Commons Sitting of 9 May 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Supreme Court of Judicature Acts Amendment; Copyright (Musical Compositions).
Ordered—First Reading—Public Schools (Scotland) Teachers [153].
Second Reading—Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order* [144]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [145]; Tramways Provisional Order* [141]; Settled Land* [120]; Consolidated Fund (No. 3)*; Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment [84]; Contumacious Clerks [41], debate adjourned; Spirits in Bond [54], debate adjourned; Copyright (Works of Fine Art, &c.)* [119].
Committee—Poor Law Guardians (Ireland)* [7]—R.P.; Irish Reproductive Loan Fund Act (1874) Amendment [133], debate adjourned; Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) [21]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Municipal Corporations (re-comm.) [113]; Military Manœuvres* [134]; Documentary Evidence* [143].
Report—Commons Regulation Provisional Orders* [117].
Third Reading—Boiler Explosions* [100]; Public Health (Scotland) Act Amendment* [115], and passed.

NEW WRIT ISSUED.
For Hawick District, v. George Otto Trevelyan, esquire, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
QUESTION.

  TURKEY IN ASIA—THE SMYRNA QUAYS.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Foreign Office has received any information corroborating a private telegram from Constantinople in an evening paper, which stated that the Porte had ordered the Governor General of Smyrna to oppose the sale of the Smyrna quays to an English Company, by interposing the Porte's alleged right of pre-emption under the original Convention; and whether any such right on the part of the Porte of frustrating the sale of this property in fact existed?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no information has been received at the Foreign Office in confirmation of the telegram to which my hon. Friend

  337
  refers. The terms of the Convention which appears in the Correspondence respecting the Smyrna quays recently laid before Parliament do not contain any clause reserving to the Porte the right of pre-emption.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—"BRADLAUGH v. ERSKINE"—SERVICE OF A WRIT ON THE DEPUTY SERGEANT-AT-ARMS.

    CONSIDERATION OF WRIT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS.
    Writ and other Documents considered.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I have to submit two Resolutions to the House in reference to the communication made to it on Friday last. I think we may gather from that communication that Mr. Bradlaugh has commenced an action against the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, in consequence of that gentleman having obeyed an Order, and acting under the authority of this House, in removing Mr. Bradlaugh from this House on the 3rd of August last. In determining how to deal with the subject of that communication, I would suggest to the House that we ought to have two principal objects in view. In the first place, I think we should do nothing that should for a moment cause it to be supposed that this House was yielding up in any way its rights to govern its own procedure, and to insist upon the House being the only judge of the way in which its procedure should be carried into effect; and I think, too, that the House will equally desire not to enter into any unnecessary conflict either with any Court which has to administer justice in this country, or with any individual, unless it shall be absolutely necessary to do so in order to support its own authority. I do not propose to submit more than these two objects as being those which should govern our course. When placed in similar circumstances to those now stated, the course of the procedure of this House has latterly been uniform, and I think the House would desire to act strictly in accordance with those precedents. Whilst we deny the authority of any Court to question any action the House may take within its own walls to enforce its
    338
    procedure, I am sure the House would wish to act with due consideration towards the Courts which have to try every action which is brought before them by one subject against another. It is not inconsistent with the dignity or authority of this House to inform the Courts that have to try such action that this House objects to their dealing with any question involving the authority of this House. But the question now arises, In what manner can that communication be made to the Court having to try such an action as the present without the House yielding up its authority in any respect? It was suggested long ago that the Speaker should communicate, by letter or certificate, to the Court having cognizance of an action arising out of the proceedings of this House, that the Privileges of this House would be involved; but it was pointed out on high authority that so to make such communication would be unsatisfactory and inconvenient, because it would lead to one litigant being left in command of the litigation, and the action involved might be so framed as to give an undue advantage to the litigant so left unopposed. Therefore, Sir, it was, as early as 1810, decided that it was not contrary either to the position or dignity of the House for one of your Predecessors—Mr. Speaker Abbott—to consent to appear and plead in an action brought against him by Sir Francis Burdett, in consequence of the Speaker having issued a Warrant for the arrest of that Gentleman. That precedent was followed in 1839 in the case of Stockdale's action against the printers of this House, Messrs. Hansard; and, the matter having been fully discussed, it was resolved that the proper course was to give permission to the officers of the House to appear and plead to the action. That precedent was also followed in relation to two actions brought by Mr. Howard against Sir William Gossett, the Sergeant-at-Arms, in 1842 and 1843, and again in 1851, when Mr. Lyne brought an action against Lord Charles Russell in consequence of his being arrested. It appears to me that these well-established precedents are fortified both by principle and convenience, and that the officer of the House should, in deference to the Court in which the action is brought, appear in that Court and plead that he

    339
    has acted under the authority of the House, and that the Court has no power to question that authority. I therefore propose to move two necessary formal Resolutions; but, before doing so, it is necessary that it should be distinctly stated that, by allowing an officer of this House to appear and plead, it is in no way admitted that there is authority in any Court to try the question which, I understand, is principally sought to be raised in this case, and also that the House reserves to itself the right of taking such action against anyone who shall take part in bringing such an action as may be deemed necessary to support its authority. I do not say this as a warning, still less a threat; but it is necessary that this Resolution should be accompanied by an express reservation of the rights of the House, which unquestionably should be the sole judge of its own authority, especially in relation to its own procedure within these walls. I therefore beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Leave be given to Henry David Erskine, esquire, Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, to appear and plead in the action brought against him by Mr. C. Bradlaugh."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what is the 2nd Resolution?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)—
    "That the Attorney General be directed to defend the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms against the said action."
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Resolution, but merely to say that Mr. Bradlaugh had raised this action not in any desire to bring about a collision between the House and the Courts of Law, but simply because he was obliged to take it by the course the House itself had chosen to take. He might point out that the fact of Mr. Bradlaugh having to appeal to a Court of Law would probably lead to this result—that Mr. Bradlaugh might have a decision against him in the Court of First Instance; and that then he would appeal, and the House of Lords would be called on to decide as to the regularity of the proceedings of the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, he would suggest to the Attorney General
    340
    —he had made various reservations—that the wisest of all things for him to do would be to use his influence with the Government to induce them to assist him to bring in a Bill removing the disqualifications at present alleged to exist, and thus settle the question once for all.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he understood that the hon. and learned Attorney General expressly reserved the right of the House, not only to determine what went on within the walls of the House of Commons itself, but also to take action against those persons who might aid and assist in bringing before a Court of Law the action of officers appointed by the House, such conduct constituting a serious Breach of Privilege. That Privilege had been laid down on three separate occasions, and on one of them—the case of Mr. Stockdale—Mr. Howard, who acted as attorney to that gentleman, was sent to Newgate for bringing an action in Mr. Stockdale's name against an officer of the House. He did not object to this Resolution being carried; but he thought it ought to be understood that if the action was to be proceeded with against what was substantially the House, although in form against the officer, it would be open to the House to vindicate its own dignity, and that, by the adoption of the Motion before them, they did not prejudice that right.
    Motion agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Attorney General be directed to defend the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms against the said action."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    Motion agreed to.

  PARLIAMENT—SEATS OF MEMBERS IN THIS HOUSE.
  MR. SPEAKER: In reference to the first Notice of Motion on the Order Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and which is to the following effect, that—
  "It is desirable that Legislation be proceeded with, during the present Session, in order to enable every duly-elected and properly-qualified Member to take his seat in this House,"
  I have to say that it cannot properly be moved, as it is substantially the same as an Amendment that was negatived by this House on March 6. I refer to the

  341
  Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks). Therefore, I must call on Sir Henry Holland.

MOTIONS.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE HALF-PAST TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE—APPOINTMENT OF STANDING COMMITTEES.

