Commons Sitting of 30 November 1882

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Right Hon. Henry Cecil Raikes, for the University of Cambridge.
QUESTIONS.

  PAUPERISM (METROPOLIS).
  MR. BUXTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the steadily-increasing figures of pauperism in the Metropolis, Whether the present rate of increase is due to any special cause, or whether it is only an increase proportionate to the estimated increase in the population of the Metropolis?
  MR. DODSON: In reply to the Question of my hon. Friend, I am glad to say that the increase in the pauperism of the Metropolis during the last few years does not exceed the proportionate increase in the population. On the contrary, it is rather loss than might have been expected from the growth of the population. The increase has practically been confined to the last three years; and if the statistics of London pauperism between 1871 and 1882 are examined, it will be found that there has been a very large diminution in the number of paupers. In the year 1871 the number was

  361
  153,293; while in 1882 it was 100,323, showing a diminution of 52,970, although the population had increased by upwards of 600,000 persons. This result is the more satisfactory because the reduction has taken place entirely among the outdoor paupers. Between 1871 and 1882 there has been an increase of 14,396 in the number of indoor paupers in the Metropolis; but the number of outdoor paupers has been reduced by no less than 67,306 persons.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— SECS. 19, 31—LOANS.
  COLONEL COLTHUESTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he has received any representations from the Board of Public Works in Ireland as to the providing of additional inspectors, there being now only one for each province in charge of the loans to occupiers for land improvement; and, if not, whether he will call the attention of that Department to the inevitable delays and disappointment which must result from the want of a sufficient staff of inspectors?
  MR. COURTNEY: No avoidable delay has yet occurred in dealing with applications for loans under Sections 19 and 31 of the Land Act; but the increased number of the applications now coming in will probably necessitate increased inspecting assistance; and the Treasury will have no hesitation in sanctioning this if satisfied of its necessity.

  ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (IRELAND).
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the great and pressing need for arterial drainage in many parts of Ireland, the Government are prepared next (Session to amend the Drainage Act of 1864, by extending the definition of the term "a proprietor," and thus enable occupiers to form Drainage Boards, and otherwise avail themselves of the said Act?
  MR. COURTNEY (for Mr. TREVELYAN): This is a large and important subject requiring special consideration, which I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend it shall receive.

  SPAIN—INTERNATIONAL LAW—SURRENDER OF CUBAN REFUGEES.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colo-
  362
  nies, Whether he has yet received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry as to the case of the Cuban Refugees; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table of the House?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir; the Report of the Committee of Inquiry was received yesterday morning at the Colonial Office; and it clearly condemns, as I anticipated, the conduct of the Local Authorities. I had hoped I should have been able to lay the Report and the Evidence on the Table to-day, together with the decision of the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but I cannot do so, because we have received a communication from the Governor of Gibraltar, Lord Napier, asking us to suspend our judgment until a letter is received from him, which is on its way, and which, I hope, may arrive to-morrow. The Papers and the decision of the Colonial Office will be laid simultaneously on the Table of the House.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: What is the objection to laying the communication received from Gibraltar on the Table, without waiting for the decision of the Colonial Office? Why cannot we have it at once?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he did not think one moment would be gained by doing that. He hoped that to-morrow, or, at any rate, by Monday, all the Papers would be on the Table.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: How are we to discuss this question before Parliament rises if we do not have the necessary Papers?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: All I can say is that we have done the very best we can. We think the Papers ought not to be laid on the Table till the decision has been come to, and that decision cannot be given till to-morrow or Monday.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall move for these Papers.
  COLONEL CARINGTON: May I ask who is the official directly responsible for the surrender of the prisoners?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Really, this is a most complicated case, and Papers will be laid upon the Table of the House, and it is too much that I should say who is chiefly responsible.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Am I right in interpreting the hon. Gentleman's answer as being to this effect—

  363
  that the Government will not only see that the Papers are printed without delay, but that they will announce their decision in regard to the person responsible for this matter?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: We have nothing to do with the printing establishments connected with the House. All we can do is to promise to lay the Papers on the Table as soon as they are ready. That we do, and I think they will be on the Table to-morrow or Monday.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government have taken any steps to secure the release of the Cuban refugees by the Spanish Government; and, if so, what steps have been taken for that purpose; whether he will, at all events before Parliament is prorogued, lay all the Correspondence between the British and Spanish Governments upon the Table of the House; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any communications which may have taken place from 1869 to 1871 between Her Majesty's Consuls in Cuba and the Governor of Rassam with any of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, relative to the acts and proclamations of the Captain General of Cuba with respect to refugees or rebels escaping from Cuba?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As I have often stated, unofficial representations have been made to the Spanish Government. The Report received yesterday has been referred by the Colonial Office to the Law Officers of the Crown; and official representations cannot be made until we know their views. Correspondence will ultimately be laid on the Table, but cannot be laid while communications are passing. With regard to the last paragraph of the right hon. Member's Question, if he will inform me who the Governor of Rassam is, I shall be happy to give him an answer.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: The hon. Baronet has not answered that portion of my Question which refers to Cuba.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The time has been rather short, and the Correspondence is long, and we have not succeeded in finding out anything yet. Mr. Dunlop was the Consul General, and further search will be made.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: As many of us are of opinion that the right of asylum has been violated, and as no steps seem to have been taken to secure the release of the prisoners, I wish to ask whether we are to have no opportunity of discussing this question before Parliament rises?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is a Question of which Notice should be given, and which should be addressed to the Prime Minister.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I will repeat it to-morrow.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE COURT VALUERS (MR. GREY).
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Mr. Grey, Chief Court Valuer, acting for the Appeal Court, under the Land Act, at Lifford, county Donegal, valued a mountain holding on the Ogilvey Estate, held by a tenant named John Risborough, and consisting of twelve acres of bad land, at double the value set upon it by the two Valuers employed on behalf of the landlord; whether the Commissioners, or any of them, asserted that Mr. Grey included the value of houses on the holding, but, on the solicitor for the tenant demanding to have Mr. Grey's report examined, it was found that he had valued the land alone; and, whether Mr. Grey is the same official who valued farms on the estate of Lord Talbot de Malahide higher than the landlord's valuer; and, how long he will be continued as an Official Valuer of the Land Court?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The following is a copy of a telegram which I have received from the Land Commissioners in reference to this Question:—
  "It is untrue that the Commissioners, or any of them, asserted that Mr. Grey included in his valuation the value of the house on the holding. The case still stands for judgment, and we decline any answer to the remainder of the Question."
  With regard to the inquiry whether the Mr. Grey alluded to is the same official who valued farms on the estate of Lord Talbot de Malahide, the answer is that he is not the same. I think I may also read part of a letter which I have received from Mr. Grey, in which he says that he valued another farm on the same estate on the same day, consisting of 70

  365
  acres without any buildings, the rent being £62, the tenant's own offer when he took it. The Sub-Commissioners reduced it to £56, and he stated it was not worth £44. He (Mr. Grey) asked why did not the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) ask a Question about that farm?
  MR. SEXTONasked, was he to understand that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Commissioners would give any reply with reference to a matter which was publicly stated in the Lifford Courthouse—namely, that Mr. Grey had valued the farm at double the sum fixed by the valuers of the landlord?
  MR. GIBSONwould like to ask when it would be convenient for the Chief Secretary to lay upon the Table the letter, extracts from which he read last night?
  MR. TREVELYAN: When I get leave from the Land Commissioners.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT— FEES FOR AFFIDAVITS— MR. F. HUSSEY, J. P.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Fitzmaurice Hussey, J.P., Agent to Lord Dillon at Ballaghaderreen, has been in the habit of exacting a fee of one shilling from each tenant who came to him to take the affidavit at the foot of the application for the benefit of the Arrears Act; whether the taking of such a fee by a Justice of the Peace is illegal; and, whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland will order the removal of Mr. Fitzmaurice Hussey from the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received a Report from the Lord Chancellor in reference to this Question, stating that Mr. Hussey denies having ever taken a fee for taking an affidavit.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would take the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the frauds that were being practised on the poor people of Ireland in the administration of the Land Act.

  STATE OF IRELAND (APPREHENDED DISTRESS)—TORY ISLAND.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the Inspector, who recently presented a favourable report with regard to the inhabit-
  366
  ants of Tory Island, consulted neither the Catholic clergyman, nor any other person acquainted with the real condition of the people; if the Inspector went inside any of the houses on the Island; and, if so, how many; whether he has heard that two heads of families begged for relief from the priest, on the ground that neither they nor their children had tasted food on the very day of the Inspector's visit; and, whether, on the day following the visit, seven families begged to be sent away from the Island, before they were face to face with starvation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The following extracts from the Inspector's Report will show the hon. Member that he has been misinformed:—
  "The house of the Roman Catholic priest' the Rev. James O'Donnell, is near East Town, and from the deck of the gunboat, seeing him walking on the road near it, I sent a message by a boat that came out from the Island requesting him to come to West Town, near which was the only landing place where there was not heavy surf."
  Further on in the Report he says—
  "The Rev. Mr. O'Donnell kindly accompanied me, and gave me such information as he possessed about the people and their ordinary sources of livelihood."
  And again he states—
  "I thought it my duty to tell Father O'Donnell, before leaving, that I did not think there was anything so exceptional in their case but what the Poor Law could meet in its ordinary administration."
  The Inspector adds that he was met with a good deal of reticence by others to whom he put questions. I have obtained a further Report from the Inspector, giving a more detailed account of his conversation with the Rev. Mr. O'Donnell, in which he mentions that he visited the national school with him, and that he entered several of those houses which appeared to be the poorest. When leaving the Island and on telling the clergyman, as I above quoted, that he had not found exceptional distress, the rev. gentleman mentioned two families that were so poor as to have to beg for help from him and their neighbours. The Inspector had not then time to go back and examine into those two cases; but promised that the relieving officer would soon be over on the Island, and would inquire into them. This is the latest information received from the

  367
  Island, and I have not heard of the seven families alluded to in the final paragraph of the Question. I will communicate with the Vice President of the Local Government Board, with a view of securing that the visit of the relieving officer is made as soon as possible.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked, Was he to understand that the Inspector invited Father O'Donnell to come to East Town to him, and that the Inspector consequently did not visit the poor dwellings in East Town?
  [No reply was given.]
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would ask a further Question on the subject on Monday, and that he would also ask if the Chief Secretary had seen the comments of The Londonderry Journal, which circulated in Donegal, upon the destitution in that part of Ireland?

  INDIA (MADRAS)—REMAINS OF CHENDRIA.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the alleged treatment of the remains of Chendria, the leader of the late Insurrection in the Rumpa District of the Madras Presidency; whether it is the fact that, in order to obtain proofs of the identity of the slain insurgent, Chendria's head was severed from his dead body, preserved in carbolic acid, and presented by the authorities to the dead man's relatives for identification; whether the widow of the dead man was forced in this manner to identify her husband's head for the satisfaction of the authorities; whether he is aware that widespread horror was caused among the Native community by these acts; and, whether he will inquire if the remains of the slain insurgent were restored to his family for burial according to Native rites?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Various matters connected with the insurrection in Rumpa have from time to time been before the Council and myself; but my attention has not been specially called to the circumstances attending the death of the outlaw Chendria, who was one of the chief leaders of the insurgents. It appears, however, from records in the India Office that on February 12, 1880, Chendria was killed by one Jumpa Pandiah, who had been
  368
  his partizan and lieutenant; that his head—which seems to have been cut off by his own people—was brought to Rajahmundry, to Colonel Buck, who was in command of the operations against the rebels, and that it was recognized by Chendria's brother, his mother, and a gaol warder who had had charge of him for six months. It also appears that the Madras Government telegraphed orders to Colonel Buck to keep the head as long as practicable for identification. On the other points referred to in the Question of the hon. Member I have no information. Chendria's death occurred nearly three years ago, at a time when the Madras Government were contending with a very serious insurrection; and I do not consider it necessary to institute any inquiries into the matter at this date.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked, Whether the noble Marquess would inquire whether the remains of Chendria had yet been interred? It would seem not, as instructions had been given to preserve the head as long as possible for identification. He gave Notice that he would ask a further Question on the subject next Session.

  PRISONS (INDIA)—MORTALITY IN BENGAL GAOLS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, What steps have been taken to reduce the mortality in the Bengal Gaols, since the last Report showed that, though less than in the exceptional year of 1879, it was still immensely higher than among the free population of all conditions?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Since I presented certain Papers in July last the only additional information which has been received on the subject referred to in the Question is contained in a recent despatch from the Government of India. It is there stated that, in consequence of my despatch of the 25th of May—which is among the Papers presented—a Circular has been addressed to the various local governments with a view to insure greater vigilance in the matter of mortality. The Government of India consider that the diet scales now in force are sufficient to keep the prisoners in good health; but they have their attention still specially directed to the subject. They remark—and no doubt with reason—that the

  369
  returns of deaths among the free population cannot be relied upon in the same sense as those of the deaths in gaol, where every case is strictly recorded; but the Government of India promise to send home annually a general review of gaol statistics, which will be carefully scrutinized.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the noble Marquess would direct inquiries to be made as to the effect, not only of the dietary scale, but also of the absence of ventilation and the overcrowding upon the health of the prisoners confined in those gaols? And also, whether he would take steps to ascertain whether it was true that the prisoners had to lie upon mounds of earth instead of upon beds; and whether these mounds of earth, having been used by generations of prisoners, were not often soaked with disease?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The subject to which the hon. Member refers is now under the consideration of the Government of India, and they are now making the inquiries which the hon. Member desires should be made.

  NAVY—PENSIONS TO WIDOWS OF SEAMEN AND MARINES.
  SIR H. DEUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If Her Majesty's Government will be prepared next Session to introduce some measure for giving pensions to the widows of Seamen and Marines?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir; it is our intention next Session to deal with the question of pensions to the widows of seamen and Marines killed in the Service.

  SPAIN—INTERNATIONAL LAW— SURRENDER OF CUBAN REFUGEES.
  SIR H. DEUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the ladies who accompanied General Maceo to Gibraltar were surrendered, at the same time as himself, to the Spanish authorities?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYwas understood to say that, according to the information which had been received, these ladies were conveyed in carriages with General Maceo across the British lines.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether the ladies did not land with General Maceo at Gibraltar; and whe-
  370
  ther they were not taken in the same carriage with him when he was conveyed by the police beyond the British lines? He also wished to know whether the ladies had accompanied him willingly?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that he did not know whether they went willingly or unwillingly. All that was known was that, when General Maceo was taken beyond the British lines, these ladies were also carried beyond the British lines.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: By the police?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the ladies who accompanied General Maceo, when surrendered to the Spanish authorities by the authorities at Gibraltar, have been imprisoned?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have no reason to believe that these ladies have been imprisoned by the Spanish authorities.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether any inquiry had been made on the subject?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: If the hon. Gentleman will inform me that he has any reason to believe that these ladies are imprisoned, inquiries shall be made; but we believe that they are not imprisoned.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that the information in the American papers, and that which he had received, was to the effect that they were imprisoned. He should like inquiries to be made on the subject.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: If the hon. Gentleman will show me the papers, I will cause inquiries to be made.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will state whether the Royal Marines are at present above or below the numbers voted by Parliament, and if it is intended to propose an increase of that force in the next Session, and the re-establishment of the Woolwich Division?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In answer to the first Question of the right hon. and gallant Admiral, I have to say that on the 25th of this month the Royal Marines were 16 under the,

  371
  establishment. I must defer to next Session any statement in reply to the other two Questions.

  IRELAND—RECENT INFLAMMATORY SPEECHES—MR. DAVITT, MR. W. REDMOND.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: In rising to put the following Question, I wish to say that, having given two or three days' Notice of this Question, I should wish to have a definite statement from the Chief Secretary as to the intentions of the Irish Government in reference to this subject. I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a speech reported in the "Standard" newspaper of 27th November, as having been delivered by Michael Davitt at Navan on the previous day, to the following effect:—
  "As to the calamity staring some of the people of the West in the face, he would not mince language as to the cause of these periodical famines; but neither he nor Mr. Parnell would ever again beg for a starving Ireland. They would compel landlordism to provide for the starving people during the coming winter. Unless just and wise legislation ere long prevented its necessity, the time would come when the starving people of Donegal, Connemara, Kerry, and Cork would have to be told to march down on the plains, and seize the land upon which to live as civilized beings in a Christian country. If the tenant farmers of the West would pay the rent that should go to feed their children, then let them die, and Ireland and humanity would be well rid of such a coward race. In case they should not succeed in getting the Government to do its necessary duty, he proposed that they should make Irish landlordism support the people. He proposed, in ease Mr. Gladstone did not apply the surplus of the Arrears Estimate to save the people, that no rent should be paid from this November until next May, and that out of this sum a portion should be placed in a National Relief Fund, by which to save the people from starvation;"
  whether he has reason to believe that the above Report is substantially correct; and if the Government are taking note of the efforts now being made to stir up outrage in Ireland during the coming winter?
  MR. REDMOND: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I would, by permission, ask him this Question—Whether his Predecessor in Office, and every person acquainted with the condition of Ireland, had not expressed the same opinion as that attributed to Mr. Davitt, that Ireland suffers from congestion of population in certain districts;
  372
  whether it is not in those districts—Donegal, Connemara, Kerry, and Cork—that famine is apprehended in the coming winter; and, whether a re-distribution of the population over the rich grazing plains has not been advocated by several English statesmen; and, whether, in reference to that portion of the Question which charges Mr. Davitt with stirring up the people to outrage, it is not the fact that he has invariably warned the people of Ireland against the commission of crime?
  MR. O'DONNELL: I would ask the Chief Secretary on the same subject, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the principle advocated by Mr. M. Davitt—namely, a reduction of rent during seasons of extreme distress—has been recognized in the agrarian legislation of India?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is only one of these supplementary Questions that I need answer. I am quite aware that the seat of something like chronic distress in Ireland is in over-populated districts, which the Government hope to begin to relieve by emigration. It is possible that English statesmen may have recommended a transfer from these districts to the rich grazing lands of Ireland; but they did not recommend that that transfer should be made by illegal means. The Government had a shorthand writer present during Mr. Davitt's speech, and his report is substantially in accord with the report in The Freeman's Journal. In reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Wexford, the Government have directed their earnest attention, and have been directing their earnest attention since or probably before the day on which the first Question was asked on this subject. And I may say that questions relating to the treatment of speeches made on public platforms are absolutely the most difficult, and those which require the most consideration, both on grounds of policy and on grounds of law, of any questions which can be laid before the Government. I will, therefore, take this opportunity of saying that the Government have directed their earnest attention to the speeches of Mr. Davitt, of the hon. Member for Wexford, and of Mr. William Redmond, as to whom a Question was asked by an hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir Henry Fletcher) a few days ago. Their conclusion is, that if

  373
  such speeches continue to be made, there is no hope for peace and order in Ireland. It is impossible to keep crime in check by any system of punishment as long as speeches like these are made, which, from whatever their intention—and I say nothing about that—experience tells lead to crime and outrage. If the speeches made at public meetings of the National Land League are continued in the same strain as those made during the last week, I shall feel it my duty to recommend the Lord Lieutenant to exercise his power, under the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, to prohibit these meetings. The Government have been advised that Mr. William Redmond's speech comes within the 7th section of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, and a prosecution will be forthwith instituted. With reference to Mr. Davitt's speech, and the first portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Wexford, which have been referred to in the Question of the right hon. Baronet, the Government are advised that they are not within the scope of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act. Neither are they indictable. But I am advised that the latter part of the speech of the hon. Member for Wexford, referred to in the Question, is open to a prosecution for sedition; but I am recommended by the Attorney General for Ireland not to prosecute. It is quite out of the question, however, that such speeches should be allowed, and application will be made that these speakers shall be bound to be of good behaviour, or committed to prison in default.
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSS: Has the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who allowed Mr. Michael Davitt to go at large, been called to this speech?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The attention of the Irish Government has been called to this Question, and their opinion is that Mr. Michael Davitt should be treated exactly as if he were any other person.
  MR. REDMOND: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House whether Her Majesty's Government is in possession of an official shorthand writer's note of the speech made by Mr. William Redmond at Cork?
  MR. TREVELYAN: A Government reporter was present.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask the same Question in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Wexford.
  MR. TREVELYAN (after consultation with the Attorney General for Ireland): I telegraphed to Ireland early to-day on that point, and it is the only point in connection with this matter on which I have not received an answer.
  MR. REDMOND: I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a shorthand writer was present when the speech of Mr. Redmond was made in Cork, but whether the Government was in possession of a full official report of the speech?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That will be a matter which will come before a legal tribunal. I can only say that the Government reporter was present.
  MR. HEALY: Perhaps it is desirable I should say that I was not aware, when coming here this evening, that this Question was to be asked; that, therefore, I am not here in consequence of it, and that I will be back again in Dublin to-morrow.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask the Chief Secretary if the Irish Executive secured the services of an official shorthand writer at the public meeting held on Sunday last, at St. Mullins, County Carlow; if they are now in possession of a full official shorthand note of the speech delivered on that occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Wexford; and as it appeared by the consultation which took place between the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland that neither of them knows of the existence of such a note, and therefore could not have acted upon it, I beg to ask him upon what evidence he arrived at the decision, with respect to my hon. Friend, which he has communicated to the House?

