributed forthwith.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, in view of the very large powers given under the new Education Code to Her Majesty's Inspectors, the Education Department will frame definite instructions for the Inspectors, so as to secure equal treatment, and, in particular, to protect managers and teachers from an exercise of power at variance with the avowed intention of the Code to show special consideration to schools labouring under special difficulties; and, whether provision will be made for an appeal from any decision of an Inspector which is alleged to be unjust?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I stated to the House, on laying the "Proposals" for the Revised Code on the Table, the measures the Department proposed to take to secure the fair, uniform, and impartial application of its provisions. We intend to re-organize the inspectorate, and to frame definite instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors, calculated, as we believe, to insure these results. The Department can always be appealed to by any persons conceiving themselves aggrieved. We hope, however, that the occasion for appeals will be much less frequent. The facilities for ascertaining and promptly remedying any case of harsh or unequal treatment of managers or teachers will, under the new system, be much greater than heretofore. As soon as the scheme is complete, the particulars and the instructions to which I have referred shall be laid on the Table.

  RUSSIA—PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following statement from the Moscow Correspondent of the ''Daily Telegraph," and which appeared in that paper on Wednesday March 22nd,—
  "Less than five days ago, 500 Jewish families were expelled from here. They were taken out of bed in the middle of the night, neither young, nor old, nor sick being spared, and driven Straight to the Railway station, and ordered to
  1662
  leave Moscow immediately. Even women who had recently been confined were thus torn away from their homes. There was no show of humanity or consideration of any kind; and no time was allowed for the victims of this cruel and arbitrary measure to dispose of their goods;"
  and, whether Her Majesty's Government have received any confirmation of this statement from Her Majesty's Consul at Moscow; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will instruct him to inquire into and report on the alleged outrages, and will place such report upon the Table of the House?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, we have not heard of this particular outrage. We cannot undertake to call upon Her Majesty's Consuls by despatch to report specially on each outrage mentioned in any journal; but the Consuls themselves report them without being told to do so, and it is highly probable that we shall receive a Report if the circumstances occurred as stated.

  GIBRALTAR—APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNOR.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any foundation for the report circulated in the military newspapers, that Sir Charles Ellice, the present Adjutant General, is to succeed General Napier, of Magdala, as Governor of Gibraltar, the present occupant?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; I have heard nothing on this subject. Lord Napier does not vacate the government of Gibraltar until next October, and Lord Kimberley has not spoken to me about the choice of a successor.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—"ADAMS v. DUNSEATH."
  MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the case of Adams v. Dunseath, which recently came before them on a case stated by the Land Commission under the Land Act, Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland have decided that, as regards improvements made by tenants prior to the Act of 1870, the Land Court, in fixing a fair rent, must regard the mere enjoyment of such improvements by the tenant as to some extent compensating him for them, and must accordingly to that extent assess rent on them; whether the Government did not give express as-

  1663
  surances, during the progress of the Land Act through the House of Commons, that no such construction could be placed on any of its provisions; whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who was then Attorney General, did not come to a conclusion on this point directly contrary to that of the majority of the Court of Appeal; whether, having regard to the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Government intend to take action to give legislative effect to their express declarations made on the passing of the Act as regards improvements; whether he is aware that, as regards tenants' improvements other than those made prior to 1870, several of the Judges of the Court of Appeal, in the case referred to, expressed opinions, though the point did not arise expressly for decision, that a mere change in the nature of the tenancy under which the improvements were made, as from a leasehold tenancy to a tenancy from year to year, or vice versa, might, if no change in the rent took place, amount to a compensation wholly or partially for such improvements, so as to oblige the Land Court to assess rent thereon; whether this view of the Law, if correct, would not also defeat the expressed intentions of the Government in passing the Land Act; and, whether, having regard to the enormous importance to Irish tenants of the issues involved, the Government will take steps to declare the Law on the subject by an amending Act, as was done in an analogous case after the passing of the Land Act of 1870, when one of the Judges of Appeal gave expression to a view of the Law which, if correct, would have jeopardised the interests of numerous Ulster tenants under their custom?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, as this is a Question which relates to a legal matter, I hope I may have the indulgence of the House and of the hon. Member if the answer to it be not so perfect as it would be if it had proceeded from my right hon. and learned Friend. With regard to the first part of the Question, which refers to what might be called the intention of the framers of the Act—I will not say the intention of the Act, for that is a judicial matter—it is perfectly clear, as correctly stated by the hon. Member, that it was not the intention of the framers of the Act, but directly contrary to their intention, that
  1664
  the interest of the tenant in his improvements, as understood and defined by the Act, should either lapse or be impaired by the enjoyment of them. With regard to the question mentioned in the second paragraph, I can only say that the Government could give no assurance as to the construction of the Act. If they did, they would have gone beyond their duty. With regard to the third paragraph, my answer to it is simply Yes. With regard to the fourth paragraph, of course it has been my duty to communicate with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on this subject, and what I gather to be the case is this. Although he has differed in opinion from his Colleagues, and although it has been laid down that there are cases in which the enjoyment of the tenants should be taken into account, yet the opinion of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, as a Member of the Government, and our opinion is that our wisest course would be to observe carefully what construction may be put upon that judgment, and what practical effect it may have, before arriving at any conclusion as to the course which eventually it may be our duty to take. With regard to the fifth and sixth paragraphs, I am not aware of any such expression of opinion as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers; but I do not hesitate to say that such an opinion would be quite at variance with the intention with which we submitted the Bill to Parliament. With respect to the seventh paragraph, which asks whether we are prepared in this instance to do as we did in 1871, and in a given case upon proof of necessity to propose an Amendment to the Land Act of last Session, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that our position is not the same now as it was in 1871; that the facilities for transacting Business are different from what they were then; and perhaps the hon. Member will not think it personal if I say that any resolution we might take would be materially influenced by the prospects we have of receiving assistance from Members of the House generally in forwarding Public Business, and not by the project of receiving any assistance from the hon. Member and his Friends.
  MR. HEALY: I beg to give Notice that on an early day I will call attention to the case of Adams v. Dunseath, and move a Resolution.
  LORD ELCHO: With reference to the answer given by the Prime Minister, I gather that it was the intention of the framers of the Act that the tenants' interest in their improvements should not lapse or be impaired by the enjoyment of them. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that was not directly contrary to the principle of the Act of 1870, and whether he is prepared to extend the principle to the tenants of houses under the Crown in London?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member who put the Question, and who knew the Act so well, understands perfectly well that when I spoke of the tenant's interest, I spoke of his interest as defined by the Act. With respect to the Question of my noble Friend, I do not hesitate to say that the Act of 1881 distinctly differed in this respect from the Act of 1870. The Act of 1870 gave direct recognition to the principle that enjoyment by the tenant affected his interest in the improvements he might have made; but the Act of 1881 abrogated that.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—SECTION 21 (LEASES).
  MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the language of Mr. Justice O'Hagan, reported in the "Freeman's Journal "of the 10th instant, when, in hearing an application to avoid a lease, under the twenty-first section of the Land Act, he remarked that "the section was a most difficult one to work;'' whether it is the fact that over ninety per cent. of the applications made by tenants under the section have failed on technical grounds, with the effect of mulcting the applicants heavily in law costs; whether Judge O'Hagan has frequently similarly referred to the restricted scope of the twenty-first section; whether it is the case that the evidence given before the Land Commission on all applications under this section has been officially reported by shorthand writers; and, if so, whether there will be any objection to its publication as a Parliamentary Return; and, whether, having regard to the failure of the section in question, the Government propose to remedy its defects by legislation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with respect to this Question, which refers to the
  1666
  Lease Clauses of the Land Act, the state of the case, as I am informed, is this. Judge O'Hagan did not speak of the difficulty of interpreting the clause; but he spoke of its restricted scope as compared with the great number of applications made under it. With respect to the allegation that a large number of cases have failed upon technical grounds, that is not the opinion that has been given to me by Judge O'Hagan. What I understand to be the case is this. Unquestionably a very large number of cases have failed; but they have failed from the erroneous interpretation given by the applicant to the meaning of this section. Their failure has not been due to any technical consideration, but to the actual scope of the section as understood and administered by the Commissioners. In consideration of that fact, the Commissioners have been careful to be very moderate in the administration of that part of the law which relates to costs. With regard to the fourth paragraph of this Question, I am informed that the Commissioners think it would be quite needless to lay the whole mass of evidence taken before Parliament, but that it would not be difficult to select special cases and bring out the material points of them. If it is proposed and seriously desired, such special cases might, under the circumstances, be printed for the information of Parliament. With regard to the amendment of the law, I think I may say that there would be considerable reason for some amendment of the law in this particular. A tenant who is in actual enjoyment of a lease when he accepts a new lease, or a tenant whose lease just expires ought, I think, on principle, to be placed on the same footing as a tenant from year to year. With respect to giving effect to that opinion, I must again respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman of the difficulty of transacting Public Business at present, and of the fact that our resolution would be materially influenced by the decision we would obtain from the House.
  MR. HEALY: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether an amendment on the very point on which he now says legislation is necessary was pressed on the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, then Attorney General, during the last Session, and was, unfortunately, refused by the Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a point which may be verified by a reference to the records.

  INLAND REVENUE—LAND TAX REDEMPTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will consider the advisability of offering greater inducements and facilities for redeeming the Land Tax, especially by causing the amount to be paid for redeeming a charge of Land Tax to be calculated according to a certain number of years purchase without any reference to the price of consols?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, there is a Bill now in preparation for consolidating and simplifying the law relating to the Land Tax, and, in all probability, some provision may be inserted in the Bill for the purpose of substituting a given number of years' purchase for the price varying with the price of the Funds; but the number of years must not at present be stated.

  INLAND REVENUE—THE INCOME TAX.
  MR. PULESTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, if the Budget statement is not made before Easter, the right of banks and other corporations to deduct the Income Tax on dividends will be interfered with; and, whether any instructions will be issued to the officers of the Customs as to levying imposts on the expiry, on the 5th of April, of the Law now in force?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, the Board of Inland Revenue intend to advise the agents intrusted with the payment of dividends to retain from dividends payable immediately after the expiry of the current year the Income Tax at 5d. in the pound, the rate for the current year. This course will be recommended as much for the convenience of the recipient as in the interests of the Revenue. In the event of this course not being acquiesced in, it will be necessary to introduce a provision into the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1882, similar (mutatis muatandis) to the provision in Section 51 (2)introduced into the Inland Revenue Act, 1880, imposing the whole Income Tax for the year l882–3 on the quarter's or half-year's dividend paid after the passing of the Act in cases where the
  1668
  first quarter's or half-year's dividend may have been paid free of Income Tax. Parliament will also be asked to indemnify, as in 1880 (51, Section 3, 43 & 44 Vict., c. 20), the agents, who may-deduct the tax in anticipation of the Act.

  BOARD OF TRADE-TESTS FOR SIGHT AND COLOUR-BLINDNESS IN SEAMEN AND RAILWAY OFFICIALS.
  MR. GIBSONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been directed to a Paper read on March 9th at the Opthalmological Society of the United Kingdom, by Dr. C. E. Fitzgerald, on a case of remarkable deficiency of acuteness of vision in a seaman, published in the British Medical Journal of March 18th; and, whether he would state the tests which are applied by the Board of Trade officials to discover the visual acuteness and colour sight in seamen and Railway officials?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, my attention has been directed to the paper; but I am sorry to say that, in consequence of its being reported in technical and scientific language, I have not been able to ascertain exactly in what the defective vision referred to consisted. In regard to the second Question, I may say that all persons applying for certificates as masters or mates have to undergo examination for colour blindness, and ordinary seamen may undergo such an examination if they choose. The tests are made by means of coloured cards, coloured glass, and, in some cases, coloured wool; but no provision is made for testing visual acuteness. As regards the examination of railway officials, the Board of Trade have no power.

  INDIA—THE NEW INLAND EMIGRATION ACT-LABOURERS IN THE TEA DISTRICTS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, notwithstanding improved communications and great increase of free labour, he proposes to sanction the new Inland Emigration Act of the Government of India, by which, in supersession of the previous Acts of the Bengal Legislature, the term for labourers in the Tea districts, under the special Law, is extended from three to five years?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, the Act in question had

  1669
  been received from the Government of India, together with the Report of the Select Committee upon the subject, and very full Reports of the Legislative Council. These had been, and were still, under consideration, so that he was unable to give a positive answer at the present time.

  MESSAGES FROM THE CROWN—RULE 298.
  MR. LEWIS: I rise to a point of Order, Sir. It arises upon the Votes which were published upon Tuesday, the 21st March. It is necessary that I should remind the House in one or two words of what occurred on that occasion. It will be in the recollection of the House that during the time when Her Majesty's gracious Address was being read, I called attention to the fact that a right hon. Gentleman, sitting on the Treasury Bench, had sat with his head uncovered; and you, Sir, in answer to a Question put to you, said that it was not only the practice of this House for every Member to be uncovered whilst the Message was being read, but for an entry to be made in the Votes of the House stating the fact. I may say that I alluded to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), and not to the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), to whom I am happy to do this act of justice by stating the fact. Notwithstanding that I drew attention to the circumstance, I find this entry in the Votes—
  "48. Duke of Albany.—Message from Her Majesty, brought up and read by Mr. Speaker, all the Members being uncovered."
  I should have taken no notice of the fact if the statement had not been intensified by the word "all." As a matter of fact, three other Members were covered—the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Collings), the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), the hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay), and also, I believe, the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds). [Murmurs.]
  MR. DODDS: I rise to Order, Sir. There is no foundation whatever for the statement. I was not in the House at the time.
  MR. LEWIS: Sir, I venture to suggest that if there is any necessity whatever that the entry should be made seriously, and as a matter of course,
  1670
  and of propriety, upon the Votes of the House, it ought, at least, to correspond with the fact; and although it did not correspond with the fact, if——
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Member is justified in bringing forward this question of hats without Notice?
  MR. LEWIS: I am myself speaking to a point of Order.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is calling attention to an entry in the Votes, and in so doing I apprehend that the hon. Member is quite in Order.
  MR. LEWIS: I venture to put a Question to you, Sir, in these terms, and I do so most respectfully—Whether you can cause the necessary amendment to be made in the Votes and Journals of the House relating to the reading of the Royal Message on Tuesday, the 21st March, so as to make such entry correspond more nearly with the exact facts; if so, whether it would be in Order for me to make a Motion to that effect; and, if not, whether any course could be taken so as to make such entry correspond with the facts? I am all the more glad to take this course, because it will give the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster another opportunity of making a statement to the House if he should think fit to do so.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Upon a question of Order, Sir, I wish to ask whether it is not an ancient and well-known custom that religious feelings and convictions are respected in this House, and that the convictions of the respected Society of Friends ought not, under cover of a Motion of this sort, to be offended and assailed?
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), I have to gay that the entry is made in the Votes in the usual course, and under the assumption that if any hon. Member did not uncover, it was an inadvertence on his part. I am net prepared to indicate to the hon. Member any course that he can take.

  NAVY—LAUNCH OF H.M.S. "EDINBURGH."
  SIR EDWARD REEDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he could inform the House whether the newly-

  1671
  launched iron-clad Edinburgh had sustained serious injury from grounding in Milford Haven, and whether there was sufficient dock accommodation for her if she required it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, by some oversight the report in the newspapers was not seen in the Comptroller's Office of the Admiralty. I took it for granted that I should find a telegram there before coming down to the House. On receipt of my hon. Friend's telegram I went to the office and ordered a telegraphic message to be sent to Pembroke. I am in momentary expectation of an answer. The dry dock at Pembroke has been enlarged to receive the Edinburgh, and is quite ready to receive her in case of an accident happening. Prom the Admiralty not receiving a spontaneous message, I should doubt very much whether the reported accident has occurred.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE PROPOSED CALL OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Prime Minister, Whether he would permit the adjournment of the Procedure Debate at midnight in order to give him an opportunity to bring on his Motion for a Call of the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am not master of the proceedings of the House, or of the particular moment at which an adjournment can be moved. At the time mentioned some hon. Member may be in possession of the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  MARRIAGE OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE LEOPOLD, DUKE OF ALBANY.
  MESSAGE FROM HER MAJESTY [21st March]—considered, in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Message from Her Majesty read.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise, Sir, to submit to the Committee, in the usual form, two Resolutions, the 1st of which provides that, in the opinion of the Committee, there ought to be supplied to Prince Leopold, for the maintenance of his marriage state, the sum of £10,000 a-year, in addition to the annuity now enjoyed by His Royal Highness under
  1672
  the Act of the 38th year of her present Majesty, towards providing for the establishment of His Royal Highness. That is a provision for his life upon his marriage. The 2nd Resolution provides for the case of the widowhood of the illustrious person who is now the bride. [Cries of "No, no! the betrothed."] It is customary, I believe, to call a person a bride when the marriage is approaching. The 2nd Resolution enables Her Majesty to secure to Her Serene Highness, in case she shall survive His Royal Highness Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, an annual sum not exceeding £6,000 during her life. In submitting these Resolutions to the Committee, I do not require to detain the Committee at any length, because the Committee is perfectly familiar with the topics that are applicable to the subject, from the recollection of other and similar occasions. Happily, we have only to vary in this instance by change of name the tones of congratulation with which we have heretofore approached Her Majesty, in regard to the character of the marriage itself. Her Majesty has been happy, almost beyond any other Sovereign known to history, in the nature of the matrimonial unions which have been successively formed by the Royal Princes. From time to time they have been spoken of by anticipation in sanguine terms on the part of responsible persons addressing this House, when proposing that provision be made for their due support, and these favourable and sanguine anticipations have on all occasions been completely sustained by actual experience. I believe, Sir, that on no occasion has there been better or more solid ground to anticipate happy results from a coming marriage than on the occasion which we have now to consider. The Duke of Albany, although young, has had sufficient opportunity of showing that he is possessed of an excellent understanding, and that he has likewise an excellent disposition to apply that understanding to the best use. With respect to Her Serene Highness, the Princess Helen of Waldeck-Pyrmont, she, of course, is less known to the public of this country. But, nevertheless, terms of equal confidence may be used in regard to the probable future of Her Serene Highness; for it is not to be questioned that Her Serene Highness is admirably endowed

  1673
  with natural gifts, and that those natural gifts have, under the care of her parents, and especially under that of an excellent and affectionate mother, been sedulously improved by the most careful training. Therefore, Sir, on this point, whatever may have been said on former occasions may now be justly repeated or taken for granted in regard to the happy prospects of the union which is about to be formed. Sir, with respect to the question of the income which is proposed as an endowment of this marriage, the Committee is aware that Prince Leopold, like the Duke of Connaught and like the Duke of Edinburgh, in each case before marriage, had already been provided with an income of £15,000 a- year, so that the Grant which is now proposed will raise his total income to £25,000. Now, Sir, this figure is not the result of any accidental circumstance or of any slight consideration. It was settled many years ago, in the earlier part of the second Cabinet of Lord Palmerston. It was made the subject of very careful inquiry by the Cabinet upon what basis provision ought to be made for the due support of the dignity of the Crown and the Royal Family in the case of the younger children of the Sovereign, first of all, on their coming of age, and, secondly, on their marriage. The amount which I propose has been, I do not hesitate to say, looked upon by all Cabinets generally which have had the opportunity of considering the case as a moderate amount. I am aware that it is a large sum to vote by way of annual allowance, but it is not a sum unduly large; on the contrary, I am of opinion it is a sum judiciously moderate, when we consider the position of the person for whom it is intended, and when we consider the nature of this country and the standard of wealth and enjoyment which prevails. There are a number of Gentlemen in this House of Parliament, and a very far larger number in the other House of Parliament, whose income exceeds, and in many cases greatly exceeds, the sum we now ask to be provided for a person of Royal dignity; while, upon the other hand, those larger incomes are in many cases free from a considerable portion of the calls and expectations which, as it were, predetermine a Royal income in certain modes of expenditure, and very seriously limit the choice of the possessor of it in its disposal from year to year. In fact, the number of times on which
  1674
  successive Governments have had this matter under consideration, and the very general and almost unanimous, though not quite unanimous concurrence, which has been exhibited when those occasions have arrived, give to the proposal such a weight of authority that it cannot now require to be expounded and supported in detail, easy as it would be, if it were necessary to give such support, by an appeal to the incidents of our previous history. I think, Sir, it will be felt that it is not too much to say that the proceeding which the House is now invited to take is a proceeding founded, not, indeed, upon a direct compact, but on an honourable understanding, and on a deliberate and well-considered policy. It is, I think, something like an honourable understanding when an arrangement of this kind has been fixed by a Cabinet before any of the occasions to which it was to be applied had arrived, and when, being so proposed by the Cabinet, it has not only once, but many times, in the persons and in the cases of other Members of the Royal Family, met with the assent of the House. I think anyone opposed to this Vote would be almost startled if he could entertain as a possibility the contingency or success of his own opposition, when he reflects that it is possible that such opposition could be adopted by the House, and that the effect would be that the House would then refuse to Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, under the very same circumstances, precisely the same provision which other Parliaments—not one, but more than one—have accorded with freedom, and almost with unanimity, in the case of the Duke of Albany's illustrious brothers, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Duke of Connaught. Well, Sir, this proposal, which is recommended by the wisdom with which these matrimonial unions are considered and the engagements for them contracted, which is recommended, I think, by the just moderation of the sum which we propose to Parliament to vote, and by the understanding which must be considered to arise after Votes of this kind have been many times repeated in cases analogous in every respect, is likewise, let me remind the House, founded on a deliberate policy. That policy rests upon this principle—that it is a wise course, and a course accordant with the principles of popular representative government, that

  1675
  instead of endowing the Crown upon the accession of the Sovereign with all the sums which may eventually be found necessary in case that Sovereign should be blessed with a numerous progeny—instead of making that large endowment which might prove to be superfluous—that proper course is first to endow the Sovereign, if unmarried, in reference to the expenses of an unmarried Sovereign, and then from time to time to enlarge that endowment, as circumstances may require such enlargement. Now, Sir, I can well understand that objection might be taken on one ground to this course of proceeding. It might be said that it was hardly using the Sovereign fairly to establish a state of things in which that Sovereign would be obliged to appear from time to time by Message before the Houses of Parliament, and again and again to reiterate requests for fresh grants of public money with a view to the maintenance of the Royal Estate by the different persons of her Family. But this I must say—that in the interests of Parliament—and it is an important reservation thus made—it has the double effect that, in the first place, a moral control is preserved on the part of Parliament over the conduct and proceedings of the rising branches of the Royal Family; and, in the second place, a valuable and salutary control is also preserved on the part of a wise and affectionate parent—the reigning Sovereign—over Her children, whose training and whose gradual advancement in life She has watched over and superintended. I may, perhaps, be justified in mentioning to the House one single circumstance which I think exactly illustrates the proposition I have now laid down. At the time that William IV. came to the Throne it happened that he became Sovereign at a period when, from a variety of causes, a strong principle of public parsimony prevailed. But the Civil List of King William IV. was fixed at a sum of £435,000 a-year. In 1837—seven years later—when her present gracious Majesty came to the Throne, Her Civil List was fixed, not at £435,000, but at £385,000. There was thus a diminution of £50,000 a-year; but it is perfectly plain that this was not because different views prevailed in 1837 from those which prevailed in 1830. It is quite plain that it was because King William IV. came to the
  1676
  Throne as a Sovereign having a Queen Consort, while Queen Victoria came to the Throne of this country as a youthful maiden, not having to maintain the double cost of State, which is incurred when a married pair are upon the Throne, or when the Queen, sitting on the Throne, has a Prince Consort; and, in consequence, when the Prince Consort happily became the husband of Queen Victoria, a new and separate application was made to Parliament for a special Grant, with a view to his support and maintenance, so that it is quite undeniable that Parliament has adopted as a principle this method of procedure. Nor do I think anyone will be disposed to deny that it is a principle well adapted to the spirit of representative government, and the maintenance of Parliamentary control. I hope, Sir, it will not be said that provision for these purposes ought to be made by the Sovereign Herself, from Her economies, in restraining the expenditure of her annual income, because it must be borne in mind that the income of the Sovereign is predetermined in separate branches and departments in such a way as only to leave the most moderate means for anything approaching accumulation—that accumulation, such as would even moderately provide for the Royal Princes and Princesses, on their arrival at man's estate, or on entering the condition of matrimony, is absolutely beyond the power of any Sovereign to attain; and that any attempt made by a Sovereign to attain such an end would only result in general dissatisfaction, and perhaps in popular complaint. If that be so—if the Sovereign has arrived at Sovereignty, with an understanding thus established and thus founded upon a personal policy—then I think I am justified in putting it to the Committee that the power which they possess ought to be honestly as well as loyally used, and that that which is about to be given ought to be given graciously and cheerfully. Nay, more; the Queen herself opens the door to our criticism, and remarks by the form under which, under the advice of Her successive Ministers, She has consented to take this provision. She conforms to the policy which Parliament has laid down, and which Cabinets have likewise concurred in, and She has been faithful to that policy. I hope, therefore, that we, on our part, will endeavour to act in a