    RESOLUTION.
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND, in rising to call attention to the inconvenience arising from the delay in nominating the Public Accounts Committee; and to move—
    "That Motions for the appointment or nomination of Standing Committees be excepted from the operation of the Half-past Twelve Rule,"
    said, that it would be impossible for him, in bringing this Motion relating to the Public Accounts Committee under the consideration of the House, to refrain from expressing, however imperfectly, for himself and the other Members who had served on that Committee with Lord Frederick Cavendish, their sense—their deep sense—of the loss sustained by the country and by the House. They could never forget that noble Lord's ability, knowledge, and mastery of the subjects which were brought before him as Chairman for many years of that Committee. Still less could they forget his honesty of purpose, his unvarying courtesy and friendliness, which endeared him to them all. He (Sir Henry Holland) must acknowledge with gratitude the invaluable assistance, always so readily accorded to him by the noble Lord when he succeeded him as Chairman of the Committee. More than this he would gladly have said, had not the loss been so recent, the wound so fresh; less than this he could hardly have said in bringing forward this Resolution—a step in taking which he might tell the House he had the full and entire concurrence of the noble Lord. In calling attention to the serious inconvenience arising from the delay in nominating the Public Accounts Committee, he must very briefly refer to the procedure with respect to Public Accounts. As the House was aware, when the Supplies for the service of the year had all been granted, the Committee of Supply was closed,
    342
    and the financial arrangements were completed by Votes in the Committee of Ways and Means. Then a Bill was introduced to carry into effect the Resolutions of that Committee, which was known as the Consolidated Fund Bill, or Appropriation Bill. The Bill enumerated every grant made during the Session, and authorized the several voted sums to be issued and applied to each particular Service for which they were voted. How, then, was the control of Parliament exercised to secure that the Expenditure of the Annual Grants was made in conformity with the Votes and with the Appropriation Act? It was mainly secured by the joint action of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. The Comptroller and Auditor General acted under the powers vested in him by the Exchequer and Audit Act (29 & 30 Vict. c. 39), 1866. Annual Accounts of the appropriation of public money were made up in each Department of the Public Service. These were submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General for his Report, and were laid together with that Report before the House. His duties, which he exercised on behalf of the House of Commons, would be best explained to the House by a reference to Sections 27 and 32 of the Exchequer and Audit Act; and he (Sir Henry Holland) would venture to refer to these sections, as showing both the importance of those duties and their bearing on the question now before the House—namely, the inconvenience caused by the delay in nominating the Public Accounts Committee. By Section 27 it was provided that—
    "Every Appropriation Account shall be examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the House of Commons; and in the examination of such Accounts the Comptroller and Auditor General shall ascertain, first, whether the payments which the Accounting Department has charged to the grant are supported by vouchers or proof of payments; and, second, whether the money expended has been applied to the purpose or purposes for which such grant was intended to provide."
    And by Section 32, after providing, amongst other things, that the Comptroller and Auditor General should prepare Reports on the Appropriation Account of the Army and on that of the Navy, a Report on the Appropriation Accounts of the Customs, Inland Revenue and Post Office, and on the Accounts

    343
    relating to the several grants included within each of the classes into which the grants for Civil Services were divided in the Appropriation Act, the Act went on to provide that—
    "In all Reports, as aforesaid, he shall call attention to every case in which it may appear to him that a grant has been exceeded, or that money received by a Department from other sources than the grants for the year to which the Account relates has not been applied or accounted for according to the directions of Parliament, or that a sum charged against a grant is not supported by proof of payment, or that a payment so charged did not occur within the period of the Account, or was, for any other reason, not properly chargeable against the grant."
    Now, here came in the work of the Public Accounts Committee. This Committee was first appointed by a Standing Order of April, 1862, which was as follows:—
    "That there shall be a Standing Committee, to be designated 'The Committee of Public Accounts,' for the examination of the Accounts showing the Appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the Public Expenditure, to consist of nine, who shall be nominated at the commencement of every Session, and of whom five shall be a quorum."
    By a Standing Order of 1870 the number 9 was raised to 11. The Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General were referred to this Committee, and they went through those Reports paragraph by paragraph. They called before them the Comptroller and Auditor General, or the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor General, the several accounting officers of the several Departments, and they had also before them the Assistant Financial Secretary, or some other high officer of the Treasury. That Department, it must be observed, acted throughout the year as referee in cases of doubt or dispute between the Comptroller and Auditor General and the accounting officers for the several Votes. By a reference to the past Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it would be seen that in some cases he might think it necessary to add to or diminish the balance submitted to him by a Department, and his reasons were fully stated, and considered by the Committee after hearing evidence. In other cases he pointed out irregularities, of more or less importance, which had struck him in the examination of the Accounts, and he made suggestions for the consideration of the Committee and the Departments.
    344
    Now, as regarded balances, the Public Accounts Committee did not, except in peculiar circumstances, interfere with balances which the Comptroller and Auditor General had passed as correct, as the primary responsibility rested on him of testing the correctness of the balances. But where the Comptroller and Auditor General had altered a balance they did give a distinct decision. That decision was embodied in the Report of the Committee to the House, and upon that Report Parliament took such action as it pleased. If the decision of the Committee was challenged by the Treasury, or by any other Department, it could and ought to be challenged at the earliest opportunity in the House, either on some special Motion, or when the Estimates of the Department in question were under consideration. As regarded any irregularities reported, or suggestions made, by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee also gave their opinion, and such opinions were embodied in their Report to the House. He (Sir Henry Holland) trusted that this explanation of the procedure, which he had made as brief as possible, would show to the House the importance of having this Committee nominated, as was provided by the Standing Order "at the commencement of every Session," so that their Report might be in the hands of Members during the discussion of Estimates. In considering the Estimates of any Department, the House would naturally desire to know what criticisms, if any, the Comptroller and Auditor General on their behalf had made with respect to the Accounts of that Department for the previous year, and what view their Committee of Public Accounts had taken of those criticisms. Such knowledge might materially affect a vote on the Estimates; and, moreover, it was obvious that the proper and best opportunity for calling for any explanation from a Department, or for pressing upon it any improvement in the mode of keeping their Accounts, or the adoption of any suggestion made by the Comptroller and Auditor General and approved by the Public Accounts Committee, was when the Estimates were under discussion. But that opportunity was lost if the Report of the Committee was delayed, as it had been this year. Having thus disposed of the first part of

    345
    his Motion, he (Sir Henry Holland) had only to point out to the House what other Committees were affected by the latter part of that Motion; in other words, what Committees came under the term "Standing Committees." Upon this he could not do better than refer to a passage in Sir Erskine May's book (p. 414), where it was stated as follows:—
    "There is, further, an exceptional class of Committees, called Standing Committees. The only Committee properly so termed is one whose appointment, being by Standing Order, is permanent, the nomination only being renewed from Session to Session. Such is the Committee of Public Accounts, under a Standing Order of 3rd April, 1862. In the same category are the Committee on Standing Orders, the Committee of Selection, and the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, though not expressly designated as Standing Committees. Occasionally a Committee has been so called—not quite accurately—being re-appointed every Session, as the Library Committee, now discontinued, and the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee."
    Now, how stood the proceedings with respect to these Committees this Session? On the 9th of February the Select Committee on Standing Orders and the Committee of Selection were nominated. They escaped any block or opposition, because they were not moved by a Member of the Government, but by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John Mowbray). But they might be blocked another year, and the inconvenience caused by the delay would be so serious, that he had thought it desirable to ask the House to exclude them from the operation of the Standing Order known as the Half-past 12 Rule. On February 21st Notice was given to nominate the Public Accounts Committee, and the Motion was blocked by two Members from Ireland, because the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had been struck off the Printing Committee. That block had only just been removed, after much valuable time had been lost. It would be observed that in what he had said he had not discussed the question whether the Half-past 12 Rule had succeeded or failed in expediting Business, or whether it was desirable that it should be continued in force. He entertained considerable doubts upon the question; but if the Rule was to be continued, he asked the House to agree to his Motion, and thus to remove one distinct evil arising from its present opera-
    346
    tion; and he trusted the House would consent to do this, whether they agreed to, or dissented from, the proposed Amendment of his Friend the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). Upon that Amendment he would not trouble the House, as it would be fully discussed by others. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving, in a slightly altered form, the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. RYLANDS, in seconding the Motion, said, that the delay in appointing Public Committees greatly interfered with the transaction of Public Business. If the Motion were agreed to it would do much to facilitate the Business of the House. He was, however, of opinion that it would not be convenient to discuss the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), which opened up a much wider question.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Standing Order of the 18th February, 1879, be amended, by adding, at the end thereof, the words 'Motions for the appointment or nomination of Standing Committees be excepted from the operation of this Order.'"—(Sir Henry Holland.)
    SIR JOHN
    LUBBOCK, who had put upon the Paper the following Notice of Amendment:—
    "To move to insert, after 'Committees,' Sessional Motions and Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order, and Motions for leave to bring in a Bill, and the stages subsequent to Committee,"
    said, he hoped the House would adopt the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). His Amendment was conceived in the same spirit, and in order to carry out the same object. In moving it, he would not trouble the House more than a few minutes. His Amendment was, in the main, identical with one of the Procedure Resolutions proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He hoped also that he should receive the support of hon. Members opposite, for several of them, in speaking of the 1st Resolution, had expressed general approval of the others. He did not object to the Half-past 12 Rule as a whole, but only to the abuse of it. At present it often happened that there was a prolonged and more or less irrelevant conversation on

