Commons Sitting of 11 November 1882

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Matthew Joseph Kenny, esquire, for Ennis Borough.
QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST UNION—MR. ROBERT HUMPHREY.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the Belfast Board of Guardians granted a pension of £52 per year to a rate collector and rent agent named Robert-Humphrey, whose resignation to the Board was made to prevent dismissal; whether the law prohibits the grant of superannuation allowances to union officers, unless they devote their whole time to the service of the union; and, whether the Guardians had knowledge that Humphrey had been, and still is, a rent agent in extensive business prior to the said grant being made, and if the usual list of queries have been forwarded, with Humphrey's signature attached, to the Local Government Board for their approval; and, if so, was the fact disclosed on the said list of queries whether or not Humphrey had devoted his time and services exclusively to the Belfast Union?
  MR, TREVELYAN: The Guardians of Belfast Union desire to grant a superannuation allowance of £52 a-year to Mr. Humphrey; but the Local Government Board have not yet sanctioned this allowance, and are still in communication with the Guardians on the subject. According to the law, the Local Government Board cannot sanction the grant unless Mr. Humphrey's whole time has been devoted to the service of the Union, and they have called the Guardians' attention to this fact.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND)—TRIENNIAL ELECTIONS OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. SALTasked the President of the Local Government Board, What number of Boards of Guardians have expressed a desire for the adoption of triennial
  1630
  elections; whether, under the existing Law, the process of changing the system of election is not needlessly expensive and inconvenient; and, whether he will introduce a Bill early next Session, or support a Bill to the effect that, in Unions where the triennial election may be desired by the Guardians, it may be adopted by a vote of a majority of the Guardians, after due notice given to the ratepayers, immediately before an election of Guardians (in such manner as may be approved by the Local Government Board), that such a proposal will be brought forward for decision?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, in 41 Unions orders have been, or shortly will be, issued by the Local Government Board, authorizing a poll of owners and ratepayers as to whether there should be a triennial election of the Guardians. The orders are issued in consequence of applications received from the Guardians; and several other Boards of Guardians have made representations in favour of a triennial system. The process of changing the mode of election under the existing law no doubt involves some expense; but it has the advantage of affording the owners and ratepayers full opportunity of showing their wishes on the subject, and I may state that, in some instances, they have refused to consent to the change proposed. I will consider the suggestion made by the hon. Member; but I could not undertake to promise to introduce a Bill to give effect to it, or to support such a Bill if introduced.

  THAMES RIVER BILL, 1881—LEGISLATION.
  MR. M'LARENasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he intends, next Session, to introduce again the Thames River Bill of 1881, or any part of it as a separate measure?
  MR. J. HOLMS (for Mr. CHAMBERLAIN): Notices have been given of the intention of the Board of Trade to introduce a Bill next Session for the purpose of carrying out a part of what was proposed by the Thames River Bill, 1881; and I understand that notices have been issued by the Thames Conservators that they intend to bring in a Bill dealing with the other objects proposed by that measure. Among the other objects alluded to is the one in which my hon. Friend is so much interested.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND—RESTORATION OF CETEWAYO.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to a statement respecting Cetewayo, quoted in Monday's "Times" from a Cape paper; whether, as appears from that statement, Cetewayo is still detained a prisoner at Oude Molen; how long Cetewayo's detention there has lasted; and, whether he can hold out any hope that his promised restoration to Zululand will speedily take place?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Cetewayo is not a prisoner at Oude Molen. He has been there since the 25th of September on an understanding that he is to wait till the arrangements for his return to Zululand are completed. I can only repeat the answer which I gave a short time ago, that, after Sir Henry Bulwer's proposals have been received, I hope that Cetewayo may be restored by the end of the year.

  ENGLAND AND PERU—THE PERUVIAN BONDHOLDERS—CORRESPONDENCE.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House, all the Correspondence which has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Peru, between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Chili, and that between Her Majesty's Government and the different Committees of the holders of Peruvian Bonds since the Correspondence last laid before both Houses of Parliament in 1877?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There will be no objection to lay on the Table any portions of the Correspondence with Her Majesty's Representatives in Peru and Chili and with the Peruvian and Chilian Representatives in London that may be of public interest; but with regard to the Correspondence with the Committee of Bondholders, as it contains much matter privately printed, and its contents are already known to the persons interested, Her Majesty's Government would not be disposed to incur the expense of its publication.

  COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS—TORY ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. LEAasked the President of the Board of Trade, What progress has been made in lighting Tory Island Lighthouse with gas, in accordance with the promise given on July 27th, 1882; and, whether any of the people on the island, now alleged to be suffering from famine, could be employed on the works?
  MR. J. HOLMS (for Mr. CHAMBERLAIN): I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the amended estimates for the works in contemplation at Tory Island have been completed, and, after being submitted to the Commissioners, will be forwarded to the Board of Trade. I can express no opinion as to the possibility of employing the inhabitants of the Island, as the works will, in all probability, be carried out by a contractor—not by the Commissioners themselves—but, under any circumstances, it is a matter which rests with the Commissioners, not with the Board of Trade.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked if the hon. Gentleman would undertake that the Irish Office should be communicated with on the subject of employing the people of the Island?
  MR. J. HOLMSwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE (DUBLIN)—EXTRA PAY.
  MR. MACFARLANE (for Mr. GRAY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the three month's pay for extra duty, promised by Lord Spencer to the Dublin Police Force has not been paid to them; and, when the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the grievances of the Police will be laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. TREVELYAN: No promise of three months' pay was ever made by Lord Spencer. All that he promised was that applications and complaints of the Dublin Metropolitan Police should be referred to a Committee of Inquiry. That Committee, which has been very carefully composed, is still sitting, and will probably report early in December.

  CRIMINAL LAW—INFLICTION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON ADULTS UNDER THE VAGRANT ACTS—SUBSTITUTION OF BIRCHING FOR FLOGGING.
  MR. HOPWOODasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in recently commenting on the three consolidated Criminal Acts as justifying the view that a sentence of "whipping" might be altered into "strokes of the birch rod," he had overlooked the fact that the "whipping" in those Acts only applied to male offenders under sixteen years of age; and, whether there is any other Statute which authorises the change from whipping to "strokes with the birch rod?"
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): My hon. and learned Friend is somewhat pertinacious in showing that he differs from the opinion that I have already twice expressed in answer to Questions he has put to me in this House. His view is that whenever the punishment of whipping is directed to be inflicted the instrument to be used must be a cat-o'-nine-tails or scourge, and cannot be a birch rod. I do not think so. No doubt, in practice, the cat-o'-nine-tails formerly was used, but in more recent times humanity has caused a departure from the old practice; and I think, where there is no provision to the contrary in the Statute regulating the punishment, the Court may specify the instrument to be used. In answer to the second portion of my hon. and learned Friend's Question I would refer him to the 26 & 27 Vict. c. 44, which is an Act under which garrotters are punished, and he will find that where the whipping is inflicted on offenders under 16 the birch rod must be used. But as to adults the Court must specify the instrument with which the punishment is to be inflicted. As my hon. and learned Friend has not accepted my view on previous occasions, I would refer him to the opinion of Sir James Stephen in a note to Article 12 of his Criminal Digest, in which he says that the only limitation as to the instrument with which a whipping can be inflicted is to be found in the declaration of the Bill of Eights against illegal and cruel punishments. I am anxious to remind my hon. and learned Friend that no modern Statute permits a man to be whipped more than
  1634
  three times; and as this is the third time he has returned to the attack, I hope he will in mercy relieve me from further castigation.

  CRIMINAL LAW—SEIZURE OF "THE FREIHEIT"—RESTORATION OF MATERIAL SEIZED.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is a fact that, after the arrest of Herr Most on March 30th 1881, the police seized the following articles, the property of Herr Most, at his publishing office in Great Titchfield Street, viz.: three pages of the "Freiheit" (set up type), 20,000 handbills, 1,000 copies of an 80 paged book "Tactic contra Freiheit," 100 photographs (portraits of private friends), and sundry manuscripts; and, if it is a fact that these articles are still retained by the police, notwithstanding that Herr Most, now released, has formally and repeatedly demanded their return both at Scotland Yard and at the Home Office; and, if so, will he state to the House the Law under which he retains possession of these articles?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, the practice in such cases was, that upon the arrest of any person, any property found in his possession which it was supposed might be required at the trial, was taken possession of by the police and detained; and that, when such person was released on the expiration of his sentence, the property was returned to him, unless there was some valid reason to the contrary. That would be done in the case referred to, and, accordingly, the greater part, but not all, of the articles mentioned would be returned.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—STATE OF LODGING-HOUSES IN LONDONDERRY.
  MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Local Government Board received the last Report from their Inspector as to the state of the lodging-houses in Londonderry, particularly those frequented by emigrants; and, whether these Reports are of a satisfactory character or not?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board have have had no cor-

  1635
  respondence, nor have they received any Report, on the state of lodging-houses in Londonderry; but in consequence of what the hon. Member sent to me along with his Question, I will make inquiry.

  EGYPT (EXPEDITIONARY FORCE)—THE REVIEW IN ST. JAMES'S PARK.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the great amount of extra labour which was entailed upon the employés of Woolwich Arsenal during the late War in Egypt, and the admirable manner in which their work was executed, contributing in no small degree to the rapid success of the Campaign, he will grant them a holiday, without loss of pay, on Saturday next, in order that they may have the opportunity of witnessing the Review?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; I am very glad to have this opportunity of recognizing the zeal with which the men in the Manufacturing Departments exerted themselves during the recent preparations for war, and I have authorized to-morrow being a whole holiday for those Departments.

  STATE OF IRELAND—IMPENDING FAMINE—DISTRESS IN CARRICK.
  MR. LEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has investigated the reports of extreme distress prevailing in the neighbourhood of Carrick; and, if he proposes to adopt any measure of relief?
  MR. TREVELYAN: One of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board was sent specially to the Carrick district to report on the alleged impending famine in that district, and I have received his Report, which is dated the 28th ultimo, and is of a re-assuring character. An Inspector of the Board is at present on the spot making further inquiries, and I expect to have his Report in a few days. No exceptional measures of relief are at present proposed; but we are closely watching this, and the other districts, where exceptional distress is said to exist, or to be anticipated.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in the autumn of 1879 nearly all the Inspectors of the Poor Law Board gave reports of a re-assuring character?
  MR. TREVELYANassured the noble Lord that the Government had been, and were, quite aware that it was always much safer to be on the hopeful side in the early days of what might prove to to a serious matter.

  EGYPT (RE-ORGANIZATION)—CESSION OF A PORT ON THE RED SEA TO ABYSSINIA.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether in the course of the arrangements to be made for the settlement of Egypt, Her Majesty's Government will use its influence to secure for Abyssinia a free port on the Red Sea?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In reply to this Question, I should say that I am not convinced that it would be well to mix up the two questions of securing for Abyssinia a free port on the Red Sea and the arrangements now to be made for the settlement of Egypt. The object is one, however, which we regard with sympathy, and we shall do what we can to promote the attainment of it.

  CIVIL SERVANTS OF THE CROWN—OFFICES OF FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY AND CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.
  MR. CALLANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended in the future that the dual office of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer shall be represented in the person of one Member of the Cabinet; and, if so, whether the Government are prepared to make any suggestion by which a more economical arrangement than the present may be effected?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, there is no intention that the Offices of First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer shall in future be represented in the person of one Member of the Cabinet. The hon. Gentleman then asks me whether the Government are prepared to make any suggestion by which a more economical arrangement than the present may be effected? Evidently the hon. Member is under some misapprehension. He knows probably the Rule on which the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury is regulated when he is Chancellor of the Exchequer. The present arrangement is not an

  1637
  arrangement which causes an increase, but a decrease of expenditure. In 1872, the salaries of the Board of Treasury and the Private Secretaries were £13,000; in. 1877 they were £14,300; and in 1882 they are £10,400. So that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension, as I have said, on the point of economy. But I am very far from saying that the present arrangement is a good one, because I doubt whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought not to be the most vigilant man in the Cabinet or the Government; and I do not consider that his duties are performed at the present moment in a perfectly satisfactory manner by me. I do not think I am able to search out and make work for myself. Work that comes to me I hope to do; but I do not consider that I am able to search out and make work for myself in the same degree as I think a thoroughly good Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to do. I may say I have endeavoured to do my best; but I hope that no very long time will elapse before a change in the present arrangement is made, although that change will be more costly than the present arrangement.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE EXPENSES—THE VOTE OF CREDIT.
  MR. SALTgave Notice that on Thursday he would ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Vote of Credit of £2,300,000, taken for the cost of the operations of the Army and Navy in Egypt, had been exceeded, and, if so, to what extent; also, from what source such excess was provided; whether all the the expenditure incurred in Egypt had been made in accordance with the provisions of the Appropriation Act; and, whether it was intended to move a further Vote of Credit in the present Session; and, if so, what would be its amount?
  MR. CHILDERS: I think I had better say at once that as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated that in a few days he will give the whole of the information asked for by the hon. Gentleman, it will be quite unnecessary that I should be asked this Question before he makes that statement.

