[ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [TWENTY-FIRST NIGHT.]

HC Deb 14 November 1882 vol 274 cc1418-84

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [13th November], as amended, That no Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall he made until all the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of, and no such Motion shall be made before the Orders of the Day, or Notices of Motions have been entered upon, except by leave of the House; the granting of such leave, if disputed, being determined upon Question put forthwith; but no Division shall be taken thereupon unless demanded by forty Members rising in their places, nor until after the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Main Question, as amended, again proposed.

Debate resumed.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he rose to move an Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), by which it was proposed to allow the adjournment of the House to be moved without leave before the consideration of the Orders of the Day on the occasion of any statement other than an answer to a Question being made by any Member. Statements containing controversial matter were often made at an early hour in the afternoon, and if the Resolution were passed in its present form it would in future be impossible to comment upon them. They had had a Ministerial state- ment that very evening which furnished ground for a Motion for Adjournment, and, if such a Motion had been made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister would allow that the course thus taken would have been quite justifiable. Then they had heard statements from Ministers on their resignation of Office. Hon. Members would recollect cases in point which had occurred recently, as, for instance, when the Prime Minister, in August last, said that if a certain Amendment on the Coercion Bill was not carried he would resign. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Well, the right hon. Gentleman said that if the Amendment was not adopted he would reconsider his position, and that was generally understood to mean resignation; and when the Amendment was rejected the right hon. Gentleman made a statement. Debate might well have been initiated on that occasion by a Motion for Adjournment; and some Members on his side of the House were, in fact, disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition refrained from initiating debate on that occasion. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) resigned Office, they had also heard a statement in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced much controversial matter, such as the moral law. Again, on that occasion, the Leader of the Opposition might have initiated debate by a Motion for Adjournment, and again were they a little disappointed that he did not do so. It was obviously right that, on all such occasions, any Member should be able to comment upon a Minister's statement. In 1873, one of the most important debates of the time was based upon a statement made by Mr. Disraeli. If the Rule were agreed to unamended, Ministers' statements would appear in the newspapers in the morning uncontradicted and not commented upon, and for that reason he begged to submit this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In line 3, after the word "upon," to insert the words "unless any Member shall, by leave of the House, have made any statement other than an answer to a Question."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought the House was losing all confidence in itself, for it seemed to be assumed that in future on all kinds of proposals which had no ground of reason to support them the majority would act unreasonably and wrongly. He, however, preferred to assume that the House in general would act reasonably. At the same time, while his experience taught him that majorities would act reasonably, it also taught him that there might be a few Members who would act unreasonably. A Member of the House not unfrequently contrived to make a statement before he was interrupted by the Speaker, which statement he would have made by leave of the House because he had not been interrupted, and which, at the same time, under this proposal, would utterly nullify the application of the Resolution. The noble Lord said there was an usage according to which Ministers were allowed—nay, even encouraged—to give information to the House. That being so, it was certainly right that after a Ministerial Statement there should be a power of commenting upon it, and he should say that that power would always be given by leave of the House. He was still of opinion that it would be best to rely on the majority of the House; but there was apparently a strong desire on the part of many Members that the power of moving the adjournment of the House should be given to a certain number of Members independently of the majority. The two cases that had been mentioned, of statements by Ministers on matters of public importance and announcements of resignation, stood by themselves, and he believed that ample provision would be made for them by other methods. He hoped, then, that the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. SEXTON

said, that such an arbitrary power as was given by the Resolution before the House was not a safe possession for any body of men, for they were all likely to use it harshly and unwisely; and if the Prime Minister meant that the minority was losing faith in the majority, he was afraid they would have to admit that it was perfectly true. Nothing could be more reasonable than the Amendment. As the noble Lord had pointed out, the usage of the House enabled any hon. Member to make a personal explanation, and permitted a retiring Minister to announce his resignation, and an actual Minister to make statements on important public affairs. This being so, what could be more desirable than that, with proper limitations, the House at large should be able to comment on the statements thus made? That very evening, when the Prime Minister made a statement on Egyptian affairs, the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis) rose to Order, but was ignored by the Speaker; and the Prime Minister made an important statement, on which the Leader of the Opposition and an hon. Gentleman behind the right hon. Baronet proceeded to comment. That was to some extent irregular, and it seemed to him that the privilege of taking part in these irregular discussions could not very well be confined to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches. If the precedent created to-day was followed, the result would be that at any time the Prime Minister might rise and develop his views before the country on a question of the first importance. The Leader of the Opposition might follow him, and the Irish Party and all other independent sections of the House would be shut out from making any observations whatever. That, certainly, was a most drastic application of the gag; and unless this extremely dangerous power was to be expressly reserved to two Gentlemen, one of whom was the Prime Minister and the other of whom had been Prime Minister, he could not say what argument could be advanced against the Amendment of the noble Lord.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, that the House was discussing the Amendment under a great disadvantage, as there were no subsequent stages of the Resolution on which the question could be reconsidered. The Resolution, once passed, became the law of Parliament, and the House was invited immediately to repose unlimited confidence in the tender mercies of the Government, and, on the withdrawal of the Amendment, to accept any substitute for it that might occur to right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. He wished that the Government, when they were inclined to make concessions, would at once tell the House bluntly and plainly what those concessions were, and so save hours and hours of futile debate. Last night, for instance, the 2nd Resolution might probably have been got through at an early hour if only the Government had made up their minds as to the concessions that they were prepared to make to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). As things were, he had no confidence as to how the matter would be settled if the present Amendment were rejected, and he should therefore vote for it. The right hon. Gentleman had urged that the House should have confidence in itself, and should feel assured that debate would never be stopped on legitimate occasions. He confessed that he felt no such confidence, considering what had just happened. That evening, as had been already pointed out, two important speeches had been delivered by Ministers or ex-Ministers; but there were Questions which private Members wished to put, and one of them was a question of great consequence raised by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), a Gentleman who seldom addressed the House, and never without having something to say. The hon. Member was about to ask a Question as to finance, and had scarcely opened his lips when he was met with a howl from the Liberal Benches below the Gangway, where sat the professed economists of the House. Judging from that incident, he thought that when these stringent Rules were passed the right hon. Gentleman's predictions as to the fairness of the House would probably be falsified, and that on future occasions hon. Members desiring to address the House would not meet with the toleration so confidently expected by the right hon. Gentleman, but so little approved by many of his supporters. Under these circumstances, the noble Lord would be perfectly justified in pressing his Amendment.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he thought the noble Lord had very much misapprehended what the Prime Minister had said. The right hon. Gentleman had not spoken of any future stages of the Resolution, but had meant that the moment had not yet arrived for discussing the limitations subject to which Motions for Adjournment were to be permitted. There were several proposals before the House as to the number of Members by whom such Motions should appear to be supported; and the argument of his right hon. Friend was that, whatever figure might be chosen, the requisite number might be relied upon to support the Motion on every important occasion. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had not correctly described the course taken that evening as a precedent. Statements by Ministers, without any Motion for the adjournment of the House, had always been common enough; and it was open to any hon. Member, by moving the adjournment, to raise a discussion.

MR. SEXTON

What was novel was the fact that not one, but two speeches were made.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he believed that the Leader of the Opposition had often followed the Minister by the courtesy of the House, and without any Motion being made. In the present case, the Prime Minister had seemed to indicate at the beginning of his speech that, in his opinion, such a Motion might reasonably be made, and had suggested that the occasion was one of those contemplated by the Government, when any requisite number of Members would rise in their places to support the Motion. But the noble Lord's Amendment went further than that. He had always felt it would be well if they could get the power of adjournment in the hands of some responsible person who would not abuse it; but it was extremely difficult to arrive at such a definition. The Amendment spoke of any Member who might have made a statement by leave of the House, and was not restricted to a statement on matters of the first importance like a Ministerial Statement; it was quite plain it was capable of a much wider application. Personal statements were the kind of statements that the House did not wish to have debated. They might relate to matters on which it was not desirable that any other Member should be heard. If the Amendment were accepted, the House would be in the hands of two or three Members who might desire, against the wish of the whole body, to carry on a discussion on a personal incident. Therefore, the Amendment was far too wide, and covered much more than the ground on which the Mover relied. The object of the Rule was to limit Motions for Adjournment, because they had been too numerous; and the House must take care that they did not, by regulation, increase the number. It was easy, when you began to regulate, to make Rules that might be too wide.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

said, that when his noble Friend (Lord John Manners) observed that no opportunity would be given for considering questions not dealt with now he referred to what he thought an unfortunate omission on the part of the Prime Minister in not having given a general view of the Amendments which the Government were prepared to consent to. If they had had such a general view, much difficulty might have been avoided; but they had not, and therefore they were obliged to go on with the Rule, and to propose Amendments as the points arose. Undoubtedly the Prime Minister had said that some kind of modification would be introduced into the Resolution, which would enable some number of Members—40, 50, or 60—to nail for a Motion for Adjournment. But that did not meet cases as they arose, and he thought it should not depend on the will of 40 or 60 Members; but there should be some Rule laid down, fixed in its character and operation, to regulate Motions for Adjournment. As to the observation that it might be taken advantage of by any Member to make a statement, he must point out that the Amendment was confined to the case in which a Member should have the leave of the House to make a statement. The House would always have it in its power to prevent anyone making a statement which would lead to an answer, for, if the House objected, the Member would have to sit down. It had been said that if statements had been made that called for answer, there was the power of moving the adjournment of the House; but that was going to be taken away, and the circumstances rendered it necessary for them to consider how much of the privilege was to be preserved. It was clear there must be some qualification. The proposal made in the Amendment was very much to the point, because it exactly touched the sort of cases which would not be touched otherwise. It would not be open to abuse, because there were two guards against it. One was that the House might object to a statement being proceeded with; and the other was that, under the Rule already passed, the clôture might be enforced. Indulgence was necessarily given to a Minister making a statement; very often a statement of an important character might demand discussion; and he did not see why 40 Members should be required to express that opinion. The Amendment embodied a practical suggestion, and he hoped the House would adopt it.

