HC Deb 16 November 1882 vol 274 cc1559-95
MR. GLADSTONE

moved— That when, before a Division, the decision of Mr. Speaker, or of the Chairman of a Committee, that the 'Ayes' or 'Noes' have it, is challenged, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places; and, if they do not exceed twenty, he may forthwith declare the determination of the House, or of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that this Resolution was not so much restrictive as addressed to the general convenience of the House, and likely to work, he thought, for the advantage of all, and for the saving of time, without its being supposed to abridge unduly the rights of private Members.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That when, before a Division, the decision of Mr. Speaker, or of the Chairman of a Committee, that the 'Ayes' or 'Noes' have it, is challenged, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places; and, if they do not exceed twenty, he may forthwith declare the determination of the House, or of the Committee."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

moved, in line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words "except in Committee of Supply." He had always endeavoured to establish that there was a very great difference between the exercise of the functions of legislation and the consideration of questions of finance in Committee, when it very often happened that there were only some 40 or 50 Members present; and he thought that to put the Rule in operation in Committees would simply have the effect of preventing the constituencies from knowing the views of their Members upon questions of National Expenditure. When such questions were under discussion it might be very difficult to get 20 Members to rise in their places to prevent the discussion being closed. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would view his Amendment favourably.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words "except in Committee of Supply."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that the sole question raised by the Amendment was whether a distinction should be drawn between Supply and other Business of the House as to the powers proposed to be given to the Speaker or Chairman of Committees to ask 20 Members to rise in their places. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: They might not be in the House at the time.] They could not recognize the rights of absent Members in that way. He could not see the ground of any such distinction. This was not a question of freedom of debate, but whether there was to be an abandonment in Committee of Supply of a proceeding which he believed the House in general thought would be for the convenience of all parties. He did not recognize any force in the argument that Members might not be in the House at the time. It would be the business of Members to be in the House. Whatever the value of the hon. Gentle- man's argument, it was good for all, and if the Rule was fit to be applied in one case it ought to be applied in all. He could not accept the Amendment.

MR. SOLATER-BOOTH

said, he could not see that a distinction should be drawn in this case between Committee of Supply and the Whole House. There were many occasions on which it would be desirable that the Speaker or Chairman should be able to call upon 20 Members to rise in their places. But he would suggest that words might be introduced which would restrict the proceeding to cases where the Speaker or Chairman might be of opinion that a division, was challenged for purposes of Obstruction. There might, however, be many cases in which the names ought to be recorded by means of a division.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he thought there was great force in the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth.) There were many cases of a minority under 20 in which there should be a record. He would remind the House of a division which took place on a Motion in the Session of 1880, when a minority of 19 Members represented an average of more than 7,000 electors for each Member; the number of electors represented by that minority being nearly one-tenth of the whole electorate of the Kingdom. Such minorities ought to be recorded, and the Resolution would provide for this if amended in some such manner as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire.

MR. DODSON

pointed out that the House was getting into an irregular discussion, inasmuch as the suggestion just made was quite distinct from the Amendment before the House, on which he indicated the Government would be ready to make a proposal if the Amendment were withdrawn.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he thought the best mode of saving time would be for Her Majesty's Government to state, on the earliest opportunity, what course they intended to pursue in regard to the Resolution. Before they could deal properly with the Amendment, they ought to know whether the Government intended to adopt it substantially. It was desirable that, if possible, no distinction should be drawn between the House and the Committee of the Whole House. The same Rule ought to apply all round. He did not think his hon. Friend would press his Amendment if the Government would state their opinion that some substantial modification of the Rule as a whole would be made.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, a substantial modification would be made.

MR. HOPWOOD

called attention to the circumstance that he had placed on the Paper an Amendment to the effect that if it appeared to the Speaker or the Chairman that his decision was challenged for the purpose of Obstruction he should so inform the House.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, that, as the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government appeared willing to make a concession, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MAC IVER

moved to amend the Resolution by inserting, in line 1, after the word "That," the words— At any time after midnight such Members as may wish to do so may declare their votes upon any question then under discussion, by means of an instrument in writing, personally delivered to some officer of the House appointed for that purpose: Provided always, That.

MR. SPEAKER

pointed out that the subject-matter of the Amendment was not relevant to the Resolution.

MR. MAC IVER

said, he thought he should be able to show that the Amendment was perfectly in Order.

MR. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member desires to move any other Amendment than that the House may be disposed to hear it; but I am bound to say that he cannot proceed with the Amendment upon the Paper.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

said, he rose to move an Amendment which he thought merited the favourable consideration of the Government and of House. It was to insert, after the first word of the Resolution, these words—"Except on a Motion 'That the Question be now put.'" What he wanted to insist on was that a division occurring on account of proceedings arising out of the 1st or Clôture Rule should be excepted from this Rule; and for this reason—that if this Rule was to be applied to the Clôture Rule, the last safeguard of small minorities in a thin House would be, if not absolutely swept away, at least to a great extent diminished. Suppose, in the case of a small House, there were 15 Members on one side, and 50 or 60 on the other; suppose, also, that a subject had been amply discussed, and the evident sense of the House was that the debate should close, the Speaker might then put the Question. Only the 15 Members composing the minority would rise in their places, and thus they would be silenced, without a division, by a majority of 50 or 60.

Amendment proposed, in line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words "except on a Motion 'That the Question be now put.' "—(Mr Marjoribanks.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

said, they proposed the Resolution because it was used under Urgency, and without any apparent objection; but, undoubtedly, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) was quite justified in pointing out that they ought to look all round a subject of this kind, especially when they were constructing a permanent regulation as to the Procedure of the House; and he thought the suggestion he had made was not an unreasonable one—namely, that they should confine the intervention of the Speaker or Chairman for this purpose to cases in which Obstruction was intended. The consideration which, led him to that conclusion was not a feeling that any wrong was done, or any question of privilege involved in calling upon Members to rise; but it was the feeling that if they adopted this as a general Rule they would be obliged to recognize the title of those Members to have their votes recorded. That would introduce a novel process of taking the votes of Members. Probably he was the only Member of the House who had seen that done; but he had seen it done. It was, he thought, in 1834, when first of all in the Reformed Parliament a feeling began to prevail that it was the duty of the House itself to have the votes of its Members recorded; and the attempt first was made to record the votes, as was then always the case when the House was in Committee, while the Members sat along the two sides of the House. There were, if he remembered rightly, two recorders—one from each side of the House. He did not, however, recollect who the second person was; but he remembered Mr. Hume was one of them, always forward in good works, and that certain Members very wickedly exchanged spectacles and resorted to other artifices to disguise themselves, in order that Mr. Hume might fail to detect who they were. That attempt was then made; ho did not think it could be done now; but still he believed it better they should avoid any novel process for the purpose of recording votes, and both for the sake of getting rid of that question, and of meeting the feeling expressed, he should be willing to introduce the words, after the word "Chairman," "being of opinion that his decision is challenged for the purpose of Obstruction," &c. He thought that would answer the purpose which his hon. Friend had in view, and also meet other Amendments which had been placed on the Paper.