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— CLARE CASTLE PIER AND HARBOUR.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that a sum of £2,000 has been applied by the Board of Works, under sanction of the Treasury, to the construction of a deep water jetty at Clare Castle, and that the quay when nearly completed collapsed; and, if it is a fact that efforts are now being made to prop it up by means of wooden piles

  375
  driven down in front, which must leave it always a source of danger to vessels moored alongside; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will instruct the Board of Works to reconstruct the jetty upon a solid foundation?
  MR. COURTNEY (for Mr. TREVELYAN): The statement that the new quay at Clare Castle has collapsed is not correct. But I learn that the wall has moved to the extent of 14 inches at one point; and the Board of Works are about to submit to the Treasury a proposition for permanently remedying this. The wooden piles which the hon. Member thinks are meant for props are really the ordinary fenders, protecting ships from injury by contact with the stone work.

  SCOTLAND—TAXATION OF POLICE BUILDINGS.
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, as a decision of the English Court of Appeal has declared Police buildings not liable for Property Tax, Her Majesty's Government propose to relieve Police buildings in Scotland in a similar manner?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I presume that my hon. Friend refers to the case of Coombor against the Justices of Berkshire, decided by the Queen's Bench Division in March last. The judgment was appealed against, and the case is expected to be heard before the Court of Appeal almost immediately. In the case of "Clark v. the Dumfries Commissioners of Supply," the Court of Session, in July, 1880, held that property tax was payable in respect of police stations. Until it is seen whether the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division in Coomber's case is affirmed or reversed, it would be premature for the Government to consider whether they should take any steps in the matter referred to in the Question.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—THE 63RD REGIMENT AND 1ST BATTALION SEAPOBTH HIGHLANDERS.
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the 1st Manchester, 63rd Regiment, and the 1st Battalion of Seaforth Highlanders, lately serving in Egypt, remained on the India Establishment until October 10th; and, whe-
  376
  ther from time of landing up to that date they received Indian or English pay and allowances?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The 1st Manchester and 1st Seaforth Highlanders remained on the Indian Establishment until relieved on it by the 2nd Derbyshire and 2nd Manchester on, I believe, the 14th and 15th of October respectively. From the date of their landing in Egypt up to those dates, they, as I stated last Monday, came on the same scale of pay and allowances as the rest of the British troops with the Expeditionary Force.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—THOMAS AND PATRICK KILLEEN.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that, in consequence of the powers conferred on the Irish magistracy by the Prevention of Crimes Act, Messrs. Thomas Killeen and Patrick Killeen, of Ballyglass, county Mayo, two blind musicians, are prevented from following their occupation as teachers of a school for music and dancing; if he will state under what section of the Act these two persons are thus deprived of their only means of gaining a livelihood; and, if he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Correspondence which has passed between the Lord Lieutenant and the Messrs. Killeen on this subject?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The poor men alluded to in this Question had already brought their case before the Lord Lieutenant, and inquiry had been made into it. The Constabulary reported, in reference to them, that they were men of quiet, honest character, who supported themselves mainly by playing music at dances through the country, and teaching dancing. Most of the dances at which they played were held at night; and they now fear that the provisions of the Prevention of Crime Act will prevent many of their patrons from being out at night and attending their classes. The intention of the Act is only to interfere with people who are out at night for a bad purpose; and if, as I have reason to believe, the dancing parties of these men do not come within the provision, they will not be interfered with.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that there is no charge alleged against these musicians, and that, nevertheless, the local magistrates prohibit them from pursuing their avocation?
  MR. TREVELYAN: As far as I can gather, they express apprehension that their business of attending dances at night might be interfered with by the Prevention of Crime Act, because they think that it might discourage dances at night. As far as I can gather, there will be no direct interference with them.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: The right hon. Gentleman has not stated whether the Correspondence which has taken place in this case will be laid on the Table. From the papers which have been sent to me, and which are stated to be copies of this Correspondence, it is plain that these musicians, against whom no charge whatever was brought, were distinctly prohibited from pursuing their avocations. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they are at liberty now to resume their occupations?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Most certainly they are. My reading of the Report is that they are perfectly at liberty. As regards the Correspondence, if it can be called such, I will look at it again, and if there is anything in it I will lay it on the Table.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Could the right hon. Gentleman state under what clause of the Prevention of Crime Act dancing is forbidden in Ireland? I would also ask—and perhaps the Prime Minister would answer—whether it is only among the upper classes that dancing is permitted in Ireland?
  [No reply was given.]

  ARMY—THE FIRST CLASS ARMY RESERVE.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state when the remaining portion of the First Class Army Reserve now serving with the Colours are likely to be demobilized?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER (for Mr. CHILDERS): It is hoped that a further demobilization of the Army Reserve may be carried out shortly; and the War Office is now in communication
  378
  with Sir Archibald Alison, as the General Commanding in Egypt, on the subject.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE BALTINGLASS SHOOTING CASE.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state the result of the inquiry ordered into the shooting case at Baltinglass, county Wicklow; by whom was the inquiry held, and was it open to the public?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. M'Leod, the Resident Magistrate of the district, went over specially to Baltinglass, and made inquiries respecting the state of the town from several respectable persons living in it—from the clergymen, Protestant and Roman Catholic, from the bankers, and from some shopkeepers, and they all testified that within the last two months there has been a perceptible improvement in its state; and, under these circumstances, it was considered that no good, but possibly mischief, might arise from re-opening Mr. Asher's case.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. M'LEOD, RESIDENT MAGISTRATE.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that Mr. M'Leod, R.M., has on several occasions recently used language from the Bench calculated to excite and exasperate the people of the county Wicklow, which has been so remarkable hitherto for its peaceful character; whether, on a recent occasion at Baltinglass, in a case in which Mr. George O'Toole summoned Patrick Doyle for intimidation, by using violent and disgraceful language, and threatening to stone him, Mr. M'Leod allowed the defendant's attorney to call Mr. O'Toole "a big-headed ass" and "a brute" with impunity, and without a word of condemnation; and, whether the Government will censure such conduct?
  MR. TREVELYAN: With regard to the first paragraph of this Question, Mr. M'Leod informs me that he has not at any time, from any branch of Petty Sessions, used language calculated to excite or exasperate the people of the county Wicklow. He has found it necessary to condemn strongly the system

  379
  of "Boycotting," which, though recently modified, had become a nuisance in the village of Baltinglass; but his remarks could only have given offence to persons engaged in this pernicious practice. In reply to the second paragraph of the Question, Mr. M'Leod states that he has no recollection of hearing the defendant's attorney in the case referred to call Mr. O'Toole "a big headed ass." The attorney did call Mr. O'Toole "a curly-headed fellow," and was at once strongly rebuked by Mr. M'Leod, who also found it necessary to rebuke Mr. O'Toole for calling the attorney "a brute."

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—THE TRANSVAAL— MARAUDING BOERS.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is aware that the marauding Transvaal Boers, who, assisted by deserters from the British Army, have for some time past invaded the territories of Mankaroane and other Bechuana Chiefs, have now established a quasi authority in South Bechuana Land, which is amenable to no civilized Government; whether he has received information that these Boers have recently made demands on Mankaroane for the cession to them of a large part of his territory; and, what steps, if any, are being taken, by either Her Majesty's Government or by the authorities of the Cape Colony, to restrain these elements of disorder on the British frontier?
  MR. H. LEEasked the hon. Gentleman, Whether the Government has been informed that a considerable number of deserters from Her Majesty's Army have assembled in Bechuana Land, and are acting with the Transvaal Boers in their hostile movements; and, if so, whether any steps have been taken to bring these offenders to justice, and to protect the Native Chiefs in their exercise of their territorial rights?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Papers which I laid on the Table of the House nearly 10 days ago, and which I had hoped would have been before this in the hands of Members, will give the latest information which the Colonial Office has received. We have no information as to the establishment of a new authority in Bechuana Land; and the demands made on Mankaroane for cession
  380
  of territory have nominally up to this time only been cession to the Natives warring against him. I have already informed the House on two occasions of the proposals which Her Majesty's Government made for a joint mounted force of Transvaal, Orange Free State, and Cape police, to capture these marauders and adventurers, which have at present fallen through, owing to the Orange Free State and the Transvaal having refused to join, and Her Majesty's Government is not prepared to go beyond these proposals.

  ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS (METROPOLIS).
  SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given before the Committee on Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings, 1881–2, as to want of sanitary regulations with regard to the erection of such dwellings in the Metropolis outside the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board; and, whether he will consider the advisability of giving further statutory powers to the local authorities?
  MR. DODSON: I have referred to the evidence upon which the Artizans' Committee based the recommendations that many of the sanitary provisions of the Metropolitan Building Act should be extended to the suburbs, and I presume it is to this evidence that the right hon. Gentleman alludes. If so, I may point out that under the Public Health Act, 1875, all urban sanitary authorities are empowered to make bye-laws prescribing sanitary regulations with regard to the erection of dwellings, and any rural sanitary authority can have this power conferred on them. In this way sanitary authorities in the suburbs can make provisions in some respects even more stringent than those contained in the Metropolitan Building Acts; and in many cases not only have the sanitary authorities made bye-laws, but they have shown commendable zeal in enforcing them. I am not prepared to say, therefore, that it is necessary to give further powers to sanitary authorities on this subject; but I will consider the matter during the Recess.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would draw the attention of the local autho-

  381
  rities to the powers they possessed. There could be no doubt that wretched buildings were being put up.

  SEA AND COAST FISHERIES (IRELAND).
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as one of "the trustees to aid the Sea and Coast Fisheries of Ireland," If it be a fact that out of a capital of about £35,000, the greater portion of which is lying idle, the trustees made loans to fishermen to the amount of only £2,244 for the year 1881, although they received in repayment for loans during the same period £3,392; if the expenses of management, including law costs, & c, amounted for 1881 to the sum of £748; and, if he will take the necessary steps to relieve the trustees of the management of this charitable fund, and to place it, as they requested some time ago, under the control of the Inspectors of Fisheries as an addition to the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member states the transactions of the Trustees to Aid the Sea and Coast Fisheries of Ireland as regards loans and repayments in the year 1881 quite correctly. The expense of management in that year was £330; but that sum does not include law costs. I have not the Report for the year by me, and I cannot say what they amounted to. I have had the suggestion contained in the final paragraph of the Question under consideration, and am in communication with the Trustees and the Treasury on the subject; but the matter has not yet arrived at such a stage as will permit me to make any statement in regard to it just now.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—COMPENSATIONS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, at an inquiry held before Charles H. Teeling, esquire, in Cavan, on 13th instant, into the claim of William Trimble, Killaghduff, in barony of Tullyhaw, for compensation under the Crimes Act, Sub-Inspector Pearson, of Manlinton, applied to have such compensation levied on parish of Kinawley, and a few townlands in the parish of Temple port adjoining, and that Mr. Pearson then applied to have
  382
  every Protestant in the parish of Kinawley exempted, although they had not applied for exemption on their own behalf; whether the only Catholics recommended for exemption were two priests and one layman; and, whether, under the above circumstances, he will remove Mr. Pearson to another district?
  MR. TREVELYAN: At the inquiry in question the Sub-Inspector recommended the compensation should be levied off the parish and townlands stated, and when asked by the investigator whether he thought any persons should be exempted, gave the names of those whom he considered should be so exempted, being in several of the cases ignorant of the religious persuasions of the persons; but, whatever the Sub-Inspector may have recommended at the inquiry, the charge on the district and all the details respecting it are determined by the Lord Lieutenant. I see no reason why Mr. Pearson should be removed to another district.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— JUDICIAL RENTS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, on the property of F. O'Beirne, esquire, a minor, in county Leitrim, the tenants entered their cases to fix judicial rents in January last and their cases have not yet been heard; if the above facts are correct, whether he can account for the delay; whether he is aware that the tenants have been already served with writs for the rent due on the 1st instant, although they remitted the amount on the 14th instant, and the rents are double the Government valuation; and, if these facts are correct, whether or not the tenants are entitled to any redress?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have frequently explained to the House, in answer to similar Questions, that cases are listed for hearing in the order of their receipt in the office of the Land Commission, and that any delay in hearing any particular case arises from the fact that a number of cases having priority have first to be disposed of. No information has reached the Land Commissioners of writs having been served on the tenants referred to in the Question. The Government valuation in the cases is £164 15 s., and the rents £293 1s. 6d.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE MURROE PETTY SESSIONS—"THE QUEEN v. PARKER."
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, in the case of The Queen v Parker and Eakins, for entering houses at night and demanding arms and money, informations were taken by Mr. Harrington, J.P., and returned by him for trial at the Murroe Petty Sessions; whether this gentleman declined to accept bail for so serious a charge, but committed the accused to gaol; whether the same magistrate was Chairman of the Bench of five magistrates which subsequently investigated and dismissed the charge; if he will state under what Statute a Petty Sessions Court is under an obligation to return informations for trials when satisfied that there is no case to go to a jury; if he will further state in what capacity Messrs. Lyster and Bourke sat at Murroe on the rehearing of the case; and, whether it is true that Mr. Lyster stated he was sent there by the order of the Lord Lieutenant, and would send the case on for trial on his own responsibility, even against the majority of the other magistrates?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, there are six Questions in this Question of the hon. Member, and the answers are:—To the first—Informations were not taken and returned for trial at Petty Sessions, nor could they be; to the second—bail for the appearance of the accused at Petty Sessions was, I believe, refused; to the third—no charge was dismissed; an application for informations was refused by a majority of the Bench; to the fourth—no Statute that I am aware of; to the fifth—as Justices of the Peace; and to the sixth—this statement was not made. I am informed that the Resident Magistrates stated that if a case was established in their opinion to go before a jury, they would, on their own responsibility, return the accused for trial; and the local magistrates stated that they did not contemplate taking any part in the proceedings in the case.

  THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE— CEREMONY OF OPENING.
  MR. M'COANasked the First Commissioner of Works, Who is responsible
  384
  for the arrangements in connection with the forthcoming opening of the Royal Courts of Justice, under which standing room to view the ceremonial within the building is provided for only two hundred members of the Junior Bar, while all other members of the profession, except Queen's Counsel and Benchers of the Inns of Court, are relegated to an open air stand in the outer quadrangle, along with bricklayers' labourers and other workmen who have been employed in the erection of the building; and, whether there is not yet time to amend this arrangement and provide more adequate and befitting accommodation for the many hundred barristers who will thus be practically shut out from even witnessing a pageant so full of historical interest to all members of the profession?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The hon. Member has very much understated the accommodation I have been able to provide for the Junior Bar and for other persons. There are 1,700 places in the Central Hall at my disposal. I have appropriated 900 to the various branches of the Legal Profession, to the Judges, Queen's Counsel, officers of the Court, the Junior Bar, and also to the members of the Incorporated Law Society. I have also been able to erect galleries in the quadrangle, in which there will be accommodation for 700 persons. A considerable number of places will be provided in rooms overlooking the quadrangle. I have been in communication on the subject with the Treasurers of the Inns of Court; and I find they have not taken any exception to the arrangement that workmen who have been engaged on the building are to be admitted into the Courts to witness the ceremony. I have erected a gallery where 450 of them will be able to see the proceedings, and I may add that Her Majesty has consented to receive an address from them.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked whether it was true that tickets had been supplied to the jury in the case of "Belt v. Lawes," giving them accommodation in the quadrangle; and, if so, by what influence were they obtained, and on what principle were they bestowed?
  MR. BROADHURSTasked whether it was not the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that the bricklayers and labourers who had been engaged in the building of the Law Courts were as

  385
  much entitled to tickets as members of the Junior Bar?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I thought I had intimated my concurrence with the hon. Member in the answer already given. I think that these men, having been engaged in the building of the Courts, are as much entitled as members of the Junior Bar. With regard to the other Question, it is quite true that Mr. Justice Huddleston wrote to me asking for tickets for the jury in the Belt case, and I have sent him 12 tickets for the stand in the quadrangle.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Why?
  [No reply was given.]

  EGYPT (EXPEDITIONARY FORCE)— SALE OF DRINK TO SOLDIERS.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Judge Advocate General, Whether it is a fact that, under the "Capitulations," it is impossible for our Military Authorities in Egypt to prevent the sale of drink to our soldiers by Greeks and Italians, &c., and that the result is seen in such outrages as the attack on the Arab who was lately killed by drunken soldiers; and, whether he will consider the advisability of placing our Troops, while in Egypt, under the Mahomedan Law, so far as it prevents their being supplied with intoxicating drink?
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): I am not quite sure that I understand what is meant by the "Capitulations" referred to in this Question; but I may state generally that it is impossible for our military authorities in Egypt to prevent the sale of drink by Greeks and Italians, though, no doubt, they may, by placing certain localities out of bounds, or by similar regulations, prevent within certain limits the purchase of drink by soldiers. As to the second Question, I am afraid my hon. Friend must be labouring under some confusion of ideas. I do not know whether he thinks that because the Mahomedan law is a military law therefore all military law must be Mahomedan law; but I certainly have no power to place our troops while serving in Egypt under the Mahomedan Liquor Law—whatever that may be—or under any other Mahomedan laws or usages. I hope I may be permitted to add that I trust the outrage referred to
  386
  —of which I know nothing except what I have seen in the papers—will not be taken as a fair specimen of the conduct of our troops in Egypt, which, to judge by the courts martial which have come before me, has been exceptionally good.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked if it was true that the Egyptian authorities at Ramleh had informed a British Colonel that they would not convey soldiers returning from Ramleh if they were in a state of drink?
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, he knew nothing whatever about it.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—ZULULAND— REINSTATEMENT OF CETEWAYO AS RULER.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received the despatch from Sir H. Bulwer, in which he submits his proposals with reference to the mode and time of the re-instatement of Cetewayo as ruler of Zululand; and, if so, will he lay a Copy of it upon the Table of the House?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Government have received the despatch from Sir Henry Bulwer. It has been carefully considered, and detailed instructions have been telegraphed to Natal directing Sir Henry Bulwer to proceed without delay to make the necessary arrangements and prepare for the speedy return of Cetewayo to Zululand. The Papers cannot be laid on the Table until Sir Henry Bulwer has made the proper announcements on the spot, as it would be most inconvenient that their contents should be known here before Sir Henry Bulwer has been able to communicate them to those more immediately concerned.

  NAVY—THE DEPOT SHIP AT PORTSMOUTH.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any report, the contents of which can be communicated to the House, has been received from the Naval authorities at Portsmouth relative to the state of the depot ship at that port; if not, whether a report on the subject will be called for, and the result laid upon the Table?
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: No, Sir; nothing is known at the Admiralty of a special Report as indicated by the hon. Member's Question; and it is not thought necessary to call for one.

  THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS (METROPOLIS) —REPORT OF CAPTAIN SHAW.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has received from the Metropolitan Board of Works the Report of Captain Shaw upon the Theatres and other places of public entertainment; and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), in reply, said, that the Bo-port in question had been received by the Home Secretary, and was now under consideration. It was not deemed expedient to lay it upon the Table.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked whether they were to understand that if laid on the Table it would alarm the public; and if it was justifiable to allow the public to remain in ignorance of its contents?
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was not able to state the reasons why his right hon. and learned Friend declined to lay it on the Table of the House.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, with a view to make service on board Her Majesty's ships more popular amongst officers of the Royal Marines, and to increase their opportunities for practice in the administration of Military Law, as well as improve their position when serving with officers of the Royal Navy afloat and ashore, he will give them the same rights under the Naval as they possess when serving under the Army Discipline Act?
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: Sir, the subject to which the hon. Member's Question refers is a complicated one; and it would be impossible for me, within the limits of an answer to a Question, to state the views of the Admiralty upon it. The matter is under consideration, and I must reserve my answer until I make my annual Statement.
  MR. GORSTasked if he was to understand that the Government did not intend to put an end to the inequality that existed between the Marines and the Navy?
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMANcould only say that at present he wished to avoid expressing any opinion on the part of the Admiralty on the subject.

