Commons Sitting of 20 November 1882

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  1704
  If his attention has been called to the Correspondence which has taken place between the Belfast Board of Guardians and the Local Government Board, wherein it has been distinctly charged and not denied that the duties of the entire Board of Guardians has for some time past been discharged by the Chairman himself in the absence of a quorum of the Board, and one hour before the appointed time fixed for the weekly meetings of the Board; if his attention has been drawn to the deputy clerk's explanation relative to his conduct on the 12th and 19th September 1882; and, if he has official knowledge of the Local Government Board having declined to order an investigation into the circumstances?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have seen the Correspondence referred to in this Question, and find from it that in September last Mr. Stewart, one of the Guardians of the Belfast Union, represented to the Local Government Board that the Chairman had transacted some of the business before the Board of Guardians assembled and before a quorum was formed. The Local Government Board thereupon communicated with the Guardians; and, finding that this practice existed, they pointed out its irregularity, and it was at once discontinued. When this subject was brought before the Guardians they passed a resolution expressing entire confidence in their Chairman by a majority of 24 to 1, Mr. Stewart alone dissenting. The charge against the Assistant Clerk was, that he read the minutes before there was a quorum; and he has explained that this was part of the business disposed of by the Chairman before the proper time. The proceedings referred to were irregular; but there are no grounds for supposing that the Chairman and Assistant Clerk were influenced by any improper motives; and as the statements made were not denied, and as there were no facts in dispute and the practice was discontinued when the attention of the Guardians was called to its irregularity, the Local Government Board saw no necessity for the investigation asked for by Mr. Stewart, and declined to grant it.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST ASYLUM—R. NELSON.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1705
  If it be true that an inmate of the Belfast Asylum named Nelson was, without any application from his friends, or written authority from the Belfast Board of Guardians, removed to the Belfast Workhouse in May 1879, and has been since kept there as a permanent charge on the rates, although the expense of his keep in the Asylum was comparatively nil, and his transfer to the Workhouse was disapproved of by Nelson's relatives; if it be true that Nelson's relatives are highly respectable, and Nelson himself has a large sum of money in the bank; if it be true that the Guardians refused to hand over Nelson to his relatives, although his fitness to be removed had been previously certified for; and, if, under these circumstances, he will kindly furnish and have placed upon the Table of the House Copies of any and all Correspondence which has passed between the Local Government Board, and the Belfast Guardians, and the Belfast Asylum Governors, and of all resolutions adopted by either or all of these public bodies, in any way dealing with the original cause of removal from the Asylum, or subsequent admission or maintenance in the Belfast Workhouse; and also furnish such other explanations and statements as will be likely to satisfy the public mind that the Local Government Board for Ireland in this case has done its duty?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have made inquiry into the subject of this Question, and find that Robert Nelson, the person referred to in it, was discharged from the Belfast Lunatic Asylum on the 30th of May, 1879, his mania having assumed a harmless character; and on the same date was admitted into the Belfast Workhouse, as it appeared that he was destitute. It appears to be the practice to receive into the workhouse from the asylum a harmless lunatic when the Guardians desire to transfer a dangerous lunatic from the workhouse to the asylum; and it seems probable that Nelson's transfer was effected under this arrangement, as the records show that an inmate of the workhouse was taken to the asylum on the 30th of May. The Guardians did not refuse to hand over Nelson to his relatives; but in September last they were informed that he had a sum of money deposited in the bank, and, having ascertained that this was so, he was handed over to his friends, who re-
  1706
  moved him from the workhouse on the 14th of last month. I do not think there is any reason for laying the Correspondence on the Table.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—CONGO.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communication has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the French Government with respect to the alleged treaties made by M. de Brazza on behalf of the latter Government and some chiefs of Congo; and, whether he can state the nature of such communication? Perhaps the hon. Baronet will also kindly state whether it is true, as stated in the French papers, that Urgency has been voted in the French Chambers for the discussion of a Bill empowering the French Government to ratify those Treaties?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, with regard to the last Question of the hon. Baronet, I have seen the statement in the French papers to which he refers; but I have not seen Lord Lyons's report on the subject. With respect to the Question which the hon. Baronet has placed on the Notice Paper, I have to say that communications are passing between the two Governments on the subject of the Treaties stated to have been made by M. de Brazza; but the Correspondence is not yet in a state for publication.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can inform the House of the number of applications that have been made by tenants for loans to improve their holdings under the Land Act of 1881; and, how many of these applications have been granted?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I may, perhaps, be permitted to answer this Question. The number of formal applications for loans to occupiers under the Land Act of 1881 received up to Saturday last, November 18, was 625; of these 310 have been sanctioned, 114 are still under investigation, and 201 have been found inadmissible. But I am happy to state that, under the recent reduction of the minimum amount of a loan, about 75 of the last class will become admis-

  1707
  sible, and it is expected that they will come in. It is also believed that the number of applications will soon show a considerable increase.

  THE CATHEDRAL COMMISSION—THE FINAL REPORT.
  MR. MONKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can inform the House when the Final Report of the Cathedral Commission will be presented to Her Majesty?
  MR. COURTNEY: In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, I have to remind my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester that, by the terms of its appointment, the Cathedral Commission is bound to present separate Reports to Her Majesty on the case of each cathedral. Eight of these Reports are now nearly completed, and are expected to be presented before the end of the year, and there will be no avoidable delay in the completion of the remainder. When all have been finished the Commission will probably issue a final Report embracing matters which could not be so conveniently dealt with in the separate Reports.

  JURY LAWS (IRELAND)—DUBLIN JURIES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, in a very important criminal trial just commenced at Dublin, no less than thirty-eight special jurors drawn from the panel were ordered by the representatives of the Crown to stand aside before a jury was made up; whether Her Majesty's Government have no present intention of availing themselves of the Law passed by Parliament, after much labour, enabling them to transfer to three judges the duty of trying prisoners in cases where there are objections to trial by jurors; and, if not, whether the Government propose to reduce the number and salaries of Irish Judges?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I find that at a recent trial in Dublin—that of Patrick Joyce—36 jurors were ordered by the Crown to stand by. So long as juries can be obtained who do their duty honestly and fearlessly the Government will not avail themselves of the
  1708
  Special Commission Court of three Judges, authorized by the Prevention of Crime Act. The Government do not contemplate making any proposal with regard to the number and salaries of the Irish Judges.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND)—WHITE-CHAPEL UNION—BOARDED-OUT CHILDREN.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been directed to the unsatisfactory result of the correspondence of the two past years between the Local Government Board and the Guardians of the Whitechapel Union upon the subject of a proposal by the latter for the periodical inspection of the homes of boarded out children; and, if the Local Government Board intend to adhere to their refusal to allow these Guardians the means of obtaining such a periodical inspection of the homes of these poor children as will, in their opinion, alone enable them to satisfactorily discharge this portion of their public duties?
  MR. BRYCEasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, seeing that it is the duty of Poor Law Guardians, who have sent pauper children to be boarded out, to ascertain that such children are properly cared for, and, seeing that such Guardians are accustomed to exact an engagement from those who receive such children to permit them to be visited on behalf of the Guardians, he will consider the propriety of permitting Poor Law Guardians to provide, where they may think it advisable, for the inspection of the places in which such pauper children are boarded; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence which has passed between the Local Government Board and the Whitechapel Board of Guardians upon this subject?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, my attention has been called to the Correspondence between the Local Government Board and the Whitechapel Guardians as to the proposal of the latter to appoint and pay an officer periodically to inspect the homes of children boarded-out by them beyond the limits of the Union. It is a misapprehension to suppose that it forms any part of the public duties of the Guardians to make the proposed in-

  1709
  spection. The regulations of the Board provide that the children shall be visited at least once in six weeks by a member of the Boarding-out Committee, to whom they are entrusted by the Guardians, and the member making the visit is required to report the result. Besides this, the children are from time to time visited by the Inspectors of the Local Government Board. Under these circumstances, it appears to us unnecessary that the ratepayers should be subjected to the expense of providing for any further inspection, especially as the cost would in some cases be considerable. Moreover, it might tend to discourage the Boarding-out Committees, who are composed of persons of well-known character, and who voluntarily undertake their work from purely benevolent motives. If the Correspondence between the Board and the Guardians is moved for, I shall have no objection to produce it.

  LICENSING ACT, 1874—UNAUTHORIZED VISITS BY CONSTABULARY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the evening of the 7th instant, at Drangan, county Tipperary, three members of the Constabulary Force stationed in that village entered the house of Miss Cusack, a licensed vintner, made their way, without legal warrant, and without asking leave, to a private room in Miss Cusack's house, and, finding there a tenant farmer who had been evicted from his holding in the locality a few days before, and Mr. T. E. Croke, of Drangan, who had before him two printed forms issued with reference to applications for relief by evicted tenants, and was engaged in filling up one, the constables deprived him of both the forms, declaring them to be illegal, retained one of the forms, intimating that they should send it on to Dublin Castle, and threatened that Miss Cusack's licence would be withdrawn for allowing her premises to be used for illegal purposes; whether this was an unfounded accusation; what notice will be taken of the conduct of the constables; and, whether the eviction forms, the property of Mr. Croke, will be returned to him?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, three members of the constabulary visited the
  1710
  licensed premises of Miss Cusack, at Drangan, county Tipperary, on the 7th instant, under Section 23 of the Licensing Act of 1874. They did not enter any private room. They entered the taproom, where people usually drink, and there found an evicted tenant named Burke, and the other person, Mr. Croke, referred to in the Question, who was filling up an eviction form, headed "The Ladies' Irish National Land League." The constable asked whether he might see the forms, and Croke immediately handed them to him. One was partly filled, and this the constable returned. He did not otherwise interfere. He did not say, as alleged in the Question, the form was illegal, or that he would send it to Dublin Castle, and he did not threaten Miss Cusack that her licence would be withdrawn; for, as a matter of fact, he did not see her at all on the occasion.

  NAVY—AERATED FRESH WATER.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the value of Captain George Peacock's invention for the manufacture of aerated fresh water from the condensed steam of salt water; and, if so, if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recognize in any substantial manner the importance of Captain Peacock's services?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I am aware that Captain Peacock claims to have invented, about 50 years ago, a system of aerating condensed water; but his system is not in use in Her Majesty's Navy.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTRESS IN THE WEST.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received any recommendations from the permanent officials of the Irish Local Government Board for the purpose of meeting the anticipated distress in Ireland; and, if so, whether he will state to the House the nature of these recommendations; and, if he has not received any such recommendations, whether he has decided upon taking any steps himself, or asking

  1711
  Parliament for further powers than those at present existing for meeting this distress?
  MR. O'SHEAsaid, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, at the same time, whether, in reference to the threatened distress and want of employment in Ireland, he has received any answer from the Treasury on the subject of the proposed construction of the Ennis and West Clare Railway on the security of a baronial guarantee?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have not received an answer from the Treasury; but I think the answer that I propose to make to the hon. Member opposite will practically answer the hon. Member as to the specific Question he has asked with regard to the West Clare Railway. The permanent officials of the Local Government Board have reported that at present the information before them respecting anticipated distress in certain districts in the West of Ireland where it is most apprehended is not of such a character as would lead them to believe that the relief which may be afforded under the existing Poor Law Acts will be found insufficient to provide for the wants of the destitute poor in the coming winter. They have already issued a Circular to the Unions in the West of Ireland—that is, to all the Unions in Connaught, and to the Unions in the counties of Donegal, Clare, Kerry, and West Cork calling their attention to the necessity of making every provision both for indoor and outdoor relief, and especially to see that the relieving officers' districts are not too large, and that the relieving officers are within easy reach of the poor persons residing in every part thereof. The Local Government Board will also call upon their Inspectors to report as to the sufficiency of the arrangements in this respect made by the Guardians in each Union in their charge. In short, the Government have given every care to see that the normal machinery for the relief of distress is in proper order; and they expect to be able to meet the distress with the aid of that machinery. If exceptional pressure comes it will be their duty to see that the administration of the required relief is not interfered with from want of sufficient funds. I may say that this is a subject which, of all others, is most engaging the attention of the Government.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House from what source it would be possible to obtain the additional funds to which he alludes in his answer?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, distress amounting to famine in such a state of things has always been a subject for special treatment by the Government; and I conclude that in the event of such a misfortune they would adopt the example of the Governments which have preceded them, and provide funds to keep the people from starvation, trusting to Parliament to support them afterwards.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government have information of widespread distress in Donegal and other parts of the West of Ireland; and, whether inquiries are promptly instituted upon the receipt of such information, in reference to what districts official inquiries have been held or ordered up to the present, and with what result?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, my answer to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) partially deals with this Question; but I may state, in addition, that I have obtained from the Local Government Board the Reports respecting the distress alleged to prevail, or to be anticipated, in the districts of Carrick and Glencolumbkill, county Donegal, Ennistymon Union, county Clare, and Corofin Union, county Clare. So far the result of the special inquiries has been to show that the relief which may be afforded under the existing Poor Law Act is sufficient to cope with the existing and apprehended distress; but further statements having been made respecting distress in Donegal, further inquiry has been ordered, and is now in progress. One of the most experienced and reliable Inspectors of the Local Government—Mr. Hamilton—is at present investigating the state of affairs in the Garrick and Glencolumbkill districts. I expect his Report in a few days, and, meanwhile, I have seen a note from him to the Vice President of the Board which makes me feel hopeful on the subject, as it tends to confirm the reports already received. Inquiries are also in progress in Tory Island, off the coast of Donegal, and in Dromore West Union, county Sligo, and a gunboat has been placed at the

  1713
  disposal of the Inspector for the Mayo and Galway districts to enable him to visit the Islands off the coast of those counties. I think the hon. Member will thus see that inquiries are promptly instituted on the receipt of information showing such to be necessary, and that the Irish Government and Local Government Boards are fully alive to the responsibility attaching to them.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Local Government Board have any means of coping with exceptional distress unless additional powers are conferred upon them?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. and gallant Member will find an answer to his Question is included in the answers I have already given in reply to similar Questions put to me this evening.

  THE LAND ACTS (IRELAND), 1870–1881—APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will state the amounts applied for by tenants in Ireland, and the amounts advanced by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acts 1870 and 1881, to enable tenants to purchase their holdings in the years 1881 and 1882, up to the present date?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the amount for which application has been made to the Land Commission under Sections 24 and 35 of the Land Act of 1881 up to Saturday last is£141,954. Out of this total loans have been sanctioned amounting to £88,699; and of this £35,408 has actually been advanced. The total sum agreed to be paid by tenants for purchase of their holdings in sales already completed under these sections is£52,020. Under Section 26 of the Act tenants have purchased holdings from the Land Commission to a total amount of £4,667, of which £1,433 has been paid in cash by the tenants, and the rest remains on mortgage. Under the Act of 1870 the Board of Works have received between the 1st of April, 1881, and the 31st of October, 1882, applications for £25,736; loans amounting to £18,802 have been sanctioned, and £17,492 actually advanced, but some part of the amounts sanctioned and advanced is on account of applications made before April 1, 1881.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RESIDENT MAGISTRATES—CAPTAIN WYNNE.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in the "Morning Post" of the 15th instant, signed by Captain Wynne, one of the dismissed resident magistrates; whether it is the case, as therein stated, that, on his being compulsorily retired on pension, he would lose £400 a-year, and all chance of future promotion, and has had a slur cast upon his character, without a chance of meeting his accusers (if any) face to face; and, whether there are other cases of a similar nature as stated by Captain Wynne?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have seen the letter referred to. The facts of the case are simply these—In reorganization of offices an opportunity is afforded of reviewing the capabilities of the persons employed, and of pensioning those whose services can with advantage to the public service be dispensed with. His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, at a great crisis in the affairs of Ireland—and after the services of the Resident Magistrates had for a long while gone on without any check—acted on his responsibility in selecting gentlemen for retirement on the recent reorganization of the magistracy. I think he had good reason for it; and I do not think in this case, or in any other case when reorganization of offices takes place, that it is in the interest of the gentlemen themselves, or for the advantage of the public service that a Minister should be asked to state in Parliament the special reasons why the Government felt called upon to select some officer for retirement.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: Do I understand that the Government cast any slur on the character of this gentleman by his enforced retirement?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That is a very difficult inquiry to answer. Unquestionably no slur is intended to be conveyed by this enforced retirement. At the same time, Captain Wynne was retired because His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant was of opinion that the extremely important position of a Resident Magistrate in Ireland was one which, on the whole, he was not capable of filling with advantage to the public service.