MR. GORST

said, he would suggest, now that the Prime Minister had gone thus far, that the Government should abandon this Resolution altogether, as without it there were plenty of powers against Obstruction.

EARL PERCY

said, he trusted the House would not agree with the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), because it was by no means certain that the House would agree to the subsequent Rules. Cases might arise in which the Speaker or the Chairman would be extremely unwilling to go to the extreme length of Naming Members.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he approved of the alteration made by the Prime Minister; the Resolution, so amended, could do no harm and might be of some service.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he rose to protest against the mixing up of Obstruction with this Rule as with those already passed, inasmuch as the Prime Minister had from the first maintained that they were intended to compress ordinary debate. He urged it would be better that the question of Obstruction should be confined to the 9th Rule. It was objectionable that the Chairman of Committees should have the power of saying that certain Members were obstructing at the moment.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the Resolution became valueless if the Amendment were accepted. In his experience as a casual Chairman, he had found that on the second or third time of any decisions being challenged that Members challenging did not rise in their places, thus tacitly admitting that they were challenging the decision for obstructive purposes.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he supposed the reason hon. Members did not rise in their places was because they thought it useless to do so. He objected altogether to the Rule which gave the Chair great power than the Closure Rule, and he hoped the Government would see some way of leaving it out.

SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE

said, he entertained strong objections to altering the Resolution from its present shape to deal with Obstruction. As it stood, it would enable the House to deal with vexatious waste of time. The real difficulty was in regard to the proportion. What might be a fair proportion in a small House might become intolerable in a large House of 300 or 400 Members. He thought the matter might well be left to the discretion of the Speaker or Chairman of Committees.

MR. ARTHUR PEEL

said, he did not accept the conclusion that a small minority were necessarily obstructive. However small a minority, they were entitled to have their names recorded. It would be better to leave the Rule as it stood, and to add a Proviso at the end— Provided, That, subject to the decision of the Speaker or Chairman of Committees, it shall he competent for any Member so rising to demand that the names of the minority shall be recorded.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he thought there many cases in which it would be desirable that the names of the minority should be recorded—cases in which the conduct of the minority could have nothing of Obstruction in it, and a majority had always the right to call for a division. The difficulty might be met by restricting the Rule to cases which, although not precisely cases of Obstruction, savoured of Obstruction, like Motions of Adjournment and to report Progress, or that the Chairman leave the Chair. That would leave substantial Questions to be divided on as at present. He thought a minority of the House ought not to be compelled to rise in their places without securing a division, if they had a good case, and thought fit to call for it.

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the Question before the House was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks).

MR. HOPWOOD

asked if the present Resolution would not come into collision with the two previous Resolutions? In the 2nd Resolution 10 Members were able to force a division; but under the present one, on 20 Members rising, the Speaker could at once declare the sense of the House. He thought, under those circumstances, the Government would find it was necessary to make some exception such as that proposed in the Amendment.

MR. MACARLANE

said, he saw no reason why double as many Members should be required under that Resolution to force a division as were required at Question time.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, that it would be unfair and unjust, under this Rule, to deprive hon. Members of the right they had succeeded in obtaining from the Government under Rule 2.

MR. WARTON

said, he did not often agree with the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), but he did so on that occasion. The House was likely to get into great confusion unless it exercised great care in seeing that the Resolutions did not clash with each other. This Resolution was clearly contradictory of the 1st and 2nd Resolutions, and some words ought to be introduced to show that it did not affect the Rule of clôture. It was absurd to use the words "before a division," when the very Rules required that a division should not take place.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

appealed to the Speaker on a point of Order. The present Resolution practically repealed a portion of a former Resolution. In the latter part of the 2nd Resolution, as amended, the words were— Or unless, if fewer than forty Members and not less than ten shall thereupon rise in their places, the House shall, on a Division upon Question put forthwith, determine whether such Motion shall be made. In the Resolution now before the House 20 Members were required to rise in their places, and that was taking away the right given by the 2nd Resolution to 10 Members to call for a division.

MR. SPEAKER

The 2nd Resolution applies only to Motions for the Ad- journment of the House before the Orders of the Day are entered upon. The last part of this Resolution applies to a diffferent state of circumstances. It states— That when, before a Division, the decision of Mr. Speaker, or of the Chairman of a Committee, that the 'Ayes' or 'Noes' have it, is challenged, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places; and, if they do not exceed twenty, he may forthwith declare the determination of the House or of the Committee. That is when the matter is challenged.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that under that Resolution the Speaker could deny the right of division.

MR. DODSON

pointed out that the latter part of the 2nd Resolution was imperative, the word "shall" being used; whereas the 4th Resolution was permissive.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that made no difference at all.

MR. GORST

said, that under the Resolution they were discussing the Speaker or Chairman had a discretion to deprive Members of a right previously conferred on them. Was such a Resolution in Order?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that the essence of a division was the ascertainment of the majority or minority. It was not necessary that Members should walk round the Lobby. The Government would be able to provide subsequently for the case contemplated by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks).

MR. MARJORIBANKS

said, that if Members standing in their places were equivalent to a division, his Amendment was quite useless.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the question was not the amount of the minority, but the amount of the majority, and the latter could only be ascertained by a division.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, he should object to the Amendment being withdrawn unless the Government distinctly informed the House of their intentions.