  PRISONS BOARD (IRELAND)—IRISH PRISONS—PENAL LABOUR SYSTEM.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Prisons Board (Ireland) ever received any paper or report or pamphlet on the Irish Prisons Penal Labour System, written by the Governor of Mount joy Convict Prison; and, if so, if he will have any objection to lay a Copy of same upon the Table?
  MR. TREVELYAN: On the 15th of January last the Governor of Mount joy Prison submitted to the Prisons Board in manuscript some remarks on the utilization of convict labour with a request that he might communicate them to a periodical. The reply conveyed to him by the Board was that they did not approve their officers contributing to the Press. On January 26 he re-submitted the document, with a request that it might be forwarded to the Chief Secretary—I was not Chief Secretary at the time, and have not seen it—and it appears that in October last each member of the Prisons Board received a printed copy of what they believed to be the same matter, headed "For private circulation only." I do not think this is a kind of document which ought to be laid upon the Table.

  IRELAND—QUEEN'S INSTITUTE, DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Queen's Institute (Dublin) is chartered; and, if so, in whom are the powers of the charter vested?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have ascertained that there is no record of any Charter to the Queen's Institute in the Hanaper Office or Record and Writ Office in Ireland; it would, therefore, appear that the Institute is not chartered.

  NAVY—THE CIVILIAN BRANCH— NAVAL RANK.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether officers of the civilian branch of the Navy ranking with Lieutenants, although not entitled to half pay, are, for this reason, liable to removal from Her Majesty's Service when, in the case of a Lieutenant, such removal would be inapplicable?
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: There is no difference in regard to the powers of the Admiralty over them between a Lieutenant entitled to half-pay and an officer of the civilian branch of the Navy ranking with a Lieutenant, but not entitled to half-pay. Both are equally liable to have their names removed from the list of the Navy by order of the Board of Admiralty, and independently of court martial.

  CRIMINAL LAW—"THE QUEEN v. JOHN DILLON"—MR. JUSTICE HAWKINS.
  MR. FRESHFIELDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the observations of Mr. Justice Hawkins in a case of The Queen against John Dillon, tried at the Central Criminal Court on Tuesday last; and, if he has taken, or will take, measures to give effect to the views of the Judge as to the prosecution of persons charged with robbery accompanied by violence and other serious outrages through the instrumentality of the Public Prosecutor?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): The attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department has been drawn to the matter; and my right hon. and learned Friend is now considering what effect he can give, if any, to the expressions of the Judge.

  NAVY—NAVAL ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.
  MAJOR DICKSONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, When the men willing to join batteries of Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers in Deal, Dover, and Folkestone, to be attached to the London brigade, may expect a definite answer to their application made in October 1881; and, do the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty contemplate accepting their services?
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN: The subject referred to by the hon. and gallant Member is still under consideration. The course to be taken as to Naval Volunteers will be stated when the Estimates are introduced, and we cannot deal separately with individual offers of service.

  INDIA—HARBOUR WORK AT COLOMBO.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, To explain the progress made with the harbour works of Colombo, including the breakwaters; the amounts expended by the Colony; the sums advanced by Government; the original amount of the estimate; the calculated excess for works yet to be completed; the arrangements made by the Colony for finding funds to finish the works; and the decision of Government in regard to advancing the balance of the promised loan of £250,000; and, whether the Minute of the Lieutenant Governor, reviewing the state of the works and the expenditure, will be laid before Parliament?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The harbour works were commenced in 1876, and considerable progress has been made. The south-west breakwater is nearly completed. The question of proceeding with or deferring the northern breakwater is under the consideration of the Ceylon Government. The total expenditure up to August 31, 1882, was £542,177. There has been £125,000 advanced by Government. The original Estimate was £630,000. The consulting engineer places the probable total cost, including the additional breakwater, at £903,710. The Legislative Council of Ceylon has agreed to provide a further sum of £150,000. The balance of a £125,000 loan from the Public Works Commissioners is available when required; but the credit of the Ceylon Government is so good that, for the present, they are able to borrow at a more favourable rate in the open market.

  INDIAN CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE— IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the attention of the Government of India has been turned to the evils of the Law which

  391
  sanctions imprisonment, of a large number of persons, for debt in that Country; whether it is a fact that a vindictive creditor in Madras may keep the debtor for a long time in gaol, on paying for him, as subsistence money, if he be destitute, seven rupees per month, while the prisoner costs the Government, on the average, twenty-six rupees per month; and, whether the whole subject is likely to be early considered, with a view to the reform of the Law?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The law relating to the imprisonment of judgment debtors in India is contained in the Indian Civil Procedure Code (Act 14 of this year). No one can (Section 342) be imprisoned in execution of a decree of a Civil Court for a longer period than six months, or for a longer period than six weeks, if the decree is for a sum not exceeding 50 rupees; and a debtor who has once been discharged cannot be re-arrested under the decree in execution of which he was imprisoned. As to the maintenance of debtors in prison, the Local Government is empowered (Section 338) to prescribe scales, graduated according to rank, race, and nationality, of monthly subsistence allowances. The subsistence allowance is payable by the decree holder in advance; and when the prisoner is committed to gaol the Court formally fixes the amount, fixing it according to the scales prescribed by the Local Government; or, if no such scales have been prescribed, allowing such sum as seems necessary with reference to the class to which the debtor belongs (Section 339). I have no information as to what are the scales of such subsistence allowance in common use in Madras. The Civil Procedure Code has this year been revised and re-enacted; and I have no reason to suppose that the Government of India contemplates any further amendment of the law at present.

  SCIENCE AND ART—THE HAMILTON COLLECTION OF MANUSCRIPTS— THE STATE PAPERS.
  MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Historical Manuscripts Commissioners will print in their next, or an early volume, the Catalogue of the Scottish State Papers and other Historical Records relating to Scotland recently
  392
  acquired by the German Government from the Hamilton Collection.
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT), in reply, said, that an account of the Historical Manuscripts at Hamilton Palace had been drawn up by Dr. Smart, of Edinburgh, for the Historical Manuscripts Commission, and their Report was issued in 1870. Under these circumstances, it was doubtful whether there was any necessity for reprinting the catalogues.

  MADAGASCAR—BRITISH SHIPS OF WAR.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there are any British ships of war in the neighbourhood of Madagascar; and, if so, to state their names and force?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The gun-vessel Seagull and two small schooners are at present at Zanzibar. On the East Indian Station, which includes Madagascar, we have, besides the flag ship, two corvettes, three sloops, and four gun-vessels. I may add that the Fawn, a surveying vessel, is also at this moment at St. Augustine's, on the West Coast of Madagascar.

  JAMAICA—FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT—SEIZURE OF THE "FLORENCE."
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true that a ship called the "Florence," supposed to contain arms, was seized at Jamaica under the Imperial Foreign Enlistment Act; that the owners in consequence brought an action against the Governor of Jamaica, and gained it; that, on appeal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council upheld the decision; that the Governor of Jamaica, acting on the precedent of the Lahave case, asked to be indemnified for his act by the Imperial Government; that the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reply to his application, informed him that the sum must be voted by the Jamaica Council; whether it is a fact that two of the official Members of the Jamaica Council resigned their seats on this account; whether, in consequence of their resigning, the Secretary of State for the Colonies addressed an official Despatch to the Governor

  393
  ordering him so to fill up these two vacancies as to insure the passing of this Vote, and suggesting the name of one gentleman and leaving it to the Governor to name the other; whether it is true that, owing to this action on the part of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the sum of money having been voted by the Government majority in Council, the whole of the unofficial Members of the Council have resigned, as stated in a recent telegram; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay all the Papers relating to this transaction, together with the Despatch, upon the Table of the House? The hon. Member said that he wished to explain the first paragraph of the Question, otherwise it would not be perfectly clear. The following letter had been addressed by His Excellency Sir Anthony Musgrave, the Governor of Jamaica, to Mr. Thomas Capper, Chief Inspector of Schools in the Island—
  "(Private.)—Flamstead, August 5.—My dear Sir,—I have been directed by the Secretary of State to ascertain, confidentially whether you will accept one of the seats in the Legislative Council rendered vacant by the resignation of Messrs. Mackglashan and Burke, with the essential condition that you will be prepared to support the proposals of Government, not only in the question of the Florence damages, but always when called upon. I shall be obliged if you can favour me with an early reply.—Very faithfully yours, A. MUSGRAVE.—Mr. T. Capper."
  To this Mr. Capper replied—
  "Sir,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of Your Excellency's private letter of the 5th inst. Should I have the honour of being offered a seat in the Legislative Council, I should have no objection in accepting it subject to the conditions stated by Your Excellency.—I am, &c, THOS. CAPPER."
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The most convenient way to answer the hon. Member's string of Questions is by laying the Papers on the Table of the House, which I will do. I would point out, however, an important error in his Question. It was not under an Imperial, but under a local Act that the Florence was seized; nor was there any decision given by the Judicial Committee on the merits, but only on an interlocutory appeal about the pleadings. Lastly, only half of the cost incurred was demanded by the Imperial Government to be paid by the Colony, as the Imperial Government was anxious only to call upon the Colony to bear the minimum of charge consistent
  394
  with a reasonable view of the Colony's responsibility in the matter.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT— THE MAGISTRACY.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that certain magistrates in the county of Galway have refused to take the affidavits of persons endeavouring to obtain the benefits of the Arrears Act, and are still refusing, notwithstanding the injunction of the Lord Lieutenant and the statement made by the Attorney General himself in this House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, I do not know whether certain magistrates in Galway County have refused to take affidavits under the Arrears Act; but if it has been so, it will not, I apprehend, be so in future; because some days since, in consequence of a Question put to me by the hon. Member, His Excellency caused all the Resident Magistrates in Ireland to be apprized of his desire that every facility should be afforded to persons desiring to make affidavits under that Act, and I have reason to believe that this has already been attended with good results.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the occupations of the majority of the inhabitants of Dublin prevent them from being within their houses constantly after five o'clock p.m., or earlier; whether he is aware that, in the case of very large numbers of the poorest inhabitants the wretched nature of their homes, frequently single rooms in badly-ventilated quarters, renders their compulsory confinement from five p.m. to eight a.m. every day both painful and unhealthy; and, what steps he will take to allow the inhabitants of Dublin, especially the poorest classes, to walk in the open air after five p.m. during the winter?
  MR. PARNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the city of Dublin has been proclaimed under the provisions of the curfew section of the Crimes Act, and upon whose representations and with what object this has been done?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, according to Thom's Almanac, the sun set in Dublin yesterday evening at 3.43 o'clock P.M., and rose this morning at 7.53 o'clock A.M.?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will answer the Questions of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) first. The City of Dublin has been proclaimed under the provisions of the Curfew Section of the Prevention of Crime3 Act. It was done on the representations of those who are responsible for the peace of the city and for the lives of the citizens; and it was done to preserve that peace and to save those lives. With reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), I beg to assure him that the powers of the section will not be directed against the people whose comfort and health he desires should be protected. The following supplemental Proclamation has been issued by the Lord Lieutenant: —
  "Whereas certain atrocious crimes have lately been committed in the City of Dublin, evidently the work of a secret society, and whereas we, being determined to afford every protection to peaceable and law-abiding citizens, have this day, with the advice of the Privy Council, issued a Proclamation declaring Section 11 of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882, to be in force in the City of Dublin; now, we John Poyntz, Earl Spencer, Lord Lieutenant General and General Governor of Ireland, hereby give notice that the powers will be so used as not to interfere with the comfort or convenience of any peaceful and law-abiding citizens, but will be directed against persons believed to be engaged in prosecuting criminal designs."
  I know that the public servants who are directly responsible for carrying out the section understand and sympathize with the spirit of this Proclamation; and I shall make myself responsible for seeing that it is carried out in this spirit. With regard to a Question asked some little while ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), I may say now that the provision of extra force to protect the lives of jurymen and others, and to assist the police in dealing with violent crime, from the very first engaged the attention of the Government. It is, for reasons into which I need not enter, a very difficult and delicate problem; but the Government think they have found a solution to it, and are engaged actively in carrying out the arrangements which will meet the required end.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman who are to be the judges in case of arrests as to whether the persons arrested are about to engage, or are engaged, in criminal designs? I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the police, in the first instance, will be the judge as to that in making the arrest; and, secondly, I wish to ask him, whether the persons arrested at night will be brought at once before a magistrate, or whether they will be kept in dirty police cells in the company of people of bad character during the whole night on suspicion? Thirdly, I wish to ask him whether the proceedings against the persons arrested in this way will be conducted in public or in private?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I think it would be decidedly more convenient that I should answer these Questions tomorrow.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to give Notice of them for to-morrow, and I shall also ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the Instructions which have been issued to the police authorities in Dublin as to the way in which the Act is to be administered?
  MR. SEXTONgave Notice that, on the same day, he would ask, whether, considering the power given under the Prevention of Crime Act to Justices of detaining persons for seven days before bringing them before the Court, the Irish Executive would issue special instructions to the Justices in this regard considering the large number of persons on the streets of Dublin, and the probability of innocent persons being arrested.
  MR. HEALYgave Notice that, on the same occasion, he would ask, whether the provisions of the Act would be enforced against persons of a certain character who were in the habit of walking through Sackville Street and Grafton Street, and with regard to whom complaints had been made time after time to the Government?
  MR. O'DONNELLgave Notice that, on the same occasion, he would ask, whether, considering that the police were to be largely reinforced from Manchester and Liverpool and other towns, unacquainted with the people of Dublin, what precautions would be used to prevent mistakes in the persons arrested?

  INDIA—CONVICTIONS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether an English born person in India can be sentenced to penal servitude for life on the decision of a single judge without a jury?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: This Question is asked in continuation of others which have been put to me on the subject of the Salem trials, where certain persons have been convicted and sentenced to penal servitude by a single Judge sitting with assessors. It is the fact that no European British subject can be so sentenced by a single Judge without a jury. But this bare statement would give a very inadequate idea of the relations before the law of Europeans and Natives, without some reference to the extensive changes which have been made by recent legislative measures. It would take too long to state what those changes have been; but it may be enough to say that formerly Europeans could be tried only in the Presidency towns with a jury, and all cases had to be sent to those towns, and Natives were invariably tried by a single Judge without a jury; but now provision has been made for the local trial, with a jury, of Europeans committing grave offences beyond the limits of the Presidency towns, and also for a system of jury trials to be extended to all parts of India in which the state of society admits of it. It has already been extended to some parts of India, and will doubtless extend further whenever the Local Governments, advised by the High Courts, deem it practicable. Wherever jury trial does not exist, a Native is tried by a Judge with assessors, subject to appeal to the High Court.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the noble Marquess had stated that though no British-born subject could be sentenced to penal servitude without having been found guilty by a jury, yet that Natives could be so sentenced by a Judge with the aid of two assessors. He wished to know whether it was also the fact that a Native could be sentenced to penal servitude for life by a single Judge acting in opposition to the opinion of both assessors? Also, whether it was not the case that a Native surgeon had been recently sentenced to penal servitude for life against the opi-
  398
  nions of both assessors, and had been transported to his place of punishment without waiting for the result of his appeal?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that he had already answered the Question of the hon. Member. When a trial took place before a single Judge with two assessors under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Judge was bound to hear the opinion of the assessors; but was, of course, obliged to act on his own responsibility and judgment.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked if the noble Marquess would take any steps to delay the infliction of the punishment of penal servitude on the gentleman referred to, pending the decision of the Appeal Court?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that he had no official information as to the proceedings in the case mentioned, and he had no knowledge of it except from what he had seen in the newspapers. He had no doubt the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code would be strictly enforced, and he had no reason to believe that any injustice would be inflicted by them.

  DUBLIN SPECIAL COMMISSION COURT —CASE OF FRANCIS HYNES.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, from a Return ordered by the House on the 9th instant, and presented on the 20th,
  "Of any Documents (except Official Documents of a confidential and privileged character) in the nature of Evidence or Memorials submitted for the Consideration of the Irish Executive with reference to the case of Francis Hynes; and, of any Letters written to or by the Lord Lieutenant with reference to such Documents,"
  there have been two letters suppressed, written by Mr. Callan, M.P., and the reply thereto; whether the letters referred to were not a tender of evidence in no way excepted from the operation of the order; and, if so, whether he can explain on what grounds and by what authority the Irish Executive have disobeyed the order of the House by suppressing the letters referred to; and, whether the Irish Executive will now supply the omission by laying upon the Table the letters in question?
  MR. TREVELYAN: As a general rule, the materials on which the Lord

  399
  Lieutenant exercises the Prerogative of Mercy are, perhaps, the last information which should be communicated to the House. In the case of Francis Hynes, out of justice to the jury, whose character had been attacked, the Government thought it proper to depart from this course. But I certainly contend that, by the form of the Return, the right was retained by the Government as to what letters should be included in that Return. If, however, the hon. Member will move for the presentation to the House of his Letter of the 25th of August, the Government has no objection to give it.
  MR. CALLAN: And the reply thereto?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Yes.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)— CAVALRY HORSES.
  MR. BROWNasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Whether, in consequence of the loss in horses in connection with the Egyptian Campaign, an additional sum will have to be taken for cavalry remounts?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: Yes, Sir. In consequence of the loss of horses in the Egyptian Campaign, an additional sum has been taken for the Cavalry remounts, and this is included in the total amount of the war expenses given by the Prime Minister. Perhaps it may be interesting to the House to learn the exact state of the Cavalry regiments as regards horses who took part in the Egyptian Campaign. The Household Cavalry horses are now fit for, and are performing, ordinary duty. They lost, on an average, 30 per squadron, or 90 in all, including those killed in action. The Field Artillery horses are, for the most part, nearly fit for duty. The mortality among the horses of the regiments remaining in Egypt has not been of a very exceptional character, and has been due principally to climatic causes. The 7th Dragoon Guards have lost 72, and the 19th Hussars 50 horses. Both regiments have now been removed from Cairo, and the horses have much benefited by the change. The whole of the Artillery are also encamped outside Cairo. There remain the 4th Dragoon Guards, who have lost 267 horses, and a troop of Horse Artillery, who lost 96 horses. The mortality among these is decreasing, and the 4th Dragoon Guards have 200 horses
  400
  now fit for easy duty. But it will not be forgotten that this regiment made a forced march of 70 miles in less than 48 hours, and that not a trooper lay down nor a horse was unsaddled until Cairo was safe.

  SCOTLAND—CROFTERS IN THE ISLAND OF SKYE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the possibility of giving to the remnant of the Celtic population of Scotland the same legal recognition of their ancient rights in the land which has been so liberally granted to the Irish?
  MR. DALRYMPLEasked the right hon. Gentleman, before answering the Question, if he was aware that one of the most important points in dispute between the Skye crofters and one of the largest landed proprietors in Skye had just been settled by friendly arrangement; and, whether he did not think that such an arrangement so made was better than vague suggestions about ancient rights, or any interference by Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The intelligence to which the hon. Member opposite has referred has not reached me; but I receive it with great satisfaction. I was about to have answered my hon. Friend that the relative rights of parties were so far in course of progress towards being fixed that the first step had been taken on the part of the landlords for the purpose of having them fixed; and that I did not think that a period like that, when difficulty attended that step and the actual execution of the law, was the time for raising any question of the nature of the Question; but I receive with great satisfaction what has been stated by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MACFARLANEinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider that, as the principal point in dispute between landlord and tenant had been removed, there was no longer any necessity for an inquiry?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With the greatest possible respect to the hon. Member, and to the hon. Gentleman opposite, I think I may say the House will feel that I must wait for some further and more definite statement on the subject before I undertake to answer anything of the nature of the Question put to me just now.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— LOANS.
  MR. SYNANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as the Land Act of 1881 makes the drainage loan the first charge on the tenant's holding, and as the tenant must execute a deed of covenant for the due application of the money, and repayment of the loan, and the works are inspected from time to time by the Inspector of the Board of Works, the Treasury is sufficiently protected, without subjecting the tenant to the expense, delay, and difficulty of getting two solvent sureties to execute a deed of covenant for the repayment of the loan; and, whether he will, under these circumstances, recommend the last condition to be dispensed with?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that in an argumentative Question the hon. Member suggested that there was sufficient security for the loan in the value of the holding; but in cases where the Treasury in England would be brought in immediate relation with small holders of land in Ireland, he must consider what position they would be placed in if they looked to the value of the land alone as their security. He was not prepared at present to take the course proposed; but he might, at the same time, assure the hon. Member that any suggestion having for its object the easy working of the Act in this particular would be carefully examined, and its practicability considered.
  MR. PARNELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can afford facilities, before the end of the Session, for a discussion upon the administration and defects of the Land Law Act of 1881?
  MR, GLADSTONE: The administration and defects, real or assumed, of the Land Act form a subject of great interest, to which this House may not seem disinclined to recur from time to time; but I am bound to say—particularly when I remember the discussions which we have already had—that I do not think that the question stands in a position which would justify me in asking the House to depart from its present plan of proceeding in order to meet the views of the hon. Member.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORgave Notice that he would ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
  402
  land, Whether it was true that Lord Ventry had intimated to his tenants that he would not join them in making applications to the Court under the Act unless they should first have repaid to him the money allowed as abatement in past periods of distress?