  MR. PARNELL, M. P., &C. (RELEASE FROM KILMAINHAM).
  MR. J. E. YORKEwished to ask the Prime Minister another Question on the
  1638
  same subject as that on which he had put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday—namely, in reference to the Notice of Motion he had given for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the circumstances under which three Members of the House were released from Kilmainham Prison in May last. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman, in the first place, whether he would endeavour to prevent any of those Gentlemen with whom he had influence from putting down a Notice of opposition to his Motion; or, if he were unable to do that, and one of those Gentlemen put down a Notice of opposition, whether the right hon. Gentleman would give any of those facilities at his disposal for bringing on that Motion at a proper time? Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman declined to contemplate the contingency of the Motion being opposed by any of his supporters; but since then a Notice of opposition had been placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), a strong supporter of the Government. He now wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was his intention to give him a night for the discussion of his Motion? If the Prime Minister was not able to adopt that course, he would like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would place at his disposal any of those facilities of which he had spoken, and which he was able to extend to any Member having any important question to bring before the House?
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether the Prime Minister contemplated granting any facilities for the discussion of that Motion; and, if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman would remember that he had also a Motion with reference to Mr. Bradlaugh; and he would ask whether the Prime Minister would give facilities for the discussion of his Motion before that of the wretched rhetorical—he did not know what to call it—absurdity of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire?
  MR. CALLANremarked, that he had blocked the hon. Member's (Mr. Labouchere's) Motion, and he should not withdraw that block unless the hon. Member for Northampton also removed the blocking Notice which he had given in regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke).
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member for East Gloucestershire put to me a very simple Question, and I informed him that it was impossible for me to interrupt the regular course of Business by breaking in upon our discussions upon Procedure; and in regard to that matter I believe I have followed one uniform course. A great number of subjects have been suggested for discussion, which would involve an interruption of the debates on Procedure; and one rule has been applied to them all by the Government. I presume the hon. Gentleman now repeats his Question of yesterday—namely, whether an arrangement will be made to break off the discussion before half-past 12 o'clock, to enable him to make his Motion? I hope he will not expect me to take any part in the debate on that Motion, because I have one fair day's business to do before I get to the House, and also a fair day's business to do in the House between half-past 4 and midnight; and I cannot undertake to join in the debate on the hon. Member's Motion after half-past 12; but I certainly will endeavour, on the first day on which it can be done without great inconvenience, to suspend the discussion on Procedure before half-past 12, so that he may have the opportunity of bringing forward his Motion.
  MR. J. R. YORKEhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would kindly give sufficient previous Notice of the day on which he proposed to suspend the discussion on Procedure, otherwise it might be impossible for Members desirous of taking part in the debate on his Motion to be present to do so.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The discussion on Procedure on a particular night may not be in a condition to be conveniently suspended before half-past 12. Suppose a Motion to have been made at a quarter-past 12, any hon. Member may speak beyond half-past 12. I could not undertake to suspend the debate on Procedure, for instance, while there might be in issue a question of importance that could not be interrupted without much inconvenience. All I can say is, that upon the first evening when, without such public inconvenience, it can be interrupted, I should be prepared to move the adjournment of the debate for the accommodation of the hon. Gentleman. I do not see what more it is in my power to do.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Might I ask the Prime Minister, with respect to the Motion of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire, whether he will take the usual steps to make it known among his followers that the Government would support the Motion?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that I have a Motion which takes precedence of that of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire—a Motion in regard to Mr. Bradlaugh? And if any arrangement is made to suspend the proceedings, I am prepared to bring forward the Motion.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I request an answer from the right hon. Gentleman to the Question I have put, for it is very inconvenient for hon. Members to be kept waiting day after day in expectation of the Motion being made.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have given all the answer that it is in my power to give. I cannot undertake, whatever be the state of the debate on Procedure, to move that it be cut short for the purpose of bringing on a Motion of this nature.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did not ask that. My question was, whether the Prime Minister will take the usual steps to cause it to be understood among his Friends that the Motion is supported by the Government?
  MR. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that he must decline to answer a Question which was of such an unusual
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, at the same time, whether he recollects what took place the other day? He then challenged my hon. Friend to make the inquiry, which, in general terms, he promised to grant. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Were those my words?] I do not say those were the very words; but I ask him whether I do not correctly represent the substance of what passed then? It was understood that the right hon. Gentleman would facilitate the granting of such an inquiry; and I want to know whether, under the circumstances—my hon. Friend having accepted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and given public Notice of the Motion of Inquiry which he intimated he would be prepared, if not to approve, at least not to disapprove, and Notice having been given of opposition to the Motion

  1641
  —he will take the usual steps, which are very well known to the House, to inform, hon. Members opposite that he is pledged to facilitate the granting of an inquiry; and, further, having regard to the fact that the Committee can only sit during the present Session of Parliament, whether he will give as early an opportunity as possible for the Motion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the first part of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have already stated that, on the first convenient opportunity that the Business relating to Procedure can be broken off before half-past 12, I will move the adjournment for the hon. Gentleman's accommodation. With regard to the last Question of the right hon. Gentleman, which is a repetition of that of the noble Lord, which I just now declined to answer, I do not think it is proper that I should answer a Question repeated in that way.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I only desire to place on record the fact.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSasked whether, on Monday, the Prime Minister would be able to make some statement analogous to that which he had made with reference to the Motion on the subject of Mr. Gray's imprisonment?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have made exactly the same statement with regard to both cases. It is a conditional engagement to suspend proceedings with a view of allowing the Motion with reference to Mr. Gray to be disposed of if it can be done without great public inconvenience in arresting some important discussion.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman fix Monday, subject to the same conditions, for the Motion of my hon. Friend?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE (MR. EDMOND DWYER GRAY, M. P.)—THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
  SIR JOHN HAY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any proposal is to be made for appointing the Committee on Privilege, and what arrangement he proposes to make on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We must endeavour, if possible, to adjourn to-night before half-past 12 to dispose of the matter. There may be some topic of
  1642
  importance before the House; but I hope we shall be able to do so.

  EGYPT AND TUNIS—SLAVERY.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Representatives in Egypt have been or will be instructed to press upon the Khedive of Egypt the fulfilment of the Convention of 1877 between the British and Egyptian Governments for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and to endeavour to obtain the abolition of slavery in Egypt; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which resulted in the abolition of slavery in Tunis, at the recommendation of Her Majesty's Government, and a Copy of the Convention to that effect between the Governments of Great Britain and Tunis?
  MR. GLADSTONE: As to this Question generally, I have to assure my right hon. Friend that with its purport Her Majesty's Government entirely sympathize; and I would refer him to the State Papers that were laid on the Table, volume 35, pages 639 and 643. I have also to say that, with regard to Tunis, by the declaration of 1846, the Government of Tunis undertook to abolish slavery; but no Convention with Great Britain was entered into on the subject until 1875, when, under a Convention, His Highness the Bey engaged to cause the declaration to be obeyed. That Convention was laid before Parliament in 1876. I do not know that I have anything more to add. I have stated briefly our sympathy with my right hon. Friend, and I believe we shall be found working in his direction.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERreminded the Prime Minister that he had not answered the first part of his Question—namely, whether Her Majesty's Representatives in Egypt had been instructed to press upon the Khedive the abolition of slavery in Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That is a matter as to which the reply will be found in the State Papers to which I have referred my right hon. Friend. If he finds that reply to be insufficient, perhaps he will repeat his Question on Monday.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The quotation from the State Papers is not with regard to Tunis, but with regard to Egypt. Perhaps I may repeat the Question on Monday.

  EGYPT—THE DUAL CONTROL.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Dual Control was abolished by the Khedive under the advice of the British Government; whether any substitute for the Control has been agreed to by the British Government and the Government of Egypt; and, whether he can state what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take in order to secure the predominance of British influence in Egypt and over the Suez Canal?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Dual Control has not, at the moment at which I am speaking, been abolished; but the Egyptian Government has expressed its desire that it should be abolished. That desire was not expressed under the advice of the British Government, but was a spontaneous expression. That answers, I think, the two first parts of the Question.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Were Her Majesty's Government consulted?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Consulted! The expression of the desire was consulting in itself. With regard to the last part of the Question, I cannot make any addition at the present time to what has been already stated; but when Her Majesty's Government are prepared with the arrangements they will make them known to Parliament.

  EGYPT—EMPLOYMENT OF HER MAJESTY'S FORCES.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the great cost of living at Cairo and throughout Egypt, it is proposed to make an extra allowance of pay to Her Majesty's Forces quartered in that country?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the non-commissioned officers and men in Egypt, so far from being put to extra expense, are better off than at home, as they receive a full field ration gratis. As to officers, I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject of the proper allowance they should receive to cover the extra expense of living.

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCE.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Fo-
  1644
  reign Affairs, If he can inform the House as to whether or not Russian troops are now at Merv?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; we have no reason to suppose that there are any Russian troops at Merv.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the hon. Baronet telegraph? ["No, no!"] I beg pardon; I am asking a reasonable Question. I have had information which leads me to suppose that they are; and I ask the hon. Baronet, whether he will give the country satisfaction by sending a special telegram to Teheran and Meshed to know whether there is any truth in the statement?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have an official Representative at Meshed, with whom we are in constant communication whenever there is anything to report. We have received no such information from him.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—GRAVES OF THE SLAIN AT TEL-EL-KEBIR.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHER (for Mr. EDWARD CLARKE)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government have already caused, or will cause, steps to be taken for inclosing, and marking with some permanent record which can be identified hereafter, the graves of those officers and soldiers who have been interred at Ismailia, Kassassin, and Tel-el-Kebir, so that they may not simply be lost in the sand?
  MR. CHILDERS: This is a Question for the Foreign Office rather than for me, and my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has already answered, on the 6th instant, a somewhat similar inquiry. I may, however, say that I am satisfied, from what has already passed with the Egyptian Government, that proper steps will be taken in the matter.

  EGYPT (EXPEDITIONARY FORCE)—THE REVIEW IN ST. JAMES'S PARK.
  MR. SCHREIBER inquired, Whether a good top dressing of gravel would be given to the wood pavement in Piccadilly on the occasion of the Review—a precaution which would probably prevent many accidents both to men and horses?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, that the roads were not under his control.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE EXPENSES—THE VOTE OF CREDIT.
  MR. SALT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can give the House some idea upon what day he proposes either to move a Vote of Credit or to make some explanation with regard to the cost of the Egyptian Expedition?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have never given an absolute reply to the House on the subject of a Vote of Credit; but I have repeatedly referred to the subject, and it has always been to the effect of saying that I had no reason to expect that any Vote of Credit would be proposed during the present Session. I repeat that now with rather increased confidence; but I hope I shall be able, in the course of next week, to make a statement of a more definite character as to the probable excess over the Vote already granted by Parliament.

  THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE.
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELLasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, having regard to the fact that the money for the erection of the new Law Courts is voted by the House of Commons, and to the fact that the Great Hall of the new Courts is calculated to hold some two thousand persons, he could not see his way to allot more than one hundred and fifty places at the opening ceremony to Members of the House of Commons?
  MR. GIBSONwished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's statement that Members were expected to come in levée dress meant that if they did not wear such dress they would not be let in?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I only said that Members would be expected to appear in levée dress, not that they would be required to do so. I think that accommodation for 150 persons is about the proportion that should be devoted to the House of Commons. The Hall will only accommodate about 1,800 persons, and it must be remembered that it will be necessary to give precedence to the Superior Judges, the Queen's Counsel, the Junior Bar, and
  1646
  the representatives of the Incorporated Law Society. When all that is done the remaining space will be extremely limited.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—SIXTH RULE (POSTPONEMENT OF PREAMBLE).

    TWENTY-FOURTH NIGHT.
    Order read, for resuming Further Consideration of the New Rules of Procedure.
    MR. GLADSTONEmoved the 6th Resolution, as follows:—
    "That, in Committee on a Bill, the Preamble do stand postponed until after the consideration of the Clauses, without Question put."
    The right hon. Gentleman said this Resolution, and the one which followed, involved matters of smaller moment than those which had already been under consideration. So far as his experience went it was the rarest instance, when there was a discussion on the postponement of the Preamble, that it was of an obstructive nature. Preambles in former times did contain much important matter; but Preambles now were almost invariably, if not invariably, purely formal, and the postponement of a Motion of that kind was evidently a proposal that ought not to give the power of debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in Committee on a Bill, the Preamble do stand postponed until after the consideration of the Clauses, without Question put."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. GORSTmoved to add to the Resolution the words "except by leave of the Committee." He argued that it might sometimes be convenient that there should be a discussion on the Preamble of a Bill before the consideration of the clauses. If the Preamble were always to be postponed without Question put, the Government might find it difficult to announce the changes which were sometimes introduced into a Bill after the second reading. As an example of the measure which had undergone great changes at the hands of its framers after that stage he instanced the Boundary Bill of 1868.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words "except by leave of the Committee."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONEdoubted if the Amendment would serve any purpose. He did not deny that there might be occasions when it would be convenient at the stage of Committee to make a statement with regard to changes introduced into a Bill. But an opportunity of making an explanation of that kind could be obtained by a Motion for Adjournment. The case would be exactly one of those in which a Motion for Adjournment could be legitimately proposed.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought the course suggested by his hon. and learned Friend would be more convenient than that which the Prime Minister contemplated.
    MR. GORSTsaid, after the statement of the Prime Minister he would not press his Amendment.
    MR. WARTONargued that if the Resolution were passed without alteration it would be in the power of a Minister to introduce most important matter into the Preamble of a Bill. Several cases had occurred of late in which principles which were objected to by many people had been laid down in Preambles. For instance, in a recent measure dealing with corruption, it was asserted in the Preamble that in certain cases boroughs ought to be punished by a suspension of Writs. In like manner in the Bill for closing public-houses on Sunday an assertion was made in the Preamble which he should feel bound to deny. In short, there was a great danger that absurd statements would be introduced into Preambles; and if the basis of a Bill was absurd, what must the superstructure be? He would like to know from the Speaker whether the "leave of the Committee" was the same as the "leave of the House?" and if it were he would move to omit the word "do," in order to insert "may, by leave of the Committee."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the word "do," and insert the words "may, by leave of the Com-
    1648
    mittee,"—(Mr. Warton,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'do' stand part of the Question."
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he was at a loss to see how, under the circumstances, the "leave of the Committee" was to be ascertained.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the Chairman was to ask whether it was the wish of the Committee that the Preamble be postponed.
    MR. GLADSTONEremarked, that if any Member disputed that the Preamble be postponed it was in the power of the majority not to postpone it; but by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member, one Member would be able to prevent its postponement.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLmoved to add, at the end of the Rule, "unless on the application of the Member in charge of the Bill the Committee should otherwise order."
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the Question, to add the words "unless on the application of the Member in charge of the Bill the Committee should otherwise order."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONEpointed out that the Amendment might produce effects not contemplated by the noble Lord.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put.
    (6.) Resolved, That, in Committee on a Bill, the Preamble do stand postponed until after the consideration of the Clauses, without Question put.

    THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—SEVENTH RULE (CHAIRMAN TO LEAVE THE CHAIR WITHOUT QUESTION).
    MR. GLADSTONEmoved—
    "That, when the Chairman of a Committee has been ordered to make a Report to the House, he shall leave the Chair, without Question put."
    The object of the Rule, the right hon. Gentleman explained, was that the Chairman, on progress made upon a Bill or Resolution, should be allowed to leave the Chair without putting the preliminary Question, "That I do now leave the Chair?"
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, when the Chairman of a Committee has been ordered to make a Report to the House, he shall leave the Chair, without Question put."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. SALTobserved that the right hon. Gentleman having moved the Resolution with very little, if any, comment, it would seem that he did not think it could give rise to any legitimate discussion. The practice of the House was that when a Bill passed through Committee the Chairman put the Motion that "I report this Bill as amended, or without Amendment," as the case might be, "to the House." That Motion having been agreed to, the next Question put by the Chairman was "That I now leave the Chair?" As he understood the Resolution, its effect would be to render this latter Motion unnecessary. He wished to know whether that supposition was correct?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Chairman of a Committee was invariably ordered to report something; Progress, whether progress had been made or not; a Resolution; or a Bill, as the case might be. The contention of the Government was that the work of a Committee ended with the Report, and that it was a purely idle form to put the Question. "That I now leave the Chair?"
    MR. SALTsaid, he was obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The case being as he supposed, he wished to call attention to the Standing Order of July 19, 1854, which ran as follows:—
    "Bills which may be fixed for consideration in Committee on the same day, whether in progress or otherwise, may be referred together to a Committee of the Whole House, which may consider, on the same day, all the Bills so referred to it, without the Chairman leaving the Chair on each separate Bill: Provided, that, with respect to any Bill not in progress, if any Member shall object to its consideration together with other Bills, the Order of Day for the Committee on such Bill is to be postponed."
    The comment on that Order in the work of Sir Erskine May was—
    "This course is now frequently adopted with much convenience and saving of time."
    The object of the Order was, of course, that towards the end of the Session Bills about which no great controversy arose might be referred to the same Committee, in order to avoid the necessity of
    1650
    bringing back the Speaker many times over for the Report of each separate Bill. Now, he wished to know how that convenient custom could be made to fall in with this Resolution, according to which it was necessary for the Chairman to leave the Chair at the end of the Committee on every Bill? He moved to negative the Resolution.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he was not sure that it was necessary, when several Bills were referred to the same Committee, that the Order for reporting should be made till the Committee had determined whether it would go through all or any of the Bills; but even when a Committee ordered the Chairman to report a Bill, it would be perfectly allowable first to conclude the consideration of the other Bills.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 69: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 376.)
    (7.) Resolved, That, when the Chairman of a Committee has been ordered to make a Report to the House, he shall leave the Chair, without Question put.

    THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—EIGHTH RULE (HALF-PAST TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE).
    MR. GLADSTONE, in introducing the Resolution, said, he was afraid that the gleam of light and hope which had been cast on their troubled course by the rapid progress through the 6th and. 7th Resolutions was destined to suffer what he hoped would only be a partial and short eclipse; but he did not expect to get through the famous Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule as quickly as those Resolutions which just been disposed of. His formal duty was simply to introduce the subject by moving that the Standing Order be read. He avoided purposely discussing the Standing Order on its merits, because there were, undoubtedly, hopeless differences of opinion upon that question. It would, indeed, be more easy to bring the mind of the House upon almost any subject into a state of unanimity than upon the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule. Yet, undoubtedly, the predominant sentiment of the House was in favour of maintaining the Rule in some shape, and the question was whether it should be relaxed, and how much should it be relaxed? The Go-

    1651
    vernment were inclined to think that its operation was too severe. In the first place, the proposal they should make to amend the Standing Order would, he was sure, receive great favour from hon. Gentlemen opposite, because it was entirely in favour of freedom of speech. They proposed to restore freedom of speech in regard to certain stages—that was to say, the stage of the introduction of Bills, and the stages subsequent to Committee, their contention being, as to the first, that it was not desirable that a Bill should be stopped by the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule from coming under the notice and discussion of the House; and as to the second, that when the House had given its sanction to the principle of a Bill, and had taken the trouble of going through its details, it was not desirable that a Bill should be stopped from further progress by this Rule. This was a change entirely in favour of private Members. It was of exceedingly little importance to the Government, whose Business could be arranged so as to be but little affected by the Rule; but it was of very great importance to private Members, and unquestionably this relaxation, if adopted, would considerably increase the prospects of Private Bill legislation. He had first of all to move that the Standing Orders of the 18th of February, 1879, and of the 9th of May, 1882, be read, in order that any Amendments might be moved upon it.
    Standing Order 18 February 1879, amended 9 May 1882, read as followeth:—
    "That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion be taken after half-past Twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when such Notice is called.
    "That 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."
    SIR JOHN HAYrose to move that the Standing Order of the 18th of February, 1879, be repealed, explaining that the repeal would involve that of May, 1882, which was merely a rider. He had for many years opposed it, both when it was first proposed and since. Busi-
    1652
    ness proceeded more freely before the Rule was made, because it was continued as long as the good sense of the House permitted; and blocking had followed the passing of the Rule. One reason given for it when it was passed as a temporary Order was that the occupants of the Reporters' Gallery could not conveniently furnish their respective newspapers with the reports of the proceedings after that hour. Another was that the Rule enabled many Members to reach their homes by the last train on the Metropolitan District Railway, which was run specially for their convenience. A third was that Members of the Government, fatigued by their exertions during the day, were not present when legislation by private Members was introduced at that hour, and the consideration of such measures was left to other Members. There was this difference between the Wednesday Rule and the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule, which had been said to be an extension of the former: By the Wednesday Rule a Member who opposed a Bill at a quarter to 6 must be in his place; but by the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule a Member who might be at Cairo, or Paris, or Vienna, or among his constituents, might, by telegraphing, place a Notice of objection on the Paper, and prevent legislation which might be very much desired. He hoped he might, without egotism, instance two cases in which he was himself personally interested. There were two Acts of Parliament which he had been instrumental in passing. One related to Navy prize, and the other to explosive substances. Neither of those measures could have been passed if the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule had then been in existence. The Committee of 1878 on Public Business received most valuable evidence on this subject. Sir Erskine May, for example, speaking of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule, said—
    "I do not approve of it personally, but that is not of the least importance."
    Moreover, the Speaker touched on all the points in his evidence. He said with regard to the Rule—
    "I do not recommend it. I am not myself favourably disposed to the Rule itself; but I am aware it is generally approved of as convenient to Members."
    Again, the Speaker said—

    1653
    "The Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule has the effect of excluding a great deal of private Members' business from discussion …. I am not prepared to say that the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule has the effect of shortening the Sittings of the House. These were, in effect, shorter before the Rule was established than they are now."
    In answer to other Questions, the Speaker said—
    "It has promoted the convenience of Members, no doubt; but I think it has produced bad results in several ways. … It is true that a great many Government Bills which used formerly to be considered after half-past Twelve o'clock are shunted in the earlier part of the Session, and are only taken up when the Morning Sittings begin."
    He (Sir John Hay) thought Members ought to consider whether they were doing their duty to their constituents in debarring Members from bringing forward measures which might be beneficial to their constituents, and from occasionally applying the early hours of the morning to legislation, when it was shown that although they might occasionally have to sit a little longer, yet, under ordinary conditions, the Business of the House would be shortened by the abrogation of this Rule. Sir Graham Montgomery, who was a Member of the Committee of 1878, recently told him that he felt it was impossible to get Scotch Business considered in the House as long as the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule was in operation. Speaking as a Scottish Member and as a naval officer, he (Sir John Hay) could say that matters of business connected with Scotland and with the Navy which could be considered by Scottish Members and naval officers and those interested was shut out entirely by this Rule, and he trusted the Scottish Members would join with him in urging upon the Prime Minister—the most distinguished of Scottish Representatives—that the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule, which did so much injury to Scottish Business, should be removed from the Order Book, and that they should have an opportunity of considering those matters which during the first 10 or 11 years he had been in the House they had always had a full opportunity of discussing, but which since 1871 had been entirely excluded from the notice of the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 1, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the
    1654
    words "the said Standing Order be repealed,"—(Admiral Sir John Hay,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'except for a Money Bill' stand part of the said Standing Order."
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman pressed the Amendment to a division he should support him. He had a complaint against that Standing Order. The late Government had passed a Bill for the reform of the Universities, and vested the power of framing statutes for the different Colleges in certain Commissioners. The statutes so framed were to lie on the Table of the House in the usual way, without any special notice being given to Members. He gave Notice of Motion for the rejection of one of those statutes. The Notice was blocked first by one of the Commissioners, and then by one of the Members for the University of Oxford. Thus the statute was passed without the House having an opportunity of discussing it. It was true that an alteration was made at the instance of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock); but the mischief was done. Certain Members got a reputation for zeal and energy, which was little deserved, by blocking all sorts of Bills, and thus an insignificant Member was able to prevent important and beneficial legislation.
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, he thought it was not quite fair that the whole burden of defending the Rule should be thrown upon the Prime Minister. He contended that the main reason why in former times legislation was more easy, even without the Rule, was because there was greater respect for the dignity of the House and the convenience of Members. But in 1865 and later there was a great change; so that the state of things in the House became intolerable. A Committee was appointed in 1871 which dealt with the question in an exhaustive way, and the only question then was whether the hour should not be fixed at 12 instead of 12.30. The Rule was drafted by the Prime Minister. The object of the Rule was not, as his right hon. and gallant Friend had imaginatively stated, to prevent, but to promote legislation. The Rule was adopted unanimously by the House in 1871 as a Ses-

    1655
    sional Order. It was unanimously renewed in the Session of 1872. In 1873 the House again confirmed the Rule after a division. In 1877, there was again a division, in which 185 supported, and only 23 opposed the renewal of the Rule. At last, in 1879, the Rule was made a Standing Order of the House with universal approval. The question now was whether the House should abolish a Standing Order thus repeatedly confirmed by large majorities of the House? His right hon. and gallant Friend had referred to the discussion of 1878, and to the evidence given against the Rule. But the House in 1879, with all that evidence before it—and on such a question high authorities might differ—made the Rule into a Standing Order. His right hon. and gallant Friend had refered to Naval and Scotch Business. But Naval Business was discussed when the House was considering the Estimates in Committee of Supply, and it was desirable on so important a question to have as many Members present as possible; and Members objected to the Estimates being dealt with at a late hour. As to Scotch Business, he remembered congratulating Mr. Dunlop, formerly Member for Greenock, upon getting through more Bills than anybody else did. Mr. Dunlop replied that the secret of his success was that he never got up in the House to introduce his Bill after 12 o'clock, and that he thus kept the House in good humour. His hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had given his experience; but his hon. Friend was not quite accurate. There was one occasion on which his hon. Friend might have brought forward his Motion before 12 o'clock at night—but good Homer was found sleeping. He hoped that the House would give a steady support to the Rule as it stood.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSwished to correct his right hon. Friend. On the occasion referred to he could not have brought on his Motion. His Motion on that occasion referred to Jesus College, and he was unable to bring it on because it was after a division taken on the Previous Question on going into Committee of Supply.
    SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, that had nothing to do with the Half-past twelve Rule. The question was not a Party one, but one whether or not the legislation should be carried on in a
    1656
    dignified manner, and in a manner likely to conduce to the interests of the nation. He hoped the House would support the Rule as it stood.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought the Government Amendment a good one. He entirely disliked this Rule, and agreed with what had been said by his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay). The effect of the Rule was, he believed, almost entirely to block private Members' Business and to interefere with the Business of the Government. The Rule gave rise to Obstruction because hon. Members talked against the time on one measure in order to bring one that was to follow under, the operation of the Rule. He was glad the Government intended to relax its stringency; but he hoped they would be able to see their way to the entire abrogation of the Rule, which had done, in his opinion, more than anything else to impede legislation.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that undoubtedly there had been frequent cases in which long and protracted discussions had taken place, not with a view to the settlement of the subjects immediately under consideration, but with reference to other questions which were to come on afterwards. But he would point out that the Obstruction to which the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr Dillwyn) had referred could be dealt with by the 1st Resolution. A great deal was to be said in favour of the Rule. He believed there was no comparison between the dignity of the proceedings early in the Sitting and late at night. He was sure the Half-past Twelve Rule could be fairly applied, and, therefore, he desired that it should be retained.
    MR. MONKsaid, that the only objection he entertained to the proposal of the Prime Minister, which was merely a reproduction of the Resolution which he (Mr. Monk) moved last Session, and which would then have been adopted by the House if an unfortunate misunderstanding had not arisen on the part of the Government "Whip," was that it did not go far enough. There could be no doubt the intention of the Rule was good, but its operation had been most unfortunate He asked the Government, however, to consent to the entire abrogation of the Rule. Hon. Members talked of the 1st Resolution of the Government being a gagging Rule. Why,