MR. LEWIS

said, the only object he had in view earlier in the evening in calling the Prime Minister to Order was to draw attention to the working of this Rule. According to old usage, the Prime Minister made a statement, the Leader of the Opposition followed, and no further discussion was allowed. It seemed that all their privileges were to be sacrificed to the two Front Benches; and this was a point that must be considered. What chance had any independent Member of being heard? All the long speeches came from thetwoProntBenches—from those who were in Office, and those who had been. The greater part of the time of the House in a big debate, and all the best hours of the evening, were taken up by the Front Benches. As to Members moving the adjournment of the House, that was the very power that was to be taken away. Independent Members were to be bound hand and foot, and were to have no power of doing anything. Supposing Joseph Hume had been present that evening, would he not have had something to say on the financial aspect of the Egyptian Question? He knew that Hume had some bastard imitators in the House, though at present he did not know exactly where they were to be found, for since the Liberal Government came into power they had thrown off the mantle and put on the mask. The advocates of economy on the other side of the House had disappeared from the debates in Supply, and they would take care to be silent so long as their Party was in Office. The House was being bound to the coat tails of the two Front Benches, and when their occupants had spoken, they would say—"We have had enough; the rest may go out-of-doors to speak." Some personal statements which had been made in the House had been connected with grave questions of public policy. He remembered statements being made by Mr. Henley and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole)—whose presence in that House they were about to lose—on their retirement from Lord Derby's Ministry in 1858; and these involved the gravest questions of public policy relating to the representation of the people and the course to be taken by the Conservative Party. According to the framing of that Rule, the House would be compelled to sit still and listen to the discourse of some right hon. Member for Birmingham on international morality without having the power of making any comment on his extraordinary inconsistency. The Amendment was but a putting into shape, a means of making lawful in the future what frequently occurred, and a provision for the maintenance of some kind of liberty to Members. The House had always allowed personal explanations, and they could always be shortened by the clôture. He wished, however, particularly to call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was the first to break the New Rules, while the House was compelled to sit still and hear the statement which was supposed to set at rest all the grave financial questions which had arisen with respect to Egypt. But his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon was compelled by the circumstances to be a greater sinner still. The result would be the subjection of the House to the Front Benches on either side, who would exhaust all the time, and leave to the general body of the House the tail end of the debate. Private Members would find it difficult to get a hearing in the future. But the Government were trying to dam a stream—they were defying the course of nature—for the course of speech was really the course of nature, but the stream would burst out in different channels. The Prime Minister, in fact, wanted an innings all to himself, and to go out carrying his bat. If the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) was to take any part in the game, it would simply be to send the ball back again, while the rest of the field looked on, and then the game was to stop. That was the only way in which the House was allowed to discuss the manner in which our troops and money in Egypt had been disposed of. The right hon. Gentleman was driven as far back as 1815 for a precedent. If anyone else had referred to such a precedent the right hon. Gentleman would have said—"We have done with all that long ago; we have left those benighted days behind us. They should be sent to Jupiter and Saturn." With regard to the Amendment more strictly considered, it seemed to him that they were driven to vote for it, because the Government so far had not vouchsafed to say how far they would endeavour to cover the ques- tion at issue as suggested by acceding to the Amendment in the latter part of the Resolution.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he thought the hon. Member who had just sat down had exacted pretty full compensation for his enforced silence at an earlier period of the evening. The incidents, however, upon which the hon. Gentleman relied did not prove the point which he wished to prove. Nothing could have been more inconvenient or undesirable than that, immediately after the statement of his right hon. Friend on the affairs of Egypt, the House should at once have entered upon a discursive debate without time to consider the situation. It was a much more convenient course which his right hon. Friend had adopted—to place the House in possession of such information as could at present be given, and to give time to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who was mainly responsible for the conduct of Business on the other side of the House, to consider what course he should adopt. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not choose to move the adjournment, the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) could either apply the spur, or, at all events, give Notice of any action which he intended to take on the question. Besides, the Amendment would not have the effect of increasing the freedom of the House, or of giving greater facilities of debate, but exactly the opposite. At present statements were constantly made by the leave of the House, not only by Members of the Government or Members sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, but even by private Members, with regard to the Business of the House. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] That certainly was so, and it was a convenient practice, as they were sometimes made without any Motion for Adjournment at all. [Lord. RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: By the Prime Minister.] By the Prime Minister and also by others. But if such statements were to be immediately followed, as a matter of course, by an irregular discussion, the House would be inclined to exercise much greater caution in giving permission for such statements. But the Amendment would tend to fetter, and not to increase, the liberty of Members of that House. He would suggest, too, that neither the Amendment of the noble Lord, nor the two immediately following it, were exactly in their proper place. There was an almost universal accord that the practice of moving the adjournment of the House, with a view to raising discussions, was one which ought to be limited. Would it not be possible for the House to agree with the words of the Resolution down to the words "except by leave of the House." Any Amendment by way of exception might then be moved. But surely the general rule ought to be that the leave of the House should be required for any statement to be made. The Government admitted that some exception should be made, and the exceptions should be dealt with after the words down to "by leave of the House" had been agreed to.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH,

in reference to the last observation of the noble Marquess, said, they had been told that the law of the House meant the law of the majority. With great deference to his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote), who committed himself somewhat to the language of the Amendment, he thought it would be unwise to attempt to lay down the cases in which exceptional permission might be given. He should have no objection, however, to such an attempt being made if Notice were given of them, and if they were quite sure that an exhaustive list of them could be made. In his judgment, the privilege of moving the adjournment of the House was a privilege which the House ought not to part with. He regarded it as a safety-valve; still, he agreed that it ought to be placed under limitation; but the question was what the limitations should be. In his opinion, they had already made a sufficient limitation by the prohibition of the Motion for Adjournment at Question time. If the Resolution of the Government were adopted in its present form, what would happen? The Government had not proposed to prohibit the Motion for the adjournment of the House after the Notices of Motion had been entered upon. If the prohibition to make this Motion were to come to an end as soon as the Questions were disposed of, interruption would immediately arise on the discussion of the first Order of the Day. Therefore, he urged the House to be satisfied with curing the evil of which they had had considerable experience during the last few years. He should deprecate laying down the occasions on which it would be permissible to move the adjournment; but he desired that the House should retain this very important power.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he had a great desire to preserve the rights of private Members in that House. He was also alive to the fact that the privilege which private Members had enjoyed of moving the adjournment had been, he might almost say, abused to an extent which had caused a great deal of dissatisfaction in the House; and yet he looked with jealousy on any proposal to place in the hands of the Government the power of determining whether that privilege should be used. He understood that the noble Lord was, by his Amendment, seeking, if possible, to relieve the stringency of the Resolution as it was proposed by Her Majesty's Government. But he understood, also, from Her Majesty's Government that they were not prepared to stand by their Resolution, because they perceived that in its present form it would rob private Members of one of those privileges which among Members generally was esteemed very highly indeed. Probably the subsequent Resolutions would cut off, to a large extent, the means Members possessed of bringing forward questions on going into Committee of Supply. If, then, they were to have no Motion for Adjournment, it was clear that small sections would never have a chance of expressing their opinions in Parliament. As for the Front Benches, they might be left to take care of themselves. He did not believe there was the slightest chance that either the clôture or the other Resolutions would prevent the Front Opposition Bench from having a full opportunity of expressing their opinions. But outside the two great Parties—that was to say, outside their Leaders—there were opinions which ought to be, from time to time, discussed in the House. In the past two or three Sessions the Motions for Adjournment pressed upon his recollection like a nightmare. On many occasions, when important Business was waiting to be transacted, it had been unexpectedly dislocated, and the time of the House wasted by the discussion of some subject which was not worthy of the exercise of a privilege which he, for one, esteemed so highly. While he was prepared to accept the Resolution, which would pre- vent individual Members from trespassing, on small pretences, on the time of the House by making Motions for the adjournment, yet he was altogether opposed to limiting the right in such a manner that it could not be exercised with some comparative facility. What, he asked, was the Government prepared to do in regard to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler)? Such a modification of this Rule would be a fair and legitimate protection to individual Members. He hoped the Government would look favourably on the proposal. If, as he understood, the Prime Minister gave his assent to that, he should vote against the Amendment of the noble Lord.

SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEY

said, that the concession made was to the Front Opposition Bench, and not to independent Members at all. As one coming within that category, he viewed with very considerable jealousy the tendency to turn the House into a place where a kind of duel between the two Front Benches might be fought out. The consideration formerly shown to independent Members was departing; and it was obvious that though the number of 60 would prove a sufficient protection for the Leaders of the Opposition, it was of no use whatever to private Members, and was, in fact, no concession at all.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that there was no sort of agreement between the two Front Benches in regard to this matter; and if his hon. Friend (Sir Rainald Knightley) looked at the Notice Paper, he would find in his name an Amendment similar in terms to that of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) for the reduction of the number to 40, which, he hoped, would eventually be accepted. He pressed upon the Government how much it would be to their advantage if they would only tell the House definitely what they intended to do with regard to that Amendment. If they accepted it, he assured them that there would be a great saving of time. It had been suggested that they should accept all the words down to "by leave of the House," but that, he urged, would be fatal; because the Speaker had ruled that this meant that any single Member might object, and with these words once in the Resolution there would be no power to strike them out. The proper course, therefore, would be to come to some conclusion before their insertion. He contended that this was the time to decide whether the Motion for Adjournment might be made after a statement by a Minister or any other Member. If the Prime Minister admitted that when a Ministerial Statement had been made, it was the privilege—nay, the duty in some cases—of hon. Gentlemen to challenge it, what objection could he have to inserting words which preserved that privilege? He should vote with the noble Lord unless they could be told what the Government really meant to do. When the debate began yesterday, the Secretary of State for the Home Department said that no concession would be made; but later on it had been admitted that the Government were prepared, at any rate, to discuss, if not to accept, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, and later still the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India said that the Government would not only be willing to discuss, but would accept the principle. If the Government would state that the Motion for Adjournment should not require a majority, but that a certain number of Members might determine that the Motion might be made, and the question be discussed—if they agreed upon that principle, then they would prevent a great deal of heat, and Members on his side of the House would be willing to discuss the matter with the Government. At all events, they ought to preserve this privilege of freedom of debate and this check upon Ministers. While, therefore, he quite agreed that something ought to be done in the matter of restraining the Motions for Adjournment, for they were at times highly inconvenient, still they were entitled, before they went to a division, at least to know the course intended to be pursued by the Government.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he must ask to be allowed to say a few words after the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, it was only by permission of the House that he did so, because he was in a similar position to a Minister in charge of a Bill who had exhausted his right to speak. He wanted, however, to explain three things, and he would endeavour to do so in about three sen- tences. The right hon. Gentleman had stated the admissions of the Government as to the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) more narrowly than was the fact, for these admissions included rather more. It was not possible at that stage to enter fully upon the question of the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, for it would be an abuse of the liberty the House had accorded; but he was ready to redeem the expectation held out, and when they came to that Amendment the Government would fully their views. He trusted the House would repose sufficient confidence in him to pass on to the Amendment. With regard to the speech of his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, he was quite aware that a certain construction had been put on it; but that construction had been disclaimed in the course of last evening. As regarded the Resolution itself, he would draw 1he right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that any Motion for Adjournment could be made by leave—that was to say, that any Motion for Adjournment that was approved could be made. The effect of accepting the Amendment would be to introduce partial specifications into the Amendment. He hoped that it would not be necessary to take that course, as the Resolution was quite clear as it stood.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, the return of tranquillity between the two Front Benches was a most inauspicious sign. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) took with him, he thought, the general sense of the House when he said that the right of private Members to move the adjournment was a right which ought not lightly to be given away by the House. He wished to point out to the House that even if the Government accepted the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), it by no means took away the necessity for such an Amendment as that of the noble Lord, and by no means met this case. There were several groups in the House that did not belong to any Party, and in future there might be more such groups. They had the Irish Members there, and if they said that only 60 Members should have the right of saying there should be an adjournment they thereby deprived the Irish Members of the power of mov- ing the adjournment. The same might be said of the Radicals. The Free Traders were not 40 when they came into the House, and those who were in favour of the abolition of slavery were not 40 when they entered the House. He was afraid that the tendency was in favour of a good understanding between the two Front Benches, and that private Members would be silenced. The occupants of the Front Benches, it must be remembered, enjoyed privileges not possessed by them. The right hon. Gentleman said he could only speak once. That, no doubt, was strictly so; but they all knew that the right hon. Gentleman could speak half-a-dozen times if he would. Now, however, the Prime Minister, in collusion he was almost going to say with the Front Opposition Benches, was asking private Members to give up the right of moving the adjournment on the ground that they had the right if they belonged to a large Party. Well, independent Members in the House should have their right independent of large Parties, and independent of the Leaders of large Parties.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, the House need not trouble itself about the regular Opposition, for whatever Party occupied that place, they would always be sufficiently numerous to command a hearing. They might not get a hearing in the specific way they desired; but, in one form or other, the Front Opposition Bench would always be strong enough to take care of itself. It was the groups of independent Members that they were concerned for. They had one independent group there now; they would probably have others in time; and it would be in the power of the majority to suppress these groups. It might sometimes be necessary to have a discussion when there were not 60 Members willing to support it, or when there were not 40 Members ready to do so. It might even be desirable to raise a debate when only five or six Members demanded it. What they were anxious to do was to secure the opportunity of discussing pressing subjects, free from the restraints either of the Ministers or the regular Opposition. The Government had preserved an unnecessary reticence. If they would say straight out what they would do, the Business would be greatly advanced. But, as it stood, they did not know whether they were going to accept the hon. Member for Wolverhampton's proposal or not, or whether only a majority could demand a discussion at Question time. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was willing to believe in the Government, and would trust their somewhat doubtful promises. But there were others who had not the same amount of faith; and until they could have a categorical undertaking that some concession would be made, it would be the duty of independent Members to contest every point. When the concession was made they could debate it upon its merits. The House seemed to labour under the belief that these discussions at Question time were an innovation. In a sense they were; but they should bear in mind that within the recollection of the Prime Minister hon. Members had an opportunity of ventilating their grievances in presenting Petitions. The practice of making speeches on presenting Petitions was largely resorted to when it was permitted. That power was taken away from the House some years ago, and the discussions on Motions for Adjournment had really taken its place, so that the time lost in one way had been got in another. He thought they ought to have some distinct and definite promise from the Government in respect of this Resolution.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) was not at all satisfactory. The hon. Member said that he had no confidence in the Government; but he (Mr. Chamberlain) wished to point out that the Government had been assured from the other side of the House that if they would state with sufficient clearness the concessions they were prepared to make, the debate would be materially shortened. But what had said the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen)? The hon. Gentleman had said that if the House would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), that that would be satisfactory. The hon. Member went even farther than that, and said that if the Government would not accept the Amendment, he (Mr. J. Cowen) had a suggestion which he would put before the House, which was in the nature of a compromise, and which was less satisfactory than the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, but which, nevertheless, if accepted, would materially shorten the debate. The proposal of the hon. Member for Newcastle was that an hon. Member desiring to move the adjournment of the debate should have 10 minutes in order to state to the House his reasons for his Motion. He (Mr. Chamberlain) must confess that such a state of things as that would be very unsatisfactory, because there would still be the waste of time of the House. What he desired to point out to the House was that the hon. Member for Newcastle last night told the House that if the Government were willing to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, it would materially shorten the debate; and yet he now got up, after the Prime Minister had expressed his determination of accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and said that the Amendment would be unsatisfactory. He (Mr. Chamberlain) could not understand that any further assurance could be required by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. His right hon. Friend had clearly stated that when he came to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he would make a statement which would be satisfactory to the House, and which would in effect accept the principle of the Amendment. Surely what that meant was this—that his right hon. Friend, while not committing himself to the details of the Amendment, was willing to accept its principle.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

asked leave of the House to explain. He had said yesterday that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was a concession, but that it was not a satisfactory one.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

contended that what the hon. Member for Newcastle had said last night in the last debate was that, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was accepted, then he thought the House might proceed with its Business, and that it would be a satisfactory solution of the matter.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, that if there was one thing in which the House would not agree with the President of the Board of Trade it was his allegation that the Prime Minister had stated the views of the Government on this Resolution with clearness. He had consulted all the records with a view of discovering the Prime Minister's meaning; and all he found was that he said that he was prepared to entertain the principle of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton if the sense of the House were in its favour.