  THE IRISH NATIONAL LEAGUE—THE CONSTABULARY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government are aware that a sub-constable of police has been attending the weekly meetings of the branch of the Irish National League at Bruff, county Limerick, and taking notes of the proceedings; whether a similar course has been pursued in other places; whether the police have any legal right to demand admission to such meetings, unless upon a warrant; and, whether the Government will direct the police not to continue to intrude themselves upon the meetings of a legal association?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed, Sir, that Sub-Constable Irwin, of Bruff, attended a meeting of the Labourers' League on the 29th ultimo, at which meeting it was resolved that the Labourers' League should lapse and that a branch of the Irish National League should be established in its stead. The meeting was adjourned until the 12th instant, when he again attended. He took no notes of the proceedings. He did not demand admittance to the meeting; ho entered the outhouse where it was held the same as the others who attended it. He attended from mere curiosity, and made no report whatever to his superior officer of his having done so.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. MARTIN, CROWN SOLICITOR, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that Mr. Martin, of Hamilton, county Donegal, and Sessional Crown Prosecutor for that county, is also law agent for several landowners in the county; and, whether he appears to represent the Crown in the Arrears Court?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In addition to being Sessional Crown Solicitor for the County Donegal, Mr. Martin is a solicitor in private practice, and may as such have acted as law agent for landowners in the county. With respect to the Arrears Court, Mr. Martin was instructed in the same way as the Sessional Crown Solicitors in the other counties to appear
  1716
  for the Treasury in such cases as were considered necessary.
  MR. BIGGARasked whether Sessional Prosecutors were also frequently solicitors for landowners in the district?
  MR. TREVELYAN: To say I do not know that they are would be no answer. The hon. Member must give me Notice of his Question.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT—APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the number of applications under the Arrears Act down to the 15th instant?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the number of applications to the 15th instant has been 14,167, and comprised 20,729 holdings. There have been 6,164 joint applications, and 8,003 separate applications.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: Would the right hon. Gentleman state the amount of money in question?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The amount, I believe, is £250,000.

  POST OFFICE—ACCELERATION OF THE IRISH MAILS.
  MR. MOOREasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has any scheme in view for the acceleration of the mails between England and Ireland?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the question of accelerating the mails between England and Ireland has been considered; but a decision has been deferred until the question of providing for the sea service between Holyhead and Kingstown under a new contract has first been disposed of.

  ARMY—IRISH RECRUITS.
  MR. M'COANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is within his knowledge that, outside the more specially Irish regiments, the Colonels of the great majority of regiments in Her Majesty's Service instruct their recruiting sergeants to refuse Irish recruits, with the result that, whereas the proportion of Irishmen in our Army was formerly above seventy per cent., it is now only about twenty-two per cent.; and, whether he approves of such exclusion of Irishmen from any regiment in Her Majesty's Service?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the hon. Member is probably not aware that the whole management of recruiting for the Army is now under the Inspector General of Recruiting. General Bulwer informs me that no such instructions as the hon. Member conceives have been issued either by colonels of regiments or by colonels of regimental districts. I am afraid that the halcyon days of the Army consisting of Irishmen to the extent of 70 per cent, if those days ever existed, are long past. The Army now contains rather more than the proportion of Irishmen which is due to it on the basis of the population of the three parts of the United Kingdom; but I should, nevertheless, gladly welcome any addition of Irishmen of the stuff of those who stormed the entrenchments of Tel-el-Kebir.

  ARMY HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS—LORD MORLEY'S COMMITTEE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Report of the Committee appointed by him under the presidency of Lord Morley, to inquire into the condition and administration of Royal Hospitals at Chelsea and Kilmainham, the Royal Military Asylum, and the Royal Hibernian Military School, has yet been agreed to; if so, when it will be issued; and, if not yet agreed to, when it is probable that it will be ready, more than six months having now elapsed since the completion of the hearing of evidence.
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the hon. Member is entirely in error if he supposes that the evidence taken by Lord Morley's Committee closed six months ago. I have quite recently read the Report, which is long and interesting; and when we have decided what action to take on its several recommendations, I hope to lay it on the Table, probably early in next Session.

  MADAGASCAR—NUMBER OF BRITISH SUBJECTS RESIDENT IN, INCLUDING CREOLES FROM THE MAURITIUS.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will instruct the British Consul to report upon the number of British subjects there are resident in Madagascar, including Creoles from the Mauritius.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Consul at Tananarivo has been instructed to furnish a Report of the number of British subjects and Creoles resident in Madagascar.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT—APPLICATIONS FOR LOANS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many applications under the Arrears Act have been lodged with the Land Commission; how many have been granted, and to what amount; how many refused; and how many remain to be dealt with; what is the strength of the staff of investigators now available for proceeding with these cases; what estimate is formed of the number of cases that may be heard by the 30th of this month; and, whether any estimate can be made of the number of cases of tenants contemplated by the Arrears Act who will be excluded from its benefits by the uncertainty arising from the hanging gale sub-section, and the termination, on the 30th instant, of the period within which the landlord may be satisfied in respect to the rent for 1881?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Reporting on Saturday, the Land Commissioners inform me that 16,845 applications have been lodged; 1,243 have been favourably reported upon; but no orders for payment have been made since those set forth in the Return presented by command and which brings the proceedings down to the 31st of October. That Return shows the amount to be £5,062 3s. 1d. Forty-two cases have been unfavourably reported upon; 3,119 cases have been investigated, but not yet reported upon: and on the 18th instant 6,535 cases remained to be dealt with. Thirty-six investigators were employed up to Saturday, but many more are to enter on their duties this week. The Commissioners expect to be able by the 30th to list all the cases that are lodged up to and including the 25th instant. It is not possible to form an estimate of the number of cases referred to by the hon. Member in the final paragraph of his Question. The Land Commissioners ask me to say—and I am sorry to have to add this to my answer, but in justice to them I am obliged to do so—that the preparation of the statistics necessary for answering the foregoing Questions occupied the

  1719
  time of the Controller and three of his principal assistants for some hours. Just now every minute is of importance to them, and they deplore that at a time when there is a pressing necessity for doing work their staff should be occupied in stating what work had been done.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE HANGING GALE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that General Tisdal, investigator under the Arrears Act, heard a case at Tubbercurry, county Sligo, on Friday last, in which a tenant named Anthony Gallagher, claiming the benefit of the Act, and holding a tenancy the rents of which were payable every March and September, produced receipts dated 23rd May 1881 and 20th February 1882, each for a half year's rent, and claimed that these payments should be held to be in satisfaction for the rent of 1881, but the investigator, upon the statement of the agent, that the March rent was not called in until September, and therefore that rent paid before September 1881 could not satisfy the March gale, decided that there was upon the estate what he termed "a five months' hanging gale;" whether this decision is contrary to the instructions issued by the Land Commission to the investigators, and whether a gale "hanging" for a term less than a half year, falls under the provision of the Act; or, if so, whether it is open to an investigator to declare that a "hanging gale" exists in every case in which the rent is not called in upon the precise day on which it accrues due; whether General Tisdal, in the case in question, heard the tenant's evidence upon oath, but took the evidence of the agent without swearing him, and did not cause the oath to be administered to him until a clergyman informed him that public opinion would be brought to bear upon his conduct; who recommended General Tisdal for the office of investigator, and what his qualifications are; and, whether notice will be taken of his ruling in the case of Anthony Gallagher, and his omission to administer the oath impartially to witnesses before him?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Land Commissioners have sent me a Report from General Tisdal in reference to this question, in which he says that he en-
  1720
  tered in his notes that in the case of Anthony Gallagher the rent of 1881 had not been paid, inasmuch as the ordinary course of dealing on this estate with regard to payments of rent was stated to be that the March rent accrued due on the 1st of September following, and the September rent on the 1st of March following. General Tisdal states that he did not think it necessary to swear the agent as to the custom of the hanging gale on the estate while he was arguing the case on the examination of the tenant; and he believed, to the best of his recollection, the tenant did not deny the agent's statement as to the custom on the estate. The Land Commissioners had not received General Tisdal's official Report on the case when sending me this letter, and they are unwilling to express any opinion as to whether or not his decision was right until the question comes judicially before them.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would endeavour to ascertain whether, when a gale of rent was payable before the next gale was due, it was or was not a hanging gale?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The proper way to decide the question as to the hanging gale, raised by the hon. Member, is by a decision of the Land Commissioners on a cardinal case such as this, and I am quite alive to the importance of such decision being given as soon as possible.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION (COURT VALUERS).
  MR. LEWISasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that the three months temporary appointment of Court Valuers will expire in a very few weeks, he will appoint an early day for the discussion of the Motion on the Paper as regards the interference of the Government with the Court Valuers?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that the moment had not yet arrived for making a declaration on the subject. But before the end of December, when the present arrangement terminated, his right hon. Friend would state the intentions of the Government.

  MADAGASCAR.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If Her Majesty's

  1721
  Government see their way to proffer their good offices to the Governments of France and Madagascar in order to a settlement of the differences which unfortunately exist between the Republic of France and the Queen of the Hovas, with the view of securing the independence and inviolability of Madagascar?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to state that the Government have considered it their business to watch carefully the relations between France and Madagascar, and that they will continue to do so. I cannot, at present, make any more definite statement than that.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ULSTER TENANT FARMERS' ASSOCIATION.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has received a letter from the Tenant Farmers' Association of Ulster signed by a representative from each county in that province, making certain representations respecting the administration of the Land Act of 1881; and, whether he has any objection to a Copy being laid upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; I have received such a letter, and I have no objection to a copy of it being laid upon the Table of the House.

  EGYPT—SLAVERY CONVENTION OF 1877.
  MR. PEASE (for Mr. W. E. FORSTER)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Representatives in Egypt have been or will be instructed to press upon the Khedive of Egypt the fulfilment of the Convention of 1877 between the British and Egyptian Governments for the suppression of the Slave Trade, and to endeavour to obtain the abolition of slavery in Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to this Question, I need hardly state that the Government are, like my right hon. and hon. Friends, very anxious to deal both with the subject of the Slave Trade and the subject of slavery in Egypt. One of the very first despatches sent from the Foreign Office to Lord Dufferin was upon this subject. There has not been time since his arrival to receive any Report from him, nor do we know, indeed, that he had time to frame a Report; but it is
  1722
  a subject which he will by no means neglect, and on which we shall be desirous to pursue a policy in conformity with the spirit of that policy with which the name of this country has been associated for so long a period.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT—EXTENSION OF TIME, &c.
  MR. PARNELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has reason to believe that a considerable number of tenants in a position to prove their inability to pay antecedent arrears, and willing to satisfy the other requirements of the Arrears Act, are unable to take advantage of that Act owing to their inability to pay costs incurred in actions for ejectment and for recovery of such antecedent arrears; and, if a Bill for the amendment of the Arrears Act be introduced, whether provision can be made for the payment to the landlord out of the Church Fund of these costs?
  MR. A. T. DICKSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can propose any plan by which the difficulty in connection with the Arrears Act can be surmounted?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson), I think it has been already answered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It does not specify details; but I presume it refers to a number of tenants who, it is supposed, have not been able to bring forward their cases before the 30th of November. Well, we have had communications from the Land Commissioners on that subject, and they are of opinion that only a small number of tenants will be debarred from the benefit of the Act by the limitation of the date. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), which is more detailed, and which appeals to me as to the character of the information I have received and the impression I entertain, the hon. Member is aware that there is nothing in the Act requiring tenants to pay costs as a condition for their obtaining relief under the Act. Accordingly, if there be tenants who are discouraged from seeking to obtain the advantages of the Act, owing to their inability to pay costs incurred in actions for ejectment and the

  1723
  recovery of antecedent arrears, we must also recollect that there may be other causes which would sufficiently discourage them in the same way. Even if the costs were remitted in such cases, they may be otherwise so deeply involved in debt as to deprive them of the resource of coming into Court under the Arrears Act, because the costs referred to in the Question do not differ from any other liability for which judgments might be obtained, and which did not influence the House when they decided in the debates upon the Arrears Bill. The latter portion of the Question contemplates an enlargement of the Act on this subject by legislation, and in opposition to the former judgment of the House; and I cannot say that we are prepared to undertake the re-opening of the Act at the present time for a purpose which is grave in itself and lies under the disadvantage that the House has already formed an adverse judgment upon it.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that under the Arrears Act in any judgment which may have been recovered against a tenant in ejectment or for the recovery of rent, which is not discharged by the order of the Court directing the payment of a year's rent out of the public funds, and the remission of the antecedent arrears by the landlord, the tenant must pay the costs incurred by the proceedings in ejectment or for recovery of rent?
  MR. LEWIS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I wish to ask him what significance there may be in the words "at the present time," which he has just uttered. In other words, whether Her Majesty's Government now have in contemplation to amend the Arrears Act in the next Session of Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I did not intend to convey any intention at all on the part of Her Majesty's Government. I intended to say that at the present time —that is, in the present circumstances—they were not favourable to entertaining the question on the suggestion of any Member of Parliament. In reply to the hon. Member for the City of Cork I have no doubt that the hon. Member stated the Act correctly; but I would rather answer the Question with the assistance of the Irish Law Officer.

  POST OFFICE—POSTING IN MAIL TRAINS.
  SIR JOHN HAY (for Mr. E. N. FOWLER)asked the Postmaster General, To what and to how many Sunday evening mail trains the rule he proposes refers; whether he will give a list of the stations at which the facility for posting will be supplied; whether the facility is for foreign letters only; and, how many boxes will have to be opened in London on Sunday evening to collect the letters to be forwarded under his proposed new arrangement?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the rule refers to 10 mail trains in all—namely, the Irish and the Scotch night mail trains from Euston; the Great Western night mail train from Paddington; the Midland from St. Pancras; the London and South-Western from Waterloo; the Great Eastern night mail trains to Ipswich and Cambridge respectively from Liverpool Street; the foreign and the inland night mail trains respectively from Cannon Street; and the London, Brighton, and South Coast night mail train from London Bridge. The facility is for inland letters and for Continental alike. My right hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension in supposing that it will be necessary to open any letter-boxes in London except those attached to the mail trains just mentioned.

  INDIA (BRITISH BURMAH)—MRA THA DOON.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has received a Petition from Mra Tha Doon, lately a native magistrate at Akyat in British Burmah; whether Mra Tha Doon complained of being dismissed without a hearing after more than twenty years' service; whether the Petition of Mra Tha Doon was rejected by him on the ground that no complaint made direct to the Secretary of State can be attended to; whether it is the fact that Mra Tha Doon had previously petitioned the Deputy Commissioner at Akyat for a hearing and had received no reply; had then petitioned the Chief Commissioner of British Burmah for a hearing and had received no reply; and then petitioned the late Governor General of India, Lord Lytton, for a hearing and had received no reply; and, whe-

  1725
  ther he will take any steps to obtain a fair hearing for any complaints of alleged wrongful dismissal which this native ex-magistrate has to make?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, early in 1881 a Petition reached the India Office which purported to come from Mra Tha Doon, who was formerly an extra Assistant Commissioner, third grade, at Akyat, in Arakan. That Petition was returned to India, not having been forwarded according to the rules of the service through the Government under which the memorialist served. It is impossible to say now what particular complaints were made in that Petition. There is no information in the India Office as to whether it is or is not the fact that Mra Tha Doon had previously presented all or any of the other Petitions referred to in the Question. But there are records in the India Office which show that Mra Tha Doon was dismissed by order of the Chief Commissioner of British Burmah, dated the 15th of July, 1879. The charges against him were considered in detail by the Commissioner of Arakan, by the Judicial Commissioner of British Burmah, and by the Chief Commissioner, Sir Charles Aitchison, and each of these officers in succession considered the explanation submitted by Mra Tha Doon entirely unsatisfactory, and that it was necessary he should be dismissed. Having no reason whatever to doubt that Mra Tha Doon was fairly and properly dealt with, I have no intention of taking any steps in the matter.