    1657
    this was the most gagging Rule ever invented. He really did not think the ingenuity of man could have invented any Rule which would be a greater preventive of legislation. For these reasons he should support the Motion of his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay).
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he was willing to admit that a great evil existed under the present system; but, in his opinion, they could not abrogate this Rule without producing a great amount of discontent. He remembered having on one occasion carried a Bill through the House at 3 o'clock with the assistance of the Scottish Members, which he could not have done if the Half-past Twelve Rule had been in operation. But he had also been an opponent of Bills, and had to sit up night after night, not knowing when they would come on. That was one of the things that had led to the adoption of the Rule. With regard to Government Bills, they had an understanding always in the beginning of the evening as to what would be taken; but a private Member in charge of a Bill might not be in the House, and they might not be able to find out what he was going to do, so that those interested in a measure had to wait about, not knowing, perhaps, even where the Member in charge of it was. He thought that state of things would be found intolerable if re-introduced as it had been in past times. And he was sure the House would never submit to the inconvenience to which it formerly was subjected. If the Rule could be so framed that if a Member were not present to support his Bill it should be discharged or postponed till another day, the difficulty might be met; but he did not think they could consent to the total abrogation of the Rule.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsupported the maintenance of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule. It had been well said that this was not a Party question, and he was exceedingly glad to hear the remarks of the Prime Minister, because he had placed the Rule very fairly before the House. He thought that anyone—and he was glad to see that there was a prospect of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) rising to support its continuance—who had any lengthened experience of Parliamentary duties, would agree with him
    1658
    in saying what an intolerable nuisance it had been to sit there hour after hour, and night after night, not knowing when a Bill might come forward, and when it might not. Any hon. Member having a Bill down, knew that if he liked he could keep Members in the House; and sometimes a Member would pertinaciously put it down, simply in order to detain Members in the House who were excessively anxious to go home and get to bed. So far as he had seen the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule had nothing to do with retarding the progress of a Bill brought forward. It was from other causes that the progress of legislation was impeded; and when he saw that even his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War was obliged to bring in his Estimates at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, what might it have been if they had not had this Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule? They might have had, perhaps, after the consideration of the Estimates were over, to sit considering a Bill until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. It was, he thought, a most salutary Rule, and one which they ought to continue to carry out. Everyone ought to go home at half-past 12 o'clock, and might do so if the Business of the House was judiciously arranged and properly carried out. He recollected an amiable Member of the House who was excessively fond of speaking. He alluded to Mr. Forsyth, the late Member for Marylebone. Well, when Mr. Forsyth was in the House he had a little Bill—the Baths and Wash-houses Bill he thought it was called. Mr. Forsyth came to him and asked what he was to do, as he was most anxious to get it through. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) replied—"I will undertake that it passes if you follow my advice." He asked what was that; and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelott) told him—"Never open your mouth; but simply take off your hat at every stage of the Bill." That Bill became law. Now, if hon. Members would simply state what was the purport of their Bills, and not go into any lengthened harangue about them, they would be very much more likely to pass. Believing, as he did, that the Rule had worked essentially in the interests of the House, he should certainly vote for its continuance.
    Mr. DODSONsaid, he felt as strongly as ever the objections that

    1659
    might be made to the Rule; but it had now been a Standing Order of the House for many years, and the House had become so accustomed to it that he did not think it would be prepared to part with it. If, in a moment of zeal and energy, the Rule were to be repealed, he was not at all sure that, before long, the House would not be invited to reenact it, and that that proposition would not, in its turn, be supported by a majority. The Government wished, with regard to this matter, to proceed as much as possible in accordance with the feeling of the House. So far as he could venture to guage the feeling of the House, it was in favour of the Rule being substantially retained; and he also hoped that the feeling of the House would be in favour of making some amendment in it which would tend, without taking away its substantial advantages in regard to the comfort and convenience of Members—he had almost said to the prolongation of their lives—to prevent its acting so restrictively as it had done on the progress of legislation. They proposed, therefore, to move such Amendments as would, he trusted, remove the opportunities of abuse to which it was liable. In inviting the House not to agree to the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) for the repeal of the Rule, he would ask hon. Members to bear in mind that, by the Resolutions already passed, and those about to be proposed, some opportunities for delay and obstruction would be cut off, so that this Rule was not likely to be so severe in its operation in the future as it had been in the past.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that some hon. Members would recollect the time when the Half-past Twelve Rule was only a Sessional and not a Standing Order of the House. Before its re-enactment at the beginning of a Session the actual distress brought on by being kept in the House till untimely hours was such as those who had suffered would not easily forget. A great many Private Bills were put down on Government nights, and hon. Members interested in them kept the House sitting till 3, 4, or 5 o'clock in the morning day after day. He maintained that practice had shown that the Rule was absolutely required, and he was convinced that if it were taken off the Order Book there
    1660
    would, in a short time, arise a great outcry for replacing it, which would force itself upon the attention of the House.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that he had always taken great interest in this Rule from the time of its being first passed. Before its enactment a great number of private legislative projects of more or less mischievous tendency were pressed on in the early hours of the morning The only way of opposing such projects was to do as he did, and sit in the House night after night watching these Bills. This was only done at great physical cost. The outside public were surprised that legislation should be attempted by the House at untimely hours with a small attendance, and when those present were half asleep. If the Rule were that no Business should be taken after half-past 12, it would be of great advantage to the country and also to the interests of those who conducted the Business of the Government. The result of legislation being carried on at the late hours with a House half asleep was that Bills were passed full of defects, which had to be rectified by Amending Bills. He hoped the House would not entertain the proposal of his right hon. and gallant Friend, and that he would think fit not to press his Motion.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was in favour of the Half-past Twelve Rule, and, supported by Mr. Bouverie, he had brought it forward when the Select Committee dealt with the question in 1868. In his opinion, the health of the Speaker, the Members, and the officers of the House ought to be considered; and, therefore, he should vote against the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Baronet. He would, however, be willing to agree to the substitution of 1 o'clock for half-past 12, but believed the total abrogation of the Rule would most seriously injure the Business of the House.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he had been struck with the failure of the arguments against the right hon. and gallant Baronet's Motion for the abolition of the Half-past Twelve Rule. It was a fact that the House had sat later since the introduction of the Rule than before. The argument of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) amounted to this—that because legislation after half-past 12 had been bad, therefore legislation by private

    1661
    Members should be stopped altogether. The application of the Rule had frequently resulted in the total blocking of Bills which, in reality, had the support of a majority of the House. The small change the Government proposed to make was not sufficient. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Baronet would go to a division, so that those who agreed with him might show that the Rule was radically wrong. He thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) a useful one, and that a Committee should be appointed for the arrangement of Business, so that Bills might be fixed for certain days. Thus, private Members might have restored to them that power of legislation which, under the existing Rule, they had lost.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that those private Members who promoted Bills were generally strong men, and rather preferred late hours. For instance, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) seemed to delight in bringing on Bills at a late hour. But the majority of Members did not bring in Bills, and did not care about sitting up till 3 or 4 in the morning. He was afraid that if the Amendment were carried the scandal of All-night Sittings would become the rule, and not the exception. Therefore, in the interest of many, it was desirable that the Half-past Twelve Rule should not be relaxed.
    MR. ACLANDsaid, he should support the Amendment. The time of the House was constantly being wasted by Members continuing to discuss questions which had been already fully discussed, simply in order to prevent the discussion of other measures. Blocking a Bill ought to be rendered impossible, for surely it was not consulting the progress of Business or the dignity of the House that a Member should be able to stop a measure by putting a "block" on the Paper, and going to bed himself.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for Essex (Colonel Makins) assumed that the Rule shortened the Sittings, whereas it had been conclusively shown that the effect of the Rule was to prolong discussions, by inducing the House to debate Business which no one wished to be carried, in order to defeat some measure in which a number of Members had an interest. The Rule also tended injuriously to affect
    1662
    legislation, because Members often offered to withdraw a block provided a certain concession was made; and this led to arrangements by no means for the public interest. At present, and even under the amended Rule, though a Bill might have the approval of the great majority, and have been examined by a Select Committee upstairs, still it might be blocked by a single Member. He hoped the Government would extend their Amendments to Bills that had been referred to a Select Committee.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the Government proposed to maintain the rigour of the Rule against private Members, and to amend it in their own favour. Although the change proposed by the Government appeared to be equal all round, it was not so in reality, and it would operate unfairly towards private Members. Private Members' Bills, as regarded their second reading and going into Committee, would always be in danger of the Half-past Twelve Rule; whereas the Government, having the power to choose the time for the second reading and the Committee on their Bills, would not be affected by it at all. He should prefer the entire abolition of the Rule to the proposal of the Government, though he thought the Rule should be passed in a form that would really operate fairly all round.
    Mr. PARNELLalso held that, as the Government proposed the Rule, it would work very much in their own favour and against private Members. As the Rule stood now, the second readings of private Members' Bills taken on a Wednesday were entirely thrown away, and much time was lost, because it was impossible for such Bills to advance any further if any Member chose to put a block upon them. Surely nobody would seriously contend that if a private Member's Bill passed a second reading it ought not to have a chance of going through Committee. In the last Parliament a Bill introduced by the late Mr. Butt to extend certain municipal privileges of Irish Corporations was obstructed Session after Session by the operation of the Half-past Twelve Rule, although almost everybody was in favour of the measure. Finally, by an accident, it succeeded in passing through all its stages before half-past 12, and was sent up to the House of Lords, where it was thrown out.
    MR. MACFARLANEcomplained that it was in the power of one Member to block any Bill which might be desired by nine-tenths of the House. That system was an intolerable nuisance, and he would suggest that it should require at least six Members to block a Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 26: Majority 103.—(Div. List, No. 377.)
    MR. MONK, in moving, in line 1, after "Money Bill," to insert "or for a Bill which has passed the second reading," said, he thought private Members had a right to complain that one solitary Member should have the power to effectually debar a willing House from considering their measures. He put it to the House, whether it was reasonable that the House, after having approved of the principle of a Bill on the second reading, should be prevented by a single Member, out of a love of Obstruction, or from motives which it was not easy to fathom, from considering it in Committee? He should take the sense of the House on this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in line 1, after the words "Money Bill," to insert the words "or for a Bill which has passed the Second Beading."—(Mr. Monk.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he admired the gallantry of his hon. Friend, who, after the division that had just taken place, came forward with a proposal which would, in reality, amount to a nullification of the Rule. He was afraid that about his hon. Friend's conduct there was something of the spretœ injuria formœ—slighted churchwardens haunted his night visions—so he hoped that the House would receive the proposal of the hon. Member in the way in which it generally received his legislation. He (Mr. Beresford Hope) thought it was unreasonable to demand that Members should be compelled to remain in the House till the small hours of the morning, after a long and important debate, while an hon. Member aired his peculiar views on an important subject which he had no particular call to take up. Hon. Gentlemen should not endeavour to pass their Bills to the injury of health and
    1664
    strength of the majority of the House, and they had no right to ask for assistance towards the attempt.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he considered this was an Amendment of the very worst description, inasmuch as it minimized the operation of the Rule to a very great extent. It was one thing to adopt the principle of the second reading of a Bill, and quite another to allow it to pass the Committee stage without full debate. In order that the details of Bills might be intelligently discussed in Committee, the faculties of Members ought to be at their best, and it was extremely difficult after 12.30 to maintain the wakefulness requisite for such discussion.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTcontended that if there were no Half-past Twelve Rule Bills of great importance would be passed hurriedly through empty Houses. Bills were far more likely to be thoroughly considered in a full House before 12 o'clock, than in a sleepy Assembly after 12. Besides, much of the Government cry for more legislation was factitious, and had no root in public feeling. They had too much rather than too little legislation already.
    MR. LABOUCHEREcomplained that, at present, although a private Member's Bill should have passed the stage of second reading, it was in the power of one single Member to prevent the measure from becoming law,
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay) had said that the House of Commons had sat for a larger number of hours after midnight since the introduction of the Half-past Twelve Rule than before it. At first sight that appeared to be a condemnation of the Rule; but it was not so really, for the late Sittings since the adoption of the Rule had been caused solely by the limitations of it that had unfortunately been agreed to. A weary and jaded House, after discussing a question of National importance for 10 hours, was called on to enter into the details of a Bill in the Committee stage when, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had very truly observed, the faculties of hon. Members had need to be the keenest. Instead of adopting the proposal of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk),

    1665
    the House ought to consider whether important measures in the stage of progress in Committee ought ever to be brought before them at an unreasonably late hour. He had known Bills containing 100 clauses brought forward for consideration in Committee long after the hour designated by the House as the hour after which contentious Business must not be proceeded with. In 1871 a Select Committee resolved "that no fresh opposed Business be taken after 12.30 a.m.," and this was due to the scandalous state of things that had previously prevailed, when continuous Motions for Adjournment were the constant weapons employed to prevent measures being forced through at a time when they could not be fairly discussed. He trusted the Government would stick to the Rule. If the House determined that no Business whatever of a contentious character should be taken after a certain hour it would be so much the better. It was desirable also that the mind of the country should proceed pari passu with the progress of measures through the House; but it was perfectly notorious that the speeches on Bills taken after half-past 12 o'clock were never reported at all. It was really legislation in camerâ that was going on after that hour. He hoped the Prime Minister, who had approached the question in a thoroughly impartial spirit, would see whether he could not introduce further restriction upon legislation after that hour.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLdid not agree with hon. Members opposite that there was too much legislation. He thought there was too little; and he believed that the Resolutions which they had passed and were engaged in passing, by curtailing the abuses of speeches and eccentricities of Procedure, would enable the House to carry on the important legislation that was required in a decent and orderly manner, and that thus a fair opportunity would be given for dealing, not only with Government measures, but with the Bills of private Members, at reasonable hours. It was unfair to ask hon. Members whose health or disposition would not allow them to do so, to stay in the House during the small hours of the morning. At present there were far too many stages in Bills; and he would be glad to see abolished the stage of moving "That the Speaker do leave the Chair," so that
    1666
    there should be no more second-reading speeches at that time.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that his right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther) did not appear to recognize the effect of the Return which had been referred to, or of the evidence of the right hon. the Speaker that since the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule the Business of the House had been prolonged very considerably. Nor did his right hon. Friend seem to be aware of the immense amount of time of which the House was deprived for the consideration of its Business. In the five working days of the week there were only 38 hours devoted to the work of the House; but in the old times there were 20 hours more. At this moment, owing to the Questions being very much prolonged, there were only about six hours, instead of 12, each day devoted to the conduct of Public Business. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] At the time of Lord Palmerston, the most eloquent speech ever delivered—a speech of the late Lord Chief Justice on the Don Pacifico quarrel with Greece—was made at an hour in the morning when no speech was now made at all. The country was deprived of 20 hours a week by the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the fact was that they sat later at present than before the Half-past Twelve Rule came into operation; and it was, therefore, desirable that the Rule should be modified. The arguments of the right hon, Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) were really all in favour of the Amendment. The Bills that were blocked were the very Bills which the House desired to pass. It was unnecessary to block a Bill which would be defeated on a division. The Prime Minister thought it a monstrous thing that a single Member should be allowed to block a Bill which had passed through a Committee of the Whole House. But that argument applied also to Bills which were sent upstairs to a Committee to be examined, and when they came back were not allowed to proceed. It was clear that time was wasted by the present practice. Bills approved by the House were brought in year after year; the House lost a great deal of time in discussing them; they were read a second time, went through Committee, and were then dropped, and the whole matter had