MR. GLADSTONE

I said a great deal more than that.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, that might be so, but he was sorry to say there was no record of it. The reservation of the Prime Minister, "if the sense of the House were in its favour," was most important. How could they tell that the Prime Minister would not use his majority and affirm that 60 was not the magic number to which he would yield? For his part, he was entirely opposed to any such settlement of the question, and he agreed with the suggestion that it would be well to see if putting off the power of moving the adjournment till after Questions would not suffice. In most cases he believed that hon. Members moving the adjournment were actuated by temporary pique or excitement; and the lapse of a little time would, perhaps, prevent any Motion being made. He was extremely jealous of this power of moving the adjournment; and although they must take anything they could get, yet he considered it no concession that the power of adjournment should be placed in the hands of 60 Members. The Home Secretary and those who acted with him seemed inclined to put too much in the hands of the Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that this power should not be placed in the hands of non-responsible persons; but all persons who disagreed with the Government were non-responsible persons. All the promises of the Government were totally lacking in that clearness which the President of the Board of Trade claimed for them; and he would strongly urge hon. Members to be very slow to yield up one of their ancient privileges.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he was glad that the President of the Board of Trade had broken the cold chain of silence which had hitherto bound him in this discussion. With his experience as a private Member fresh in his recollection, the right hon. Gentleman must be in sympathy with independent Members. But the right hon. Gentleman did not persuade him that they ought to take the Government on trust. For his part, he was not in favour of the confidence trick in politics, or in anything else, and he preferred to consider each question as it arose. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman had inspired him with some additional distrust when he spoke favourably of the number 60. He held that the number 60, or even the number 40, would be no sort of protection whatever. What independent Members wanted to secure was the rights of small minorities, the rights of majorities were fully guarded. There was some danger of the two Front Benches entering into some arrangement for their own protection, and leaving the other Members out in the cold. He trusted they would stand by the present point in dispute. He warned the Government that no protection of 60, or even 40, could by any possibility find acceptance from the minority with whom he had the honour to act.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, that the right of minorities had been exercised to an absurd extent. There had been 20 Motions for the Adjournment of the House at Question time this Session between February 6 and August 15, or seven more than was stated last night. The smallest minority in the House, the so-called "Fourth Party," had taken more than their share of those Motions, the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) having moved the adjournment three times at Question time. There were also other instances in which Members threatened to move the adjournment unless the House listened to tedious and irrelevant speeches. It was high time that this should be put an end to, and he rather regretted that any concession should have been promised.

MR. GORST

said, he would not follow the hon. Member for Southwark in his tedious and irrelevant remarks, not one word of which had been germane to the subject under discussion. He (Mr. Gorst) thought the Prime Minister would admit, after a Ministerial Statement had been made in the House by a Gentleman who was just retiring from Office, or by any other hon. Member, with the leave of the House, that there should be some means by which such a statement could be checked. A Motion for Adjournment under such circum- stances had always been considered highly proper. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone), when he had himself moved the adjournment of the House some years ago, had done so in consequence of a Ministerial Statement, but if they passed the Resolution in its present form, or even with the 60 Members shadowed out by the President of the Board of Trade, they would entirely destroy the power of the House to move the adjournment and raise a discussion after a Ministerial Statement. It was impossible to arrange beforehand to have 60 Members, a Ministerial Statement often being suddenly sprung upon them. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would not withdraw his Amendment unless a further assurance was given that some modification would be introduced into the Rule to enable the House to use its most Constitutional power when Ministerial Statements were made.

MR. DALY

said he should support the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. He (Mr. Daly) felt bound to complain of the indefinite-ness of the language used by the Prime Minister, which, in nine cases out of ten, he failed to understand. The right hon. Gentleman told them he would redeem the expectations which he had held out; but, from past experience, he declined to accept such a vague and general assurance. The House was entitled to a more distinct explanation of the intentions of the Government before they allowed another portion of the liberties of private Members to be sacrificed.

SIR HENRY TYLER

observed that the House was in much the same position as it was in last night. The Government refused to tell them what they would do until they had passed the words "except by leave of the House." The Government virtually asked the House to open its mouth and shut its eyes and see what they would give it. In order to obviate objections, he proposed to amend the Amendment of the noble Lord by inserting after the word "Member" the words "of the Government," so that it would run thus— Unless any Member of the Government shall by leave of the House have made any statement other than an answer to a Question," &c.

[The Amendment not being seconded, was not put.]

MR. PARNELL

said, that last night the Government told the House they agreed in principle to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); and it would simplify matters much if, after having had time since then for deliberation, they could announce the particular number of Members they were willing to accept. It was impossible for hon. Members at present to say how they would be affected by the Resolution, and it seemed to him that a great deal of time was being wasted by the reticence of the Government. He did not mean to say that the Government were not entitled to reserve any announcement they might have to make about a future Amendment; but in the interest of the time both of hon. Members and of the Government the Prime Minister might very well break his silence upon the point. They had several proposals before them. They had the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), which was 60 on a requisition, and they had also the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil), which was 15. He himself should very much prefer the number 15 to the number 60; but seeing that there was such a very wide divergence of views on that side of the House, and looking at the interest which hon. Members opposite below the Gangway took in this subject, surely it would not be too much to ask the Government that they should take the House into their confidence and announce what determination they had come to with regard to this number. Such a course, he thought, would enormously facilitate matters, and probably enable them to pass on to the consideration of subsequent Amendments. If, on the other hand, the Government had not come to any conclusion, they had a right to say so; and they would then know where they stood, and how far they should support the Amendment of the noble Lord.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there had been so much discussion as to what course should be taken on his Amendment, that he thought it might possibly save time if he stated what he understood the Government intended to do, The object of the Amendment was to do away with placing the power of granting leave to move the ad- journment of the House in the hands of the majority. He understood that the Government conceded that principle to him, and that they were willing that power to move the adjournment of the House should be subject to two conditions—first, that it should be granted by leave of the House, which meant by leave of the House unanimously. Of course, that did not meet the case of minorities. The Government, as he understood, also conceded the principle of his Amendment that the Motion might be made with the concurrence of a certain number of Members, and that number of Members was a question on which there were several Amendments before the House. Clearly, the range of discussion would be between the two numbers of not more than 60 and not less than 10, which had been proposed.

MR. RITCHIE

said, he hoped when the hon. Member for Wolverhampton rose that he would have thrown some light upon the subject; but he was disappointed. As for the kind intentions of the Government in allowing Motions for Adjournment to be made with the consent of the Whole House, he could only say—"Thank you for nothing." There would always be found one or more Members who would interpose and prevent it. They quite understood, however, that the Question before the House was what number the Government intended to accept as the limit within which such Motions were permissible. If the Government would enlighten the House on that point, the discussion would be very materially shortened.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 123: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 366.)

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

rose to move to insert after the word "upon" the words "unless a Member who is also a Member of Her Majesty's Privy Council makes such Motion."

MR. SPEAKER

ruled that, inasmuch as the hon. Member's Amendment came after the word "upon," the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), which came after the same word, and of which Notice had been previously given, had priority over that of the hon. Member.

MR. H. H. FOWLER,

in moving to amend the Resolution by leaving out, in lines 3 to 5, the words Except by leave of the House; the granting of such leave, if disputed, being determined upon question put forthwith, but no division shall be taken thereupon, said, that as his Amendment had been repeatedly referred to in the course of the debate on this Resolution, he should content himself with formally moving it.