    347
    the earlier Business of the evening, in order to prevent some subsequent Bill or Motion from coming on before half-past 12. Again, it had over and over again happened that after a Bill had been read a first and second time, and had been carefully considered in Committee, a single Member put down a blocking Notice, and thus prevented the Bill from passing, all the time and labour of the House being thus thrown away. On one occasion of this kind, even the Member who had put down the block was convinced that the Bill should pass; but unluckily he forgot to take off the Notice, and went away to Italy without doing so. Fortunately, he remembered it just in time, and telegraphed from Milan. The authorities even then felt some difficulty how far they were justified in accepting a telegram. He would also venture to move an addition to the Government Rule, which he commended to the House—namely, that the Half-past 12 Rule should not extend to the consideration of Statutes which had to lie on the Table a certain time before becoming law. This provision was, of course, introduced in order that there might be an opportunity of discussing them. At present, however, the provision was a mere mockery. He hoped his hon. Friend opposite would not object to the Amendment, or rather addition, which he ventured to propose. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Amendment.
    MR. MONKseconded the Amendment, and said it was precisely similar to the Motion which he had submitted last year, and which had received the approval of Her Majesty's Government, but which had not, in consequence of some misunderstanding, been divided upon.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the word "Committees," to insert the words "Sessional Motions and Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order, and Motions for leave to bring in a Bill, and the stages subsequent to Committee."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he cordially agreed with the original proposal of the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). It seemed to him that the exception which was al-
    348
    ready made in the Half-past 12 Rule with regard to money Votes was in spirit applicable to the case of the Public Accounts Committee, although it did not actually touch it, because the appointment of the Public Accounts Committee was a very important part of our financial system, and it was impossible that the control of the House could be exercised over our financial expenditure if there were any impediment in the way of the appointment of that Committee. He would therefore strongly urge the House to accept the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst; but with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), to make some distinction. The first part of the Amendment—namely, the insertion in the Motion, after the word "Committees," of these words—
    "Sessional Motions and Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order"
    —the House would do well to accept. In point of fact, the operation of the Half-past 12 Rule often tended to defeat the actual provisions which Parliament had deliberately made for submitting certain matters to the judgment of the House, and in the case of confirming or objecting to Statutes or Provisional Orders serious inconvenience arose. But with regard to the last part of the Amendment as to Motions for leave to bring in Bills, and the subsequent stages of Bills, he desired to express no opinion at that time, as it dealt with a question which would be raised hereafter by one of the Resolutions proposed by the Prime Minister. Moreover, a good many considerations were involved entirely outside those expressed in the first part of the Amendment. Without expressing any opinion on the subject, he would advise the hon. Baronet to withdraw the latter portion, and confine his Amendment to the first part only.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had anticipated the proposal he was going to make to the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). Everyone must feel that the latter part of the Amendment opened up a much larger question than that proposed to be discussed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). The Motion of

    349
    the hon. Member for Midhurst referred to matters strictly connected with, and necessary to, the immediate and pressing Business of the House. The first part of the Amendment related to matters which were really killed by time. Statutes relating to the Universities and certain Provisional Orders were laid upon the Table of the House for a certain period, and, if blocked by the Half-past 12 Rule, Motions with regard to them were practically defeated, and there was no chance of that discussion which the House intended they should have taking place. It seemed to him that those matters came within the proposal of the hon. Baronet opposite; and if his hon. Friend behind him would be content for the present to make that addition to the Motion before the House, he hoped that it would be unanimously accepted, and that the larger question might be reserved for further discussion.
    SIR JOHN MOWBRAYbegged to join in the appeal to the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) not to press the latter portion of his Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the object of passing the Half-past 12 Rule was to prevent discussions of a certain degree of importance being taken at a very late hour at night. Under the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London, the Statutes for the Universities would be exempt from the Rule. Very great difference of opinion might prevail on such matters, and they could not be properly discussed at a late hour at night. The House should be very careful before it allowed the clear definition put by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) upon his Motion to be swept away, and the operation of the Half-past 12 Rule interfered with in any case in which a great conflict of opinion might be expected.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought that the alteration of the Rule was necessary in such cases as those of the University Statutes, which, if not dealt with ipso facto, became law after lying a definite period on the Table of the House. He should be glad to see the Rule still further abrogated, for no Rule adopted by the House had so favoured Obstruction as this one. He hoped one day it would be altogether got rid of.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford had hit a blot; but he (Mr. Beresford Hope) did not think he proposed the best remedy. No doubt the grievance of the present system, by which University Statutes, school schemes, and so forth, became law after lying 40 or 60 days upon the Table of the House, had become intolerable since it had become impossible to save the discussion. A very much better system to adopt would be to provide that the Statutes should become law within a certain number of days, unless Notice were given within a certain time after the meeting of Parliament of opposition, and with due safeguards that due diligence would be shown in following up the Notice; but, if Notice were given, then to permit them to be discussed any time during the Session.
    SIR GEORGE
    CAMPBELLsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for the University of London would agree to omit the last part of his Amendment. As far as he was concerned, he should be glad to acquiesce in a proposal to meet at 10 o'clock in the morning, in order that their Business might be done by daylight, as it seemed to him that the life of a Member of Parliament was hard enough as it was; but it would be still harder if a Member was to be obliged to sit up to all hours in order to watch for certain Bills in which he was interested. That would be the case particularly with regard to Scotch Bills. With respect to them, they had been very unfortunate, because they were obliged to take Scotch Bills early in the morning, or not at all; and he objected to that mode of treating Scotch or any other Bills. He trusted they would be able to make some considerable improvement in the way of transacting Business, and he hoped the suggestion that had been thrown out would be accepted by his hon. Friend.
    EARL PERCYsaid, he thought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) was well worthy of consideration. It would be far better to sweep away the Half-past 12 Rule altogether than to adopt the last part of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London. He wished to ask the hon. Baronet what was the meaning

    351
    of the term "Sessional Motions," and whether it was a term known to the proceedings of the House?
    MR. BRYCEsaid, a Return showed that since the Half-past 12 Rule came into force the House had sat a greater number of hours after midnight than it did in old times. Moreover, under that Rule, when there was an Order—say Order 2, 3, or 4—on the Paper, to which some Members were strongly opposed, they manifested quite an exceptional interest in the preceding Order, discussing it at inordinate length, in order to prevent another subject on the Paper from coming on afterwards. Thus time was wasted, for all the other Business of the House was delayed which came up after the Order, to which a Member or group of Members might be hostile. The Half-past 12 Rule was, in fact, a direct encouragement to Obstruction.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) would, if adopted, make a serious breach in the Half-past 12 Rule. He thought it would be wiser if they were content to accept the first part of the hon. Baronet's Amendment, stopping short at the end of the second line; and then they would include "those Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of an Act of Parliament or a Standing Order."
    MR. GORSTsaid, that if they were to have an Amendment made in their Standing Orders, its language should be at least precise and intelligible. In looking at the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) one part of it was clear enough. They understood the term "Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of an Act of Parliament or a Standing Order;" but what was meant by the term "Sessional Motions" was not at all clear. They were familiar with the term "Sessional Orders;" but he believed that "Sessional Motions" were not spoken of in that excellent work, Sir Thomas Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. Before the House agreed to the Amendment its terms should be made clearer.
    MR. HINDE
    PALMERsaid, he thought it better that the Motion should remain as it stood, and should not go on to specify particular cases, as the Amendment proposed. He should, therefore,
    352
    support the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he entirely agreed with the Motion made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland); but went much further, as he had a Notice on the Paper to repeal the Standing Order relating to the Half-past 12 Rule. He contended that that Rule had done more than anything else to interfere with the Business of the House. He was opposed, however, to repealing a Standing Order by words he did not understand; and, therefore, until he knew what the words "Sessional Motions" meant, he should not be prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock).
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he did not share the objection to the Half-past 12 Rule, which, as far as he was aware, had always worked fairly, though sometimes hardship might possibly arise.
    MR. LYON
    PLAYFAIRsaid, there seemed to be some confusion as to the term "Sessional Motions;" but the words were not required, because "Sessional Motions" were made on the first day of a Session, at 4 o'clock, before the Queen's Speech, and the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule did not apply to these Motions. He would suggest that the best way to meet the difficulty would be to withdraw the Amendment, and to propose another which would except from the operation of the Half-past 12 Rule any proceeding made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order.
    SIR JOHN
    LUBBOCKsaid, he would accede to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the word "Committees," to insert the words "and Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That the Standing Order of the 18th February, 1879, be amended, by adding, at the end thereof, the words "Motions for the appointment or nomination of Standing Committees and Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order be excepted from the operation of this Order."