  1677
  corresponding spirit; and, if we feel it to be true that there is nothing unreasonable in a control like this, in the endowment we are asked to make, that endowment will be made in the spirit which Her Majesty feels has always, in similar cases, distinguished the House of Commons, and we shall carry this gift, which is offered by the people through their Representatives, to the foot of the Throne, as a willing gift—a gift unrestrained and suitable to the circumstances of the case—a gift, further, which is certain to have the full and cordial approbation of the people of this Kingdom.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am aware, Sir, that it is technically unnecessary that such a Motion as this should be seconded; and I may go further, and say that it is not only technically unnecessary, but it must be absolutely and in every sense unnecessary that I should rise to express, on behalf of the great body of Gentlemen on this side of the House, our approval of the proposal that is now made. I only rise, therefore, in order that there may be no deficiency in the expression of loyalty and affection and attachment to Her Majesty with which we have heard the proposal that has been made, and has been so amply and so ably expounded by the Prime Minister. It was my lot, between three and four years ago, to make a similar proposal with regard to another Member of the Royal Family. I had occasion, from my connection with the Government at that time by the Office I then held, to look carefully into the question; and the conclusion at which we arrived was precisely that which, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, had been arrived at by previous Cabinets, and on the grounds which he has laid before the House. The whole history of the Civil List of Her Majesty, from the time of Her accession to the time of Her marriage, and the time of the Votes which have been made to each of Her children in succession, completely bear out and illustrate the statements which the Prime Minister has made; and I am sure I am expressing the feeling of the great majority of this House in desiring the Vote we are now asked to pass may be given gracefully, harmoniously, and with—I venture even now to express a hope—unanimity.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the annual sum of ten thousand pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, towards providing for the establishment of His Royal Highness Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, and of Her Serene Highness Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont, the said annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty may think proper, and to commence from the date of the Marriage of His Royal Highness with Her Serene Highness Princess Helen, and to be in addition to the annuity now enjoyed by His Royal Highness under the Act of the thirty-eighth year of Her present Majesty."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that, as these Votes had always been opposed, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition must consider that it was only a pious opinion he expressed when he hoped that the present proposal would be received with unanimity. He did not rise with any idea of disputing the propriety of the laudatory terms in which the Prime Minister had spoken of Prince Leopold. He had no doubt that such praises were exceedingly well deserved. But they were not there that evening to join simply in an epithalamium. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but they were not there for such a purpose, but rather for the very prosaic object of joining in a Vote to give to the Duke of Albany a very large augmentation to the sum already voted by the country as a dotation to Prince Leopold. He was not surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition support the Motion of the Prime Minister, because there was always a private understanding between the two Front Benches on the occasion of these Grants to Members of the Royal Family before they were brought before the House. Opposition, in all cases, had come from private Members, who had, on such occasions, to constitute themselves the guardians of the public purse. Had this not been essentially a private Member's question he thought there was no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), and the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett), and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan), would one and all have opposed the Grant. It

  1679
  was possible that official etiquette might prevent them from taking an active part in the debate; but he had far too high an opinion of those Gentlemen to suppose they would have advocated, when in Opposition, what they were not prepared to stand by when in Office. He, therefore, entertained no doubt whatever that they would vote with him in opposition to the Grant. He had not risen for a moment to deny that the Crown ought to be maintained with sufficient dignity. That was a necessary consequence of the Monarchical system. Nor was he prepared to deny that the children of the Sovereign ought to receive some monetary provision from the State for their support. He opposed this special Grant upon three grounds, two of which were Constitutional and one economical. The first of his Constitutional grounds was this—and Mr. Fox took the same line when advocating a Grant or provision to the Duke of York in 1892. [Laughter.] He apologized for this lapsus linguœ. He meant 1792, and he hoped that by 1892 Grants of this nature would have ceased altogether. In 1792 Mr. Fox said—
  "The first question should be—'Is the Civil List adequate to the purpose of fully maintaining and supporting the children of the Crown?"
  He (Mr. Labouchere) thought that it was necessary to meet this question before any provision was made for any Member of the Royal Family; and in order to do that it would be necessary that he should go into some details of the Civil List. He would, however, do so as shortly as he could, for he had no desire to detain the Committee. A species of legend had arisen in respect of the Civil List which was entirely out of accordance with the fact. Originally the Monarch received certain hereditary revenues, and these hereditary revenues were expended for the whole civil government of the country. When any money was required for a war, or for any other exceptional purpose, then the Government came to the House of Commons and asked for a subsidy; but all the expenses of the Government were met by these hereditary revenues. The Revolution of 1688 entirely swept away the doctrine of these hereditary revenues, which practically meant that the House of Commons and the people of England had no control or supervision over the ordinary expenditure of the Crown. In 1689 the first
  1680
  Civil List Act was brought in for William III. The Act said that—
  "In a just cause, and in acknowledgment of what great things His Majesty has done for this Kingdom, a sum not exceeding £700,000 be granted to His Majesty for His life in support of His Civil List."
  The hereditary revenues consisted of the Revenues from the Crown Lands, and of various permanent taxes. The House would observe that in the Act there was nothing at all in the nature of a bargain and no surrender of any sort of hereditary revenues of the Crown, the sum being granted by the House of Commons of that day simply to maintain the Crown in fitting state and dignity. The Statute of Anne recited practically the Statute of William III.—he was speaking now of the Civil List Acts—so, also, did the Acts of George I. and George II.; but in George III.'s time first arose the extraordinary doctrine of a bargain between the Crown and the House of Commons. In that Act certain servile doctrines and expressions were inserted, probably by Lord Bute; and these were the first trace of any supposed relinquishment of the hereditary Revenues by the Sovereign. During the reigns of the Georges the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster formed part of those revenues; and it was only in the time of William IV. that a claim was made by the Crown to regard the Duchy of Lancaster as its special property. Sir Herbert Taylor, writing in the name of William IV. to Earl Grey, claimed the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster as part of his separate personal and private estate vested in His Majesty by descent from Henry VII. in his body natural and not in his body as King. He need not say William IV. was not heir by Statute to Henry VII; but he would call attention to this fact with regard to the Duchy of Lancaster, because, from the circumstance of this distinction being made, the then Sovereign claimed it alone as his personal property; and he did not pretend to assort that the hereditary revenues of the Crown, inclusive of the rent of the Crown Lands, not derived from the Duchy of Lancaster, were the private property of the Sovereign, or that the amount granted as the Civil List depended on the amount of the hereditary revenues. Some hon. Members seemed to suppose that these hereditary revenues meant merely the revenues derived from

  1681
  the Crown Lands. But that supposition was incorrect. They consisted of a great many other items—hereditary, Excise, Post Office dues, wine dues, first fruits of the clergy, and so forth. It was estimated on the accession of King William IV. to the Throne that the hereditary revenues would amount to more than £3,000,000 sterling; hut, of course, the charge upon them was the maintenance of the whole Civil Government of the country. It had often been stated that the country made a good bargain in respect of the Crown Lands. What they were valued at when Her Majesty came to the Throne he did not exactly know; but according to a Return lately published he found that in 1853 they amounted to £252,000. Therefore, it might fairly be assumed that the revenue from Crown Lands, at the time they were taken over and became part of the general Revenue of the country, did not amount to the sum of £385,000, which was voted to Her Majesty. He was aware that last year the Crown Land revenue was estimated to amount to £390,000; but then it must be remembered that there were special Votes for maintenance of Woods and Forests, amounting to about £20,000; so that, even at the present time, the Crown Lands did not amount to the annual value of the £385,000 voted to Her Majesty. At the same time, he would point out that if there were any relinquishment on the part of Her Majesty—and he denied that there was—it was but a relinquishment of the right to levy the whole of the hereditary revenues, which would, at her accession, have amounted to about £4,000,000 sterling, without the consent of Parliament. The Committee well knew, with all respect to Her Majesty, that it would be impossible to assert such a right in the present day. To all intents and purposes, the Civil List of Her Majesty was considered without any regard to the value of the hereditary revenues, or to the value of the Crown Lands. On the accession of Her Majesty the House of Commons appointed a Committee of 21 Members, who took the expenditure of King William IV. during the last four years of his Reign, and based thereon the amount of the Civil List that was required to maintain the Household of Her Majesty and the dignity of the Crown. The Prime Minister said there was an implied bargain. [Mr. GLAD-
  1682
  STONE dissented.] He had taken down the words of the right hon. Gentleman at the time; he said—"There was an honourable understanding when the Civil List was settled."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may have said that. But what I believe I said, also, was—tha.t there was an honourable understanding between the Crown and Parliament with regard to the provision for the children of the Royal Family in consequence of the various Acts of former Parliaments.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was coming to that. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the view of the Government on this subject was, that there was an honourable understanding, when the amount of the Civil List was settled, that provision should be made by the country for any children of the Royal Family. But he was unable to find in the debates or speeches of the time, or in the Act of Parliament, any such honourable understanding. He had commenced by repeating the dictum of Mr. Fox—that it was necessary to show that the Civil List was inadequate to the maintenance of the children of the Crown before any new Grant were made. Well, what did the Civil List represent? Taking the expenditure on the Royal Palaces and the revenue of the Duchy of Lancaster into account, the Civil List at the commencement of the present reign amounted to the sum of £449,000. Of that sum £60,000 was voted for the Privy Purse. At the same time, £29,000—the amount which the Duchy of Lancaster then produced—was also assigned for the personal expenditure of Her Majesty. If any hon. Gentleman would look into the matter, he would find that, before these sums were allocated to the Privy Purse, every species of expenditure was reckoned and a sum settled for it. Even the private charities of the Queen were taken into account, and the sum of £8,000, to which they were expected to amount, was voted to Her Majesty. He did not wish in any sort of way to pry into private matters, and he was not making any complaint; but it was obvious that the state and dignity of the Crown was not maintained at present in the same manner as it was maintained at the commencement of the Reign. If, then, the amounts allocated to maintain the state and dignity of the Crown were not insufficient at the commencement of

  1683
  the Reign, there must, at the present time, be a certain surplus. The House knew perfectly well that by the Act it was decided that if there was a deficit in any department and a surplus in another, that surplus should be taken to make up the deficit in the other department. But if there was a surplus in one Department and no deficit in the others, it was fully understood that the amount of such surplus should be paid into the Treasury. Now, he believed that no payments whatever had been made into the Treasury for any surpluses. But, assuming that there had been no surplus, still the sum of £60,000 per annum, in addition to the £29,000 for the revenue of the Duchy of Lancaster, had been granted to Her Majesty for Her Privy Purse; and he maintained that these Grants were made in order that Her Majesty might provide for any future children out of the sums in question. But there was another point in connection with this subject to which he invited the attention of the Committee. It was that, although the Duchy of Lancaster at the time referred to only produced an annual revenue of £29,000, he saw by the Return for the year 1880 that it was now producing £78,000.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is the gross amount.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The net sum paid to the Queen is £41,000.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, at any rate, there was a considerable increase in the amount realized from the Duchy of Lancaster. So that, at the present moment, whilst the expenses of the Court were not so much as they were at the time of the allocation, the revenue of the Court had increased. He found, moreover, that the total dotations already made to the Members of the Royal Family amounted now to £221,000. Now, the question which the Prime Minister had not specifically met was, whether the total amount of the Civil List was expended by Her Majesty? Did Her Majesty rest the present demand upon the ground that the present Civil List was not sufficient for Her expenditure, inasmuch as it left no surplus which might be given to any children of Her Majesty who either married or attained the age of 21? That was the issue which Mr. Fox raised in 1798, and that was the issue which he (Mr. Labouchere) ventured to raise now. If it were asserted
  1684
  by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that there was no excess of revenue over expenditure, then he thought they would always be bound, and certainly so long as the Royal Marriage Act existed, to vote sums of money for the children of the Sovereign; but, as Mr. Fox said, they required, before they did so, a distinct statement that the revenues were not in excess of the actual expenditure of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman, as he (Mr. Labouchere) understood, said that a bargain had been struck or implied with the Crown, that Parliament should always vote the sum of £25,000 a-year to any of the Royal children who might marry, and this because one Parliament had voted this sum on a similar occasion previously. That was a theory which he could not accept. The right hon. Gentleman said that the matter was discussed exhaustively by the Cabinet of Lord Palmerston. But he ventured to remark that they had progressed since that time, and that they were not bound by the views of Lord Palmerston's Cabinet, nor were they bound by the views of the Parliament of that time with regard to the amount required to maintain the dignity of Royal Princes. If they were so bound, this Motion would be a farce. If that were the case, why was not a Grant made at the commencement of the present Reign to give £15,000 a-year to each of the Royal children when they came of ago, and £10,000 a-year more on their marriage? Surely the reason why that was not done was in order that each Parliament might have an opportunity to decide for itself on each particular case as it presented itself. They might, therefore, consider and decide for themselves whether the sum asked for was too large, without being prejudiced by anything that took place in previous Parliaments, and without being prejudiced by any dotation which had been granted to the elder brothers of His Royal Highness the Duke of Albany. The second Constitutional point he should take was this. It was held during the Reign of George III., when many of the offspring of that Monarch came to Parliament for increased dotations on their marriage, that, in order to obtain such increased dotations, it was necessary to show that the marriage had had a national object. In 1815, during the life of the Princess

  1685
  Charlotte, a Grant was asked for the Duke of Cumberland, and it was refused. Sir Matthew Ridley—no moan authority—said—
  "On making a provision for the Duke of York, a view was had to the probability of the succession of his marriage. But a material change had since occurred (birth of the Princess Charlotte). With respect, however, to the marriage of the Duke of Cumberland, it was not one which ought to be looked at in a national point of view, or which rendered it necessary on this ground for Parliament to step in to vote a Grant for increasing the income of the parties."
  That was to say that when the Duke of York asked for an increased dotation it was granted because there was no direct Heir to the Throne. But when application was made for an increase on behalf of the Duke of Cumberland on his marriage it was refused because a direct Heir to the Throne had been born. In 1817 the Princess Charlotte died. The Prince Regent then sent to the House of Commons a Message, saying that—
  "Treaties of marriage are in negotiation for the Dukes of Clarence and Cambridge. After the afflicting calamity which the Prince and the nation have sustained by the loss of the Princess Charlotte, His Royal Highness is fully persuaded that the House of Commons will feel how essential it is to the best interests of the country that he should be enabled to make a suitable provision for such of his Royal brothers as should have contracted marriages with the consent of the Crown."
  Ministers asked the House to grant £10,000 for the Duke of Clarence and £6,000 for the Duke of Cambridge. The House replied by cutting down the £10,000 for the Duke of Clarence, and by refusing the grant for the Duke of Cambridge. The next year the Duke of Kent was married, and £6,000 was asked for on his behalf. This application was agreed to, although it was opposed by 51 Members, including Lord Althorp and Mr. Tierney. During the debates which occurred on that occasion, Lord Brougham said that—
  "While the House should not hesitate to vote some allowance to those members of the Royal Family whom it was desirable to see married, they were bound by their duty to their constituents to refuse grants to those to whom they were not necessary. It was understood that Her Majesty had very considerable property, and it was natural for those who had saved to help the other members of the family."
  Lord Plunket said that—
  "The application rested upon the abstract principle—independent of time or circumstances
  1686
  —that on the marriage of any individual connected with the Crown his income should of necessity be increased. Where precedents were to be found for such a system he knew not, and he was sure that nothing in reason or in justice could be discerned to sanction it."
  Mr. Canning, in his defence of the Grant, denied this, and said that the Duke of Clarence would not have thought of contracting this marriage had it not been pressed upon him as a public duty. He thought, therefore, that he was entitled to the support of the Prime Minister, because he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would contend for a single moment that there was any national object in the marriage now under the notice of the House. They were all exceedingly glad that his Royal Highness should marry; but there was no national object in his doing so. A national object in the case of the marriage of one of the Royal Family would be to insure that there should be sufficient sons and grandsons of the Sovereign to maintain the direct descent of the Crown. But they knew that the elder brothers of His Royal Highness were married and had children—some more than others. It could not, therefore, be asserted for a moment that there was any national object in the marriage of Prince Leopold. If there was not this national object in the marriage of His Royal Highness, then he contended that they would only be acting according to the precedent which had been set in the Reign of George III. if they refused to give any increase of income to His Royal Highness upon his marriage. Having gone through his Constitutional reasons for opposing the Grant, he now came to his third reason, which was an economical one. With the utmost respect, he considered that £15,000 per annum was quite sufficient for His Royal Highness. He was aware there were Gentlemen in that House who thought it small and paltry to get up and protest against the Vote of an additional £10,000 per annum. He, however, was not one of them. He abominated all taxation, and he should like to see the present taxation of the country reduced in every possible way. The question was often asked—"What do the working men of the country care about this; what will they pay towards the Grant? Perhaps half a farthing apiece." But the working men of the country did care a great deal for this Grant; and he had that day presented Petitions, signed

  1687
  by 13,000 or 14,000 persons—almost all of them workingmen—protesting against it. They knew that warrants were very often issued in connection with the Queen's Taxes; that the beds of persons were often sold under them, and their furniture seized, because they could not pay those taxes. This Grant, then, might make a great difference to the working men, for he ventured to say that the amount levied under the warrants referred to would be covered by the £10,000 they were now asked to vote. He maintained that it was not only unnecessary, but that it was undesirable, that this Grant should be voted. They lived in an age that was, to a certain extent, ostentatious; and, although it was the custom to laugh at Americans for their worship of the almighty dollar, he suspected there was no country in the world in which the golden calf came in for a greater share of adoration than it did in England. The followers of the golden calf in this country held themselves aloof from men of art and letters, and from those who had obtained a competency by means of trade or commerce. His Royal Highness Prince Leopold was a cultivated and refined gentleman; and he was about to marry a lady who came from a country where the mere possession of money was regarded as of little account. Therefore, he thought it would be but a poor lesson to teach that lady that it was absolutely necessary for a gentleman of refinement and culture in England, even though he were a Prince, to possess more than £15,000 a-year with which to maintain his position. The Prime Minister told them that they ought to be loyal, and vote this money without grudging it. But he (Mr. Labouchere) thought there could not be a greater mistake than to assume that the loyalty of the subject was to be measured by his readiness to grant at all times these excessive demands for the maintenance of the Royal Family. For the three reasons he had given—although there were plenty of others, with which he should not weary hon. Members—he asked the House to meet the Resolution of the Prime Minister with a respectful but unhesitating "No."
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, that, had he consulted his own personal feelings in this matter, he might well have been led to take no part in the discussion of
  1688
  that evening; but he felt bound to state that he intended to give his vote in opposition to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, from a deep sense of public duty to those whom he represented. The feeling throughout the country was that the Vote proposed was altogether unnecessary for the comfortable maintenance of His Royal Highness; and, if that were so, he contended that it was absolutely unwise to make this further call upon the nation's taxpayers. It was impossible to prevent the great mass of the working people of the country, who laboured from childhood to old age for a bare subsistence, comparing their incomes and conditions of life with those of the Members of the Royal Family, when proposals of this kind were brought under the notice of the nation. He found that the present income of His Royal Highness Prince Leopold was something like £280 per week. That was a considerable income in itself, and far more than many highly respectable men in the country received wherewith to maintain a family and discharge the duties of citizenship for a whole year. These Grants might appear matters of small moment to the class of gentlemen to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister referred when he compared their enormous incomes with those which the nation chose to bestow upon the Princes of the Royal Family; but they were by no means trifling to the class whom he represented. He maintained that £15,000 a-year was quite sufficient to maintain the position of a Prince in this country. Luxury and luxurious surroundings would not add to the princely nature of His Royal Highness Prince Leopold, neither would moderate surroundings in any way detract therefrom; and he held it to be a false and vicious theory, and an evil example to the nation, to maintain that a Prince could not support his proper position in the country without this extraordinary sum of £25,000 per annum. He had only to add that there could not, and ought not, to be drawn any inference whatever with regard to the loyalty of any Members of that House, from the circumstance that they felt it their duty to oppose this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), in the course of his speech that night, said that in supporting this Motion he regarded him-

  1689
  self as representing the loyalty of Gentlemen who sat on his side of the House. He could tell the right hon. Gentleman that those who sat below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House, and who from the bottom of their hearts thought it their duty to oppose this Vote, did not yield one inch in the matter of loyalty to the Throne to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He hoped, therefore, that such an inference as he had alluded to would be the last to be drawn from the conduct of those who conscientiously and fearlessly discharged a public duty. These Votes were most unpopular in the country. ["No!"] An hon. Member denied that proposition; but he would ask him to take the case of any of the large popular constituencies of the nation, and he ventured to say that their vote would be against the proposal that was going to be carried that evening. He maintained the opinion he had expressed on this subject; and he invited the hon. Member for Preston to try the experiment of ascertaining the correctness of that opinion in some of the large towns in his district that he (Mr. Broadhurst) would indicate to him. In concluding his remarks, he wished it to be clearly understood that the people who were opposed to this Grant were not necessarily opposed to the Throne in any form. They wished, on the contrary, that the Throne should be maintained with all its necessary surroundings, comfort, and dignity; but they also held, and that by an overwhelming majority, that the sum asked for was an extravagant allowance; the Vote altogether unnecessary, and one which the trustees of the national purse should not allow to pass.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) appeared very anxious, while opposing the Vote, to get credit for loyalty. He did not know why it was that the hon. Member, in opposing the Vote, was so desirous of associating the vote he gave with his loyalty, because, as far as his (Mr. Healy's) acquaintance with the English working man went—and he had lived in this country now for some 10 or 11 years—he had never been struck by the extent of loyalty they betrayed, nor did he think that they would quarrel with the hon. Member for Stoke, if, when he had stated his intention of voting against the Motion, he had
  1690
  left out altogether his protestations of loyalty. For his own part, he did not care whether he was regarded as loyal or disloyal; but he intended to vote against the Motion on the ground that he was opposed to these people having anything whatever. ["Order!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had stated that Her Majesty had been truly happy in the matrimonial alliances which had been formed by Her children; but he thought that happiness might consist, to a very great extent, of the £25,000 a-year which those children got. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!"] The right hon. Gentleman went on to point out that a great number of persons in both Houses of Parliament had a much larger income than £25,000 a-year, which Parliament was now asked to vote for Prince Leopold, in order to support his Royal state and dignity. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there were not other positions of dignity which also required support? The Members of the House of Lords had a certain amount of state and dignity to keep up; but they did not come to the House of Commons for Grants of the public money in order to keep them alive. Hon. Members in the House of Commons had to work, and were supposed to maintain a certain amount of state and dignity, be the same more or less; but hon. Members of that House were not provided for by the Crown, or by money taken out of the public purse in order to maintain their state and dignity. The right hon. Gentleman said one thing about Prince Leopold which he believed to be perfectly true. The right hon. Gentleman said that Prince Leopold had an excellent understanding. Then he (Mr. Healy) thought the best thing that this illustrious Prince could do with his excellent understanding was to employ it in earning his living. [Cries of "Order!"] For his part, he had never seen a Royal Prince. He did not know what a Prince was like, and he certainly was acquainted with no reason why the Members of the House of Commons—who were the Representatives of the taxpayers—should be asked to vote away the public money, simply because a man happened to be a Prince. If the Duke of Albany was a Prince, he should set a good example and work for his living; and, therefore, as one of the