Amendment proposed, In line 3, to leave out after the word "upon," to the word "unless," in line 5.—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'except' stand part of the Question."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, his hon. Friend remarked that his Motion had been largely discussed already. That was quite true. In the course of these discussions the mode in which the Business had been transacted last night, and especially to-night, had not been satisfactory in the view of most persons. He must place on record that it had been in the last degree painful to himself. Probably in the speeches of not less than 30 Members opposite had this miscarriage been attributed to himself, because he did not enter into a review of the Amendments in proposing the Resolution, and thereby, as it was said, save the time of the House. For him to have done anything of the kind would have been irregular; but he recollected very well; on a former occasion, on moving an important Resolution with the indulgence of the House, adopting that course. And what was the result? Along general debate followed upon his speech, every Amendment he had noticed being discussed, the result being that many hours of the time of the House were wasted in a preliminary debate. On that occasion it was complained that the waste of time was obviously his fault, because he had referred to these points in his preliminary speech. Now, exactly the opposite charge was made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. He had a pretty strong opinion upon the character of the discussion; but he thought it would not contribute to the progress of Business if he were to give expression to it. The reason why he was specially desirous on his own behalf to take this Motion in its proper order was that the Resolution, as framed by the Go- vernment, referred the question of moving the adjournment of the House to be decided by the majority of the House; and it was their profound conviction that upon the whole that was the sound and right principle. Ho did not deny that there was much to be said for the merits of the Amendment, which in principle he proposed to accept. There was much to be said upon the merits of the proposition that a considerable body of Members, anxious, upon some sudden emergency to call attention to a particular subject, should have the power to do so independently of the general will of the House. But there was a great deal of difficulty about the adjustment of the matter. It was impossible to make a provision which should meet the wants of very small minorities. Very small minorities might have a very good case; but he thought that small minorities must, after all, submit to have their case disposed of by the judgment of the House. For example, to allow so small a number as 10 Members to set aside, by the authority of a Resolution, the regular course of Business' in order to introduce something which they believed to be important, and which they might declare to be urgent, but which might be nothing more than a matter of sentiment, was absolutely impossible. Consequently, no provision could be made in that matter. The wisest course, he believed, would be to leave the matter to the majority of the House. He confessed he had been pained many times during the discussion to hear it coolly stated and assumed by various Gentlemen on the other side of the House, that an appeal to the majority was an appeal to a Minister. He had never known so great an indignity cast upon the House. It was an outrage upon the House to state that an appeal to the majority was an appeal to the Minister. If he had the right to say so, he believed there was no man living who had the honour of being a Minister so long ago as he had himself, and there was no Minister who had been so often defeated in the House. He was convinced he was right in that statement, and no person, therefore, was better entitled to repel the charge—the outrageous charge, as he called it—that it was in his power as a Minister to command the vote of the majority of the House upon the case of an equitable demand made by a minority. He had made that protest warmly, because he felt it to be little less than an insult to the majority to make any such statement. It would, in his opinion, have been better if, trusting to their own traditions and habits, and to the spirit of equity which generally governed the proceedings of the House, they had Been content to leave the matter with which the Amendment dealt in the hands of the majority; and he believed that an appeal to the majority, acting as it did in the light of day, would have been, on the whole, the best arrangement. That was the conviction of the Government. Reference had been made to an occasion, in 1874, when he moved the adjournment of the House, and it was said if this Rule had been in operation that could not have been done without an appeal to the Leader of the House. He should have made no appeal to Mr. Disraeli, as he then was, except as Leader of the House; and he was perfectly convinced that in such a case the authority would have been given by Mr. Disraeli and his majority without the smallest difficulty. The position of the Government was peculiar in this matter. The House had entirely failed to deal with this matter, and the Government had taken it up in relief of the House, and in substitution for what it would have been far more desirable if the House had done for itself. They had stated over and over again how deeply they lamented that the Executive Government should have to act in this matter. They had taken it up because progress could not be hoped for in any other way. They did not feel justified in pressing their own convictions upon the House with as much tenacity and firmness as they would exhibit in the case of a great legislative measure, because now the House was legislating for itself and not for the country. Therefore they accepted cheerfully this principle of allowing a certain number of persons to claim the right of moving the adjournment; but they nevertheless accepted it with considerable misgivings, which turned upon the difficulty of the selection of a particular number. His hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had selected the number 40. He was not sure that in a given state of things a practice might not arise with regard to certain subjects on which minorities were very conscientiously and energetically banded together, of forcing on the discussion of those subjects in which they felt a special sectional interest, to the great inconvenience of the Business of the House. At the same time he fully admitted that if he should attempt to meet that danger by substituting a larger mumber than 40 Members, he would be open to the reproach that he would be moving further and further away from giving satisfaction to the smaller minorities. Therefore, if they were to fix a number, he did not know that they could have a better number than 40. But there was another limitation which it would be well to introduce into the Resolution—namely, that it should be binding upon those who might wish to move the adjournment to declare that the Motion was for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. After all, it was for questions of urgency and suddenness that such a Motion was intended. It was not for discussing such questions as the County Franchise, the Land Laws, Corrupt Practices, Disestablishment, the Currency Laws, and matters of that kind. But he was by no means sure that even those words would be effectual, because an hon. Gentleman might be so possessed with his own particular attachment that he might be ready to make the declaration; but still it would be a check so far as it went. It would be understood, therefore, that they accepted the substance of the Resolution of his hon. Friend, although they differed from it in point of form. He wished to leave quite open the question whether, as a subsidiary mode of procedure, there should also be a power for a smaller number of persons, say 20, or possibly still less, referring the matter to the judgment of the House—that was the majority. He had gathered from the debate that the House wished to try the system he had sketched, with all its risks, and having pointed these out, he would give the specific words of his Admendment. His proposal was, that, after the provision that "no Motion for Adjournment shall be made except by leave of the House," there should be inserted these words— Unless a Member rising in his place shall request leave to move the adjournment for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and not less than forty Members shall thereupon rise in their places to support the Motion. While hoping that this power, given to 40 Members in an authorized and regular way, would be exercised in a different manner from the harum-scarum method hitherto pursued, he felt bound to say that it was an enormous power for disturbing the regular course of proceedings, and on that account he could not consent that it should be given to less than 40 Members. Under these circumstances, he would suggest that his hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment, and then they might arrive at some agreement as to the leave of the House.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that the right hon. Gentleman blamed Gentlemen on the Opposition side for the course which they had pursued; but he was bound to say that the course taken by the Government was exceedingly inconvenient. Here was an important Amendment which the House should have had time to consider, and which ought to have been on the Table that morning, and they were now called upon to adopt it without the slightest Notice. A great part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, illustrated the extreme difficulty of dealing with the question at all. For his own part, he was ready to admit that the power of moving the adjournment should be checked; but the right hon. Gentleman had shown that the danger of acting rashly was almost as great as any arising from the state of things prevailing in times past. He believed that the suggestion of his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote), that they ought to proceed in a tentative way and try first how things would go on when Members were not permitted to move the adjournment until the Questions had been asked, was a sound one. Attempts were now being made to regulate by cast-iron Rules that which before had been regulated by the good understanding of the House. He admitted that there had been an abuse of that good understanding; but there was the greatest possible danger that restriction would be carried too far, and that majorities would exercise their powers so as to interfere with the proper discharge of their duties by the minority, to the great injury of the country and of the authority of the House. The right hon. Gentleman feared that when 40 Members had the power in question there would be great danger of Gentlemen banding together. But that was the result of laying down a precise law. What was not prohibited would be allowed, what was not condemned would be permitted; and it would be found that the greatest ingenuity would be exercised in evading the regulation. It was on that account that he expressed his great regret that it was not left to the House to take such steps as might appear best in the circumstances of each case as it arose. The right hon. Gentleman desired that there should be a declaration on the part of the person moving the adjournment that he did so because he desired to discuss some question of urgent public importance. That would be almost sufficient without the requirement of 40 Members to support him. He would prefer relying upon the sense of duty and the honour which would bind men co-operating for the advance of the public interest and the maintenance of the authority and power of the great Assemblage to which they belonged. He would, however, accept as much as he could get from the right hon. Gentleman in diminution of the severity of the conditions.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he thought that, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), it was to be particularly regretted that the Prime Minister had not elicited a regular expression of opinion on the point under consideration. Under the Amendment, it would be possible for 40 Members to arrive at a common understanding, and to divert the House from its appointed Business. He congratulated the Opposition on having converted some Members on the Ministerial side to their view. The right hon. Gentleman, after protesting for weeks that the control of debates should be in the hands of the majority, now agreed to place it in the hands of a simple quorum of the House. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had had sympathy with most of the Motions for Adjournment this Session; but they had not elicited from the Government more information than might have been obtained in answer to Questions. He had increasing faith in questioning as a means of obtaining information. He desired to ask the Speaker at what time the rising of the 40 Members was to take place—whether, when a Member proposed to make a statement, or after he had done so?

MR. SPEAKER

If I understand correctly the construction of the words, the Member who would be called upon to rise in his place would request leave to move the adjournment of the House, and, at the same time, he would state the subject-matter of the proposition he intended to bring under the notice of the House; and then, if 40 Members rose in their places to support it, the Motion would be allowed to proceed.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, that considerably diminished the evil which, in his opinion, the Resolution would bring on the House. But he thought that, instead of making a desirable change in the Procedure of the House, it would, by regularizing a proceeding which was now irregular, establish the practice against which the Rule was directed.

MR. CROPPER

said, he thought a Rule would deserve the name of "gag" which prevented 40 Members bringing what they unitedly deemed a good case before the House. It was impossible to do without the power of bringing before the House matters which might be of more importance than its appointed Business. It would not be easy to obtain 40 Members to back up an irregular or obstructive proceeding.

MR. THOMAS COLLINS

said, he was glad the Government had taken 40 as the number. It was better to have a guiding principle, and the principle of the Amendment was that 40 was a quorum of the House. The adjournment had been more often than not moved out of a feeling of pique or pettishness at an unsatisfactory answer, and they would have done with that in future, because a Member would not like to move the adjournment when he was not sure of having the other 39 Members to support him. He might find himself in solitary dignity. The Government had found that the general sense of the House was against the Rule, and they, therefore, assented to its extension. The risk of abuse was guarded by the power of closing a debate under the 1st Rule.

MR. PARNELL

said, he wished to know how the Speaker would interpret the Amendment of the Prime Minister— Unless a Member rising in his place shall request leave to move the adjournment for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. Would the Speaker himself have to decide whether the matter was of urgent public importance, or would the declaration of the Member rising in his place, and supported by 40 other Members, be accepted as to the fact?

MR. SPEAKER

The construction that I should put on the Amendment as it stands is, that the question of urgency should rest, not with the Speaker, but with the Member desiring to bring the question forward.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he looked upon the proposal of the Prime Minister with the greatest dislike, as he thought it was one of the worst proposals that had come from the Government during those discussions. He must say that one of the few gratifying features he had seen in the course of these discussions was that the Government had laid down from the beginning this fact, that the change in the Rules of the House had been necessitated, not by the conduct of any particular section of the House, but by the general change in the tone and temper of the House. The Prime Minister had gone out of his way to declare that the Party to which he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had the honour to belong was free from the odium of having caused this change in the Rules of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, over and over again, had declared that it was an absolute necessity to his position that small minorities should be protected, and not large minorities. Lot them apply that test to the proposal that was now before the House. He asked any man of common sense, did he mean to tell him that, when a Motion required the assent of 40 Members, small minorities were protected? He confessed he looked with a certain amount of wonder upon the action of the Front Opposition Bench on this subject. The Irish Party numbered about 40 all told. He might be told by hon. Members opposite that they should not have the power of moving the adjournment unless they were united; but how did that argument agree with what had been put forward by the Prime Minister, when he said that it was a perfectly notorious fact that it was impossible, except on three or four occasions during a Session, to get all the Members of a Party present to vote on any question before the House? Therefore, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) said that the position in which minorities were placed was this—that while a large minority like that of the Conservative Party, with 245 Members, only required 40 of their number, or, in other words, a small fraction of their number, a small minority like the Irish Party was required to bring up every one of their number. Was that fair to small minorities? Did it not give an immense and overwhelming advantage to large, over small minorities? Another point that should not be forgotten was the fact that a Motion for Adjournment was an unforeseen and unexpected event, that arose in consequence of some circumstances of the moment. To repeat the vulgar expression of a Liberal Member, if it was the object of the Government to "choke off" the Irish Party from their power of moving adjournments, let them say so. But, if that was their purpose, how was it possible to reconcile that with the language used by the Prime Minister over and over again upon the question? The Motion for Adjournment, which was a privilege of minorities that should not be lightly given, up, would be completely taken away from the Irish Party by the Prime Minister's Amendment. As the Resolution stood, he said candidly that the number might as well be 200 as 40, so far as the Irish Members were concerned. It had precisely the same effect. He asked whether it was worth while to add this cause of irritation to the other causes of irritation that existed in the minds of the Irish people—namely, that every minority in the House was saved from outrage, except the minority that truly represented the majority of the Irish people?

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he felt bound to tender his thanks to the real author of this Amendment—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The result of the Amendment would be that the Mover of the adjournment would be compelled to advertise the number of those who supported him. Thus the House would be protected, in some measure, from the intrusion of individual opinions at inopportune times expressed at great length. He regretted the loss of the privileges of small minorities, which he attributed to the Irish Members; but he looked for- ward to the time when the Prime Minister would fulfil his promise to do something towards restoring their lost rights. Recognizing the necessity for making some change, therefore, and, as an old Member of the House, looking upon the Resolution as a man might regard wholesome but distasteful physic, he should accept the dose with gratitude.

CAPTAIN AYLMER

asked the Speaker, as a matter of Order, to inform the House what was the exact Business before it? Whether it was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) or that of the Premier he was unable to see.

MR. SPEAKER

said, the Question immediately before the House was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who proposed to leave out certain words. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister proposed to retain certain words—"except by leave of the House." He should put the Question, "That the word 'except, stand part of the Question?"

CAPTAIN AYLMER

said, that, in his opinion, the words were absolutely superfluous. He supposed that if the Amendment were negatived, the question of 40, or any lesser number, rising in their places might be determined afterwards. It was absurd to retain the words "except by leave of the House," by which one Member might prevent the Motion being made, and also give 40 or a smaller number the power of deciding the question. Generally, Motions for Adjournment were made impromptu, and he should be sorry to see the day when such Motions should be regularly organized, as they must be if 40 Members were required, to rise in their places. He repeated that he could see no reason for retaining the words "except by leave of the House."