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD, in rising to move for leave to introduce a Bill for the amendment of the Judicature Acts, said, that among other questions which had been brought to the attention of the Government were those of trial by jury and the operation of the rules under the Judicature Acts. Under those Acts the Judges had it in their power, if they chose, by the mere publication of rules, to abolish trial by jury in several cases, and the only check on that power was that, within 40 days after the rules had been laid upon the Table of the House, the House might disagree to them; but until a Resolution to that effect was passed the rules were at once operative, so that it was possible, by a mere rule, at once to sweep away the safeguard of trial by jury. It was never intended that the Judicature Acts should have such an effect; and he believed the Bill he now proposed to introduce met with the approval of the Government. He therefore moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875, so as to render it necessary that the rules made by the Committee of Judges should be laid upon the Table of the House for 40 days before coming into operation.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875, so as to render it necessary that the rules made by the Committee of Judges should be laid upon the Table of the House for forty days before coming into operation, ordered to be brought in by Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD, Mr. BUTT, Mr. M'INTYRE, Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL, Mr. INDERWICK, Mr. WEBSTER, Mr. BUCHANAN, and Mr. GREGORY.

  PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) TEACHERS BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he rose to ask leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the procedure of School Boards in Scotland in the dismissal of Teachers. This Bill was brought in in accordance with a promise made to the House on Wed-
    354
    nesday last, when the hon. Member for Wigtonshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell) withdrew his Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to regulate the procedure of School Boards in Scotland in the dismissal of Teachers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, The LORD ADVOCATE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 153.]

  COPYRIGHT (MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS) BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    MR. GORSTasked leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Law of Copyright relating to Musical Compositions. He explained that recently persons had been prosecuted for singing songs at penny readings, &c., without the leave of the owner; and he proposed that no action should be brought against a person for singing a song without leave, unless it was announced on the music that the right of public performance was reserved by the owner.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to amend the Law of Copyright relating to Musical Compositions, ordered to be brought in by Mr. GORST, Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR, Mr. BERESFORD HOPE, and Viscount FOLKESTONE.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 113.]
  (Mr. Hibbert, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 113.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 4th May.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses 109 to 119, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 120 (Maintenance of borough bridges).
    On the Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Amendment made, in page 46, line 21, after the word "Council" to insert the words "with the consent of the Treasury." The object of the Amendment was to provide, that in regard to all expenses incurred for the maintenance of borough bridges, the Council might,

    355
    from time to time, borrow on the security of the borough fund, or borough rate, such sums of money as they deemed requisite, but only "with the consent of the Treasury."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 121 to 153, inclusive, agreed to.

  PART VIII.

    ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
    Clause 154 (Jurisdiction of county justices in borough).
    MR. H. H. FOWLERmoved, in page 62, line 36, to leave out from "county" to the end of sub-section. The section provided that—
    "No part of a borough, having a separate court of quarter sessions, should be within the jurisdiction, exercisable out of quarter sessions, of the justices of a county, where the borough was exempt therefrom before the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835."
    He proposed to omit the last part of the section—the words—
    "Where the borough was exempt therefrom before the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835."
    The clause would then read—
    "No part of a borough having a separate court of quarter sessions shall be within the jurisdiction, exercisable out of quarter sessions, of the justices of a county."
    There were a considerable number of boroughs which had separate Courts of Quarter Sessions, and many of them had been created since the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. He did not see why the County Justices should exercise jurisdiction in such boroughs any more than in those which were exempt prior to 1835.
    Amendment proposed, in page 62, line 36, leave out from "county" to end of sub-section.—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was sorry that he was unable to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend. It would be very inconvenient to do so, as it would entirely change the course now adopted; and he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 155 to 162, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 163 (The recorder).
    MR. BULWERsaid, he wished to move the Amendment which stood in his name on the Paper; and as the Committee might not appreciate the meaning of it without a little explanation he proposed to give that explanation. The sub-section to which the Amendment referred was the 7th of the clause; and it provided that there should be paid to the Recorder a yearly salary not exceeding that stated in the Petition on which the grant of a separate Court of Quarter Sessions was made, as Her Majesty should direct, but that such salary might at any time be increased by a Resolution of the Council approved by the Secretary of State. He proposed to add, at the end of the sub-section, the words—
    "And in the event of the salary of the recorder being increased as aforesaid, he shall thenceforth hold office as recorder with such increased salary without re-appointment."
    Under the existing law the salary of the Recorder, as originally fixed, may be increased; and he knew that in several cases an increase had been made, with the approval of the Home Office. But it was the practice, as the law now stood, for the Home Office to require that before a Recorder could obtain an increase of salary he should resign his appointment, and that a fresh appointment should be made out at the increased salary. It so happened that several Recorders of boroughs were also Members of the House of Commons; and if the Council of a borough desired to increase the salary of a Recorder, who was also a Member of Parliament, the Recorder had not only to resign his appointment and be re-appointed, but, as it was an appointment under the Crown, it was necessary, by reason of the Statute which prevented him from accepting an office of profit under the Crown, without vacating his seat, that he should put himself to the expense and inconvenience of a re-election as Member of Parliament. He had no doubt it would strike the Committee, as it did himself, that it was altogether unnecessary that such a consequence should follow, and that a

    357
    gentleman filling the position of Recorder of a borough, on having his salary-increased by £10 or £20 a-year, should be required not only to resign his original appointment as Recorder, but should also be compelled to vacate his seat as a Member of Parliament, and go through the turmoil, possibly, of a contested election. He therefore proposed to amend the 7th sub-section of the present clause by adding the words—
    "And in the event of the salary of the recorder being increased as aforesaid, he shall thenceforth hold office as recorder with such increased salary without re-apppointment."
    He hoped, after the explanation he had given, that the Amendment would be accepted by the Government.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 65, line 37, at end, add "and in the event of the salary of the recorder being increased as aforesaid, he shall thenceforth hold office as recorder with such increased salary without re-appointment."—(Mr. Bulwer.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he quite agreed with the object the hon. and learned Member had in view in proposing this addition, and he had no objection to the insertion of these words; but, at the same time, if it was found, on reconsideration, that the Amendment was mere surplusage, he presumed the hon. and learned Gentleman would not object to have them struck out.
    MR. BULWERassented.
    Question put, and agreed, to.
    Words added.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 164 (The clerk of the peace) agreed to.
    Clause 165 (The recorder to hold court of quarter sessions).
    MR. H. H. FOWLERmoved, in page 66, line 8, to leave out the words "and as he thinks fit or." He said the clause enabled the Recorder to hold a Court of Session once a quarter or oftener, as he might think fit, or as the Secretary of State should direct. Now, the holding of a Court of Sessions oftener than once a quarter imposed a burden upon the borough; and he thought the propriety of holding additional Sessions should not be left to the discretion of
    358
    the Recorder, but to that of the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hibbert) had accepted a number of minor Amendments, which had very much improved the Bill; and he hoped that his hon. Friend, in a similar spirit, would accept this.
    Amendment proposed, in page 66, line 8, leave out "and as he thinks fit or."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was sorry that he could not accept the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend. He did not think that it was desirable in every case that the consent of the Secretary of State should be obtained before an additional Court of Quarter Sessions could be held. He was not personally aware that the exercise of this power had been attended with inconvenience. Perhaps his hon. Friend might be acquainted with some special case in which inconvenience had resulted; but, if so, he had not mentioned it. Personally, he (Mr. Hibbert) was of opinion that no harm would result from leaving the discretion in the hands of the Recorder.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the same argument would apply to the holding of Assizes. Her Majesty's Judges were not allowed to hold Assizes at their pleasure; but they were fixed by Statute, and the additional holding of a Winter Assize was fixed specially by the Crown. He had no wish, however, to put the Committee to the trouble of a division upon a matter of this kind. At the same time, he hoped his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board would reconsider his decision, and accept the Amendment, which merely provided that the discretionary power of holding additional Courts of Quarter Sessions in boroughs should be vested in a responsible Minister of the Crown, and not be left to the option of the Recorder.
    MR. HIBBERTrepeated, that he was unable to accept the Amendment.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he would withdraw it, and not put the Committee to the trouble of a division.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 166 and 167 agreed to.
    Clause 168 (Power for recorder to form a second court).
    MR. H. H. FOWLERmoved, in page 67, line 18, to leave out "three," and insert "five." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to provide that a second Court should not be formed unless there was a probability of the Quarter Sessions lasting more than five days. He was afraid that it was a great temptation to do something in the nature of an abuse to empower the Recorder of his own will to constitute a second Court, the holding of which must necessarily put the borough to considerable expense, and also, to a certain extent, deprive the prisoners of the advantages of the tribunal provided especially for them, and which was constituted on a very different principle. He was afraid that he must press the Amendment, if his hon. Friend, acting on behalf of the Government, declined to accept it.
    Amendment proposed, in page 67, line 18, leave out "three," and insert "five."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
    Question put and negatived.
    Word substituted.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 169 to 260, inclusive, agreed to.