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—THE PUBLIC DEBT.
  MR. CALLANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can submit to the House the calculation which the Bight honourable Member for Ripon, about October 1876, showed to the Khedive, purporting to demonstrate that the application to the reduction of the Egyptian Debt of the yearly proceeds of the Moukabala; viz., £1,500,000 yearly for nine years, would reduce said debt from £90,000,000 to £35,000,000, i.e. by the year 1885; whether it is not the fact that, though said proceeds of the Moukabala were duly applied to the reduction of said debt, it was never appreciably reduced at all; and, whether, in fact, the said calculation did not show the foresaid favourable result by omitting altogether from the account of the necessary charges against the Re-venue, both the principal of the floating debt amounting to (say) £20,000,000, and the interest thereon at about £25 per cent., which the Khedive had to pay to keep it floating?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may answer this Question very briefly, to the effect that all the facts bearing upon this question are, I believe, contained in a document before the House.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I wish, by the kind indulgence of the House, to be permitted to answer the Question in further detail. If this calculation submitted to the Khedive is not in the hands of the Government, it can easily be obtained by reference to the archives in Egypt; and, if not, I shall be happy to place my copy, if I can find it, in the hands of the Government, to make such use of it in the matter of publicity as they may think fit. The document is falsely described in the Question as—
  "Purporting to demonstrate that the application to the reduction of the Egyptian Debt of the yearly proceeds of the Moukabala would reduce the debt from £90,000,000 to £35,000,000."
  The fact is that the document did not deal with the sum of £90,000,000, but

  403
  with £59,000,000, and the error in the Question is only one of £31,000,000. In the next place, the Question suggests that the reduction of the Debt was to be obtained only by the yearly application of £1,500,000, as representing the Moukabala, the fact being, on the contrary, that the Moukabala is only to be applied in part for this purpose. The main Sinking Fund for the extinction of the Debt was to be obtained by the reduction of the interest on the Debt from 7 to 6 per cent, the difference of 1 per cent on the nominal amount being added to the Moukabala to create the Sinking Fund. The hon. Member then asks whether, notwithstanding the application of the Moukabala, the Debt was appreciably reduced at all? During the two years during which the Decree in question was in force the aggregate reduction of the Funded Debt, Unified and Short Loans together, was £5,000,000. Whether that was an appreciable amount or not I leave to the House to judge. Lastly, I am asked—
  "Whether the said calculation did not show the foresaid favourable result by omitting altogether from the account of the necessary charges against the Revenue both the principal of the Floating—say, £20,000,000—Debt and the interest thereon?"
  Again, the Question suggests the very contrary of the fact. It was the consolidation of the largo Floating Debt of upwards of £20,000,000 which led to the whole re-arrangement of the Debt in 1876, and the Floating Debt of £20,000,000 is included and not excluded from the £59,000,000 of the Unified Debt. I trust I have answered this Question clearly and categorically. I would conclude by asking whether it is fair that Questions of this nature, suggesting the grossest laches on the part of an hon. Member of this House, should be put without such reference to the original document as would show that such suggestions are baseless?
  MR. T. P. O'GONNORasked whether the Prime Minister, in accordance with the advice of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), that the bondholders should pay a portion of the War Debt they had done so much to create, would recommend the Khedive to reduce the sums payable to the bondholders represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Perhaps I may at once repudiate the suggestion which the hon. Member makes, that I am a representative of the bondholders. I undertook an honorary mission in 1876. My connection with the bondholders was closed shortly after, and I no more represent the bondholders than any other Member of this House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he did not say that the right hon. Gentleman represented the bondholders now, but when he went to Egypt.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the Prime Minister would grant facilities for the discussion of the circumstances under which the arrangement of 1876 was concluded; and, in particular, for the discussion of the manner in which the Finance Minister of Egypt disappeared during the negotiations between the Khedive and the representatives of the bondholders?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I do not think the granting of those facilities, as far as they depend upon the Government, would be desired by the House, or would be advantageous.

  EGYPT—ARABI PASHA.
  MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will now give a day for the discussion of a Motion condemning the conduct of the Government for the surrender of Arabi Pasha; and, whether he has any statement to make with respect to the trial of Arabi Pasha?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to the first part of this Question, I have to say that all the material circumstances of the case stand in the same position as that in which they stood at the time when I gave an answer to a previous Question on this subject. The reasons of public interest which prevented us from affording any facilities for the discussion, and which might preclude us from taking part—or, at least, any effectual part—in such a discussion, if raised, still subsist in their full force. Therefore, I have nothing to add to, or to take away from, the answer which I then gave. With regard to the second part of the Question, I have to say that there are several particulars connected with the proceeding in question which I am able to state with accuracy to the right hon. Gentleman and the House. The latest Report from Sir Charles Wilson, who is

  405
  watching the trial on behalf of the Government, is dated the 12th instant. It appears from this Report that the preliminary inquiry into the cases under investigation was closed on the 6th current, and that on the 12th current the Commission issued notices to the counsel for the prosecution and for the defence laying down the course of procedure to be followed, and fixing November 25 as the day on which the second part of the inquiry should commence in the case of those trials in which the first inquiry had been closed, and sufficient ground shown for the committal of the prisoners. Thirty days will be allowed for the hearing of the evidence in the second portion of the inquiry, which will thus close on December 25, our Christmas Day. The Government have not yet heard whether the second part of the inquiry was actually opened on the 25th instant, nor what prisoners have been committed for trial; but they believe that the inquiry was not opened on the 25th.
  MR. BOURKE: Is the inquiry to be closed on a certain specified day, no matter whether all the evidence has been heard or not?
  MR. GLADSTONE: A specific day has been fixed on which the second inquiry is expected to close. I may, perhaps, be able to give a more definite answer hereafter.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What is the meaning of the statement that Sir Charles Wilson was watching the case on behalf of the English Government? Is he empowered to examine and cross-examine witnesses?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe that my expression that Sir Charles Wilson was watching the case was an accurate expression. It is an expression of familiar use in connection with public trials. He has no power of interference in the trial; but he will know all that takes place.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: The right hon. Gentleman says that the question is in a similar position to that in which it formerly stood. There is, then, I suppose, no intention of abandoning the trial altogether, as has been stated in the newspapers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not in a position to give any information upon that subject; but we have not received any announcement that such a step is contemplated.
  MR. MOLLOY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House any general information about Egyptian affairs this Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is impossible to answer that Question in a manner which would be satisfactory to the hon. Member, because we do not know when the Session will close. All I can say is that all information which can be communicated to the House, without injury to the Public Service, we shall be very desirous to make known to the House at the earliest opportunity.
  MR. MOLLOY: My Question had reference to information already received.
  MR. LABOUCHEREpointed out that there were two sets of rules of procedure agreed to by the Commission of Inquiry, and that under one set it was laid down that the defence was to be perfectly froe to examine witnesses deemed expedient, the President having a right to declare the inquiry closed if the desire of the counsel to prolong uselessly the case was manifest; while under the other set of rules the whole case for the defence must, under all circumstances, be completed by the 25th of December. He wished to know whether that last regulation of the Commission of Inquiry coincided with the agreement that was come to between the Egyptian Government and counsel?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In order that I may be quite safe in answering this Question, I shall be glad if the hon. Member will give me Notice of his intention to put it on a future day.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES OF DEBATE— PRODUCTION OF QUOTED DOCUMENTS.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished to refer to a document quoted the other day by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The document, having been quoted in the House, ought to be presented and laid upon the Table. He wished for a positive assurance that it would be presented.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that he had consulted the Clerk at the Table, and come to the conclusion that it was not possible to traverse the statement that the House was entitled to the document in question. That being so, he would make a further application to the Land Commissioners, who were concerned in

  407
  the matter, for leave to produce the desired Memorandum.
  MR. GIBSONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay upon the Table any communications from the Land Commission expressive of dissent from the recent decision of the Government in regard to Court valuers?
  [No reply was given.]

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. PARNELL: Sir, I beg leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter, of urgent public importance—namely, the extent to which the Land Act of 1881 has failed to carry out the intentions of Parliament and to satisfy the reasonable expectations of the Irish people; and the alterations necessary for the purpose of enabling that Act to fulfil their requirements.
  MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to give me in writing the definite matter to which he has now referred
  MR. HEALY: To a point of Order, Sir—I wish to ask whether, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman above the Gangway (Mr. Gibson) asked leave to move the Adjournment a few nights ago, he was requested by you to bring up a definite statement?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have considered it my duty upon former occasions, when the same Motion was proposed to be made, to call upon the Member making it to bring up a definite statement to the Chair, because the Resolution of the House requires that the Motion made shall be for the discussion of some definite matter of urgent public importance; and, with the view of keeping the discussion to that matter, it is necessary that I should have the terms in my hand in writing.
  MR. HEALY: Sir, I wish again to ask whether, when the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin moved the Adjournment of the House on Tuesday, he handed to the Speaker a definite statement in writing?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already stated that on both recent occasions when the Adjournment of the House was moved a definite statement was handed to me.
  MR. PARNELLhaving accordingly come to the Table with his statement in writing—
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member desire to ask leave of the House to move the adjournment?
  MR. PARNELL: I do, Sir.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it your pleasure that Mr. Parnell be now heard?
  And there being many voices for and against—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid: Is the proposal of the hon. Member supported by 40 Members?
  Whereupon, a number of Members—less than 40—rising in their places—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid: The hon. Member for the City of Cork cannot proceed with his Motion.
  [The following is the Entry in the Votes.]
  Mr. Parnell, Member for the City of Cork, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and less than forty Members having risen in their places, the House proceeded to the Orders of the Day.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
    II. STANDING COMMITTEES.

      RESOLUTION 1 (STANDING COMMITTEES ON LAW AND COURTS OF JUSTICE, TRADE, &c.)
      [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [THIRTY-THIRD NIGHT.]
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [29th November], "That the Debate be now adjourned on the Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to Main Question [28th November],
      "That two Standing Committees be appointed for the consideration of all Bills relating to Law and Courts of Justice, and to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, which may be committed to them respectively."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
      And which Amendment was,
      In line 1, after the word "Committees," to insert the words "which shall only sit whilst the House is not sitting."—(Sir Richard Cross.)
      And which proposed Amendment to the Amendment was,
      To add, at the end thereof, the words "and on Tuesdays and Fridays from Noon till Four o'clock p.m."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
      MR. SPEAKER: I have to point out to the House that the Question before it now is the Adjournment of the Debate, which was moved yesterday and not decided before a quarter before 6. The Question is, "That this Debate be now adjourned."
      Question again proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Hicks.)
      Debate resumed.
      MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to ask whether, in view of the fact that nearly 40 Members rose to support his request, the Question should not have been submitted to the judgment of the House?
      MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member had risen in his place at the time and demanded a Division, I should have considered it my duty to put the Question to the House.
      MR. MACARTNEYrose to a point of Order. He said that after the clock marked a quarter to 6 yesterday the Question was put by the Deputy Speaker, and he said that the "Ayes" had it. [Cries of "No!"]
      MR. SPEAKER: The proceeding was perfectly regular. The Question before the House was the Adjournment of the Debate; and at a quarter to 6 the Deputy Speaker, according to the Standing Orders, said that the Debate stood adjourned.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked in what portion of Resolution 2 was it provided that a Division should be called for by the Member who made the request, the words being—
      "If fewer than forty Members, and not less than ten, shall thereupon rise in their places, the House shall, on a Division, upon Question put forthwith, determine whether such Motion shall be made."
      MR. CALLANasked whether it was not imperative on the Speaker to put the Question if fewer than 40 Members, and not less than 10, should rise in their places?
      MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will read the terms of the Resolution he
      410
      will find that the latter part of the Resolution is in these words—
      "Or unless, if fewer than forty Members and not less than ten shall thereupon rise in their places."
      There is no direction to the Speaker to put the Question. It is the duty of the Member who wishes to move the Adjournment to rise in his place and to call on me to put the Question as he thinks fit.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Adjournment of the Debate was moved yesterday because the House did not plainly know what the intentions of the Government were with respect to the Sittings of the Grand Committees; and they hoped that the view of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not be the view of the Prime Minister. There was a distinction between these Standing Committees and Select Committees. It would be quite impossible, if the Members of these Grand Committees sitting upstairs were to be perpetually called down to take part in the Divisions of the House, that they could attend to their duties either in one place or the other.
      MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Question before the House is the Adjournment of the Debate. The right hon. Gentleman is not speaking to that Question now. He must confine himself to that Question.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would obey the right hon. Gentleman's ruling. He had quite forgotten that he was transgressing. He had sufficiently explained to the Prime Minister what was wanted, and that the ground upon which the Adjournment was moved was that there were different utterances on the part of the Members of the Government, especially with regard to Morning Sittings and Wednesdays.
      MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was sure it would lead to the saving of time if the Government would take that opportunity to clear up the apparent uncertainty which beset the minds of Ministers. What really caused the Adjournment of the Debate to be moved yesterday was that this House could not discern the consistency of the two ends of the Treasury Bench; and the Leader of the House being absent—he did not

      411
      make that a matter of reproach to the right hon. Gentleman, for there was no Member of the House who better deserved occasional repose—there was no one to give a definite opinion. He did not think the Home Secretary was present, though he took upon himself sometimes to express the opinions of the Treasury Bench.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it would not be in accordance with the spirit of the Speaker's ruling for him to make any statement on the subject until the Motion for Adjournment had been decided.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 187: Majority 164.—(Div. List, No. 401.)
      MR. GORSTsaid, that, on behalf of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), he begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment, having been moved by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, can only be withdrawn by the noble Lord himself.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he had not been able to be present yesterday, as he was labouring under a very slight indisposition, which had now quite passed away. Whatever might have been supposed yesterday, there was no difference of opinion among his right hon. Friends on the subject of this Resolution. The Government, however, had again considered the question, and he would now state what they proposed. It was evident that the House was at liberty, if it chose, to authorize the Sitting of any Committee during the Sitting of the House itself; and that liberty ought not, in his opinion, to be impaired; but he agreed with the objection urged on the other side of the House, that the case of these Committees was not the same as that of Select Committees. The Sittings of Committees were governed by the general law, which provided that all the proceedings of Select Committees should come to an end on the meeting of the House, and that the Serjeant-at-Arms should notify to such Committees the fact that the Speaker had taken the Chair. An important exception to that general law was made by the Standing Order of July 21, 1856—
      "That on Wednesdays, and other Morning Sittings of the House, all Committees shall
      412
      have leave to sit, except while the House is at prayer, during the Sitting of, and notwithstanding the adjournment of the House."
      Therefore, he proposed to make an addition to provide that the Grand Committees should be excluded from the Standing Order of July 21, 1856. That would be much more convenient than introducing an exception in the middle of a sentence.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLbegged to withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, after what had fallen from the Prime Minister, he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
      MR. RITCHIEsaid, some Notice ought to be given when leave was going to be asked for a Committee to continue its Sitting.
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he considered the statement of the Prime Minister satisfactory so far as it went; but thought there should be no recognition on the face of the Resolution that the leave of the House was to be asked for.
      MR. DODSONexplained that the effect of the Prime Minister's proposal would be that the Standing Committees would not be able to sit while the House was sitting even on Wednesdays, or at a Morning Sitting, unless leave was given by the House for the purpose.
      MR. NEWDEGATEasked whether all the Rules of Select Committees would have to be observed in the proceedings of the Grand Committees? It was important that their proceedings should be presented to the House with any Bill they had amended.
      SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked what was meant by obtaining leave of the House? The Speaker had ruled that it was the unamimous assent of the House. If leave were declined, inconvenience might result. A majority might wish to prevent a minority attending the House.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. GIBSON, in proposing, in line 1, after the word "Committees," to insert the words "which shall be open to the public and the press, unless the House shall otherwise order," said, there was no analogy between the proposed and any existing Committees; the analogy was rather with the general procedure

      413
      of the Whole House. The Government said these Committees were to be governed by the Rules which governed Select Committees, unless it were otherwise provided in the Resolutions. If that were so, it would be competent for a Standing Committee to exclude the public and the Press, and to hold a hole-and-corner meeting. It was obvious that these Committees must be subjected to the checks imposed by publicity; and unless this were provided for in express terms the public could be ordered out of the room, and the inquiry held in secret. All he wanted to accomplish was that the proceedings should be as public as the proceedings of the House, unless for good reasons discussed in the House it should otherwise order; and if the Government assented to the principle, it was immaterial by what Amendment the object was attained.
      Amendment proposed,
      In line 1, after the word "Committees," to insert the words "which shall be open to the public and the press, unless the House shall otherwise order."—(Mr. Gibson.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsuggested that the question could be more conveniently discussed on a later Amendment, which stood in his name, dealing with the regulation of the proceedings of the Committees.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he quite agreed with his noble Friend, and if the Government would accept the principle of his Amendment, he should be quite satisfied.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought that the importation of the words proposed would give to the form of the Resolution an appearance of great awkwardness, and that the object aimed at might be better attained by the addition of a Proviso. There was no doubt whatever that the general rule of the proceedings of these Grand Committees should be publicity; and the question to settle was whether it would be desirable to make for them specially some Rule varying from the Rule observed in the case of Select Committees. To insist on such a stringent restriction as that a Grand Committee should never have the power to exclude Strangers except by a reference to the House, which would not be sitting at the time, would necessitate the adjourn-
      414
      ment of the Committee and lead to considerable delay. This was, therefore, a point of some difficulty; and, on the whole, he thought it would be better to postpone the consideration of the subject until they came to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill).
      MR. RAIKESsaid, he hoped the House would not, without some further discussion, commit itself absolutely to the principle recommended by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson); for, if that principle were accepted, Grand Committees would be placed in a different position from any other form of Parliamentary action at present existing. A Select Committee, or the Committee of the Whole House, could at once exclude the public and the Press from its deliberations; and he thought great confusion might arise if Grand Committees could not exercise such a power without first obtaining the sanction of the House. He hoped the whole subject might be allowed to stand over until the noble Lord's Amendment came on for discussion.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, that, as he understood the Government were favourable to the general principle of publicity, he would ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.
      MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he should oppose the withdrawal of the Amendment. He could not think that this important question was likely to be better considered by postponing it. As Grand Committees would be selected according to the discretion of the Government of the day, they ought not to have the same powers of excluding publicity that were possessed by the House, by the Committee of the Whole House, and by Select Committees. He would move to omit from the Amendment the words "unless the House shall otherwise order."
      MR. DILLWYNsaid, he agreed very much with the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), but thought the subject might be more conveniently discussed on the noble Lord's Amendment.
      SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he hoped the Prime Minister would give some intimation as to what he would do when the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) was brought forward. More than once they had been asked by the Government to put things off till a

      415
      further stage, and when the further stage was reached the matters were put off altogether. [Cries of "When?"] That had constantly been done in the case of every Bill introduced since the present Government came into Office. [Mr. GLADSTONE: When?] He thought they ought to know at once whether the Press and the public were to be admitted to these Grand Committees or not.
      MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he thought the remarks of the hon. Gentleman were rather severe, especially as he had only just entered the House, and was evidently quite unaware of the explanation which had been given by the Prime Minister as to the course the Government intended to pursue. His right hon. Friend had made a distinct statement that the Government viewed favourably the idea of giving publicity to the proceedings of the Grand Committees.
      MR. ANDERSONthought these Committees would be so important that they should have some power of excluding Strangers just as the House had, and no more, and he should not be in favour of putting them in the same position as Select Committees. But in connection with the question of publicity it was important to consider where the Committees were to sit. It seemed to him that being so important they ought to sit in the House itself, in order that the public and the Press should have every opportunity of being present. He had no objection to the question of publicity being postponed; but he would urge hon. Members, with a view to the discussion of that question, to consider how the publicity that was required was to be provided.
      Question put, and negatived.
      MR. O'DONNELLthen rose to move, in line 1, after "Standing Committees," the insertion of the words "one consisting of Irish Members." That Amendment, he said, provided instructions for the composition of the Standing Committee; and it was purely intended to facilitate and improve the transaction of Irish Business by the House. There was no ground whatever for the rumour in circulation that this was a Home Rule Amendment. The great difficulty which even well-meaning Administrations laboured under in dealing with the wants of Ireland was to know what were the wants of Ireland; and if his Amend-
      416
      ment were accepted, it would place at the disposal of every Government a safe and easy way of ascertaining the opinion of the Irish representation upon Bills under discussion. In making that proposal, he in no manner receded from his position as an Irish Nationalist, nor gave up his right to claim the restoration of a complete Irish Legislature; but, taking facts as he now found them, and seeing that legislation for Ireland would still be conducted by the Imperial Parliament, it was his desire to improve, as far as possible, the means by which Irish wants could be brought before those who insisted on making themselves responsible for the Government of his country. Even the opponents of Home Rule for Ireland ought not to oppose his Amendment; because, if over there were sufficient guarantees to satisfy the most suspicious Imperialists about any proposal, they existed in the present case. If, for instance, a Bill were brought into the House to amend the law of Ireland, that Bill would, both on its introduction and on its second reading, be subject to the common consideration of all Members of Parliament without distinction. After that Irish measure had gone through that double ordeal at the hands of the entire House, he proposed that it should be subjected to detailed examination by a Standing Committee, consisting exclusively of Irish Members. There was no Party sectarianism about his proposal. He did not insist that the Committee should be composed exclusively of Nationalists, or of any other class of Irish Members, but only that there should be an Irish Standing Committee, to be recruited fairly and impartially from all sections of Members for Ireland, whether Nationalist, Conservative, or Whig. If the Bill were a law Bill, they would have on the Committee the most competent Irish legal Members to examine its details. If, on the other hand, it were a Bill relating to Irish trade or manufactures, again they would have on the Committee the Irish Members best qualified to deal with such questions. It would be a purely Irish Committee, inspired by a desire to promote the interests of Ireland, and free from the distracting influences of English Party contention. The legislation of Parliament would thus be enlightened and facilitated by having the aid of the deliberate opinion of the best Irish