  1691
  Representatives of the taxpayers, he (Mr. Healy) should oppose the Grant it was now proposed to make.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he wished to make one or two observations to the Committee after the speech to which they had just been treated by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He thought the Committee would agree with him that the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) left nothing to be desired as far as the tone and temper of them were concerned. It had often been his fortune in that House—and he did not think the fact had commended him to most hon. Gentlemen—to vote with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy); but certainly he had no disposition to sit still now and allow the hon. Member to be the interpreter, in any way, of the sentiments which he held, and which were held by many hon. Members around him, and which would impel them to go into the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Wexford. He objected to this Vote, and he should not trouble the Committee by entering into the admirable historical disquisition which had been given by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He thought the hon. Member had stated the Constitutional position of the question very well; but he should give one or two additional reasons why the Radical Members of the House, at any rate, ought to feel themselves justified in objecting to make any increased Grant to Prince Leopold. He objected to the Grant on account of the Royal Princes themselves. He objected to it because he felt that the House of Commons had no business to apply the public money in order to keep any persons in the State in a condition of titled idleness. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!"] He did not intend to say a word—and if he did, he trusted the Chairman would correct him—he did not intend to say one word which could be personally objectionable to any Member of the Royal Family. He wished it to be clearly understood that he knew nothing about the Royal Princes, and that all he had heard about Prince Leopold led him to believe that what the Prime Minister had said of him was strictly within the truth. He had, therefore, not the slightest intention of saying any tiling that was likely to be offensive to Prince Leopold or his
  1692
  family; but he was going to lay down a principle which he should like the Committee to accept, with regard to the expenditure of public money. He held that no public money ought to be expended except in return for specific public services. That was a principle which he thought was held by hon. Gentlemen opposite, as well as by himself; and, at any rate, if it was not held by a large number of the Members of that House, he felt it had often been used to justify the expenditure of the public money. He would ask what were the public services which they expected to receive from Prince Leopold? [Cries of "Order!" and "Divide!"] He was sorry to have to say these things. [Cries of "Divide!" and interruption.]
  MR. DILLWYNrose to Order, and wished to ask the Chairman if he would endeavour to keep silence?
  MR. STOREYsaid, he had been simply asking what public services they expected to receive from the Duke of Albany. [Interruption.]
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORrose to Order, and begged to state that he had just heard an hon. Member propose to a neighbour that they should carry on an animated conversation with a view of drowning the voice of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey).
  MR. STOREYsaid, that on the point of Order he should like to ask the Chairman whether, if the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was good enough to name the hon. Member who had made the remark referred to, it would not become the duty of the Chairman immediately to punish such hon. Member for the offence?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am sure that hon. Gentlemen have no wish to close the debate without hearing the hon. Member for Sunderland.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he was afraid they had just had an illustration of what might happen in that House if the clôture were adopted. He was asking what public services they expected from Prince Leopold in return for this extra amount of money? He could not himself discover what Prince Leopold was going to do. Were they to pay the money simply because Prince Leopold was going to marry and lead a respectable life? [Interruption, and cries of "Order!"] He had not the smallest doubt that the Prince would, to this

  1693
  extent, bear out the high eulogium which had been passed upon him by the Prime Minister; but if they were to expend the public money on every young man who got married and lived a respectable life where should they come to? He had been about to make another remark. [Cries of "Agreed!"] Hon. Members opposite objected to his observations; and as they were taking their time in interruption, he intended to take his. He had made up his mind to say certain things, and he intended to say them. What he would say first was that this practice of voting public Grants in Aid, curiously enough, only related to persons at the two extremes of English society, They made public grants of money to the Royal Family, and to a number of titled and untitled persons who were accustomed to move within the circle of Royalty, and they made public grants of money at the other end of the social scale to the poorest of the poor, who were left without funds in consequence of old age or the failure of their health. Now, what was the inevitable effect of making grants of money to the poorest of the poor? Did they not all admit that the effect was to deteriorate the character of these people; and was it for one moment to be doubted that the effect of giving public Grants of money to Princes of the Royal Family was also to deteriorate their character? It was because he did not want to deteriorate the character of the Duke of Albany that he proposed to vote against the Resolution. If he desired any proof that the effect of these Grants was to deteriorate the character of the gentlemen who received them he could find it in particular instances. When they made grants of money in that House it might be supposed that, having made them, they had done with the matter, and that they had no more calls upon them; but those who received money directly were not indisposed to receive it indirectly. The objection he had to these Grants was that when once a man had drank the blood of the public he invariably wanted more. [Cries of "Order!"] Having obtained money directly, the recipients of that money required additional sums indirectly. He would give an illustration. [Interruption.] He did not doubt for a moment that he was making himself particularly offensive to some hon. Members of that House.
  1694
  [Loud cries of "Hear, hear!"] He very much deplored it; but at any rate he had the courage to say what he thought, and he hoped the House would hear him. Why was it that he was so distasteful to a number of hon. Gentlemen in that House? He would tell the Committee. He was told on pretty good authority that no less than 126 Members of the other House of Parliament, and 110 Members of the House of Commons, were in the receipt of larger or smaller portions of the public money of the country. [Cries of "Name!" and interruption.] He had no doubt that a number of those Gentlemen honourably earned the money they received, and he had no objection to their receiving it when they did earn it; but he was sure that a large number did not earn it, and that many of them had sons and brothers and uncles and cousins. [An hon. MEMBER: And sisters and aunts! Laughter, which prevented the conclusion of the sentence being heard.] And there were many others who expected to be in receipt of these funds; and, therefore, he was perfectly conscious that when he was addressing the House of Commons, constituted as it was at present, he was addressing a huge syndicate that was interested in this wasteful expenditure of public money. He was not surprised that they should deny it; but he would give illustrations to prove that what he said was correct. They gave £25,000 to one Royal Prince, and £40,000 to another, and what followed? When a Royal Prince had been endowed by Parliament, at least in a manner equal to his deserts, he went away and was soon surrounded by parasites and sycophants.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member for Sunderland that he is travelling beyond the Question, which is simply a proposal to make an allowance to His Royal Highness the Duke of Albany.
  MR. STOREYsaid, that, in his own mind, he was very steadily following up the sequence of his argument. He thought he should be able to show the Chairman of the Committee that he was strictly following the argument with which he had commenced, and showing the basis of his objection to this Vote. He objected to the Vote, because as soon as a sum of money was voted, directly they had an indirect application for further funds from the country to these

  1695
  Royal personages. He was instancing eases of certain Royal personages to whom large sums of money had been given directly, and who, immediately afterwards, were dressed up as soldiers and given additional sums of money indirectly. He wished to put this point to the House, and the House might be sure of this—that the opinion he was now expressing was held by tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of the working men outside that House. They had the scarred veteran, who had served on 50 fields, and who, when he came home——[Interruption.] He did not wonder that some hon. Gentlemen did not wish to hear him; but he would repeat that the veteran, who had served his country abroad, when he came home reasonably expected from a grateful country a due reward for the services he had rendered. But when he came home what did he find? Why, that positions which he might most reasonably aspire to—positions of comfort and repose for his declining years—were filled up by Royal personages, who had never set a squadron in the field and who never meant to do; but who, by the advice of those who surrounded them, were induced to dress themselves in the uniform of a soldier, and take a colonel's pay.
  MR. PULESTONrose to Order. He wished to know whether the remarks of the hon. Gentleman had any bearing on the Question before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot say that the hon. Member is out of Order. I presume he is endeavouring to show that certain Royal Princes, who have received similar grants, have also received other public pay, and that, therefore, the sum now asked may be in excess of the requirement.
  MR. STOREYsaid, that that was his argument, and he was much obliged to the Chairman for having interpreted it to the hon. Member. He found that one Royal personage received £1,350 a-year indirectly in this way, which ought to have been given to a man who had really served his country in the field. Another Royal personage received £738 per year indirectly; a third received £394 a-year indirectly; and a fourth £109 10 s. [An hon. MEMBER: Monstrous!] An hon. Member said that it was monstrous. He agreed with the hon. Member. It was monstrously mean to take these small sums. [Cries of ''Oh!" and
  1696
  "Order!"] He repeated that it was monstrously mean for these Royal personages to take these small sums for services which could not be rendered properly by them, and for posts which ought to be given as rewards to men who had really served the country in the field. Now, he did not blame the Royal Princes; he blamed hon. Gentlemen opposite who were cheering, and he blamed hon. Members and right hon. Members on the Front Government Bench quite as much. He did not recognize any distinction between them, except this—that when right hon. Gentlemen opposite came to propose these Votes they did it from a full heart; and he was not at all sure that many right hon. Gentlemen now upon the Treasury Bench were doing it with a full heart. That was his first objection to the Vote. ["Oh!"] He would relieve the House by telling them that he had only another objection to present; but it was equally disagreeable to that which he had already given. His second point was this—that it had not been at all shown, nor could it be shown, that the Civil List, as at present granted, was not equal to the support of the dignity of the Crown. He wished to show the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister how he might easily get the £10,000 a-year asked for in the Vote, without imposing the slightest taxation on the public, and without touching the Civil List of Her Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria. He did not deny that the Queen fulfilled her Constitutional duties, and that she was fully and fairly entitled to the sum which Parliament gave to her; but there were a number of officials attached to the Crown—such as Lords-in-waiting, Gold sticks-in-waiting, and noble Lords—who were not ashamed to be the flunkeys of the State. As Shelley said—
  "These gilded flies, that bask within the sunshine of the Court, what are they? They are the drones of the community that feed on the mechanics' labour."
  Did anyone suppose that any of these Gold sticks-in-waiting administered to the dignity of the Crown. His own opinion was that the Crown would be much more dignified if it could get rid of a good deal of this mediæval pomp and silly pageantry, which only repelled men of sensible mind. For these reasons he contended that the money proposed to lie voted by the Resolution

  1697
  ought not to be granted, especially when upon officers such as he had just referred to a sum far more than the £10,000 just asked for was annually spent, or rather annually misspent, not upon the Queen, but upon a number of titled and untitled persons who ought to be ashamed to take the public money without rendering fair services in return for it to the State. Under these circumstances, he, for one, could not pretend to vote for the Resolution. Before he sat down he asked the Committee to consider this point, which had a very important bearing upon the question of these grants. There was nothing which troubled Her Majesty's Government, either Conservative or Liberal, and indeed all Members of that House, more than the difficulty of meeting the ordinary wants of the country by drawing upon the taxes. He maintained that the pressure of that taxation was severely felt by every class in the community. It was felt by the common people, and even hon. Gentlemen themselves, he feared, had experienced its effect during recent years. There were many useful national projects and institutions that were in abeyance simply for want of the money necessary for carding them out; and whenever these were pressed upon the attention of the Government, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was always obliged to express regret that it was impossible to find money for any new purposes. As an instance of this, he reminded hon. Gentlemen that it was only by immense efforts that they had been able to find the money required for teaching the people of the country, and making them intelligent creatures; and whenever any new proposals were made in connection with it, they were always met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the question, "Where is the money to come from?" It was not this £10,000 alone, which might, perhaps, appear a small sum in itself. It was one £10,000 added to another, and then a further £10,000 added to these, which prevented money being available when it was desirable to make an expenditure upon really national and important objects. The £25,000 a-year, which the. Royal couple were to have, would enable them in the borough of Sunderland, which he represented—no mean borough, he could assure hon. Members opposite, for it had a population of 130,000—to give to the
  1698
  whole of the children of that town a free education; and he would sooner see the money spent in that way than that it should be applied to the support of Royalty. That money, again, which it was now proposed to spend upon one family, would be sufficient to support 1,000 decent couples with comfort in their old age. For his own part, in that House he recognized no distinctions between Royal personages and common personages—between rich and poor. The first principle which he had laid down was that the public money of the country ought not to be expended except in return for public services rendered. His second principle was equally incontrovertible—namely, that when money had to be spent and overburdened taxpayers to be drawn upon, it should be spent wisely and discreetly, and never wasted upon any object when it could be much better expended for nobler and better purposes.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, although I have no intention of attempting to criticize in their details the speeches which have been made upon the Resolution before the Committee, yet I really must, on my own part, enter a very strong protest against some of the language which has been used in the course of this short debate, and I believe I enter that protest also on the part of the enormous majority of the Members of this House. I think it my duty, also, to take very short notice of certain suggestions which have been made, and of certain allegations which appear to me to be destitute of any solid foundation. Let me, however, say, with reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), that I am quite sure he need be under no apprehension as to any imputation upon his loyalty; and I say this not alone on my own behalf, because I venture to state that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had not the slightest intention of conveying any such imputation with respect to any Gentleman who might feel it his duty to vote against this Resolution. Then, Sir, the hon. Member who has just sat down has made a suggestion, and it is that, by the abolition of the offices of a number of noble Lords and gentlemen who form the Court and Household of Her Majesty, we should save the money which it is now desired to obtain without it being necessary to

  1699
  have recourse to the taxpayers of the country. The opinion of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) is that the maintenance of these noble Lords and gentlemen is no part of the dignity of the Court, and contributes nothing to the comfort of the Sovereign. I will not say whether or not the view of the hon. Member is an original one, or whether it deserved consideration at the commencement of the Reign; but I will point out that, by a positive engagement contained in the Civil List Act, the whole of this Royal state and the whole of these Court and Household establishments are distinctly recognized, and that we are not free to touch them during the lifetime of Her Majesty without a distinct breach of faith. I will now pass on to the consideration of some of the observations which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He stated, not with perfect accuracy, that these grants have been invariably opposed. I have had no opportunity, since my hon. Friend spoke, of going over the list of them; but I happen to hold in my hand the report of one of those cases, when it was my duty to propose a grant for the marriage portion of Her Royal Highness the Princess Louise, and on that occasion the grant was made without any opposition whatever. As far as I can trust my memory, I believe there are other instances of the kind.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he might, perhaps, be allowed to state that he opposed the Vote on the occasion referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and was supported by two Members of the present Government.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have cited the Parliamentary record of the case of which I speak, and I believe I have accurately stated the matter. Sir, my hon. Friend has founded his argument and his opposition to this proposal mainly on a reference to the declarations of Mr. Fox and the cases which occurred in the reign of George III.—cases with which I am and have been familiar, and with regard to which I venture to state that, in any reasonable view of the case, they have not the smallest application to the proposal now before us. At that time the whole basis of the Civil List was completely different. But my hon. Friend did not refer to the Civil List of George III.
  1700
  What was its amount? If I remember rightly—for I have no opportunity of referring—it was about £1,000,000, and that fact of itself might seem to indicate to my hon. Friend that it was a grant on a totally different basis, and entailed totally different obligations. No doubt, as I believe, Mr. Fox was quite right in saying that at that time, before any demand was made in Parliament, it was right to inquire whether the Civil List was sufficient, and whether any deficit could be shown. But our contention is, that upon the accession of William IV. to the Throne we passed into an entirely different state of arrangements; that since that time the amount of the Civil List has been regulated and its purposes defined by Committees of Parliament; and that the bulk of the money is necessary for the purposes set forth. My hon. Friend said that every description of expenditure was provided for by the Civil List. Sir, that statement is as far as possible from being accurate. My hon. Friend said that the charities of Her Majesty were provided for in the Civil List. I assure him that such is not the ease, and that the small branch of the Civil List to which he has referred has no connection whatever with the charities of the Queen, but was, almost the whole of it, applied to purposes essentially public, and, moreover, not even within the ordinary personal discretion of Her Majesty. My hon. Friend says that Her Majesty has £100,000 a-year after every branch of possible expenditure has been provided for. Sir, that is entirely wrong. There are very large branches of expenditure which are totally unprovided for under the three great branches of the Civil List—namely, the offices of Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, and Master of the Horse. It would not be becoming in me to enter into detail upon this subject; but I will point to one branch of the expenditure with regard to which my hon. Friend will feel the force- of what I say. The entire expense of the education of every Member of the Royal Family, of the staff connected with that education, and the whole personal expenditure of every one of the Royal Children, except the Prince of Wales, has been provided for by the Queen from her own personal resources, until the time when, in the event of marriage in the case of Princesses, and

  1701
  coming of age in the case of Princes, application has been made to Parliament for a grant. My hon. Friend says that the savings of the Sovereign ought to provide for these endowments. But, Sir, that is totally impossible. There are no savings, and never have been, and never could be, which would be adequate to meet a tenth part of them. The savings of the Sovereign have never amounted to any inordinate sum, nor have they ever been considered a matter of Parliamentary investigation. I have had some knowledge of them in various contingencies of official life; but never have they seemed to me to amount to more than might be well called for by the emergencies connected with the position and duties of the Queen. Were it only the very considerable inequality in the position of the various Children of the Sovereign with respect to wealth, it is quite obvious that it would be most undesirable that Her Majesty should be wholly deprived of the means of mitigating, should she think fit, that inequality. But my hon. Friend said that we were not bound by the proceedings of previous Parliaments; that the Parliament of Lord Palmerston might have granted £15,000 to a Member of the Royal Family, but that this was no reason why we, under altered circumstances, should not re-consider the amount. But, Sir, what is the force of that argument, taken in connection with the analogy of the times? We have been considering a great many things since the time of Lord Palmerston's Cabinet, and our re-consideration goes to the augmentation of the expenditure of public money, and not to its diminution. My hon. Friend knows quite well that all the pleas which tend to govern these decisions are pleas which, sometimes extravagantly, sometimes reasonably urged, would go to make it very doubtful indeed whether it is desirable for us to begin this matter as if it were one that had never been decided at all, or, on the contrary, whether we should not do much more wisely to adhere to and to tread in the footsteps of those who have gone before us. But that upon which I most of all dwell is this. I claim that the cases quoted by my hon. Friend, of the Duke of York, the Duke of Clarence, and the Duke of Cumberland, and particularly his reference to Mr. Fox, are entirely excluded from our
  1702
  view, because they applied to a Civil List of comparatively very large amount, perfectly undefined and free in its application; whereas the Civil List we are now dealing with is distinctly devoted, defined, and applied under the authority of Parliament, and the margin that would remain to the Queen is a narrow one, out of which it would be absolutely impossible to draw the means necessary for the Royal Princes on their marriage. I admit my hon. Friend did not misunderstand my meaning when I stated that there was an honourable understanding that the provision should fall upon Parliament. Undoubtedly, in my opinion, it is impossible to separate that from the whole history of the fixing of the Civil List on the two great classical occasions of the Accessions of Her Majesty and of King William IV. Therefore, I say, that this honourable understanding has become much more defined by the course of proceedings on many different occasions when Parliament has had to deal with proposals either identical or analogous to this; and the proposal of my hon. Friend amounts exactly to this—that in the case of the Duke of Albany, (Prince Leopold), the last of the Royal Princes, Parliament shall, by refusing this Vote of £10,000 a-year, place him in a position essentially different from that of the other young Princes, and leave him with little more than half the provision which preceding Parliaments have made for the other Sons of the Royal Family.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he had for the last 10 or 15 years opposed every grant to the Royal Family. Perhaps, on the occasion referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, he might remember that he severely rebuked him for not taking a division at the proper time. The right hon. Gentleman said the Resolution had been passed, and it was out of the question to attempt to stultify the House by opposing the grant on the Bill. He did not know whether he would also recollect, but it was a fact nevertheless, that on the next occasion he again rebuked him for taking the opposite course, and said it was a very unusual thing to oppose the Resolution, and that the opposition should have been taken on the second reading of the Bill. It was quite true that the opposition on the occasion referred to was not nearly so numerous as it was that day. Still, the right hon.

  1703
  Gentleman would acknowledge that if not so numerous it was, at least, highly respectable, inasmuch as two hon. Members who voted with him on that occasion now enjoyed the honour of sitting by the side of the right hon. Gentleman. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) acted as Teller with him on that occasion; while the present Postmaster General had to wander through the Lobby as he best might.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 387; Noes 42: Majority 345.—(Div. List, No. 58.)
  (1.) Resolved, That the annual sum of ten thousand pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, towards providing for the establishment of His Royal Highness Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, and of Her Serene Highness Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont, the said annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty may think proper, and to commence from the date of the Marriage of His Royal Highness with Her Serene Highness Princess Helen, and to be in addition to the annuity now enjoyed by His Royal Highness under the Act of the thirty-eighth year of Her present Majesty.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Her Majesty be enabled to secure to Her Serene Highness Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont, for the support of her dignity, in case she shall survive His Royal Highness, Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, an annual sum not exceeding six thousand pounds during her life."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought it hardly necessary to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing again. It might be taken for granted that the 42 Members who had opposed the first Resolution would oppose this; but he did not think it necessary to divide the Committee upon it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am exceedingly glad that the hon. Member is satisfied with having testified his conviction upon this subject, and that he will abstain from dividing the Committee again. I may take this opportunity of saying that I was perfectly accurate in what I stated in regard to the proposal of an annuity for the Princess Louise. The opposition of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) was on a subsequent occasion and upon another part of the grant
  1704
  —namely, the Vote of £30,000; but the Vote for the annuity passed without any opposition.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PUTTING THE QUESTION).

  RESOLUTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  [THIRD NIGHT.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [20th February],
  "That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, during any Debate, to be the evident sense of the House, or of the Committee, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the House or the Committee; and, if a Motion be made 'That the Question be now put,' Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such Question; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, the Question under discussion shall be put forthwith: Provided that the Question shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a Division be taken, unless it shall appear to have been supported by more than two hundred Members, or unless it shall appear to have been opposed by less than forty Members and supported by more than one hundred Members."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  And which Amendment was,
  To leave out from the first word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no Rules of Procedure will be satisfactory to this House which confer the power of closing a Debate upon a majority of Members,"—(Mr. Marriott,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words 'when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker,' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE: We have now reached a stage in the debate when we can consider the proposals of the Government as presented in different lights by the two leading Members of the Government—the Prime Minister and the noble Marquess the Member for North-East Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington). We have also the advantage of the independent judgment of one who, though not on the Treasury Bench, is looked upon as one of the Leaders of the Liberal Party—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen). In reference to the Prime Minister's speech, I shall

  1705
  chiefly deal with two points, which I may call external arguments, offered by him in favour of the proposed change. The first of these is the argument derived from the practice—not the uniform practice, but the frequent one—of certain foreign Parliaments. I confess I set little value on such precedents. I refuse to accept as guide for this Imperial Assembly the action of those miscellaneous Bodies whose Members sit down to play at law making at 2 o'clock and rise to eat and to drink at 5. Very likely they have the clôture in the Servian Parliament; but they have something else in the Servian Parliament. We have lately read that in the Servian Parliament they have made a great discovery in the art of obstruction, which I admire very much. It was made by the Radical Members there, and I respectfully recommend it to the Radicals of this House for their imitation. The Radicals of Servian have thrown up their seats in a body, and so stopped the work of the Session. Seriously speaking, I am sorry and indignant that England, the "Mother of Parliaments," the country from which all others have derived their lessons of Parliamentary Procedure—all except the ancient, Constitutional countries of Sweden and Hungary, where the clôture does not exist—should condescend to borrow this undesirable system from such mushroom imitators. I have been in the House many years, and during that time have heard many things that have surprised me, and some which have pleased me, but have been seldom more surprised than on hearing the strange passage at the latter end of the speech of the Secretary of State for India, in which he condescended to personalities; and I asked myself, Is it dignified for a Leader, and within the laws of fair Parliamentary fighting that, unprovoked, and without rhyme or reason, but simply to furnish an epigrammatic argument, and to raise the feelings of the House ad invidiam, hon. Members who had not uttered a word, but who cared for particular questions, should be picked out and held up—they and their favourite subjects—to ridicule by the Indian Secretary, with the implied argument—"Give me the clôture and I will put down these four bores." The Minister invoked the House to give him the clôture so that he might
  1706
  crush and suspend the four Members whom he thought unpopular on his side of the House. That was unfair and ungenerous, and, what was worse, it was very unwise, for it revealed his hand. Even more unwise was that threat of a resignation with which the noble Lord shotted his ridicule. The noble Lord ought to have seen he was recommending a proposal that we certainly do not love on this side of the House, and which, I believe, is very little loved on the other side. If he had shown judgment as well as vigour; if he had not given way to that "unruly member" of his; if he had not loosed rein to that steeplechase helter-skelter, he would not have taken the House into the confidence of the scorpions that are being prepared in the Government menagerie to scourge us with. With regard to the clôture, since that speech all the rose-coloured anticipations of the right hon. Member for Ripon are passed and gone. There is, as the noble Lord told us, a budget of promises upon which the present Government came into power after the last General Election still unredeemed, and these can not be carried out except by the clôture; so he brandished it before our eyes, that if we do not accept the Resolution in all its details we are to have the unfortunate calamity of a Ministerial resignation. What consistency is there in that? How can Government partizans say that this measure is raised above the range of Party politics, when they are told they must accept it under such a menace as that uttered by the noble Lord? He has said, in effect, that if they do not give him the power of crushing any Member who might fall under his displeasure, they must expect to see the resignation of the Treasury Bench. But, forewarned forearmed. We have been told that obstruction, delay, and all that sort of thing, have become so intolerable that something drastic must be done. The truth is, however, that the solid debates on successive stages of large Bills are not those which waste and extend a Session. They may seem tedious to the casual reader, for he finds his paper for four or five days crammed with columns of close printed-speeches, when he was looking out for the last murder at Wimbledon, or the newest swindling conspiracy at Birmingham. It is, as I shall show, the miscellaneous Business, and the intermediate stages,