  INDIA (BOMBAY)—LOCAL ADMINISTRATION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the statement in the "Bombay Gazette" that the officials in the Bombay Presidency,
  "Taken as a body, are resisting Lord Ripon's scheme for associating the Natives in the work of Local Administration;"
  and, whether, if this statement be true, he has received any information as to the grounds of such official opposition?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I have seen, in the newspaper called The Bombay Gazette, the statement referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, I have no reason to suppose
  1726
  that statement is correct—on the contrary, a telegram has been received stating that the Bombay Government have informed the Government of India that they would give a fair trial to the proposed experiment for self-government. Of course, there is some difference of opinion among Government officers as to the extent to which effect can at once be given to certain portions of the scheme of the Government of India; but there is no reason to suppose that the Bombay Government would obstruct the Government of India.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked whether Lord Ripon's scheme had been submitted to the Secretary of State for India in Council, and approved?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the Resolutions of the Government of India containing the principle on which they proposed that the scheme of local government in India should proceed had been sent home and approved. He proposed shortly to lay before Parliament Papers on this subject.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER—PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLATJGH)—NOTICES.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Perhaps, Sir, you will allow me to ask a Question on a point of Order? I wish to draw your attention to the Order Book of the House, where you will observe that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has placed for to-morrow and several following days up to the 1st of December Notices of Motion relating to his Colleague, the other Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), the Northampton Election, and other matters connected with it; and I desire to draw your attention to the fact that these Notices of Motion were not placed in the Order Book of the House until after the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had given Notice of a Motion for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the release of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); and I would ask whether the hon. Member for Northampton is in Order in placing on the Order Book for several days to come Notices of Motion relating to the other Member for Northampton, substantially identical in their object, though varying in their terms; and if this course is taken to prevent the hon. Member for Glouces-

  1727
  tershire from bringing on his Motion, whether such a proceeding is not only an invasion of the Forms of the House, but a gross irregularity?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I venture to ask you, Sir, whether the noble Lord has a right to describe my Notices of Motion as identical? My Motion for today is that, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that all duly-elected Members of Parliament should be allowed to affirm their allegiance, and that applies to every other Member of the House, as well as to my hon. Colleague. I wish also to ask whether the Orders of the Day will not come before the Notices of Motion on Monday?
  MR. SPEAKER: My attention has been called to this matter. I have looked into it, and I am bound to say that the course proposed to be taken by the hon. Member for Northampton is highly inconvenient, if not irregular. I have examined the several Notices of Motion referred to by the noble Lord; and, although they may not be identical, if some of the Motions were negatived by the House, many others could not be put, as being substantially the same.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: After your ruling, Sir, may I be allowed to ask the hon. Member for Northampton whether he will take off the Notices alluded to?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask again whether Orders of the Day on Monday have not precedence of Notices of Motion?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is well known that that is the case.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I must press the hon. Member to give me an answer to my Question. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Notice.] I wish to know whether, after your decision, the hon. Member will not at once remove the Notices he has placed on the Paper?
  [No answer was given.]

  MR. PARNELL, M.P., &c. (RELEASE FROM KILMAINHAM).
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked at what time the Prime Minister proposed to move the adjournment of the debate on Procedure in order to permit the discussion of his Motion for a Select Committee into the circumstances attending the release of Irish Members from Kilmainham?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on Thursday with respect to the Motion on the Report of the Gray Committee. I shall act in the same manner with respect to the hon. Gentleman's Notice. More than that I cannot say, as much depends upon the course that the discussion on Procedure may take tonight.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—EIGHTH RULE (THE HALF-PAST TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE).

    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [TWENTY-FIFTH NIGHT.]
    Standing Order (Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule) 18 February 1879, amended 9 May 1882, further considered.
    MR. HINDE PALMER, moved, as an Amendment, to add to the exemptions "Bills which have been settled by a Select Committee." The House would admit that a Bill which had gone through the ordeal of a Select Committee always came before it in a much more complete form than one that had not, and any Amendments were narrowed down to a very small compass. If such Bills were exempted from the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule a great deal of valuable labour which had been undergone by Committees would not be lost. They would still be open to revision by a Committee of the whole House. He would remind the House that, though the Floods Prevention Bill passed through a Select Committee, it was blocked by a private Member in the House, owing to the operation of the Rule. He, therefore, trusted that Bills that had passed through a Select Committee would be excepted from the Rule.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the word "House," at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "or have been settled by a Select Committee."—(Mr. Hinde Palmer).
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he thought that the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln's (Mr. Hinde Palmer's) proposed exemption would de-

    1729
    stroy the effect of the decision which had been reached, with great unanimity, by both sides of the House after discussion on Friday. The Amendment was against the spirit of the concession made by the Prime Minister, which only opened the Report stage to Bills which had passed a Committee of the Whole House, and which had been made in view of the possible Grand Committees. If carried, it would throw the House back into a vortex of confusion and disorder. The House must know how often it found Bills coming back from Select Committees totally altered, not in details, but in principles—important elements omitted, or else introduced. He need only point, in his own experience, to the great and important Committee on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford's (Mr. W. E. Forster's) Endowed Schools Bill, of which he (Mr. Beresford Hope) had been a Member, to show what the revision of a Select Committee meant. Besides, the House must recollect the system on which Select Committees were composed and the element of chance about them, with the narrow majority of 1 always secured to the Party which was in the majority in the House, so that a chance cold or two might alter the whole upshot of its deliberations. So, notwithstanding the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln's appeal as to the hardship of Bills over which Select Committees had been laboriously hammering after all falling through, the evil would be much greater, of subjecting the House to the haphazard chances of having to take Bills without adequate investigation, merely because they had passed—no one could tell how—the ordeal of a Select Committee.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, while admitting the force of a great deal of what had been said by his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Hinde Palmer) in favour of the Amendment, he (Mr. Gladstone) hoped his hon. and learned Friend would withdraw it. He must remember that they were considering Rules which would diminish opposition and Obstruction, and it was important to keep that detail in view. It was true that a Select Committee frequently most considerably enhanced the value of a measure, giving it the character of a work of art, thereby making it far more perfect for the consideration of the
    1730
    House; but consisting, as such Committees did, of a very limited number of Gentlemen, specially interested in a particular subject, they sometimes changed the character of the measures submitted to them; and those measures, therefore, ought to command the consideration of the House at hours when they could be fully discussed. But there was still a more serious ground of opposition to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend. The words "or Committee of the whole House" had been inserted in the Rule now before the House, in order to leave liable to the operations of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule Reports from Grand or Standing Committees. They could not consistently say that a Report from a Select Committee, composed of 15 Gentlemen, should be exempted, and that a Report from a Standing Committee of 60 or 80 Members should come under the operation of the Rule. For these reasons, he trusted the hon. and learned Member would not press his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND, in rising to move an Amendment, said, that, as there were probably now in the House many hon. Members who were not present on Friday last, when his Amendment was partially considered, he would venture very briefly to re-state his reasons for moving it. It was admitted by the great majority of the House that the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule had, upon the whole, worked well; but it was equally admitted that certain abuses and defects had shown themselves in the working of it, and it was against one of those abuses that his present Amendment was directed. The Prime Minister had, on Friday last, strongly urged the House not to accept any Amendment which would enervate the Standing Order. In that desire he (Sir Henry Holland) cordially concurred; but he thought that to amend an abuse, and thus remove a legitimate objection to the Rule, would be not to enervate, but, on the contrary, to strengthen the Rule. He hoped, for that reason, to have the support not only of the Prime Minister, but of his right hon. Friend the senior Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John Mowbray), than whom there was no more staunch upholder of the Rule. Now, what was the defect or abuse that

    1731
    he (Sir Henry Holland) desired to check? It was that the Rule, as at present worked, enabled a single Member to stop not only the passing of a measure, but even the discussion of it. It surely could not have been intended by the framers of the Rule that Bills to which the majority of the House were favourably inclined should be practically stopped at the will of a single Member. Nay, he would go further, and say that it surely could not have been intended that measures not commanding the assent of the majority, but only supported by a minority, should be stopped by a single Member from being discussed. It had been frequently said that there was now too much private Member legislation. Even if such was the case, such measures should be rejected on their merits after discussion. He had some difficulty in understanding how hon. Members who had voted steadily against the Cloture Resolution could submit to the present working of the Rule, which, practically, stopped discussion, and acted as a most effective clôture. The present system was, in his opinion, unfair to a Member who brought forward a Bill, as he had a right to lay his views before the House for their consideration; and it was also unfair to the House, who had a right to have measures discussed and to decide upon them, and to separate the good from the bad. The present system tended also to keep the Order Book uselessly full, and thus to check legislation. If a Member introduced a Bill one Session, which he thought of importance, and all discussion on it was stopped that Session, he would, not unnaturally, introduce it again the following Session. But that course he would be less tempted to adopt if the Bill, after discussion, was rejected by a large majority. Again, a Bill was often introduced in a somewhat crude form, which, if those crudities were removed, as they might be, upon discussion in Committee, might commend itself to the majority of the House. But, in the absence of discussion, this Bill, not amended, would appear Session after Session in the Order Book. By the proposed Amendment of the Standing Order, every Notice of opposition would have to be put down, in the first instance, by six Members, and regularly supported by that number of Members. That would prevent a single Member from blocking a Bill in which, perhaps, he
    1732
    had no earthly interest, in a spirit of pique or retaliation, because some measure of his, or of some Friend of his, had been blocked by someone else, or because he thought he had been ill-treated by the Government, or by some section of the House. It would prevent a single Member from blocking a Bill because he objected to legislation generally, or because he wanted to get to bed early. He (Sir Henry Holland) had added some words to the Amendment to secure that the block should be kept on the Order Book by six Members. This he had done in the hope of meeting the objection raised on Friday last by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson). That right hon. Gentleman stated that he thought it would be more difficult to get rid of the block of six Members than it was to get rid of the block by one Member. But if the promoter of a Bill could persuade one of the six Members to withdraw his name the block would now cease to be valid; and he thought it would be quite as easy to get at one man out of six as to get at one man who had blocked under the present system. As to the number of "six," the House would see that different numbers had been proposed. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had proposed "three"—other hon. Members on the opposite side of the House had proposed "twelve" and "twenty." He himself was not opposed to "three," nor particularly wedded to "six." But when he found that difference of opinion to exist he thought he had struck a fair medium number, sufficient to show a bonâ fide opposition; and he should, therefore, be prepared to adhere to "six," though he ran the risk of not fully satisfying either side of the House. He turned now to the second branch of the proposed Amendment, to which he confessed he attached great importance. This provided for a weekly renewal of the block. Such a renewal would not only tend to show the bona fides of the block, but it would also tend to prevent the recurrence of cases which had been mentioned to the House, when a Member who had blocked a Bill went away, abroad, or into the country, forgetful of the block, or careless as to its effect. The consequence of such conduct might be that, though the promoter of a Bill might

    1733
    have accepted Amendments, and thus disarmed opposition, he would be unable to proceed with the measure, because unable to communicate with the Member, and to induce him to withdraw his block. It would be observed that he had fixed one day—Friday—in each week on or before which the renewal of the block should be entered, as he thought it would be more convenient for Members to be able to rely on the Saturday Order Paper than to have to consult the Paper every day, which would have to be done if the renewal was to be within a week after the date of Notice being given. The House had, in an earlier part of the Session, approved of an Amendment to the Standing Order which he had proposed, and which now formed the second part of the Standing Order; and he hoped, if the first part of the present Amendment, as to the number necessary to validate a block, was not acceptable to the House, that, at all events, the second part of it, providing for a renewal of the Notice of opposition, might be approved of. In accordance with a suggestion from a high authority, he had slightly altered the form of the Amendment, so as to make it a Proviso; and he would now move the Amendment to which he had referred.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the said Standing. Order, as amended, to add the words "Provided, That every such Notice of Opposition or Amendment be signed in the House by six Members at the least, and six names he kept on the Order Book to make such Notice valid; and that such Notice shall lapse at the end of the week following that in which it was given unless renewed by the Friday in that week."—(Sir Henry Holland.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he would propose to substitute three Members for six, believing that that number would answer all the purposes required.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "six," and insert the word "three," —(Lord Randolph Churchill,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'six' stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that it was not very often that it was his good for-
    1734
    tune to find himself in agreement with Her Majesty's Government; but upon this occasion he must endorse the arguments brought forward on Friday night by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) with regard to this subject, because he thought them conclusive, and that the right of any individual Member of Parliament to give Notice of opposition to a Bill ought not to be infringed. He was prepared, however, to admit, with the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland), that there might be something to be said for the latter part of the Amendment, providing that there ought to be a renewal of the blocking Notice every week, although he would rather, for his own part, leave the matter as it already stood.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that the Amendment, if accepted, would strike a severe blow at the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule. He, therefore, felt bound to oppose it altogether, for, in his opinion, it would be much better to keep the present block system as it now stood. He might remind the House what was meant by blocking a Bill. It had often been said to be unjust to the House to block a Bill; but it meant no more than this—that the Member who, under a deep sense of public responsibility, put down the Notice of opposition, found a Bill on which so much difference of opinion existed that, in his judgment, it ought not to be discussed late at night. A man who blocked a Bill, in such circumstances, deserved not to be reprobated, but to be hailed as a public benefactor. By doing so he saved others from being kept in their places till the early hours of the morning. He appealed to the Prime Minister to maintain the compromise which had been accepted by the House.
    MR. BRYCEcontended that the systematic blocking of Bills which had prevailed for the last few years was altogether unlike the reasonable opposition described by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He would ask whether it was under a deep sense of public responsibility that the hon. Members (Mr. Biggar and Mr. Warton) had blocked so many Bills, and stopped half of the legislation of the country? If the hon. Member (Mr. Rylands) regarded those hon. Gentlemen who did that as public benefactors, the next suggestion