    1667
    to be gone over again. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 76: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 378.)
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in rising to propose the first of two Amendments to provide that the Rule should come into operation at midnight, and that the House should adjourn at half-past 12, said, the matter was one of primary importance as affecting the health of Members and of the officers of the House. It was ridiculous that they should separate without making some attempt to remedy the great scandal of the inordinate length of their Sittings. He could understand the difficulty of the Government initiating any proposal, because by the alterations made in the Rules their Business would be expedited. If Members supported his first proposition—that no opposed Business should begin after midnight—that would not commit them to the second proposition for adjournment half-an-hour later; but if his first proposal were rejected the second could not be submitted. Owing to the absence at that moment of all the Members of the Government he felt some difficulty in stating his arguments, as someone else would have to repeat them when Members of the Government returned from dinner. If it were admitted that the alterations already made would expedite the more important Business of the Government and of the House, it was reasonable to ask why Members should continue to sit up so late as they had done to transact Business of secondary importance. That the country did not care about the Business transacted in the early hours of the morning was proved by the fact that the newspapers, both Metropolitan and Provincial, did not report the discussions; whereas, on rare occasions, great speeches had been reported when they were delivered between 2 and 3 in the morning. If the country cared about these debates there would be some daily record of them in the public Press, and the fact that no such record existed proved that they were not of absorbing interest. A Return which had been published respecting other Legislative Assemblies showed that the average time of sitting was, in the Cape, from
    1668
    five to six hours; in South Australia, fours hours and a-half; in Tasmania, four hours and a-half; in Victoria, six hours and 51 minutes; and in the latter Parliament no fresh Business of any kind was allowed after 11 o'clock. In the Continental Assemblies the hours of sitting were still shorter. The average was in Austria, four hours; in Denmark, from four to five hours; in France, four hours; in Germany, five hours; in Italy, five hours; in the Netherlands, from four to five hours; in Portugal, five hours; in Spain, four hours; in Sweden, three hours; and in Switzerland, five hours. In the United States the average duration of a Sitting was four hours and a-half, and, if necessary, the Members sometimes met for two hours longer. A Return had been published which purported to give the exact duration of the Sittings of the House of Commons, but included the Wednesday Sittings, which could not extend beyond six hours. According to the Return, the average duration of a Sitting last Session was nine hours and five minutes; but if the Wednesdays were eliminated, it would be found that the average was 10 hours and 10 minutes. In other words, a Sitting of the House of Commons was double the average length of the Sitting of any Continental Assembly. Allowing for the necessary time to get down to the House and home again, Members spent nearly 12 hours out of the 24 in attendance on the House. In addition to that, the Select Committees required a further attendance of four hours a-day twice a-week. In order to diminish the duration of the Sittings, he ventured to bring forward the Amendment that was now before the House. He knew he should be met with the objection that if the Sittings were limited there would not be sufficient time for the transaction of necessary Business; but his own strong impression was that the existing system wasted time, and that the longer that they sat after 12 o'clock, the worse would be the attendance before 12 o'clock. He had understood that formerly great debates were carried on steadily throughout the whole of the evening, and that Members did not go away simultaneously in great numbers to dine. But now, during the dinner hour, almost everybody went away, and the greater part of the evening was wasted, because there was so small an

    1669
    attendance of Members in the House. He believed one of the chief causes of the Prime Minister's Parliamentary success was his extraordinary physical vigour. If the right hon. Gentleman had not had an almost iron constitution he would hardly have achieved what he had done in that House. If, then, the right hon. Gentleman was an exception, it was one of the duties of those who represented him in his absence so to amend the Rules that it might be possible for others to do justice to the abilities they possessed without having to attend twice as long as they ought to do the Sittings of the House. His suggestion was that they should put back to 12 o'clock the period after which no new Business should be taken. If the Amendment which he proposed did not answer its purpose the House could refuse to renew it. The hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) had said that the Half-past Twelve Rule had failed because the House sat longer than it used to do. But how much longer would it have sat if that Rule had never been passed? The late hours to which that House sat were destructive alike of the quality of its work and of the health of its Members.
    Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the words "half past."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'half past' stand part of the said Standing Order."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he entertained a sneaking sympathy for the Amendment of the noble Lord; but there were overwhelming reasons why it could not be accepted. The hours during which the conscientious Member sat were long; but he could come and go as he chose. But the hours of the unconscientious Minister of the Crown, who had always to be in his place, were six or seven hours longer. He always estimated his own day's work at 19 hours. In fact, no one could bear up against it except a man like the Prime Minister, whose physical power exceeded even his intellectual capacity. Foreign Assemblies did not sit so long. But the reason was that hon. Members of that House talked ten times as much as was necessary. But if any curtailment of that talking
    1670
    were suggested, the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) denounced the suggestion as interfering with freedom of debate. The noble Lord had referred to the emptiness of the House between 8.30 and 10. For his part, he preferred to speak in the quiet of those hours rather than when the House was fuller, and he wished that the occupants of the two Front Benches had always to speak during that interval. In the French Assembly the most important questions were settled in two days' debate. He had asked a French Deputy how they got through their Business so quickly, and the answer was that only four or five Members ever thought of speaking in a debate. In the House of Commons a debate was carried on day after day—each day of 12 hours long—which might easily be compressed into two days; and many days were thus consumed, not only about the details of Bills, but also on the principle of the Bills themselves. The Amendment of the noble Lord would be a premium upon obstruction of Business of all kinds which would be perfectly irresistible. They all knew how a Wednesday's debate was organized. If there was an unpopular measure third or fourth on the Paper, the opponents of the measure always talked until it was too late to bring it on. The Amendment would introduce the same practice on all nights. The evil rested, not in the Rules of the House, but in the habits of Members. The Amendment would not remedy but rather increase the existing evil.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he thought the best mode of checking the tediousness of their proceedings was to limit the length of the speeches. If there were any sincerity in the minds of those who brought forward these Rules, a Rule would have been devised to economise their time by limiting their speeches. Every speech after midnight must be tedious, because it was delivered to tired listeners. Discussion of details with any approach to impartiality was impossible at 1 o'clock in the morning. The nervous irritation produced by late hours seriously affected not only the health but the temper of Members. For the sake, moreover, of the Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, and the servants of the House, he desired to see some limit put upon the duration of the Sittings of the House. He should sup-

    1671
    port the Amendment, and hoped the Government would see their way to accept it.
    MR. THOMASSONsaid, that the Prime Minister had admitted that the long hours during which the House sat were likely to prove destructive to health, if not to life. He would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to support the Amendment under consideration. He (Mr. Thomasson) believed that the effect would be to prolong the Parliamentary life of the right hon. Gentleman. The health of the Leader of the Opposition had broken down under the severe strain upon his time and energies. There were many occasions on which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had objected to Supply being taken in the small hours of the morning; and yet, when in Office, the right hon. Gentleman had been compelled to consider that subject during those hours. In his opinion, the Representatives of the people ought to exercise their right, and say that Supply should not be taken except at a reasonable hour. It had been said that if the Amendment were carried, there would not be sufficient time to transact their Business. If that were so, he would suggest that they should meet at 12 or 2 o'clock.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he considered the very interesting and comprehensive speech of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson) a sufficient answer to any statements from the Treasury Bench, and certainly to the speech of the Home Secretary. The fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had confessed to a sneaking sympathy with the proposal of the noble Lord, was a proof that it must be a very good one, for the Home Secretary's sympathies could not be considered wide. There were three prominent arguments in favour of the proposal of the noble Lord. In the first place, it would shorten the hours of the House and insure their deliberations being carried on at more reasonable times than at present. It was highly desirable that all important questions should be debated in as full a House as possible, and not hurried through at a late hour of the morning. There ought to be full and complete discussion in a lively and attentive House, which could never be the case when such late hours were kept. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson)
    1672
    had pointed out, the health of hon. Members and of the Speaker was injured, and the continued presence of the Prime Minister in their midst was threatened. A third argument in favour of shortening the hours was that the country was really suffering, not from too little, but from over-legislation. Anything to check the stream of crude, useless, and ill-considered legislation with which the Statute Book constantly became encumbered would be of benefit to the country. He need only refer to two recent Acts—the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881—both of which were to be final, but neither of which had been so. They had also the Arrears Act, a specimen of reckless and futile legislation of the kind so dear to the Liberal Party. There was too much tendency to govern this great Empire upon the principles of a manufactory and a counting-house; and the time of Parliament was absorbed by the details of casual and temporary legislation, while great and Imperial questions were left untouched. He hoped that the Amendment of the noble Lord would be accepted by the Government, and that the Prime Minister would throw over the Home Secretary, as he had done on several former occasions.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he must confess that he was unable to discover in the arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department any special reasons why the House should prefer half-past 12 to 12 o'clock as being the best hour at which to limit opposed Business. He did not not see that any case had been made out for retaining half-past 12 in the Rule. He could not support the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton), because it peremptorily closed debate at midnight; but he was under the conviction that if debates could not be commenced after 12 o'clock, it would enable hon. Members to go to bed earlier, and would thus relieve them from much of the ill-feeling and irritation which late hours produced.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he thought that the support which the Amendment of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had received in all quarters of the House sufficiently justified him in introducing it. This Amendment and another of the noble Lord, to the effect that the House

    1673
    should ordinarily adjourn at half-past 12, hung together; but those who supported the one now before the House were not necessarily committed to the second. But he (Colonel Stanley) read the two together, and with that view supported his noble Friend. The arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department on this question had pointed one way and his inference another. They had gone very strongly in favour of the Amendment, although the conclusion had been averse to it. He (Colonel Stanley) would once more impress on the House one of the great points his noble Friend made—namely, that legislation had been conducted in recent years during such late and prolonged hours, under circumstances of great difficulty, producing such a degree of tension and irritation in the nervous system as to be injurious to those who laboured under it. The inevitable result of that was, the Business of the country had not been conducted so well as it would have been if earlier and more reasonable hours had been kept. He would give an instance reported in a daily paper in July, 1879. On that occasion he and his Colleagues were kept on the Treasury Bench, listening to every word that was said in the House, 20 out of 36 consecutive hours. The result of this was to throw a strain upon Members of the House which could not tend to sound legislation. Everybody had not the cast-iron physique of the present Prime Minister, which enabled him, however long the Sitting might be, to address himself to any subject before the House with an astonishing freshness; and he, for one, would express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would long preserve such energy and vigour. It was well known that Judges frequently complained of the manner in which Acts of Parliament were framed. That arose from the practice of hurrying them through in the early hours of the morning. He thought his noble Friend had made out a strong case for asking the House, while considering the subject of Procedure, to fix a more reasonable time for conducting Business than existed at present. The restriction of the hours of debate would lead to a diminution in the habit of wasting time that had now sprung up, and to that compression of debate which the Prime Minister said was the object
    1674
    of these Resolutions. The Government ought to make some concession to the opinions expressed on both sides of the House in favour of the Amendment. At all events, the experiment might be tried. No doubt, the indirect blocking of Bills would, to a great extent, be prevented by the Resolutions which had been discussed. Considering that Business could not be properly transacted at the present late hours, he thought there was much to be said in favour of the proposal of the noble Lord; and he should, therefore, vote for the Amendment. He thought it might be embodied in the form of a Sessional Order; and, if the experiment did not prove successful, it would always be open to the House to rescind the Resolution.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that, while admitting that adjournment at an earlier hour than at present would be a great convenience to hon. Members personally, he thought that the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) would do more to obstruct Business and lead to a waste of time than anything that could be proposed. He also very much doubted whether, if the Amendment were adopted, there would be, during the dinner-hour, any greater attendance of hon. Members than there was at present. Neither could he admit that the legislation carried on after half-past 12 was bad legislation; on the contrary, he believed that the unopposed legislation taken after that hour was very often the most useful work done by the House. He had known many instances in which Bills would not have passed into law at all had it not been for the existence of the Rule. If debate was to be closed at 12 o'clock, they would have what they now had on Wednesdays—talking against time. On those grounds, he thought the Amendment ought not to be accepted.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that, although one of the strongest supporters of the Half-past Twelve Rule, he had never been able to understand why half-an-hour should be taken out of the next day and added on to the previous Sitting. Twelve o'clock was, he thought, the natural time after which opposed Business should not be taken; and if they had a division on the first part of that Amendment, he would certainly vote for it, on the simple principle that