MR. BOURKE

wished to know whether the Speaker ought to ascertain the numbers on the other side than that on which the Motion was made?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

denied that there was any inconsistency between the 2nd and 4th Resolutions.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that the House, having once decided that 10 Members could force a division, it was not competent for the House to go behind it.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that under those circumstances, that was, where 10 Members rose, a reference could be made to the judgment of the House.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, no doubt that was so; but how was that judgment to be delivered? Under the old Constitutional means it would be by a division. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that that Resolution took away with one hand a concession which had been made with the other. The point of Order, as he understood it, was whether the House, during the present Session, had decided that any 10 Members could insist on a division being taken if they rose in their places in support of the Motion.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, that if 10 Members rose in their places the Speaker would then put the Question whether leave be given to make that Motion for Adjournment. There would be the "Ayes" and the "Noes," so that hon. Members would have the opportunity of expressing their views; and, therefore, there was nothing inconsistent in the operation of that Rule, and that of Rule 2. If upon the Question that leave be given more than 20 Members rose, of course there would be a recorded division; but if less than 20, there would be no division. But there was no inconsistency between the Rules.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

appealed to the Speaker as to whether or not there was any inconsistency.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the hon. Member had spoken, and had no right to speak again.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he questioned if the Prime Minister had the right to call him to Order.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the hon. Member had no right to make another speech.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he was not going to do so; but only to put a question to the Speaker. The 2nd Resolution gave a right to 10 Members to call for a Motion for Adjournment, and the 4th gave the Speaker or Chairman power to take away this right if less than 20 Members rose in their places to support it.

MR. SPEAKER

I am bound to say that the Question appears to me to be not without difficulty. Under Resolution 2, 10 Members can, under certain circumstances, demand a division. I doubt whether the Speaker or Chairman of Committees would be debarred, considering that the Resolution applies to the simple question of Motions for Adjournment of the House, from preventing a division being taken in the ordinary way acting under Resolution No. 4.

MR. J. LOWTHER

asked whether the ruling of the Speaker did not necessitate the introduction of words specially excepting the condition contemplated by Resolution 2?

MR. SPEAKER

I am not prepared to say that it would be absolutely necessary to introduce words in order to except the conditions referred to in Resolution 2 from the operation of Resolution 4. At the same time, I think it might be desirable to make some change in the wording for the purpose of making the Resolution clear.

MR. C. S. PARKER

suggested that the difficulty would be obviated by the introduction in Rule 4, in line 1, after the word "division," of the words "after the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion have been entered upon."

MR. MACFARLANE

asked what the Speaker would do in the event of 19 Members rising, and only 15 being on the other side?

An hon. MEMBER said, that in that case there would be no House.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that in the event of precisely 40 Members being present, the Speaker or Chairman of Committees would not vote, and, therefore, 19 Members would in that case outvote 20. He had an Amendment standing in his name lower down which would deal with this difficulty, and lie invited the attention of the Prime Minister to it.

MR. GORST

asked if the Speaker had ruled that the Resolution as it stood was inconsistent with Resolution 2? If so, must not the Resolution be withdrawn and a fresh one substituted?

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

asked what would happen in the event of 20 Members not rising, but a much larger number being outside?

MR. SPEAKER

said, he presumed it would be in the discretion of the Speaker.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he felt sure that the Speaker or Chairman of Committees would be put in a difficult position under those two Resolutions, and he suggested that the Government should consent to withdraw Resolution No. 4.

MR. C. S. PARKER

said, he believed that this Resolution—[Cries of "Spoke!"] Well, he would point out the point to the Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER

reminded the House that the Question before it was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

asked the Speaker for a decision on the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).

MR. SPEAKER

I have not said that the Resolutions were inconsistent with one another. I did say that it might be desirable to introduce words which would prevent a possible conflict on the construction of the two Resolutions.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

said, it might be for the convenience of the House if he withdrew his Amendment. [Cries of "No, no!"]

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the Amendment—

MR. MONK

said, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken before.

MR. SPEAKER

said, he understood the right hon. Member's previous remarks to be confined to the point of Order.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, it was so. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Would the right hon. Gentleman tell him one word he had said on the Amendment? His objection to the Resolution was that it would take away the right of having a recorded division. Yet they all knew that many great measures had begun by being supported by very small minorities. He thought that if the Amendment were to be withdrawn, they ought, in the first place, to ascertain from the Government what they intended to substitute for it.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that, as had been pointed out by the Chair, some difficulty might arise from the Resolution as it stood coming into conflict with part of Resolution 2. The difficulty was entirely owing to the possible conflict or doubtful compatibility with Resolution 2; and it had been suggested by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) that it might be met by excluding from the purview of this Resolution everything that could fall within the operation of Resolution 2. That would be done by confining the scope of this Resolution to everything that occurred after the House had entered upon the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion. If his hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) would withdraw his Amendment, it would be possible to insert in the Resolution the words "after the House had entered upon the Orders of the Day or the Notices of Motion." That would destroy all possibility of conflict. While bowing to the ruling of the Chair, he was bound to say that it differed from what he had formerly thought was the meaning of the Resolution.

MR. WARTON,

on a point of Order, argued that the Resolution not only conflicted with Rule 2, but also with Rule 1.

In reply to an hon. MEMBER,

MR. SPEAKER

said, he apprehended that under Rule 1 there must be a division.

MR. W. H. SMITH

observed that, according to his construction of what the right hon. Gentleman said, a division might be understood to be taken by 20 Members standing up and the rest remaining seated; but in that case there certainly would not be a division in the ordinary way.

MR. J. LOWTHER

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to inform the House what is the meaning of a division?

MR. SPEAKER

When the decision of the Speaker or the Chairman is challenged, then the divisions are taken in the usual way.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, he would suggest that, as there seemed to be great difficulty in understanding the Rule, it should be temporarily withdrawn by the Government, and re-introduced in an intelligible form. If they went on patching it as they were now doing no one would be able to read it, or, if read, no one would be able to understand it.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that the Government had fallen into a mistake which they had never anticipated, owing to the change which had been made in the other Rule. The Rules as originally printed did not present any point of conflict, but in the course of the discussion the Government had made certain concessions in the other Rules—and he doubted very much whether they could have passed them if they had not done so—and this had led to the present difficulty. The matter was one upon which there ought to be not the least doubt, on account of the unfairness of making the Speaker or Chairman have to decide—perhaps in a very heated House—one of the very difficult questions now under discussion. He therefore concurred in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that the Resolution should be withdrawn, and re-introduced in an amended form. If the Prime Minister, who drew up the Resolution, put one interpretation upon it, and the Speaker put another, it was abundantly clear that the Resolution ought to be remodelled.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

pointed out that Resolution 2 referred only to the period before the Orders of the Day had been entered upon, so that the insertion of the words suggested by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker), "after the House has entered upon the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion," would entirely remove the difficulty, and there could be no possible conflict between the two Resolutions.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he desired to point out that there was a distinct conflict between the 1st Resolution and the 4th, for whereas the 1st provided for a division, although there might happen to be less than 20 opposed to the Motion, the 4th Resolution provided that before a division the Speaker might call upon the Members challenging his decision to rise in their places, and if those Members did not exceed 20, the Speaker might forthwith declare the determination of the House or the Committee.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

asked the indulgence of the House to reply to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). He (the Attorney General) submitted that the division might be taken under the 1st Resolution without reference to the 4th.

MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK

rose to Order. Was it not entirely contrary to the Rules of the House that the hon. and learned Gentleman should make a second speech on the same subject?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) rose to a point of Order, and the Attorney General rose to speak to that point of Order.

SIR HENRY TYLER

begged to call attention to the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth was speaking to the Amendment, and not to a point of Order.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

thought the point of Order had been raised many minutes ago by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and had not yet been settled.

MR. SPEAKER

I am quite clear that, under Resolution 1, the Speaker would not be at liberty to call upon Members to rise in their places as in Resolution 4.

MR. MARJORIBANKS

again asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No!"]

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he hoped the Government would withdraw the 4th Resolution.

MR. BRYCE

pointed out that leave had not yet been given to the hon. Member for Berwickshire to withdraw his Amendment. He said that he desired to show that there was no inconsistency between the 1st and the 4th Resolution, if the point had not been finally disposed of by the ruling of the Chair; but the Speaker stated that this could not be done, as he had already given his ruling.

Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate as the only way out of the difficulty.

MR. BIGGAR

begged to second the Motion, and for the reason that it seemed to him that the House was not in a proper frame of mind to discuss these very complicated matters. There was so much difference of opinion in all parts of the House as to the construction of these Rules that it seemed to him that it would be better that the adjournment should take place, in order that further consideration could be given to the subject, and that Her Majesty's Government might examine into the different interpretations that might be placed upon the several clauses that had already been passed in contrast with the one now before the House. Unless some definite interpretation was now placed on the reading of this Rule in connection with the Rules that had been passed, there might be room for all sorts of difficulties and controversies in Committee when the Speaker was not in his place to decide the matter for the House.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

MR. GLADSTONE

rose to oppose the Motion for the adjournment as useless. There was no conflict between the 4th Resolution and the 1st, and whatever conflict there might have been between the 2nd and the 4th would be removed by the introduction of certain words proposed by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker). He hoped the Motion would be withdrawn, and the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) would be allowed to withdraw his Amendment, and then the House would be in a position to see whether the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Perth would be sufficient to remove all doubt as to the meaning of the Resolution.

MR. WARTON

said, he supported the Motion for Adjournment on the ground that not a single occupant of the Treasury Bench was in a position to state in what form the Government intended to present the Resolution to the House. He challenged them individually and as a whole to do so. He did not believe that one of them had the slightest idea of what shape it would take if amended as proposed.

MR. LEWIS

said, he thought the whole Resolution should be re-drawn by the Government, and placed before the House in a printed form. The House was in no way extricated from its difficulty by the interpretation which Mr. Speaker had given, because that interpretation would not be binding on a future occupant of the Chair.

MR. GIBSON

said, that on attentively reading Resolutions 1 and 4, he thought there was a conflict in the construction of them.

MR. BRYCE

I rise to Order. I endeavoured some time ago to submit an argument on this subject, and I was informed that I could not do so, because a ruling on the point had already been given.

MR. SPEAKER

The Question immediately before the House is the adjournment of the debate. The question under consideration was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), and I have repeatedly endeavoured to induce the House to discuss that question.

MR. GIBSON

I have no doubt that neither you nor any of your successors in the Chair would ever hold that it was right or expedient to apply the 1st Rule without a division.

MR. SPEAKER

I am bound to observe to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he is not discussing the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON

With great respect, Sir, on my construction of the Amendment, I am on the very point. I am of opinion that there may be a question, and a very serious question, as between Rule 1 and Rule 4, and which may be cured by the adoption of the Amendment.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

I rise to Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already been ruled out of Order.

MR. SPEAKER

I understood, from the last words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that he was addressing himself to the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON

said, that if he was not at liberty on this question of the adjournment of the debate to discuss the question of the conflict between Rules 1 and 4, he would, of course, at once resume his seat; but he conceived from Mr. Speaker's ruling that he was at liberty to do so. He believed that if he was in a position to show that in his view the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire was one that was germane to the question of whether there was a conflict between the 1st and the 4th Resolutions, he should be in Order to discuss it. [Cries of "Order! "] Hon. Members opposite were not judges of Order, and he had all through stated that he was ready at once to resume his seat if any intimation fell from the Speaker that he was not in Order. He was of opinion, having read the 1st Resolution and the 4th, that this was a question of con- struction, and not of administration. [Cries of "Order!"] There might be a question, and a serious question, arising out of the Rules as they now stood, and this could be cured by the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire.

MR. SPEAKER

said, he understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was addressing himself to the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON,

in continuation, said, the closing words of Resolution 1 were—"If a division be taken." That rendered extremely appropriate a question which was started by his hon. Eriend—namely, what was a division? He found, upon reference to Rule 4, that the application of the Rule was to be before a division, and, therefore, reading the two Rules together, he ventured to think that it was more than questionable how they would be construed, for he thought it would be competent to apply Resolution I under Resolution 4.

MR. DILLWYN

rose to Order, and pointed out that the House had that day passed a Resolution declaring That when a Motion was made for the Adjournment of the Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman of a Committee do Report Progress, or do leave the Chair, the Debate thereupon shall be confined to the matter of such Motion; &c. The Question before the House was the adjournment of the debate; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was now discussing an Amendment not before the House. He appealed to the Speaker whether that was not a violation of the Rule passed to-day?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for Swansea having called my attention to the Resolution of the House, which has just been passed, I am bound to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is obliged to conform to that Resolution, which declares distinctly that when a Motion for adjournment of the debate is made, the subject of that adjournment should be alone discussed.

MR. GIBSON

said, that when a Member who sought to point out both how the House had got into a difficulty and how they might get out of it was precluded from doing so, that showed how admirably these Rules had been framed for facilitating the transaction of Public Business. Prom the Rule referred to by the hon. Member for Swansea, the Government had expunged the word "strictly." He would submit at once to the Speaker's ruling. He had hoped to assist the course of Public Business by indicating how an adjustment could be arrived at by a reasonable consideration of topics which might induce the withdrawal of the Motion for Adjournment.

MR. DILLWYN

I rise to Order again, and appeal to you, Sir, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not arguing the question which you have ruled out of Order?