    1735
    would be the erection of statues in recognition of their distinguished services. His (Mr. Bryce's) experience was that the practice was not confined, as it should be, to important Public Bills. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), and would do what they could to relieve the present hardships of private Members. Indeed, he wished that the number "six" should be made "twelve," with a view of stopping the vexatious blocking of Bills. It might be easy to get together the smaller number of Members, but not the larger number; and a block when effected by 12 Members would be a more bonâ fide block. He believed that the acceptance of the Amendment by the Government would remove a great deal of the harshest and worst features of this Rule.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he, once for all, fully accepted the compliment paid him by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and did not hesitate to regard himself as a public benefactor, because his opposition had been productive of a great deal of public good. He did not wish to detain the House with a long catalogue of his legislative virtues in that respect; but he might mention that he had blocked several Bills, and that, by his opposition to Government measures, he had obtained justice for poor lunatics by securing for them four instead of two visits of inspection annually. He had also, by the same process of "blocking," obtained an extension of time for poor writers in sheriffs' offices in Scotland, whose rights would otherwise have been abolished without compensation. He would say, however, that before taking that step he always took care to find out what they were about; and, in doing so, he frequently found that not only the House, but Committees, had overlooked the most important provisions. The Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) started on the baseless theory of the imaginary Member who blocked a Bill and ran away. He (Mr. Warton) was not that Member. Besides being obscure and making no provision for Wednesdays, it was based on a wrong hypothesis, and was in every way less satisfactory than the proposals of the Government. He, therefore, trusted
    1736
    the Prime Minister would give no sanction to the proposition under discussion.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he was astonished at the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who had drawn a fancy picture of the operation of the Rule. Even if it had no application to Bills, it would still be important as affecting the Motions of private Members, whose Business would be little, if at all, promoted by the other Rules. He considered the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Holland) would allow the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule to work with all its former efficiency, while it would remove certain existing abuses. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. It was not too much to ask that those who blocked Bills should watch for the coming round of the Friday, so as to renew their block if it were necessary.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was far more in accordance with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) than with the Amendment. On the whole, the Rule seemed to have worked well, rather than ill. He would suggest that the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) should give up the first part of the Amendment as to the number of Members, and move only the second part, as to the weekly renewal of the block, for the alteration that would be effected by the first part would so weaken the Rule as to make it ineffectual. The object of the Rule was to stop important legislation, which ought not to go on after midnight. If the Amendment went to a division in its present form he would be obliged to vote against it.
    MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he hoped the Government would adhere to the Rule as it stood. He believed it had been abused; but, on the whole, it had done much good. He thought the Amendment would lead to a great deal of inconvenience and confusion, owing to the difficulties in the way of securing the renewed assents of six Members every Friday.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought it was clear from what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) that the Government would adhere to their original proposal. The blocks of the hon. Members for Bridport (Mr. Warton) and Cavan

    1737
    (Mr. Biggar) had been secretly, if not openly, supported by a large number of Members; and he had reason to believe that a right hon. Gentleman sitting on the Government Bench had incited the hon. Member for Cavan to block a certain Bill. The question was also repeatedly asked in the Lobbies whether someone was not going to block a Bill which Members generally did not wish to come on at a late hour. He was glad the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was no longer tongue-tied, but could express his opinions freely. He should not object to the acceptance of the last part of the Amendment; but he thought it would be wise and prudent to adhere to the Rule as it stood.
    MR ARTHUR VIVIANsaid, he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. For a Member in charge of a Bill blocked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) life was not worth having. He believed that if the two Front Benches knew what difficulties were in the way of private Members in getting any legislation at all, they would support the Amendment, which he considered a most fair one. He supposed the Votes issued on the Saturday morning would show whether a block had been taken off or not?
    SIR R ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was not in favour of the first part of the Amendment, for instances had occurred in which all Bills had been blocked by one Member, and it would hardly be possible to get three Members to join in such a proceeding. Therefore, he did not think it would be any use altering the Rule in that respect. He felt it was necessary to guard against private Members putting down their Bills night after night, and keeping many Members in their places to resist them. He would, however, like to see the second part of the Amendment carried, necessitating a Member who blocked a Bill to renew the block every week. He considered that really good, and hoped the Government would accept it.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the way in which hon. Members regarded Amendments which tended to limit the application of the Rule would naturally depend on the view they took of the value of the Rule itself. They were
    1738
    too apt to forget the value of the Rule, because their attention had been be frequently called to its abuse. If the Rule were not in existence, an active private Member, who found that the Government, or a large section of the House, were opposed to his Bill, would put it down for every night in the Session. At the same time, he would not be bound to declare on which night he intended seriously to bring it forward. Thus, the majority who were against the Bill must attend every night in the Session in sufficient numbers to defeat the Bill, or else the Member in charge of it might, when he had a temporary majority in his favour, slip his Bill through. He did not think it fair to any Government or to the House that any Member should have that power; and, therefore, he thought the Rule must, in some shape or other, if not in its present one, remain on the Standing Orders. With regard to the Amendment, so far as it concerned the greatest abuse of the Rule—that where a Member blocked a Bill, and then perhaps went away for three months, without caring anything as to the convenience of the House in the matter—he did not think any attempt to increase, as it did, the number of persons who intended to block a Bill, would prevent that abuse, because it would be perfectly possible to get three Members to block any particular Bill, or any number of Bills; and if the block were really a legitimate one, intended to prevent the discussion of a measure at a time when it could not be thoroughly discussed, it was not fair to impose on those who opposed the Bill the necessity of getting others to support thorn in their opposition. It might, however, be fair to require a Member to renew his block from time to time. Such a proposal would have many arguments to recommend it; and, if it were satisfactory to both sides of the House, there was no possible question of principle which could prevent the Government from accepting it.
    SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that he had been a sufferer from the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule, as he was interested in many Metropolitan measures, which did not usually come on until a late hour. He thought it a grievous injustice that men were permitted to put their names down in opposition

    1739
    to a measure without their personal attendance being also required. He hoped that, if the Government could not accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), they would accept the proposal just shadowed forth by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.
    MR. MONKsaid, he deeply regretted the decision of the Government. There was a strong feeling that single Members had abused the privilege of blocking Bills—that, seemingly, being the only function of some Members. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment requiring three Members for a block, if they did not accept six.
    MR. MACFARLANEalso supported the Amendment. He objected to the continuance of a system under which such a Member as the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) should regulate the amount of legislation passing through the House.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he hoped the Government would accept the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). It would do no harm to the Rule, and prevent, at least, the gross abuse of it. He held that it was a scandal that one Member was able to block as many Bills as he chose.
    MR. LEWIS, in opposing the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), said, that, if it were accepted, it would so whittle away the Rule as to render it worthless. As a matter of fact, its whole effect might be put on one side by the accidental absence of one of the three Members. But he objected to both Amendments. The principle of the Membership of the House was based upon individual action; and he should be sorry to see that principle interfered with. Every hon. Member who had spoken in favour of the Amendments had, like the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), the hon. Member for West Corn-wall(Mr. Arthur Vivian), and the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), a destroyed Bill in his pocket. They were all a noble Army of Martyrs, who, not being able to carry their own little schemes, wished to continue to administer something in
    1740
    infinitesimally small doses to the House which would have the effect of making life miserable to all other hon. Members. Notwithstanding their sufferings, he hoped the Government would stand by their Resolution.
    MR. J. HOLLONDsaid, the argument of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) cut both ways. If so many Members had suffered by the existing Rule there was good reason for its repeal. Blocking Bills ought to be made a difficult matter; and he, therefore, supported the Amendment requiring that six should be the number for carrying that process into effect. Even if three Members were required to do so, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) would not lose his title to be called a benefactor; he would only have to admit others to the monopoly.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought care ought to be taken, in driving away one abuse, not to introduce another. He feared that if the Amendment were carried, one Member would block one Bill in consideration of another's blocking another Bill. Thus a system of joint-stock blocking would be brought into play, to which he would have the strongest objection. He hoped the Government would keep to the Rule as it stood.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he should have been strongly inclined to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), except that it did not make provision for the removal of the block. One Member would, by his absence or by not co-operating with his fellow-blockers, destroy the block. He thought the Government had sufficiently met the difficulty; but he hoped they would accept the second part of the hon. Member for Midhurst's Amendment, providing that the block should be renewed once a week.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the subject before the House was a difficult one, and he did not very distinctly see his way in the matter. He felt bound to admit that there had been a considerable abuse of the Rule by "public benefactors." He must own, also, that he had a considerable jealousy of the multiplication or creation of new quorums. Of late they had had occasion to create a good many; and he had no wish to

    1741
    go further in that respect than he possibly could help. For instance, they had a quorum of 200 for one purpose, a quorum of 100 for another purpose, there was the old and venerable quorum of 40 for a third purpose, a quorum of 20 for a fourth purpose, a quorum of 10 for a fifth purpose; and he certainly had objections to the creation of another quorum unless he very distinctly saw his way with respect to it, and at present he did not see his way. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. H. Paget) had rightly called attention to the danger that existed of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Holland) leading to a system of combinations for blocking Bills—to a system of exchange and mutual assistance and assurance societies in the blocking of Bills. It would be likely to lead to a more extended and better organized form, of opposition to a Bill. Now, that was unadvisable, for organized opposition was not wanted. What was wanted was free discussion. As he could not see how these small combinations would work, he viewed them with some apprehension. He would admit that the renewal of the Notice would be a considerable check. Indeed, he had not the least doubt that the necessity of coming down to the House and writing an objection from Friday to Friday would be a very considerable check upon any tendency that had heretofore existed to a wanton use of this Rule. There was considerable force, too, in the observations of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). He was afraid that an equally complicated machinery for the withdrawal of blocks would be necessary as for their imposition. There was another point he might mention. The House looked a great deal to the Government, and justly so—he meant to the Government of the day—for checking what he might call officious legislation of a certain kind; and he thought that if the House were to accept this Rule, and look to the Government to adopt this method of checking the blocking power, the exercise of such a right by official men would be extremely invidious. He admitted there was great difficulty in the case. For his own part, he must own that he did not see his way sufficiently to be responsible for the creation of a new quorum in the matter. With respect to a check against the
    1742
    abuse of the Rule, he did not feel that they had before them a perfect scheme; but, on the whole, he considered that, as he had said, the proposal that a block should be renewed week by week, though not an entirely sufficient check, was a very considerable one; therefore he thought they would be acting more safely if they took the course suggested by the last half of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Henry Holland), and rejected the first part.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he rose to Order; for, unless there was need, he should hardly like to trouble the House with a division. He therefore wished to know whether, as the Government had expressed a favourable opinion on the latter part of the Amendment, he might move the second part —that was, the clause after the word "valid," and abandon the first part?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he would point out that the Question immediately before the House was whether the word "six" should stand part of the Amendment, and until that question was disposed of the Amendment could not be altered.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he intended to vote for the Amendment as it stood, and he hoped the hon. Brronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) would go to a division. He himself intended to get as much legislation, and as quickly as possible, out of the House; and he thought that placing in the hands of a single Member the power to stop discussion, was likely to act prejudicially against progress. He could not himself understand upon what principle the Prime Minister opposed the first part of the Amendment, seeing that he had already, in previous Resolutions, established a considerable number of quorums. He thought, looking at the necessity there was for some limitation to be placed upon the power of blocking Bills, that the number "six" might with advantage be even increased to "twenty."
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would suggest that a way out of the difficulty might be found in putting it to the House, that the numbers "three" or "six" should stand part of the Amendment; and, after those questions were negatived, the latter part of the Resolution might be put.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he differed from the hon. Member for Galway Borough