    SCHEDULES.
    MR. H. DAVEYsaid, that, before the Committee proceeded to consider the Schedules attached to the Bill, he wished to call attention to the fact that a Royal Commission had been appointed some time ago, on the Motion of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke), to inquire into the state and condition of certain unreformed Corporations. That Commission had recommended that certain boroughs—10 in number—should be placed in the same position as the boroughs included in Schedule B of the Municipal Corporations Act; but he could not ascertain that anything had been done to give effect to the recommendation of the
    360
    Commission. He would, therefore, propose to insert certain new clauses.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Has the hon. and learned Member got the clauses which he proposes to insert?
    MR. H. DAVEYsaid, he was not prepared at that moment to submit them; but, if necessary, he would bring them up on the Report.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It will be necessary for the hon. and learned Member to submit any new clauses he desires to propose in due form.
    MR. H. DAVEYsaid, he would postpone the matter until the Report.
    MR. HIBBERTthought he could satisfy his hon. and learned Friend that it would not be necessary to introduce these clauses. His right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) had a Bill already prepared by which he proposed to deal with the unreformed Corporations, and that Bill would be introduced on an early day, as soon as the opportunity was afforded. He was not able to say precisely when the Bill would be brought in; but they would deal with the question to which the clauses suggested by his hon. and learned Friend related; and if his hon. and learned Friend were now to submit his clauses, he should, under the circumstances, be compelled to oppose their introduction into the present Bill.
    MR. H. DAVEYremarked, that, as a Bill had been prepared to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission, he should not deem it necessary to propose the clauses which he should otherwise have submitted.
    Schedule 1 agreed to.
    Schedule 2.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he had given Notice of three Amendments in this Schedule—first, to omit Rule 2, which provided that no notice need be given of the business to be transacted at the quarterly meetings; secondly, to omit, in Rule 8, the reference to quarterly meetings; and, thirdly, to omit from Rule 7, which required that in every case, including the case of an adjourned quarterly meeting, but not including the case of an ordinary quarterly meeting, a summons to attend the meeting, specifying the business proposed to be transacted, and signed by the Town Clerk, should be left at, or sent by post

    361
    in a registered letter, to the usual place of abode of every member of the Council, or at or to his qualifying property three clear days at least before the meeting—to omit from this Rule the words "or at or to his qualifying property." He did not propose to move the first two of the Amendments standing in his name, as he believed his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board was not prepared to accept them. He would, however, move the third, which his hon. Friend was prepared to accept.
    Amendment proposed, in page 105, line 21, leave out "or at or to his qualifying property."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTintimated that he accepted the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to; words struck out.
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Schedules 3 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
    House resumed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.
  (Mr. Blake, Colonel Colthurst, Colonel Nolan, Mr. O'Shea, Mr. O'Connor Power, Mr. E. Collins.)
  IRISH REPRODUCTIVE LOAN FUND ACT (1874) AMENDMENT BILL.

    [BILL 133.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    MR. GIBSONthought, before the Speaker was allowed to leave the Chair, some statement should be made by a Representative of the Irish Executive as to the course they were going to take in regard to the Bill. He need hardly say that the Government at this time were entitled to every consideration and forbearance with regard to Irish Business; but, as there was no one connected with Irish affairs present to state that he considered it a matter of his deliberate judgment that it was desirable that the Bill should be then proceeded with, he should move that the debate be adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not think it discourteous if, under the circumstances, he asked him to consent to adjourn the debate.
    MR. ARTHUR
    O'CONNORsaid, he could see no objection to the House going into Committee on the Bill, which contained provisions that were exceedingly simple. At present there were certain funds which were not so available as they might be, and this Bill would make them more beneficially reasonable. However, under the circumstances, he would not oppose the Motion.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  BALLOT ACT CONTINUANCE AND AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 84.]
  (Sir Charles W. Dilke, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Attorney General.)
  BALLOT ACT CONTINUANCE AND AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 84.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
    MR. GORSTsaid, he should move the adjournment of the debate, as he thought it was not reasonable that a Bill of such importance should unexpectedly come before the House. He explained that the Government Orders on the Notice Paper, of which this was one, had not originally been fixed for that evening. They had been placed on the Paper for Monday, and had been moved en bloc on to Tuesday's Paper, in consequence of the adjournment on the previous day.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    SIR CHARLES W.
    DILKEsaid, he thought it was a very singular use of the Forms of the House to move the adjournment of the debate at a quarter-past 6 o'clock, especially when they remembered that the Bill before them had been before the House during a Session and a-half. It was the same Bill as was before the House during the whole of

    363
    last Session, when it was made the subject of considerable care upon proposals, all of which were proposals for Committee, and not for discussion on the second reading. He had never heard anything in opposition to the principle of this Bill—["Oh, oh!"]—at least, it had never reached him. There were many points in the Bill which would have to be dealt with in the Committee with extreme care; but they were not objections to the principle. Whatever might have been the objections to the Ballot Bill when it was originally introduced on the part of many hon. Members of the Conservative Party, they had been very largely abandoned; and they were, as a whole, prepared to assent to continue the existence of the Ballot, as they had done year after year. The question awaiting discussion concerned the machinery of the Bill only. There had been no suddenness about the matter. The Bill had been in the hands of hon. Members for six weeks, and had, on several occasions, been allotted a high position among the Orders. The second reading had been proposed without a speech, because he had thought it best to reserve his remarks until he could speak in reply to the observations of those who wished to criticize the measure.
    MR. BERESFORD
    HOPEsaid, he had experienced many extraordinary surprises in Parliament; but he had never known a more extraordinary one than the present. How was it, he asked, that this Bill came on now, on a private Member's night? Because on Monday, under those most horrifying and appalling circumstances, which had thrilled, not England only, but Europe and the world, the House had purposely risen without doing any Business at all, without even going through the usual form of putting off Bills. The whole Business of yesterday had simply been passed en bloc on to the Paper of to-day. The idea was that yesterday the House, without distinction of Party, rose horror-struck, and in sympathy with the Government, and it virtually allowed the Government till Thursday before resuming real work. On Thursday the Business came on of which the House had received intimation. The House heard with silence and deep gratitude that the Business which was then to come on was to take precedence of all other Business. To-day, by this
    364
    pure accident, there happened to stand upon the Paper this Bill, which dealt with a most important Constitutional change, which had been in practice, no doubt, for some years. But it was a great question now whether the Ballot of a few years old, or the secret voting of centuries old—the open voting of centuries old—was to be the permanent rule for elections. As to what the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had said with reference to all objections to the Ballot having died away, did he remember a certain judgment that Mr. Justice Manisty gave two years ago, and did he remember the sensation which that caused, and the new light it threw on the question? This Bill had been announced as one of the great measures of the Session; and now the Government, by a dexterous use of opportunities, forced it on the House. Considering the circumstances and the generous indulgence which the Opposition were only too happy to extend to the Government on the previous day, he could not view the present conduct of the occupants of the Treasury Bench as justifiable or right. He thought this was a proceeding unparalleled in the dexterity of Parliamentary usage which it indicated. He would vote with the hon. and learned Member for Chatham; and he trusted the House would show its sense of this proceeding under circumstances where he should have thought wisdom would have prevented the introduction of any jarring element.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought this was a somewhat singular proceeding on the part of the Government. Though this Ballot Act was one of the important measures referred to in the Speech from the Throne, the second reading was proposed without a single word. He thought that was not respectful to the House. For his part, he did not approve of the principle of the Bill. He hated and detested the Ballot, because it led to gross corruption. The dodge by which the Government worked Bills was to tell them that they would be fully discussed in Committee; and then, when they got into Committee, they were told the principle of the Bill had been accepted on the second reading, and, therefore, they must not discuss it in Committee. They did not approve of the principle of the Ballot at all. Apart altogether from the corruption it had encouraged, the pre-