MR. GIBSON

said, that, under the circumstances, he had no wish to press the matter. He would take no further part in the discussion, feeling that it was impossible for him at this stage of the proceedings to put before the House the view he honestly desired to present for the furtherance of Public Business.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, no event could have happened that had given him greater pleasure than to find his right hon. and learned Friend called to Order under the Resolution passed to-day.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I rise to Order. I would ask you, Sir, whether the noble Lord is either facilitating Business or speaking to the Motion?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, if his right hon. and learned Friend had voted yesterday in favour of an Amendment which was moved from below the Opposition Gangway, he would not have been stopped in his speech as he had been just now. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) had been caught in his own toils. He had never known a Motion made by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor') which was so much justified as the present one. The House had been now engaged for two hours and a quarter in trying to get not only at the sense of the Resolution, but at the interpretation which the Government put upon their proposals. The Government had inserted new words at the last moment, and without Notice into each of their Resolutions, and they had landed the House in a complete fog and mystification. If they had been proceeding by Bill, there would have been opportunities for correcting mistakes; but in proceeding by Resolution the case was quite different.

MR. SPEAKER

The noble Lord is not confining himself to the Question before the House.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that he was arguing for the adjournment of the debate, because it was a matter of the utmost moment that the House should proceed with due deliberation, and should not approve of the way the Government had introduced their Amendments, without even putting them on the Paper like other people. If the Government wished to get on with the Business before them it would be better to withdraw this Resolution and bring it up again in a different form. Lest there should be any silly talk by the organs of the Government about Obstruction on the Conservative Benches, he wished to point out that the whole of the discussion had been originated by a Liberal Member—by a faithful follower of the Government—and continued by the right hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, who differed from one another.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he should support the Motion for the adjournment, because the recommendation of the Prime Minister to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) would only get them out of one difficulty into another. In the one case a necessary number of 10 would be requisite, and in the other 20, thereby creating a distinction and a different class of offence not intended to be created by the Government.

MR. SALT

said, he wanted to know the real effect of the last Resolution? He was going to vote for the adjournment because he regarded these Resolutions with the greatest anxiety and alarm. He was very much afraid that by relying too much upon the letter and precise meaning of the Resolutions as about to be altered, instead of putting down Obstruction, they would legalize it. His second reason for supporting the Motion was that he believed they would proceed very much faster and better with the Business if plenty of time was taken, so that the Cabinet might make up its mind as to the effect of the words put before the consideration of the House.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 121: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 371.)

MR. MARJORIBANKS

begged leave to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No, no!"]

MR. GIBSON

said, when the hon. Members on the other side of the House had interrupted him he was about to state that there was extreme danger in allowing Resolution 4 to pass in its present shape. He believed, as a question of construction, that the Resolution could be argued most persuasively and with great power, that it would be competent for the Speaker, if he pleased, to apply Resolution No. 4, and that under Resolution No. 1 a division would not be mandatory. Therefore, before they parted with the Amendment, he would like to have it more plain that there would be no possibility of ever applying Resolution No. 4 to Resolution No. 1. He believed that the words of the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) would be sufficient for that purpose, because the Motion which would, have to be put under Resolution No. 1 were the very words which would be contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member. If the Amendment was to be withdrawn, he thought the Government should give a distinct assurance that some such words should be incorporated in the Resolution. He was of opinion that the Resolution should be amended so as no t only to exclude the possible operation of Rule 2, but also that some words should be adopted which would prevent the possibility of Rule No. 1 being applied.

MR. GREGORY

said, there was a latent ambiguity in the construction of the Resolution as it stood. That ambiguity might be removed by the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), which was lower down on the Paper.

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

The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 100: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 372.)

MR. C. S. PARKER

moved to insert, after the word "That," in line 1, the following words:—"after the House has entered upon the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion." The Speaker, he said, had ruled that the 2nd Resolution and the 4th conflicted to a certain extent. His Amendment was framed for the purpose of removing that ground of objec- tion. Resolution 2 related only to the time before the consideration of the Orders of the Day; but his proposal would make the Resolution apply only after the House should have entered upon the consideration of the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words "after the House has entered upon the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motions."—(Mr. C. S. Parker.)

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

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he considered the Amendment childish and absurd. If it were adopted, they would have one set of Rules before half-past 4 o'clock and another after that hour. That was precisely the argument of the Prime Minister against the proposal a day or two ago of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) with respect to Business after half-past 12. The Prime Minister had also said he only wanted to limit the Resolution to those who were obstructive—[Mr. GLADSTONE: No!]—and, in order to do that, had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth; but that Amendment would allow Members to obstruct in as factious and improper a manner as could possibly be conceived, because it would be possible for five, or four, or three Members to force the House to divide on every clause of any private Bill which came on before half-past 12. That was the sort of Amendment which the hon. Member for Perth, inspired by the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister, inspired by the hon. Member for Perth, supported. He would certainly take a division against it.

MR. WARTON

suggested that the difficulty would be avoided by introducing such limiting words as "save and except as provided by Rules 1 and 2."

MR. GREGORY

said, it was quite clear that the Amendment before the House did not meet the objections which had been made against the Rule. He was of opinion that the best course would be that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) should be withdrawn, and that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) accepted.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the Prime Minister had appeared to dissent from the statement which had been made, to the effect that he had intended to make the Rule apply solely to cases of Obstruction. It had certainly also been understood that the right hon. Gentleman had intended, at the proper stage, to admit into the Resolution words which would confine its application to cases which, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, would be one of Obstruction. Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman adhered to that undertaking, he (Mr. J. Lowther) would point out that the Amendment under discussion in no shape or form dealt with the supposed conflict between the Resolution and Resolution No. 1. There had been a good deal of confusion upon that subject, and it appeared to exist chiefly in the minds of the learned occupants of the Treasury Bench. He thought it would effect a great saving of time if the House were informed how the Government proposed the Rule should eventually read. It was impossible for the House to give proper consideration to the Resolution, to which some scores of Amendments had been suggested, until they knew what the intentions of the Government were.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that, according to the right hon. Gentleman, it was the duty of the Government, at the beginning of a discussion, to declare what their intentions were. That would mean that they would listen to no arguments and make no concession. The right hon. Gentleman had challenged him upon the indication he had given with regard to the object of the Rule. The Government were certainly willing to have the introduction of limiting words. On consideration, he was inclined to believe that the limiting words of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) were better words than those suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth). If the words of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) were introduced, they would put out of the question altogether everything that related to conflict between Resolution 2 and this.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he was satisfied with the declaration of the Prime Minister. He had no objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth, save that which had been suggested by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill). He would, however, accept the words of the hon. Member for Perth, as he understood that the Government would also embody in the Resolution the words which were to be moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. He hoped, in that case, the House would be allowed to go on with the debate.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh were accepted, it would not meet the objections which had been put forward by his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill). If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth were carried without guard or supplement, the whole field of Private Business would be left open to obstructive action. Various authorities of the House had, from time to time, pointed out the danger which existed at time of Private Business, and the opportunity which it gave to Members for the purpose of obstructively lengthening debates. The Rules would not be successful if a loophole were left which could be taken advantage of by obstructive Members. He hoped, therefore, the Government, if they accepted the words of the hon. Member for Perth, would give a pledge that they meant to guard the House against Obstruction at the time of Private Business.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, he hoped the Government would not press upon the House the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth, which, if the Government meant to adopt that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh also, would be pure mischief. Supposing it were agreed that the Speaker ought to have the power which the Rule would confer, would it not be wise to leave it unfettered in the way proposed by the Amendment?