  1707
  which are chiefly responsible for delay. Even for these lengthy debates, much blame lies at the door of the loose habit which Ministers have fallen into of speaking at any time in a debate, and of jumping up when they are least expected. If a little more attention was paid to the time-honoured etiquette of the two Leaders always closing the debates, it would be far more manageable. That was the true clôture; and I myself am for this old-fashioned clôture of the English Parliament—the clôture of a close understanding and friendly communication between the two Parties. No doubt, when the Leaders had sat down, we should, from time to time, see some irrepressible orator trespass on the course, like the dog on the Derby day; but the House, if true to its old traditions, could easily deal with that obstruction. I must now turn to the second of the external arguments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister against what he termed "artificial majorities," when he insisted that grave historical events had been shaped in this House by the narrowest majorities. This argument breaks down at the very point at which, to have any value, it ought to be particularly strong. Of such divisions two things can always be predicated. They are the ultimate result of a series of events which have worked up to the final stage, and they are reached at the moment when some conclusion has become inevitable. Also the result of any division is a result proportioned to the largeness or the narrowness of the majority. Both these conditions are distinctly reversed in the use of the clôture. It is intended to be like a night ambush in some Irish lane sprung upon the wayfarer when he least expects it. The clôture, moreover, is simply the question of "Divide," or "Not divide;" and, therefore, necessarily devoid of any variety and gradation of results, such as the variety and gradation attaching, as I have shown, to the results of a division on the subject-matter of a question, according to the relative proportions of the two sides. What is the case—to quote from my right hon. Friend's instances—when a Ministry goes out, from being beaten by a narrow majority, and then comes in again? The very narrow majority was strong enough to turn out the Government, but it was not strong enough to keep it out. When my right hon. Friend resigned for
  1708
  a few days after the division on the matter of University education in Ireland, there the narrow majority led to his temporary resignation, but it did not lead to the destruction of the Government. In the clôture there is no gradation and no difference; so the analogy breaks down at a point where it ought to be most strong and most reliable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with the matter with great zeal, and no doubt with the utmost sincerity, in his desire to remove it from the arena of Party politics. He went so far as to express his desire that the clôture might not be regarded as one of the triumphs of his own Government; and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon was fairly captivated and carried away by the statements of the Prime Minister. I always like to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, for he is a man who has held high Office, and yet remains ingenuous. But he need not have been so superfluously indignant with the hon. Member for Brighton; and if he had delayed one more night, and spoken after the Secretary of State for India, his indignation might have even to himself seemed groundless. The speech of the Secretary of State for India was pitched in a very different key from that of the Prime Minister or the right hon. Member for Ripon. The Prime Minister had brought out the heroine of the hour and conducted her to the stage lights tricked out in the allurements of an artificial beauty. The Secretary for India has shown her to us as she is on the conclusion of the performance, the rouge washed from her wrinkled cheeks, the Royal mantle exchanged for the well-used dressing-gown, the curls remanded to the wig-box. We have been pelted with statements of the length to which modern debates have ran—58 days, I think, for the Irish Land Act of last Session. There is a great deal of mystification about these figures. A particular subject may have lasted for so many days; but it is a subject made up of many debates, and for each of these debates, if the argument is worth anything, a separate clôture would be needed, while each clôture would assuredly produce debates at future stages which would otherwise never have been thought of. By cutting off six or eight speeches at any stage of a discussion we may bring

  1709
  the end of a debate nearer, but we shall not bring the Prorogation nearer. We shall simply turn into the wilderness disappointed orators, dumb and desperate. Then, considering that, as in the case of worms, zoophytes, and other humble types of animal life, obstruction propagates itself by section, these six or eight stifled speeches will merely be transmuted, and they will come up on Amendments in Committee. Each will, again, have its satellites—the one or two speeches which must be listened to on each Amendment in Committee before even the most ruthless application of the clôturs. One Member of the present Government commenced his political life with the programme of the "three F's"—not the new Irish imitation, but the real old "three F's"—Free Church, Free Land, Free Education. G follows F, and it seems as if the President of the Board of Trade has added a fourth item to his programme—"Gagged Parliaments." Now, I turn to the words of the Resolution, and to the manner in which it proposes to deal with Mr. Speaker. On this branch of the subject we all feel how easy it is to speak our minds, from the impossibility of anyone confounding you, Sir, with that Speaker of the future whom the Resolution tends to set up. Our only apprehension, Sir, is lest you should be the last of that glorious line of Speakers of our old Free Parliament. The object of the clôture is to make us all feel that we are walking with the headsman behind us. I appeal to you, Sir, whether a House of Commons pervaded with this dread can be what the House of Commons once was? The Resolution proposes—
  "That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, during any debate, that the evident sense of the House is "—
  And so on. But how is the evident sense to be ascertained? When the Prime Minister proposed the Resolution he assured us it was not to be noise or the absence of noise that was to show what the sense of the House was. It must then be, I suppose, some interior sense—one of those strange, mysterious qualities, which Theologians and Scotch Philosophers assert exists in the human mind—that is to guide Mr. Speaker in his conclusion. But who has ever heard of the interior, super-material sense existing in the Speaker-
  1710
  ship? I do not think any Speaker would ever confess to being guided in that way. He might rise from his Chair, and call on the House to vote the clôture, with the declaration—"Divinare etenim magnus donavit Apollo." But a profane House would ask itself—"Who is the Speaker's Apollo?" And, with or without an Apollo, what will the Speaker have to declare? He will have to declare that the evident sense of the House is that the debate should be terminated; and if, on the consequent division, 301 vote for, and 300 against, the termination, the evident sense of the House will be the quotient of the subtraction sum—300 from 301. Clearly, the Speaker will have to act by some process of reasoning; and would it not be possible to presume that a future Speaker might say to himself—"I know the House is evenly balanced. The senior Member for Canterbury, I am sure, is for closing the debate, and the junior Member for Canterbury for going on. I will watch the two; and if the senior Member walks out, I shall get up and declare the evident sense to be for a division." So, then, the evident sense will resolve itself into the chance of which Member for Canterbury may sit out longest. Surely no Speaker would commit himself to such a hazard. It is impossible to suppose he would rely on his unassisted sagacity. Those who remember their "Gulliver" will recollect that the men in authority at Laputa entertained as prominent members of their official staff gentlemen called "Flappers," whose duties were to find their Chiefs in memory and in thoughts. No doubt, Mr. Speaker of Laputa had his "Flapper;" and our Speaker of the future must equally have his. I have thought of an Amendment, which would, I believe, make this Resolution run much more ship-shape, according to its Inventor's intentions; but I fear that if I propose it I shall be called an "Obstructionist;" and I live in terror of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India—for I am sure that he will rush out and collar me, and gibbet me. But it may help the Prime Minister, if I read what I suggest—
  "That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, during any debate, upon information privately conveyed to him by one of the Secretaries to the Treasury, to be the evident sense of the House"—

  1711
  And so forth. The mode of procedure shadowed forth in these words will surely come. You, Sir, would shut your ears to any such suggestion from a Secretary to the Treasury; but I cannot have that confidence in your Successors elected under the conditions created by this New Rule. Personally, they may wish to be thoroughly fair; but no man can be greater in action than the conditions of his Office allow him to be. The Speaker of the future will be the nominee of the man who makes the Ministry, so will also the Whip be; and, with this Resolution existing to shape the Speaker's relations both to House and to Minister, it is impossible not to assume that the Minister will select Speaker and Whip at the same time and in relation to each other, so as to work the clôture for the benefit of the Administration. I must conclude by repeating a question. The clôture may advance some divisions; but will it advance the Prorogation? I do not believe it, for its inevitable tendency is to multiply these wrangles, which go much further to protract the Session than any solid serious debate, however lengthy. It will—slowly, it may be, but surely—emasculate Parliament; it will destroy the high quality of the debates, and make the House the facile engine of administrative chicane. And even for the objects which it is intended to meet it will prove itself worse than useless, for it will produce phases of Obstruction more extravagant than any which have yet taken root among us. We have heard of the clôture in America; but we have also heard there of "filibustering." What is meant by "filibustering?" Why, Obstruction brought up to its most scientific form. I shall give to the Motion my most decided opposition; for I believe that it will lower the character of Parliament, vulgarize the tone of our debates, and imperil our independence, without conducing one whit to the better performance of the duties of the House.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he felt that, after the quaint and humorous speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope), he rose to address the House at some disadvantage. He had neither the ability nor the inclination at that moment to take the amusing and comical view of the matter which his right hon. Friend had taken. He intended to treat the question gravely; but he admitted
  1712
  that, perhaps, it was not a disadvantage in a debate such as the present to have the grave as well as the humorous aspect of the subject presented to the House. He rose to address the House because he thought that the issue involved in the debate, although a very narrow one, when closely examined was of a supremely important character, involving as it did the rights and privileges of Members as they had hitherto been understood. The question, as it presented itself to his mind, was this—whether, admitting the principle of the clôture in some form to be necessary, the power of closing a debate ought to be lodged in the hands of the House, viewed as a collective Assembly, or to be intrusted, as he contended it was capable of being intrusted according to the terms of the Resolution, to the dominant majority of a Party? He hoped hon. Members would not bring a charge of egotism against him if for a moment he referred to his past career. He had sat in the House, with a short interval, since the year 1847. There were just 12 Members left of those who entered the House when he did, or who were in it before that time—just a sufficient number to constitute a common jury; and he would venture to say that he felt confident that if he were tried by that jury on any general charge of obstructiveness, he would be honourably acquitted. He did not scruple, however, to say that, should he find himself at any future time the victim of the clôture under circumstances which he believed to be perfectly possible if the present Resolution were carried, he would not be surprised to find himself turning Obstructive at the fag-end of his Parliamentary life. He had in great measure been led to make that remark in consequence of the observations of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India in the very remarkable speech delivered the other night. The noble Marquess then made a statement which, he said, would startle new Members of that House. The noble Marquess was more remarkable for uttering very sensible opinions than for uttering startling ones; but on the occasion to which he had referred the noble Lord gave utterance to a doctrine to which he attached extreme weight, because he said it involved a principle the importance of which it was impossible to exaggerate—

  1713
  namely, not only that the time of the House was the property of the House, and not of individual Members—a principle in which he (Mr. Walter) entirely concurred—but that no Member of the House had any personal right to speak in that House. That seemed to him to be a doctrine involving a question which was, perhaps, better fitted for discussion in a Chamber of philosophers than in one composed of practical men—namely, "What natural rights belonged to men in a state of social life?" He did not propose to enter minutely into that question; but the noble Marquess having challenged any difference of opinion on the subject, he felt disposed to ask in what sense he contended that a private Member who was sent to Parliament because he was supposed to be capable of taking part in their deliberations, by speech as well as by vote, had no personal right to open his mouth? No doubt, if the noble Marquess merely contended that no one could put forward his own personal or natural rights in opposition to those which every society and body of men prescribed for their own convenience and the general welfare, he was uttering a truism. If, however, the noble Marquess contended that it was only by the favour of the House that any Member had a right to speak, he challenged his doctrine. The true position was that a Member who entered the House had a natural right of speech, limited only by such Rules as the House had laid down, not arbitrarily or capriciously, but equitably and justly. If that was what the noble Marquess meant, well and good; but if he went beyond that, he (Mr. Walter) could not agree with him. Now, there was one thing connected with the Resolution under the consideration of hon. Members which he could not help referring to—namely, the singular place which the Motion occupied in the list of the Resolutions which had been presented to the House for consideration. Why it should have been placed first instead of last, as it ought to have been if the logical sequence of things had been adhered to, he failed to understand. It was a Resolution for putting a stop to discussion, for bringing about the division which would be the termination of a particular stage of a measure already introduced; and therefore he should have thought that the other Resolutions—all
  1714
  of which were more or less connected with the removal of obstructions in the way of the introduction of measures—ought to have been disposed of first. The Poet Laureate, whose muse he could not help thinking must have been inspired by the achievements of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, had lately sung as follows:—
  "May Freedom's oak for ever live,
  With larger life from day to day;
  That man's the true Conservative
  Who lops the mouldered branch away."
  Why, he asked, had not the Prime Minister addressed himself to the task of lopping away those mouldering branches which everybody knew to be the real cause of the difficulty with which the House had now to deal, instead of adopting, in his woodman's character, the dangerous course of laying the axe to the root of the tree? Now, he should like very briefly indeed to state his own particular misgivings, and where he thought the real solution was to be found in dealing with this very difficult subject. He thought there had been some confusion of terms in the language employed. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Beresford Hope) had mentioned one—namely, the difficulty of determining what was the "evident sense" of the House. He thought there was another difficulty in determining in what sense the word "House" itself was used, because "House" might mean, and did mean, two different things. It might mean the collective assembly of English Gentlemen met together and discussing matters according to Rules contrived for mutual convenience; or it might mean the House regarded as two hostile camps drawn up in battle array, and ready to dispute a question at the sword's point. And let him make this remark—it had been forced upon him by the observation of many years. If he had to regard the House in a sense of a large assembly of English Gentlemen, he knew that in the honour and the spirit of fair play of the House he could have perfect confidence. If, however, he regarded the House as two Parties bent upon their own objects, and with a view to dislodging each other from those opposite Benches, the case was totally different. No man who understood human nature could place confidence in the fairness of the House regarded in that light. Those who thought

  1715
  with him on this subject were often asked why, when they admitted the right of a bare majority to pass such measures as the Habeas Corpus Act, which was carried by a majority of I, or the Reform Bill; to turn out Governments, and perform other achievements of that kind; to decide questions of peace and war, finance and taxation—why the same principle should not be applied to the clôture? He would answer that question. He thought he could give a satisfactory answer. The answer was this. In those great Party fights to which they were accustomed, when the two sides were drawn up in battle array—when the object was victory—when the prize was Office—when some important political question was at stake—the element of fair play did not enter at all. It could not enter. It had no business there. It was said that in war and love everything was fair. So it was in political fights in that House. There was no idea of fair play. The idea would be an absurdity; men fought for victory. But when they came to deal with questions affecting the personal convenience, the rights and interests, not of one Party, but of the whole House collectively, the case was totally different. They must be guided by principles of equity; they must be guided by justice; they must not attempt to shut men's mouths, to choke them off from the right to join in debates. The whole thing depended upon this—were they to recognize the element of fair play in dealing with this subject? The Prime Minister had recognized it indirectly when he used such language as this—"Can you conceive that Mr. Speaker or any Party in this House would be so rash and unreasonable as not to give fair play to people who wished to speak?" That language was not held with regard to divisions on questions of reform, of confidence in Ministers, on questions of peace or war, because, as he had said, the question of fair play did not enter into the subject. Therefore, he contended that it was absolutely necessary for the protection of the rights of Members of the House—for the protection of freedom of debate—that the question of fair play should be recognized, not only indirectly in the speeches of Ministers, but either expressly by the use of such language as was intended to carry it out, or by the adoption of such proportional
  1716
  majorities as would put the matter beyond all doubt. What he was afraid of in this matter was this. The tendency of majorities on the question of the clôture would be to grow smaller by degrees and beautifully less. Take the case of a House of 500 Members when the question of the clôture was raised. They might at first have a majority of 100. He dared say the Speaker of the day would be very cautious not to try it until he could reckon on a majority of 100. The next majority might be 90, then 80, 60, 50, and so on. Where were they to stop? Where were they to draw the line in determining what was "the evident sense of the House?" There was an old Latin proverb which warned people to beware of giving up rights and privileges—"Cave de resignationibus." And they all remembered how in the case of the foolish old King, who when he gave away his dominion to his daughters, reserved for himself a retinue of 100 knights, he was addressed by one of them—Goneril—who said—
  "What need you five-and-twenty, ten, or five,
  To follow in a house where twice so many
  Have a command to tend you?"
  Well, that was the sort of language which the Speaker might use. Suppose the case came to a tie. Suppose there was a tie in a House of 500—on which side was Mr. Speaker to give the casting vote? Might he not say, in the words of the daughter of King Lear, "What need one?" The point upon which he was most anxious was the one to which his right hon. Friend referred—namely, the importance of maintaining the absolute freedom of discussion in that House in great debates. Personally, he cared very little about this subject when the question had passed the second reading. Everybody who knew that House knew that the second reading was the great pièce de résistance in the Parliamentary banquet. The second reading ought to be discussed slowly, deliberately, and with grave consideration. The debate ought to be discussed at leisure, not bolted hastily like a supper at York by passengers by the limited mail. If, as he had heard some people say, the clôture was to be applied at the end of a three or four nights' debate, what would be the feeling of Members who considered that they had a perfect right to speak, but had not been allowed to do so? They need not be well-known Obstruc-

  1717
  tives. How would they feel if they were precluded from taking a fair share in the debate because it pleased the Ministry of the day to carry their measure? There was nothing in that Resolution to prevent this from happening. That was what he complained of. It was all very well to say that was not the intention. They must judge of measures not by the intentions of their Movers, but by their words. They must not place too much reliance on good intentions. He recollected a passage in one of Mr. Grattan's speeches on the Irish Union in 1799, in which he used these words—
  "When the liberty and security of one country depend upon the honour of another, the one may have much honour, but the other will have no liberty."
  He would not trust the liberty of that House to the honour of any dominant section in it. He would have made an appeal to the Prime Minister had he been present; but, in his absence, he would make the appeal to those of his Colleagues whom he had the pleasure to see near him. Why could not the Government see its way to some compromise? Gentlemen on both sides would give the Prime Minister all the help they could to remove the obstructions under which they had so long suffered. He would go further than his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and say he should be prepared to accept all the subsequent Resolutions without discussion—and they were by far the most important for the general Business of the House—if he could see his way to a fair and reasonable compromise being arrived at on the 1st Rule—a compromise something like that put down on the Paper by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). He would recommend clôture by a majority of two-thirds, with this proviso, that the quorum of the House should consist of 60 instead of 40 whenever it was applied. How did it come to pass that in referring to the various States on the Continent in which the clôture was in force the case of Switzerland was wholly omitted? Now, it happened that in Switzerland a majority of two-thirds prevailed. Switzerland was a small country; but, as was well known, it was the cradle of liberty. This was the account given by Mr. Carew—
  1718
  "The clôture exists, and is frequently put into practice"
  —it was no sham in Switzerland—
  " in the Conseil National, especially in the course of the more important debates. The text of Article 49 (modified)—which relates to the clôture—of the Règlement for the Conseil National is as follows:—'The Assembly can decide the clôture of debates if the two-thirds of the Members present demand it. However, the clôture cannot be pronounced so long as a Member of the Assembly who has not yet spoken desires to formulate a proposal and moves it.' After the clôture of a debate has been pronounced by the President of the Chamber, no one has the right to ask permission to speak."
  The working of the clôture in both Chambers was described as highly satisfactory. But he need not go as far as Switzerland. Authority was to be found in their own country testifying to the reasonableness and justice of the two-thirds majority system. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had left the House. Had he been present he would have liked to call him as a witness. The hon. Member advocated Local Option. His clôture, indeed, was to be applied to public-houses. It might, perhaps, be an indignity to call that House a public House, although it certainly was not a private one. The hon. Member for Carlisle proposed to apply the clôture to public-houses; but before that could be done a majority of two-thirds of the parish must be obtained. If, however, the Prime Minister did not approve the principle of a two-thirds majority, let him adopt any other plan that would be acceptable to reasonable and moderate men on the other side of the House—and there were many of them—whose personal rights and convenience were just as much involved in this question as their own. But if the Prime Minister would not do this, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and those who thought with him, to stand by their opinions, and to agree with him that the Resolution as it stood was a most objectionable one. For himself, unless the Prime Minister accepted some such modification, he would not be deterred by any Parliamentary terror whatever from doing justice to his own convictions and voting against the Resolution.
  MR. J. HOLLONDsaid, that in those quarters with which he was acquainted the majority which supported Liberal principles in 1880 was as staunch to

  1719
  those principles as ever it was, and the charge of manufacturing public opinion on this subject was, therefore unfounded as far as his knowledge went. He found it difficult to understand what hon. Gentlemen opposite would recommend as the mode of dealing with the present condition of affairs. They had two favourite methods—the one was to deal with the evil of Obstruction by silencing individual Members, and the other the adoption of the clôture by a two-thirds or three-fourths majority. In his opinion, either of these methods, if adopted, would be open to still graver objections than the proposal of the Government. The difficulty of solving the problem lay in this, that they could not define where Obstruction began and simply excessive talking ended. If they attempted to deal with Obstruction as an individual offence, the occupant of the Chair would come into very unpleasant contact with certain individual Members of the House, and a feeling might arise that his impartiality was no longer what it should be. Then, as to the clôture by a two-thirds or three-fourths majority. He was surprised the other night to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), speaking of the effect the clôture would have on the Irish Party, ask, would it not be a grave objection that it should be said that Irish Members were sent back to their constituents with their mouths closed? But if there was any system more objectionable on that ground than another, it was that the Irish Members should be silenced by a special clôture designed to meet their case. One argument in favour of a two-thirds or three-fourths majority went on the supposition that it represented the tacit understanding about closing the debates which was assumed to exist between different sides of the House. But when they passed from an unwritten to a written law, then an Opposition might be expected to use its rights to the utmost; or else Government would be tempted to make bargains with the Opposition in order to insure the proper closing of a debate. In that case they weakened the authority of the Government, which ought to do what it thought right on its responsibility to the public; and they weakened the responsibility of the Opposition, because it would make bargains to carry out measures of which it did not ap-
  1720
  prove. They had heard in the course of the debate how the clôture was abused in France under the late Emperor Napoleon. But the clôture then was simply a part of the despotic machinery of the Empire, and as soon as Parliamentary Government became a reality in France, there was no complaint as to the manner in which the clôture worked. He heard the debate in the French Chambers on Tunis in November, and though the clôture was put to the vote twice, it was rejected, and the debate came to a natural conclusion. As far as France was concerned, the clôture was scarcely ever abused, and no serious attempt to alter it was made by the Party in the minority. The extent of the Government proposition was that due deliberation should be followed by a conclusion, and there was nothing that was very monstrous in such a proposition as that. He could not see how this proposal could affect the debates beyond rendering the dispatch of Business more certain and effectual. The real guarantee against any abuse of the use of the clôture would be found in the love of fair play and of free discussion which was inherent on both sides of the House. Hon. Members opposite declaimed against any interference with the ancient Forms of that House; but the ancient spirit that had actuated it in former times could not be preserved by merely adhering to the ancient Forms. In his opinion, free Parliamentary discussion would gain rather than lose by the adoption of the proposal, because the House of Commons could only act in sympathy with the feelings and the wishes of the country. He thought, therefore, that they could not do better than to accept the Government proposal as offering the best solution of the great difficulty they were endeavouring to meet.
  MR. DALRYMPLEsaid, he thought that it was evident that the hon. Member who had just sat down admired the principle of the clôture for its own sake. The illustration which the hon. Member had drawn from the experience of the French Chamber was not likely to recommend the adoption of the clôture to the Speaker, because if the same circumstances arose here there would be this unfortunate result—that, having en-deavoured to recognize the evident sense of the House in a similar case to that referred to by the hon. Member, the House