    1743
    (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). He (Mr. Biggar) thought it desirable that one Member should have the power of saying that a Bill should not pass a stage without discussion. He did not think that, under any pretence, the stage of a Bill should be proposed after half-past 12 o'clock. As to the latter part of the Amendment, he did not see the advantage of putting Members to the trouble of going to the Table every Friday and re-entering blocks to a Bill. The only result of it would be to give more trouble to the Clerks at the Table.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, it was his full intention to support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), because the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule, perhaps more than any other of the proposed Rules, precluded the possibility of private Members obtaining the judgment of the House on the Bills they brought forward. As it was proposed, the Rule provided for the wants and necessities of the Government, and it shut out private Members entirely. He complained strongly, in regard to the whole of those Rules, that the Government appeared to consider that they constituted the only section of the House which was entitled to facilities; and when they secured facilities for the measures they deemed of importance, they seemed to think that everything else might go by the board, and that the wishes of private Members and their constituents were to be entirely disregarded in connection with the result of the labours of Parliament. The Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule was a modern innovation. It had existed as a Standing Order during the last two or three Sessions only. Before that time, of so little importance was it considered by the then Government, that the proposition that it should be in force as a Sessional Order was left to a private Member. Now, however, they found the Rule adopted by the Government in its most objectionable form, by which they prevented the possibility of a private Member's Bill that had been read a second time on a Wednesday getting through the Committee stage. It would be better to hand over the Wednesdays to the Government, if the object of the Resolutions was to save time, and enable Parliament to proceed to a definite conclusion on the matters brought before it; because the time spent in getting private
    1744
    Members' Bills read a second time on Wednesday, if they were not allowed to reach their further stages, would be practically lost both to the House and the country. Some opportunity ought to be afforded, by the modification of the Rule, for private Members to pass their Bills through Committee; and he therefore proposed, after the Amendment of the hon. Baronet was disposed of, to move an Amendment to except from the operation of the Rule Bills which had been read a second time on a Wednesday.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he rose for the purpose of explaining that, assuming that the words of the Amendment requiring six names to be attached to a blocking Notice were negatived, and also that the further proposal that there should be three names were negatived, the Government thought that the word "Members" should be changed into "a Member." Then the Amendment would run "and such Notice shall lapse at the end of the week following that on which it was given." He would take the opportunity of saying that the course proposed to be taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork would not be a satisfactory one.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he would accept the Prime Minister's suggestion as to the second part of the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:.—Ayes 39; Noes 147: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 381.)
    Question put, "That the word 'three' be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 126: Majority 74.—(Div. List, No. 382.)
    Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment, to insert, after the word "Member," the words "and dated."—(Captain Aylmer.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment amended, by leaving out the word "Members," and inserting the words "a Member, and dated, and," instead thereof; and by leaving out the words "at the least, and six names be kept on the Order Book to make such Notice valid, and that such Notice;" and also by leaving out the words "unless renewed by the Friday in that week."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Question, "That those words 'Provided, That every such Notice of Opposition or Amendment be signed in the House by a Member, and dated, and shall lapse at the end of the week following that in which it was given,' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Amendment proposed,
    At the end of the said Standing Order, as amended, to add the words "Provided also, That this Rule shall not apply to the nomination of Select Committees; and if objection be taken by any Member of the House to the name of any Member nominated on a Select Committee, the vote of the House on such a nomination shall be taken without Debate."—(Mr. Thorold Rogers.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not see that the necessity for that Proviso was very great, because the cases which his hon. Friend (Mr. Thorold Rogers) desired to guard against were very rare where any difficulty had been felt. Besides, he thought, it would be inconvenient to allow a decision to be taken on the appointment of any individual Member in the manner proposed by his hon. Friend, and, therefore, that the latter part of the Amendment should not be accepted. As regarded the first portion of the Amendment down to the word "Committees," he was prepared to accept it, and he would suggest the insertion of the word "also" after "provided."
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked whether the Rule was to apply to the nomination only of the Committee?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he was quite willing to accept that modification of his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add, at the end of the said Standing Order, as amended, the words "Provided also, That this Rule shall not apply to the nomination of Select Committees."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that, the Government having accepted that Amendment, he did not see why they should not go further, so as to include the appointment of Select Committees, as well as the nomination of them. The Amendment was, he believed, another intrench-
    1746
    ment on the rights of private Members. It would throw into the hands of the Government any nomination for a Select Committee which they might choose to bring on after half-past 12. The same Rule that applied to the nomination ought also to be applied to the appointment of such Committees.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he was sorry that the Government could not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He would remind the hon. Member that there was a great distinction between the appointment and the nomination of a Committee. The question of the appointment of a Committee might give rise to a great deal of discussion with respect to the policy of the inquiry; but that was not the case in respect to the nomination of the Members who were to sit upon it.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYremarked that, if the appointment of Select Committees were exempted from the Half-past Twelve Rule, they would have every conceivable question raised in that form. Hon. Members could put any Motion they chose into the form of a Motion for a Committee of Inquiry.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he felt bound to oppose the Amendment, on the ground that it would throw the nomination of Select Committees absolutely into the hands of the Government.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that, at the present time, Select Committees were appointed by the Whips, although private Members who had moved for the appointment of the Committee had some slight influence in the nomination. If the composition of a Select Committee was of a partial and unrepresentative character, then the only resource left to private Members was by blocking the nomination. But it was proposed to take this power away. He knew cases in which, on railway and insurance questions, as many as six or seven railway or insurance directors respectively had been appointed on the Committees. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped that the Government would not give their assent to the proposal, which was calculated to take the House at a disadvantage, and to incapacitate, further than was already done by the New Rules, the minority for the time being.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 20: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 383.)
    MR. EDWAED CLARKEsaid, he rose to move, in a slightly altered form from the way in which it had been originally framed and printed, an Amendment which stood in the name of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton). Those alterations which had been made in it were found necessary, to his (Mr. Clarke's) regret, in consequence of the changes which had been made in the Rule by the Amendments which had been adopted. As altered, it provided—
    "That when such business as may he taken has been disposed of, or at Half-past One of the Clock precisely, notwithstanding there may be business under discussion, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question: Provided always, That when the Division on an Amendment has not been concluded until after Half-past One the Original or Main Question, may, if no Debate arise thereupon, be put by Mr. Speaker, and a Division taken after Half-past One."
    His noble Friend stated last week that there was no Legislative Assembly in the world which sat more than half the number of hours occupied by that Chamber. That was the last attempt which could be made in the course of the discussion of those Rules to secure a fixed period for the adjournment of the House. The average length of their Sittings, taking four nights a week, was 10¼ hours, or nearly double the length of time occupied by any other Legislative Assembly; and if the proposal were adopted it would reduce the time to 9½ or 9¾ hours per night. No one could say that that would not leave a sufficiency of time on an average for the discharge of Public Business. Two answers only had been given to the proposal. One was the jocose answer of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that the best of all ways to lengthen our days was to spend the hours of the night in discussing Bills. The other answer was that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who said that if an hour was fixed the result would be a prolongation of the debates by Members wishing to get rid of certain measures, and that thus more time would be lost.
    1748
    Now, no one would deny that the long hours which the House sat imposed a severe strain on many hon. Members. He thought it a good thing for the Tory Party that the Tory Ministry went out in 1880, for had they remained in Office for another 12 months some of their most prominent and useful Members would have been incapacitated from discharging their duties, for they were breaking down under the strain. Private Members also felt the burden; and, therefore, the House did not get the full benefit of their assistance, as many of them were obliged to leave the House before the end of its Sitting. Further, many persons well qualified to take part in the deliberations of Parliament were deterred from entering the House because they were afraid of the great injury to their health from the prolonged hours; but a still greater and stronger argument than that appeared to him to be involved in the question of publicity. He quite agreed that legislation should go on with increased rapidity, but distinctly thought it would be better not to legislate than to do so, as far as the public were concerned, in the dark. The public knew nothing of the debates after 12 o'clock, and the country did not derive half the advantage it otherwise might from legislation after that hour, as it had no knowledge of its nature. The Government must have very little confidence in the Rules which they had passed and were passing, if the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was of any value. The Resolutions for preventing unnecessary debate and tedious repetition must surely be expected by the Government to have some substantial effect.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. EDWAED CLARKEresumed, saying that the only objection to the Amendment was that it would encourage Obstruction by tempting men to talk on particular questions up till half-past 1; but there was no substantial reason why the Sittings of the House should not be concluded at a reasonable time; and both the health of the Members and the necessity for publishing the debates was an argument in favour of the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To add, at the end of the said Standing Order, as amended, the words "Provided also, That, when such business as may be taken has been disposed of, or at Half-past One of the Clock precisely, notwithstanding there may he business under discussion, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House, without putting any Question: Provided always, That when the Division on an Amendment has not been concluded until after Half-past One, the Original or Main Question may, if no Debate arise thereupon, be put by Mr. Speaker, and a Division taken after Half-past One."—(Mr. Edward Clarke.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    THE ATTORNEY GENREAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he must oppose the Amendment on behalf of the Government. It was admitted that the hours during which the House sat were very long, and that it would be desirable to curtail them; but he (the Attorney General) would ask how, if they could not now transact the Business of the country, it would be possible to do it if they accepted this Amendment? They would, if they agreed to it, deprive themselves of a portion of the time which was now usually occupied, and give power to any Member to talk out a question by continuing the debate up till half-past 1. As a great mass of unopposed Business had to be dealt with at the end of each day's Sitting, the result of adopting the Amendment would be to give any individual Member the means of talking it out; and, in fact, one Member would be able to bring the Business of the House to a close at half-past 1, preventing a division being taken which would be desired by the great majority. In that case the present evils would be greatly aggravated.
    MR. E. STANHOPEobserved, that the Amendment met with the approval of many hon. Members, though the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who, as a Law Officer of the Crown, was supposed never to need sleep, was not in its favour. Every hon. Member ought to sympathize with a proposal which limited the Sitting of that House to nine hours and a-half daily. Surely that was enough for any deliberative Assembly. Nor was it unnatural that some such limit as this should be proposed, particularly as a great many Members would find their work much increased if the Government scheme of Grand Committees were carried out. He did not see what answer
    1750
    there was to the argument that if the New Rules were to be of so much use they ought to enable the House to shorten the duration of its Sittings. He was in favour of limiting them, and they must come to it at some time, for they could not go on as they were now doing. It was utterly impossible that human strength could support such lengthened Sittings. They must come to such a proposal as this some day or other, or the difficulty would possibly be met by some Member proposing the adjournment at half-past 12 every Sitting. Still, it might not be expedient to press the matter to a division at the present time.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, the reply of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General would have been more conclusive if the New Rules had not been passed. He believed the practical effect of a Rule of this kind would be that, in case there was a disposition to decide a question, when they came to half-past 12 the Speaker would be driven to apply the clôture in a reasonable way. At that hour the Speaker would probably be bound to declare that it was the "evident sense of the House" that the debate should close; a division would then be taken, and there would remain half or three-quarters of an hour, during which Public Business practically unopposed might be taken. He wished the Amendment had been put in a shape in which it could have been better considered. He agreed with the view that when they were reforming their Rules they should try to get rid of this terrible evil of carrying on legislative Business in the small hours of the morning. Old Members of the House of Commons had been debauched by the late hours they had kept for many years. Suppose a General Election should result in the return of men not debauched by these late hours, they would be unanimous in their determination to rise at a reasonable hour.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that as one who had held the Offices of First Commissioner of Works and of Postmaster General, he took a very serious view of the evil results of prolonged Sittings on the working staff of the House, whose constitutions were thereby subjected to an excessive strain.
    MR. PARNELLviewed the Amendment as a most reasonable one, and believed that the Government would only

    1751
    aggravate its difficulties by attempting to force on Business after half-past 1 o'clock. If the House adopted the Amendment it would arrive a little sooner at the solution of the question how the work of the country was to be effectively carried on. It would, perhaps, enable Members to see that in the splitting up of the labour of the House rested the only chance of its fulfilling its functions.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 76: Majority 43.—(Div. List, No. 384.)
    Question proposed, "That the said Standing Order, as amended, be agreed to."
    MR. PARNELLdesired to add to the Standing Order the following Proviso:—
    "Provided, That this Rule shall not apply to any Order of the Day which may have progressed through the stage of second reading on any Wednesday."
    He proposed this Proviso in the interests of private Members who might be so fortunate as to obtain the second reading of a Bill on a Wednesday. If they succeeded in achieving such an almost unheard of feat, they could not, under this Proviso, be blocked on the Committee and subsequent stages by a Member preventing it from coming on after half-past 12 o'clock by signing his name.
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. He apprehended that the House had already disposed of this question on the Motion of the hon. Member for Gloucester.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid that when the hon. Member for the City of Cork first placed this Amendment in his hands it seemed to him that it might be put; but, on further consideration, it appeared to him that it could not be put, as the question had been practically decided.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 12: Majority 88.—(Div. List, No. 385.)
    Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule.
    [Standing Order of 18 February 1879, amended 9 May and 20 November 1882.]
    (8.) Resolved, That, except for a Money Bill, no Order of the Day or Notice of Motion be taken after half-past Twelve of the clock at night, with respect to which Order or Notice of Motion a Notice of Opposition or Amendment shall have been printed on the Notice Paper, or if such Notice of Motion shall only have been given the next previous day of sitting, and objection shall be taken when such Notice is called.
    That Motions for the appointment or nomination of Standing Committees and Proceedings made in accordance with the provisions of any Act of Parliament or Standing Order, Motions for leave to bring in Bills, and Bills which have passed through Committee of the whole House, be excepted from the operation of this Order.
    Provided, That every such Notice of Opposition or Amendment be signed in the House by a Member, and dated, and shall lapse at the end of the week following that on which it was given.
    Provided also, That this Rule shall not apply to the nomination of Select Committees.

    THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—NINTH RULE (ORDER IN DEBATE)
    MR. GLADSTONErose to move the 9th Resolution, which he said consisted of a recital of the present Standing Order, together with certain Amendments introduced into it. It was necessary to read the Standing Order to understand the nature of the Amendment. The Standing Order was passed more for the purpose of removing all the scandals in the conduct of Public Business than as an effective instrument for securing despatch; but he did not think that any penal or restrictive measures ever could attain the whole, or the main part of the object that the House had in view in dealing with its procedure. He regarded this as a penal Resolution, intended to provide for a particular class of cases, and, viewing it in that light, he did not find fault with the original framers for having drawn it in a mild form; but it was quite plain there ought to be a considerable enhancement in the amount of penalty in the shape of suspension. At present, in the case of a first offence, the House had to go through the operation of a division; and if the offence had occurred in Committee, the process was still more elaborate, because then the Question had to be put twice—once in the Committee and once in the House. Thus the House was compelled to spend almost as much time in deciding the Question—or the two Questions—as the offending Member would be suspended for, if he were only suspended for the residue of the evening. Looked at from the point of view of the House, and not of the guilty Member, the process was needlessly and unreasonably cumbrous. No doubt, suspension was a serious thing; but in common practice it was preceded by one or more warnings. The warnings were not required by this Resolution, as there

    1753
    might be inconvenience in requiring them. As to the second offence, nothing could be more manifest than that it ought to be followed by a greater penalty than that proposed by the present Resolution, which treated the first and second offences exactly alike. The enhancement of the penalty with a view to the greater efficiency of the Resolution was the substance of the Government proposal, and it would be for the House to consider whether the Rule which they had framed was a fair one. When the grave character of the offence was considered, and when it was remembered that the punishment was only inflicted by the deliberate act of the House, he thought the punishment stated could not be regarded as excessive. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the Standing Order be now read.
    Standing Order of 28 February 1880 read as followeth:—
    "That, whenever any Member shall have been named by the Speaker, or by the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, as disregarding the authority of the Chair, or abusing the Rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, or otherwise, then, if the offence has been committed in the House, the Speaker shall forthwith put the Question, on a Motion being made, no amendment, adjournment, or debate, being allowed, 'That such Member be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of that day's sitting;' and, if the offence has been committed in a Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall, on a Motion being made, put the same Question in a similar way, and if the Motion is carried shall forthwith suspend the proceedings of the Committee and report the circumstance to the House; and the Speaker shall thereupon put the same Question, without amendment, adjournment, or debate, as if the offence had been committed in the House itself. If any Member be suspended three times in one Session, under this Order, his suspension on the third occasion shall continue for one week, and, until a Motion has been made, upon which it shall be decided at one sitting, by the House, whether the suspension shall then cease, or for what longer period it shall continue; and, on the occasion of such Motion, the Member may, if he desires it, be heard in his place: Provided always, That nothing in this Resolution shall be taken to deprive the House of the power of proceeding against any Member according to ancient usages."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he differed from the views of the Prime Minister, because the proceedings under the existing Standing Order had had great effect in accelerating Business. He
    1754
    had always regretted that more attention had not been paid to that Order, which made the offender suffer; whereas by the 1st of the New Rules the whole House was punished for the offence of a small number. He regretted that more Rules of that kind had not been introduced. The Standing Order which had just been read had been used with great effect and sledge-hammer force by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and had enabled him to carry one measure which he would not otherwise have been able to carry. But the Prime Minister said the Rule was not stringent enough, and could only be applied after divisions; and divisions of 300 or 400 Members took a long time. But the Government seemed to forget the Rules already passed, one of which, in many cases, made a division unnecessary. If the offender was manifestly wrong, he would not find 20 Members to support him. He did not say that the Rule should not be strengthened: but to propose that the first offence should meet with a week's suspension, the second with two months', and the third with suspension for the remainder of the Session, was one of the most monstrous proposals he had ever heard. If the punishment was too severe the Speaker or Chairman would be very careful in applying the Rule. The House must, moreover, recollect that under the existing Rule it had scarcely ever happened that a Member had been Named a third time. That showed that the penalty already imposed had the very effect now sought—namely, to prevent a Member from offending a third time. Why, then, was it necessary to inflict suspension for a whole Session? The proposed Rule would also act unfairly in punishing not only the offending Member, but also his constituents. If it rested with the Speaker to enforce the penalty, it would be different. But the Speaker was only to take the initiative, and then, probably, after a heated discussion, the House would rise against the offending Member and enforce the Rule simply because it was angry. So that there would not be that deliberate action of the House of which the Prime Minister had spoken. The time for proposing such an extension of power was singularly ill-timed, considering that there were outcries throughout the country as to the powers of suspension pos-