      417
      counsel on an Irish matter. Where was the danger to Imperial authority in that? The only novelty its proposal introduced would be the novelty of an Irish Bill being considered by a tribunal which would have the best right to judge fairly and competently about it. When the Bill had passed through the Standing Committee, the Report stage would be taken by the whole House. If, in Committee, the Irish Members had made such alterations in the measure as necessitated corrections, those corrections could be made, and the Report stage could only be passed by the consent of the Imperial Parliament, consisting of English and Scotch, as well as Irish Members. Again, the Bill could only receive a third reading with the consent of the British Members; and, after that, there still remained the further ordeal of the House of Lords. If the Amendment was not adopted he would be compelled to think that the Government did not wish to be informed as to what were the wishes of the Irish people. The Amendment had nothing whatever to do with the question of Home Rule; nor did he, by proposing it, in any way recede from his position as an Irish Nationalist, for the two questions were entirely distinct. His object in pushing the proposal was to supply the notorious want of information on Irish affairs which prevailed in English Cabinets, and which caused the failure of all the remedial measures introduced by them.
      Amendment proposed, in line 1, after the word "Committees," to insert the words "one consisting of Irish Members."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. PARNELL: Sir, I rise to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and, in doing so, I may say that I think that Amendment is, probably, of more importance to the country that he represents than any of the various Rules and questions which we have been debating since the Autumn Session commenced. This matter has not been brought forward by my hon. Friend now for the first time. His proposition practically amounts to this—that there shall be a Grand Committee of Members representing the Irish constituencies for the purpose of dealing in Committee with Bills relating to the Law Courts of Justice,
      418
      and to trade, shipping, and manufacture. It has been pointed out by the Prime Minister that the experiment which he asks the House to make is not a very large one. If the experiment is not a large one, surely it would be well to give it a chance of success by having regard, in the composition of your Grand Committees, to those portions of the United Kingdom to which the Bills which are to be referred to those Committees relate. My hon. Friend pointed out that his proposal has ample safeguard by the power which the House would have to refuse to read a Bill a second time, by the power of amending it on Report, and, finally, by throwing it out on the third reading, if it be thought proper to take such a course. We reserve ample guarantees that ultimately all Members of both Houses of Parliament should be supreme with regard to every Bill referred to these Grand Committees. The great and overwhelming advantage which the adoption of my hon. Friend's proposal would bring with it would be this. It would put the House and the country in a position of knowing what the views of Members representing Irish constituencies really were upon Bills relating to Ireland, and I submit that it is of enormous importance that those views should be known. I cannot see in what way you can arrive at the views of Irish Members regarding Bills of this kind unless you adopt the proposal of my hon. Friend. I do not find fault with the Prime Minister for limiting his proposal to a class of Bills which are of a non-contentious character; but I do think that the way in which he proposes to constitute his Committees is radically defective, and of such a character as to render it necessary for us to oppose his Resolution at every stage and in every possible way we can within the Rules of the House. What does he propose? He proposes practically to place it in the power of the Government to refer those Bills to Grand Committees nominated by themselves. There is nothing in the Resolution proposed by him compelling the presence of a single Irish Member on one of those Committees on a Bill relating to Ireland; and if the principle is to be extended hereafter—if, as the Prime Minister hopes, he will be able to obtain as the result of this experiment the con-

      419
      sent of the House to a still further enlargement of the class of Bills which may be submitted to these Committees, it will follow that the Government will be able to submit to a Grand Committee nominated and appointed by themselves without the slightest power being placed in the Irish people to effect the appointment of the Members in question on Bills vitally affecting the interests of the Irish people. If the principle of nomination that the Prime Minister asks the House to adopt be ultimately agreed to, and if the result of that should be to induce the House to widen the class of Bills which may be referred to such Committees, the result would be that a Coercion Bill for Ireland might be referred to a Grand Committee, on which a single Irish Member might not sit. I look upon the adoption of such a principle as most perilous; and, therefore, I desire to urge upon the House and the Government the necessity of considering the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and of seeing whether the principle of locality should not be introduced into the method of nomination of those Committees. The proposal of my hon. Friend may, perhaps, savour to some extent of Home Rule. I admit that it is open to those who think so that the adoption of this proposition would be a step in the direction of Home Rule; but I do not think, after considering the matter for many years, that it would facilitate the obtaining of an Irish Parliament in the slightest degree. It is open to others to argue that it would be an impediment to Home Rule. I admit that such a contention is a fair subject for argument; but, for my part, having looked at the question from all sides, I am inclined to think that it would cut neither one way nor the other. Neither the advocates of an Irish Parliament nor the opponents of an Irish Parliament would be strengthened in the slightest degree in the position taken up by them in the adoption of the Amendment of my hon. Friend. The matter would rest exactly where it was, and the adoption of this proposition would have no effect upon the question of Home Rule one way or the other. So long as the national aspirations of the Irish people remain what they are, so long will the Irish people demand the restoration of their ancient Parliament, and no facilities for the purpose of pass-
      420
      ing Irish legislation, no extra measures passed in that way will have the slightest effect in satisfying those aspirations. The Irish constituencies have the right of sending to this House a certain number of Members—105. This number has been reduced to 103 by the disfranchisement of two Irish constituencies. Speaking for myself, and I believe for a considerable number of the vast majority of the Irish Members, I can only say that we are exceedingly anxious that an opportunity should be afforded to us of pushing forward useful legislation for Ireland. We have occupied during this Parliament, and some of us during last Parliament, a most peculiar position with regard to this House; and, speaking for myself, I desire to say that I have never wished or intended to obstruct the Business of the House during the whole time since the assembling of this Parliament in 1880. I have opposed Coercion Bills. We have used all the Forms of the House, as we considered we were justly entitled to do, in opposing these measures of coercion. We were placed in this position—that we were compelled to oppose these measures to the utmost of our power, while knowing at the same time that the opposition we were using towards those measures was in effect delaying useful measures of importance for the Irish people which we desire to obtain or assist in obtaining. But so far as I am concerned, and I believe so far as the vast majority of my Friends are concerned, I can fairly examine my conscience—I can look back to every thought and feeling of mine during the time this Parliament has sat, and I can fairly deny that I ever desired or intended to obstruct the Business of the House in the slightest extent or slightest degree. On the other hand, I always checked and endeavoured to prevent any of my hon. Friends—and there may be some of them who desired to do so—and used whatever little influence I was able to use in order to prevent the obstruction of Business, and because I recognized that we in Ireland have at least as large an interest in facilitating the Business of the House, so long as there is a prospect of obtaining for Ireland her fair share of remedial and beneficial legislation. That is the view which I have taken of the question of the Business of the House, and I approach this question from the same point

      421
      of view. I earnestly desire to assist the Government, and many of us here earnestly desire to assist the Government, in arranging the Rules of the House in such a way as to enable the Government Business of the House to make progress; but I fail to see in the proposals of the Government up to the present any reasonable expectation that the time of the Government and of the House to proceed with its Business will be materially increased from what it has been in past times. I cannot help seeing that until you adopt a subdivision of labour it will be possible for minorities, small and large, in this House to obstruct the Business of the House, perhaps not just so easily, but just as effectively as they did formerly. The fact of the matter is, that as years go by the claims of the Empire and of the Kingdoms, which are represented by Members in this House, have increased so enormously that it is utterly impossible for any single House sitting together, no matter how it may restrict freedom of debate, no matter how it may be armed with Executive and original power, it is utterly impossible for any single House to attend to one-tenth of the Business which it is vitally necessary should be attended to. It is just as if the House of Congress or Representatives at Washington and the Senate were asked to do, in addition to all the Business they do, all the work which the 39 Legislatures perform during the year; and in attempting to obtain from this House a measure of work which it is utterly incapable to perform, you are simply straining every machinery' and destroying every means which have done so much for the greatness of this country and Assembly. The proposition before us is one of a tentative character—it is one of the most useful character, for it proceeds on a right principle with regard to the nomination of the Committees. But if you neglect these principles, so far as the constitution of your Grand Committees goes, you would simply turn this House into a bear-garden, you would drive large sections of Members into courses of Obstruction who have steadily set their faces against Obstruction up to the present, and you would lose a great opportunity which I believe would now be afforded if something in the direction of what my hon. Friend proposes were adopted for solv-
      422
      ing the problem as to how the House of Commons shall properly provide for the great interests which are intrusted to it. It has been said that Irish questions have lately taken up an undue portion of the time of the Legislature. As I said a while ago, it was not our fault, and it was very much against our wishes, that certain of these questions, such as the Coercion Acts, should have taken up so much time. I myself would have gone a long way to prevent the necessity for the introduction of them, and I did go a long way. We have been told that very probably very little time would be given for Irish legislation during the remainder of this Parliament. I do not know how that may be; but what I would wish to submit to the House is this—that you have undertaken to legislate for Ireland, that you have inherited from former times the duties of attending to the legislative requirements of the Irish people; and so long as you insist upon the proposition that this House is capable and qualified to attend to the wants and wishes of Ireland, I say it rests upon this House, and it is absolutely essential that this House should take up and attend to these wishes and requirements; and in the absence of any other plan—and no other plan has been proposed by which you can attend to the wants of Ireland—I think we are entitled to ask the Government that they should give a careful consideration to the suggestions which have been made by my hon. Friend, so that, at least, a field of usefulness and of activity may be afforded to the Irish Members representing the counties and boroughs of Ireland upon questions in which they take a deep interest.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was rather surprised at the speech which had just been delivered by the hon. Member opposite. The hon. Member had coolly made the extraordinary assumption that these Standing Committees would be nominated by the Government. The hon. Member had had the hardihood to make that assertion, when he was perfectly aware that the House had imposed the duty of making the selection of the Members who were to serve upon those Committees upon the Committee of Selection.
      MR. PARNELLremarked that the Government could make any change

      423
      they pleased in the composition of these bodies next Session.
      MR. GLADSTONEasked what power the Government had of making such a change except by the will of the majority of that House? In making that assertion the hon. Member was offering little less than an insult to the House. He must enter his protest against a practice which was growing, and which was pursued by certain hon. Members, of assuming that the command of the Government was the will of the House. It was, in his opinion, a monstrous proceeding, be the man who practised it who he might. It was rather too much for the hon. Member for the City of Cork, after he and his Friends had resisted to the utmost the attempt of the Government to subdivide the Business of the House, to come down now and to claim credit for speaking in favour of the principle. He was glad, however, to let bygones be bygones, and to meet the hon. Member upon a ground of common agreement. He agreed that if this were not merely an experiment that was about to be tried, but were intended to be a permanent arrangement, it would be necessary to take into consideration the peculiar position of not only Irish, but of Scotch and other Members—whose existence the hon. Member seemed entirely to have forgotten—so as to prevent them from being broken up into small bodies among these different Committees, where their action would be comparatively powerless. Unquestionably the condition of 63 Scottish Members, with the House divided into seven Standing Committees, would be totally different from the condition of 63 Scottish Members able to come down to the House when a Scottish Bill was before it in whatever numbers they thought proper. Therefore, he did not at all wish to shut out the consideration of that question, which, he thought, was absolutely necessary for any fair arrangement of a comprehensive and permanent character. He believed that the Resolution would go as far as they could in the direction desired by the hon. Member when the addition to it which he should propose was inserted, an addition which would have been inserted before, had it not been for the fact that many of the Amendments on the Paper would thereby have become dislocated. That addition was to the effect that the Committee of Selec-
      424
      tion should be enabled to make additions to the Standing Committees on particular subjects. The hon. Member knew perfectly well that the Amendment could not be accepted. He would not follow the hon. Member into his arguments about Home Rule, but would say that he invited the Government to sanction at this moment the principle that certain Imperial powers—the powers of the Imperial Parliament—should be exercised by bodies of Members taken exclusively from one part of the United Kingdom. He (Mr. Gladstone) greatly doubted whether Parliament would ever sanction anything of the kind. It must be clear to the hon. Member that if they were going to make an experiment it must be a modest experiment, and a scope and latitude of such a vital character as the hon. Gentleman suggested could not be given to the proposal; for that House to divide itself in the manner proposed would be a most singular and extraordinary innovation, and an innovation which the House would not, he thought, under any circumstances, be prepared to entertain. They were proposing to the House, and they were bound by the laws of their own proposal, arrangements of practical convenience. Therefore, how could they possibly accede to an Amendment which, to say nothing else, involved an enormous Constitutional innovation? They could not do it. A much milder proposal was made yesterday by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). The proposal proceeded from the same basis, though it was much less rigorous in form. They were obliged to tell the hon. Member that it would be a breach of faith on their part to entertain even his proposal. How, then, could they adopt this Amendment? The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) knew quite well that this Amendment could not be entertained. It would entirely destroy and dislocate the whole of the arrangement they had in hand. Upon what principle, when the House had voted that there were to be two of these Committees, was one of them to be given exclusively to Ireland, and to consist exclusively of Members from Ireland? The Amendment of the hon. Member might be a very good proposal for the ventilation of opinion; but it could hardly be meant seriously. If it was, there must either be great obliquity in the understanding of the hon. Mem-

      425
      ber, or in the understanding of those who were the vast majority of that House, and who were of opinion that the question could not be seriously entertained, discussed, or dealt with. He (Mr. Gladstone) wished to leave all questions of an extension which might hereafter be given to any plan of this kind to depend on the success of this experiment. What they had to do—and the sooner they did it the better—was to determine the lines of this experiment. The Government wished to be moderate in their demands; they wished that what they settled now should be sufficient to enable the House of Commons to form some judgment whether or not these Standing Committees would be an effective instrument, bringing into play the great principle of the division of labour. For those reasons, he was unable to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he had no desire to see the Amendment of his hon. Friend passed except in mitigation of the proposition of the Government. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was hardly justified in taking his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to task in the way he had done. The vote which the hon. Member gave on Monday was not on the abstract question, but was against taking the question of these Committees this Session. There was much to be said in favour of the proposal then before the House. Practically, these Standing Committees would be able to pass measures without the Irish Party being properly represented. There would be a large majority of the supporters of the Government on the Committee of Selection. He would like to have some assurance from the Government upon the extraordinarily vague character of this Resolution. He would like to know whether the Irish Land Law Act of last Session would be included in the phrase "Bills relating to Law?" If it was not law, why was it entitled "The Land Law Act;" and if it was not justice, he would ask, were not Courts of Justice appointed under the Act? In either case, he thought they had got the right hon. Gentleman on the horns of a dilemma. As they were likely to have a further amending Act, was it to be referred to a Committee on which there might not be a single Irishman? He hoped that, at any rate, provision would
      426
      be made that there should be some representation of Irish opinion on the Committee. [Mr. GLADSTONE: The Resolutions provide for that.] He (Mr. Healy) admitted that the Committee of Selection were to have regard to the composition of the House. He repudiated the expression of the Prime Minister that there could be any insult whatever in their saying that the Committee of Selection would exercise a judicious flexibility with regard to any measure that the Government brought before them. Some of the most valuable contributions were made to the Land Law Act in Committee; and it was unfair that the Irish Members should not have a representation on these Committees in proportion to the opinions which they represented in the country. At the same time, he believed that no Grand Committee would be acceptable to the Irish people, even if it were composed exclusively of irreconcilable Members of the Irish Pasty. Anything like such "attorning," as he might call it, to the English Parliament on the part of Irish Members would simply lead to their expulsion from their seats. He, however, supported the proposal, as some mitigation of the present system.
      MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had pointed out that there was no possibility, by the carrying of the Amendment before the House, of affecting in any degree the question of Home Rule. It certainly would not help, as far as he understood it, to forward the cause of Home Rule; but, on the other hand, if it in any way interfered with the growth of the clause he would not give it the cordial support he intended to do. In fact, without at all venturing to enter into the region of the prophetic, he would venture to say the grant of Home Rule to Ireland was a thing as certain as that to-morrow's sun would rise in the heavens. But, pending the time when Home Rule would cause the fall of Ministers and statesmen, and pending the time when the House of Commons would appeal to it as the only measure that would give reconciliation to Ireland, he would like to see some modus vivendi between the House of Commons and Parliament; and it was his strong impression that something of that nature might be found by the Amendment of the hon. Member for

      427
      Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The speech of the Prime Minister was, he thought, marked by an amount of acrimony for which there was no occasion whatever. And he seemed to blame the hon. Member for the City of Cork for voting with the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and now supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. His hon. Friend was perfectly consistent, for his hon. Friend, like himself, would rather that they would not approach these Committees at all, as he thought there was no use for them; but when the House had said that they would be established, then he endeavoured to mould their form so that they would be of some use to Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that to add another to those Grand Committees would be a breach of faith with the House, which had already decided that there should be only two Committees; and, that being so, it would be absurd that one of those two Committees should be relegated to the Business of Ireland alone. But there had originally stood on the Papers of the House proposals to have five or six Committees, and there could be no breach of faith when the number of Committees was left open, and that there were only to be two was settled by mere chance. Thus, his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork was perfectly within his right in endeavouring to make the best of the situation; and considering what had passed during the two years they had now left behind, and what might pass for some years to come, and how much the time of the House had been occupied with Irish affairs alone, it would not be so bad a division if there was one of these Committees for Ireland alone, and the other for the affairs of the Empire. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that he did not believe the time would ever come for the formation of Committees upon what might be called National principles; but the right hon. Gentleman should have taken counsel from a right hon. Gentleman who, in the course of the present Session, had proposed that there should be separate Committees, and one for dealing with Irish Business exclusively, and not the slightest disapproval was then expressed by the hon. Members who sat on the Ministerial Benches. The same
      428
      hon. Member had proposed that there should be Scotch and Welsh Committees also, and a number of Irish Members withdrew their opposition to them, on the ground that the passing of such measures would create a good precedent. On many questions which had at present to be dealt with by deputations to Ministers this Committee would be a great advantage. He should have thought that the Government would have viewed this proposal as the basis of an arrangement for compromise and settlement. There was nothing in the Amendment to which any man of common sense could object; for while it proposed to leave the details of Irish Bills in the hands of Irish Members, who best understood them, full power of revision, alteration, or rejection remained in the House at large. Nor did they ask for an Irish Committee composed solely of those of their own way of thinking. They wished the whole of Ireland to be represented. They desired that the Committee should be the mirror of Ireland, containing Representatives of every opinion and every class in the country. For those reasons he strongly supported the Amendment, which he hoped would also have the support of English Members who had any regard for common sense and fairness.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, it was the fault of the Government if the Procedure Resolutions were in such a form as to render the acceptance of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan impossible, as it was in their power to pass them as they pleased. He also thought the speech of the Prime Minister was not fair to his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork, who had made as temperate and reasonable a speech as he had ever made in that House; yet the Prime Minister had made an acrimonious attack upon him. The right hon. Gentleman found fault with his hon. Friend for saying the Committee was formed by the Government. The Committee was formed by the majority of the House, and that majority was the Government. Therefore, his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork was not materially inaccurate in saying what he did. He did not find fault with the Prime Minister for his faith in his majority. A well-known writer had said—"Agreeable people are those who agree