  1721
  would not endorse the decision. It had been sought to justify the Government proposal on two grounds—first, on that of the great increase of Business; and, second, on that of the prevalence of Obstruction. No one denied the existence of the great increase of Business in the House, and the presence of prevalent Obstruction; but it was of the greatest importance that these two factors should not become inextricably confused, so that, while seeking to free themselves from the evils which they suffered under, they should adopt the wrong remedy. There was not one word in the speech, either of the Prime Minister or of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, which in any degree led up to the conclusion that the clôture was the right remedy. There was no natural affinity between congestion of Business and Obstruction. True, they came very near to one another, in one respect, for, of course, when there was great congestion of Business, Obstruction found most easily its opportunity, and had the most fatal effects. But the House was not responsible for the congestion of Business. The House, he might almost say, was not responsible for Obstruction, but only a small section of it; and could it be maintained with any degree of justice that the remedy proposed by Her Majesty's Government—a remedy of a penal character directed against Obstruction, which was only the fault of a small section—ought to affect the whole House? If, putting out of consideration the proposal now made by the Government, they were looking only at the question of the congestion of Business, would it not appear that a reasonable remedy for congestion would be found in simple and more effective weapons than that of the clôture? Would it not be desirable that, to take the case of an ordinary evening, before the Business of the House was reached, discussion should not arise upon questions to Ministers, and that when the Business of the evening was reached, preliminary matters of a foreign character should not be introduced, and that, when the House had once embarked in the discussion of a particular measure, the opportunities for discussing it should be abridged? If Her Majesty's Government had dealt with these points, he asked whether there might
  1722
  not already in the present Session have been a large amount of time saved? No one would allege that there had been Obstruction in the old sense during the present Session; but the Business had often been interrupted by discussions raised out of questions to Ministers, and delayed by questions of a foreign character introduced on going into Committee of Supply. But whose fault was it that the House was not protected against those obvious evils? It was the fault of the Government, who had not at the outset proposed a renewal of the Monday Rule, nor taken steps to deliver them from the most detestable delays of Business which often took place at Question time. As regarded Obstruction, what would seem to be the natural method of dealing with it would be to punish the offender, and not the many. There never had been an adequate punishment for Obstructives, and certainly the innocent many ought not to suffer for their offences. The reason why simple and more effective remedies had not been tried was that they were not after the heart of the present Government. This was no ordinary Government. It was nowhere if it was not acting on heroic and histrionic lines. It was a Government which greatly delighted in producing effects; but he went further, and said that the Government was not only turning aside from simple and effective remedies, and recommending a remedy which was extreme and offensive to many, but he contended that the remedy proposed to meet the twofold dilemma in which the House was placed—namely, congestion and Obstruction—was especially inexpedient and unjustifiable. He would put it to fair-minded men—and the House was full of fair-minded men—whether, if Obstruction was the only thing which the Government desired to put down, the Government could not count upon the help of the Opposition? He asked hon. Gentlemen to remember the experience of last Session. They would recollect that when a case for Urgency was made out, the Government was supported by the Opposition. He felt sure that if Obstruction were the only difficulty, the clôture would not be needed. But, unfortunately, that was not the whole object of the Government. They intended not only to put down Obstruction, but in many cases to put down op-

  1723
  position. The speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India bore out that statement. He (the Marquess of Hartington) admitted that the measures which the Government proposed to deal with would be greatly aided by the clôture. The noble Lord went further, for he said that it would not only advance the measures of the Government, but also silence private Members. If there were unnecessary prolixity or pertinacity, the silencing of those Members might be justifiable; but he begged leave to remind the House that Members such as the noble Lord singled out for remark brought forward subjects that were not agreeable to the Government, and if that powerful weapon which the Government asked for were placed in their hands, there could be no doubt as to the purpose for which it would be employed. The noble Lord referred to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and he thought he was particularly unfortunate in that allusion. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport never detained the House for any length of time; and, moreover, when that hon. and learned Member desired to address the House on the subject of Patent Medicines, he placed himself entirely in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition, and having asked that right hon. Gentleman to prescribe for him, immediately swallowed the prescription. Such a course as that was as far as possible removed from Obstruction, and he should have thought that it would have rendered the hon. and learned Member safe from the reflections of the noble Lord. The peculiarity of the present Government was that two of its Members never made the same statement about the same thing. It would be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that the occasions on which the clôture would be used were rare. But the Secretary of State for India evidently contemplated a much more frequent use of that weapon. There was one line of argument which had been used in order to rally the supporters of the Government. It had been said to them that when they were before the country they promised that certain measures should be passed through Parliament, and that as these could not be passed without the clôture, therefore they must vote for the clôture. But there was also another line
  1724
  of argument used with hon. Members opposite. The supporters of the Government had been told that the Government had nailed its colours to the mast, and that it would be placed in difficulties if the clôture were not adopted. A good deal had been said about the caucus. For his own part, he did not wish to say anything that would hurt the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but what was the meaning of the perpetual interpretation of Motions as questions of confidence? The Government seemed to say—"If you really love me, seat the Member for Northampton; if you really love me, tell the House of Lords—though the telling can do no good—that we will not have the Land Act meddled with; and, again, if you really love me, give me the clôture." He thought the House disliked the present proposal of the Government as a whole, and that many of of the other Rules would have been readily accepted, which would have gone far to meet the evils from which they suffered. He would venture to cite to the House some criticisms passed by the late Lord Beaconsfield (at that time Mr. Disraeli) on the policy of a former Liberal Government. Those criticisms were directed to the foreign policy of the Government, but, mutatis mutandis, they were equally applicable now. Speaking in 1864, Mr. Disraeli said it was for the Government to frame a policy which would commend itself to the House. If it was a wise policy, the House would unanimously support them; but the House ought to assure itself of its wisdom. If in the difficulties which had arisen the policy were a necessary and just one, the House ought to consider whether those difficulties might not have been avoided by more skilful management, and whether the Government had shown a capacity adequate to the occasion; whether it had displayed that prudence and dexterity, that quickness of perception, that knowledge of human nature, the kind of science most necessary to those who would successfully lead the Parliament of the country, which might be reasonably expected of them. Those words of the late Earl of Beaconsfield were now particularly applicable to the Government, which was bringing forward that particular form of clôture. The House was told there was no fear of

  1725
  that power being abused. But he could not be absolutely sure of that; he had to look to the antecedents of the men who proposed it. He could not forget the allusions made to other Assemblies when it was said a Bill might be carried through in a single Sitting—a process which would enable a Government to snap its fingers at the Opposition. Still less could he forget the allusion made shortly before Parliament met to the powers which Government would be obliged to obtain and which it was desirable they should obtain as they were approaching subjects which might affect the privileged classes, whatever they might be. Language of that kind made men look carefully to the proposals of the Government before accepting them. He referred to the noble Lord the Secretary for India, who held high doctrine on the time of the House. But was not the time of the House the property of the House itself? The noble Lord considered that the House was responsible for the use it made of its time; but he would carry that doctrine one step further. Not only the House, but different sections of the House; not only the Government, but the Opposition, were similarly responsible. If, therefore, the Government had taken the Opposition along with them in their proposals to the House, instead of making them an article of a falling or rising Ministry, they would have been rightly able to claim the support of the Opposition in regard to this and the following proposals; but how ludicrous in view of these general theories about the time and responsibility of the House was the proposal that the clôture should pass by a bare majority. He believed that a careful and guarded clôture—say, of a two-thirds majority—would not have been unacceptable, if it was necessary to have a clôture at all. But he should have been disposed to say, "Try your other Rules first, and if they do not succeed, try the clôture, and then you may rely on the Opposition." The clôture by a two-thirds majority would amply meet the case. The noble Lord had referred to public opinion. But the Opposition was as responsible to public opinion as the Government itself. The effect of the Rule, if passed, would be to produce a general irritation in the House. He was afraid that the "evident sense of the House" might too often be
  1726
  the evident uproar—the evident chaos—and the House would be turned into a bear garden. But, more than that; he was afraid that the name and credit of the House, which were as dear to the humblest private Member as to the Government itself, or even to the occupant of the Chair, would not be vindicated or enhanced by the proposal of the Government in its present form.
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, he was sorry that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) was not in the House, as he felt bound to make some personal reference to him. His hon. and learned Friend's opinions seemed to him to be of extreme antiquity—his political character would have suited better with the year 1688 than with 1882. It was only by this antiquity of political view that he could account for the vigour of his hon. and learned Friend's attack upon the President of the Board of Trade. His right hon. Friend was perfectly able to take care of himself, and he was not going to defend him. But the frequent attacks which were made on the right hon. Gentleman could only be accounted for by personal jealousy. It was natural that when the right hon. Gentleman had attained so high a position after a comparatively brief Parliamentary career, men of greater age and experience, but less ability, should feel a pang of envy. He did not for a moment impute such motives to his hon. and learned Friend. Indeed, he could not but condole with him for having at a critical moment felt himself constrained to desert his Party. His hon. and learned Friend had extended to the Leader of his Party a genial tolerance, which he denied to the President of the Board of Trade. His hon. and learned Friend had declaimed against the tyranny of the Caucus. But why had he said nothing of the Conservative Caucus, which had its abode in one of the palaces of Pall Mall, and about whose doings his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had recently made some entertaining disclosures? No doubt, the Caucus had its ramifications spread all over the country; but was it incredible that there should be such a tiling as spontaneous Liberal organization? It was said that circulars from the Party Caucuses had been sent through the Liberal camp like the fiery

  1727
  cross. For himself, he would say he had never been influenced by them, and had always consigned them to the waste-paper basket. The action of the Liberal Party had, in fact, been wholly unprompted. They had either not received these circulars, or, if they had received them, they had been disregarded. It was said it was necessary to conciliate the goodwill of the Caucuses. All he could say was that the electors of Aylesbury placed unqualified confidence in their junior Representative. He condoled with the hon. and learned Member for Brighton for the acquaintance he was about to make, not with the Birmingham organization, but with the Brighton organization, whose feelings had been quickened into indignation at their Representative's—he would not say treacherous—but untimely desertion. He must find himself now condemned to act with the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) and the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), who lived in the torrid zone of politics. Let him distinctly understand that the great bulk of the Liberal Party was united in support of this measure. He was not, going to blink disagreeable facts, and he could not but be aware that the unanimity of the Liberal Party was not so absolute as it had been on previous occasions. But those who were loyal were not actuated by a constrained loyalty, though he would admit that the loyalty of many of the Party was subjected to a considerable strain a year ago, when repressive measures were introduced for the government of Ireland. The fact that they, nevertheless, supported the measure showed their faith in their recognized Leaders. Then their loyalty had suffered another strain in respect of the Bradlaugh controversy. But in the present instance their loyalty was hearty and unforced. They were loyal, in the first place, to the principle of the measure. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) had said that if the majority were to have the right to terminate a debate, why should not it have power to prohibit debate altogether? That was exactly what the House was in the habit of doing when it refused leave to bring in a Bill, which showed that Parliament had the right to refuse to allow debate at all in some instances. Then, in the second place, they were loyal to the details of the
  1728
  measure. He should have no objection whatever to the adoption of the fancy proportion of 3 to 1, or, if that were insufficient, of any combination that would be effectual in arresting the decay of Parliamentary discipline. Again, they were not only loyal to this measure, they were not only tolerant of this Rule, but it was exactly what they wanted. Some of them had not only a personal, but an hereditary interest in the House of Commons. To many of them the acquisition of a seat in that House had been a subject of anxious thought and high ambition—but, having obtained seats in it, they found themselves condemned to a silence as severe as any that ever weighed on a Trappist monk, because of the extraordinary length of the useless and often insolent discourses to which the House was so frequently treated. They might bear this enforced silence with some degree of willingness if it were necessary for the passing of great measures in the public interest; but they were not disposed to submit to it in order that hon. Members might "heckle" the Prime Minister, or that the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) might spread his subtle but ineffectual snares for the feet of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, or that Irish Members might denounce the Chief Secretary for Ireland in language which, as Mr. Goldwin Smith had said, would be exaggerated if applied to Nero. It was singular to hear the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes) talking of the turpitude of partizanship. Why, they were all partizans. There were measures of private interest to many hon. Members upon which they were absolutely debarred from speaking at all. For that reason it was that they felt there was a genuine urgent necessity for some such measure as that which had been proposed by Her Majesty's Ministers—a measure which would enable hon. Members to take an intelligent and orderly part in debate. They would welcome a release from the present condition of bondage, and not less welcome would be the opportunity of supporting by their voices, and not merely by their votes, those Ministers who were entitled to their gratitude for proceeding on their course in spite of the embarrassment caused by the defection of half-hearted friends and of the hostility of avowed

  1729
  but not very chivalrous foes, and who would yet win a victorious battle on behalf of the order and freedom of Parliamentary debate.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, that while he apologized for occupying the time of the House at an early part of his Parliamentary career, he would not be doing right to those whom he represented were he to come forward in any attitude of undue humility to plead the cause of those who found themselves bound to oppose the Government. He represented large bodies of working men, who believed that the proposal before the House was not justified by existing circumstances. If it were really the fact that there was such a congestion of Public Business as could not be remedied in any other way, that would be a different matter. But there was no evidence of the need of the measure, and even if there were, it ought not to be adopted unless the House had unsuccessfully tried every other course. This proposal came almost isolated at a time considerably removed from any previous occasion when any attempt was made to reform the Procedure of the House, and it stood at the head of a long list of proposals. This fact made them ask whether or not, when the present proposal was disposed of the Government would ever ask the House to consider the others? He would not be in Order in discussing the others; but he would have the concurrence of many hon. Members when he said he entertained the belief that much of the difficulty of the present situation was due to such things as the waste of time during Question time, and by Motions of Adjournment on irrelevant subjects. Further, the occasions on which the House had been kept sitting for 24 hours and upwards had been entirely due to the right which existed of making successive Motions for Adjournment, each of them reviving the right of speech in every Member who chose to follow up that dilatory course of proceeding. By dealing effectually with that practice, much might be done towards facilitating the due progress of Business. There were Members on his (the Opposition) side of the House who would be ready to accept some reasonable modification of the 1st New Rule proposed by the Government. What they objected to was, not that a debate should be closed
  1730
  by a general concurrence of Parties in the House, but that it should be closed by what could be best described as a Party vote. There was one occasion for which the power of peremptorily closing a debate by a Party majority made no provision, and that was when the minority in the House—as sometimes happened—were in harmony with the majority in the country. They had heard something of spontaneous expression of local opinion; but spontaneous local opinion in favour of this proposal was, "conspicuous by its absence." Almost exactly 100 years ago a great Minister governed the country with a minority in the House of Commons, and rapidly succeeding elections so far justified him that he was placed in a large majority. It might, however, have happened that he had not the power to appeal to the country, and it must have put an end to his power had it been possible then for the majority of the day to silence him. They were told that the proposal to closing a debate by a bare majority should be accepted, because it was never to be put in force. That was surely a bad reason for adopting it. If it never was to be enforced except on behalf of a much larger majority, why should not that be expressed in the Rule? He would now allude to the very curious argument that had been used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The argument of the hon. Gentleman was to the effect that a bare majority of this House would be less inclined to be tyrannical than a majority of two-thirds or three-quarters. We'll, they were going to give to majorities of all kinds that power of being tyrannical. If a bare majority could close a debate, they put it in the power of a majority of any number to be as tyrannical as they pleased. Another great objection to the Rule, as now proposed—and one that could not be dwelt on too strongly—was that it made the Speaker the sole arbiter as to whether it should be put in force. If it were possible that the day—which he hoped was far distant—when it would become necessary to appoint a successor to the present Speaker, could be indefinitely postponed, it might not be requisite to consider whether it was well that the occupant of the Chair should have to put the Rule in operation. But they must contemplate the next and sub-

  1731
  sequent occasions upon which, under the proposed Rule, a new Speaker would have to he elected. Should that Rule pass, the Speaker would be chosen under circumstances, and from considerations and motives altogether different from those which had hitherto governed the choice for that Office. The practice of foreign countries had been quoted in that discussion. There was one country where the power of closing a debate by a bare majority existed in unabated rigour—namely, Denmark. Among the various countries which were supposed to possess that power, very few possessed it to the full extent proposed by Her Majesty's Government; but in Denmark, which was one of those few, it was the custom of the House of Assembly absolutely to elect its Speaker once every four weeks. The House would hardly desire to arrive at a state of things analogous to that. No one would deny that to close a debate by a bare majority was an evil which could only be justified by the fact that a greater evil would be avoided by its adoption. They did not, however, hear that any other country in Europe had anything approaching to such a congestion of legislative Business as was alleged as the ground for the present proposal. Every one of the countries which had adopted it, therefore, stood convicted of adopting it before the period had arrived which Her Majesty's Government considered would alone justify a resort to it. In Hungary there was no such power. In Austria it was rendered much less operative than if it existed as now proposed here by the fact that a certain number of speeches were allowed on the question of closing. In France and Belgium the case was similar. In the Chamber of Deputies in Holland no debate was allowed. In Portugal there was no clôture at all. In Spain the state of things was curious. The power existed, but in a very peculiarly modified form; it was an engine in the hands of the Government, and was entirely employed to stop the mouths of private Members, and it had for its effect, not the immediate determination of the question at issue, but only its postponement. In Sweden and Norway there was nothing of the kind; and, therefore, it was only in Germany, Holland, and Italy that anything fully resembling the present proposal existed. He doubted whe-
  1732
  ther those countries had got beyond the most benighted doctrines as to Government interference in elections. In Switzerland, he should not omit to state, a majority of two-thirds was required to close a debate. So much, then, for foreign countries; and the last consideration he would urge upon the House was this—if they were going to adopt this proposal, let them first consider whether it was likely to be permanent. What was the reason for the much-admired stability of the results of British legislation? Was it not owing to the fact that the legislation of the Imperial Parliament was due, in a large measure, to compromise, and to the circumstance that the majority were bound to reckon, to a certain extent, with the opinion of their opponents? By adopting a Rule of this kind they imperiled that invaluable element of stability and compromise. Evidence, too, was not wanting that there would be a lack of permanence in results if this doctrine was adopted. To prove that he need only allude to the manifestations they had had in the speeches of the Prime Minister himself. Two years ago it was proposed to do no more than deal with urgent cases, in which the authority of the Chair had been disregarded and the Rules of the House abused by wilfully obstructing Business. That reform was attempted in an expiring Parliament, yet the right hon. Gentleman then deliberately proposed to the House that the Rule decided upon should not be made a Standing Order, but should cease with the close of the Session. Further, the right hon. Gentleman made an important reservation in his speech in introducing this measure. He said, in the course of that speech, debates might arise on subjects involving great questions of principle which would have to be brought into view from a distance, and to which they had not been accustomed. Seeing that the Prime Minister in 1880 suggested to the House that it should hesitate about making permanent so small a thing as the Standing Order relating to Members who obstructed the Business of the House, and that, in the present year, he was careful to make a reservation of opinion as to possible future occasions when the reiterated expression of arguments might not be Obstruction, he could not help but think that on some, possibly, not distant occasion, when the Party led by the righ

  1733
  hon. Gentleman was in a minority, his opinions on this matter might undergo very considerable qualification. There were those who now sat on the Opposition side of the House who had a sincere, though unostentatious, desire for the progress of Public Business, yet they hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not, while making to the world an unduly humiliating confession that the House of Commons was unable to con-duct the Business of the country, present also the spectacle of an unedifying infirmity of purpose.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he thought that the effect of the proposed Rule had been greatly exaggerated. If the clôture became the Rule of the House, it would have no operation such as hon. Members opposite, and some on his side, appeared to fear. Whatever it might do, it would not stop fair and reasonable debate. That was not its result even in America and other countries where it was rigidly enforced, and where it existed without any of the safeguards now proposed. Nor would any Speaker, however partial, do what the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) apprehended, and interfere to prevent a private Member from bringing forward a Motion. If that was the chief fear of the hon. Member, he might ask whether, as things were, the private Members had reason to be satisfied with the facilities afforded them by the practice of the House? At the beginning of a Session they had a fair number of opportunities; but the pressure of Business soon obliged the Government to take nearly the whole time of the House, and thus to stop private Member's Motions in the most effectual manner. In the present Session, if it might be regarded as typical, he supposed that Morning Sittings would begin in a few weeks, and that as the year advanced every day would have to be appropriated by the Government; that being so, private Members had much more to gain than to lose by the adoption of the New Rules. But, it was argued, the clôture would crush minorities. He did not think it would do so, and was confident that his right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary entertained fears that were by no means warranted. It seemed to be thought by him that the Prime Minister was to nod to the Speaker, and that the latter would
  1734
  then and there stop the debate; but there was nothing in the Rule to warrant that supposition. To stifle the discussion of grievances by the application of the clôture three very unlikely conditions would have to be present at the same time—first, a tyrannical Minister; secondly, a partizan Speaker; and lastly, a tyrannical majority. Was there any probability that such things could coexist? A Minister who attempted to use the clôture tyrannically in order to force his measures unfairly through the House would have but a short tenure of power; and from the moment that a Speaker departed from that impartiality which the Speakers of the House of Commons had hitherto invariably displayed, and became a partizan, his power and authority in that House would cease. There was an equal improbability of the existence of a tyrannical majority. If any attempt were made by a despotic Minister to force his measures through the House before they had been fully discussed, the moderate men of his Party would soon let it be known that such a proceeding would not obtain their sanction. Supposing for a moment that a Party was so suicidal as to back up the Minister in stopping debate, how long would the constituencies stand such conduct? There was nothing Englishmen valued more than fair play; and any Party inclined to refuse fair play to their opponents, and to deprive them of their right to free discussion, would soon hear a voice from the country commanding them to cease from anything of the kind. How far a tyrannical Party was expected to be created or suspected to exist already might be gathered from the apparently universal belief of hon. Members opposite that all Liberals were influenced by the dreadful institutions called Caucuses. He could only say, speaking for himself, that he had no knowledge of any Caucus, and had never received any Circular pressing him to vote for the Resolutions. If any Central Committee sent him a Circular he should certainly return it without a stamp, and mulct the senders in the sum of 2d. One objection very often urged against the Prime Minister's proposal was that the clôture might be carried by a simple majority. He held, however, that the whole theory of fancy majorities was full of absurdities, and that all

  1735
  questions, many of them involving far graver issues, were decided by simple majorities. Some doubt had been expressed as to the meaning of the words "evident sense of the House." He had no doubt on that subject. As a matter of fact, until the last few years, a very effective clôture had always existed for all practical purposes. The custom was that when a question had been thoroughly debated the Government and the Opposition agreed that the time had come for taking a division. The Minister who had charge of the measure used invariably to wind up the debate, and if anybody rose after he had spoken he was howled down. That was the clôture in another form, and he believed that the operation of this Rule would be precisely the same. Now that times were changed, and debates were adjourned and protracted in spite of the evident sense of the House, the clôture seemed absolutely necessary. The present position of the House was unendurable. It was being dragged down, and deliberately dragged down, so that the people were beginning to feel that the great institution of Parliament was no longer to be relied on for getting through the work of the country. Hon. Members opposite said that public opinion was not in favour of this Rule. He entirely differed from them on that point, and thought there was no question in which the Liberal Party could appeal to the country with more confidence than on this. The country looked with dread to the condition of Parliament, which was strongly illustrated by the occurrences of last week. The Minister who had charge of the Army Estimates, involving £15,000,000, was kept waiting from 4 o'clock until a quarter to 1 before he could make his Statement, while matters of the most trivial character were being discussed. The same thing occurred with the Navy Estimates; and he believed it to be the general opinion of the country that decisive measures should be adopted to put an end to so great a scandal. Members were sent there to scrutinize the Estimates, and at present it was impossible they could fulfil that duty. Some hon. Members seemed ambitious to talk upon a question of the £10,000 a-year proposed to be voted as a settlement on the son of our gracious Queen; but when it came to
  1736
  millions questions of the most trivial nature were brought forward, and the main Business was put off for eight or nine hours. They were not doing their duty in allowing trifling matters to interfere between them and the most paramount service they had to render. They were also anxious to come to the discussion of several important measures, such as the Bankruptcy Bill; and it was necessary that their Procedure should be so changed that they could give due consideration to these measures. He hoped that, in the true interests of Parliamentary government, hon. Members would take a more calm and judicial view of the proposal before the House. He did not understand why it should be a Party question. It was not a Party question; it was one affecting the House only. There was a suspicion that it was to be used for improperly passing measures; but there was no risk of anything of the kind. Let them dismiss these miserable Party suspicions, and let them, in the interest of this great institution, pass the Rules which he hoped would place the House in the position it formerly occupied.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: Sir, I quite agree with the hon. Member that this, above all others, is a matter which should be calmly considered and not dealt with as a Party question. It must be generally admitted that any question relating to the Procedure of this House ought to be left to the independent judgment of the House, and can be better decided by the experience and knowledge which hon. Members have acquired in this House than by their constituents, or even by federations of their constituents, however national or however liberal. And, above everything, a proposal of this kind ought to be adopted, if it is to be adopted, by the general consent of the House, and not by a Party vote; and in its consideration we should not be biased either by allegiance to the Government of the day or by want of confidence in the Government. Therefore I cannot help thinking the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) will much regret that the precedent which was set by the late Government in this matter—dealing, as they had to deal, with no less difficulties than those which beset the present Government—has not been followed on the