    365
    sent system of secret voting made it impossible to attribute to particular classes the changes of opinion which sometimes affected the political destinies of the Empire.
    MR. RITCHIEsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was justified in objecting to this measure being proceeded with in the absence of Members interested in it; but he was afraid that, if a division were taken on the question of adjournment, people outside of the House might suppose that the division was upon the subject of the Bill itself, and he feared that opinion would be considerably strengthened by the speech just delivered by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Warton). For his own part, he was not afraid of the action of the Ballot; and he thought it was quite impossible now to reverse the decision which the House came to years ago with reference to a Bill which had worked satisfactorily. He, therefore, thought they could not object to the second reading of the Bill, and hoped the hon. and learned Member for Chatham would content himself with having drawn attention to the fact that some Members of the House, who might have desired to speak on the subject, were not present.
    MR. THOMAS
    COLLINS, while objecting to the Ballot, pointed out that if hon. Members were not prepared to oppose the continuance of that measure they were really wasting time. He believed nothing had done more to debauch and demoralize and corrupt the constituencies than the Ballot; but, at the same time, if the Leaders of neither of the Parties in the State were prepared to reverse the policy instituted some years ago, he thought there could be no serious objection to the second reading of the Bill.
    SIR STAFFORD
    NORTHCOTE: I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend that if you are not prepared to oppose a Bill, therefore you ought to allow it to be read a second time. Of course, the question is whether the House has been, by the circumstances of the case, somewhat taken by surprise in the time in which the measure has been brought forward; but, at the same time, I agree with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) that a division on the proposal to adjourn the debate might be taken as a division upon the
    366
    merits of the Bill; and, as I do not intend to oppose the second reading of the Bill, I shall not vote for the adjournment. But I wish to put this point to the Government. There is no doubt that on the second reading of a Bill there are opportunities for a more perfect discussion of points in a Bill than arise in Committee. Now, the 6th clause of this Bill is one of a very important character. The hon. Baronet says the Bill will be discussed in Committee; but we never know when we shall have a discussion in Committee. I therefore think we have a right to call on the Government to undertake that, if the second reading is agreed to now, they will arrange the next stage at such a time as to give a convenient opportunity for the discussion of the Bill on the question of the Speaker leaving the Chair, so that it may be discussed in the manner in which it would have been discussed on the second reading. The Government have certainly gained an advantage which was not contemplated; and, if that understanding is come to, we shall have an opportunity of full and fair discussion. It does not at all follow that because you are prepared to continue the principle of the Ballot Act, there may not be many observations to be made on the working of the system—some of them apart from the question of the 6th clause; and an opportunity ought to be given for the full and fair discussion of those questions. Many hon. Members had not the least idea that the question would come up to-day, and others who are present may not be prepared to speak upon it. I therefore think we have a right to ask the Government that they will put the stage of Committee at such another time as will enable the House to discuss it. With reference to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), I quite understand that this is one of those measures that would be included in the declaration of the Prime Minister that they would not interfere with the Irish Business. But dealing with this Bill to-day does not at all interfere with the progress of the Irish Business of the Government. If it were proposed to set aside the Irish measures for the sake of going on with this Bill, I should certainly oppose such a proposal; but it does not appear to me that it will.
    MR.
    CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I am in some difficulty in understanding the position taken up by the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition. It certainly is not the intention of the Government to deprecate the fullest discussion of both the principle and the clauses of the Bill; but I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the present is not a favourable opportunity for that discussion which we understand Members of the Opposition are anxious to engage in. The point which the right hon. Baronet makes is that the discussion has come on unexpectedly; but in this House, as in many other places, it is the unexpected that always happens. Bills continually come on unexpectedly, and there is really nothing very extraordinary in what has happened to-day. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), in terms to which I do not take any exception at all, has spoken of the generous conduct of the House, and of the Party to which he belongs, in accepting the adjournment yesterday under the pressure and in view of the terrible calamity which so deeply affected the mind of the whole country. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that was a gracious act, and, I believe, entirely in sympathy with the sentiment of the country; but I do think the right hon. Gentleman has in some sort detracted from the graciousness of that act when he imputes to the Government an unworthy motive in taking advantage of that to bring on this Bill. Suppose the House had not adjourned yesterday, and the ordinary Business had taken place, what would have happened then? Nothing is more probable than that, if this Bill had not been reached, it would have been put down for to-day.
    SIR STAFFORD
    NORTHCOTE: The Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was put down for to-day.
    MR.
    CHAMBERLAIN: What I mean is, that there was nothing exceptional in the position. If not on this Tuesday, then on some other Tuesday the Bill might have been put down, and reached, by an accident, when the Business which was down before it had gone off. It has been down on more than one Tuesday already, and, on one occasion, was very nearly reached. It has been down on
    368
    other nights not Government nights, and the Government have put it second or third on the Paper on more than one occasion; and hon. Members opposite, who, I suppose, are opposed to the principle of the Bill, have discussed Bills preceding it at somewhat great and unnecessary length, and prevented its being reached. I think, under the circumstances, and in the face of an opposition of that kind, we are justified in asking the House to take advantage of this opportunity and go on with the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge and the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) have complained of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for saying that, in his mind, the objections to the principle of the Bill had now been removed, and the general feeling of the House was in favour of the principle of the Bill. I shall not ask the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) to withdraw his Motion, for I confess I should not be at all sorry to see a division taken; and I should be glad to accept that division as a test of how many persons there are in the House who object to the principle of this Bill. I have no doubt they would be a small but faithful band, and I think it would be interesting to the House to know in what quarter they are to be found.
    SIR R. ASSHETON
    CROSS: The speech of the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, a most unfortunate one. The right hon. Gentleman will excuse my saying so; but he makes a charge against Members of this House which he has no right to make. He has deliberately stated that hon. Members have talked on other Bills to keep this Bill off. No such thing, to my recollection, has ever taken place. [Cries of "Hear, hear!" and "Oh!"]
    MR.
    CHAMBERLAIN: I would like—[Loud cries of "Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) is in possession of the House; and at the end of his address, if there is any explanation, it can then be made.
    MR.
    CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to know what I said? [Renewed cries of "Order!"]
    SIR R. ASSHETON
    CROSS: The right hon. Gentleman stated most distinctly that hon. Members have talked