      429
      with us;" therefore, the Prime Minister could not be found fault with for praising his obedient majority.
      Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
      MR. T. P. O'CONNOR, proceeding, said, the Government had put forward three qualifications with regard to those Committees. The first was that they would load to a division in labour; secondly, that they would deal with non-contentious matters; and the third was that the supremacy of Parliament should be observed. He thought the proposal of his hon. Friend would meet each one of those conditions. Nobody would deny that it would be very much to the relief of the House of Commons if even a portion of the Irish Business were removed a stage from the House. English Members complained that England and Scotland did not receive their share of attention under the present state of affairs, and the Irish Members admitted that their complaint was well founded, and now came forward with a proposal to relieve the House of the pressure of Irish Business in a stage that took up much of the time of the House. There were many Irish questions which were neglected by that House, and which urgently required to be settled, such as the Grand Jury Laws, sanitary matters, and the encouragement of Irish manufactures; and with these questions a Grand Committee of Irish Members, Conservative as well as Liberal, would be best qualified to deal.
      MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he thought it would be an immense advantage to make a concession in this direction. The Amendment, if adopted, would, in his opinion, facilitate the Business of the House of Commons and economize its time, and all the trouble that now weighed upon the House would pass away like an unpleasant dream. By the adoption of this Amendment the clâture and the other restrictions would prove to be quite unnecessary by-and-bye, and the Irish difficulty itself would disappear very considerably. The arguments in favour of the Amendment were numerous, weighty, and pressing. There was no doubt that the local affairs of Ireland needed to be more immediately dealt with than they possibly could be by the House of Commons. Reforms which
      430
      were never mentioned in that House, and which had no chance of being attended to now, were urgently needed for the prosperity of the country. The whole of the Business of Ireland was admittedly in arrear. The local government of Ireland was in an intolerable condition, while Irish Members were blamed because they tried to force Irish affairs which were neglected upon the attention of Parliament, and because they resisted the measures of repression which were brought forward from time to time. Although the Amendment did not, in his opinion, go at all far enough, yet he believed the direction was one in which they should travel. The opportunity was now before the House; but that opportunity would be useless if nothing was done in the way of relegating to some body or other the consideration of measures urgently needed by the present condition of Ireland, and entirely too long deferred. On this account he supported the Amendment, though he would be glad if it went much farther, and proposed that the Special Committee should sit in Dublin, where the whole of the circumstances connected with Irish Business could easily be brought before the Committee for their consideration. The House would thereby be released of its present trouble, and would revert to its old condition, while the New Rules would not need to be brought into operation. That would be the state of things that would occur if it were decided that a large share of the local Business of Ireland should be transferred to some Committee composed of Irish Members, though, even if composed of Irish and English Members, it would be a great improvement on the state of things proposed by the Government.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the prospects of the Amendment, reasonable as it was, did not appear to be very brilliant. Irish Member after Member had risen and put forward a variety of reasons why the Amendment should be accepted. The Minister, at an earlier stage, in charge of the Business had left the House; and the President of the Board of Trade appeared to be enjoying that repose which, although well earned, was not very flattering for this Amendment. It was necessary to remind the House what had been said by the Prime Minister in reference to the two sections

      431
      of this scheme. The first, which was composed of penalties, was not that upon which the Prime Minister placed his defence, but upon the second portion, which provided for the delegation and devolution of a part of the Business of the House to Grand Committees. He agreed with the Prime Minister that if there was any hope for the House it was to be found in the second branch. He did not believe that any system of clâture could ever relieve the House of the trouble of which it complained. So long as any body of men with strong beliefs and courage were to be found in the House, so long would they be able to escape from the penalties devised against them. If the Prime Minister did not rely upon the penalties, and if the penalties were intended to be used against the Irish Members, it was reasonable that the Irish Members should look to the second part of the scheme; but what was it that they found in the second part of the scheme? Was there consolation for the penalties levied against them in the 1st section? No; so far the contrary was the truth. They found, in the first place, that nothing Irish was to be considered by those Standing Committees. The Prime Minister, on the plea of excluding contentious Business, had shut out the Business of the Irish nation from those tribunals of reform, He (Mr. Sexton) should have thought that the fact of the Business being non-contentious was the strongest argument that could be used for sending it to the Standing Committees. They were told that the Standing Committees would discuss Bills relating to law, justice, and manufactures. Well, he did not expect that any Bill relating to law and justice for Ireland would need to be referred to the Standing Committees in his time; and, with regard to manufactures, the British Government took care long ago that Ireland should have no manufactures that would give any trouble. The manufactures now existing were hardly worth talking of. Therefore, he concluded that the Prime Minister, in limiting the Business to be referred to the Standing Committees, had taken care that no Irish interest should ever be considered by them. He (Mr. Sexton) claimed that if any Bills deserved, at the Committee stage, to be considered frankly and fairly, the Irish Bills were Bills of that description. In proof
      432
      of that he would refer to what took place in the last Parliament, when 100 Bills dealing with various matters of importance to Ireland were introduced into Parliament and discussed. What was the usual fate of an Irish Bill in the Committee stage? It was that a solitary Minister, who might be asleep or awake, as it suited his fancy, would remain in attendance, while the Irish Members discussed the measure. The Minister chose to reply, but never said anything further. Any Englishman who liked could get up and talk as long as he pleased, showing that, even in his ignorance of the subject which he was discussing, he could not divest himself of his partiality. They would not object to the presence of English or Scotch Members on the Committee, though he contended that only Irishmen—whether Tories, Liberals, or followers of the hon. Member for the City of Cork he cared not—were qualified to act on a Committee of this character. At a time like the present, when the affairs of Ireland were so critical, and when everyone regarded the future of that country with fear and apprehension, it was something as bad as folly to refuse so reasonable and just a demand as was contained in this Amendment, as the refusal would put a weapon into the hand of violence.
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he held that all the New Rules of the Prima Minister were fated to follow the example of his famous No. 2, which they were agreed had already broken down. The Rules of the Government would be far more effective, and would mitigate the complaint that had been made that the House had not done its work, if they could only condescend to meet Amendments in a more reasonable manner. They now tried to excuse their mismanagement by passing these Rules, although it was well known that there had been no Obstruction whatever during the present Parliament. But it suited the Government to allege that their own waste of time and neglect of the Business of the House was due to others. The Amendment was one which would commend itself to the House. At the same time, he did not think it was likely to be accepted by those sitting on the Ministerial side of the House, for those Gentlemen, he knew, would sacrifice their convictions to carry out the behests of the Party to which they

      433
      owed allegiance. Even on the ground of saving public time, such an Amendment as this, if carried to a practical result, would be very effective. They knew that a very large proportion of the time of the House was wasted by Motions being brought forward time after time and year after year in favour of reforms contended for by certain sections of the House. Yet, although the Government admitted the principles of those reforms, they declined to undertake the task of putting them into operation. Such Bills should, in his opinion, go to the Committee stage, and then be referred to the Standing Committees; and by that means there was little doubt the Bills would soon pass into law, and the time now wasted in endless discussion be saved. Again, in regard to Irish measures, a great deal of time was wasted in consequence of English and Scotch Members, who were utterly ignorant of the subject, rising in their places and talking. He saw no reason why the Government should not accept the Amendment. The Irish Members who were led by the hon. Member for the City of Cork would not even object to other Irish Members holding different political views taking part in the Committee. On that, as well as other grounds, he would vote in favour of the Amendment.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 94: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 402.)
      MR. GORSTsaid, he begged to move an Amendment providing that the proposed Grand Committees should be appointed by Resolution of the House at the beginning of each Session. The Amendment was intended to fill up two serious gaps in the Government Resolution, which was entirely silent as to the method and the time of the appointment of the Committees. To constitute these Committees by Resolution of the House would imbue them with a sense of responsibility which they could not otherwise have; and they would be of no use unless they were appointed at the commencement of a Session. The Amendment was supported by the analogous course adopted in the appointment of the Committee on Public Accounts. His proposal, as it stood on the Paper, was that the appointment should be made "by Resolution of the House at the
      434
      commencement of each Session;" but, for the convenience of the Prime Minister, he moved the first part of the proposal separately.
      Amendment proposed,
      In line 1, after the word "appointed," to insert the words "by Resolution of the House."—(Mr. Gorst.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was glad that the hon. and learned Member had separated the two parts of the Amendment, because to the second part he would make no objection at the proper time and place. But as to the first part, the hon. and learned Member overlooked the fact that what they were now doing was appointing these Committees by Resolution of the House.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the advantage of adopting the Amendment would be that it would obviate the necessity for the 5th Resolution, making these Rules Standing Orders until the end of the next Session of Parliament. He was not aware of any precedent for such a course, and if the Amendment were carried the question would come on at the beginning of the Session in a full House; while, if the matter were brought on at the end of a Session, it would be easy for the Government to snatch an ill-considered decision. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 97: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 403.)
      Amendment proposed,
      In line 1, after the word "appointed," to insert the words "at the commencement of each Session."—(Mr Gorst.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. GORST MR. GORST moved the omission, in line 1 of the Resolution, of the word "all" before the word "Bills." The hon. and learned Gentleman said that, as the Resolution stood, the House would be bound to refer to the Standing Committees all Bills relating to Law and Courts of Justice, and to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures. He thought

      435
      the object of the House was to refer only such Bills as it should be decided to send to these Committees.
      Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the word "all."—(Mr. Gorst.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'all' stand part of the Question."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he could not agree to this Amendment, because the hon. and learned Member was quite wrong in thinking that the Resolution bound the House to commit all Bills of a certain class to a Standing Committee. The word "all" must be taken in conjunction with the words immediately following it—namely,
      "Bills relating to Law and Courts of Justice, and to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, which may be committed to them respectively."
      In every case there must be a vote of the House to determine that a Bill should be referred; and although, no doubt, the merits of the Bill could not then be discussed, yet the House could discuss whether it belonged to a particular class; and, if so, it could be committed to a Standing Committee. Therefore, the word "all" was a perfectly innocuous word, and he could not assent to its excision. He was of opinion that if there were a disposition to raise every point on those Resolutions that could possibly be raised by the ingenuity of hon. Members, undoubtedly it would be in their power to occupy the time of the House for a very long period. They had been told sometimes that they were to sit there till Christmas, and sometimes that they were to sit till after Christmas. His own opinion was that if that happened the country would pass rather a summary judgment on their proceedings, and would say that the standard of wisdom was low in an Assembly which spent so many weeks of its time in considering every minute particular of a Resolution that was avowedly experimental, and that might be altered in the next Session, and that was to be enacted only for the next Session. He looked forward to that with very small satisfaction. It would be a very small satisfaction to him if they were to go to the constituencies, saying it was all the fault of the Opposition, and the Opposition in turn saying it was all the fault of the Government. It appeared to him that the real dictate of common sense was
      436
      that they should wish to avoid that censure which he thought would be passed upon them pretty smartly, and, he rather thought, justly, in the contingency he had contemplated, and those who wished to avoid the mischief should do everything in their power to avoid it. All that it was in the power of the Government to do for that end was to say that they were content to take these Resolutions in any form that would do two things—namely, leave them matter enough to make a real experiment upon, and also settle that matter now. To hand it over to the next Session was a thing, in their view, that was totally impossible. But they were most willing to do all in their power to avoid that ridiculous and mischievous consummation—a wasteful expenditure of time. Therefore, it should be understood clearly that there were two things which were requisite. They should secure that the handling of several Bills which they might have in their minds, and which the Government hoped to bring in next Session, and which were altogether suitable to be so handled, should be committed to that machinery. [An hon. MEMBER: Name the Bills.] He would name them when they had advanced so far in the discussion as to give them courage to go on with them. They were Bills strictly relating to law and trade, and were what the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) described as uncontentious subjects. He should be perfectly ready to name them at the proper time. But there was another thing that they ought to do. They could not justly rest satisfied with considering only what was necessary for the purposes of the Government. They ought to leave matters in such a state that, if there were Bills of private Members which the House might think fit to have referred to those Standing Committees, they might, under the Resolution, be so referred. He had reduced the demands of the Government, he hoped, within the real bounds of moderation. Whether they were accepted or not, it would be remembered that they had asked for a minimum; that they wished to take the Resolution for next Session, and for certain subjects which had been perfectly well described by the hon. Member for the City of Cork as uncontentious subjects, and that they desired to do what was fair to private

      437
      Members. He had thought it right to say these few words in the common interest on the occasion of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper practically to the same effect as that of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. It was not clear from the Resolution as it stood that the House would have the opportunity of referring such Bills as it chose to those Committees. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had explained that that was, indeed, the intention of the Government; but their plan, as it stood on the Paper, did not carry out that intention, and words ought to be introduced which would make the matter perfectly clear and unmistakable. The 4th Resolution said—
      "That all Bills comprised in each of the said classes shall he Committed to one of the said Standing Committees, unless the House shall otherwise order."
      According to that he should have thought that those Bills would have gone up under the Resolution to a Standing Committee without anything being said about it; and he was convinced that that, in the opinion of a large number of Members, was the effect of the Resolution as it stood. Unless the House had come to a decision to the contrary, any Bills belonging to a particular class would, under the proposals of the Government, naturally go up to one of those Committees. If both sides of the House were agreed, what was the objection of the Government to putting in some words to make their intention absolutely clear? Several ways of doing so had been suggested. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) proposed to substitute for "all" the word "such," or the Resolution might run in this way, "in all such Bills as the House should think fit on Motion made in each case." There really could be no reason why this should not be done, and the right hon. Gentleman would in this way carry out his own intention. Granted that the House was determined to treat these Resolutions as an experiment, he should like to call attention to the speech of the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), complaining that they would want a great deal of working up. It was not the fault of the Opposition that there was delay. They had pre-
      438
      sented to them a skeleton of the whole plan; and they were attempting, as they were invited by the Prime Minister, by their Amendments to work out a practical scheme. If they passed these Resolutions en bloc without Amendment, they might try the experiment; but he was quite sure it would fail. He regretted, also, that the Prime Minister refused to mention the Bills he intended to submit to the Committees, for the House would then be able to make much speedier progress if it knew what legislation the Government contemplated.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he did not agree in thinking that the Amendment proposed would effect the object desired. By striking out the word "all" a discretion would be placed in the hands of the Committee which it was desirable should be, and, indeed, was directed by the 4th Resolution to be, retained in the discretion of the House. The real question to be determined was, how should they have these Bills committed? That Resolution did not determine the process by which they were to go to the Committee; but it was the intention of the Government that they should be sent there by express action in each case. The proper place for the discussion and determination of that point was the 4th Resolution, which provided machinery for the purpose required; and when they arrived at that the Government could, if necessary, make their intentions still clearer.
      MR. RAIKEScommended the discussion they had just witnessed to the attention of the House as what was likely to occur under the Rules they were now considering. The Amendment was to leave out the word "all;" but they were told that the question raised by the Amendment was dealt with by the 4th Resolution. It was with the object of saving time that they raised the question then; and if the words were considered now, instead of being spread over an indefinite number of Resolutions, they would be better enabled to come to a conclusion on the question. A very simple Amendment, such as the insertion of the words "by special Resolution" would declare what was in the mind of the Government. He hoped that the Government would make it perfectly clear that the express vote of the House was to be necessary before any

      439
      Bill was intrusted to the Committee, and would do so at once, so that Members might have some chance of enjoying their Christmas Recess at no distant date.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he entirely agreed with the Prime Minister that the meaning of the Resolution was tolerably plain; but they were dealing with an entirely new Procedure, and must not tolerate ambiguities. The Prime Minister desired to retain the word "all." He would wish to qualify it by the addition of the word "such."
      THE MAEQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the speech of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) made it the more necessary that the Government should resist the rejection of the word "all." The right hon. Gentleman wished not only to remove from the Resolution any general direction that all Bills of a particular character should be taken, but also that there should be "a special Resolution" of the House in each case, so that when a Bill had been read a second time it should be debated over again whether it was to be referred to a Grand Committee or to a Select Committee. The Government desired that Bills of this kind should, as a rule, be relegated to these Grand Committees; but if the House desired to commit the Bill to a Committee of the Whole House it might do so. If any special direction was necessary it would be properly inserted in the 4th Resolution. He doubted very much whether any direction was required, and on that point they might have the opinion of the Speaker. They were not making any change in the proceedings of the House. All they were doing was to propose to substitute one kind of Committee for one of two others—a Select Committee or a Committee of the Whole House. But no Bill was committed to any Committee without a vote of the House.
      SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, that the explanation of the noble Marquess made him extremely doubtful whether he understood the Prime Minister rightly, that it was not intended by these Rules that any Bills supposed to be stamped with this character of law or trade should forthwith go automatically to a Committee upstairs; but that in each case the House should have an opportunity of expressing its judgment
      440
      whether it was one of the character which should be sent up. If that were so, he had an Amendment lower down, that it should be "upon Motion made." But, if he understood the noble Marquess, there was to be a general expression in the Rule that the Bills were to go upstairs.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Government wished the House to declare its general sense, but that the application in every case must be subjected to a vote of the House. With a view to the infirmity of the House, he would propose to insert in the latter part of this Resolution, after "which may," the words" by vote of the House, "so as to read" which may, by vote of the House, be committed to them."
      MR. GORSTsaid, that, after the announcement of the Prime Minister, he would withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      In answer to Mr. GLADSTONE,
      MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the words "by order of the House" would be more usual than "by vote of the House."
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTHrose to move to leave out "relating to Law and Courts of Justice, and to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures." He did so because he believed the best course would be to leave the Committee of Selection free, and because he did not think the Grand Committee should consist of specialists, but of Members representing the fair average qualities of the House. The direction in the Resolution might make it difficult for the Committee of Selection to act. They might have a difficulty in determining whether a Bankruptcy Bill should be committed to a Committee on Trade or on Law. That was one of the difficulties, and it would be got rid of by the acceptance of the Amendment. If, however, the Government would consent to strike out the word "respectively" at the end of the Resolution, he thought the object would be equally well attained, as in that case Bills could be sent to either Committee by order of the House.
      Amendment proposed,
      In line 1, to leave out the words "relating to Law and Courts of Justice, and to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
      Question proposed, "That the word 'relating' stand part of the Question."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would abstain from entering upon the subject of the personal constitution of the Committees. That had been already fully dealt with by his right hon. and hon. Friends the Members for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) and Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). He saw no reason for the retention of the word "respectively;" but it was necessary to retain the general words in order to fulfil the pledge given to the House that nothing but non-contentious Business should be referred to these Committees.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. GORST MR. GORST moved to leave out the words "Law and Courts of Justice," in order to insert the words "legal procedure," his object being to improve the definition of the matters to be referred to the Committees.
      Amendment proposed,
      "In line 2, to leave out the words "Law and Courts of Justice," and insert the words "legal procedure,"—(Mr. Gorst,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)admitted it would be difficult, if not impossible, to give an exact definition of what was meant by a Bill relating to law, because, in a sense, every Bill related to law; but, nevertheless, they all understood what was meant by the expression. The words were, in fact, taken from the Resolution which established the Grand Committees which at one period existed. It would be for the House to determine, when each Bill came before it, whether it should be sent to a Standing Committee; but he objected altogether to limiting the Rule to Bills of legal procedure. It seemed to him that the Criminal Code Bill was one of the Bills which might be sent to such a Committee. The term "legal procedure" would confine the reference to purely technical questions, such as pleadings and practice. He did not think the House would leave such questions to a Grand Committee. Under the term "Courts of Justice" would come such a question as whether the offices of Lord Chief Baron and Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas should continue to exist.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman's reference to the Criminal Code Bill was rather rash. The Criminal Code Bill included such questions as the Law of Treason and Conspiracy; the now offence of "Boycotting," capital punishment, contempt of Court—some of which were thoroughly Party questions, and thus the Attorney General's statement was in direct conflict with what the Prime Minister had said; for the right hon. Gentleman stated that no Party questions would be referred. Such questions would be removed by the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. Would the Law of Libel also be referred to those Committees? The Attorney General had said that Bills would only be referred if the House wished it. But that only meant if the Government of the day wished it. All discussion was heresy and treason in the eyes of the Prime Minister. He had practically said—"Here are my propositions, and until you take them I will sit here till Christmas." When any Member of the Opposition dared to dissent he was assailed by groans from the Ministerial Benches, led by the Attorney General. Why were the discussions on those important questions not allowed to proceed? Were the Government tired? If they were, then let them prorogue, or use their clôture; and if they did not mean to do the one or the other, why should they suppress discussion on bonâ fide Amendments? The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had dwelt on the difficulty of defining whether, for example, a Bankruptcy Bill would be a law or a trade Bill. That question would be clearly met by the Amendment of his hon and learned Friend.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, with reference to the noble Lord's assertion that he had stated that the House might either take the Rules or leave them, he stated in distinct terms that all the Government wanted was the minimum, and that the Resolutions would, in their opinion, greatly accelerate the Business of the House. He did not say this for the satisfaction of the noble Lord; it was no use trying to satisfy him. He said it for the in formation of any Gentleman who might have been previously absent. With regard to the Amendment, it was impossible to decide by a