  1737
  present occasion. I deeply regret that the opinions which the Prime Minister appeared to me to express at the commencement of this debate were not adhered to by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India; and that the noble Lord should have told the House that the existence of the Government was inevitably bound up, not with the whole of these proposals, but with that particular portion of them which has in its favour the least authority, and which, unquestionably, is the most unpopular in the country. I very much regret that that course has been taken by the Government, because it seems to me to render it extremely difficult for us to discuss this proposal with the calmness which it requires, and almost impossible to secure that if this proposal should eventually take the form of a Standing Order it should be worked with the success we should all desire. What is the feeling with which this Resolution is regarded by almost every Member, probably by every Member sitting on this side of the House, and also, I suspect, by not a few of those sitting on the other side? There is a feeling amounting to a dread that what it is intended to do is, not to stop Obstruction, but to put an end to legitimate opposition. There is a feeling that a minority in this House, however large, is to be debarred from its Constitutional right of full criticism of the measures of the Government, from delaying those measures, if it should appear to be necessary, for their fuller consideration by the country, and this although it is certainly the duty of each and every Member of the minority to oppose measures which his constituents disapprove, exactly as much as it is the duty of Members of the majority to support measures which have the support of their constituents. I think the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India ridiculed such an idea, as the hon. Member for Glamorganshire has done this evening. We were told, and we have been told again, that it is a moral impossibility that fair criticism should be stopped in such a manner, and that any Government which attempted to do it would, in fact, be committing suicide. So long as we have a majority of Members of the independence and honour of my hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire, and so long as political conflicts in England are conducted under our present system, I think
  1738
  there is great force in the argument of the noble Lord. I am bound to say that, in my opinion, if Her Majesty's present Government, having carried the Resolution and registered it as a standing Order, were to attempt to act upon it during the rest of the Session in preventing us from legitimate criticism of important measures, the critics would have a much pleasanter time in the ensuing autumn than they would; and their tenure of Office would be even more precarious at the commencement of next Session than it is at present. But we cannot feel sure that Members of this House will always regard with such justifiable contempt the action of national federations on either side as does the hon. Member for Glamorganshire; and if the Resolution be passed as a Standing Order, it seems to me not only possible, but probable, that a time may come when, supported by such federations, the Government of the day might use it with impunity to crush all political independence in this House, and perhaps even to destroy anything like a continuous or fixed policy in our legislation, by repealing, in one or two Sessions, measures, however wise or beneficent, passed by a previous Parliament, however enlightened, before the country could shake off the fetters by which it would have been bound. That is what I fear, not in the present, but in the future, from the operation of this Resolution, coupled with the system of political organization to which we are tending more rapidly every day. But this is not the argument I wish now to impress on the Government; it is rather this—that, whether legitimate or not, whether foolish or wise, the fears to which I have alluded do undoubtedly exist; and that, for the sake of obtaining something like the consent and goodwill of this House to their proposals, it would be most politic on their part to still those fears and show that they are not justified. I think it will be felt that, after all, the possibility of transacting the Business of the House rests not upon any Rules we have made or may make so much as upon the mutual forbearance of hon. Members in this House, and on the deference which is paid to the general convenience of this House. I recognize the truth of the statement of the Prime Minister that there have been frequent and increasing instances of late when

  1739
  that forbearance has been no longer shown and that deference no longer paid; but I think we should remember that these, after all, have been individual instances, and I think they ought to be dealt with, not by general Rules, but by individual discipline. The feelings to which I have referred still characterize and govern the conduct of the vast majority of this House; and I do not think it is fair or reasonable to take away from the whole House the privilege of freedom of debate because that privilege has been abused by a few. Act as you will against those individuals; but let your New Rules be directed against them, and not against the House at large. I am convinced that, if this Rule be passed by a Party vote, those fears and suspicions to which I have alluded will be strengthened, and that you will lose more time by thus weakening that forbearance and deference upon which our institutions rest than you can possibly gain from the working of the Rule. As it is, your proposal may be carried. But its adoption will be accompanied with a feeling of irritation and injustice, with the open hostility of a large proportion of this House, and the dislike of many hon. Members opposite, not the less bitter because their Party loyalty will not allow them to express their feelings. I fear that the effect will be that our debates will not be curtailed in any way, but rather that they will be lengthened to a greater extent than at present, and that we shall be subjected to "filibustering," "stone-walling," and other objectionable practices which disgrace the Assemblies of other countries, and which, if once they take root here, will do more to destroy the honour and dignity of this House than any of the evils complained of. I have carefully considered the speeches of the Government; but I have been unable to ascertain for what particular evil this Rule is to provide a remedy. I want to deal with the matter without exaggeration; and it seems to me that it is ridiculous to say, as was recently said by a supporter of the Government, that the Government have to deal with unparalleled Obstruction. They have to deal with a difficulty; but I have noticed nothing—at any rate during the present Session—equal to the difficulties which the late Government had to encounter. I do not apprehend, as my hon. Friend
  1740
  the Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) appears to suppose, that this Resolution would obviate anything like that which happened on Monday last. We know the difficulty now experienced by Ministers in obtaining an opportunity for making important statements on the Army and Navy Estimates; but this is dealt with by another Resolution. This Rule could do nothing to prevent any delay that has occurred in the present Session. I do not believe that it, or any other Rule, could put an end to the evil of too much talk. That has been recognized as a grave impediment to legislation in this House for more than a generation past. Anyone who cares to refer to the chronicles of any year during that time may see as strong complaints of the evil of too much talk as can be made in the present day. If you want to mitigate this evil, you ought to diminish the number of occasions on which debates may legitimately take place, rather than attempt to stop the flow of waters when once they have been let loose. But if this Rule cannot be intended for this purpose, neither is it adapted to the case of hon. Members who desire by their action to discredit or damage the efficiency of this House; for that, as I have already stated, appears to me to be a matter of discipline which would be properly dealt with, if occasion required, by a severe penalty. The practical point, as I gather from the speech of the Prime Minister, which this Rule is to secure, is that, when in the general judgment of the House a question is mature for decision, no want of deference to the general wish of the House shall be permitted to prevent that decision being taken. Well, that appears to me, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glamorganshire remarked, an attempt to put into a Rule what has long been the recognized custom of this House. The custom has been that, when by mutual consent of the great majority on both sides the time for a division has arrived, that division should be taken. Why is it necessary to go beyond that point, and provide for the closing of a debate, not by a majority of both sides of the House, but by a bare majority? As to the provision in this Rule about the evident sense of the House, of course our old custom did provide for the closing of a debate by the evident sense of the House. The Rules

  1741
  that were adopted on a great exceptional emergency last Session provided also for the closing of debates in accordance with the evident sense of the House; for I think it cannot be repeated too often that you, Sir, the great authority in this House, then interpreted the evident sense of the House to mean a vote by a majority of three-fourths—an interpretation which, so far as I can see, would not be open to the Speaker under this Rule. Yet is there any reason why the Rule shall not be so limited? Of course, there have been instances during past years in which debates have been prolonged by individuals against the general sense of the House; but what I maintain is that no one can with any justice argue—no one, I believe, can produce one single instance in which the great body of the Opposition of the day did not give a most loyal support to the Government of the day in putting an end to resistance to the prevailing will of the House otherwise than by argument. And the words used by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech give colour to this view. He said that the Rule did not mean a state of things in which a majority, as commonly understood, is clamouring one way, and a minority, as commonly understood, is clamouring another way. Well, if it does not mean that, what, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government, does it mean? I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister told us that he had endeavoured in no point to go beyond the necessity of the case. Well, if it is the fact that the Opposition has been as loyal to the Government in a difficulty of this nature as I have stated, and if it is the fact that this Rule would close a debate by a bare majority, and not only with the consent of a majority of both sides of the House, surely this Rule, in its terms, does not carry out that undertaking of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said there is but one sound principle in this House, and that is that the majority of this House shall prevail; and he gave to us instances in which most important decisions have been come to by this House involving even the fate of a Government by very small majorities. But he forgot, when quoting those instances, that the House is not fettered in arriving at such decisions by any safeguard while he has
  1742
  found it necessary to impose certain safeguards on his own Rule. He has done this, I presume, because voting to give effect to our opinions is obviously not quite the same thing as voting to prevent other people from expressing theirs, in spite of their protest that they have not sufficiently done so. But as he has proposed certain safeguards, the question to be decided is not whether any should be provided, but merely what the nature of the safeguards should be; and I am utterly unable to understand why the right hon. Gentleman has expressed so very strong an objection to a proportionate majority of the House. He has referred us to the Colonies for examples. I will follow him there; and will take an example, not from Colonial action, but from a suggestion made by a Member of his own Government not longer ago than February 2. A very important despatch was on that date addressed by Lord Kimberley to a Colony which has recently, perhaps, occupied more of the attention of Her Majesty's Government than almost any other—I mean the Colony of Natal. The inhabitants of Natal had apparently desired that a system of responsible government, with only a single Legislative Chamber, should be granted to them. Lord Kimberley replies—
  "There is at present no instance of a single Chamber with full Parliamentary powers in a British colony under responsible government. In Natal it will be especially desirable, having regard to the gravity of native questions … that there should be some protection against hasty and ill-considered legislation and action, such as it is elsewhere the object of a second Chamber to supply. The point is one of serious importance, and will require careful consideration when the details of the proposed constitutional changes are being determined. I will only at present suggest that a possible mode of providing the requisite safeguards might be to enact that in certain cases the concurrence of more than a bare majority of the whole Council should be requisite for the passing of a Bill."
  Therefore, as a safeguard against" hasty and inconsiderate action" on the part of the Legislative Assembly of Natal, Her Majesty's Government themselves suggest" that the concurrence of more than a bare majority of the whole Council should be requisite." Is there no risk of" hasty and inconsiderate action" by this House in deciding on a matter with which the House of Lords have nothing to do, and which is to be decided here

  1743
  by a single division without debate? And if there be, why should the Prime Minister, desirous as he is to assimilate the Procedure of our Imperial and Colonial Parliaments, stigmatize here on the 20th of February as a "vast innovation," and as "contrary to the one only sound principle in this House," the very proposal which, on February 2, he had himself suggested as a leading feature in the brand-new form of responsible government which he contemplates conferring on the important Colony of Natal? Supposing, however, that the feeling of the majority of the House be in favour of a proportionate majority, and that the Government should go so far as to adopt either the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) or that of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), or in some other way to concede the principle of a proportionate majority, there would still remain objections of no small moment against the adoption of the clôture by a majority. Some hon. Members seem to think this power could not be applied to prevent private Members from bringing on Motions. But what did the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India say the other night? He was referring to cases in which the power now asked for would be required; and he said that this power would enable the House to prevent the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) from bringing on the question of Central Asia, and the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) from bringing on the question of patent medicines.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONexplained that he had said that there should be some mode by which discussions such as that on patent medicines should be limited in duration. He had never said that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport should be prevented from bringing the question forward.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: In saying even that much the noble Marquess was singularly ungrateful to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, who had twice resigned his opportunities of bringing the matter forward in order to enable the Government to proceed with their Business. But what might certainly be inferred from the speech of the noble Lord is that he had in contempla-
  1744
  tion the application of this Rule against private Members who may wish to bring grievances before the House. That means that Members who may happen not to be looked on favourably by the majority in this House will be debarred, if not from bringing forward questions which the majority may consider to be crotchets, at all events, from having them discussed at any reasonable length. That would soon amount to a very material interference with one of the most important functions of this House—namely, that of considering the grievances of Her Majesty's subjects. It is all very well for Members of the Government to say that the occasions for the application of the Rule would be rare. We were told last year that the reductions of rent under the Land Act would be rare, and we think ourselves fairly entitled to look with some doubt on similar prophecies. I fear that the clôture, whether by a proportionate or by a bare majority, would prevent the advocates of unpopular subjects from being fairly heard in this House. Let it be remembered that some of the very best among us have, at one time or another, been the advocates of unpopular subjects. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster might, for example, be numbered among such advocates. The great eloquence of those right hon. Gentlemen might, under any circumstances, enable them to obtain a hearing either in the House or in the country; but I question very much if less eminent men would be in an equally favourable position under this Rule, for it would be difficult indeed for advocates of an unpopular cause, unless of very exceptional ability, to obtain that hearing in the country which certainly would not be denied to a powerful minority, or to any individual who happened to have a great wave of popular feeling at his back. But there is another class to which the Prime Minister has himself referred. What of those Members of this House who have, at one time or another, been guilty of apparent Obstruction, which has been justified by the result where important changes have by their action—to quote the words of the Prime Minister—been introduced into measures as the fruit and product of long debates? This action would, at the moment, appear to be Obstruction. It would be met by a Government by no means anxious

  1745
  for the alteration of its proposals, and by a majority impatient of delay; and can anybody suppose that the clôture would not be pretty readily applied, and, if applied, would it always be to the advantage of the country? But there is still one instance more. I have spoken of the advocates of unpopular causes, and of unpopular Members. There are also unpopular sections of this House. For more than a generation past there has been an Advanced Irish Party in this House, which has never been popular with either the majority of Members of this House or with the majority of constituencies in the United Kingdom. I quite admit that on one or two occasions in the past few years it has been necessary, in one way or another, to put an end to debates which have been raised by these Members; but I contend that this object might be achieved equally well by the operation of the other Rules, to which I have already alluded. I fear, if this power of the clôture existed, it would be applied to an unpopular section of this kind far too frequently to be consistent with justice and fairness to them or their constituents, and a safety valve which at present exists would be closed in a manner calculated to add materially to the serious difficulty of governing Ireland. I quite agree with what fell at the commencement of this debate from the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition; that, considering the number and importance of the other proposals which Her Majesty's Government have placed on the Paper, it would have been, above all things, desirable that we should have considered and decided those other proposals before we arrived at this. I feel that there is much in those proposals which would form a very valuable addition to our power of conducting Business in this House; but, for the reasons I have ventured to state to the House, I cannot look upon this Resolution in the same light. It seems to me that it is not for the interest of any Member, or any section of Members of this House, that measures, as to the necessity of which the majority may have made up their minds, should pass, perhaps not with insufficient discussion, but with an amount of discussion, which the minority will believe and say has been insufficient. I cannot feel that, if there be any amongst us who desire to discredit and destroy
  1746
  the honour and usefulness of this House, their operations will in any way be impeded by the passing of such a Resolution as this. I think there must be some reasons for the course which the Government have pursued beyond those which hitherto have been mentioned to this House. I think the Government must have in their minds, not merely the merits of this particular proposal, but other difficulties which they see before them. A few days ago the Prime Minister told us how Pope Pius IX., with a temper too sanguine, and with very deficient calculation of the impediments in his way, promised to the population reforms of every description—a course which, for the moment, brought him much popular favour; and how he then found it very difficult to live on promises instead of performances. I do not know how far that is a correct history of Pope Pius IX.; but it seems to me not entirely inapplicable to the history and present position of the Prime Minister himself. A terrible catastrophe may be awaiting the right hon. Gentleman, as he told us fell on the Pope; but I trust there is sufficient independence still left in this House, in spite of so great a danger, to decline to abandon that freedom of speech which is as the breath of life to this ancient Assembly; and to oppose a proposal which, if we had brought it forward while we were in Office, would have been by no one more jealously resisted than by the right hon. Gentlemen who now occupy the Treasury Bench.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I am sure the House will appreciate the moderate and cautious spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed himself to this Motion; and in the remarks for which I shall ask the indulgence of the House I shall endeavour to follow his example. On this, the third night of this discussion, I think it may be useful to ask exactly what is the Parliamentary situation? I know that, although the right hon. Gentleman has left us rather in doubt as to whether he is altogether against the proposal of a power of closing a debate, or whether he would be favourable to a limited proposal of that kind, there are Gentlemen opposite who are of opinion that two-thirds or three-fourths would be a proper limitation on the clôture, if we have the clôture at all. But I do desire to point

  1747
  out that there is no proposal of such a nature before us, and, for the reasons which I shall adduce, no such proposal is possible. You have before you the Resolution of the Prime Minister, and you have the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott). I will not enter into the merits of the question whether "bare majority" is, or is not, a violation of Parliamentary decorum; but if the English language means anything at all, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton is a statement that no majority shall be allowed to close a debate. ["No, no!"] Well, I have arrived at an age when I imagined that I understood the English language. I will read the Amendment. It says—
  "No Rules of Procedure will be satisfactory to this House which confer the power of closing a Debate upon a majority of Members."
  That is a statement that a majority shall not close a debate. However, I do not wish to go into that verbal discussion, for I have stronger reasons to give for the assertion I have made. Assume the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton to be carried, what will be the situation of this House? The operative proposal which the Prime Minister has brought forward, which might have been amended, will be gone, and in its place will be inserted a negative proposition—because the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton is a simple negation. It does not propose to do anything; it cannot do anything, and it cannot be amended. Therefore, the carrying of the Motion, which you are invited from various quarters of the House to approve, is an absolute condemnation and destruction of the proposal for closing a debate at all. ["No, no!"] It is quite useless to say "No!" because it is a proposition which is absolutely self-evident. ["No, no!"] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to make my statement. They are beginning to make an evident sense of the House against my doing so. I assert that if the House adopts the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton, they will then declare that—
  "No Rules of Procedure will be satisfactory to this House which confer the power of closing a Debate upon a majority of Members."
  I assert that that is a negative proposition; it is not a positive pro-
  1748
  position, and it is no use saying "No!" because it is self-evident. That being the case, of course you may say that the Government, not accepting that Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, might produce another plan. But Her Majesty's Government have already, I think, sufficiently intimated that, having maturely considered this matter, they do not think any other plan would be satisfactory, and therefore they will produce no other plan. Then, who is going to produce any other plan? It is not contained in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton. Is it going to be produced by the responsible Opposition? I do not speak of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton, because, from the tone in which he addressed these Benches, I should call the Amendment a personal rather than a responsible opposition; but what is the view of the responsible Opposition on this matter? Are the responsible Opposition prepared to propose a modified clôture? I have attended carefully to their speeches, and I cannot make out that they propose any form of clôture at all. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE assented.] The right hon. Gentleman accepts that proposition. That is quite clear. They are not in favour of two-thirds; therefore they are not going to propose two-thirds. The Government have said they are not going to propose two-thirds. How, then, is two-thirds ever to become a practical proposition before the House? It is perfectly obvious that there is no such proposal now, and there can be no such proposal. The ardent Members below the Gangway who are allies of the responsible Opposition, but not the responsible Opposition, are they in favour of two-thirds? Certainly they are not. We know they are as much opposed to two-thirds as to the proposal which is now under the consideration of the House. Therefore it is perfectly clear two-thirds is a proposition, which is not, and cannot be, under the consideration of the House. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite assents to my statement that he is against the clôture in every form, the question we have really to discuss is, whether there is or is not to be in this House any power of closing a debate when it has proceeded to an unreasonable length? I think it may be necessary, and it may be indispensable, as

  1749
  was shown last year, that some such power should exist. It was shown to be necessary last year by your action, Sir—action which was approved by the immense majority of this House—action which was called, and properly called—because the word may be used in a good sense or a bad sense—a revolutionary proceeding—a proceeding like that on which the Constitution of this country is framed. What follows on a revolution? A settlement on the principles of the revolution. You do not want a temporary revolution. You want some regular recognized law of the House. Well, Sir, the action you took last year cannot be repeated. The House must consider the character, and the necessity, and the nature of that action, and either legalize or condemn it; but if they condemn the principle of that Act, then, if that necessity should again arise, I venture to think that you could not repeat the action you took last year. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who spoke on the last night of this debate, in his very reasonable speech, argued the matter from this point of view. He said—"We must regard your supposed Rule as it is likely to be worked, perhaps, at first; we must look at all the evils of which it is capable, because it would not be safe to establish such a system, and assume that the evils it might involve would not occur." That was the line of argument he pursued. The right hon. Gentleman said this proposal of a clôture was one which no Committee had actually proposed. That is perfectly true, but he referred to the last Committee upon this subject; and it was apparent then that though no Committee previously had entertained this question, it was very seriously entertained by that Committee; and that that Committee would not pronounce positively against the clôture, but said it was not desirable at that time, and the majority of the Committee said they would not at present recommend it. Therefore, it is quite plain that they had seen that there might arise—and, indeed, it was quite possible there might arise—a state of things in which a remedy of this kind might be and would be necessary. But a great authority has been mentioned in this discussion. We are told that, to old Parliamentarian minds, nothing could be so dreadful as the French system of
  1750
  clôture. I suppose there is no finer old Parliamentarian than Lord Eversley, who was formerly Speaker of this House. He was examined in 1854, and was asked—
  "Has it ever occurred to you that it would be well to adopt some mode similar in principle to what is called in France 'La clôture,' to enable the House summarily to shorten a discussion which did not excite much interest in the House?"
  His reply was—
  "My belief is that the House will, some day or other, be obliged to adopt a summary mode of putting an end to useless debate."
  Thirty years ago the growing necessities of the House of Commons had caused a man so imbued with the ancient traditions of Parliament as Mr. Shaw Lefevere to appreciate that one of these days the clôture would become a necessity. In the year 1878, a majority of the Committee then considering the subject said that at present they would not recommend the clôture. But we have learned a good deal since 1878. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: That is not in the Report.] No; in the Report subsequent experience naturally does not appear. But we have advanced rapidly since 1878. The late Government said that, because things were not in the Report of the Committee, it was not necessary to propose this in 1880; but hon. Gentlemen opposite approved and supported the clôture exercised by the Speaker last year. That shows that step by step you have found the existing measures insufficient, and you have had to take stronger and stronger measures against the evil with which you have to deal. I wish we could really rely upon that fine old spirit of the House of Commons to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) has referred, and of which he is himself an excellent Representative; but we know perfectly well we cannot any longer confidently rely upon that. The right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State (Sir R. Assheton Cross) said the other night—and I think the phrase was a good one—"What we have and what we suffer from is a want of loyalty to the House in some of its Members." That is the evil against which you have to contend; that is the evil which you have not been able to overcome. I referred just now to the argument of the

  1751
  late Secretary of State—that you must look at the scheme we propose by the light of all the possible evils which it may involve, because you must be guarded against possible as well as probable evils. I accept that line of argument; but he has applied it to the remedy; allow me to apply it to the disease. Let us examine what are the possible evils of the present system, and see whether they are tolerable, or whether it is not absolutely necessary that you should seek for some efficient remedy against them. The possible evils in the House of Commons, under the present system, are that the House of Commons may find itself absolutely helpless in the hands of an unpatriotic and unscrupulous minority. The right hon. Gentleman considered the other aspect of the case from the point of view of what might happen if you had a tyrannical and reckless majority. I ask you to consider what would be the position of the House of Commons if ever you should see in the House of Commons an unpatriotic and unscrupulous minority, who used all the powers they possessed. I will ask you to consider what the Business of the House of Commons is, and how it can be dealt with by such a minority. In the transaction of the Business of the House you have the part which is taken by private Members; you have the part of the Business which is transacted by the Government. I will not say much about the part which is transacted by the private Members, except this—that nothing is more true than what the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. G. Russell), in his able and interesting speech, pointed out—namely, that private Members are equally the victims of this system of Obstruction by a reckless minority as are the Government themselves. But I want you to consider what could be the operation of such a minority as this upon the Business of the nation, as transacted by the Government. We know very well here, but it is not very well known outside, that although the Government is held responsible for the whole time of Parliament, which really is only nominally two-fifths of the time, out of five days of the week, until you come to the end of the Session, private Members have three days of the week, and the Government two. I say the Government have nominally two, because they may have none at all;
  1752
  and last week they hardly had any at all. The Business of the Government consists of two classes. It is talked of generally as if it was only legislative Business; but the Government have also great administrative Business, the passing of Votes of Supply, carrying the Estimates through, and passing what, from habit, I will call the Mutiny Bill. The legislative Business of the Government is, no doubt, important in a very high degree; but the administrative Business of the Government in this House is absolutely indispensable. The machinery of the State cannot go on without it. For transacting the whole of the Business during the early part of the Session, the Government have eight days in the month at its disposal. In that period they have to transact all the varied Business of the complicated society of this vast Empire. Now, if there be such a minority as that of which I have spoken—a minority reckless of consequences, careless of the opinion of this House, utterly indifferent to the opinion of the country, resolved, if it can, to disorganize the whole fabric of Parliament and destroy the operation of the machinery by which the Business of the country is transacted—I have a right to make this hypothesis to-night, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite have a right to make theirs on the other side. Let me ask the attention of the House while I endeavour to point out what such a minority can do. In the first place, the Government have to propose the Address to the Crown. In the name of freedom of debate, every Member has a right to speak, and to speak at any length he chooses, either on the Address, or on any other topic, foreign or domestic, and he can do what he pleases. In the old days, on great occasions, you had two or three days' debates on the Address; recently you have had a great many more. You may have a great many more; and, without such a power as this inherent in the House, there is no reason why such a minority might not occupy the greater part of February in the debate on the Address. You then come to March, when the Government have the Supplementary Estimates and the Army and Navy Estimates, which they must carry before the end of March. Look at their situation in the presence of a minority of that description. I will suppose the Government have introduced no legis-