    369
    to keep off the discussion of this Bill.
    MR.
    CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say that.
    SIR E. ASSHETON
    CROSS: Then I should like to know what the right hon. Gentleman did say?
    MR.
    CHAMBERLAIN: I could not say it, as a fact, that that was their object; but I said that they had talked at what seemed to us to be great and unnecessary length on Bills preceding this Bill, and had thereby produced on our minds the impression that they were trying to keep this Bill off.
    SIR R. ASSHETON
    CROSS: That is precisely the charge which I say he has no right to make. Is that the way in which the Business of this House is to be conducted? I had to remind the House at an earlier period of the Session that you, Sir, had to ask of Her Majesty, at the beginning of this Parliament, that the best construction should be placed on all our actions. I had to remind the House that in case certain Resolutions were passed, I thought we should not get from the Ministry the same promise as we got from the Crown. All that my right hon. Friend asks is, that as Members did not expect the House to go on with this Bill, an opportunity should be given for discussing it upon the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." No one expected that this Bill would come on to-day, and I should have thought the extremely fair observation of the right hon. Gentleman would have been met in a better spirit than the President of the Board of Trade has shown. I hope wiser counsels will prevail, and that we shall obtain from the Government the undertaking that hon. Members shall have a fair opportunity of stating their objections to the Bill.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he did not think that it could be justly complained that the Bill came on unexpectedly, as he had, earlier in the evening, intimated to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire that this Bill would be proceeded with if time permitted.
    SIR R. ASSHETON
    CROSSobserved that that was true; but he only found out that the Bill would certainly come on 10 minutes before it was reached, when most of his hon. Friends had left.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he, nevertheless, thought the Government proposal fair and reasonable, seeing it was intimated they should expect to take some Business to-night. He might point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he had himself just got a most important Bill read a second time in the absence of those who opposed it, and without offering any explanation. On two previous occasions, when the Ballot Bill was before the House, the questions immediately preceding it were under discussion till within two minutes of half-past 5, so that the Bill was adjourned. Surely the Bill having been in operation for the last 10 or 12 years, a Bill for its continuance did not require much discussion as regarded its principle.
    COLONEL
    STANLEYappealed to the Government whether even now they would not reconsider their decision, as there could be no doubt as to the fact that many Members had gone away under the impression that the Bill would not come on. If it was proceeded with, they might have an irregular or, possibly, acrimonious discussion, and the Government would only have succeeded in wasting the time of the House, because the same discussion could take place on the Motion for going into Committee, whether the Government liked it or not. But if the Government insisted on the second reading being taken then, it should be on the understanding that a full discussion would take place on the Motion for going into Committee.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he was sorry that the House should get into the state of feeling which seemed to exist. He felt the Government would have been open to much blame on both sides if they had not brought on this Bill on an occasion like the present. He pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman, or any other person on the opposite side, would have their opportunity, apart from any undertaking by the Government, though he thought it might be readily conceded by the Government to those hon. Gentlemen, that the Bill would be brought on in its future stages at an hour when there would be fair opportunity for discussion. But to interrupt Business because the Government did not see their way to make the concession asked for was, in his opinion, a mistake. To the Bill itself he had some changes to suggest when they got into Committee. He re-

    371
    ferred to the time within which an election must take place after the receipt of the Writ by the Returning Officer. In the case of groups of burghs, the law at present allowed 15 days to elapse between the receipt of the Writ and the polling. In the case of a single burgh, again, the greatest time that could elapse was eight days. He thought it absurd, in the present time, when there were so many facilities for communication, that there should be 15 days of an interval in the case of groups of burghs, the same as it was in counties, and that a modification of the law should be made in this particular. His object in rising, however, was to deprecate any irritating discussion when they were all desirous to have a better state of feeling prevail.
    EARL PERCYsaid, he entirely sympathized with the remark of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; but the way to avoid irritation was for the Government to assent to the very reasonable proposal that had been made. Hon. Members had asked why some Members had gone? He would tell them the reason why. It was because they thought Englishmen and Gentlemen—["Oh!"]—would not at this hour take advantage of so dreadful a circumstance—["Oh, oh!"]—and the manner in which—["Oh!" and "Withdraw!"]—and the manner in which—[Renewed cries of "Oh!" and "Withdraw!"]—and the manner in which—[Cries of "Withdraw!"]—yes; it was entirely owing to what occurred yesterday that the Government had been able to bring on this Bill to-night; and he would be surprised to hear from the Treasury Bench any argument to prove that was not so. The understanding was that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) should be taken yesterday and to-day, in consequence of which private Members did not put down Motions upon the Paper; and when it was known yesterday that was not to be the case, private Members still refrained from putting Notices upon the Paper; therefore, he said it was distinctly in consequence of what happened yesterday that the Government had been able to bring this question forward, when it was known to be distasteful to hon. Members on that side of the House. He considered it was an unfair advan-
    372
    tage, and was not decent on the part of the Government. He hoped, however, his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) would not press his Motion, because, from the present temper of the House, there was no doubt they would be able to snatch an advantage.
    MR. ARTHUR
    ARNOLDsaid, he was quite sure there was no Member on either side of the House who thought he would, under any circumstances, impute to him that which the noble Lord had imputed to Members on that side of the House. He had entered the House while the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) was speaking, and thought the right hon. Gentleman's remarks somewhat unreasonable and ungrateful. The right hon. Gentleman had, again and again, during this Session, pressed the Government with reference to another measure—the Settled Land Bill—for opportunities to bring it before the House; but now, after getting an opportunity for his own undertaking, he was inclined to prevent the Government from proceeding with a measure of their own. The right hon. Gentleman in his (Mr. Arthur Arnold's) momentary absence had just passed through a most important stage a Bill to which he was opposed, and he deeply regretted having missed the opportunity of challenging it. But he was at a loss to understand how, with that proceeding so new and fresh in his mind, the right hon. Gentleman could have offered the observations he had just made.
    MR. LYULPH
    STANLEYstated, in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), that he had spoken to the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) to the Settled Land Bill, and had said, of course, if the Bill were read a second time, it would be on the understanding that his hon. Friend would have an opportunity of raising his objection on the Motion for going into Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had assented, and, therefore, they might ask him to allow the present Bill to be advanced a stage. It would be practically impossible to prevent hon. Gentlemen opposite from raising a discussion, if they chose, on the question that the Speaker leave the Chair.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that all that had been asked from the Government was an assurance that an opportunity for a fair discussion should, be given to the House generally on going into Committee on the Bill, and that no surprise should be possible on that occasion. He should have thought that that request would have been acceded to at once.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that when he brought forward his Motion he thought the Government would have agreed to it almost as a matter of course. If, however, under the circumstances, the Government deemed it right to press on their Business, they must do so. He begged to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR WALTER B.
    BARTTELOTsaid, that when he saw on the Front Bench opposite Gentlemen who had introduced a Corrupt Practices Bill, he thought they showed scant courtesy to the House in not making some statement to the House at once on the Ballot Act. It could not be denied that great corruption at elections had been practised under the Ballot Act. Representations had been made to ignorant and illiterate voters that they could take money from both parties, and at the same time give their vote as they pleased, without anyone knowing how they voted. This, he believed, had, to a great extent, been done; and, as a consequence, the Ballot Act was responsible for a great deal of corruption. No doubt, in Committee they would have ample opportunity of discussing the measure; but the 2nd clause, relating to polling-places, deserved serious attention, and he felt they ought to have had from the Treasury Bench the reasons for inserting that provision in the Bill. They should also have been informed why power had been given to large constituencies to vary the hours of polling. He regretted that the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was not present, because he understood that that right hon. and learned Gentleman had much to say to the House on that measure. He considered it altogether unwise and impolitic to proceed at the present moment and in the present state of the House with the Bill; and when they found they were treated in
    374
    this way with regard to the Business of the House, they would be obliged in the future to take more care before they granted concessions. He felt sure that yesterday, if they had asked that no Government Business should be taken today, the Prime Minister would have stated that such was his intention, and that, until Thursday, nothing should be done; for in that grave crisis in Ireland nothing should be allowed to be done in that House but the passing of measures for preventing crime and outrage. Therefore, he thought it was stealing a march on the House to go on with this Bill. At the same time, he did not think it would be wise to take a division on the second reading.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES (DISFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.— [BILL 118.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  CORRUPT PRACTICES (DISFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.— [BILL 118.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that, as far as he was personally concerned, he was most anxious to proceed with the second reading; but it was only right he should state that several Members, and especially the right hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) had communicated with him, and had asked that Notice should be given before the Bill was brought on; and he had informed them that Notice would be given. But for that fact, he should have been very glad to go on with the Bill at once.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he thought it would have been a very hard thing if this Bill had been pressed on; but he would have been quite prepared to find the Bill moved, as the Ballot Act Continuance Amendment Bill had been. He knew the honour of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and therefore did not think he would, on this occasion, proceed with it in the face of any opposition; but it was a fair commentary on what the Government had, in the earlier part of the proceedings, shown itself capable of doing.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 21.]
  (Mr. Attorney General, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles W. Dilke, Mr. Solicitor General.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL.— [BILL 21.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in rising to move that the House should go into Committee on the Bill, said, he proposed that, as a matter of form, Progress should be immediately reported, and that the Bill should not be brought on again without Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no objection to the Bill going into Committee at once, provided that due Notice were given of the intention to bring the Bill on again, and provided it would be brought on at a reasonable hour, so as to give time for discussion.
    MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought the suggestion very fair, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill should not be brought on again without due Notice, nor after 12 o'clock.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, he hoped the Government would not proceed a further stage in Committee with this Bill, without first dealing with the Disfranchisement Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  CONTUMACIOUS CLERKS BILL.
  (Mr. Morgan Lloyd, Baron de Ferrieres, Mr. Hussey Vivian, Sir Thomas Chambers, Mr. Abel Smith, Mr. Greer Mr. Cecil Forester.)
  CONTUMACIOUS CLERKS BILL.