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the House had reason to complain most seriously of the conduct of the Government respecting that Amendment. The Prime Minister had spoken so eloquently about the rights of minorities that he expected some important concession. He was astonished, therefore, to find the right hon. Gentleman speaking as if it would be ridiculous for a minority to have the power of moving the adjournment. He reminded the Prime Minister that it was not a new power which they were asking for, but that it was a power which had hitherto belonged to every individual Member, an ancient privilege they were endeavouring to defend. The Prime Minister had made a most indignant protest against hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House, saying that an appeal to the majority meant an appeal to the Minister. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] In spite of that indignant protest, he (Lord Randolph Churchill) took leave to reiterate the statement with all the force he was capable of, and to assert that, as far as the Liberal Party were concerned, as far as the present state of the House was concerned, and the right hon. Gentleman himself was concerned, an appeal to the House of Commons meant nothing more than an appeal to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman would remember times when the majority of the House and of the Liberal Party was not distinguished by the abject servility which was now unfortunately so marked a feature of its condition. There were times when there was really a genuine Radical Party below the Gangway, which, no doubt, contributed occasionally to the prosperity of the country by turning the Prime Minister out of Office. But now all that had changed, and they had new inventions since then. There was the Caucus, which was invented by one of the Prime Minister's Colleagues, and this Caucus, before every important division, sent out menacing circulars to every Member. [Laughter.] Well, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) might put his in the waste-paper basket, but he (Lord Randolph Churchill) fancied he always took care to vote as he was directed. It was, in fact, a matter of frequent comment that all the independence which used to be the glory of the Radical Party had utterly gone and vanished, never to return; and, therefore, the statement which the Prime Minister had denounced, that an appeal to the majority meant an appeal to him, was perfectly correct. The Tory majority in the late Government was much more indocile. ["Oh, oh!"] He remembered three cases of distinct revolt on the part of large sections of the Tory Party against Mr. Disraeli and the right hon. Baronet the present Leader of the Opposition, to force the Government to abandon the line of policy they were pursuing at the moment, and on each occasion they were successful in their purpose. There was a great deal of independence in the Tory Party in the last Parliament, and it would have been quite possible for the Prime Minister, or any of his Colleagues, to have appealed to the majority for permission to move the adjournment and been certain of being heard; but he regretted to say that in the present Parliament things were different. On a well-known occasion, the present Prime Minister moved the adjournment of the House; and he now said that he was able to do that, without begging leave of the Leader; but on that occasion he had no doubt Mr. Disraeli would have been very glad to have agreed to meet the right hon. Gentleman in debate. The present Prime Minister was at that time the Leader of the Opposition—[Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] He expected that "No," and was prepared for it. He knew that another person was nominally Leader; but the real Leader was the Prime Minister, and whenever anything important was on, down came the right hon. Gentleman and away went the nominal Leader. ["Oh, oh!"] He was simply stating facts. [Mr. GLADSTONE: A fiction.] He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he witnessed it with great interest and satisfaction. Mr. Disraeli, he said, would have been glad to have met the right hon. Gentleman. But what chance would there have been for a private Member? Now-a-days, at all events, they knew that when private Members proposed to bring forward Motions of Censure and asked for a day, they were laughed at, and told that these things were very improper. He would like to point out the danger attending the adoption of the number of 40, which might operate to reducing it to even a smaller number. The chances were that the 40 Members would all speak, or, at all events, a very fair percentage of the 40 would think it necessary to justify to the House the fact that they had stood up in their places. If that was a good argument, it operated very largely in favour of a smaller number, like five or six; because five or six speeches would be a less evil than 40. The Prime Minister's proposition—that the majority, or the Ministry, would listen to the supplications of private Members to allow inconvenient Motions to be submitted, could not be seriously discussed. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to add some new words in the form of an asseveration—he (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not know whether it would be an Oath; but, if so, he feared that there would be another difficulty with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), or a Declaration by the hon. Gentleman who moved the adjournment. Nobody knew what the words were. The House was dependent for them on dirty scraps of paper, from which it appeared that the Member was to declare that he was going to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance; and these words were gravely suggested as a safeguard against abuse. Why, everybody thought his Motion related to a matter of urgent public importance. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had thought his Motion last night one of urgent public importance; but the Prime Minister did not think so; and, no doubt, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) would also have said that his Motion respecting Mr. Bradlaugh's trial was a matter of urgent public importance; in fact, there was no conceivable nonsense which could not be suggested as of urgent public importance. Could it be suggested that the words were proposed as a mere conventionality? He had a doubt whether anything suggested by the Prime Minister did not cover some deep-laid scheme; but, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman never suggested an utterly meaningless and nonsensical axiom. He sincerely hoped that the House would insist upon having time given to consider this matter. According to the Prime Minister, there would be great danger in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), because it would transform the use of a privilege, which ordinarily was irregular, into a regular use. It would be perfectly possible for the Leader of the Opposition—supposing him not to be an extremely honourable and fair-minded man like the present Leader—to get 40 of his followers week after week to rise when he moved the adjournment, in order to bring forward matters likely to damage the policy of the Government. Then, as to private Members also, there was a move—he might call it a "dodge"— which might be advantageously employed, and the Government forced them into these "dodges" by these tremendously strict Rules. It would be quite possible to arrange, at the beginning of the Session, that there should be what was called in the City a "little syndicate" of 80 or 100 private Members on both sides; that they should agree that there should be reciprocity between them; and that if any Member of this syndicate got up to move the adjournment of the House there should be an honourable understanding that the other Members should immediately rise. [The Marquess of HARTINGTON: Honourable understanding?] Yes, honourable. Why not? Surely persons like the noble Marquess, who had had a share in the Kilmainham Treaty, understood the meaning of the word "honourable." He (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not understand the interruption of the noble Marquess. He insisted that it would be far wiser and more cautious of the House to leave the Resolution alone. Many hon. Members had tried to deal with Procedure, but they had never touched these adjournments. They had always known the dangers of attempting it. These New Rules, which seemed to him to savour strongly of what he might call "Brummagem," and to be more adapted to a Vestry, or a Metropolitan Board of Works, or the Town Council of Birmingham, would be dangerous to the House of Commons, to its Members, and to the interests of the country at large. He hoped the House would not allow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton to be withdrawn, but would express its sentiments by voting against the words "by leave of the House."

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, it was not surprising that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) had occupied a considerable amount of time, and, at the same time, said very little with respect to the matter before the House, because they knew perfectly well that the noble Lord had a policy which he had announced in print, and that policy was by means of Obstruction to force the Government into a Dissolution. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not think that the noble Lord was supported in that policy by many hon. Gentlemen opposite. There might be some vague and general notion amongst them that he was doing good; but when it came to coming down to that House day after day, they preferred hunting the foxes. What struck him as remarkable was that, after all the wondrous professions of hon. Gentlemen opposite as to what they were going to do, and as to the terrible effects upon the Constitution of the passing of these Resolutions, they could not muster a larger number of Members than they had done the last two nights. Look at the Benches opposite. The Front Opposition Bench was full; but on the Benches behind there were about eight, nine, or ten Members. That was the whole Conservative minority who rallied there from their field sports to defend the Constitution against the inroads of the Prime Minister. The noble Lord had complained of the Prime Minister making his statement at dinner-time, when the House was comparatively empty. But whose fault was that? Why, the noble Lord's, who kept them till then discussing some idle Amendment of his own notoriously brought forward for the purpose of Obstruction.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Did you vote for that Amendment?

MR. LABOUCHERE

said he did. But why did he vote for it? Hon. Members opposite seemed to think that walking into the Lobby with them was Obstruction. He thought that the matter was very much between tweedledum and tweedledee, and he gave the noble Lord the benefit of the tweedledee, and voted with him. But he should have infinitely preferred that the noble Lord had withdrawn his Amendment, and allowed the Prime Minister to state his intentions with regard to the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Hon. Gentlemen opposite expected the Radicals to go into the same Lobby with them, in order to turn out the Liberals; but they had not the choice between a root-and-branch Radical Ministry and the present Government. It was Hobson's choice between the present Government and the Conservatives, and of the two he infinitely preferred the present Government. With regard to the Amendment, he thought that 40 was a reasonable number. He was at first rather in favour of inserting in the Rule 20 Members; but the Prime Minister's speech had convinced him that the larger number would be better. The noble Lord taunted hon. Members on the Liberal side with being abject slaves. Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House were there to support a Liberal Ministry, but not to support them slavishly. If the Government proposed anything which they disapproved, they would at once oppose it. It was only because they were satisfied with Her Majesty's present Advisers that they, to a great extent, kept silent, and voted in the main with them; and ho protested against the noble Lord and other hon. Members opposite perpetually jeering at Radical Members for their support of a Liberal Ministry. The noble Lord had spoken of the Conservatives being more docile than the Liberals, and yet how many Conservatives was the noble Lord able to rally? Why, three, and one unattached. That Party of three could not make up their minds as to who was their Leader. To say that the Tory Party generally were not as docile as sheep was absolutely to ignore history.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he thought that the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Labouchere), however amusing they might be, did not help to elucidate the question under discussion. The House was now about to incur very serious risks, in substituting for a privilege of a private Member, which, no doubt, might sometimes be abused, something which might involve great evil. He did not wish to defend any abuse; but when an individual Member stood up to exercise that privilege, he did it under a heavy sense of responsibility, and with the liability of being called to account if he abused it; but when he secured the countenance of 40 Members, he would feel that responsibility diminished. But now it was proposed by a deliberate Resolution of the House that a minority of 40 Members should be permitted to fly in the face of the settled order of Business. That would be an inducement to private Members to band themselves together for the purpose of substituting for the Orders of the Day on any night, any subject of discussion in which they were interested. It would be a mistake to give to 40 Members who might be united, for instance, on the subject of Sunday Closing, Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, or any similar question, the power of substituting for the Orders of the Day a Motion which they might think of more importance. He did not regard the words suggested by the Prime Minister as placing any effectual check upon such an objectionable and dangerous proceeding. That particular Amendment was, he thought, a most unfortunate one, and the Government would do well to be satisfied with the limitation already determined by the common sense of the House, and not to take the further step that had been indicated, and which he feared would lead to considerable confusion and difficulty.

MR. GEORGE RUSSELL

said, that, in this matter, he was thankful for any concession they had got from the Government, and was not disposed to criticize too closely the compromise which they had offered; but he confessed that he regarded that Resolution with much more jealousy and suspicion than any other of the Resolutions submitted to them by the Government. He was exceedingly reluctant to see the House part with the power of moving the adjournment, even during Question time. No doubt, it was often exercised without sufficient grounds; yet during the present Parliament it had been sometimes used with the most salutary effect. But, in the last Parliament, the absence of that power would have landed the then Opposition in serious difficulties, because several sudden crises arose in which instantaneous action was necessary; and, in such circumstances, the right of moving the adjournment was found useful. Looking forward, moreover, to the time when those who now occupied the Ministerial Benches would again sit opposite, he thought it might prove to be a suicidal act to part now with the power which was so valuable, though, no doubt, one capable of being abused. The position of the Prime Minister was very different from that of any ordinary Member. No one would refuse him a hearing if he desired it; but a less distinguished Member of the House, if he were to depend upon the whim of the majority for a hearing, might fare ill. Of course, there was no sanctity in the number 40—indeed, he (Mr. George Russell) would prefer a lower one. Why, for instance, should not the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) muster his supporters and move the adjournment sometimes? It might be inconvenient to English Members; but there were times when it might be necessary for Irishmen to call immediate attention to some question or other, and their need was all the greater, since they were not governed from their own country.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

pointed out that the whole weight of the Amendment, as now framed, fell upon the words requiring the leave of the House. The position of an hon. Member would be very different under the Resolution from what it had been previously. At present the Motion was a matter of right, while in future the framework would rest upon the leave of the House. That matter was entirely excluded by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and for that reason he preferred that proposal, which, in his opinion, was simpler than the Resolution now put forward by Her Majesty's Government. He had a further objection to make. It was a very great pity that if the change was to be made at all the House was not informed of it yesterday. If the Government came to their final decision on the subject then, why did they not place it on the Paper last night? It was a mystery to him why such a simple expedient was neglected, the result of which was that the words were read out in a thin House at the dinner-hour, and many hon. Members who had gone away would find to-morrow that the Amendment had been carried without their having been present at the discussion. After all, the Government would not greatly gain by the words and might very well have refused to admit them. In the main, the Resolution, as amended, would carry out the object he had in view; and though he objected very strongly to the provision with respect to leave, yet he did not wish, by pursuing a shadow, to lose the substance.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not quite understand how the right hon. Gentleman was going to vote upon the Question before the House. The Question to be put would be the retaining of the word "except;" practically, however, that would mean "except by leave of the House."