  1753
  lative schemes at all, but have devoted themselves from the first day to Votes of Supply, and taken the first Monday in March for Supply. The minority can cover that day's Paper with any number of Motions which will prevent the Government getting into Supply at all. The minority may discuss each of these Motions separately, and at any length they like, and the Government can get no Supply on that Monday. They may do a little more than they did on Monday week last. The Government get no Supply, and the House is helpless. The Government then have Thursday, and they put down Supply again; but the Paper is again covered with Motions, and the Government again get no Supply. That may be done through every week in March on each Government day; and the minority, if they choose, have the power to stop Supplies. The power of stopping Supplies was in old days a power which even a great majority in great crises shrank from exercising. It is impossible to conceive that there may be a minority who may desire, and who certainly have the power, to stop Supplies in the month of March, until the financial year has expired. If they choose, there is no man in the House who would not find that they have ample power to do that by covering the Paper with Motions on each Government day. It is useless to speak, as the right hon. Baronet did, of personal action against these men. You can take no personal action. Their proceedings would be perfectly legitimate.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The point I took on the question to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded was that there is a Resolution on the Paper which will enable the Government to get into Supply, notwithstanding these Motions.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am bound to state the things as they actually exist; and I say, as matters now exist, the minority have perfect power to stop Supply. I come now to the next point. When the month of March is gone we come to the month of April. When you come to the month of April, even if you had no Vacation at all, the Mutiny Bill has to be passed. There are numerous stages of the Mutiny Bill, every one of which can be opposed; and tonight I see by the Paper that the Mutiny Bill is blocked by the hon. Mem-
  1754
  ber for Limerick. You may oppose and debate every stage of the Mutiny Bill. You may propose any number of Amendments in Committee on the Bill, and it will be perfectly easy for such an opposition as that which I have sketched out to prevent the passing of the Bill before the period for passing it expires; and, if so, the whole fabric of your military position would be destroyed, and the Army would be disbanded. Is the House of Commons to be helpless in such a situation as that? Is it to have no power of saying it will take measures to prevent the Opposition being allowed to disintegrate the whole of our political system by stopping Supply, and even to disband our Army? I venture to say nobody in this House can disprove that, without some protection of this character, it is perfectly possible for a position such as I have described to occur. Then, after you have dealt in the month of April with the Mutiny Bill, you come to the ordinary Estimates. In the face of a minority like this you have to deal with the ordinary Estimates; and the same thing that I have pointed to in regard to Supply before Easter may be done after Easter, and still more effectually, without any possibility of operating against the individual. You may have every item discussed, and the whole time of Parliament occupied; and you may reach August without the Government being able to command a single day for the consideration of any measure. Nobody can say those are not possibilities actually within your existing Rules. Now, I want to know whether there is any Legislative Assembly that is without some means of protecting itself against things of that description? Then consider the position with reference to legislative measures themselves. The Government of the day has some considerable measures—it is generally expected that the Government shall submit two or three considerable measures. If the Opposition desire to block and destroy the measures which are to follow, it is not necessary to operate on these measures. Scientific Obstruction has gone much too far for that. It is like the game of curling; a stone is placed not to win, but to prevent others from getting in. The thing has been brought to scientific perfection, and all you have to do to destroy all the measures proposed by the Government is to extend

  1755
  the discussion on the first measure until you waste the whole time of the House; and, what with that and the discussions on Supply and the ordinary Estimates, you may take care that only one measure, or not even one, shall be passed by the Government. Is that a state of things—I will not say with which the Government can be satisfied; but with which the country which has placed the Government here is going to be content? My opinion is that it certainly is not. All this is to be done in the name of freedom of debate and freedom of discussion. I do not think respectable terms were ever so badly abused as when these were employed to justify such a state of things as this. Freedom of debate and freedom of discussion for whom? Why, for a reckless minority; there is no freedom of debate and freedom of discussion for the majority. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. G. Russell) has said, over and over again the majority are silenced; they are obliged to be silent because they want to see something done. They hold their peace simply because a small minority have occupied the whole of the time for discussion; and, therefore, it is a proceeding not in favour of freedom of debate and freedom of discussion, but adverse to freedom of debate, when you allow a minority to exercise such a power as that. Hon. Gentlemen opposite object to the clôture, but they have a clôture of their own. I remember the other night that an hon. Member opposite spoke—I had not the patience to count, but a Friend counted that the hon. Gentleman spoke 15 times three or four nights ago. ["Name!"] No; I will not give his name; he might speak 16 times to-night. But he spoke 15 times, and that was a practical clôture against 14 other Gentlemen who might have occupied the time in useful discussion. The truth is that the minority shut the mouths of the majority by occupying all the time the majority might occupy in the useful discussion of important questions. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite said we ought not to punish the many for the offences of the few, I agree in that; but what we are doing is that we are punishing the many by the offences of the few, by depriving the majority of the time they might usefully occupy in the transaction of Public Business.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had stated that the restraint placed on the licence of the few ought not to be the standard for restraining the liberty of the many.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I say that the offences now committed by the few practically punish the many. All that is necessary in order to produce the evils which I have indicated is, that you should some day or other see an organized body constituting the minority with no respect for the traditions of the House, no regard for its influence, and no sympathies with its functions. And then, I say, such a body can use its powers, with the effect I have described. You may say—"Oh, but this does not exist, and we do not believe that it will ever exist." We may not believe that this House will be set on fire to-night; but that does not prevent our having in readiness in every part of it the hydrants and hose necessary to extinguish a fire in case it should break out. Therefore I oppose my picture of the possibility under the existing state of things to the possibility under the proposal made on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the majority, if they misused their power, would be exposed to retribution. That is perfectly true, and I am glad that it is so. But that is your safeguard. The majority would know very well that in such a case they would be exposed to the retribution of public opinion. They will be restrained by their sense of fairness, by their sense of honour, and by their knowledge of retribution, because otherwise they would lose the power which belongs to the majority. But you have not that safeguard in the case of a minority; it has not the same responsibility, and it is not exposed to the same retribution. Whatever it does it will be a minority still, and therefore there are circumstances which exist in connection with the powers of a minority which do not exist in the case of a majority. Well, Sir, these are the reasons, or some of the reasons, which have convinced Her Majesty's Government that it is absolutely necessary that this House should have within itself the power of protecting itself against the reckless and improper use of the rights of the minority. Nobody can have listened in this House for the last three or four years without

  1757
  feeling that, so to speak, it has been afflicted with something in the nature of a creeping palsy, and that unless we take some measures to defend ourselves from the paralysis which is gaining upon the House, and preventing the transaction of the Business of the nation, I believe there will follow some great public catastrophe. Did any hon. Member deny that? The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in a speech which he made the other day, said that the House of Commons, which we have always looked up to in former times as the glory and honour of the country, has now become a bye-word and a sham. Are we, then, to do nothing to cure this evil, or shall we take measures which will make it unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to repeat that observation? If so, Her Majesty's Government are bound to recommend to the House a measure, which, in their opinion, will alone be efficacious for that purpose. Gentlemen opposite say—" Take action against the individual; "but I am quite certain that anybody who considers this matter, and has observed the way in which Obstruction has worked, will see that the plan of action against individuals is utterly useless, because they have become adepts by careful practice, and can easily avoid such action. It is only an occasional outburst of bad temper or unbecoming language that can ever expose the individual to action on the part of the House. Sir, it is not at all necessary that the minority should employ violent means. They can kill the unfortunate patient secundum artem—they can kill the House of Commons by means of its own Rules, and that is an operation which is being gradually and certainly performed. This is my answer to the contention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite as I understand it. It is admitted now by the Leader of the Opposition that they will assent to no form of the clôture whatever, and that they will give the House no power in the form of clôture to defend itself from this system which is destroying its vitality; which will defend the House of Commons from that which it is partially Buffering from, and from which, in my judgment, it is destined, unless our proposal is adopted, still more to suffer in the future. There are Gentlemen who do not agree with that opinion, who feel
  1758
  the nature of the evil we are exposed to, and who say they will assent to a majority of two-thirds or three-fourths for the purpose we have in view. It is not necessary that I should detain the House by arguing that point at any length, because, as I ventured in the early part of my remarks to point out, that is not in the proposition with which we have to deal, nor can it be made under any conceivable circumstances the question before the House. I say the Government did not propose it, the Leader of the Opposition does not propose it, Members below the Gangway do not support it, and the hon. Member opposite, who appears to approve it, says that somebody on the other side of the House approves it. I say, therefore, that it is not a practical proposition which there is any chance of dealing with in the House of Commons. No doubt it is on the Paper; but no one, I think, will deny that if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton be carried it cannot be put. I should like to state in a few words why it is that Her Majesty's Government did not propose a two-thirds majority. There is one very good reason given, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and those who sit near him—namely, that if it had been proposed, it would not have been accepted by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The whole question relates to the disposal of the time of the House, and the time of the House is its most valuable commodity. It is quite as valuable as the Estimates of which the House disposes, because it belongs to the nation, and in that time the national Business has to be done. All other questions of the time of the House are decided by a bare majority. If it be a question whether the House shall sit on a Saturday; whether there shall be Morning Sittings, or whether the Government shall occupy the time allotted to private Members—all these matters are decided by a bare majority. In short, wherever the time of the House is involved, the question is always decided by a bare majority. Further, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, the gravest measures are disposed of in the same way. As a consequence of that, you may turn out one Government and introduce another by a majority of 1; you may support a declaration of war by a small majority; but

  1759
  then you say that after you have installed a Government by a small majority, and after you have made war by a small majority, you must have a majority of two-thirds in order to carry out the measures of that Government, or the measures which may be necessary to carry on the war. What can be more ridiculous than such a proposition? To state it is to show how preposterous is its character. The basis of your whole Parliamentary system is that the will of the majority shall prevail; and, therefore, you say that the will of the majority shall prevail whenever a question is put. But the preceding question, whether that question shall be put, is to be in the hands of the minority; and a small minority may practically decide that neither question shall ever be put at all. If that be so, then the power is absolutely in the hands of the minority, which can prevent the question being put to the House. Why, this is giving to the minority what used to be called in a foreign country the minority veto; you give them the opportunity of vetoing the proceedings of the whole House. At the end of the Session the country had a right to ask the Government, which was the representative of the majority, the question—"What have you done with the time of the nation; what has become of the time which belonged to the House of Commons, in which our Business was to be transacted?" And the answer must be—"Oh, the minority of one-third would not let us have it." The responsible majority gives this answer to the nation—" We did our best to prevail with the minority of one-third, which said we should not employ that time as you and we thought we ought to employ it; but we were not successful." Sir, I ask, could any position be more absurd than that? How can you make that one-third minority responsible to the country for the employment of the time of the House of Commons? It is impossible to do so; and, therefore, if you are going to embody the principle of a two-third's majority in a Rule, I say you will, in my opinion, consecrate the operation of Obstruction, because you declare that the minority of one-third has the right to obstruct. You would declare that this minority were in their right in using all the powers which the Forms of the House gave them for preventing the majority carrying out the measures which
  1760
  they desired to carry out. Then, Sir, there are objections made to the Rule which we propose upon arithmetical grounds. Some Gentlemen have thought it worth their while to construct a series of what I may call arithmetical puzzles in connection with it; but this can always be done with regard to any question into which numbers enter. During the passage of the Reform Bill it used to be said—"What an absurdity it is that a place of under 5,000 inhabitants should lose its Member, while another with one more than 5,000 inhabitants keeps its Member." But the principle of our Rule is not a question of proportionate majority with reference to numbers. It is, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained, altogether a question of quorum. We have thought that this power would not be exercised in a thin or empty House, but in a full House—one capable of properly considering the question, and able to deal with it according to its importance. I will now pass from the subject of the Rule itself; but, before sitting down, I should like to say a few words upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite with reference to this being a Party question. Well, Sir, I believe it is desirable that no question should be made a Party question. That, however, is one of those hopes which people confidently express, but which are seldom fulfilled. If I desired to recriminate, which I do not—and I wish to say nothing that may give offence to hon. Gentlemen opposite—I should say it was not we who first made this a Party question. On every Conservative platform throughout the country our plan has been denounced, and that, too, even before it was born. Therefore, I say we do not take to ourselves the whole of the responsibility in that matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes) has brought a charge against the Prime Minister of want of courtesy, for not having communicated with the Leader of the Opposition candidly and frankly upon this subject. But surely, if that right hon. Gentleman had thought that any modification of the Government proposal would have rendered it more agreeable to those whom he represented, he could have made a suggestion to that effect. But the right hon. Gentleman did not think fit to do so, although it was for him to make any

  1761
  suggestion of the kind; and it is quite plain now that no such suggestion could have been made by him, because the attitude of the Opposition is resistance to the proposal in every shape. In my opinion, it was inevitable that this should become a Party question, nut in a bad sense of the word, but because it symbolizes and defines the principles which distinguish the two Parties in this House. The Liberal Party is a Party which desires activity and progress in legislation; while, without wishing to say anything at all offensive to hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Conservative Party, I should say, represent a principle rather antagonistic to that activity and progress. A noble Lord, addressing his supporters the other day in Lancashire, said they wanted the House of Commons to perform the great work of legislation; and, in order to do that, they must make it—what it was not at present—capable of doing its work. That seems a very natural and sound proposition; but it shocks the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes). Why? Because he does not want to see that work done; and nothing would shock or disgust him more than that the House of Commons should be made capable of doing that work. He says the cat is let out of the bag. No, Sir; that cat has always been out of our bag. We have never concealed that there were great measures we wanted to carry; and that we want the House of Commons to be capable of doing great work for the good of the nation. But, according to the contention of some Gentlemen, it is not for the majority of the country, or for the majority in this House, which represents the majority of the country, to determine whether that great work shall be done. It is to be a minority of two-thirds that is to have a veto as to whether that work is to be done or not. That is a very ingenious plan, and, I have no doubt, is perfectly satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is—" Heads, I win; tails, you lose." When they are in a majority they have the initiative; and when they have got the initiative, they do just as much or as little as they please, and generally rather the latter than the former. Well, nobody has a right to complain of that. The country has put that in power; and if the country wishes that nothing shall be
  1762
  done it keeps them in power. But then the time comes when the country wishes a great deal to be done, and it puts the other Party in power, with a majority; and then the Conservatives, who, when they were in Office, had the initiative, think, when they are in Opposition, they ought to have the veto; so that, when the Conservative Government are in power, and when the Liberal Government are in power, nothing will be done; because when the Conservatives have the initiative they do nothing, and when they have got the veto they prevent the Liberals doing anything. And that is the meaning of the veto of the minority, and of the rights of the Opposition; and, therefore, qui cunque via, nothing is to be done at all. That is the question. It is necessarily a Party question, and one upon which the contending and rival Parties in the country will probably, some day or other, have to decide. I cannot look at it otherwise than as a Party matter. I believe the Government of this country can only be conducted by Party. If you have not organized Party, what have you got? You have got the caprices and fancies of individuals in a chaos, and the public good perishes in the midst of it. The organization of Parties is nothing less than the predominance of the counsels of those who are chosen by the Party to advise them, because they think they are the fittest advisers. That is what is the meaning of Party Government. I am bound to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite act loyally and cordially upon those principles themselves; but they have great objection to our acting upon them. Disloyalty to the natural Leaders of the Tory Party is an offence unheard of, and not to be forgiven; but if there is Party loyalty on this side of the House, it is slavish submission and coercion. The Party which expects to hold power, or accomplish anything, always must accept the advice of those whom they have placed in the position they hold for the express purpose of advising them; they have made them their leaders for that purpose. To talk of coercion seems to me the most absurd thing in the world. Why, a Leader of a Party—and especially the Leader of the Government—is there by the free choice of those with whom he acts. At any time their breath can unmake him, as their breath has made him. He is their champion, it is

  1763
  true; but he is also their creature. You say to him—"We have made you our Leader because we have confidence that you will advise us properly;" but it is open to them any day to say—"We have no longer confidence in you as Leader, and we will no longer take your advice." He ceases to be their Leader, and the Government ceases to be a Government. It is the most reasonable and natural thing in the world that it should be in the power of any Party to give to those whom they have chosen as Leaders notice to quit at any moment they please. At this moment there are two pieces of advice upon this Paper between which the Liberal Party have to choose. There is the advice of the Prime Minister in the Resolution before the House—the advice of a statesman who has a Parliamentary experience of 50 years as to the only manner in which it is possible to conduct the Business of the House—and there is the other advice, the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott), a Gentleman with 18 months' experience of Parliamentary life, as to the best way of conducting the Business of the nation. It is perfectly free for the Liberal Party to choose between these two pieces of advice. No one can talk of coercion; it is the freest thing in the world for anyone to choose their advisers and select the advice they will follow. But, talking of Parties, I think if this issue were to be decided solely between the Conservative and Liberal Parties there would be very little doubt as to the issue of it. But there is another Party, a Party which does not profess to follow the advice of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition. Yes; within the last day or two we have seen the sentiments of that Party expressed in a more definite way than the opinions of Parties are generally expressed. Talk of Caucus, coercion, and Birmingham manifestoes! I have never seen anything equal to the published Whip of the Party represented by Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite. I have never before seen a Whip printed and published in the newspapers, signed by the Leader of the Party, countersigned by the Whips, and again countersigned by the Secretaries. That Party is a very important contingent. Yes; they are the allies of the Conservative
  1764
  Party on this question. ["No!"] They say so in their political arithmetic, for in this very Whip they say—" How many are the Conservative Party? We are so many, and if we can only get a few more, then we shall turn out the Government." It is a very natural calculation, and I perfectly understand it. I understand perfectly the principles of the combination which we have to face. Sir, they avow their object to turn out the Government. I do not complain of that. They avow another object, and it is that, if they can only defeat this proposition, they will never be again exposed to such action as that which you, Sir, took last year; but they will be enabled to renew the character of the opposition with which we had to deal. ["No, no!" and "Read!"] I am sorry to say the Whip was not sent to me. I am sorry if I misrepresent hon. Gentlemen opposite; but that was what I road to be the second object. At all events, they will not deny that they oppose the clôture because they think it will interfere with that character of opposition which they consider legitimate. [An hon. MEMBER: Coercion!] Ah, it applies to a good deal else. ["No!"] Well, I must be allowed to reserve my opinion on that subject. There is one thing in this manifesto which is clear, and that is that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite claim the power of determining what is to be administration in this country. They make their calculations, and if those calculations are correct they have that power, and they will overthrow the present Government. Yes; but have the Government which is to succeed us considered what is to be their situation? Have they thought that their allies to-night will be their masters to-morrow? Sir, in my opinion, the principles stated in that manifesto, and the combination which exists to defeat, if possible, the Government on this Motion, form one of the gravest dangers that this country has over known. I am not speaking of the fate of the present Government. I do not hold that so dear as some hon. Gentlemen opposite may think; but, Sir, it is not a question of the fate of the present Government, but it is a question of the fate of all future Governments, if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, acting upon the principles

  1765
  which they profess, and by the means which they pursue, are to determine the fate of the Administration in this country. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) expressed the confident opinion that this Resolution would not be carried. I suppose he knows it is not going to be defeated by the strength of the Conservative Party. I suppose he, like the Whips of the Party below the Gangway, has confidence in the power of that combination. Sir, it is because I know that the Liberal Party has, if it chooses, the power to defeat that combination, that I believe the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in his prediction. I believe, Sir, that when you announce the decision upon this Resolution, you will announce to this House and to the country that the majority of the House of Commons has placed in your hands the power and the right to vindicate the ancient fame of the House of Commons.
  SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDbegged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Hardinge Giffard.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought that, in assenting to the adjournment, he might express the hope that, after this adjournment, the House would begin to think seriously of the expediency of bringing the debate to a close.
  MR. O'DONNELLhoped that the Irish Members would not be practically excluded from participation in the debate. It unfortunately happened that none of them had as yet succeeded in catching the Speaker's eye; but the advantage of following the speech of the Home Secretary was one which would be availed of by Irish Representatives. There was no advocate of the Government whose speech would give them so large facilities for an Irish reply as the speech of the Home Secretary. For many reasons, the Irish Party, in a special sense of the coercionist policy of the Government in this and other matters, had a complete right to examine the conduct of the Government, and to examine the allegations by which it was attempted to justify that conduct. It must be remembered that they had
  1766
  peculiar reasons for examining the conduct of the Government, considering that they were now in the position of the discarded associates of the Obstructionists on the Ministerial Benches. There was one historical parallel for the conduct of the Premier towards the Irish Party in this matter, and it was that famous scene in Roman history where Cæsar recognized his champion, his friend, and his devoted admirer amongst the foremost of those who conspired against Cæsar's life. The Irish Party, like Cæesar, were entitled to exclaim "Et tu Brute!" He did not wish to delay the House at this time; but he must say that the Irish Party would consider it incumbent upon them to examine the extraordinary series of mis-statements which had fallen from Ministerial lips in the course of the present debate. It might cause them some natural pain to speak, as they would have to do, with severity of those who stood by them in many an ardent struggle against the majority. The fault was not theirs; it was the Government—the Premier—who had severed the sacred ties of old, and he could no longer hope for respect from those he had discarded.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he could not now encourage the hope of the early termination of the debate. Such termination was much more likely before the Home Secretary addressed the House than it was at the present moment. So long as Ministerial orators confined themselves to the probable effect of the measure of clôture on the House, Irish Members were content to remain silent or to interfere but slightly; but as the Home Secretary had chosen to represent both the Conservative and Irish Parties in the House in a manner likely to lead to unjust and inconsiderate opinions in the country with regard to both those Parties, it would be their duty, as Members of the Irish Party, to expose the fact that if they happened to be, on the present occasion, fortuitous allies of the Conservative Party, it was because each Party, acting upon its separate interests, had been led to a common fusion.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the Irish Members owed a deep debt of gratitude to the Home Secretary. The Irish people would read with great interest and in-

  1767
  struction the report of his speech which would appear to-morrow in the Irish newspapers. For the first time since the clôture Resolution was introduced, the Irish people would know what the real intentions of the Government were. They would now know that a more iniquitous Coercion Bill was intended for Ireland—and intended to be passed when the gag could be applied to the Irish Members. And they thanked the Premier also for his description of the "baker's dozen" who sat below the Gangway on the Ministerial side—for his designation of them, which would stick and stink in the nostrils of the Irish people, "the nominal Home Rulers." Within the next week, even though they might in consequence be cast into Kilmainham as persons "reasonably suspected" under the Coercion Bill, the Bishops and priests of Ireland would be able to declare what the fate of the nominal Home Rulers below the Gangway would be if, after the speech of the Home Secretary, they sacrificed the interests of their country to the interests of their Party. To-day, as he was entering the House, he had met one of the renowned Party, who, for the present, should be nameless—["Oh!"]—well, the clique—and he had asked him how he was going to vote? He had said to him—"Are you going to vote for the clôture?" And the reply was—" Well, if I vote against it, I might turn out the Government." "But," he (Mr. Callan) said, "do you think the fate of the Government worse than the renewal of a Coercion Bill for Ireland?" And this Gentleman answered—"Oh! I never thought of that." Well, it was to be hoped that the priests of this Gentleman's borough and the Bishop of his diocese, and the people of Ireland would teach him before that day week to think of his country as much as he did of the interests of his Party. He (Mr. Callan) again thanked the Home Secretary for his plain exposition of his principles and of the intention of the Government, under cover of the clôture, to inflict upon the Irish people a more iniquitous Coercion Bill than that which disgraced Parliament last year.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate further adjourned till Monday next.