      443
      sharp line beforehand what Bills were and what were not to be referred to these Committees. He agreed with the noble Lord that the five subjects he mentioned were Party questions. Whether a particular Bill was to be referred to the Committee or not was a fair question to be considered when the Bill was introduced, and on a Motion by the Government to refer it to the Committee. He was at a loss to understand what the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Gorst) meant by Bills for "legal procedure." [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: A Bankruptcy Bill.] The noble Lord actually called a Bankruptcy Bill a Bill for legal procedure! The answer was preposterous. No doubt the Amendment would eliminate all Party questions from the consideration of Committees; but it would also eliminate all other Bills, and for that reason the Government had no alternative but to oppose it.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsuggested that measures of a non-contentious character might be referred next Session to the Committees by way of experiment.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid the House had been told that a class of Bills would be referred to the Grand Committee which would render the attendance of the Attorney General and Solicitor General indispensable. But how could those hon. and learned Gentlemen attend this Committee between the hours of 12 and 4? Then, as to the question whether a Bankruptcy Bill was to be referred to the Committee on Law or the Committee on Trade, that would depend upon the Member who introduced it. If introduced by the Attorney General it would be referred to the Committee on Law; but if introduced by the President of the Board of Trade, he, being a Member of the Cabinet, would have the power of classifying it, and he would certainly refer it to the Committee on Trade.
      SIR H.DRUMMOND WOLFFwished to know how the right hon. Gentleman would define a Bankruptcy Bill—was it a law or a trade Bill? As the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) had pointed out, which Members of the Government were to send Bills to these Committees, and were the Members of these Committees to be chosen by the Committee of Selection or not? The House should be informed what classes
      444
      of Bills were to be referred to these Committees, who were to be the Members of the Committees, and how they were to be selected.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the suggestion of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire was one well worthy of consideration.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, after the conciliatory way in which the right hon. Gentleman had met the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire, he thought the occasion was opportune for the Prime Minister to state, as he had promised to do, what Bills they meant to refer to these Committees.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the noble Lord had misunderstood him. What he said was that he should be willing to make such a statement with a view of shortening the debate on the Resolution; but he believed that such a statement was, under existing circumstances, unnecessary.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 122; Noes 51: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 404.)
      MR. GIBSONsaid, that the Resolution now read, "Law and Courts of Justice." He thought it would be better to go a little further, and add "legal procedure," because "law" was unquestionably a vague and wide word, open to doubt and uncertainty. He begged to move the insertion of the words "legal procedure."
      Amendment proposed, in line 2, after the word "Justice," to insert the words "and legal procedure."—(Mr. Gibson.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONEassented to the Amendment.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Words inserted.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLbelieved that the Amendment which stood in his name upon the Paper would come next—namely, after "Justice," or, as the Resolution now stood, after "legal procedure," leave out "and to Trade, Shipping," and insert, "or of Agriculture, Commerce, or." He thought that the word "Commerce" would really cover "Trade and Shipping;" and it was also important that there should be some reference to Agriculture, because it

      445
      might be desirable that such measures as Bills relating to questions of valuation should be referred to the Standing Committees. They would not come in under the head of Commerce; but there were Bills relating to Agriculture of a technical character, requiring expert knowledge, and such Bills might be referred to these Committees. If the word "Agriculture" were left out, it would be impossible to refer such measures. He would, therefore, move the Amendment; but if it was objected to be should not press it. He was decidedly of opinion that the word "Commerce" was an improvement on "Trade and Shipping," because it covered the two.
      MR. O'DONNELLrose to a point of Order. He thought that, as the words of the Resolution stood, an Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper came before that of the noble Lord, because it came in before the words "Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures," after the words "legal procedure." If the words "Trade and Shipping" were passed, there would be no place left for the insertion of his Amendment.
      MR. SPEAKERruled that the Amendment of the hon. Member came before that of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock.
      MR. O'DONNELLsaid, his object in moving the Amendment was to give a proper interpretation to the very vague term "Law" which appeared in the first part of the Resolution. It was the distinct object of his Amendment to obtain some guarding and guaranteeing words which would prevent the Government of the day from referring to these Committees Bills which ought to be referred to a Committee of the Whole House; and for that purpose he wished to move to insert, after the words "legal procedure," the words—
      "With the exception of Bills relating to Parliamentary and Municipal Franchise and Election; the Relief of the Poor; the Public Health; the Administration of County Government; the Apprehension, Trial, and Punishment of Accused Persons; the Law of Public Meeting and the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing; and Military Law."
      He was of opinion that the subjects mentioned in his Amendment showed the serious peril the House and the country would run if the Resolution of the Government were allowed to pass as it stood. It was without any protective words whatever. For instance, a Bill
      446
      relating to the Law of Parliamentary and Municipal Franchise and Election was not a Bill which ought to be referred to a political Standing Committee; neither ought so large a measure as a Bill touching upon a social question such as the amendment of the present Law of the Relief of the Poor to be so dealt with. Issues of the very gravest character lay behind a Bill of that kind, and it was a Bill which ought to be strictly reserved for the consideration of the Whole House in Committee for detailed examination by every Member of the constituency, and not for the examination of a Select Committee composed of Members whom the Government of the day might choose to elevate to the dignity of sitting upon these Grand Committees. Then, again, Bills relating to the Public Health must be quite as important as Bills relating to the Relief of the Poor; also Bills relating to the Administration of County Government, especially when it was borne in mind that they were promised shortly a complete measure of County Government. The Government certainly ought to take some precautions to provide that a measure of that kind should not be submitted to the comparatively hole-and-corner scrutiny of a Select Committee. Then, again, he proposed to exclude Bills relating to the alteration of the law concerning the apprehension, trial, and punishment of accused persons. Measures of that character ought certainly to be reserved for the consideration of the House of Commons in its largest acceptation and its fullest sense, because on one day the liberties of a popular class in Ireland might be affected, and on another day the liberties of an unpopular class in England might be affected. A measure proposing to alter the laws relating to the apprehension, trial, and punishment of accused persons ought not to be subjected to the supervision of the anonymous bodies now proposed. For instance, under the term "apprehension" there might be a Bill introduced for extending the provisions of the measure which had already been passed to enable the police to arrest persons on mere suspicion only. He would remind the House that although Coercion Bills were at present, or at least had been under Liberal auspices, exclusively reserved for Ireland, there had been a time when Coercion Bills had been largely applied to England; and although

      447
      at present Ireland possessed a monopoly of that species of Algerine legislation, there were, only some 60 years ago, six Algerine Acts passed which affected the liberties of British subjects, and the British Government might easily be induced to bring in an Algerine Act again. But if such a Bill were brought in again, he contended that the House ought to have a distinct guarantee that such an attack upon the liberties of the subject should be at least open to the same opportunity of criticism as those which had been in force for so many hundreds of years for the protection of the House and of the people. In the great change which it was proposed to make there were some subjects which ought to be regarded as somewhat too strict for the haphazard experiment even of so distinguished a statesman as the Prime Minister. The Amendment pointed out the general character of the measures which he thought ought to be excluded from the manipulation of these General Committees. An agrarian disturbance in Scotland—and he believed there was one taking place there at this moment—might rise to such a height that the Ministry might think it incumbent upon them to bring in a Bill for putting down public meetings in Scotland. In such a case he contended that, even if it were a Bill merely for the purpose of putting down for three years all public meetings in Ireland, such Bills ought to be brought in and discussed in a Committee of the Whole House. It was unnecessary to do more than allude to the important questions that were raised in the reform of Military Law in the last Parliament, in order to show how essential it was to withdraw Military Law from the scheme of these Grand Committees. He would ask the Radical Members opposite only to imagine what would have been the result of all the efforts they had made during the last Parliament to strike out the flogging provisions from the Military Bills then introduced, if, instead of a Committee of the Whole House, they had had nothing but a Grand Committee, selected by the late Administration. It would probably be said that a Select Committee would have been selected just as fairly under the late Government as under the present; but, however fairly such a Committee might be selected, he contended that great measures dealing with the United Kingdom at large ought
      448
      to be reserved for consideration and discussion in a full Committee of the Whole House of Commons. It was quite fair for the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), or the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington), to carry on their Obstruction in the last Parliament. ["Oh!"] No doubt Obstruction was a villainous word, and he perceived that it did not smell sweet to Members on the Treasury Bench; but it would have been absolutely impossible for the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to have carried on their dilatory warfare against the late Government if the Military Rules he had been referring to had been submitted to a Select Standing Committee sitting upstairs. In the first place, there would hardly have been any of that publication, which inspired their exertions a couple of years ago, at their disposal under present circumstances, nor would there have been 30 of the Opposition, of all kinds, included upon a Standing Committee, so that all the ordinary resources for delaying dangerous legislation, and providing opportunities for due discussion, would have been entirely cut out if these Grand Committees had existed under the last Government; and the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), and the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) would have been snuffed out just as ignominiously as the Irish Members if they had not been able to make their criticisms in a Committee of the Whole House. He (Mr. O'Donnell) had not yet been promoted to the Treasury Bench; and, therefore, he was not ashamed of the part he took in opposing the provisions of the Military Law on that occasion. But what he wished to urge was that many occasions might arise in future in which it would be of the utmost importance to preserve to the House in a full Committee an opportunity of discussing doggedly and obstinately the provisions of a measure that was considered hostile to the interests of the country at large. However, if Her Majesty's Government objected to the phraseology of his Amendment, and could suggest a form of words without going into the heads of legislation after the manner he had thought necessary in order to point out the gravity of the change—if any Member of the Ministerial Bench, or the House at large, would

      449
      propose a form of words that would secure to the Committee of the Whole House a fair right to discuss important measures of a public character, he should not stand in the way of the adoption of an improved form, and would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. However, for the purpose of obtaining something at this stage—and surely the House had reached far enough down in the consideration of the Rule to have something like a definite statement from the Government—he would, in order to afford an opportunity to the House for obtaining that definite statement, move the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper.
      Amendment proposed,
      In line 2, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert the words "with the exception of Bills relating to Parliamentary and Municipal Franchise and Election; the Relief of the Poor; the Public Health; the Administration of County Government; the Apprehension, Trial, and Punishment of Accused Persons; the Law of Public Meeting and the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing; and Military Law."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the hon. Member would be prepared for the statement that he could not undertake to accept the Amendment, although, perhaps, the hon. Member would not be prepared, for the statement that his main reason for not accepting it was that it would defeat its own purpose. Its purpose was to exclude certain measures from the scope of the Resolution. That was totally unnecessary, because the terms of the Reference already excluded them; and, independently of that fact, this would manifestly be a case in which, by inserting the enumeration supplied by the hon. Gentleman, it would lead to the inference that all subjects not expressly excluded were to be referred, and the consequence might be that subjects of the very highest importance—for instance, such a question as the Disestablishment of the Church, or some other matter of that kind—might be referred to a Grand Committee.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and introduce some words into the Resolution which would satisfy the House that
      450
      next Session, to which the Resolution only applied, the attention of these Committees would be confined to certain subjects. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Resolution would only be applied to non-contentious Bills, and that the great questions referred to in the Speech from the Throne, such as the Law of Bankruptcy, would not be sent to Grand Committees. If words to that effect were put into the Resolution, it would greatly facilitate the passing of the Resolution, and materially shorten the labours of the House.
      MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that the time for adopting the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman had almost gone by. He understood, however, that it had been accepted by Her Majesty's Government in effect, and that an undertaking had been given to the House that words would be inserted later on, which would remove the vague and general character of the Resolution as it stood. He trusted that the Government would eliminate these general words, and insert the measures they really intended, next Session, to refer to the Standing Committees; but it would be better to do that by adding additional words or a Proviso. They could not now limit the general scope of the Resolution, because they had committed themselves to a general Resolution, and it was too late. They might, at the same time, give some indication of the particular measures it was intended to refer to Standing Committees; but they Lad gone so far now that the only safeguard of the House was in the words the right hon. Gentleman had promised to insert in the Resolution, to the effect that the House should have an opportunity on each occasion of determining whether a particular measure should be referred to a Standing Committee or not. Of course, it would never be contemplated to refer a Bill for the Disestablishment of the Church, upon which there would be a great amount of public feeling in the country, to a Standing Committee; but it was only minor measures that would be so referred. At the same time the majority of the right hon. Gentleman was so large that he might refer almost any Bill to a Grand Committee; and he (Mr. Gorst) did not know that the House would have any way of preventing it. All they could do was to reserve to themselves the right to full discussion on the Report.
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTHunderstood the Prime Minister to say that he would only refer non-contentious Business to the Grand Committees; but it was very difficult to define what non-contentious Business was. For instance, the subject of Bankruptcy might be in the highest degree contentious; and it would be impossible to say what Bills were contentious or not before the House had had an opportunity of seeing the measures themselves. It would therefore be dangerous to insert the actual measures that were to be referred.
      MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that, instead of saying that no Bill should be referred to a Standing Committee except certain specified classes of Bills, it would be better to insert a Proviso at the end of the Resolution. If the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) would withdraw his Amendment, Her Majesty's Government might bring up a Proviso providing that certain Bills should not be committed to such Grand Committees. Personally, he gathered that the great object of introducing these Resolutions was to enable the Government to pass a Bill next Session for the amendment of the Criminal Code.
      LORD JOHN MANNERSagreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that the time had gone by for inserting these words in the first part of the Resolution; but that was not so in respect to the second, respecting trade and manufactures. He hoped the Prime Minister would now rise in his place and tell the House what Bills he proposed, next Session, to refer to Standing Committees. It was quite on the cards, if the House knew what they were, that their resistance to the Resolutions might be materially modified.
      MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      SIR JOHN HAY, in the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), moved, in line 2, to leave out after "Justice," "and to Trade, Shipping," and insert "or of Agriculture, Commerce, or."
      Amendment proposed,
      In line 2, to leave out the words "and to Trade, Shipping," and insert the words "or of Agriculture, Commerce, or,"—(Sir John Hay,)
      —instead thereof.
      Question proposed, "That the words 'and to Trade, Shipping' stand part of the Question."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was not going to complain of the Resolution; but he wished to observe that trade, shipping, and manufactures were terms well known in Acts of Parliament, and in relation to public proceedings. He doubted very much whether commerce and agriculture would be better terms; and he was afraid that if they introduced the question of agriculture they would be hardly able to keep to the declaration which had been made in regard to contentious measures. In the first place, the interest in agriculture was so widely and largely diffused throughout the House, that the House would hardly consent to allow any question that affected agriculture to go to a Standing Committee; and he was bound to say that he could not honestly declare that such a measure could pass under the title of a non-contentious Bill. Of course, non-contentious measures was a phrase popularly understood; but in this case agricultural questions could not be regarded as non-contentious Business; and he should, therefore, on that account, object to the introduction of the word "agriculture." As had been judiciously observed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), it was not wise, after having agreed to general words, to introduce restrictive words into the Resolution at the tail end of it. He was now about to testify his confidence in the Opposition, and rely upon the future to justify that confidence. He and his Colleagues were anxious, if they could, to come to a friendly settlement of the matter, which they considered a most unnatural one to bring into the sphere of political controversy. There were no less than three hon. Members opposite, leading persons on that side of the House, who had invited him to make an enumeration of the measures the Government desired next Session to refer to these Standing Committees. Of course, they would take that enumeration for what it was worth; and the enumeration might rest partly, as had been well said by the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), on a statement which might hereafter be made in the Queen's Speech. He was, however, ready to say what the in-

      453
      tentions of the Government were, and they were not very different from what had been communicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who, however, could hardly expect that he could act as pilot balloon in regard to any statement the Government had to submit to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested that it would be a natural course to refer a Bill called the Criminal Code Indictable Offences Bill to one of these Standing Committees. That Bill was honourably associated, in a great measure, with the name of a great and distinguished Judge, Sir John Holker, who, although a political opponent, and one who differed widely from him (Mr. Gladstone) in his views, had earned his respect for his manly character, and admiration for his remarkable legal acumen and closeness of argument. That Bill he would venture to submit might, without a fear of irritating anyone, become a proper subject, under certain conditions and reservations, which he would refer to by-and-bye, for reference to a Grand Committee. It was a Bill which he believed and understood would involve such a mass of non-contentious manipulation as to make it extremely difficult to handle it in the House. On the other hand, although he did not agree with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) that all the points he had enumerated were points of Party contention, still he was prepared to give up the point that points of serious contention, whether Party or not, might not arise. Therefore, he said that while the Government hoped to make a general reference of Bills of this nature to the Grand Committees, yet he coupled with the proposition the distinct assurance that when a Bill of this nature had gone through Committee, and when the settlement arrived at had been made known, and there was a serious desire on the part of persons entitled to consideration that certain portions of that measure should be reconsidered, that those portions of the Bill should be recommitted. Of course, he meant re-committal to a Committee of the Whole House. Then, with respect to other Bills, undoubtedly the subject of Bankruptcy, and the subject of Patents, which were the two main subjects, they were also laborious subjects; but, on the whole, they would certainly fall within
      454
      the description of non-contentious matter. Now, this was the whole breadth of the purpose the Government had in view; and, as he had said, he did not think it was for the Government to lay down any absolute rule as to what the House might be entitled to do in regard to the Bills of private Members. That was a subject which might fairly and impartially be raised when the proper time arrived. He was willing to believe, relying as he did on the declaration which had been made, that by an announcement of this sort, showing the really limited purpose of the Government, he might greatly conciliate the jealousy and apprehension which had been expressed on the other side of the House, and facilitate the progress of the Resolutions. He had given this explanation to the House with perfect frankness, and he hoped the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock would understand its purport and withdraw the Amendment.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
      MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked whether there would be power under the Resolution to re-commit Bills? He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his frank explanation, and thought that the House had reason to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the generous and fair spirit in which he offered to meet them. At the same time, as an Irish Member, he felt entitled to complain of the omission of any reference to Bills relating to Ireland.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, there could be no doubt there was such a power as the hon. Member referred to.
      MR. BIDDELL: I much regret that this difficult subject of self-reform should have become a Party one, for the revision of its Rules is one beyond any other which the House should impartially consider regardless of Party. This unfortunate result has, I believe, arisen from the unconciliatory course adopted by the Government, which, after consenting in the first instance to the views of the Opposition, afterwards withdrew such consent, thereby giving rise to much friction and opposition on this side of the House. The great question is—Is reform needed? I have no doubt of this. No one can contend that real business in the last few years has progressed as it should. The country is impatient at what a great departed man

      455
      would call our verbosity. My own constituents are constantly putting the question to me—"When will you get to business?" The liberty of speech has been abused, and must be curtailed; indeed, we can now only expect to preserve our liberties by restricting them. Our old Rules are inefficient to meet the evil; must we not then revise them? With this view the Government has proposed, by aid of a majority, to cut short debate. What will be the effect of this? Why, the great men of the House will have their "say," and it will be practically told to Members of small fame—"You must not further prolong the debate by speaking." Well, if such a course is to be pursued with us, I should prefer to read the speeches of others, and record my views by proxy voting as in the other House. I contend there is another and more preferable course, and which we should adopt—namely, acting on the offender by limiting the duration of a speech—whether to 10, 15, or 20 minutes I will not stop to discuss. Of course, there would have to be exceptions. We should all regret to have a speech like that of the hon. Member for Newcastle, which we heard with so much pleasure the other night, abruptly terminated. I would, therefore, give you, Sir, the power of relaxing the Rule in such cases—when the Member was evidently obtaining the attention of the House. Such a Rule would have the great recommendation of being self-acting. Let us do what we can to encourage short speeches, which are evidently in favour with the House, or why do so many Members commence by promising to speak for only a few minutes?—a promise, by the bye, very frequently not adhered to. I must say I should much less dislike the Government proposition if, after the Speaker had the result of the division before him, he then had the option of deciding whether the debate should be terminated, for it might be what he thought was "the evident sense" of the House was only that of a bare majority. I have thus spoken to avoid the misconception that all those who vote against the Government proposition are against any restriction on debate.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, he thought the Prime Minister's statement had covered
      456
      the Resolution down to the word "manufactures," in line 3. He (Mr. Gibson) proposed, after the word "may," to insert the words "by order of the House in each case."
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE moved to amend the Resolution by omitting, in line 3, the word "respectively."
      Question, "That the word 'respectively' stand part of the Resolution, put, and negatived.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they had now arrived at a point when it became his duty to move the Proviso he had already referred to, and which had already been stated to the House. It was a very simple one, and would have the effect of entirely removing the Committees from the operation of the Rule of July 21st, 1856, and of disabling them, except by permission of the House, from sitting on Wednesdays and during Morning Sittings of the House. The Proviso would run thus—
      "That the said Committees shall be excluded from the operations on the Standing Order of July 21st, 1856."
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he rose to Order. He thought the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper came before that of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, to add to the Resolution the following words:—
      "And the procedure in the said Committees shall be, so far as circumstances admit, the same as the procedure in a Committee of the Whole House, and all rules and customs pertaining to a Committee of the whole House shall be observed in the said Committees, except in so far that the Chairman of the said Committees shall not be deemed to possess any of the powers specially conferred on the Chairman of Ways and Means by any of the Resolutions relating to the Business of the House agreed to in this Session of Parliament."
      MR. SPEAKERruled that the Amendment of the noble Lord would come before the Proviso proposed to be inserted by the Prime Minister.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that it was quite clear that the procedure of these large Committees could not possibly be analogous to the procedure in Select Committees. A Select Committee was perfectly informal. There was nothing formal about it; the Members of a Select Committee did not rise in their places; oven the Chairman never rose in his place; and the proceedings altogether were of a