    1675
    "sufficient for the day was the evil thereof."
    Mr. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had often noticed that the House was usually far more empty during the dinner hour than it was late at night. It had been urged that Business should be discontinued at 12, in order to let them go home to bed, otherwise they would all die; but the Prime Minister, though he had undergone many years of late hours in the House, appeared to be in an exceedingly good state of health. The cases of the late Lord Palmerston and the late Lord Russell also showed that late hours were not unfavourable to health and longevity; and he (Mr. Labouchere) believed it was a statistical fact that those who wished to live long ought to sit up late. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) asked what there was in half-past 12 that they should fix upon that hour? He answered by asking why they should take 12 o'clock? [An hon. MEMBER: It is the end of the day.] It was not the end of a great many people's day. The practical effect of substituting 12 for half-past 12 would simply be that hon. Members who were anxious that some particular Business should not come on would commence obstructing half-an-hour earlier.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) might wish to sit up all night in preference to working by daylight; but the ground upon which he (Mr. W. H. Smith.) desired to support substantially the proposal of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) was that, as everyone must admit, the hours which the House of Commons had devoted to public work, during the last few years, had been too long to allow of that work being done well and thoroughly. The question really was whether, in the re-arrangement of the mode of doing Public Business, they could not arrive at some understanding by which they might, in some degree, lessen those excessive hours. It might not be possible to adopt the precise limit which his noble Friend desired; but they had been of late progressing, year after year, in lengthened Sittings to an extent which rendered it practically impossible for a Member of Parliament, and especially an official Member, who desired thoroughly to dis-
    1676
    charge his duties on all the questions which came before the House, to do so with proper regard to his own self and to the interests of his constituents. Members of the Government generally could not satisfactorily and efficiently perform both their official and their Parliamentary duties if the Sittings of the House continued to be unduly protracted. They must either shirk some of their work in the one capacity or the other; or, if they strove to perform it all, their health must in time break down. As regarded the remark of the hon. Member for Northampton, a man possessing the iron constitution and great power of the present Prime Minister might, perhaps, support the strain which his official and Parliamentary work placed upon him; but he (Mr. W. H. Smith) ventured to say that there were few who could long efficiently discharge those duties under the present conditions of public life. He believed it would be conducive to the public interests that they should be able to bring a coolness of intellect and a freshness of power to the consideration of the questions that were brought before them. But if they were kept there from 4 in the afternoon until 3 or 4 on the following morning, their work could not be done as it ought to be done; and, therefore, they should endeavour to find their way out of a difficulty which was not creditable to that great Assembly.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that the cases that had been quoted by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as to Leaders and prominent Members of that House, who had lived long and sat up late, were the exceptions that went to prove the Rule. If that was not so, all physiology must be entirely erroneous. A vitiated atmosphere, long hours, and constant attention, there could be no doubt, were seriously injurious to the health of many hon. Members; and it was obvious that they could not do their work as well as they would do if their hours were shorter. The case had been so ably put by the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) that it scarcely admitted of any further argument. It was, indeed, unanswerable. One of the noble Lord's points was that, in consequence of these long hours, when Members got home they were unable to sleep, or, at any rate, to sleep soundly, so that when they came down to the House the next

    1677
    day at 4 o'clock they came in an irritated condition. That was perfectly true. It was after an almost sleepless night that they came down to Business in a more or less heated condition; and those very angry and acrimonious discussions which distinguished the passing of coercive legislation had been the result of such a course. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would say that he would shorten the hours of discussion, the tempers of hon. Members would be considerably sweetened, and the course of Public Business greatly smoothened. A French philosopher had said that most of the miseries of the world were caused by a bad state of the stomach; and he thought there was much force in the observation. Overwork was not conducive to a good state of the stomach. His hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson) made a very correct observation when he said that if they had the Speaker or Chairman of Committees in the Chair for eight or ten or twelve hours of discussion, and that the Speaker or the Chairman was suddenly called upon to give a decision at the end of that period, which might largely influence their future proceedings, that decision would not be as likely to be satisfactory as if he had not had to occupy his position for so many hours. It would be unreasonable to expect that any human being could, under those circumstances, exercise the most sound judgment in the matter. He (Mr. Cowen) was quite sure that some of the decisions that had been given during the discussions on the Coercion Bill, which had failed to give as much general satisfaction as was to be desired, were largely attributable to the long hours they had sat. The House was not consistent. Much credit had been claimed for this Government's legislation, on the ground that it had restricted the hours of employment for children and workpeople in mines, workshops, and factories—[The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): Not for adults.] True; but everyone who knew anything about the practical working of mining operations was quite aware that the effect of reducing the hours of labour for youths was to reduce it also for men. It was true that those hours had been shortened; but, at the same time, the hours which the Honse of Commons sat had been gradually
    1678
    lengthened. He had simply further to say that the proposal of the noble Lord was to take off half-an-hour at the end of the day; and, surely, there would be no difficulty in adding that half-hour to the commencement of the Sitting, so that, instead of commencing Business at a quarter to 4, they should begin at a quarter past 3 o'clock, or even 3. What they wanted to do was to get home at a more natural hour, and that would contribute, not only to the health of hon. Members, but would facilitate the Business of the House.
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he, for one, would not object to the length of the hours spent there, if only they were usefully employed in the interests of the public; but it was well known that they were not. Between 12 and 4, all the great concerns of this vast Empire might be easily disposed of if the House really set itself to the performance of its duties. In the best interests of hon. Members and Ministers, both present and future, he would support the Amendment.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he did not quite understand the view hon. Members took on the question. Looking at the matter from an outside standpoint, he did not think it of much consequence even if their numbers were thinned by protracted debates. There were always plenty to rush in from without to fill up the gap. In the alarming influx of middle-aged mediocrity with which they were threatened, it was well that the news should go abroad throughout the country that it required men of stamina, men with whom life was worth living, and that those only were the men who ought to come there. Then, perhaps, they might see some of those vigorous and energetic natures, some hon. Members, perhaps, like the Prime Minister, to whose principles he was so much opposed, but whose genius he so much admired.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 58: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 379.)
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSmoved, as an Amendment, to insert in line 4, after "or Amendment," the words "signed in the House by 20 Members at least." The number 20 was half the number of Members required to form a quorum; and before any Bill or Motion brought before the House could be excluded from

    1679
    debate, it ought to be objected to by that number at least. The present practice, by which a single individual was able to block a particular Bill, was the result of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule. It practically placed it in the power of any Member to arrest the Business of the House, and gave rise to what was a most offensive and irrational form of Obstruction. Before such a power could be used, it ought certainly to be necessary that there should be a plurality of objection to the opposed proceeding.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 4, after the word "Amendment," to insert the words "signed in the House by twenty Members at the least."—(Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he could not but express his regret that the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had thought fit to move this Amendment now. It was very inconvenient that Amendments not down on the Paper should be moved out of Order, when Amendments of the same kind, though differing in some detail, stood on the Notice Paper to be moved at a later period. That was the more inconvenient in the present case, as his (Sir Henry Holland's) Amendment contained two important changes, to one of which only the Amendment of the hon. Member for Southwark was directed. His only course now would be, after a very few observations, to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, that the word "six" be substituted for the word "twenty." He would not detain the House with re-stating the abuses that had arisen in connection with the Half-past Twelve Rule; but the principal objection which he felt to the present working of that Rule was that it enabled one Member to stop not only the passing, but even the discussion, of any measure. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) had, in the debate in 1881, in a few very clear and weighty words, pointed out the unfairness and injustice of this proceeding; and, indeed, it hardly needed more than a bare statement of the case to convince hon. Members on both sides of the House that
    1680
    for one Member to have that power was unjust and unreasonable. It had been said that already they had too much of private-Member legislation. Well, that, if true, was a good reason for not allowing private Members' Bills to pass into law; but it was not a good reason for not allowing a discussion upon them, so that the House might know what they were about, and be able to separate the good from the bad measures. The object of his Amendment was to lessen this abuse; to prevent a single Member, whether influenced by a desire to get to bed, or because some measure or Motion of his own had been blocked, or because he had a personal dislike to some hon. Member, being able to stop the discussion of a measure. He would make it necessary that six Members should block, and continue the block. He might add that he attached great importance to the second branch of his own Amendment, to which he would venture to refer, though it was not now before the House. This provided that a Notice of opposition should lapse, unless renewed on a certain day in the week after the Notice was put down. Cases had been mentioned in which a Member who had blocked a Bill had gone abroad, and could not be reached, so that, although the promoter of the Bill had accepted Amendments and thus removed all real opposition to the measure, the block could not be removed. This part of his own Amendment he would bring forward at the proper time, whatever came of the Amendment now under consideration of the House, the further Amendment of which he now moved.
    Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "twenty," in order to insert the word "six,"—(Sir Henry Holland,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he would move that "ten" be inserted, if he should be in order in moving that Amendment.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that if the House thought proper to negative "twenty," the Question would be that "six" be inserted, and if that were

    1681
    negatived, the hon. Member could move that "ten" be inserted.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That 'six' be there inserted."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he should move that "ten" be substituted for "six." It was not unreasonable to require that where a Member desired to block a Bill, he should show his idea of the importance of his action by obtaining the signatures of at least 10 Members. All sections and Parties in the House had suffered from these blocks, and the House ought not to allow a smaller number than 10 Members to obstruct its Business after half-past 12.
    Amendment proposed to said Amendment to Amendment, to leave out the word "six" in order to substitute the word "ten."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, suppose six or 10 Members were required to block a Bill, would as many be necessary to take off the block?
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he should prefer six to 10. The point raised by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) was important, because, in the beginning of the evening, it might be easy to get six or 10 Members together to put down a Notice of opposition; and, at a later period, when Amendments were accepted, it might not be so easy to get them together again to take the block off.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he should much prefer three to six. The second Amendment of the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) would meet the difficulty suggested by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), because the opposition would lapse unless it were renewed on the Friday following.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he hoped the Amendment of the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) would be accepted. There was no difficulty in the point raised by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn); for, if one of the Members waived his objection, then there would not be left the full number required to block the Bill.
    MR. DODSONsaid, that the more the discussion was prolonged, the greater the difficulty and confusion seemed to
    1682
    be. The proposal of 10, 20, or 6 to make a block was open to the objection that Members would be induced to combine, one saying to another—"If you assist me in blocking such a Bill, I will assist you in blocking another." Then, was the promoter of a Bill to get rid of the block by getting at one of the blockers? If so, it became almost the same as the present state of things; or if they wished to get the block taken off, were they to get the consent of the 6, 10, or 20 Members? If so, the block would be almost irremovable. If they allowed the system of blocking at all, they had better retain the simple system that one Member could block. The second Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) was well worthy of consideration—that at the end of the week the block should lapse, unless it were renewed; because, after blocking a Bill, a Member might go down to the country, and then, unless he attended in person, he could not, even if he desired, by letter or through another Member, get the block taken off. There was a case of a Bill blocked by a Member who went to America, and left it blocked to the end of the Session, and no human being could take the block off.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped that the Amendments would be withdrawn, as there was another Amendment on the Paper which more conveniently dealt with both the points that had been mentioned.
    Amendment of Amendment to said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment to Amendment, and Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. J. LOWTHERmoved, as an Amendment, to insert, in line 4, the words "including an Amendment in Committee unless standing in the name of a Member in charge of a Bill," the effect of which would be to bring under the operation of the New Rule Bills with which Progress had been made in Committee. The Attorney General had already called the attention of the House to the fact that there was no stage of a Bill at which it was more essential that Members should have their faculties in full vigour than during its passage through Committee, and this Amendment would insure a reasonable chance

    1683
    of such being possible, which could not be the case if Bills were rushed through Committee during the small hours of the morning.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 4, after the word "Amendment," to insert the words "including an Amendment in Committee unless standing in the name of the Member in charge of the Bill."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DODSONsaid, that, on the part of the Government, he must decline to accept the Amendment. It was desired rather to relax the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule than to make it more stringent, and the Amendment would be a material impediment to the transaction of Business.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 5, to leave out the words "been given the next previous day of sitting," and insert the words "appeared for the first time on the Notice Paper,"—(Mr. Warton,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Standing Order."
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. DILLWYNmoved to amend the Rule by adding words to require that a Member giving Notice of objection to an Order or Motion should rise in his place to object to its being taken.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 7, after the word "called," to insert the words "and the Member giving such Notice shall rise in his place and object to such Order or Notice of Motion being taken."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the Amendment would not be accepted. One object of the Rule was that if a measure were really opposed, it should not come on at an unreasonable hour. If so, why should the House inflict a penalty on the person giving a Notice?
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he thought it undesirable to insert the Amendment, because it would render impossible the adoption of a more practical Amendment of which Notice had been given,
    1684
    to the effect that a certain number of names should be required in order to block a Bill.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he believed that the only result of passing the Amendment would be to make it necessary for each Party, in self-defence, to choose one of its Members every week to do the work of blocking. In the last Parliament he had himself had considerable experience of blocking with the aid of certain eminent politicians. In his judgment, the only obstacle to improper blocking would be to determine that it should expire at the end of a certain period.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would point out that the Amendment would introduce a mixed form of proceeding which was new to the House. On a Wednesday at a quarter to 6 o'clock a Member might oppose a Bill; but then he need not have given Notice of his intention to oppose. In the after-midnight proceedings, however, the House had adopted the other method. If the House were to say that a Member should be in his place to oppose a Bill, it ought not to say that he must also have given Notice of his intention.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he rose now to propose the Motion which he had described in the early part of the evening. He proposed to amend the Standing Orders of the 18th February, 1879, and 9th May, 1882, which provided—
    "That 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,"
    by inserting, after "Standing Order," the following words:—
    "Motions for leave to bring in Bills, and Bills which have passed through Committee of the whole House."
    He felt bound to admit that the subject was a very difficult one. It had been discussed by a large number of Members, and it was satisfactory to perceive that neither the discussions nor the divisions that evening had been of a Party character. Personally, he was attached in substance to the Standing Order. At the same time, he could not deny that in the matter of blocking there had been a great abuse, and that it was desirable to do something to remedy the