ARKLOW HARBOUR BILL.— [BILL 96.]
(Mr. Herbert Gladstone, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
ARKLOW HARBOUR BILL.— [BILL 96.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, its object was to improve the harbour of Arklow. The measure was before the House in 1876, when it was brought in by the senior Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) and the senior Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee. The Bill fell through then owing to local disagreements—chiefly in consequence of the opposition offered to it by the Wick-low Copper Mining Company. That opposition had now been overcome, and the Mining Company had agreed to sell their rights for the sum of £5,000. The local authorities were completely unable, out of their resources, to undertake the necessary works, and to deal with the encroachments of the sea; and the Bill, therefore, was brought forward in order to authorize the Board of Works to proceed with the necessary repairs. The Treasury, recognizing the work to be of a national character, had granted the sum of £15,000 towards the proposed improvements; and, in addition, had sanctioned a loan of £20,000. There was no necessity for him to trouble the House at any length upon the Bill, because he proposed, to-morrow, to move its reference to a Select Committee. There was considerable distress amongst the fishermen in the Arklow locality, arising chiefly from the bad state of the harbour; and taking this into consideration, together with the fact that further delay would only increase the cost of making good the harbour, the Government wished to press on the Bill as quickly as possible. He would, therefore, move that the Bill be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the measure, but to ask the hon. Gentleman why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee? He agreed that the

  1769
  Bill should be pushed on with all possible speed; but he had never known that the best way to push on a Bill was to refer it to a Select Committee. If it were referred to a Committee nothing would be done; but if the hon. Member carried the Bill through a second reading to-night, and then proposed to take the Committee stage in the ordinary way, he (Mr. E. Power) was sure there would be no objection on the Opposition side of the House, for all the Irish Members were anxious that the Bill should pass.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, this partook of the nature of a Private Bill, and must, by the Standing Orders of the House, be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, that, unlike the hon. Member who had just sat down, he rose for the purpose of expressing the opinion that the Bill should not only be referred to a Select Committee, but should be subjected to a searching scrutiny. If this Bill wore part of a national system of aiding fishery harbours on the exposed coasts, not only of Ireland, but also of England and Scotland, then he approved of it, contingent on that searching scrutiny. But if it were a mere sop to an ungrateful and undeserving Cerberus, he most emphatically objected to it. He recently applied to a Cabinet Minister for aid to a fishery harbour of refuge on the East Coast of Scotland, and he was told that the Government did not give such grants. He, therefore, should be pleased if the Bill passed, if it were a step in the direction of a great national system of aids to fishery harbours on all our exposed coasts, not only of Ireland but also of Scotland and England, and he should not oppose the second reading. At the same time, there were many grave considerations connected with this special Bill which would need very searching scrutiny. It was proposed to pay, in the first instance, £5,000 for this harbour—a useless asset of a bankrupt Company—then to make a free grant of £10,000, and to give a loan of £20,000 besides, on very dubious and undefined security. There were, moreover, further and subsequent liabilities. The harbour, he believed, was exposed to be silted-up by the sands, driven by easterly winds, from the Arklow banks, so that not only must there be economic inquiry, but also the
  1770
  very best scientific investigation before the Bill could be allowed to pass. He should not oppose the second reading; but, as far as he was concerned, he should insist upon a searching investigation by the proposed Committee.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he did not wish to stand in the way of the second reading of the Bill; but he had always thought that such grants as this grant of £15,000 in aid of harbour construction were against the policy of the present Government. The Harbour and Passing Tolls Act was passed in 1861 for the purpose of discouraging and preventing such grants; and he did hope that when the working of that Act was brought up the Government would remember this grant of £15,000, and the other similar grants made for the benefit of Ireland. This question was a pressing one to those who lived on the coast of the North Sea, where harbours were very much needed. They did not grudge this grant to Ireland; but they did press on the Government to do something for them on the East Coast of Great Britain also.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Government had done something for the people referred to in 1876, and at other times. For himself, he thought it only fair and proper that a Committee should examine into the question most carefully. The loan which the Bill would grant was secured on sufficient guarantees.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

MOTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—CALL OF THE HOUSE.
  RESOLUTION.
  MR. SEXTON, in rising to move that this House be called over on Thursday, the 30th March, said, in making the Motion at that advanced hour of the night, he would endeavour to be very brief. He acknowledged, at the outset, that his Motion was one of a kind which bad not often been resorted to in the recent proceedings of Parliament; but, at the same time, he was entitled to say that it was embedded in the practice of the House, and that it frequently appeared

  1771
  on the Records. He found, on reference to the Journals, that in 10 years—from 1822 to 1832—a Call of the House was moved and ordered as often as seven or eight times; indeed, he found that the only occasion on which the House refused to accede to the Motion was on the 10th July, 1855, when Mr. Roebuck endeavoured to get a Call of the House for the purpose of obtaining a Vote on a Motion introduced by him condemning the Crimean policy of the Government of the day. He (Mr. Sexton) could well understand the House refusing that Motion, because it was merely a Party movement against the policy of the Government. He found that in 1839, in connection with the repeal of the Corn Laws, a Call of the House was moved and ordered, and in the same year a Call of the House was ordered in connection with National Education. In 1852 there was a similar Motion in connection with the subject of the repeal of the Corn Laws. He was entitled to say that whenever any Member had made a Motion for a Call of the House, not merely upon a question of first-rate, or second-rate, or third-rate importance; but even on a question that did not concern the general policy of the State, on some Departmental question, the House had readily granted it. On the last occasion that a Call was enforced, it was in connection with a Motion by Mr. Whittle Harvey, the terms of which were—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to revise each pension specified in a Return ordered to be printed on the 28th June, 1835, with a view to ascertain whether the continued payment thereof is justified by the circumstances of the original grant, or the condition of the parties now receiving the same, and to report thereon to the House."
  It would be said that the question of pensions, one concerning the expenditure of a very small portion of the public money, was one, at least, of secondary importance; and the conclusion he wished to deduce from this brief reference to Motions of this kind was simply that, whenever it was deemed proper to make one the House readily acceded to it. In Sir T. Erskine May's Practice & Procedure of Parliament, the following occurred:—
  "When the House of Commons is ordered to be called over, it is usual to name a day, which will enable Members to attend from all parts of the country. The interval, however, between
  1772
  the Order and the Call has varied from one day to six weeks. If it be really intended to enforce the Call, not less than a week or 10 days should intervene between the Order and the day named for the Call."
  Well, the interval contemplated by his Motion was a week; and he might say, on the one hand, that why he could not allow a longer interval was because circumstances did not admit of it, for the question, to decide which he required a full attendance of Members, would probably come to a division in a week; on the other hand, the interval would be amply sufficient to enable hon. Members to attend in the House from all parts of the country. What was the occasion for which he desired to have recourse to this somewhat unusual measure? No Member of the House would deny that the crisis which the House was now approaching was the greatest which had ever challenged its attention in the whole Parliamentary history of England. It was not a mere question of Departmental policy like National Education, in connection with which the Call was made in. 1839, nor a question of State policy like that in connection with which the House was called in 1852. It was a question most profoundly affecting the Constitution of the country—a question which touched the very essence of the Constitution—a question affecting its vital power—a question concerning its most material function. Without endeavouring, as he should not be entitled to do, to notice for a moment the merits of the proposal that would be presently before the House, he thought he was entitled to say that it touched not only the ancient Constitution of the country, but the inalienable and most valuable rights of every private Member of the House, from the greatest to the least. No one, he thought, would deny that, this being the case, it was desirable that there should be the fullest possible attendance of Members, on whatever side they sat, or whatever might be their political opinions; and he should wait with curiosity to hear whether the Government of this country, in view of the precedents he had cited, had any reason to allege against the reasonable demand he now made. He should make one more quotation from the learned author he had already referred to. The author said—
  "In later years Calls were enforced less strictly. The attendance of Members is generally ample,

  1773
  and a Call is of little avail in taking the sense of the House, as there is no compulsory process by which Members may be obliged to vote."
  But the learned author did not deal with the contingency which had now arisen, and he could not be blamed for not dealing with that contingency, because it was unprecedented in the Parliamentary history of this country. He said there was no compulsory process by which Members could be obliged to vote; but the House had now to consider a compulsory process by which Members were to be prevented from voting. It was well known to the House that three Members of the House were now detained by main force in Ireland. One of them was the recognized Leader of a Party in the House, and was as familiar as any Member of the House with the Rules and Procedure of the House; and no man, whatever his political opinions, would deny that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), if allowed to take part in this debate, on this great and important question, would be able to contribute valuable matter for the guidance of public opinion. He was one of the Members detained by main force elsewhere, and there were two other Members detained. The hon. Member for the City of Cork was on the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the best method of conducting Business in the House, and his masterly knowledge of the subject was universally recognized on that occasion. These three hon. Members represented: one of them a very great county, another one of the most important counties, and another one of the most important cities in Ireland; and the question the Irish Members had to raise was whether the Government, by virtue of the mere will of an official of the Irish Executive, were entitled, in the opinion of the House, to keep these three Members out of the Division Lobbies, and to prevent their taking part in the final decision of the House upon a question of such momentous importance, by the mere will of the Chief Secretary for Ireland? He wished to point out, with all gravity, that these hon. Members had been detained in prison for six months, not in pursuance of any judicial process, or the verdict of any jury, or sentence following upon a trial, not even because of a committal by the humblest magistrate in the Realm.
  1774
  They were detained upon reasonable suspicion working in the brain of the official servant of the Head of the Government. And why were they detained? Because they were reasonably suspected of having incited to intimidation or violence, or of one of the acts specified in the Coercion Act of last year. The policy of release under the Coercion Act was by no means novel. There had been two classes of release up to the present time. Persons had been released on giving an undertaking not to take any share in a certain social movement which was at present agitating the people of Ireland; and others on undertaking to leave the country. He wished the House to understand that in making this Motion he was acting upon his sole responsibility, for he had not communicated with the hon. Members for the City of Cork, or Tipperary, or Roscommon. He was not aware whether, if the Government adopted this Motion, and the House confirmed it, those hon. Members would be willing to attend in the House; but it would be to the honour of this House, and to the good name and credit of the Government, that they should be afforded the opportunity of attending in their places. For was it to be said that by reason of mere suspicion operating in the mind of an official of the Executive, the counties of Tipperary and Roscommon and the City of Cork were to be deprived on this great question of their Constitutional right to express their opinion on the question of the clôture, and of their Constitutional force in the vote? That was the question he submitted to the Government. If his Motion were adopted and affirmed, what would be the probable consequence? He had already shown that persons had been released on the simple undertaking to go out of Ireland. He believed he did not go too far in saying that any one of the 600 men now in prison would be released by the Lord Lieutenant upon that undertaking. If the three hon. Members now detained were allowed to come and represent their constituencies on this question they might pursue wilier of two courses. If they were released either in obedience to the vote of this House, or by virtue of a visit of the Serjeant-at-Arms, they might decline to attend the House and remain in Ireland; or they might immediately come to this House and attend to their Parliamentary

  1775
  duties. He was unaware what course they would adopt; but if they adopted the former course, the powers of the Coercion Act remained unimpaired, and it would be open to the Chief Secretary for Ireland to re-arrest them. If, on the other hand, as he considered it highly probable, they would come to the House—for he could not think they would disregard the desire of their constituents to be heard upon this question—he supposed it could not be contended that their presence in the House could lead to further intimidation and violence in Ireland. That was the position he took up. If the hon. Members refused to avail themselves of the opportunity to take part in this debate and the Division, the Lord Lieutenant would know how to deal with them; if, on the other hand, they did avail themselves of the opportunity which he hoped would be given to them, it could not be contended that from such a course of action any danger would arise as to incitement to intimidation. As an Irish Member, he thought he was entitled and bound to offer this Motion to the House, because he could not conceive that the drastic measure now pending before the House, which might not merely affect the present Parliament and change the whole character, constitution, and efficacy of the Commons Chamber, but which might have a dominant and far-reaching effect on the future legislation of the country, was directed against the Irish Members. The only difference between the two great Parties was that the Party in power wished to apply this power to every other Party; and the Party out of power wished to apply it to the Irish Party. They were both agreed that to the Irish Party it must and should be applied; therefore, because the three hon. Members detained by main force were Irish, and because their constituencies were Irish, he felt that he had a special right and duty to entreat the House to give impartial consideration to the question. From the point of view of the Government there was another serious question arising in connection with this Motion. According to the public prints estimates of the probable vote on the clôture had been made; and while the noble Lord the Member for Flintshire (Lord Richard Grosvenor), according to his desire and the impulse of Office, formed a san-
  1776
  guine estimate, there were other people who were less confident of a majority. Some estimates placed the majority of the Government at a figure as low as 6, and others anticipated that, by one of those fluctuations which sometimes occurred at the last moment, the vote might be a matter of equipoise, or even leave the Government in a minority. But by the law of suspicion, involving no judicial process, and. by the exercise of the law vested in the will of the Nobleman who was the official servant of the Head of the present Government, on a question of vital gravity—on a question upon which the duration of this Parliament and the existence of the Government depended—the Government did not seem to be ashamed, in a great Parliamentary conflict which might determine their existence, to keep out of the Opposition Lobby the votes of these three Members. He asked the Constitutional Party in the House and in the country to take note of this—that on the presence or absence of the Members for Tipperary, Roscommon, and Cork might depend the success or defeat of the Government upon this momentous question. The keeping away of votes on mere suspicion, without proof and without sentence of defined duration, was a mean course, unworthy of any civilized Government, and especially unworthy of the Government of a great country and a great community like this; and it was not only unworthy, but unmeaning and foolish, when pursued by a Government so boastful of its strength and so confident of its success. The question he had raised was one which might well excite deep feeling in himself, for he could not refer to this angerine enactment without every fibre in his body being aroused; but he had preferred to keep himself within proper limits. He had preferred to treat the question as one of Constitutional freedom, and he trusted he had said nothing which was not entirely in accordance with that view.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House be called over on Thursday, the 30th March."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, with reference to the last observation of the hon. Member, I have no complaint to make of the tone in which he has brought this Resolution forward, or

  1777
  the arguments by which he has supported it. I do not deny that the practice of enforcing a Call of the House has been, in the few cases which the hon. Member has quoted, a common one in former times; but I think the hon. Member has failed to show, among the precedents he has quoted, that this practice has ever been resorted to for any other purpose than to secure a full attendance of Members; and he has not been able to bring forward any case in which this proceeding has been adopted for an ulterior motive such as he has described in the concluding portion of his speech. The hon. Member quoted liberally several passages from the work of Sir Erskine May, and also quoted fairly the statement contained in that work, that this practice has now, for many years, fallen into desuetude, for the reason that the attendance of Members is generally so good that it is unnecessary to resort to any procedure of this kind to secure a good attendance. It is quite unnecessary for me to discuss the relative importance of the present Motion, and the vote we shall be called upon to give at the close of the clôture debate, which has just been adjourned. I do not think there is any reason to anticipate that the attendance on that occasion will be deficient, or that a Call of the House would tend to increase it in any way, because, as has been pointed out in the work referred to, a sufficient excuse offered for the absence of a Member is accepted by the House; and I have no reason to suppose that any Member of this House will be absent on this occasion whose attendance can possibly be secured by resorting to this proceeding. But the hon. Member has perfectly fairly acknowledged that his principal reason in submitting this Motion is to call the attention of the House to the question of the arrest of the hon. Members for the City of Cork and the Counties of Tipperary and Roscommon. I am under the impression that the case of their arrest has already, on several occasions, been discussed in this House, and that the opinion of the House has been given upon it. If that is not so, and there are any further circumstances connected with the policy of the Government in the arrest of those Members, I think the proper method for the hon. Member to take would be to raise a direct question upon the conduct of the
  1778
  Irish Executive, who have, under the Act of last Session, acted on their responsibility in the arrest of these hon. Members. With regard to this Motion, I have only to point out that I fail to see that the proceeding which is recommended by the hon. Member would in any way raise the question. The hon. Member spoke of the Government assenting to this Motion and the House agreeing to it, and I think he spoke of the Serjeant-at-Arms proceeding to Kilmainham to release these hon. Members. But I do not suppose that any such proceeding would take place. If a Call of the House were ordered the names of the three hon. Gentlemen would, no doubt, be called, and when they were called an explanation would, no doubt, be offered either by their own Friends, or from some other quarter, as to the cause which prevented their attendance; and the House would, no doubt, accept that explanation as sufficient.
  MR. SEXTON: It has been the invariable consequence of a Call of the House that defaulting Members are sent for.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: As I have said, the hon. Member, in the course of his observations, quoted from the work of Sir Erskine May. I find, on reference to that work, that upon the occasion of a Call of the House being made, the names of Members who did not attend were called and taken down by the Clerk of the House; they were afterwards called over again, and if the absent Members appeared in their places, it was usual to excuse them for their previous default; but if not, they were ordered to attend on a future day. It was also customary to excuse them if they afterwards attended, or if a reasonable excuse were offered for their non-attendance; and it was only if a Member did not attend, and no such excuse was offered, that he was liable to be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. I apprehend that the excuse that would be offered for those Gentlemen to whom the hon. Member for Sligo referred would be considered ample; and that, therefore, the House of Commons has no power, by any Order of its own, to release them from detention in pursuance of an Act, not of one, but of both Houses of Parliament. For these reasons it appears to me that the question supposed to be raised will not arise.

  1779
  When the hon. Member concluded his speech, he referred to the different estimates which had been formed with regard to the probable majority for Her Majesty's Government upon the question of Procedure; and he charged the Government not, by any action of theirs, to detain from the approaching Division Members who might possibly exercise any influence upon the vote. On the part of the Government, I must say that we absolutely decline to be in any way influenced by that suggestion. What would be said of the conduct of a Government who should release Members of the House, who were detained by virtue of an Act of Parliament, because a Division was about to be taken, on which, had they not been so detained, they might have exercised an influence? For my own part, I do not think any words could be used that would be too strong to reprobate such a course. If the release of the Members in question were improper in one sense, it would be improper in the other—that is to say, if there is sufficient reason of a political character for their detention, they ought to be detained altogether, without reference to any Parliamentary consequences which might ensue. On the other hand, if there is no sufficient political reason for their detention, then Parliament ought to be called upon to reconsider the whole question. Sir, I deny that the Government ought to be influenced in any degree by the question whether the vote of these Members would have any effect, one way or the other, on the question to be submitted to the House. It has been over and over again admitted that no distinction ought to be made with regard to the Parliamentary or non-Parliamentary position of persons who might be arrested under the Act. For these reasons, I cannot accept the argument put forward by the hon. Member in support of the position he has taken up with regard to the detention of the Members of this House now under detention; and I must, therefore, oppose the Motion which he has made for a Call of the House.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the noble Marquess had, in the course of his observations, only dealt with one of the suggestions of the hon. Member for Sligo. But it was difficult to find a good precedent which would apply in the present case, for there never was so
  1780
  absurd an example of the arrest or detention of Members of that House, without even a charge being made against them. The present situation was absolutely without precedent and without example. But there was an example of the House exercising authority over the person of absent Members, who were brought there under a warrant by the Serjeant-at-Arms. He perfectly well recollected a Member of the House being sent for, taken into custody, and brought back by the Serjeant because he had failed to attend upon one of the Private Committees. Again, in the famous case of Stockdale, the Serjeant-at-Ams took the Sheriffs of London out of one of Her Majesty's Courts, and brought them, under a kind of duresse, into that House. He did not pretend to say that this course should be followed now; but his hon. Friend thought that one effect of the adoption of his Motion might be that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant should of his own motion release the Members of the House, now absent from its deliberations, from custody. The noble Lord could not pretend to say that this would not be a reasonable outcome of the adoption of a Motion such as this; and if that were its result, it would solve the whole question in the most practical and easy way. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, under the circumstances, would simply bend to the wish of the House in allowing those Members to vote; and when that had been done he had no doubt they would put no difficulty in the way of the right hon. Gentleman as to re-consigning them to custody. He asked the House to consider what must be the effect upon the public mind of the proceedings of the Government in this matter. How many persons were there in this country or in Ireland who would not believe that an arbitrary power was made use of to get rid of dangerous opposition, or, at least, to get rid of three hostile votes at a crisis of great importance to the Government? If the Government were willing to expose themselves to the consequences of that policy, he could point out to them an easy way of securing a substantial majority on the forthcoming Division. For instance, the question which had been the subject of debate that evening had been adjourned, and it might, by some possibility, be carried over the Easter Holidays. Indeed, he

  1781
  was bound to say that, after the speech just delivered by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, the possibility of delay arising between that time and the taking of the division appeared to him to have considerably increased. In the by no means impossible event of the debate upon the clôture being continued after Easter, and as it was very likely that a considerable number of Irish Members might be able to visit their constituencies during the Recess, he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he should, from a sense of public duty, issue his warrant for their arrest, and the desired majority would be assured. If the policy which now detained the three hon. Members in prison were persisted in, the country would certainly regard the Government as taking the course he had indicated; and the Government would really have established a method of carrying a vote something like that of which the famous Marshal O'Donnell, Prime Minister of Spain, once boasted, when he said he could carry any vote in the Spanish Cortes, because he would take care to have all the Leaders of the Opposition shot.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he certainly thought that the House of Commons was a more fitting place than a gaol for persons who had been elected to serve their country in Parliament. He was in favour of a Call of the House, inasmuch as there was another Gentleman who would make his appearance on the occasion, and who might possibly vote for the Rule proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He referred to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), his Colleague, who was prevented from discharging his duty to his constituents, not, as the noble Marquess had said of the three Irish Members detained in prison, by the Act of the whole Parliament, but in defiance of the law. His hon. Friend was prevented from attending, not in pursuance of any Act of Parliament, but in consequence of the act of one House of Parliament; and, were the Motion for the Call of the House agreed to, he would have an opportunity of explaining why he was required to take his seat outside the Bar instead of within the House; and perhaps, also, he would have the opportunity he had long sought, of convincing the House that he was as fit a
  1782
  person to take part in its proceedings as any Member now sitting in it. For this reason he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had been very much struck by one of the remarks which had fallen from the noble Marquess. He had contested the request of Irish Members for a Call of the House, which was founded on the consequence of not bringing into the House three Members who, in all probability, would vote against the Government on the question of the clôture, by the opposite supposition of the case of three Members incarcerated, who, it was known, would vote for the Government proposal, under similar circumstances. Now, he thought that the way in which Her Majesty's Government regarded this matter ought to be entirely apart from the consideration as to how the Members in question would vote, and not only the Government, but the House ought to look at the question entirely apart from any consideration of the kind. It would be just as legitimate for the House to call upon three absent Members who would vote for the Government, as upon three absent Members who would vote against the Government. He contended that, whether they voted with or against the Government, they ought to have an opportunity of giving their vote on behalf of their constituents on so important a question as that which was now engaging the attention of the House of Commons. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo, it was entirely a vote of the House, apart from that of the Government, which was solicited. He should hardly have expected that the Government would have met that Motion with any opposition, for the reason he had stated; and if, as would no doubt be the case, the question again presented itself, it could be shown that there were many reasons present in the minds of the Government in ordering the arrest of the three Irish Members which might be absent from their consideration of the matter now. Amongst other things, the position taken up by the Government with reference to the incarcerated Members was that they consumed a great deal of time, and that their action was purely vexatious.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is travelling beyond the Question before the House.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he regretted that his observations should be considered out of Order, and would, therefore, not trouble the House with any further remarks.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he trusted that the Government did not wish to get any advantage from the fact that three of their opponents were in prison; and he suggested that the way out of the present difficulty was extremely simple. He did not see why the Prime Minister should not pair with the Leader of the Irish Party, while the Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant paired respectively with the hon. Members for Tipperary and Roscommon.
  Question put.
  The House divided :—Ayes 22; Noes 90: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 59.)

PUBLIC OFFICES SITE BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREhoped the House would allow him. to introduce a Bill for the acquisition of property and the provision of new buildings for the Admiralty and War Office, and to defer an explanation of it until a future stage.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the acquisition of property and the provision of new buildings for the Admiralty and War Office."—(Mr. Shaw Leferre.)
  MR. HEALYpointed out that if the Irish Members had continued the last debate the Government would have counted them. When, however, their own Business was to be done the Government kept a House. Irish Representatives had just ground of complaint.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he did not intend to do so; but if he did oppose the introduction of the Bill he would be quite justified. He found that the hon. Member for Sligo had two Notices on the Paper, and both were opposed by the Government Whips.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 111.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.