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, that, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh were accepted, then, in order to avoid the conflict they were implored to avoid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth would be absolutely necessary.

MR. GORST

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth might be necessary to prevent a conflict; but there might be a better way of doing it by adding a Proviso to the Rule.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 15: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 373.)

MR. GORST

moved, in Resolution 4, line 1, to leave out the words "before a division," and to insert the words "after the House has been cleared for a division." There were other Amendments to the same effect on the Paper, moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd). In Committee, no doubt, it was fair that only those should have an opportunity of voting who had actually Been present at the discussion. He, however, contended that when the Government had the power to summon their supporters from the Lobby or the Library to take part in a division, it would be only justice to the Opposition that they should, be allowed time to summon their forces before they were called on to stand up in their places to demand a division. As things were, the Government always had an advantage, as the Speaker or Chairman invariably decided the "Ayes" or "Noes" in favour of the Government.

MR. HICKS

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, to leave out the words "before a Division," and insert the words "after the House has been cleared for a Division,"—(Mr. Gorst,)

—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words 'before a Division' stand part of the Question."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)

said, he did not think the Amendment was altogether clear. He understood the Amendments of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), which raised the question much more distinctly. The House was cleared much too rapidly to effect the purpose aimed at by the Amendment, which he perfectly understood, though he did not understand the means by which that end was sought. The Government, however, could not agree to the Amendment. After the concessions already made by the Government the Resolution was confined to Motions of a dilatory character, and would not apply to any Motion raising a substantive question for the decision of the House. There was no reason for summoning Members into the House if there were not 20 Members present to support a Motion for Adjournment.

MR. PARNELL

said, he could not agree with the Solicitor General that there was any ambiguity in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham. The Speaker would be precluded by the custom of the House from putting the Question until three minutes were up by the sand-glass. But, passing from that, he thought the Government would do well to reconsider the Resolution as a whole. It was one of a most offensive character to a minority, as they were compelled to stand up if they sought a division and expose themselves to the ridicule of the majority. He had repeatedly to do so himself, when he and the other Members of the Irish Party, assisted by a few stray English Members, challenged divisions when the Urgency Rules were in force last Session. There was nothing more calculated to excite feelings of indignation and irritation in the breast of hon. Gentlemen than the application of a Rule as it was applied in those days, and as the Government sought to have it applied by their refusal to agree to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). He thought it was not a very great boon to ask that hon. Members who were about the House should be informed that a division was to take place before this Rule was to be put in force. It appeared to him that if the House went on in the way it was now going the House would more and more come to be a mere machine. Such a Rule as the present, and by providing that it was not necessary that the Division Bell should be rung, distinctly held out to Members an inducement to absent themselves from the House. Tli6y knew that evil had already attained to a considerable magnitude. They knew that hundreds of Members handed themselves over bodily to the Whips without knowing anything about the merits of the question on which they were dividing.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he was sorry the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment, which he agreed with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was straightforward and reasonable. The Rule now proposed was recommended many years ago by the Committee which sat on the question; but it must be remembered that all was totally altered now by the passing of the 1st Resolution. They ought to reconsider this Resolution because, under certain circumstances, it might lead to this absurdity—that while there might be a great number of Members outside who were willing to vote if summoned, yet the number of Members who stood up to challenge a division might be so small, and the other Members present so few, that the House would be counted out on an important question. It appeared to him to be little short of an injustice to require that a division might be taken without hon. Members who were outside having an opportunity of knowing what was going on. If the hon. and learned Member for Chatham went to a division he should certainly support him.

MR. WARTON

wished to point out that the word "a" in the Resolution occurred synonymous with "any," and therefore the Rule could be applied to any division, and not only to those cases to which the Solicitor General had alluded. He wished to call attention to the absurdity of retaining the words "before a division," inasmuch as the very object of the Rule was to prevent a division being taken. In order to make the Amendment clearer he begged to move as an Amendment to it to add the words "and after the lapse of two minutes as indicated by the sandglass."

MR. SPEAKER

The Question before the House is that the words "before a Division" stand part of the Resolution. In the event of that proposition being negatived, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) will be put, and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) will follow.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, that the absurdity of the Rule was made apparent by the state of the House at that very moment. Supposing the Speaker required those who demanded a division to stand up, there would not be the sufficient number on the Opposition side, although on the Front Opposition Bench were sitting no less than five ex-Cabinet Ministers. Therefore, unless the Amendment were adopted, great injustice might be committed.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

said, that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham was demanded by the equity of the case, unless they intended to make a complete sweep of all the old Forms of the House It was a principle of the House that the Speaker never saw how many Members were present unless his attention was called to it. In most Foreign Legislatures various inducements were offered to Members to remain in the Chamber; but in that House all the allurements were outside. Abroad there were desks; there were means of writing; newspapers could be read in the House. With us there were only barely comfortable benches. The Division Bell was rang for the purpose of bringing in those Members who were in the building, but not in the House, but whose right to vote was thereby admitted. It was a great violation of the ancient law and practice of Parliament only to call upon Members to vote who happpened to be in the House at the time of putting the Question. If it were impossible to prove such a system illegal, yet it was undoubtedly contrary to the spirit of the Constitutional Parliamentary system. Motions for the adjournment were usually made either because the House was tired of the matter, or it was of too trivial a character to be further discussed. So the emptiness of the House when such a Motion was made should be an argument in favour of its opportuneness and of the adjournment being granted. He trusted that the Government would not refuse to accept this small Amendment.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, he could not conceive on what principle of fairness the Government could refuse to accept this Amendment. It was conceivable that in the future a Chairman of Committees might defer putting the Question until he saw that the Opposition was so thin that it could not divide. There was an obvious way of meeting this Rule which, no doubt, would be resorted to if the Amendment was not accepted. As soon as hon. Members saw that the Speaker or Chairman was about to put the Question, they would move that the House be counted. That would cause the Division Bell to ring, and the House to become filled.