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

What I said was that it was a pity that the Government had introduced the question of asking leave; but I added that, on the whole, I would rather accept the substance than grasp at the shadow.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he did not think it would be asking leave at all. Supposing the words were struck out, he could not imagine many cases in which 40 Members would not be ready to rise in their places if required. He should vote for retaining the words proposed to be omitted. He was exceedingly glad, however, that the Government were willing to introduce modifications into this Resolution. He did not think that this was a matter that should be decided by a bare majority; and he should be prepared, even from his own past experience, to uphold the right of a small minority, and especially of an Irish minority, to bring before the House questions which they might deem of importance. If there was any reasonable ground for their bringing such questions before the House, he was sure that they would find plenty of Members willing to assist them in doing so. Those who now sat on the Ministerial side of the House must look forward to the time when they would not be supporting a Government, and when it might happen that a Government was in Office whom they might believe was injuring the country, and in whom they might believe no confidence ought to be placed, and who was about to place the country in a perilous position, either abroad or at home. In such a case it might be most necessary to bring the facts before the public eye without delay, and this could not be done so effectually in any other way as by making a Motion for Adjournment. He was glad, therefore, that the Government had consented to place this power in the hands of a certain number of Members rather than in those of the majority or of the Government of the day. He had learned from the usual sources of information that last night the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock attributed the outcry about the abuse of moving adjournments very much to his (Mr. Forster's) action when holding the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. He said that a soft answer might have turned away wrath, and that he (Mr. Forster) had endeavoured deliberately to provoke the Irish Members. If hon. Members referred back to the state of things that existed last year, they would come to the conclusion that the wrath was such that no soft answer would have turned it away. Nothing could have been more absurdly foolish than it would have been on his part to deliberately provoke the Irish Members. If there was any provocation at all, it was not by him. The real fact was, that he had a very hard business to carry on inside that House and out of it with Gentlemen who thought that they ought to put their own notions of right and wrong and their "unwritten law" in the place of the law of the land. But, looking back, he did not see what he could have said that he did not say with more desire not to provoke the Irish Members, and to be as courteous to them as possible under the circumstances. His experience of what had happened last year was not that it had the effect of getting rid of Motions for Adjournment. He himself thought he had not in his position abused the great power intrusted to him. But, supposing for a moment that he had done so, he admitted the Irish Members would have been justified in making use of all the Forms of the House; and it would have been dangerous for them and the House if they had lost the power of exposing any abuse by him of his powers. Some of those Motions for Adjournment, he thought, were obstructive and frivolous, but a few of them were natural. It must be remembered that the very condition of the Prevention of Crime Act, which was passed by an enormous majority, was that the reason of the arrests made under it should not be given to the House; but he could not expect the Irish Members to accept that. They very naturally demanded those reasons, and he was, therefore, not surprised at some of their Motions for Adjournment. He trusted the result of this discussion would be that the House would pass a Resolution to prevent the abuse of the privilege, and that they would find that 40 Members rising in their places constituted a sufficient limitation. If in the working of this plan it was found that the abuse still existed, the number could be increased.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) seemed to misunderstand the effect of the words as to leave being given to a Member. They were not words that more limited the power of moving the adjournment than their omission would have done. The object of the form of the Resolution was to allow the adjournment without 40 Members rising. No one would object to the adjournment being made if no one rose to object, and that was the effect of the words.

MR. SYNAN

approved the retention of the words "except by leave of the House," after the interpretation put upon them by the Home Secretary.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

complained that they were in a state of mental confusion. Many hon. Members did not know what Amendment was before the House. The Prime Minister had alluded to the painful occurrences of Monday night, and said that the blame for what had taken place should be put upon him. The Home Secretary, however, was, in his opinion, the person to be blamed. He objected to the proposals of the Government, because they were destructive of individualism.

Question, "That the word 'except' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he had an Amendment which stood before that of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. The Speaker had given it a place on the Paper, and was it not irregular that it should have been removed without his consent?

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton came after the word "except," while the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Baronet came after the following words.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

moved, in line 3, after the word "except," to insert the words "by a Member who is also a Member of Her Majesty's Privy Council." There was not a single case in which a Privy Councillor was known to have abused the power of moving the adjournment. The intention of the Rules then under consideration was to strike at individual disorder. If they could put their fingers upon any class of Members who were innocent, then those Members should be relieved from the severity of a penal law which might be injurious in its effect, not only to them, but to the conduct of Business of the House. There was no greater mistake than to suppose that everyone in that House was equal. On the contrary, Privy Councillors were invariably called upon to speak before other Members; greater licence was allowed to the Ministers, and to Members in charge of a Bill, than to others. Degrees and differences were on all hands recognized between Member and Member. The exception he proposed was in accordence with the practice and the traditions of the House.

MR. SPEAKER

asked if anyone seconded the Amendment?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I will second it.

Amendment proposed, In line 3, after the word "except," to insert the words "by a Member who is also a Member of Her Majesty's Privy Council."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Amendment did not require and did not admit of any argument. To state it was to condemn it. He believed the House would almost unanimously object to making any distinction between Privy Councillors and other Members in such a matter.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. GORST

moved, in line 3, after the word "except," to insert the words "in accordance with the evident sense of the House, or," arguing that these words were to be preferred to "by leave of the House." He said, his object was that any hon. Member should be allowed to move the adjournment in case no objection was made by another Member. How, otherwise, could a Member ask the leave of the House, or show that his demand was equitable?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In line 3, after the word "except," to insert the words "in accordance with the evident sense of the House, or."—(Mr. Gorst.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the words "leave of the House" were used in the sense which attached to the phrase in accordance with Parliamentary usage. It was a very common Parliamentary phrase which was thoroughly understood, and it meant the unanimous sense of the House and nothing else. When, for example, a Member was allowed to speak a second time, it must be by "leave of the House." And he could not do so if anyone objected. This was the true sense of the words. All, then, that the Government meant by them was that if a Member moved the adjournment and nobody objected to the Motion, it would be allowed, and no further trouble would be given; but if anybody objected, it would be necessary that 40 Members should support him.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'by leave of the House' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the words 'the granting of such leave, if disputed, being determined upon Question put forthwith; but no Division shall be taken thereupon' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, In line 5, before the word "unless," to insert the words "unless a Member rising in his place shall request leave to move the Adjournment for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and not less than forty Members shall thereupon rise in their places to support the Motion."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, To leave out the words "request leave to move," in order to insert the words "announce his intention of moving,"—(Lord George Hamilton,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'request leave to move,' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

MR. GLADSTONE

said, it would be impossible for the Government to accede to the words proposed by the noble Lord, because when a person announced his intention of doing a thing, that implied that it was a thing which it was competent for him to do; whereas it was not competent for him to move the adjournment unless he got the support of 40 Members. For his own part, he saw no ambiguity in the words "request leave;" but if the noble Lord had any difficulty on the subject, he might move to substitute for them the word "proposed."

Amendment to the said proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "request leave," and inserting the word "propose,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—instead thereof.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, To leave out the words "for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

The House divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 86: Majority 60.—(Div. List, No. 367.)

MR. SHEIL

next moved to substitute the word "fifteen" for the word "forty," in order that Motions for the adjournment of the House might be made on the demand of 15 Members. His object was to protect small minorities, and especially the Irish Members, none of whose sections could muster the requisite number of 40.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out "forty," in order to insert "fifteen,"—(Mr. Sheil,)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That 'forty' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."

MR. GLADSTONE

I have had the opportunity of explaining very fully my views on this question in a former part of the evening, and I should not be justified in going into any lengthened details now. I will simply endeavour to point out that the necessity which the hon. Gentleman imagines is, in the first place, a limited necessity; and, in the second place, only a supposed necessity, so made, not because it is reasonable for the ordinary Business of the House that any number of Members should have the power of occupying the time of the House contrary to the Rule, but in order to meet the necessities of the Irish Members. Now, considering that Ireland has more than 100 Members, it does seem, under the circumstances of the case, not outrageous that 40 of them should be united in agreeing with a Motion for discussing a question of importance to Ireland; but I admit that the Irish Members are divided amongst themselves; and I will go further and admit that not only a minority of the House, but that a minority of the Irish Members, is not without a decided claim to the consideration of the House. It has been justly said by the late Home Secretary (Mr. R. Assheton Cross), and also by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Home Secretary and by other hon. Members, that it is, indeed, an extraordinary case if the Irish Members, constituting that minority, and numbering between 30 and 40 themselves, and having an equitable cause for moving the adjournment of the House, cannot find out of the 300 or 400 men, who may happen to be in the House at the time, some eight or ten hon. Members who would assist them in bringing a Motion forward. Therefore, I think I am justified in stating, not only that the hon. Gentleman has founded his case upon a limited necessity, but upon that which is only a supposed necessity. And now let the hon. Gentleman look at the greatness of what he asks for. He has put on his political eyesight to enable him to look at the practice, and the practice is the practice of himself and a limited portion of his Friends who sit around him; but we must provide for the Business of the House. He requires us to leave the entire Business of the House at the mercy of 15 Gentlemen to meet the wants and supposed wants of one portion of the House only. We have had great responsibility thrown upon us in consequence of the incapacity of the House through its Committees to deal with this subject. We have tried to do our best. We have in the Resolution departed materially and largely from our own views in order to meet what we thought was the "evident sense of the House." A considerable proportion of hon. Gentlemen felt with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) in the Amendment he submitted to the House. We had a Motion also of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) declaring, no doubt, the sense of the other side of the House. Both of those propositions agreed upon the number of 40 Members. To that number we have acceded. To go below that number, to allow and tolerate and encourage such invasions of Business as we have witnessed, we cannot be responsible for, and, therefore, we must adhere to the Motion as its stands, and beg the hon. Gentleman to believe that he will, even if a large number of the House are hard-hearted enough to refuse a Motion, never fail to find sympathizers with the cause of justice and with the weakness of the few. Never!

MR. PARNELL

said, he had to thank the Prime Minister for the very excellent lesson he had just given to the Irish constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out very fairly that the Irish Members in the House of Commons were far from being united amongst themselves, and he had also pointed out somewhat justly that it was not unreasonable to expect the Representatives of a country having the right of sending 103 Members to Parliament, able to secure that a body of 40 Members should act together when they desired that the attention of the House should be brought to a distinct matter of urgent public importance relating to Ireland. That was undoubtedly so; but he thought his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Meath (Mr. Sheil) might be pardoned for having approached the question from the point of view of the hon. Members or Party with whom he acted. It would be so if the Irish constituencies had the power under the Resolution of the Prime Minister, as amended—if they could send 40 Members to the House, and maintain those 40 Members in the House, and secure their constant presence in the House, then, undoubtedly, by the Resolution of the Prime Minister, the Irish constituencies would have it in their power to secure that a discussion might be originated at any time upon a definite matter of urgent public importance to Ireland. And he thought that a discussion having been thus originated would be a discussion of a far more useful and practical character than the majority of the discussions now regulated by ordinary Motions for the adjournment of the House at Question time. But, at the same time, the Irish Members were so situated in the House that with their present number they could not hope, unless they were aided by other hon. Members—and he anticipated that upon some occasions they might obtain aid for suitable Motions for Adjournment—to gain this right of moving the adjournment of the House. Therefore, they were giving up a great right when they gave up the right of moving the adjournment of the House at Question time. As had been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. W. E. Forster), they had on many occasions exercised the right with justice and reasonableness. It was, therefore, not unreasonable that his hon. Friend (Mr. Sheil) should seek an amendment of the Resolution in such a way as would enable the Irish Members to be independent of the casual assistance which might be offered to them by English Members of the House, or by Irish Members who might sit on the opposite Benches. But comparing the Resolution as it now stood with the manner in which it originally stood, it did possess some elements of value, or would possess elements of value after the next General Election. In sitting down, he only wished to impress on the Irish constituencies the importance of the lesson which the Prime Minister had so excellently read to them that evening when he pointed out that it would always be in the power of Ireland, by returning 40 Members to sit on those Benches, to obtain a discussion at a proper time for any Irish question of urgent public importance.