      457
      most informal character. That might be agreeable to the small knot of men who conducted these Committees; but it would not be suitable to a large body of men who were to sit as a bind of Parliament in miniature. Therefore, although the expression had been used by the Government once or twice that these Committees were like Select Committees, it would not do to allow their procedure to be analogous to the procedure of Select Committees, but rather to that of a Committee of the Whole House. For instance, it might be necessary to make a special provision in regard to the taking of the Votes. It would not be possible for the Members of a Committee to go into the Lobby; but there should, at the same time, be a formal mode of dividing the Committee. Then it was quite clear that, in reference to keeping order in the Committee, the Chairman ought to have very much the same power as he had in a Committee of the Whole House. He ought to be able to raise points of Order and to decide them with much more authority than the Chairman of a Select Committee. In the Amendment he proposed to exclude from the powers conferred upon the Chairman the powers specially conferred on the Chairman of Ways and Means by the Business Resolutions.
      Amendment proposed,
      At the end of the Question, to add the words "and the procedure in the said Committee shall be, so far as circumstances admit, the same as the procedure in a Committee of the whole House, and all rules and customs pertaining to a Committee of the whole House shall be observed in the said Committees, except in so far that the Chairman of the said Committees shall not be deemed to possess any of the powers specially conferred on the Chairman of Ways and Means by any of the Resolutions relating to the Business of the House agreed to in this Session of Parliament."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Government's view of the matter was that it would be impolitic and extremely cumbrous to attempt to provide beforehand for all the contingencies which might arise in the working of these Committees, and that it would be better to let them feel their own way. He laid that down as a general principle. Now, what did the noble Lord propose in his Amendment? He proposed that—
      "All rules and customs pertaining to a Committee of the whole House shall be observed in
      458
      the said Committees, except in so far that the Chairman of the said Committees shall not be deemed to possess any of the powers specially conferred on the Chairman of Ways and Means by any of the Resolutions relating to the Business of the House agreed to in this Session of Parliament."
      The Resolutions recently passed did confer certain powers upon the Chairman of Committees, and the Government did not wish to add to any of those powers at all; but in order to keep the Chairman of Committees entirely out of the scope of the Resolutions recently adopted, it was evident they must adopt for their general basis the Rules which now governed Select Committees, and not those governing Committees of the Whole House. He thought the noble Lord would find there were many occasions on which the Forms of the Committee of the Whole House would be quite unsuited to the Standing Committees. For example, a Committee of the Whole House reported Progress from time to time and, Motions were made to report Progress; but these were Forms which need not be introduced into the Standing Committees. What the Government proposed was to put one Proviso in the hands of the Speaker to secure a stated time for the Sittings of the Committees; but they thought the House should declare upon the general principle of the Committees. He agreed with what was said by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) that the Committees should have power to dismiss strangers if they thought fit—indeed, as to general procedure, what the Government proposed was that the procedure of such Committees should be the same as that in Select Committees, unless the House should otherwise order. It would be then that the Standing Committees would make their applications to the House. There was one thing which ought to be brought to the minds of Members of the House. Select Committees had of late years embodied an extremely small number of Members—a Select Committee was essentially a body of extremely small number. A Select Committee was considered a large one if it had 17 Members; and he thought that in no case did it ever go beyond 21 Members. But he had voted in a Select Committee where he had been one of a majority exceeding 70, there being a respectable number on the other side. Such was the elasticity

      459
      of Select Committees some 40 years ago. The Select Committee to which he referred had under consideration a Railway Bill. The present intention of the Government was to take the moderate cases exercised in Select Committees, trusting to enlarge or modify them if experience should show that it became necessary. He had now stated the reason of their proceeding; and it was his intention, if he had the opportunity, to propose the addition of the words—
      "And the procedure in such Committees shall be the same as in a Select Committee, unless the House shall otherwise order: Provided, That strangers shall be admitted, except when the Committee shall order them to withdraw: Provided also, That the said Committees shall he excluded from the operation of the Standing Order of July 21st 1856; and the said Committees shall not sit whilst the House is sitting without the order of the House."
      SIR JOHN HAYasked in what way the voting was conducted in the Select Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had referred?
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, according to his recollection, the Members of the Committee voted in the same way in which they voted in the House itself—namely, by going to different sides of the room.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had served on a great number of Committees of all kinds, and he was obliged to say his inclination was certainly in favour of these Standing Committees being made more like Select Committees than Committees of the Whole House. In the first place—especially when they had got a Bill before them—it was extremely advantageous to have a long discussion before going formally through the clauses, because in this way they gathered a great number of views before going through the Bill clause by clause. Furthermore, it very often was necessary to have the draftsman at their elbow, because nothing could more conduce to the proper settling of a Bill than having the draftsman present to explain the clauses, to show how the clauses were entwined one with another, how any particular Amendment that might be proposed would interfere with the genera] structure of the Bill, or be quite discordant with the general intentions of the Bill. It was of the greatest possible assistance to Members of the Committee to have the draftsman with them; and, therefore, for that reason
      460
      alone, he thought the Forms of the House would be cumbrous and unsuitable. There was one other matter with regard to these Committees which he might mention, and that was that they found in Select Committees hon. Members did not always sit like Parties in the House did—one Party on one side of the room and the other Party on the other side; they very often got mixed up, and very frequently with advantage, for any idea of one side getting an advantage over the other was destroyed. If there was to be any advantage in these great Committees, such a state of things would be a very large one. Upon the whole, he was bound to say his opinion was in favour of the adoption of the Rules of Select Committees, rather than those of Committees of the Whole House.
      MR. GORSTsaid, he hoped this Amendment would show the Prime Minister the value of the criticism of the Resolutions which had been made by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill). He (Mr. Gorst) must admit that, whether this proposal was right or wrong, it was necessary some proposal of the kind should be made, in order that there should be some indication to the Committee as to the Rules and customs to be observed in the Standing Committees. In a matter of this kind one would naturally prefer the superior experience and the greater knowledge of the Prime Minister. Certainly, he (Mr. Gorst) would hardly have thought it possible for a Select Committee of 70 Members to have done its work satisfactorily; but if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had had that experience, and if he thought that the Business could be properly performed according to the customs and Rules of a Select Committee, then he (Mr. Gorst) had no doubt his noble Friend would withdraw his Amendment in order to make way for that suggested by the Prime Minister.
      MR. NORWOODsaid, he had listened very carefully to the statement of the Prime Minister, and also to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross; and, of course, he felt very considerable diffidence in differing in opinion from Gentlemen of such large experience as those right hon. Gentlemen. He wished, however, before they came to an absolute decision upon this matter, to point out that these Standing

      461
      Committees were really intended to be substitutes of the Committees of the entire House, and they were to be legislative Committees—they were, in point of fact, substitutions of the hitherto most important stages of the measures which had come before the House. Up to this time the Committees on Bills had been subjected to the publicity which attended the proceedings in the House. They had hitherto been held in the presence of the Press and of the public, and hon. Members had had the assistance of the Clerks at the Table, and of all the machinery provided for the transaction of the Business of the country. Now, the suggestion that, in regard to the new Standing Committees, the Forms and Rules applicable to Select Committees should be adopted, appeared to him to be open to some objection. He thought that if they were to relegate the important stage of Committee on a Bill, which they had up to this taken in the House itself, to a Committee upstairs, they should be assured that the same amount of publicity would be given to the proceedings which was now given to them. Their proceedings were now reported, their divisions were printed on the Books, the Amendments that it was desired should be discussed were handed in to the Clerk at the Table, and printed and taken in proper order. The proceedings in Select Committees were very often of an extremely formal character, and it very often depended upon the Chairman whether the proceedings of a Select Committee were regular or not. He had served on Select Committees, the Chairman of which had permitted certain Members to speak a dozen times and others not at all. There had been no care taken that important Amendments should be circulated; Business generally had been conducted by what he might call the rule of thumb and measure; and he greatly feared the result of the Rules of Procedure observed in Select Committees were adopted in the Standing Committees. As he had previously said, he felt great diffidence in urging his views in opposition to the two right hon. Gentlemen who had just preceded him. The Prime Minister's opinion must have very great weight upon Members of his (Mr. Norwood's) position in the House; but he did venture once more to say that they ought to pause before they adopted for the Standing Committees the Rules which
      462
      now obtained in Select Committees. The principle of a measure might be settled on the second reading, and the speeches made at this stage were, as a rule, made more to the country than to the House; but the details of a measure were determined in Committee. It would be a very dangerous thing if they were, in any form or way, to depart from the solemnity and publicity and the care with which the Business of Committee was transacted in the House of Commons. He should very much regret, indeed, if Bills were to be sent upstairs and discussed in a mere conversational manner; for who could report a conversation? He hoped, as he presumed it would be, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would be accepted in its broadest sense, and that in the Standing Committees some attention would be paid to fixed rule; that there would be some uniformity of practice observed in the new Committees; that they would not find the Chairman of the legal Committee adopting one form of procedure, and the Chairman of the second Committee adopting another form. He would suggest to the Prime Minister whether it would not be well, at the commencement of next Session, to frame Rules for the guidance of the Committees. Definite Rules ought to be observed in the proceedings of the new Committees; and it was also of the greatest importance that the Committees should be open to the Press and to the public.
      MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, the result of his experience was that the procedure of Select Committees was not satisfactory in very large Committees. The proceedings of Select Committees were extremely useful when the Committee numbered 9 or 11 Members; but when the Committee was composed of as many as 25 Members the proceedings resolved themselves into a conversation, and he was afraid that would be so in this case.
      MR. BRYCEsaid, that, as the presence of the draftsman of the Bill in the Committee had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), he (Mr. Bryce) would do no more than express the feeling of hon. Members on the Liberal side of the House that the matter did well deserve the attention of the Government. The presence of the draftsman was of very great value to a Committee; and, there-

      463
      fore, he would suggest that it would be very useful if the Government were to provide a draftsman for each Committee, and if that official were to hold himself in readiness to attend a Committee at such time as the Committee might require him.
      SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, it appeared to him that the House was hardly in a position to consider this very important question. He must thank his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) for bringing this matter prominently before the House, for there were very few people who had seriously considered the very grave issues that this question was about to raise. His hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had spoken of the conduct of some Chairmen of Select Committees. There was no one who had sat on many Select Committees of that House who did not know the importance of having a good Chairman. He had sat on Select Committees the proceedings of which had been conducted in an absolutely disgraceful manner. He had known the greatest partiality shown by a Chairman to certain Members of a Committee; he had known that some men had been allowed to do things which would not be tolerated in anyone else. He had no hesitation in saying that, unless there were some strict Rules observed, the new Committees would be nothing less than a rabble doing business. It was absolutely necessary, if the Standing Committees were to be conducted on the principle of Select Committees, that some Rule should be drawn up before the new, Committees commenced their Sittings; for he ventured to say that, unless men spoke in proper turn, unless the Amendments were printed and placed in the Chairman's hands, the whole system would fail. He merely mentioned this because one had had the experience of Select Committees, and because one knew how, when there had been a good Chairman, and everything had been conducted "decently and in order," a Select Committee had served a good purpose. It was particularly necessary that the proceedings should be conducted upon fixed rule in a Committee composed of 70 or 80 Members. He was fully persuaded the public out-of-doors would not be satisfied with the Committees unless there was some guarantee that the Business should be properly and regularly conducted.
      MR. WHITLEYsaid, he thought there would be a general feeling on his side of the House to agree to the proposition of the Prime Minister, provided that at the commencement of next Session Rules were framed for the guidance of the Committees.
      CAPTAIN AYLMERunderstood the position to be that the Prime Minister accepted the first two lines of the noble Lord's Amendment. He (Captain Aylmer) had an Amendment, which he had handed in to the Clerk, and which would come at the end of the noble Lord's Amendment. His object was simply to get a declaration of opinion on the part of the Government on the question. Perhaps, when the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister rose to move his Amendment, he would express some views on his (Captain Aylmer's) Amendment. The Amendment he had desired to introduce was—
      "Provided, That all debates in Standing Committees shall be recorded, and printed copies thereof supplied to each Member of this House."
      The Reports, no doubt, would be very cumbrous, and he did not suppose that he himself would be inclined to wade through them. They should have some means of knowing, when a Bill was brought up on Report, the reasons why Amendments had been refused or accepted in Committee.
      MR. GIBSONsaid, a Select Committee almost invariably had power to send for Papers, Persons, and Documents. Was it intended that the Standing Committees should have that power? Very often a Committee might desire to have Papers, Persons, and Documents. Was it intended that in any case the House should have the power to give such an order? If it was, the Standing Committee would be made nothing more or less than a new-fashioned Select Committee. If they gave the Committees power of taking evidence, they must then give the House, when the Bill came back on Report, power to read the evidence given by the witnesses.
      MR. DODSONsaid, he could, in a very few words, answer the question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson). There was no general rule as to Select Committees having power to send for Papers, Persons, and Documents. When a Select Committee was appointed which the House thought ought to have power to send for Papers,

      465
      Persons, and Documents, the House made a special order accordingly. That power was generally given to Committees which were appointed for the purpose of inquiry; it was very seldom given to a Committee appointed to go through the clauses of a Bill. In the case of a Standing Committee, he apprehended that, as the Committee was intended to go through clauses, such power would not be considered necessary, and power would not be given. If it were necessary, as in the case of any other Committee, the House would make an order for the purpose.
      MR. GIBSONasked if it was intended to have witnesses examined before the Standing Committees?
      MR. DODSONsaid, if the House should in any particular case wish the Standing Committee to have that power, it would give power for the purpose.
      LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made, by adding at the end of the Question, the words—
      "And the procedure in such Committees shall he the same as in a Select Committee, unless the House shall otherwise order: Provided, That strangers shall be admitted, except when the Committee shall order them to withdraw: Provided also, That the said Committees shall be excluded from the operation of the Standing Order of July 21st 1856; and the said Committees shall not sit whilst the House is sitting without the order of the House."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, an Amendment of his stood next on the Paper. It was to add, at end—
      "It shall be the duty of Mr. Speaker to determine whether any particular Bill falls within the operation of this rule, and he shall inform the House of his decision in this respect on the Order for the Second Reading being read by the Clerk."
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that although the Government had no objection to the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman he hardly thought they were necessary.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he put the Amendment down merely for the purpose of raising a discussion as to whether there ought to be any direction given to the Chair.
      SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFEsaid, I he desired to repeat a question he had j asked earlier in the evening. He wished to ask whether, if at any time it was
      466
      desired to prolong the Sittings of the Committee, the matter would be subjected to the decision of the House; whether, when application was made for the prolongation of the Sitting, that would be matter for debate?
      MR. SPEAKER: The order of the House is, of course, by the authority of the House.
      Amendment negatived.
      MR. GORSTsaid, there was an Amendment in his name which he did not intend to move. It was that the Standing Committees should not consider any Bills which, under the ordinary practice of the House, would be considered by a Committee of the Whole House. What he wanted to be assured of was, that the Standing Committee would not usurp any of the powers which were now exercised by the Committee of the Whole House in respect of such clauses which, under ordinary circumstances, would be considered by the Committee of the Whole House.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Amendment which he had now to move was one of some importance. If a Bill were committed to a Committee upstairs, hon. Members connected with all the great towns would undoubtedly receive from their constituents a great number of Amendments. All he wanted to insure was that, in some form or other, the Amendments which were handed to the Member for a particular town should reach the Committee; otherwise, one of the great objects of the Prime Minister would be certainly defeated, because if a Member could not send an Amendment to the Committee upstairs he would be inclined to introduce it when the Bill came down on Report.
      Amendment proposed,
      To add, at the end thereof, the words "Provided also, That any Notice of Amendment to any Clause in a Bill which may be committed to a Standing Committee given by any honourable Member in the House shall stand referred to such Committee, who shall consider the same."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      MR. DODSONsaid, it appeared to him that there would be a great practical difficulty through the addition of these words. The only way in which a Member could give Notice of an Amendment, when he was not a Member of a Committee, was by inducing some Gen-

      467
      tleman who was a Member of the Committee to take charge of the Amendment for him. There was no other way in which it could be dine; and unless some Member of the Committee took charge of the Amendment, with the intention of explaining and recommending it to the Committee, the Amendment would not be of much value. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with having called attention to the matter. A Member would always be able to find some Member of the Committee to take charge of the Amendment; and, if not, he would have his remedy when the Bill came back to the House.
      MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was precisely that remedy which he thought would cause the breakdown of these Resolutions. If the object with which the Government proposed these Committees was to be attained, all Amendments or clauses in Committee ought to be considered in Committee upstairs. The right hon. Gentleman argued that four-fifths of the House, who were not Members of these Committees, were to have their remedy by introducing other Amendments on Report or Re-committal. It appeared to him that great danger would be incurred of the whole last stage of the Bill being lost while the time would be occupied on the Report by the consideration of Amendments proposed by Members who were not on the Committees. If the Government wished to make this an effective measure, they should propose some scheme by which Amendments of importance and gravity, suggested by hon. Members who were not on the Committees, should be considered by the Committee upstairs.
      CAPTAIN AYLMER, who had a similar Amendment on the Paper to that before the House, asked, if he was; not on one of these Committees, how was he to bring forward Amendments, and how should he be able to report why they were thrown out, and the reasons advanced against them? He could not know what arguments were advanced, or what took place in the dark. He had given Notice of an Amendment to the effect that a Member desiring to move an Amendment, and not being a Member of the Committee, should have the right to be present and move his Amendment, and, while doing that, to be considered a Member of the Committee. Otherwise,
      468
      he did not see how Chambers of Commerce and other bodies were to bring forward their views.
      MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, as it stood, was open to question; but he thought something might be done upon the matter. He should be prepared to agree to an Amendment providing that all Amendments should be brought formally to the notice of the Committees; and he would, therefore, accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment down to the word "Committee."
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he entirely accepted the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and would withdraw his Amendment, in order to omit the words "who shall consider the same."
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made, by adding, at the end thereof, the words—
      "That any Notice of Amendment to any Clause in a Bill which may be committed to a Standing Committee given by any honourable Member in the House shall stand referred to such Committee."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
      MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, his Amendment came next, and he hoped there would be no objection to it. He understood the Prime Minister had no objection to it, and therefore he should not argue the matter.
      Amendment proposed, by adding, at the end thereof, the words, "Provided also, that Twenty be the Quorum of such Standing Committees."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
      Amendment agreed to.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought, after the way in which the Prime Minister had met the Amendments which had been proposed to this Resolution, he should not carry out his intention of objecting to the Resolution as a whole, although he had the greatest possible distrust as to the working and the operation of the Rule itself.
      Main Question, as amended, put.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
  II. Standing Committees.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.

    RESOLUTION 1 (STANDING COMMITTEES ON LAW AND COURTS OF JUSTICE, TRADE, &c.)
    (1.) Resolved, That two Standing Committees be appointed for the consideration of all Bills

    469
    relating to Law and Courts of Justice and Legal Procedure, and to Trade, Shipping, and Manufactures, which may, by order of the House, in each case, be committed to them; and the procedure in such Committees shall be the same as in a Select Committee, unless the House shall otherwise order: Provided, That strangers shall be admitted, except when the Committee shall order them to withdraw: Provided also, That the said Committees shall be excluded from the operation of the Standing Order of July 21st 1856, and the said Committees shall not sit, whilst the House is sitting, without the order of the House: Provided also, That any Notice of Amendment to any Clause in a Bill which may be committed to a Standing Committee given by any honourable Member in the House shall stand referred to such Committee: Provided also, That twenty be the quorum of such Standing Committees.
    Further Consideration of the New Rules of Procedure deferred, till To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.