MR. HICKS

said, the Government, having passed a Resolution depriving hon. Members of freedom of speech, were now, by the present Resolution, going to introduce in effect the ballot, and prevent the electors from knowing how their Representatives voted. On a former occasion Her Majesty's Government refused to allow one particular vote to be taken by ballot, when the Opposition thought such a proceeding would protect the independence of Members. He had not supported that proposal because he objected to the ballot altogether; and he still hoped to see the day when we should again have honest open voting. But the Government, having opposed that modified proposal, now wished the House to adopt the ballot in all small divisions. He would draw the serious attention of the House to what the effect would be; the Resolution would have frequent operation, for he found, looking at the last Session of the last Parliament, there were as many as 46 divisions in which the minority did not reach 20, and, during one-third of the Session, the minorities were under 30. Surely constituencies ought to know who voted on these numerous divisions. Generally speaking, very few Members were in the House when a division was first called. This was an attack upon the rights of the minorities. He objected to the Resolution because the constituencies would be prevented from learning how their Members voted. Further, he would draw the attention of the House, and particularly of hon. Members opposite sitting below the Gangway, to facts which he ventured to think must be of interest to them. The minorities in former times on many important questions had been small, and yet it had been a matter of interest to see of whom those minorities consisted. For instance, the first minority for admission of Jews, in 1838, was only 52; Repeal of the Corn Laws, in 1813–14, only 42. Surely hon. Members opposite would not have wished these votes to have passed by unnoticed. Then, again, in 1830, Mr. O'Connell's proposal for Universal Suffrage received the support of only 13 votes. Then, again, on the great question of Reform, the minority in the first division in 1810 was only 15—a minority proud of being the forerunners of the great Reform Act. How would these measures even have attracted public attention if the debates had been cut short and the Division Lists suppressed? In order, therefore, that the interests of these small minorities might be preserved, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he hoped the House would understand the reasons of the Government for not accepting the Amendment. When they came to consider the occasions on which the Chairman of Committees should exercise this power, they were not unwilling to consider whether these occasions should be limited to what were aptly called "obstructive" or dilatory Motions. What they contended was that the House ought not to admit an Amendment which would cause an unnecessary waste of two minutes on every division. During a single evening half-an-hour might be wasted.

MR. WARTON

Never!

MR. GLADSTONE

Never! The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke as if he had sat in the House since the time of Adam. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a Parliamentary babe. He was not aware that 20 divisions of this kind had been frequently taken in the course of a night. He (Mr. Gladstone), however, was aware of it, for he had voted in the divisions, and so had other hon. Members, and he begged the hon. and learned Member not to exercise the clôture on the responsibility of a private individual happening to occupy a seat in this House. His (Mr. Gladstone's) contention was distinct, that in the case of dilatory Motions that waste of two minutes ought not to be permitted. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had pleaded Parliamentary tradition; but these rights had grown up gradually; they were not existing when he (Mr. Gladstone) first came into Parliament. He thought that the proposal now before the House was meaningless and absurd.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the Amendment dealt with a matter so inconceivably small that he was astonished the Prime Minister should refuse to accept it. The allowance of two minutes, so far from wasting the time of the House, would prevent a great deal of irritation and confusion. Members who happened to be outside the precincts of the House would be irritated to find that they were not to have the privilege of taking part in a division simply because some Member had moved a dilatory Motion. He therefore intreated the Government not to resist the Motion. One word as to the form of the Amendment. He understood the Speaker to say that the Question would be that the words "before a Division" stand part of the Resolution. These words, he thought, were meaningless, and therefore he suggested that they should be omitted.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

wished there was some method by which they could get the Prime Minister into the same frame of mind he was in on the previous day, when he had made some fairly valuable concessions. To-night, however, he did not seem in a humour to give any consideration to any Amendments whatever, no matter whether they came from one side of the House or the other. Something evidently had gone wrong. The Resolution now before them would be easily evaded, for whenever the Chairman called on Members to rise in their places, it would be easy for any hon. Member to question whether a quorum was present, and to necessitate the ringing of the Division Bell. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] He challenged the hon. Member to cite any case in which the Speaker had decided there was a quorum without ringing the bell. Why the Government should obstinately oppose that Amendment, which was intended to prevent an illegitimate artifice, he could not understand. In Committee, especially, that Rule would work very unfairly, and the Chairman might be expected to take advantage of it when the House was very thin. As an example of the thinness of the House at certain times, he mentioned that when his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) moved his Amendment during the dinner time, no other Conservative Member happened to be present, and when the Speaker asked who seconded the Amendment, an Irish Member undertook to do so. But for this, they would have had no opportunity of discussing this important point. It would be extremely hard on Members conducting the opposition to a Bill to find that owing to their brief absence from the House important questions had been decided without their having an opportunity of recording their votes. The Prime Mi- nister said the Resolution was to be confined to dilatory Motions; but there were no Motions for Adjournment which were not dilatory. The supporters of the Amendment had justice and right on their side, and if, unfortunately, the Goverment persisted in refusing to accept reasonable Amendments, the means might be found of compelling them to give way.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he was surprised that the Prime Minister should resist that Amendment. He should have thought that the Government would have agreed to it as a matter of course, instead of quarrelling over a trumpery two minutes, and refusing to allow the Division Bell to be rung. To insist on a division being taken at a moment's notice, without giving Members time to come from the adjoining rooms, was a thing which he should have thought would never have entered the mind of anyone.

MR. SEXTON

said, he thought the zeal for economizing public time must have reached an amazing pitch when the saving of two minutes was urged as an argument against the right of hon. Members to have their opinions recorded on a division. A large part of the Business of the House was usually transacted at a certain period of the evening, with fewer than 40, and sometimes with 15 or a dozen Members present; and under such circumstances it would be an absurdity to say that there should be no division unless 20 Members rose in their places.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN

said, that they had now been discussing that question for 100 minutes, thus occupying more time than was likely to be consumed in three years by the operation of that Amendment. The objections to the Resolution had never been answered.