MR. ONSLOW

wished to point out to the Prime Minister that this limited number of 15 Members, proposed by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr.Sheil),would not only affect matters connected with Ireland, but also matters relating to the Colonies and India. He (Mr. Onslow) was one of those who intended to vote for the number of 15 proposed by the hon. Member. He thought it rather a small number; but he could not vote for so large a number as 40. Forty were, in his opinion, much too many; but he thought they might come to some intermediate number. He asked the Prime Minister to take into consideration the apathy which was generally displayed on both sides, whatever Government was in power, in regard to Indian and Colonial matters. Indeed, it was almost impossible to get a reasonable attendance in the House when the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) made a speech on the Indian Budget, or on other matters affecting the welfare of India. It was almost impossible on such occasions, if any Member desired to move the adjournment of the House, to induce 40 Mem- bers to attend and support him. H he looked upon the question merely as an Irish one, he certainly should not support the Amendment. He agreed with the Prime Minister when the right hon. Gentleman said that they must frame these Rules, bad as they thought them to be, for the whole House, and not for any single section of the House; but he wished to point out to the House and to the Prime Minister that the question now at issue affected other interests besides those of Ireland, and in connection with which it would be impossible to get 40 Members to support a Motion for the adjournment of the House. He had never himself moved the adjournment of the House upon any matter. He saw the Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett) sitting in his place, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would bear him out when he said that upon Indian subjects, on which the right hon. Gentleman had taken so much interest and had obtained so much credit, not only in this country but in India, it was a matter of primary necessity, on many occasions, that the House should have some explicit views connected with Indian policy announced by Her Majesty's Government. At the present time it was almost impossible to get a discussion upon Indian subjects or upon subjects connected with the Colonies, and he therefore hoped that this Rule would not be limited by requiring the number of 40 to support a Motion for the adjournment of the House on matters which affected the Empire generally. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) had defended his own conduct in the last Session. Now, he (Mr. Onslow) was one of those who had endeavoured humbly to support the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland in every possible way, and he should be sorry if his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) had cast any aspersion upon the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman last Session. They all knew the great trials the right hon. Gentleman had to go through; how, night after night, he was badgered by the Irish Members, and everyone had admired the pluck and resolution the right hon. Gentleman had displayed. It appeared to him (Mr. Onslow) that it was not owing to any fault on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that these Motions for the adjournment of the House were so constantly made. Whoever had been the Chief Secretary for Ireland at that time would have teen subjected to the same Motions for Adjournment. He had merely said this in defence of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but he looked upon this question not only as an Irish Question, but as one affecting the whole House; and he trusted that after due consideration the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would agree to some smaller number than 40. He did not think there would be any difficulty in inducing the Front Bench on the Opposition side of the House to agree to such a proposition if it came from the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. DALY

trusted that the Prime Minister would consent to waive his opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil). If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the observations made by his former Colleague, the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Forster)—and he (Mr. Daly) sincerely hoped those observations would be reported at length, and not only go to Ireland, but all over the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, because he had never heard, since he came into the House, a better justification of the policy of the Irish Party than the language used by the right hon. Gentleman that evening—if the right hon. Gentleman had listened to those observations, he might be induced to alter the views he had expressed. The late Chief Secretary had admitted that many of the Motions which had been made for the adjournment of the House by the Irish Members, while he held the position of Chief Secretary, were perfectly justifiable. He (Mr. Daly), and those who sat on these Benches, had simply embarked on a course which had been improperly designated as Obstruction, because it was patent to them that the answers given to numerous Questions put to the late Chief Secretary for Ireland were bad, coming from bad sources of information. He was one of those who, from his experience of the late Chief Secretary, would never say a word disrespectful of his purpose. He believed that the great fault of the right hon. Gentleman's government of Ireland was that he went to one source of information, and to one source only. [Cries of "Question!"] He believed that he was strictly speak- ing to the Question; and it was rather early for hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House to attempt to exercise the clôture. He was speaking to the Question, because he was referring to observations which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman, who was not alone eminent for his abilities, but remarkable, also, for having held a distinguished position in connection with Ireland. There were many Motions for the adjournment of the House made during the last Session, and they were made for this reason, and this reason only—that the answers given to Questions were notoriously inaccurate. He held it to be an important fact that the justice of those Motions had now been admitted by the right hon. Gentleman himself. When Questions were asked of the late Chief Secretary, the answers were sent to him from Dublin Castle, and those answers were, as a rule, evasions of the facts; and the bald facts of the Questions, taken together with the bald facts of the answers, amounted almost to a misrepresentation, and no true estimate of the reasons why the Questions were asked could be formed. There was this difference between Irish and English Questions, that in this country they had, through the length and breadth of the land, important organs of public opinion, and if it was seen that the Home Secretary had been asked a Question affecting the lives and liberties of the English people, and that he had not given a candid and straightforward answer, it was indisputable that the morning prints would very soon bring the public about his ears, and cause his dismissal from Office. He (Mr. Daly) had formed his own opinion upon these matters, and this was his opinion. He believed that all the mistake arose from not having made a clean sweep of Dublin Castle, and obtaining information from proper sources. The House had heard from the Prime Minister that this Amendment would not press unduly on the Irish Members. Let them look for a moment at the position of the Irish Members in the House. What was the effect if it was desired to introduce an Irish question? There were two ways in which they could obtain a discussion. The first was by leave of the House; but he did not believe, from his experience of the House, that while it was in the power of hon. Gentlemen opposite to call out "Divide, divide!" such a concession would be readily made; and if there was a single dissentient a Motion for Adjournment would be prevented. Not one, but 50 hon. Members would be always ready to stop an Irish debate. Then they had another alternative, and that was to make a Motion for Adjournment, in the hope that their demand would be supported by 40 Members. It must be remembered that they were only a small minority in the House. They were told by the Prime Minister that they would have no difficulty, if their cause was a good one, in getting the aid of five or six or a dozen English Members; but he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman did not make any allowance for the prejudices which rankled in the minds of Members of the House against the Irish Representatives. If they were to ask for the adjournment of the House to-morrow, and assign a just cause for their desire to discuss a matter of the very highest importance to Ireland, what chance would they have of obtaining such supplement of English Members as would make up 40 Members, even including the whole Irish Party? He contended that these Resolutions would press unduly and unjustly on the Party with whom he acted; and he held, also, that it was a most curious corrollary upon the entire proposals for clôture that the late Chief Secretary for Ireland should that evening have announced that, although the reason for imposing the clôture was that the Government wanted to muzzle the Irish Members, the Irish Members had been fully justified during the last Session in the Motions for the adjournment of the House which they had moved.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I am sure the House is not going to allow the question to become a personal one with regard to myself; but, after the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Daly), I feel bound to make one or two observations. I have now been a long time in this House, and ever since I have had a seat here I have endeavoured to be candid. Although I have, when speaking, as I think, with fairness and candour, been now and then misunderstood, I shall go on taking that line as long as I retain a seat in this House. The hon. Member who has just spoken has spoken with great candour with regard to myself, and I do not object to what he has said; but as he has said that the few remarks I have made ought to go through the length and breadth of Ireland, I should like it to be understood what I did say. I do not admit, for a moment, that all the Motions for Adjournment, or even the Motions for Adjournment generally made by hon. Members from Ireland were justifiable; but I make an exception of two or three Motions, and perhaps most important Motions. What I had in my mind were such Motions as that relating to the arrest of Father Sheehy. I stated, and I repeat, that if any Irish Member, after this Rule is passed, were to make a Motion for the adjournment of the House in such a case as that, he would probably find himself—indeed, he would almost certainly find himself—supported by a considerable number of Members, not that after the discussion had taken place the majority, or even a large minority, of the House would consider that sufficient ground for it had been shown, but they would be of opinion that a case was shown for putting the Minister upon his defence and requiring him to give his reasons for the action he had taken, or, at any rate, requiring him to state that there were reasons of high State policy which prevented him from giving an explanation of his acts. That was all I meant to state, and it must not be supposed that I think that the action of the Irish Government, last Session, was unjustifiable. [Mr. DALY: It was in many cases.] All I said was that I was not surprised at some of those Motions having been made. But I may add that many of the Motions brought forward were as completely Obstructive as any Motions possibly could be, and they were made at a time when the House was anxious to get on with other Business. Indeed, they were Motions of such a character that it seemed absolutely necessary that some steps should be taken by the House to prevent a recurrence of such proceedings. I think that step is now being taken, and that, with certain limitations, it is most desirable it should be taken.

MR. SEXTON

said, that considering the relations which prevailed between the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House and the Irish Members who sat on these Benches, it would have been strange if the right hon. Gentleman had given such unequivocal testimony in their favour as had been attributed to him by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Daly). But, limited as the right hon. Gentleman's testimony had been by the explanation which had been given of it in the last few moments, it was remarkable evidence. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that the Motions moved from the Irish Benches were always justifiable; but the general tone of his remarks had been to import the character of justifiableness to them. The right hon. Gentleman said he had intended in his remarks to refer to certain Motions for the Adjournment of the House which had been made. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind one case in which it had fallen to his (Mr. Sexton's) lot to move the adjournment of the House. In a few words he would relate the circumstances which induced him to make such Motion. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members need not be impatient; he would be able to relate the circumstances in four or five sentences. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster), on the occasion to which he was referring, if it was true that a certain County Inspector in Ireland had issued to the police under him a Circular inviting them, when guarding Mr. Clifford Lloyd, to murder those whom they might suspect of contemplating an attack upon that gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Clifford Lloyd knew nothing of the Circular; whereupon he (Mr. Sexton) asked if the right hon. Gentleman had any knowledge of such a Circular having been issued, not by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, but by County Inspector Smith? The right hon. Gentleman thereupon rose a second time, and said he believed that a Circular of the kind had been issued in another county, the county of Clare, but he did not know much about it, and he asked that the Question should be postponed till another day. But he (Mr. Sexton) knew that the matter was urgent, and, declining to put the Question off till a future day, he moved the adjournment of the House.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to me to say that I do not admit the accuracy of his version of the facts?

MR. SEXTON

said, it was not necessary for his purpose that the right hon. Gentleman should admit the accuracy of his version of the facts. He (Mr. Sexton) was perfectly satisfied with the correctness of it, and that was enough for him. He having moved the adjournment of the House, and having shocked the House with the language of the Circular, the right hon. Gentleman rose and drew from his pocket the Circular of County Inspector Smith itself. Now, that Motion for the Adjournment of the House, the discussion upon which was the longest which took place during the Session, lasting from an early hour in the evening until the dinner hour, had the salutary effect of causing the instant withdrawal of the Circular, which, if it had remained in force, would undoubtedly have caused the loss of life. It was not to be supposed that Irish Members were in the habit of grossly abusing the practice of moving the adjournment of the House. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), who spoke some time ago, gave a detailed account of the Motions for Adjournment which had been made during the present Parliament; and the hon. Member for Edinburgh was obliged to confess that Irish Members had only made two Motions for the Adjournment during the last Session on which there had been any considerable waste of time. One of those Motions was the one to which he (Mr. Sexton) had just referred, and the other was a Motion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), who usually knew what he was talking about, and never troubled the House with an empty speech. If no other charge could be brought against them than that they had consumed two or three hours of the Session upon matters of public importance connected with Ireland, then he contended that the Irish Party stood abundantly vindicated. It must not be forgotten that for a considerable part of last Session Ireland was living under two Coercion Acts, which were working simultaneously; that there were 600 or 700 men in gaol without any knowledge of the offence they had committed, without being confronted with their accusers, and that bodies of Constabulary all over the country were engaged in harassing the people. Could there be a more remarkable testimony to the self-control and self-denial of the Irish people than that for an entire period of six months, with the unlimited right of moving adjournments, they only did so on two occasions to such an extent as to cause annoyance or inconvenience to Public Business? He warned the House that the effect of this Resolution would be exceedingly evil, so far as the people of Ireland were concerned, for they well knew the difference which existed between English and Irish questions. An English Member had a dozen Ministers to appeal to—a dozen Ministers with subordinates at hand to procure satisfactory information for them. The English people had full opportunity of testing the accuracy and truthfulness of the replies given to the Questions put by English Members; and English officials had no interest or desire to act unjustly towards the English people at large, or to give untrue answers in regard to matters which concerned the public interests. But how was it with regard to Ireland? He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. Gentleman knew, when he was in Office, and was seated on the Treasury Bench, what a business he had to manage. He had often in front of him a considerable pile of papers, containing the materials from which he had to frame his answers to the Questions put to him. He was obliged to receive every day, at his Office in Fleet Street, replies from Dublin Castle and the various Offices which converged upon Dublin Castle. What opportunity had he of testing the accuracy of the answers he was required to give? He was obliged, with a honesty which brought him to political ruin, to repose confidence in his advisers at Dublin. It was the right which every Irish Member possessed of moving the adjournment of the House which gave them a sort of check upon the inferior officers. Every Government clerk, every constable, every Commissioner, every petty magistrate knew, when he sent the right hon. Gentleman a lying answer, that it was open to the Irish Members to move the adjournment of the House, and that certain exposure lay before him. But what would be the fact now? Every official perverter of the truth from Cape Clear to the Giant's Causeway would feel that the Prime Minister had fixed the figure on which alone the demand of the right to move the adjournment of the House should be made, as if it had been mathematically designed to exclude the Irish Party. What would every clerk and every constable in Ireland say now? He would say—"The Government do not wish us to be pestered about these Questions, and we may give any misleading reply we please, so as to hoodwink these troublesome Irish patriots who have been so much censured by the Home Secretary and other Members of the Government. The Irish Party will not be able to get the necessary 40 Members to support them in moving the adjournment of the House; the matter will be left upon our bare statements, and we are safe for ever." That in Ireland would be the healthy effect of this Rule. He regarded the right of interrogating Ministers in that House as the most valuable right which the Irish Members possessed, far better than bringing in a Bill or making a Motion, because unless they obtained the assent of the Ministry to their Bill or Motion, it was so much waste paper and so much empty wind. But if an Irish Member put a Question, the answer was given at present under the salutary check of the possibility of a Motion for the Adjournment of the House being moved. The Irish people were fully aware that upon all Irish questions the Government were able to outvote them, and now they would know that the curriculum was rendered complete by depriving them of the right of moving the adjournment of the House in the hope of obtaining an effective answer to their Questions. In such circumstances, he left it to the House to imagine what, to the keen minds of the Irish people, would be the pretence they made of rendering the political rights of the two nations equal.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made out a case in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil) which called for a reply from the Treasury Bench. He supported it himself on the ground of the inconvenience, and even evil, which attached to all attempts to infringe the Privileges of the House. With that intimation he would leave the Amendment. He had risen for the purpose of asking the Prime Minister two questions. In the first place, owing, perhaps, to the fact that the House had not the words before them on the Paper, ho did not quite see how the Resolution, as amended by the Prime Minister, would work. He did not understand what was to be the course taken by an hon. Member in moving the adjournment of the House. Suppose an hon. Member got up after a Question had been answered, and said—"I propose to move the adjournment of the House," he should like to know if it would then b9 for the Speaker to call upon any 40 Members to rise in their places and say that they supported the Motion? Would that be the course pursued; or would the hon. Gentleman, after proposing the adjournment of the House, be able to introduce the subject upon which he wished to call the attention of the House? Would he be able to state it in order to show that it was a matter of urgent public importance? Even then it would be a very indefinite matter; but he wanted to know if an hon. Member was to be allowed, under the Resolution of the Prime Minister, to state to the House his reasons for moving the adjournment before he was interrupted by the Speaker inquiring whether 40 Members supported the Motion? He thought there was some importance in that view of the matter, and the House ought to know what view the Government placed upon the probable working of their own Resolution. Another question he wished to ask had reference to something which the Prime Minister had said himself when he was making his statement in regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The right hon. Gentleman had used an expression which he (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not quite catch at the time, and what he did catch he did not altogether understand. He thought the right hon. Gentleman alluded to some further power, or protection, or privilege, which might be afforded to smaller minorities than 40 who were anxious to bring subjects of urgent importance before the House. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that that would be a matter for subsequent consideration. It might influence the course taken by hon. Members in regard to the Amendment if the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation of that expression. Hon. Members on that side of the House hoped that the Government would consider the propriety of affording some additional protection for smaller minorities than 40. He hoped the Prime Minister would find it in his power to give some reply to that question.