    1755
    sessed by Judges; and the Prime Minister himself had promised to introduce a Bill next Session dealing with that subject. He predicted that if the Resolution passed in its present form, and was acted upon, the Government would be called upon every Session to repeal it.
    MR. GORSTrose to move an Amendment of which he had given Notice; but—
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to Order, and asked whether other Members would not be allowed to follow the example of the Prime Minister and the late Home Secretary? Otherwise, the moving of an Amendment would preclude Members from discussing the general Question.
    MR. SPEAKER: Strictly speaking, there is no Question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman has moved that the Standing Order be read, and it has been read by the Clerk at the Table.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he hoped he would be within the indulgence of the House in following the example of the two right hon. Gentlemen.
    MR. GLADSTONEdenied that he had entered on a discussion of the general Question.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsubmitted that the two right hon. Gentlemen could not have spoken as they did unless it was in Order for every Member to speak in a similar manner.
    MR. SPEAKER: If I am to adopt a regular course on this occasion, I should desire some Question to be before the House before the debate proceeds.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked if he would be in Order if he moved that the Standing Order be not read?
    MR. SPEAKER: That obviously is not regular. If any hon. Member desires to move an Amendment at a point previous to that of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, he is at liberty to do so.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the chief question, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, seemed to be that of time; but in a matter of this kind, where penalties were concerned, time could not at all compare in importance with justice. The question then was, whether this Standing Order was just and fair, and whether it would redound to the reputation of the House if put in force? It was now proposed to make the Rule more consonant with justice by adding the word "indi-
    1756
    vidual" to "any." The case of each offending Minister ought to be judged by itself, without being mixed up with that of any other Member, thus following the principle adopted in Courts of Justice of trying by itself the case of each individual prisoner. On one occasion several Members of the House had been Named collectively; but that was because the same evidence applied to the whole. But another instance had happened in which the Chairman Named several Members collectively when the evidence in each case was separate and distinct. He believed that in that instance the Chairman acted entirely under a misapprehension as regarded one particular Member, and that that Member was wholly innocent of any offence whatever. It therefore seemed to him that in order to save the reputation of the House for justice they ought to amend their Standing Order so that the case of each Member should be individually dealt with. In order to secure that in future, in the exercise of that judicial power on the part of the presiding authority, and also on the part of the House, the case of each offending Member should be separately dealt with, he now moved to insert in line 1 of the proposed Rule the word "individual" after the word "any."
    Amendment proposed, inline 1 of said Standing Order, after the word "any," to insert the word "individual."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'individual' be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was one of very great importance; but he greatly doubted the expediency of discussing it upon this Amendment, because the phrase which the hon. and learned Member proposed to introduce was either ambiguous or quite null and void. Every Member was, undoubtedly, an individual; and if they said that when any individual did so and so he should undergo such and such consequences, that did not prevent any number of individuals being included in the same sentence. He, therefore, recommended the withdrawal of that Amendment, and that the question which the hon. and learned Member desired to raise should be raised in a different and more distinct manner.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought there could be no doubt that that particular application of the Rule on the two occasions mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham was certainly not contemplated by the late Chairman of Committees (Mr. Raikes), when he was examined before the Select Committee on Public Business in 1877, although it was in consequence of the evidence then given by Mr. Speaker and Mr. Raikes that the Rule was subsequently passed. Mr. Raikes distinctly laid down that no Member could be suspended for the sins of another, and that no body of Members could be suspended together. The possibility of the application of the Rule in the way in which it was afterwards applied—namely, to cumulative or to constructive Obstruction, and also against a large number of Members, and against Members some time after they had committed the alleged offence, having presented itself to his own mind while Mr. Raikes was under examination, he had asked him several Questions bearing on those points. In Question 1,113 he asked—
    "Then, in fact, the proposed Rule would give the power to a Member to rise and charge any number of Members with Obstruction?"
    Mr. Raikes replied—
    "That is not quite an accurate representation. The objection would have to be taken during the particular speech of the particular Member, and the Question submitted to the Committee would have reference to that Member only."
    Again, he said—
    "It would only be competent to call attention to the subject in the case of and at the time of the Member committing the offence."
    And lower down he said—
    "It would not be open to a Member to go back to the case of any Member who had addressed the Committee half-an-hour before.
    But the House knew well that in the application of the Rule on a remarkable occasion during the present Session, when a number of Members were suspended who had not taken any part whatever in the proceedings of the Sitting during which they were suspended, and who had not been present in the House for many hours before, the House knew that the considerations then urged by Mr. Raikes were entirely thrown overboard and disregarded. It was, therefore, of the greatest importance that the question should be raised
    1758
    and fully discussed, that they should discuss it by the light of the experience which the working of the Rule had thrown upon it, and by the light of the experience which the interpretation of the present Chairman of Committees had afforded. The Rule had been used in such a way as to suspend and deprive of their rights on one occasion so large a body as 35 Members, and upon another occasion a body of 25 Members were deprived of their rights, and expelled from the House for the remainder of the Sitting. But now the Government went still further, and, notwithstanding the experience the House had had of the manner in which the Rule might be used, proposed practically to give the majority the right to suspend any number of Members for the rest of the Session. They might thus, at some future time, get rid of the Front Opposition Bench and all their followers, and deprive them of their Constitutional rights during the rest of the Session. Now, he should have very much liked to have heard the Prime Minister inform the House as to whether there existed any example or any precedent in any foreign country, or any Assembly, for a Rule of this kind, under which a whole minority—a whole Party—of the House of Commons might be suspended, and kept out of the House for the rest of the Session? He had not heard of any such an example, and he did think it was a matter which had become of very great importance in view of the way in which a Rule had been exercised. This, in fact, was what the Government now asked them to do. They said—"Give us the power to suspend not one particular Member for any particular offence committed at any particular time, but give us the power to suspend all our opponents, if we want to do so, if we can obtain a Speaker or a Chairman of Committees sufficiently pliable to our hands." They did not know that such a Speaker or Chairman of Committees might not arise hereafter—because, looking back, they found that they had had Speakers who had been subservient, and who had been pliable—and there was no reason in the world why they should not again have Speakers who might be subservient, and who might be pliable. Then, where was the necessity for such a power? Could it he shown that any time had ever been

    1759
    gained by the application of this Rule during the three years in which it had existed? Could it be shown that Public Business had ever been appreciably put forward by the use of this Rule? Was it going to enable them to pass a single Bill very much sooner? By all means, if an individual Member wilfully obstructed the Business of the House, let him be suspended; if he repeated the offence, let him be suspended for three months; and if he transgressed again, let him be suspended for the rest of the Session. But that was not what they were asked to do. They were asked to give the power to the Government—for that was really what it came to—of suspending a whole body of Members for the sins which might be committed by some of them, if the Chairman chose to think that they were acting in combination with other Members, or that they approved of their proceeding. Never before had any Minister or responsible person come forward with such an extraordinary proposal; and he was much disappointed to find that, so far from being modified in the direction which experience suggested as right and proper, it should have been made more stringent and more destructive of the rights of minorities in that House. It was not a Rule under which they could make their Business progress any more quickly than it did at present. They had used it against the Irish Party twice, and they might be able to use it hereafter against the Conservative Opposition. It was not to be supposed that in these days of Radical progress the Conservative Opposition would always continue as numerous as they were at present. It was possible that they might find the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford North-cote)—who was absent at present, he regretted to say, through ill-health—with no greater following than 50 or 60 Members; he might be in exactly the same position as the Irish Party were in on one occasion, when their numbers did not deter the Government from forcibly expelling them; and the Conservative Opposition, numerous as they were now, might regret the day when they drafted a Rule of this kind, which was capable of such extraordinary use in the hands of a Chairman of Committees, and which had paved the way for such a further extraordinary demand as that now made by the Prime Minister.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsympathized with the object of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, but declined to support his Amendment, on the ground that it would not have the desired effect.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he thought it would have been more satisfactory if the Prime Minister had given the House an intimation as to the views of the Government upon the manner in which the very important question under discussion should be decided. It could not be denied that there was a strong feeling in favour of some Amendment like that of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). The original Order never contemplated the suspension of Members en masse. If that Rule were seriously adopted, there was no reason why he himself should not have been included in its operation on that famous occasion when the Irish Members were suspended, if the Chairman had taken it into his head to think he had obstructed the Business of the House, although he was not, and had not been, present for some days. The House certainly ought to know whether individual or collective Members were intended. So far as the punishment of individual Members was concerned, he did not agree with the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in condemning the penalties suggested as too severe; on the contrary, he regarded them as not more weighty than the nature of those offences demanded.
    MR. WARTONregretted that they were precluded from a general discussion of the Resolution. He was, however, in no apprehension as to the future fate of the Conservative Party suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), inasmuch as they had just won another seat at Salisbury, making the twelfth since the General Election, while the Liberal Party had only secured two. He was sorry to see in the New Rule that the penalties were more stringent than hitherto; and therefore it became more imperative that an explanation should be given, whether it was intended that those penalties should be applied to individual Members, or to Members in a body.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that the introduction of this Amendment would not, in the smallest degree, advance the purpose of its proposer, and

    1761
    he suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn. He wished the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) and the House to consider whether they should not really arrive at the object he had in view by considering the terms of the Resolution generally, rather than by looking at the words in particular. If they were to increase the penalties in the severe manner proposed, he should be very much inclined to examine very stringently the terms of this Resolution, because, as they were at present framed, they were of the largest and vaguest kind. He had great hesitation about giving to the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees such a tremendous power as was proposed, if it was to be applied to cases of what the Speaker or Chairman might consider wilful Obstruction of the Business of the House. He was as much at sea now as he was at the beginning of these discussions as to what Obstruction meant. It might be applied by very virtuous persons, as well as by persons who wished to interfere with the real Business of the House.
    MR. SALTfeared that if the present Amendment were inserted, it would have an effect upon the clause different from that which was desired; but the hon. and learned Member, no doubt, might attain his object by an Amendment introduced in the sixth or seventh line. He would suggest that there was a wide difference in the character of the action of the Chair when directed against an individual and when directed against a Party. When applied to an individual for offending against the Rules, he was perfectly satisfied that the Chair would always be supported by 99–100ths of the House; but when directed against a Party, the effect would be a more solid, desperate, and determined resistance on the part of that Party. He thought that in matters of that kind the House should be unanimous in its support of the Chair.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORmust say that the tone of the Conservative Party on this occasion, and the tone of at least two Members on the other side of the House, contrasted, he thought, agreeably with the tone of the Government with regard to this Resolution. He must say that he was perfectly at a loss to understand not merely that the Prime Minister proposed the penalties of this Rule, but that he proposed the imposition of this
    1762
    Rule at all. There was not a single power of curtailing debate or suppressing anything like irrelevant observation on the part of a Member or a Party that the right hon. Gentleman had not already. He defied the right hon. Gentleman to give a single instance in which the Business of the House could be delayed or disarranged which was not already quite sufficiently provided for without this Rule at all. The right hon. Gentleman, instead of doing away with this Rule altogether—and he submitted that he would be perfectly entitled and justified in doing away with it—proposed exactions which, he might say, shocked hon. Members on both sides of the House. Was the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or something like it, unnecessary in the face of the notorious fact of the earlier portion of this Session? Was not the use of this Rule on a former occasion—of course, it would be altogether out of Order for him to say a scandal—but was it not notorious that it gave a large amount of dissatisfaction and apprehension on every side and quarter and section of the House—Liberal and Tory and Radical? The House, of course, would naturally support the Chair as against an individual Member; but did the Prime Ministsr think they were such slaves of words as to call that the deliberate judgment of the House? This Resolution appeared to him to be described by one adjective and one adjective only—it was the anti-Irish Resolution of these Procedure Resolutions. To most Members it would be a great relief to be ordered to give up their Parliamentary labours; but it would be a deprivation to the constituencies, and he was surprised to see the right hon. Gentleman give his sanction to such a mischievous and ridiculous proposal.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he might state that when his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) first brought forward this Rule it was not his intention that it should be brought info operation in globo, but that it should act on Members individually. He (Lord John Manners) thought it best, under the circumstances, to make clear the will of the House that this Rule should not be brought into operation in the first-mentioned way. He considered that that was a favourable opportunity for some Members of the Government to come forward

    1763
    and say whether they were generally in favour of the words suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) or not, or whether they were prepared to introduce some other words at the proper place in order to effectuate his intention.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that when the issue which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham desired to bring forward was raised, the Government would be prepared to state the course they would advise the House to take. It would be inconvenient to discuss at great length a general question upon an Amendment which it was generally admitted would settle nothing at all. He did not propose to go any further into the general question except to say that the observations of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seemed to have been somewhat misunderstood. They did not say that it might not be possible to consider some modifications of the Rule; but his right hon. Friend had never committed the Government to the proposition that the power existed of applying the Standing Order to several Members for the offence of one.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought that the Government would save time if they took the earliest possible opportunity of stating their intentions with regard to the Resolution. It would be inconvenient that they should resume the consideration of the Amendment without knowing the intentions of the Government with regard to the applicability of the Rule to such proceedings as took place earlier in the Session. He came down to the House one morning, and, finding the authority of the Chair in question, without having any opportunity of mastering the details of what had been going on, no debate or explanation being permissible, he voted in support of the authority of the Chair. He confessed that he was much astonished to find that some of the hon. Members whose names were mentioned, who he thought during his absence had been guilty of some direct challenge to the authority of the Chair, had only been enjoying slumber as he had for many hours. A recurrence of anything of that kind would be much to be regretted, and would greatly impair the dignity of the House. He hoped the Government, when in their judgment the proper time arrived, would be prepared to offer to the House some
    1764
    proposal which would prevent the recurrence of such proceedings.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he hoped that before the Government committed themselves to any course with regard to this Resolution they would direct their attention to the fact that two questions of a different character were raised by it. Up to this point the debate had turned mostly on the question of Obstruction. He confessed in dealing with that he thought, in general, it would be well to punish the individual offender and not many collectively. At the same time, he remembered that soon after the present Rule was adopted by the House, the Speaker was understood to hold that a case might arise for applying it to a collective offence. But, besides the offence of Obstruction, the Rule dealt with the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair. They had had an instance where that authority had been deliberately disregarded by a number of Members collectively. On one occasion 28 Members of the Irish Party, feeling themselves aggrieved by the course taken by the Speaker, refused to vote, in defiance of the authority of the Chair. It was possible that such an occurrence might happen again; and, unless the Rule could be applied collectively, it might be necessary to go through some 25, or, if it happened in Committee, even 50 divisions.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he could not help thinking that the debate had taken a new departure since the speeches of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Parker) had been addressed to the House, and that it would now appear that the Rule was to be used for collective punishment. If collective offences were punished collectively, it should be made clear that there were to be several offences and collective offences to be punished in different ways. It ought not to be left in doubt. The real difficulty with the Rule was that it had been misapplied. He could perfectly well recollect the extraordinary occasion to which reference had been made. He was many thousand miles away in a foreign country, amongst a foreign people. He had to consider how best he could justify the action of the Representative of the House of Commons, and he was totally unable to do so. The Rule was plainly intended

    1765
    by its author and by the House as an instrument to be used cautiously and against individuals; but it had been used incautiously and against bodies of Members. The Government ought to state plainly whether they wished the Speaker or Chairman to retain the power to sentence Members collectively. The justification of what had taken place on the occasion of the suspension of the Irish Members had never yet been uttered. It had been excused, it had been palliated; but it had been regretted by all. It had been regretted universally on all sides of the House. ["No, no!"] He heard some utterances now from behind the Treasury Bench, which showed that there were Ministerial Members of the House who delighted in the fact that on one occasion some 30 Members were sentenced to be banished from the House in the absence of three or four of them.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, one thing was plain, that they had been sitting there at great inconvenience for a month, and the Government must have found that whenever they had shown a disposition to be conciliatory they had made the best progress, and no impediments had been thrown in their way. [A. laugh.] The Home Secretary laughed, as he always laughed at a truism, and was prepared to deny it; but he could not have been in the House, or he would know that good progress had been made. If the Prime Minister wished to make progress now, he must take care that no injustice was done to any Party in the House. There could be no doubt for a moment that the Resolution as it was drawn was aimed at the Irish Party, and the Irish Party alone. The Prime Minister said that none of the Resolutions were framed against any Party; but he could not but say, looking at this Resolution as proposed to be amended by the Government in the light of past occurrences, that it was aimed against the Irish Party. Whatever might be thought of some of the proceedings that Party had carried on, there was one thing he held most dear, and that was that any Member should have justice and fair play. Whatever might be the voices that expressed dissent from behind the Treasury Bench, no one would deny that the proceedings the Chairman took on a recent occasion had left a rankling in the minds of Members which he should be sorry to have renewed. He said nothing against
    1766
    the Chairman, for he had the greatest regard for the right hon. Gentleman. It would be a gross abuse of power to place this Rule in the hands of any Chairman, this Rule allowing him to deal with the conduct of Members collectively, except with the greatest safeguards. When the Committee was heated, and a certain number of Members, for reasons they considered amply sufficient, placed themselves in antagonism to the majority, how easy it would be to say the whole of this number should be suspended, though some amongst them might not have acted actively. It would be fatal to the liberties of the House; and he humbly, earnestly, and energetically urged the Prime Minister to declare how far he intended to go with this Resolution, so that the House might know how to deal with the present Amendment.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that Her Majesty's Government were engaged in an attempt to mystify the House. It was for them to make their meaning clear and beyond the possibility of mistake. The Government must remember that there had been the very greatest division of opinion as to the construction put on the Standing Order by the Speaker and the Chairman on two particular occasions, and it was clearly the duty of the Government to make the understanding clear as to whether they meant the Rule to apply individually or collectively. He challenged the Attorney General to deny that if the Rule were passed as it stood, and were administered by a Judge, it would not be construed as meaning a collective application. He asked the Prime Minister if he was prepared to insert in the Resolution, after "Member," the words "or Members?" If that were done, the House would have a distinct issue before it; and till the intention of the Government were made clear, there need be no surprise if much valuable time were lost before they came to a decision on the point.
    MR. NEWDEGATEwished to remind the House that on the night of the suspension of the Irish Members those Members left the House in a body.
    MR. CALLANdenied the statement, and said that the Chairman had suddenly produced his list of Members, and that not one of the Irish Members left the House. Several of those Members