    1685
    evil. He was, nevertheless, extremely anxious that that something should not be of a nature to weaken the Rule. He had already explained the ground of the proposed Amendment of the Standing Order, and it was scarcely necessary to re-state it; but it did appear to the Government to be reasonable that no subject should be prevented by this Rule from coming before the House in the shape of a Bill, and also that when the House had taken the pains to go through the details of a Bill in Committee, an opportunity should be afforded to the House of deciding on the subsequent stages of the measure without being subject to a block.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 10, after the words "Standing Order," to insert the words "Motions for leave to bring in Bills, and Bills which have passed through Committee of the whole House."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. DIXON-HARTLANDmoved to amend the said Amendment by leaving out the word "and," in order to insert, at the end of the Amendment of the Prime Minister, the words "and Motions for Returns unopposed by the Government." His object in moving the Amendment was to insure that Returns which the Government consented to grant should not be blocked by being opposed by private Members. A few months ago, he gave Notice of a Motion for a Return which the Government entirely approved of; but, because an hon. Member on his side of the House had blocked the proposals of some hon. Members on the other side, all the proposals emanating from the Conservative side of the House were blocked in return. He thought the Government would not have any objection to insert the words he proposed after the words "Committee of the whole House."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    To leave out the word "and," in order to add, at the end thereof, the words "and Motions for Returns unopposed by the Government."—(Mr. Dixon-Hartland.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. J. LOWTHERthought his hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr.
    1686
    Dixon-Hartland) had hardly realized the effect of this Amendment. He (Mr. J. Lowther) sympathized with those who were sufferers from the state of things referred to by the hon. Member; but it might be the case that the Government were disposed to agree to a Return in regard to which the House itself might take a very different view, or, at any rate, some hon. Members might desire to state their reasons for opposing it. It would be within the recollection of the House that the Government assented the other day, or rather declared their intention of assenting, to a Motion; but a certain hon. Member on their own side of the House at once intimated his intention of dissenting from it; and although in the particular instance referred to he (Mr. Lowther) happened to be in favour of the Motion in question, he hardly thought it would be right to accept this Amendment without further consideration.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther). It had happened to him more than once, when a Motion had been made for a Return, to state that it was not a Return which the Government had to refuse as a Department, and, therefore, as far as he was concerned, he did not object to grant it; but, at the same time, it might be a matter upon which the House would take a very different view and entertain a decided objection. If so, he did not see why Motions for Returns should be exempted from the operation of the Rule.
    Amendment to said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that as the Amendment of the Government had been amended by the putting in of the words "of the whole House," some of the objections to it had been removed; because, if they had Grand Committees, a measure would, of necessity, have to pass through a Committee of the whole House. He thought the House had been making a great mistake lately with regard to legislation. Even the Prime Minister, who was a very high authority on these matters, told them that they would have an equally good opportunity of discussing Bills in the stage of going into Committee, instead of the second reading.

    1687
    Now, he had always considered the second reading to be the most important stage of a Bill; and it was a grave mistake in any case, in his opinion, that the discussion should be shifted to the Motion for going into Committee. It must further be borne in mind that in Committee, when they came to any difficult point, or to some clause or Amendment that was disputed, or to which no definite answer could be given, the discussion was generally put off until the Report. This was not the case in regard to one Bill only, but in the case of a large number of Bills, and the most important which the House had to deal with. The consequence would be that they might have, and most likely would have, under this state of circumstances, very little discussion at all upon the introduction of, or the second reading of, a measure, and then the main provisions of the Bill relegated to the Report; and in that case the Report, if the Resolution as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister were agreed to, might be taken at a time of the night when there would be few Members present to discuss it, and when the Government themselves would have every opportunity of dealing with the measure in a manner which would not be submitted to in a full House. Therefore, he thought it would be a disadvantageous thing to do away with this check, and allow important Amendments to be taken at a time of night when they could not be fairly and properly discussed. The right hon. Gentleman might not assent now to what he was stating; but if the Rule were passed as it was now proposed, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was not at all certain that, on some future occasion, the very essence of a Bill might be discussed on the Report. It was because he entertained a strong belief in this matter, and because he was satisfied that it would be mischievous to require the House to discuss grave Amendments at a late hour of the night, that he had ventured to place an Amendment upon the Paper to exclude Bills which had passed through Committee. He begged to move that Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "and Bills which have passed through Committee of the whole House." (Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSShoped that the Government would give a favourable consideration to the Amendment proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). It seemed to him (Sir R. Assheton Cross) to be a matter of the greatest importance. It was quite true that if they allowed Motions for Leave to introduce Bills to escape the operation of this Rule, no harm would be done; and he imagined that, as far as the Rule was concerned, its primary object was to prevent opposition to the introduction of legislation, and to the passing of measures which had been practically disposed of. It had been recently discovered that the Standing Order enabling hon. Members to block the introduction of Bills operated to the great injury of the Public Service. It had already been found necessary to relax this Rule in the case of Money Bills, such Bills having been specially exempted. They were now going one step further—and he took no exception to it—by relaxing the Rule in favour of the bringing in of Bills. It was only of late that the custom had grown up of blocking the introduction of Bills, possibly to the great injury of the State, because he thought it was only right that hon. Gentlemen who wished to bring forward legislation should have an opportunity of stating their case. But it was also asked to relax the Rule in favour of a totally different change, by including all Bills which had passed through a Committee of the Whole House. Now, it was well known that a Bill in its passage through a Committee frequently underwent very important changes, and that many of its provisions were entirely altered from what they were when originally introduced. It was almost imperative, therefore, if they desired to discuss changes which had been effected in a Bill in Committee, that the Bill itself should be brought forward at a time when there was a reasonable hope that a discussion could take place. One observation which had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend deserved the most serious consideration. It was this. When a Member or the Government was hardly pressed in regard to a particular portion

    1689
    of a Bill, it had become a growing practice—and, personally, he did not find fault with it—to defer that particular portion until the Report; but when the Report was brought up, the House did not possess the same opportunities of discussing the question as it did when the Bill was in Committee. Therefore, what his hon. and gallant Friend had pointed out was perfectly true; and if this Resolution, as proposed to be amended by the Government, were agreed to, there would be an enormous temptation to the Government to throw over all complicated points in Committee until the Report. At present the House attached great value to the opportunity it possessed of discussing the details of a Bill; but anyone would see that if this Standing Order were passed as it was now proposed to be amended, that privilege would be taken away altogether, and that, instead of there being an opportunity in future of discussing all the details of a measure, whether introduced by the Government or by a private Member, the discussions upon the most important points would be relegated to the Report stage, and the Report itself would be introduced at an hour of the night when important details could not possibly be discussed. Upon those grounds, he, for one, was entirely opposed to the latter part of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; and he hoped the House would consider the matter carefully before they accepted it.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he hoped that the Government would not accede to the Amendment. So far as the relaxation in regard to the introduction of Bills was concerned, both sides of the House were perfectly agreed; and the Amendment would bring them back to the state of things which existed a couple of Sessions ago, before the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule was made a Standing Order. It was even found at the commencement of the Session, before that Rule became a Standing Order, that it did not interfere with the introduction of Bills; but latterly hon. Members adopted the practice of blocking Motions for the introduction of Bills; and, therefore, in relaxing the Rule as far as the introduction of Bills was concerned, they were virtually going back to the state of things which existed a few years ago. It appeared to him that
    1690
    this was a most important Rule, and its object was to meet what had been expressed as a great evil by the House—namely, that, under the operation of this and other Rules, legislation which the country demanded could not be carried forward. Now, there was nothing divine in any of their Rules; there was nothing sacred in a Rule that they should be able to apply it to every stage of a Bill. All that they wanted was to get through a certain amount of Business during a Session. The Government did not propose to do away with the favourable opportunities which now existed of discussing Bills, but simply to remove two stages of a Bill from vexatious opposition. It was said that the Government, being pressed with Amendments, might relegate everything to the Report stage; that they could bring on Report at any hour of the night, and thus get rid of the necessity of discussion in Committee. But hon. Members who laid stress upon that point seemed to forget that Amendments in Committee could be brought up at any hour of the night, because no Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule applied to the stage of Committee. The blocking of the Report stage simply amounted to this—that the House was deprived of the opportunity of considering the Amendments which had been made in a Bill in Committee. If a Bill had not been amended at all, then there could be no Amendments on the Notice Paper, and there was no possibility of blocking a Bill upon the Report stage. A Bill could be blocked on the Motion for going into Committee; but if it had once been in Committee, then no Amendments which had been given Notice of in Committee could prevent it from going into Committee. But what did stop it was when the Report stage was reached, and a Motion was placed upon the Paper that the Report should be taken into consideration that day six months, or something of that sort. With all deference to the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross), he (Dr. Cameron) thought the arguments he had adduced fell entirely to the ground. In his opinion the Government appeared to have hit a happy mean. They had allowed two opportunities for full discussion, and they had

    1691
    removed the power of blocking the progress of a Bill upon other stages, so as not to render legislation altogether impossible. He thought they would do well to stick to their proposal.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken (Dr. Cameron) seemed to have missed the point in his objection. He said, and said truly, that the point at which blocking in opposition to a Bill could be resorted to, so far as the Committee stage was concerned, was on going into Committee, and not in regard to any clause contained in the Bill. It was just the same in the case of Report. Blocking Notices would apply only to the Report being taken into consideration. The hon. Gentleman had also overlooked the point which his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had argued with moderation, but with great clearness. The reason of the demand now made was that the Bill might be changed at any stage in Committee. When a Bill went into Committee the discussion did not go on certain fixed lines and principles. The only restriction apparently was that the Bill which came out of Committee should be one that could, by a certain reasonable stretch of language, bear the same title which it bore when it went into Committee. It might be changed in most important points; very important clauses might have been omitted, or imported into it, so that, for all ready-money purposes and considerations, so to speak, there was some equitable right to consider it fully and fairly on the Report stage, on the same basis as that on which it went into Committee. That was all that was now asked. An equitable claim might also be set up to extend the Rule to the third reading of a Bill; but they did not ask for that concession. They were desirous of cooperating with the Government in relaxing the stringency of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule by agreeing that it should not apply to the introduction of Bills. Both sides of the House were also, without debate, able to agree to the proposal that it should not apply to the third reading of Bills. Those were both of them very substantial concessions. On the other hand, he thought the reciprocal concession of the stage of Report was co-relative to the liberty of change in Committee. If they relaxed
    1692
    the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule in respect to Report, they at once brought into question the right of extensive change in Committee; and, for one, he should be very sorry to concede that there could be any doubt upon that. He thought it would be a very great blunder in legislation, and a very great limitation of the Privileges of the House, to check the almost unlimited power possessed by a Committee of handling any Bill that came before it. That being granted on all sides, then the complementary proposition came in, that a Bill so changed, and it might be in many vital points, should not be smuggled through Report at a very late hour of the night, or very early hour of the morning, in a very thin House. He trusted that upon these considerations, not with a view to Obstruction, but to meet the new state of things and the New Rules of Procedure, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would allow the Rule still to apply to the Report stage of a Bill.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the argument urged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope) in support of the Amendment now before the House was that Bills might be fundamentally changed in Committee, and that, therefore, it was necessary to have them discussed before half-past 12 o'clock. That was possible; but they must look at the general practice, and they would find it was a thing that was extremely rare. As a general rule, Bills in Committee only underwent changes and modifications in detail that were compatible with their principles. They must look, in this matter, at the general rule, and not at the exceptions. Supposing there might be a case of a Bill which had undergone fundamental changes in Committee, so as to make it virtually a new Bill—and he did not deny that, very rarely, cases of that kind did occur—what would happen? Not that the Bill would be smuggled through legislatively, not that they were now going to say that such Bills should pass without any opportunity of debate; but hon. Gentlemen would very naturally rise in their places and say—"This is a Bill that has been fundamentally changed in Committee," and would give Notice that if it was brought on at a late hour it would be opposed. A question would be put to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, as to when he proposed to bring

    1693
    it on; and if he declined to bring it on at a reasonable hour, Notice would be given that the adjournment of the House or the adjournment of the debate would be moved, so that the Member in charge of the Bill would know that he would obtain no facilities for carrying it through. But, looking at the general rule, that general rule was that a Bill was not fundamentally changed in Committee; and the argument was that, after all the labour spent upon a Bill, was it worth while to undergo all this inconvenience in order to prevent the risk of some particular point being got rid of, in some exceptional measure, without adequate discussion? The other argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge was that it often happened that points were postponed from the Committee stage to the Report, and that, consequently, that stage was very important, and should be carefully watched, and not taken at a late hour of the night, Now, so far as his own experience went, it was not at all unfrequent, in regard to large and difficult Bills; that points were postponed from the Committee to the Report. The re-adjustment of them often required it; but they were not dealing with the case of large and difficult Bills, but with all kinds of Bills; and he could not recollect, in the case of a minor Bill, such a concession having been made as to the postponement of such a point to the Report. It might have happened occasionally; but, if so, it had only occurred in the very rarest cases. The Report of Bills of a secondary character might be taken with very great facility; and, as a rule, the House had very little matter to consider with regard to them, because it must be borne in mind that all the details would have been dealt with already in a Committee of the Whole House at the usual hour. The only question was one of comparative convenience. The Government believed that the proposition they made was a reasonable one, and they were entitled to believe that they had good authority for the Motion, because when the question was raised, on a previous occasion, there was no doubt about it that the general sentiment of the House was expressed in its favour; he alluded to the occasion when the question was brought before the House by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk),
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he had no doubt that what the Prime Minister had said was true, and that the question must be decided as a matter of convenience or inconvenience. The Rule, however, had been approached by the Government and by the Opposition in two different ways. It had been pointed out that the Rule had worked to the inconvenience of real legislation, and it was proposed to grapple with that inconvenience by two different methods, one of which was to modify the whole principle of opposition, and the other was to exclude the power of opposition. Personally, he thought the first was the soundest and the most reasonable, if it was found that the power of blocking or of opposing under the Rule had worked injuriously, unfairly, and inconveniently. Then it was reasonable that it should be re-examined and placed upon a sounder foundation. The other method was the one which was now under the examination of the House, and that was to exclude the possibility of having the Rule applied at all to a certain class of Public Business. The Government proposed to exclude two classes—one, the introduction of Bills on the first occasion; and the other applied to the class of Bills now under discussion—namely, Bills which had passed through Committee. He was himself entirely in favour of allowing Bills to be brought in on the first occasion without opposition. He thought it was reasonable, not only on the ground of courtesy, but on the ground of convenience, that hon. Members should be able to place their legislative proposals before their fellow Members and the country, and he would, therefore, willingly assent to any modification of the Rule which would allow that to be done; and he thought it was better, for many reasons, if a Member had views upon important questions, that he should have the earliest opportunity of making them known to the House and to the country generally. Practically, that applied to the Government also; for he had known instances where a Minister desired to lay the views of the Government before the country, and he had been prevented from doing so by this system of blocking. Of course, in the case of a Government, blocking was only of a formal character; because, sooner or later, facilities would be given for circulating information to