MR. EDWARD CLARKE

said, the course pursued by the Government in refusing such proposals as this looked as if they intended to render it impossible to pass these Resolutions. It might happen that if they persisted in the same line of action they would find, when they had forced their own will upon the House on all the Amendments arising on this subject, that they would be met by a resolute resistance to the Resolutions as a whole. If the Resolution before the House was not modified, a state of things would be produced which would be an absolute scandal to the House of Commons. The idea of a single division being "snapped" by some sincere but humble follower of the Government, at an hour when many Members were away in the Dining Room or the Smoking Room, would be a fruitful cause of irritation; and the recriminatory and angry debates which would follow would far more than swallow up the small space of time which the Prime Minister was so anxious to save. If the time which the Government desired to save was that occupied by a division, he could understand the action of the Government. The House would remember one occasion on which the whole time of the House was threatened by certain Members with dilatory Motions; and had they not caught 27 of them in one capacious net, and prevented the carrying out of their original proposal, the House would have been engaged from half-past 7 till 2 o'clock in the morning in taking divisions. The idea of two minutes being a valuable saving of time, when they remembered the length to which the speeches of hon. Members and right hon. Members ran, was a reason of no validity. It was most unreasonable to impose a burden upon hon. Members so severe as to compel them always to keep within the House—not even the Government with all their authority were always able to do that. It was a great pity that the House should be forced by the actions of the Government into a position of antagonism to them.

SIR B. ASSHETON CEOSS

said, he was surprised that the reference of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) to the amount of time already wasted in that discussion had had no weight with the Government. Besides, the House must know that, if necessary, a speaker would always continue to address the House until he had collected the necessary number of Friends around him, and thus no saving of time would be effected, but rather the contrary. The Prime Minister had fallen into an nnfortunate mistake of not fully explaining at the outset to what cases the Resolution did or did not apply; but he hoped the Government would still see their way out of the difficulty, since there could be no question that endless irritation would be caused if all concession was refused.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he wished to point out that in not a few divisions taking during the last Session, the numbers dividing were within the limits now proposed. In the Payment of Wages in Public-houses Bill, the division was 33 to 4; in another Bill 12 to 11; in the Irish Constabulary Bill, 25 to 0. They were not now engaged upon such Rules as the Urgency Rules; they were discussing Rules which might last for generations. The very wording of the Rule was an indication that the Government trusted nobody. They were seeking to bind the House by hard-and-fast Rules, the effect of which would be to produce extreme irritation. They were framing them in such a way that there was great danger of inducing Members to work against instead of in support of them. The result would be that instead of diminishing they would increase Obstruction.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

said, he regretted very much that he had not been in the House during the whole of the discussion; but the House must be aware that it was impossible for every Member always to be in his place. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had already stated that he was willing to limit the proposed procedure to cases of dilatory Motions, thinking it to be an unnecessary waste of the time of the House that the two minutes' interval should be permitted in those cases. But the debate had shown that there was very considerable difference of opinion upon that subject on both sides of the House, and that there was a general indisposition to allow the Question to be put in such a way as to exclude Members from the division. The Government would, therefore, be prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and part of the Amendment put on the Paper by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), omitting the concluding words of that Amendment, because it was clear to the Government that the procedure would be entirely covered by the first words of the Amendment. But in order to still further simplify the intention of the Government, they would also accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). The Resolution would then run as follows:— That when, after the House has been cleared for Division, upon a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman of Committee do Report Progress or do leave the Chair, the decision of Mr. Speaker or of the Chairman of a Committee, that the "Ayes or "Noes" have it is challenged, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may, after the lapse of two minutes, as indicated by the sand-glass, call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places; and if they do not exceed twenty he may forthwith declare the determination of the House, or of the Committee. He conceived that that would fully meet the fears of hon. Members; and although the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister thought the Amendment unnecessary, and did not regard it as one of importance, yet he was willing to defer to the wishes of hon. Members.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he thought the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had made his case very clear, and was of opinion that it would be well to accept the Amendment he had suggested. The Government had apparently realized the strong feeling which the House had shown, that while there should be no unnecessary obstruction of its proceedings, there should not be any limitation of the freedom of debate.

Question put, and negatived.

Words inserted.

Amendments made, by adding, at the end of the foregoing Amendments, the words— Upon a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, or of the House during any Debate, or that the Chairman of the Committee do report Progress, or do leave the Chair. And also in line 3, by inserting after the word "may," the words "after the lapse of two minutes, as indicated by the sand glass."

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. GORST,

in moving, as an Amendment, in line 4, to leave out "twenty," in order to insert "ten," said, he was sorry to have the appearance of being ungracious and exacting in doing so, as he had not the least wish to be so, more especially after the cordial and candid manner in which the Prime Minister had met the objection to the Resolution by accepting his (Mr. Gorst's) Amendment; but he could not refrain from asking whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think 20 Members too large a number? It seemed strange that 10 Members should be able to force a division in a full House on the Motion for Adjournment, when such adjournment might be attended with great inconvenience, and a much larger number should be required when very few Members might be' present. He begged to move to leave out "twenty," in order to insert "ten."

Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out the word "twenty," in order to insert the word "ten."—(Mr. Gorst.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought that the words "if they be not less than twenty," would meet an objection entertained on the other side; but he was opposed to going down to 10. When the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gorst) said that 10 Members would have the power to force a division on the Motion for Adjournment, it should be remembered that such division would not be of a substantive character, but would be one as to opening the door to discussion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made, in line 4, by leaving out the words "do not exceed," and inserting the words "be less than."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he still thought that words such as those suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) ought to be inserted in the Eesolution—namely, that if it appeared to either of the authorities in question that their decision was challenged for the purpose of Obstruction, they should so inform the House or Committee, as the case might be. He also thought that the Prime Minister ought to adhere to the view he had put forward, that the action of the Speaker or the Chairman should be restrained by requiring that those authorities should convince themselves that a Motion had been made for the purposes of Obstruction.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was pressing the Government rather too hard. The Govern- ment had foregone an advantage, although they risked the giving of facilities for Obstruction in consideration of the fact that, without involving themselves in doubtful phraseology, they were enabled to indicate by the Amendment as proposed by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) the class of Motions which were commonly used for the purposes of Obstruction.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he would not press the matter.

MR. WARTON

said, he would move an Amendment providing that the Resolution should take effect only when 40 Members were in the House.

Amendment proposed, In line 4, after the word "twenty," to insert the words "in a House of forty Members."—(Mr. Warton.)

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

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he thought the Amendment unnecessary, as the House could be counted; but he would agree to accept it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment made, by inserting, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, the words "or upwards."—(Mr. Reginald Yorke.)

Main Question, as amended, put. (4.) Resolved, That, after the House has entered upon the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motions, when, after the House has been cleared for a Division, upon a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House during any Debate, or that the Chairman of a Committee do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, the decision of Mr. Speaker, or of the Chairman of a Committee, that the Ayes or Noes have it is challenged, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman may, after the lapse of two minutes, as indicated by the sand glass, call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places, and, if they be less than twenty in a House of forty Members or upwards, he may forthwith declare the determination of the House or of the Committee.