    1767
    had been in bed many hours when the suspension occurred. He had consulted the reporters of four daily papers, and they informed him that the name of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin McCarthy) was never read out by the Chairman, and the vote suspending him was not put to the House. Then the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Marum) was also suspended; but even the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds), who voted for the suspension of them all, would hardly get up and say that that hon. Member had been properly suspended.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had listened with some attention to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who anticipated the statement of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), that if this were an Act of Parliament, it would not be read collectively. That was not so, because, under the Act generally known as Lord Brougham's, words in the singular number were allowed also to be read in the plural. He was astonished to hear hon. Members opposite say that the Government ought now to mitigate the severity of the action of the House towards private Members; because when the Government proposed the 1st Resolution they were told that they ought not to interfere with free discussion, but ought to punish private Members for acting obstructively. And the noble Viscount (Viscount Sandon), whom, he regretted to think, they would no longer hear in that House, said—"I would increase the penalty upon private Members." Butnow the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) stated that this Resolution was drawn against the Irish Members. Why, the Resolution was drawn by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), and not by the Prime Minister. [Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT: The Amendments.] The hon. and gallant Member's assertion was that the Resolution as it stood was directed against the Irish Members. [Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT: As proposed by the Government.] The Resolution was the same as that drawn and passed by the right hon. Member for North Devon at the time he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. and gallant Baronet did not say the Amendments were drawn against the Irish Party, but the Resolution.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that that was not his statement. He spoke of the Resolution as amended by the Government, and it was with regard to the Resolution so amended that he made his statement.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that the hon. and gallant Baronet's statement was that this Resolution was drawn against the Irish Members. And the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) now said that he voted as to the action of the Chairman without inquiring what took place. Was the right hon. Gentleman in such a state of ignorance that he concluded something had taken place which had not? But now all the responsibility for this conduct was thrown off, and right hon. Gentlemen representing the Opposition were objecting to the action of the Government, which on a former occasion they supported and the responsibility for which they shared. The Amendment raised a very small point, and it would be far more convenient to wait for the Prime Minister's statement till the question, as a whole, came before the House in a practical form. The matter could not be discussed now, for the Amendment, as he had said, did not raise the whole question. The Government would undertake, when the time came, to make a statement on the entire subject.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the Government objected to the time of the Amendment, and asked the House not to demand explanations till they came to another Amendment which might or might not be moved. He might contend, however, that the point now raised was one of considerable importance, with respect to which the House had a right to press for an answer. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Resolution was originally framed by the Leader of the Opposition. That might be so in form; but since the Resolution was first submitted to his right hon. Friend circumstances had occurred which had altogether altered the construction put upon it, and it was now necessary, in order to prevent misapprehensions, that the House should know whether the Government intended the Rule to be applied individually or collectively. The sole question was whether, according to the Rule, an offending Member should be Named to the House, or whether the

    1769
    Rule should be the means of taking action against a Party?
    MR. DODSONobserved that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed anxious to convey to the House that they were not responsible for the Rule in its present shape.
    COLONEL STANLEY: Not for the form in which it is now to be applied.
    MR. DODSONaccepted, and was glad to hear, the correction of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. As to the interpretation of the Rule in a collective sense, he would draw attention to the debate of the 31st of January, 1881, when they had an All-night Sitting. The late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross) then said, appealing to the Speaker—
    "I put it to you, Sir, whether all these speeches, if they he taken, not one by one, hut in combination, do not show that there is a decided combination for the purpose of wilful and persistent Obstruction? I would ask further, whether, under this order of the House, you have not the power of putting a stop to these proceedings?"—[3 Hansard, cclvii. 1943–4.]
    That was inviting a collective application of the Rule. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon rose later in the Sitting, endorsed what the right hon. Gentleman had stated, and went on to ask for some expression of opinion on the part of the Government in order to strengthen the hands of Mr. Deputy Speaker to put down what he was fully convinced was nothing short of Obstruction. He thought the instance he had given was sufficient to show that the Rule had already been applied to collective Obstruction, the initiative having been taken by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was not unusual on Bills in Committee to move Amendments for the sake of eliciting opinions from the Government. The proceeding on that occasion was analogous to that, their object being to get an expression of opinion from the Government. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down seemed entirely to have missed the point. He quoted cases which had nothing whatever to do with the question at issue. He really believed that if the Speaker's attention had been drawn to the fact, the right hon. Gentleman would have been called to Order on the ground of irrelevance. They wished that the Speaker or the Chairman should deal with each particular case, and give the
    1770
    House an opportunity of judging of such case. No other course would e tolerated for a moment in a Court of Justice; and it was to secure the ends of justice that they supported the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. It would be unsatisfactory to leave the question to be dealt with subsequently by a Proviso, for the Government might then be able to shelve the question altogether.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not altogether agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) in the remarks he had made upon the speech of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson). The right hon. Gentleman said that the passages quoted from previous debates by his right hon. Friend were altogether irrelevant to the present issue. Of course, the question raised by the Speaker in 1881 distinctly pointed to the question of combination. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not wish, however, to press that matter too far; but he certainly did remember that in the particular instance in question, when the objection was taken and referred to the Speaker, the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to that particular action of the Chairman of Ways and Means was a justification of it in view of there having been a combination. Consequently, the Speaker did on that occasion, in his ruling, distinctly regard it as being germane to the action of the Chairman of Committee. But, as he had said, he did not wish to push that point too far. Certainly, if it were asked, as a general proposition, whether the action ought to be against Members singly or collectively, he should say that it ought to be singly and not collectively; but, at the same time, he feared that there might be occasions when the action was really of a collective character, and therefore all the Government wished was to have something to carry out the penal operation of the Rule in both cases. As a general principle the Resolution would be applied to Members singly, but it would not altogether exclude particular cases where there might have been a collective action which ought to be dealt with as a whole. That was a fair statement of the case; but he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that it would be a convenient course to take the

    1771
    discussion at that point upon an Amendment which did not meet it at all, but he thought it would be better to take it upon an Amendment which distinctly raised the point. In a case of this kind it was undoubtedly the desire of the Government to collect the opinion of the House for the discussion which took place, and he hoped when the Government had collected the opinion of the House, that they would endeavour to carry that opinion out. It would, however, be highly improper to state what the views and intentions of the Government were before they had had an opportunity of collecting the opinion of the House and of endeavouring to meet the views of the House upon the subject. So far as he gathered from the course the discussion had taken, it seemed to him that there were two points which had to be met. First of all the general and governing principle was that there should be single action, but that they should not exclude collective action, if it was necessary. The Government would be prepared, although they would not bind themselves to the actual words, to introduce an Amendment something to this effect—
    "Provided also, That no more than one Member shall be named at the same time, unless several Members present together have concurred in an act for which they are named."
    The object, in the first instance, would be to provide that as a general rule the Speaker should only Name a single Member; but if a number of Members were palpably acting together, then they might be dealt with collectively. As he had framed the Proviso, it would obviate the objection which had been taken, that any Member who was not present could be Named. It required that the Member Named should be present, and also that if there were a number of Members present who were concurring in a particular act, that they might also be Named if occasion should arise. He had felt it right to explain the intentions of the Government, but at the same time he had no desire to encourage hereafter a practice of discussing an Amendment which could not be decided. The Government submitted this Amendment now, but they entertained the hope that the House would refrain from discussing it until the time arrived when it could be properly proposed. He trusted that the announcement he had now made would
    1772
    have the effect of shortening the discussion upon the Amendment at present before the House.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that the words which had just been read by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, no doubt, altered to some slight extent the effect of the Rule. He did not know whether the Government considered it proper that the House should proceed to criticize those words now. There were only two courses open: either instantly to proceed to criticize the words, because they were words skilfully framed and involving a secondary meaning which might not easily be discerned; or, in the second place, to take the more convenient course of adjourning the debate until tomorrow, in order to enable the House to ascertain what was the real meaning to be attached to these words. The utmost range of the concession made by the Government was this—that only one Member should be Named at the same moment, but that any number of Members, if they were believed by the Speaker to have concurred in any act for which a Member was Named, might also be Named and suspended on the same occasion. Now, what was concurrence? How was concurrence to be determined? Concurrence might be manifested by speech or by act, or it might be merely a determination in the mind of Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman now in the Chair, or the Speaker of the future, versed in the thought-reading of which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had spoken, might convict a number of Members of concurrence in an act simply because he supposed them on general grounds to be in sympathy with the Member Named. There were two great points to which hon. Members on that side of the House attached importance. In the first place, that a Member should only be suspended because of an event immediately arising, and not on account of something which had taken place at a previous Sitting; and, secondly, that the Members suspended should be suspended singly and not en masse. In those respects he did not think the words proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman afforded any very great security to the House. The case of the Government was wretchedly bad before the House were favoured with the speech of that great logician the President of

    1773
    the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson); but, bad as it was, the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in making it infinitely worse. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, conscious of the weakness of his own arguments, was not prepared to take upon himself the additional weakness of the arguments of his right hon. Colleague, and he simply slid, by the speech of the President of the Local Government Board by declaring that the quotations he had read were not irrelevant. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had risen in his place, and, brandishing a volume of Hansard before their faces, by way of showing that the Conservative Party were responsible for the monstrous reading given in this Parliament to the Conservative Rule made a few years ago, he had cited what? Not a declaration of opinion by the Leaders of the Conservative Party, but an appeal made to the authority of the Speaker by two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench, as to the construction of a Standing Order. The Speaker was asked on that occasion by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether or not a certain course of conduct pursued by certain Members of the House might or might not be brought under the operation of the Standing Order. The same question, although in different words, was put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). Now, in the first place, neither of those right hon. Gentlemen made any declaration as to the meaning of the Standing Order, but both of them simply submitted a question to the Speaker, and if the Speaker had resolved that question in the affirmative, it still could not have been asserted that the Rule could have been applied to long past affairs. The principle would still have been maintained that the Rule was only applicable to events and circumstances immediately arising. Even if the Speaker had replied in the affirmative, it would actually have been necessary, in accordance with the original interpretation of the Rule, to proceed separately against each offending Member. The questions put by the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench did not authorize or support in any way the subsequent
    1774
    action taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Lyon Playfair). It would still have been necessary to proceed separately against each offending Member. The Speaker on that occasion gave the ruling which had been quoted as an evidence of the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that collective action might be taken upon the Rule; but how was it the right hon. Gentleman really acted? Did he act upon his own ruling, and suppress whole bodies of Members of the House? Not at all; rather than act upon his own ruling and his own view, the right hon. Gentleman resorted to an act unprecedented in history. He chose to interpose his personal will between a certain Party in that House and free speech, and the right hon. Gentleman had preferred to take that course rather than put upon the Standing Order the interpretation which the Government now put upon it. In such a state of facts, how could the Government have the intellectual audacity—although, perhaps, intellectual was a bad word to apply to it—how could the Government have the audacity to come to the House and place upon the Standing Order an interpretation which the Speaker had refused to apply to it, although ruling in its favour? The Attorney General had appealed to the application of the Rule with very had success. He had referred to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon), who had expressed his willingness to apply the Rule, however severe it might be, against any Member who was guilty of Obstruction in the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman next alluded to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), who spoke of the Rule as being directed against the Irish Party, and the Irish Party only. The hon. and learned Attorney General professed to find an inconsistency between these two speeches, but there was none at all. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool said he was willing to assent to the punishment, however severe, of a person guilty of wilful Obstruction. So did the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex. But what the hon. and gallant Member objected to was that the Rule passed in the late Parliament, and consistently applied to that purpose only by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North

    1775
    Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), should have been taken up by a Liberal Government and enlarged and misapplied and misused, according to that ancient rule of Whig Governments which induced them to take great delight in burnishing up all the weapons of offence which were handed down to them by the Tories. What Member in that House knew the merits of the case? The merits were wrapped in an impenetrable veil, which even the Day of Judgment would not remove. On one occasion 16 Members of the House were suspended. And for what? The House had been for weeks and weeks debating an obnoxious Bill which put an end to trial by jury in Ireland, which created a batch of new offences, which legalized nocturnal visits to the dwellings of the people, which enabled the police to clear away all strangers, which authorized the suppression of the Press and the liberty of speech, which enabled the Lord Lieutenant to swamp whole districts with a blood tax, and which, in point of fact, destroyed every vestige of liberty in Ireland. The House had been for six weeks engaged in debating that Bill. At various times they had received an acknowledgment from the Head of the Government that the Opposition had not transcended the bounds of reason. At what point could the Prime Minister say that they had transcended the bounds of reason? It would be beyond the bounds of reason for any man to decide. The Attorney General was hardly justified in the attack he had made upon the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) for desiring to become acquainted with the intentions of the Government. What the House wished was that they should hear those intentions now, and not have to wait for them for an indefinite time. It was said by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary that this was not an Amendment which showed the merits of the Standing Order. He (Mr. Sexton) contended respectfully that it did. They wanted to know on the threshold of the Resolution what it would mean when in working order. The Resolution said "any Member;" but, so far as its operation had hitherto gone, it might as well have said "any or every Irish Member," because the English Members had been practically exempt from its working. He believed there was an English Mem-
    1776
    ber (Mr. Whalley) who was at one time the moral Colleague of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) in protecting the interests of the Protestant religion in that House, who fell nominally under the operation of the Standing Order. But the hon. Member on that occasion did not suffer any inconvenience from it, and ever since then it had been directed against Irish Members and Irish Members only. Therefore, the Irish Members needed no suggestion from the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Bartelott) to assure them that the Standing Order was directed against them. But if it was to be used against them, they had a special reason for demanding from the Government on the threshold of the consideration of the Resolution, which was the pivot upon which everything was to turn, a statement of their intentions. The Amendment of the Government proposed to multiply the punishment. Instead of a day's suspension for a first offence it was to be increased to a week; instead of a week's suspension for a second offence it was to be increased to a month: and instead of a month's suspension for a third offence it was to be increased by suspending the offending Member for the rest of the Session. There was another and a significant penalty to which the Prime Minister had not alluded. At present, a Member threatened with suspension was allowed to rise in his place and defend himself. But the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in the resolute pursuit of the policy of the gag, already so fully exemplified in the 1st Resolution, had so amended the Standing Order that hereafter a Member threatened with suspension would have no opportunity of defending himself.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is now debating the Standing Order at large. He should confine himself to the Amendment before the House.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would not further refer to the Standing Order at large. He would simply explain that he was endeavouring to point out that the action of the Irish Members on the Amendment now before the House, and in regard to subsequent Amendments, would be governed by the explanations they had now received from the Govern-