    1695
    the country, by enabling the Minister to I bring in his Bill. What was proposed to be done in the second case, covered by the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot)—namely, when Bills had been introduced, and read a second time and passed through Committee? It would be, if the Government proposal were adopted, no longer possible to insist upon such Bills being discussed before half-past 12 o'clock. He (Mr. Gibson) thought that would be a grave and serious innovation upon the practice of the House. He readily admitted that, with regard to some Bills, it might be done with convenience, and possibly with advantage. It was not desirable that the Business of the House should be discussed in the absence of the Press, or brought on at such an inconvenient hour that it would be left in the hands of those whose business it was, by their official position and strong Party ties, to support the Government. It was desirable that Bills should be brought on at a time when the House was generally represented, and that could not be if discussions were to be brought on after half-past 12 o'clock. The Prime Minister said, with obvious truth, that it was difficult to discriminate between Bills. He (Mr. Gibson) readily admitted that assertion; but the Government got over the difficulty by including all Bills in one category; and what he contended was that they had better subject the few to inconvenience, rather than destroy the check to which the larger number of Bills were required at present to be subjected. He did not think that the Prime Minister had answered the argument of his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) as to matters being left over until the Report. The House must not only take advantage of what their experience taught them, but what was likely to be the case in future, if this Rule were passed. Experience showed them that on all important Bills, whether they called them fundamental measures or not, many matters of importance were now necessarily allowed to stand over until the Report. Sometimes the Minister, or the Member in charge of a Bill, promised to bring up new clauses. Sometimes he promised that the drafting of a clause should be seriously changed,
    1696
    and should present a different point of view. That was the experience of the past; but what would be the practice in the future? Not only would that experience be reproduced, but, as a matter of practice or policy, the Minister or Member in charge of a Bill would find it very convenient only to amend the Bill in minor details, and keep all the fundamental changes for the Report stage. He apprehended that that would be a matter of grave inconvenience to the House and the country, and that it would lead to a frame of mind on the part of a Member in charge of a Bill, which would induce him to say—"Let us get the measure through Committee anyhow, and then we can do pretty much what we like on the Report stage." He was not impressed with the ingenious answer of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), who said that already they could get into Committee at any hour, when once the Speaker had been got out of the Chair. That was quite true; but, by way of compensation, hon. Members could speak as often as they pleased on that stage. That was not the case on the Report stage. In the future, if this Amendment passed unamended, he believed that the most important details of a Bill would be brought forward in Committee. The matter lay in a very narrow compass. He admitted that many arguments could be adduced both ways, and that the question could only be decided on the balance of those arguments. The arguments in favour of the Prime Minister's proposition had been supported by reference to minor and unimportant Bills. The arguments upon which he (Mr. Gibson) wished to rest his opposition to the proposition were supported by a reference to what might happen in regard to larger measures which were of interest to the country, and which were introduced in order to promote sound legislation. He was strongly of opinion that such measures should be discussed in a full and complete House.
    MR. MONKsaid, that if that proposal only affected the Government measures, he should allow the duel to be carried on between the Front Benches; but with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), he (Mr. Monk) wished to

    1697
    point out that, in the case of Government Bills, they were rarely or never brought on at a late hour of the night. Of course, he alluded to Bills that were opposed. The consequence was that, when important Amendments were moved on the Report, the Bill was brought up at an early hour. The Prime Minister had pointed out that if measures of that kind were not brought on at a reasonable hour, Notice would be given that the adjournment of the debate or the adjournment of the House would be moved. He (Mr. Monk) wished to point out that, in regard to what were called minor Bills, Amendments were rarely or never left over for the Report. It might occasionally occur that some question had to be referred to the draftsman, and was necessarily relegated to the Report; but that was quite an exception to the rule. He was extremely glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that he intended to adhere to the views expressed last Session by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington), in regard to the relaxation of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule to the full extent of the Resolution which he (Mr. Monk) then moved, and which he believed met with the approval of the House.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had an extremely strong objection to the Resolution as it stood; but the words which the Prime Minister proposed to add minimized that objection. As a matter of principle, the proposed alteration would be a serious innovation upon, and a very great relaxation of, the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule; and he was entirely opposed to any relaxation of that Rule, except in regard to formal matters, such as the introduction of Bills. And if the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) went to a division, he should feel bound to support him. He only desired to say one word more. The argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) seemed to him to be a fallacy, because the only opportunity afforded for a full discussion of a Bill would be before the House knew exactly what that Bill was eventually to be. On the other hand, they would have no real opportunity of discussing a Bill after it had assumed its final shape. For his own part, he would prefer to get rid of
    1698
    one of the stages before going into Committee, rather than to be called upon to discuss seriously a Bill after half-past 12 o'clock at night.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the Prime Minister had based his resistance to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) upon the consideration that the occasions on which important matters would be relegated to the Report stage would only occur in regard to large Bills. But the Government were proposing to let in both the small Bills and the large after half-past 12. He (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) thought it would be better to leave the Rule alone. With regard to the larger and more difficult measures, the right hon. Gentleman said it would be in the power of the House to insist on adequate discussion, because the power of moving the adjournment of the debate or of the House would be resorted to. But it must be borne in mind that by the Resolutions already passed, they had materially curtailed the power of that weapon, and that in future it would only be of nominal value.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, the hon. and medical Member for Glasgow—[Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]—said that the Resolution was desirable to the extent in which it put down Obstruction to legislation. [Cries of "Withdraw!"] He really did not understand what the interruption meant. [An hon. MEMBER: It refers to the reference you made to the hon. Member for Glasgow.] Then he would say the hon. Member for Glasgow. He quite agreed with the hon. Member that this Rule was desirable in so far as it put an end to Obstruction. It was clearly objectionable to allow a Bill to be opposed before it was brought in, and before the nature of it was made known to the House. All that was clearly Obstruction, and it was also clearly Obstruction to oppose a Bill on the third reading, for then it had been discussed and settled. He had no objection, therefore, to prevent a Bill being blocked on either of those stages. But opposition to a Bill before it was settled, and. while it was in the process of discussion, could not be termed Obstruction; and he thought the Government might fairly accept the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Bart-

    1699
    telot) in regard to this particular stage. The difficulty which had been pointed out by his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), was a real difficulty, and the Amendment was not brought forward with any desire to obstruct the Business of the House.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the proposal of the Government was to omit from the operation of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule the introduction of Bills, and Bills which had passed through Committee. Now, in the case of Bills introduced by private Members, he (Mr. Newdegate) had known many instances in which the Government had consented to the second reading, on the understanding that the Bill should be materially altered in Committee. If they excluded the Report, which, in fact, was cognate to the Committee stage, from the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule, they would, in such cases as those he referred to, exempt from the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule a Bill after it had assumed a new, but a different, form. On that ground, he supported the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter B. Barttelot).
    MR. WARTONsaid, he should not have thought of interposing in the debate if it were not to call the attention of the House to two points which had not yet been mentioned. The first point was that the words "passed through Committee" might be applied to cases of Bills which had passed through Committee pro formâ. Only that Session a very important Bill—the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill—was brought in by the Government and passed through the Committee pro formâ, and it assumed a very different shape from that in which it was originally introduced. Now, he took it that if the proposal of the Prime Minister were adopted, any Bill which had once passed through Committee pro formâ would be considered to have passed through Committee; and it would be impossible to object to its being taken after half-past 12 o'clock. He was afraid that that construction would be placed upon the proposition of the Prime Minister. And in regard to Bills introduced by private Members, the House might find itself landed in a difficulty. The hon. Member in charge of a Bill might move the Bill through Com-
    1700
    mittee pro formâ, and the House would find they had fallen into a trap, being informed, when they were anxious to discuss the measure, that it had already passed through Committee. Then, also, when they came to consider the proposal of the Government in regard to Grand Committees, they would find this further Resolution—
    "That all Bills comprised in each of the said classes shall he Committed to one of the said Standing Committees, unless the House shall otherwise order, and, when reported to the House, shall be proceeded with as if they had been reported from a Committee of the whole House."
    The House would, therefore, be placed in this position—that Bills which had passed through a Grand Committee, sitting no one knew where, would be brought in, and the Report taken after half-past 12 o'clock, so that the House would be shorn of all opportunity of fairly and duly considering it. He thought it would be far better to confine the relaxation of the Rule to the introduction and the third reading of Bills, for it must be remembered that even then they would be taking away two stages to which the system of blocking now applied.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Aves 122; Noes 62: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 380.)
    Question, "That the words 'Motions for leave to bring in Bills, and Bills which have passed through Committee of the whole House' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Further Consideration of the Standing Order (Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule) 18 February 1879, amended 9 May 1882, deferred till Monday next.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE (MR. EDMOND DWYER GRAY, M.P.).
    REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.

      ADJOURNED DEBATE.
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [14th November], "That the Report from the Select Committee do lie upon the Table."
      Question again proposed.
      Debate resumed.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the House would remember that an error in form

      1701
      had taken place in the Committee. The Committee had been misinformed to the effect that the Previous Question could be moved in Committee, and a paragraph proposed by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had been set aside by that Motion having been made. The proceeding was undoubtedly irregular, and therefore he would move, as the proper course to be taken under the circumstances, that, so far as the paragraph of the hon. Member for Sligo was concerned, the Report be re-committed.
      Amendment proposed,
      To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Report and Minutes of the Proceedings be re-committed to the Select Committee, so far as they relate to a paragraph referring to the Law of Contempt proposed to be added to the Report by Mr. Sexton,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the object he had in view in placing on the Paper the Notice of Motion standing in his name was primarily the same as that stated by the Prime Minister—namely, to secure a reference back to the Committee; but he also wished to place on record the nature of the irregularity which caused the necessity for a second Reference, and he wished to assure himself that the Committee would direct their attention to that irregularity. From the concluding words of the Prime Minister, he had no doubt that his object would be attained; and, therefore, he did not propose to trouble the House by moving his Amendment. But as the language of the Reference of the Prime Minister was extremely vague, he would like to ask a question upon it. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal was that the Report and Minutes be referred back, so far as they related to a paragraph referring to the Law of Contempt which he (Mr. Sexton) proposed to add. He believed certain eminent Members of the Committee were in favour of his paragraph, which simply stated that the anomalous condition of the Law of Contempt demanded the further attention of the House; but those eminent Members believed that the paragraph was outside the scope of the Reference to the Committee. They believed that any
      1702
      declaration on the Law of Contempt was outside the scope of the Committee; and he, therefore, thought it would be desirable that the Committee should be relieved from any misconception as to the nature of the Reference made to them now. Was it to be a Reference with regard to the error of form simply, or were hon. Gentlemen to be precluded from voting "Aye" or "No" upon the paragraph which he proposed to add?
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, in reply to the point of Order which has been raised, I wish to state that, in my opinion, we shall be exactly in the same position when we meet again as we were when we met on the first occasion. Whatever the Order of Reference was when we first met; that same Order of Reference will continue in force when the Committee meets again; and we shall, when we meet, have to determine in Committee what the powers given to us by this House were on our appointment. I do not wish to enter into the subject further. Now, as the Committee itself will determine what the Reference was when the power was given to us, I think that determination will be arrived at by the Committee without much difficulty.
      MR. PLUNKET: Sir, I do not wish to prolong the discussion already carried on with regard to this matter; but I wish to make an explanation. As this Motion is to the effect that the whole of this paragraph be referred back to the Committee, and it might appear to the House that the Previous Question had been moved and supported with regard to the whole of that paragraph, the portion of the paragraph to which I took exception was that which referred to the general Law of Contempt.
      MR. SEXTON: I beg pardon. Before the Previous Question was moved, I had, on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, agreed to withdraw that portion of the paragraph referring to the general Law of Contempt.
      MR. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!
      MR. PLUNKET: Exactly. It was to that portion of the paragraph which referred to the anomalous condition of the Law of Contempt, and which was outside the question of Privilege involved in Mr. Gray's case, that I objected, and it was on that account I supported the Previous Question. I did so because

      1703
      this matter of the general Law of Contempt was separated from the other considerations in the case.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Words added.
      Main Question, as amended, put.
      Ordered, That the Report and Minutes of the Proceedings he re-committed to the Select Committee, so far as they relate to a paragraph referring to the Law of Contempt proposed to be added to the Report by Mr. Sexton.

  EGYPT (THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE)—THE REVIEW IN ST. JAMES'S PARK.—QUESTION.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the First Commissioner of Works, At what hours hon. Members who held tickets for the Review would be admitted at the Horse Guards on the morrow?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, he had given orders that the holders of tickets were to be admitted up to any hour.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.