    [BILL 41.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill proposed that any person now in prison, or who should in future be imprisoned for disobedience of Ecclesiastical Law, should be released at the end of six months. It contained provi-
    376
    sions amending the Church Discipline Act and the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874, and making them more effectual. It proposed to give the Judge power to deprive a clerk of his benefice or other preferment, for contumacy instead of awarding imprisonment, and thus to avoid the scandal of keeping a man in prison for an offence against the Ecclesiastical Law. Every clergyman was bound to obey the law of the Church as declared by the authorized tribunals; and if he persisted in his disobedience, however conscientious his motives might be, he could not be allowed to hold his preferment and continue to set the law at defiance. Imprisonment was not the proper remedy, and was not in accordance with modern ideas. If he could not conform to the law of the Church, he was not fit to hold office in it; and if, under such circumstances, he be deprived of his preferment, after a fair trial, public opinion would approve of the sentence.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped that, inasmuch as the whole subject was being dealt with by the Royal Commission which was appointed last year, the House would not proceed with the Bill before the Commission had made their Report.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) would feel the force of the right hon. Gentleman's observations, and not force a discussion on the House. He would, therefore, move his Amendment, that until the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Courts had reported, it was inexpedient to proceed with any Bill on the subject.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "till the Royal Commission now sitting on Ecclesiastical Courts shall have reported, it is inexpedient to proceed with any Bill dealing with the discipline of the Clergy."—(Colonel Makins.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)thought the Amendment went a little too far in declaring that it was inexpedient to proceed with any Bill dealing with the discipline of the clergy. It would be a question for the House to consider what should be done with contumacious clerks who did not conform to the law; but he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would assent to the adjournment of the Bill. To simplify matters, he would move that the debate be adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    MR. THOMAS
    COLLINSobserved, that the Church Discipline and Regulation Act was a most mischievous measure, and the present Bill was intended to enlarge its operation. He hoped that the debate would be adjourned, as it could not possibly come on again during the present Session.
    MR. MORGAN
    LLOYDsaid, he was very anxious to proceed with the Bill, but saw no alternative, under the circumstances, but to agree to the Motion for Adjournment. He hoped, at the same time, that some of the Amendments would be withdrawn.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Sir, I have, along with many other hon. Members, I suppose, received numerous applications to forward a measure which will have the effect of liberating a clergyman who is now in prison in Lancaster Castle. This Bill, I believe, is intended to have that effect. The hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) thinks this Bill will never come on again; but if my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) were to shorten the Bill, if he were to get rid of all those matters which do not affect the question which is the origin of the Bill, I think it might become law very soon. I am not a Member of the Church of England; but if I were a Member of that Church I think I should have started this question much earlier. It seems to me a very painful scandal that a minister of the Church, of very good character, who has only been, as most people think, too zealous in the performance of his duties, should be now in one of the public prisons of the country, and that he should have been there over 12 months. I have seen a paragraph in a newspaper which states that Mr. Green is shut up in the very room
    378
    in which the founder of the religious sect to which I belong was shut up two centuries ago. Whatever want of sympathy there was in those days of George Fox, at any rate, I have no want of sympathy for Mr. Green. I am only astonished that, knowing there is in this House a majority, an overwhelming majority, in favour of the Established Church, some means have not been taken before this to liberate Mr. Green and remove the scandal which attaches to our Church system. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will be able to propose, at some not distant day, a Bill, one or two clauses of which will be considered, and by which that gentleman—honest as I believe he is, mistaken as I think he is—may be liberated, and the Church may be delivered from what I think a discredit, and which every member of it must feel to be a very painful one.
    SIR R. ASSHETON
    CROSSsaid, he was quite sure that no member of the Church of England could regret more than he did the fact that an earnest minister, though a mistaken one in opinion, should be detained in prison, whether for a long period or at all. He believed that if Mr. Green had only given the slightest promise that he would obey the ruling of his Bishop and the order of the Court, or even, he believed, if he had said he would only obey his Bishop, he might have beeen released, He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) thought it a very grave mistake that for acts of that kind a minister should be imprisoned at all. He did not think it was a right way of dealing with him; and he should be glad to support a Bill abolishing imprisonment for offences like those for which Mr. Green was suffering. He quite agreed with the penalty of deprivation or suspension; but he had never been able to see why a clergyman should be imprisoned as Mr. Green and others had been.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he admired the liberality of sentiment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and only wished the same liberality had been shared by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who, at the end of last Session, counted out the House when a Bill was brought in which might have liberated Mr. Green.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Tuesday next.

  SPIRITS IN BOND BILL.— [BILL 64.]
  (Mr. O'Sullivan, Colonel Nolan, Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Redmond, Mr. Daly.)
  SPIRITS IN BOND BILL.— [BILL 64.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. O'SULLIVAN, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the Bill had, in a former Session, passed unanimously in that House, and was supported, he believed, not only by the distillers on the one side, but by the temperance party on the other. During this Session it had been blocked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). The Bill was one for the public benefit. It was very short, and would not occupy more than a minute in reading. It merely provided that spirits should be kept in bond for 12 months. It was well known that good spirits improved by keeping and bad spirits deteriorated, so that, if it were possible to keep spirits in bond for two years, it would be so much the better. He believed, if this Bill was passed, it would do more for temperance than many of the Temperance Bills that had been brought into the House, because it was generally the quality, and not the quantity, that proved mischievous. He hoped there would be no objection to the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the second reading, seeing that no Member representing the Treasury was present. He trusted that the hon. Member would bring on the Bill another day.
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, his Bill would hardly have a chance another day, as it was blocked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton.)
    SIR WILFRID
    LAWSONsaid, he thought it rather hard on the hon. Gentleman that he should be opposed now that he had become a temperance reformer. The Bill might be read a second time, and if anything were wrong it could be put right in Committee. All the hon. Gentleman wanted to do was to keep spirits in bond for one year; last year he wanted to keep them in
    380
    bond for two years. The longer he kept them in the better.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped the postponement would be agreed to, as he thought the Bill, in its present form, was one which the Government could not approve.
    MR. BOORDsaid, he understood that this was a general Bill, and not a Bill confined to Ireland. By keeping spirits in bond, it would stop the trade; and though this might or might not have a good effect, according to the view of hon. Members, the present occasion was hardly a fit one for discussing the matter. He was strongly opposed to the second reading being taken that day.
    MR. CROPPERbegged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Cropper.)
    MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) say that the Bill ought to be opposed by the Government. He had not opposed it himself when he was in Office. The Bill was simply and solely to retain spirits in bond for 12 months, and it did not at all interfere with the sale and re-sale of spirits in bond. He hoped the Motion for the adjournment would not be persevered with.
    MR. LYON
    PLAYFAIRsaid, that in the unfortunate state in which the House was now, without an Officer of the Treasury, the Treasury asked him to look after the Finance Bills, as by custom his name was on their back. Perhaps a Bill of this kind might not very much interfere with the regulations in regard to finance; but, at the same time, the House was ignorant of the facts. They ought to have the knowledge of those who were responsible for the finances of the country on that subject; and therefore it would be quite impossible, under the circumstances, for the Government to accept the second reading of a Bill of this kind.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till Monday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.