MR. GLADSTONE

I do not think I am entitled to address the House again upon the first question put to me by the noble Lord, nor can I, as to the point involved in the question, speak with authority. With regard to the second question, however, it involves a personal explanation of what it was that I did say. I will only repeat that, as we framed the Resolution, it was based on the agreement of the majority of the House, and a decision by the majority of the House. We consented, in conformity with the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), to substitute for an appeal to that majority of the House, a provision in which a certain number of Members would be entitled absolutely and unconditionally to authorize the Motion for the Adjournment. In agreeing to that substitution, I said that I left it quite open to Members to raise, if they thought fit, a further question about an appeal to the majority of the House, which evidently would not require so large a quorum. The Government having accepted the substitution of the principle involved in the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, left it open to Members to suggest any further limitation if there was a general desire on the part of the House.

MR. MACIVER

said, the House had evidently reached an Amendment of a most important character, and if the Government had another night for its consideration they might probably be able to so modify their proposal that it would meet with general acceptance. He gathered that there was no desire on either side of the House to prevent these Motions being made when matters of urgent public importance demanded that they should be made. There ought to be no wish to frame the Resolution in such a way that it would exclude the Irish Members from bringing forward real grievances. Minorities—even small minorities—were not necessarily wrong; and he would remind the House that, although not in immediate connection with this matter, the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) gave as the result of his long Parliamentary experience that the House of Commons was always most unanimous on subjects which it did not understand. Small minorities, even smaller than 15, might often be in a position to raise a very important issue, relating to matters which, although some few of them understood perfectly, the House would not until the subject was explained. As regards hon. Members from Ireland, he (Mr. Mac Iver) thought that, on looking back, there were many who would now be inclined to agree with him in believing that these hon. Members were right sometimes—even on occasions when the great majority of the House was against them. These Gentlemen, at all events, were not that Party in the House least entitled to respect. They were straightforward and cared neither for Whigs nor Tories. They did not angle for votes in ambiguous language that was intended to be understood in different ways. That was more than could be said for right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He would not formally move the adjournment of the debate; but he certainly thought that the progress of Business would be advanced if the Government would reconsider the terms of the Resolution.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, it was quite evident that the Amendment which the Prime Minister had accepted and the Prime Minister's present Resolution were aimed at the Irish Party in that House, and at the Irish Party alone. It was no real limitation of the power of either the Liberal or Conservative Members to move the adjournment of the House on any important question which necessitated their receiving support from 39 other Members of their Party. It was no real limitation or restriction whatsoever, because any Member with any weight with his Party could readily get 39 Colleagues to back him up; but the Prime Minister, who was continually asking the support of the Irish Party and asking the Irish Party to put trust in his good intentions towards Ireland, was now pressing through the House, provided he was not induced on second considerations to alter his intention, a Resolution that was intended to muzzle the Irish Party, and the Irish Party alone. A most important point had been raised in addition by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)—namely, whether a Member, in bringing forward a question and declaring his intention of moving the adjournment of the House having regard to important and urgent Public Business, was to be allowed an opportunity of stating briefly to the House the reasons which induced him to think that an adjournment was demanded by grave motives of public utility. That was a question of the very utmost importance, no matter what the quorum might be; and he certainly thought the Resolution ought not to be passed in any form without its being clearly and unmistakably laid down, whether the Member proposing to move the adjournment of the House was merely to be allowed to say, "I move the adjournment of the House for grave public reasons," or whether he was to be allowed to state some, at least, of the reasons on which he asked for leave to move the adjournment in order to raise a debate upon the subject. To come to the initial point, this was a most unfair—he did not wish to say a most perfidious—attack upon the liberty of the Representatives of Irish constituencies. What was the number of 40 in comparison to the strength of the English Parties? The number proposed was but a mere fraction of an ordinary English Party of, say, 250. But the Prime Minister had so constructed it that it should be equal to the strongest force of the Irish Party that could be assembled by the most urgent Whip. The right hon. Gentleman meant to single out the Irish Party for a special disqualification, and to place them below the level of all other Parties in the House. It was mere affectation to say that on Irish questions, whose gravity was perhaps known only to a small knot of Irish Members, Irish Members could recruit their number sufficiently from the English or Scotch Representatives to the strength necessary to form a quorum. Were they not familiar with the treatment English Members of both Parties received when they showed themselves at all forward in supporting the Motions of Irish Members? If they belonged to the Liberal Party, they were denounced by the Press as persons throwing obstacles in the way of Her Majesty's Government; and if it happened to be a fair-minded Conservative who lent aid to the Irish Party, he was also denounced as lending aid to Obstruction. The Resolution, if passed in its present form, would inflict a grave injustice upon a poor and, in comparison with the English, a disfranchised nation. English Members were elected by popular suffrage, while Irish Members were returned upon electoral qualifications designed to exclude the masses of the people from the franchise; and yet, forsooth! they were to be tried by this artificial standard, and while English Parties were only called upon to produce one-sixth of their number in order to justify the demand for adjournment on the least urgent questions, the Irish Party were asked to produce even more than their extraordinary total for the purpose of supporting a demand for inquiry in matters of extreme importance. He said that the Resolution in its present shape was a mockery, and that the passing of it would supply the Irish nation with another reason for being dissatisfied until they were completely separated from the control of the English Parliament.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, there was some doubt, arising from the wording of the Rule, as to the course to be pursued by a Member wishing to move the adjournment of the House. An hon. Member, under those circumstances, would require the support of 40 Members; and he asked whether he would be allowed to draw attention to the nature of the question he wished to lay before the House, or whether he would simply be allowed to state the object he had in view?

MR. SPEAKER

An hon. Member desirous of moving the adjournment of the House will be bound to state the subject-matter proposed to be brought under the notice of the House; having done that, he would be asked whether he was supported by 40 Members, and, if so, he would have the right to proceed.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, it must be recollected that the demand for adjournment might be assumed to arise in consequence of some answer given, some statement made, or proceeding which had already taken place in the House. The House, therefore, could not be in that state of total ignorance as to the subject on account of which the Motion was sought to be made; and as the hon. Member wishing to move would have to state the subject-matter he intended to bring forward, the House would certainly be competent to form an opinion as to whether the Motion should be proceeded with or not, or, at all events, it would be competent to 40 Members to give it their active support. He did not think it necessary to follow the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) through the whole of his remarks; but he was unable to regard some of them as otherwise than unjust and unfair to Members on both sides of the House who had at various times given their support to Irish Members opposite. It was thought by Her Majesty's Government that Irish Members had occasionally received, upon some questionable proceedings, more support than they deserved from Members below the Gangway on that side of the House. Certainly, there had never been any disposition on those Benches to restrict Irish Members in the statement of Irish grievances; and he thought it was unfair to assert that it would be impossible to obtain a sufficient number of English Members to support a Motion proposed for the purpose of making known grievances of a serious character. It could not for one moment be supposed that this Motion, as amended, was intended to silence Irish Members.

MR. THOMASSON

said, he thought, in a matter of this kind, even the appearance of evil should be avoided. It would, in his opinion, be unwise on the part of Her Majesty's Government, by adhering to the proposed number, to place it in the power of Irish Members opposite to say to their constituents that this number had been adopted for the purpose of placing them at a disadvantage. He believed that in some constituencies in Ireland a feeling of irritation towards that House already existed, and this, he contended, it was undesirable to increase.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

trusted that what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just addressed the House would not be thrown away upon the occupants of the Treasury Bench. He deeply regretted the form that this Resolution had taken, and was, moreover, utterly unable to reconcile with the statements made on former occasions by the Prime Minister the language now used in bringing the Rule before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had, over and over again, said that these Rules were not directed against any particular section of the House, and had repeatedly disclaimed the idea that they were directed solely or especially against Irish Members. But how could ho reconcile those statements with the fact that the Rule was so drawn as to be applicable to them alone? They were told now that, if their claim were just, they would have no difficulty in getting a sufficient number of Members to support a Motion for the Adjournment of the House; but that, he contended, was against the whole course of their experience during the last four years, and hon. Gentlemen who applauded the statement, he observed, were not the Members for Northampton and Newcastle, but those who, in season and out of season, had denounced every Motion which came from those Benches, however just or reasonable it might be. When their Motions for Adjournment went to the test of the Division Lobby, did they ever receive the support of 10 Members on the opposite side of the House? What support did they at any time get from Members opposite, except that of five or six, whose conduct the Irish people would always gratefully remember? And it was in the face of these instructive lessons of the past that they were now asked to surrender their right to move the adjournment of the House to the tender mercies of the Liberal Party. Without wishing to say anything against the manner in which the Resolution had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, he pointed out that its pith and substance, not the language in which it was embodied, must be regarded. The Prime Minister said—"If you cannot muster 40 Members, how can you make any claim on the House?" But the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that Irish Members on those Benches, whether they mustered 30, 20, or even 10 in number, were the sole Representatives in that House of the convictions of the Irish people; and, that being so, it was monstrous to apply to them a Rule which could only be fairly applied to other Parties in the House. He believed it would be said by the people of Ireland, if the Rule were passed in its present form, that it had been framed by the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose of making Irish representation in that House a greater mockery and sham than it had been before.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, on the last division he had separated himself from the Party with whom he generally voted in order to support the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. He voted that if a Member should move the adjournment of the House, he should have the right and be compelled to state the grounds of that Motion. Hon. Members from Ireland sitting near him had voted against that proposal—they were, in fact, unwilling that an Irish Member should have the opportunity of making a statement to English Members which might induce them to support the Motion for Adjournment. That was the position, as he understood it; and he must tell the hon. Member for Dangarvan (Mr. O'Donnoll), and those who acted with him, that, to use an old English saying—"Having made their bed they must lie on it." He was surprised at their complaints against the Government, who had just put them in a minority in order to afford them a fair opportunity of appealing to English Members.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 109; Noes 43: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 368.)

Question, "That the words 'unless a Member rising in his place shall propose to move the Adjournment, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and not less than forty Members shall thereupon rise in their places to support the Motion,' "—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words from the word "unless," in line 5, inclusive, to the end of the Question.—(Mr. Gladstone.)

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Main Question, as amended, again proposed.

Debate arising;

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.