    1777
    ment. He hoped he had said enough to convince the Government that the Irish Members had special reasons for desiring a full explanation, as they did not know in what manner the Rule would be used against them. They would be glad to be convinced that the Standing Order would be used against individual offenders and not against Members collectively; and although the explanations offered by the Government placed the Resolution in a different light from that in which it appeared at first, the Irish Members could not consent to proceed further with it until the Amendments of the Government had been placed upon the Paper. The Government would only have to blame themselves if the progress of Business was delayed in consequence of their having refused to make reasonable concessions.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHTsaid, that throughout the discussion there had been one remarkable feature in it, and it was this—that there had only been one discordant voice against confining the Resolution to individual suspension. Every Member who had spoken during the last two or three hours had been against collective, and in favour of individual suspension. The only hon. Member who had spoken in a different sense, and he did not think the opinion of the hon. Member was very strong, was the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Parker), who had referred to certain circumstances which occurred in the House some time ago. Those circumstances, however, in all probability would never occur again; and he thought that to frame a Resolution in regard to that single event would be a most irrational proceeding. He trusted that when the Government declared their opinion they would take into consideration the views which the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had expressed. He (Mr. Bright) thought it was a most odious thing to ask the House to suspend half-a-dozen Members in a batch. If he were asked whether a Member ought to be suspended or not, he could, if he were present, say "Yes" or "No," because he could judge of the conduct of that Member; but if he were asked to form a judgment on half-a-dozen Members—and he undertook to say that hon. Members sitting on those Benches would be better informed as to the character
    1778
    of any action taken by Members in the House even than the authorities of the House—if he were asked to pass judgment upon the conduct of half-a-dozen men, in all probability he should feel inclined to say that one or two deserved to be suspended, but that one or two others did not; and rather than vote for the suspension of the entire number, he would prefer not to vote at all.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he had listened very carefully to the speech of his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and in his opinion his right hon. and learned Friend had expressed the views of the Government with perfect clearness. At the same time, he was bound to accept the complaints of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) and the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright), who seemed to be labouring under some misapprehension; and he would endeavour to make the position of the Government more clear than it was at present. Most of the observations made by hon. Members applied to the Standing Order as it was, and not to the Standing Order as amended by the Amendment which had been read to the House by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. As the Standing Order stood, and as it had been construed by the Chairman of Committees, it amounted to the creation of a new offence under certain circumstances—namely, the offence of constructive Obstruction; and it had been called constructive Obstruction, or conspiracy, to obstruct the Business of the House. It was upon that view of the Standing Order that certain hon. Members had been suspended en masse some time ago. Hon. Members opposite spoke as though the only question was the infliction of punishment, and as though all that they desired was that the punishment should be inflicted singly |and individually. That left the offence of constructive Obstruction unt touched, and it might be possible for a future Chairman of Committees to declare a number of Members who were not present at the time to be guilty of constructive Obstruction. All that was necessary to meet the views of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would be to provide that the punishment should be put separately to the House, so that the House might order punishment in some cases and reject it in others. The Govern-

    1779
    ment, however, in the Amendment they had proposed, intended to go further than the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross). So far as they were concerned, they gave up in future, at all events, all idea of constructive Obstruction. That, he thought, was perfectly clear; but he would read once more the Amendment as it had been read by his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary; and he would add, further, that if it did not carry out the intentions of the Government, they would be ready at the proper time to accept any Amendment which might be suggested for the purpose of making its meaning clear. What they said in the Amendment was—
    "Provided also, That no more than one Member shall be named at the same time, unless several Members present together have concurred in an act for which they are named."
    The Amendment, by providing that the Members Named must be present, did away with any question as to a Member being Named in his absence. Then what was the kind of act which the Government had in their mind? It would be in the recollection of the House that last Session a number of Members were ordered by the Speaker to leave the House, and they refused collectively and together to do so. They were, consequently, all of them at once suspended for what was a collective act.
    MR. PARNELL: They were suspended for disregardiug the authority of the Chair.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that was so. They were supended for disregarding the authority of the Chair; but it was quite clear that in such a case the punishment ought to be inflicted en bloc, and it was not necessary for such an offence that the House should be put to the trouble of dividing in each individual case. But it was only in such a case—namely, where a number of Members concurred in disregarding the authority of the Chair, that the Standing Order would be put in force in that way. In all other cases he agreed with previous speakers that the punishment should be individually inflicted.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), the House, probably, might not feel disposed to prolong the conversation at the present moment, be-
    1780
    cause the right hon. Gentleman had intimated that if the words he had read did not carry out the promises he had made, the Government would be willing to alter their Amendment. Now, there was just one word in the Amendment to which he wished to direct the attention of the Government. It was the word "concur." The Amendment read—
    "Unless several Members present together have concurred in the Act for which they are named."
    He thought the words "have committed an act" would better convey the intentions of the Government. It would be easy to determine whether an act had been committed by hon. Members acting together; but it would be very difficult to determine whether certain Members present had concurred in an act.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had listened to the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government meant to exclude the idea of constructive Obstruction; but he would beg to point out that the preceding Government never contemplated the idea of constructive Obstruction when they passed this Rule; and yet, notwithstanding the fact that constructive Obstruction was not contemplated by the preceding Government, constructive Obstruction was discovered in the Rule by the Presiding Authority. If the present Government wished to exclude constructive Obstruction from the proposed Rule, it would not at all do to exclude it in intention. Let them exclude it in words, and he did not see that the present form of words at all excluded constructive Obstruction. It excluded a marvellous stretch of constructive Obstruction which suspended an absent Member; but he thought he might say with tolerable certainty that the probabilities were extremely remote that that stretch of constructive Obstruction would ever again make its appearance in Parliament. There were some things that could only happen once, and he thought that constructive Obstruction, leading to the suspension of Irish Members of Parliament for certain acts, could only happen once, and even that once was too often. The provision read by the Home Secretary specified that only one Member was to be Named at the same time, unless several of the Members present had concurred in an act for which they were Named. Were they to concur in a permissible act, and

    1781
    were they to be Named notwithstanding; or were they only to concur in an act of disobedience to the authority of the Chair? If it was necessary that they should have concurred in an act of disobedience to the authority of the Chair, why were not those words introduced? Let the Government amend their proposed Amendment by inserting, after the word "act," the words "disobedience to the authority of the Chair;" and, furthermore, if there was to be any real protection, he ventured to suggest that there ought to be such a thing as a warning given. Before a Member was excluded from the House for a week, or a month, or for the entire Session, there ought to be some distinct assurance that an explicit warning should be given. On the last occasion of constructive Obstruction there was no warning whatever given; and, whatever the intentions of the Government might be, no warning might be given next year or the year after. He understood that Her Majesty's Government had given the assurance that if this Rule was not found to carry out their intentions, they would be prepared to consider the Amendment. Well, he ventured to think that if half-a-dozen Members had been turned out of the House on a reading of the Rule, contrary to the express intentions of Her Majesty's Government, it would be a little too late to introduce an Amendment. As they had a special Autumn Sitting—although it was promising to become a Business Sitting—for the discussion of the Rules, they ought to take advantage of it to introduce all the necessary modifications of the existing Standing Orders forthwith. The present form of words, looking at it with a somewhat experienced eye, he pronounced to be totally inadequate to prevent the abuses of which so many hon. Members complained.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYpointed out that what had taken place justified the House in entering into the discussion of the question. For his own part, he freely acknowledged the value of the assurances which had been obtained from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) and the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt). He understood that the House had obtained two assurances from the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. First of all, the Government
    1782
    proposed to abolish once and for ever constructive Obstruction; and if their Amendment did not carry out that intention other words would be introduced. The only doubt or difficulty he felt was whether these words did at all carry out the intention which seemed to be the desire of the Government. He was inclined to doubt whether they were sufficient for the end they had in view. He would suggest that the Amendment now before the House should be withdrawn. There would then come an Amendment upon which the Government might give effect to the first part of the intention they had indicated. But, as it was impossible to discuss the matter at the present moment, he thought the best course would be to adjourn the debate. The Government would then have an opportunity of placing upon the Paper the Proviso they intended to introduce; hon. Members would know what to support and what to oppose, and the House would be able to arrive at a satisfactory decision.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that, with the permission of the House, he would now withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the debate would be adjourned, and that the House would have an opportunity of seeing the words proposed to be introduced by the Government upon the Paper before the question was again discussed. He begged to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment. ["No!"] Then he should certainly divide the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member is desirous of withdrawing his Amendment?
    MR. GORST: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, they had on that side of the House been frequently taunted by hon. Gentlemen opposite with not showing a spirit of independence towards the Prime Minister. He proposed that evening to show hon. Gentlemen opposite that they were independent when they had opinions of their own. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had proposed that the debate be now adjourned. It was only 10 minutes after 12 o'clock, and it

    1783
    appeared to him that that was an exceedingly early hour to break off the debate. The House had been called together at an inconvenient time in the Autumn of the year for a specific purpose. That purpose had been much complained of by hon. Gentlemen opposite; but the Prime Minister had stated, as he understood him, before the close of the last part of the Session, that he intended to limit the Business during the present Sitting to the discussion of the Rules of Procedure, and any other Business of immediate importance. They had now been sitting for more than a month, and they had only arrived at the 9th Resolution.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONrose to Order. He wished to call the attention of the Speaker to Resolution No. 5, and to ask whether the hon. Gentleman was not contravening it?
    MR. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Member to be giving reasons against the adjournment of the debate, and, so far as he has already gone, I have seen no reason for my interposition.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was quite sure the noble Lord had not read the Resolution to which he referred. Looking at that Resolution—["Question!"] If the House would not allow him to refer to the Resolution, he must point out, with all respect, that it would be exceedingly difficult to know precisely how far he might go in moving or in debating an adjournment. They had had as yet exceedingly little experience of the New Rule. Of course, it was not his intention in any way to violate that Rule. He had been in favour of its being passed—["Question!" "Order!"] Well, then, he would refer to the immediate Question before the House, and that was the question whether they were to adjourn the debate at this early hour. He had stated as one of the reasons why they should not adjourn that they had been called together at a late period of the Autumn for the purpose of discussing certain Rules.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLrose to Order. He wished to draw attention to Resolution No. 5, which provided that the Speaker or Chairman of Committees might call the attention of a Member to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition.
    MR.LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought that the most tedious of human beings could not be considered tedious when he had only been for three minutes on his legs. He would go back again to what he had been saying when the noble Lord interrupted him. They had been called together—["Question!" "Order!"] That was the whole point of the question. They were there to discuss specific Business, and why were they asked to adjourn the debate at the present moment? He supposed it would be within the scope of the Question to consider whether they should adjourn—for there was no mincing the matter—in order that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. Yorke)should not be brought under the operation of the Half-past Twelve o'clock Rule. Now, he considered that that was not immediate and important Business. He had no intention of going into the question involved in that Resolution—namely, the liberation of certain hon. Gentlemen opposite from Kilmainham. But he must say, for his own part, he considered that that Resolution was a direct insult to the Prime Minister.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into that question.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would not say another word about it. The House had 17 Resolutions before them. They had already been four weeks discussing those Resolutions, and they had only reached the 9th. Some of the Resolutions still remaining to be discussed were most important; and he gathered from hon. Gentlemen opposite that they would strongly oppose the appointment of Grand Committees. It seemed to him that as time was a most important matter they ought not to waste a moment of the time of the House upon vague historic discussions, when that time might be employed to much greater advantage in continuing the discussion of these Resolutions. Besides these Resolutions, they had also a most important question coming before the House—namely, the question whether these Resolutions should be made Standing Orders. He also gathered from hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was their intention to oppose the proposition for making the Resolutions Standing Orders. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call upon the hon. Gentleman to apply himself to the Question before the House which is that of the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would confine himself to the immediate Question before the House. He thought that if they did adjourn the debate, they ought not to adjourn it before 1 o'clock, and he would state the reason why. On Thursday or Friday last, a debate took place upon the question whether they ought to break off all Business at 12 o'clock, and it was decided that they ought not to do so. Many very able arguments, no doubt, were urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of breaking off at 12 o'clock, but the House decided that they should go on later. The Question then that was really before the House was at what hour they ought to adjourn this debate. It was known that there was a Resolution down on the Paper to follow the present debate, in regard to the imprisonment of certain hon. Members below the Gangway on the other side of the House. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is distinctly out of Order in referring to any other Question upon the Paper.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was desirous as far as possible of keeping within the Rules; but he had very great difficulty in knowing how he was to discuss the Question without infringing the Rules. The whole thing was the limit of time—whether they were to adjourn now, or to adjourn a little later—and it must be involved in that question whether they were at that late hour of the night to go into a lengthened and protracted debate. He thought they ought not, but that it was more reasonable they should go on with the Resolutions for another quarter of an hour, and that then they could do as they usually did on such occasions, adjourn the House. He certainly took that view, and he should therefore oppose the adjournment of the debate, and, if it became necessary, he should take the liberty of dividing the House upon it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he was of opinion that the House would do better to hasten forward the Business with which they had been specially
    1786
    called upon to deal, rather than adjourn the debate at that unusually early hour. They were in ordinary Sessions in the habit of Sitting until 3 o'clock in the morning, or even later, when their time was occupied by Business of several kinds; but there had never been an intention of taking any other Business during this adjourned Session than that of the Procedure Resolutions now before them, and, therefore, he thought the discussion should be continued for at least an hour longer. If the debates were to be suspended as early as was now proposed, he could see no guarantee that the end of the Session would be reached before Christmas. Many Members wished to get back to their homes, and he hoped hon. Members opposite would not be appealed to in vain to allow the discussion of the Resolutions to proceed without interruption. Under the circumstances, he should feel it his duty to vote against the Motion of the Prime Minister for the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. MELLORsaid, he hoped the adjournment would not be agreed to. The discussion of the Resolutions was the sole purpose for which they had assembled, and he was certain that any interference with that object would be unsatisfactory to their constituents. Hon. Members, he thought, could hardly be aware, when they supported the adjournment, that to this Resolution alone there remained 30 Amendments to be disposed of; and, under the circumstances, he sincerely trusted the House would not assent to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. It could not, of course, be denied that the adjournment of the debate might properly be agreed to in order to admit of the discussion of some question of immediate importance or great political interest; but no such pressing reason had been given for the adjournment on this occasion, while certainly on that side of the House there was a very strong feeling against it. That being so, he contended that the Resolutions should be proceed with without interruption until they were finished, in which case there was a prospect of their being concluded in a reasonable time; but if the discussion were to be suspended at that hour in order to make room for other Business, it would be used as a precedent on other occasions, and so many questions would crop up

    1787
    that the Resolutions would not be got through by the end of the year.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he believed that hon. Members on both sides of the House would recognize the validity of the arguments which had been urged against the adjournment of the debate. He would remind the House that the words proposed by the Government to be included in the Resolution were of great interest, and that the revision of them which had been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had brought about a near approach to an agreement upon the subject. It seemed to him, under these circumstances, most lamentable to have to adjourn the consideration of a question which every hon. Member would admit to be deserving of attention, in order to enter upon Business which certainly had no such claim upon them. For that reason, and because he regarded the Business proposed to be taken up as frivolous and vexatious, and moreover calculated to disturb the growing peace of Ireland, he should vote against the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. CAUSTONappealed to the Government not to adjourn the debate at that hour for the purpose of entering upon the Motion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Yorke). He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that many hon. Members, amongst them himself, had had Notices on the Paper which for months past they had in vain sought opportunities of discussing. He considered it unreasonable that, having been summoned to deal with the Resolutions on Procedure, they should be called on to adjourn at half-past 12 o'clock in order to enter upon unimportant Business. For his own part he was strongly against the proposal, and he hoped the Prime Minister would rise in his place, and, recognizing the general feeling of the House, withdraw his Motion for Adjournment.
    MR. LEWISsaid, before the Prime Minister replied to the appeal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Causton), he wished to draw attention to the "wonderful unanimity" of the Liberal Party in opposing its Leader. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must call upon the hon. Member to confine his observations to the Question before the House.
    MR. LEWISwould at once submit to the ruling of the Chair. They were, it appeared, to be prevented in the satisfactory disposal of the Motion of the hon. Member for East Gloucester (Mr. Yorke) because of the action of several Members opposite who opposed the adjournment of the debate on the ground that, in the opinion of the Liberal Party, the Motion of the Prime Minister was totally unworthy of support. It might have been expected that, having regard to the convenience and Business of the House generally, the Liberal Party, at any rate, would have supported the Motion of the Prime Minister; but, notwithstanding that the right hon. Gentleman had risen in his place to move the adjournment of the debate, in order that other matters might be discussed, hon. Members in favour of the Motion were told by those who sat around the Prime Minister that the right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong, and that he must submit to defeat on division.
    MR. CALLANappealed to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), seeing that his object had been attained, to save the House the trouble of dividing on his Motion for the adjournment of the House.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he also would appeal to the hon. Member for Northampton to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Further Consideration of the Standing Order (Order in Debate) 28 February 1880, deferred till To-morrow.
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.