RESOLUTION 1 (STANDING COMMITTEES ON LAW AND COURTS OF JUSTICE, TRADE, &c.)

HC Deb 30 November 1882 vol 275 cc408-68

[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. PARNELL

said, 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. MACARTNEY

rose 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'CONNOR

asked 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. CALLAN

asked 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 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 CROSS

said, 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 CROSS

said, 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'DONNELL

said, 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 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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. GORST

said, 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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 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 CHURCHILL

begged to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, after what had fallen from the Prime Minister, he should ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. RITCHIE

said, some Notice ought to be given when leave was going to be asked for a Committee to continue its Sitting.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, 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. DODSON

explained 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. NEWDEGATE

asked 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 WOLFF

asked 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 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 CHURCHILL

suggested 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. GIBSON

said, he quite agreed with his noble Friend, and if the Government would accept the principle of his Amendment, he should be quite satisfied.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, 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- 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. RAIKES

said, 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. GIBSON

said, that, as he understood the Government were favourable to the general principle of publicity, he would ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, 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. DILLWYN

said, 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 WOLFF

said, 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 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. CHAMBERLAIN

said, 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. ANDERSON

thought 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'DONNELL

then 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- 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 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, 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- 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- 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 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- 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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. PARNELL

remarked that the Government could make any change they pleased in the composition of these bodies next Session.

MR. GLADSTONE

asked 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- 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- 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. HEALY

said, 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 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'CARTHY

said, 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 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 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'CONNOR

said, 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 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. SULLIVAN

said, 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 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. SEXTON

said, 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 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 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. BIGGAR

said, 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 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. GORST

said, 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 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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 CHURCHILL

said, 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 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 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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 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 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 CROSS

said, 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- 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. RAIKES

commended 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 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. GIBSON

said, 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 HARTINGTON

said, 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 GIFFARD

said, 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 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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. GORST

said, that, after the announcement of the Prime Minister, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

In answer to Mr. GLADSTONE,

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the words "by order of the House" would be more usual than "by vote of the House."

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

rose 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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 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 CHURCHILL

said, 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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 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 CROSS

suggested that measures of a non-contentious character might be referred next Session to the Committees by way of experiment.

MR. TOMLINSON

said 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 WOLFF

wished 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 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. DODSON

said, he thought the suggestion of the right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire was one well worthy of consideration.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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. GIBSON

said, 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. GLADSTONE

assented to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Words inserted.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

believed 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 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'DONNELL

rose 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. SPEAKER

ruled that the Amendment of the hon. Member came before that of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, 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 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 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 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 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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. SMITH

said, 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 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. GORST

said, 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-BOOTH

understood 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. WARTON

said, 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 MANNERS

agreed 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'DONNELL

said, 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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- 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 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 CHURCHILL

asked the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

asked 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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 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. GIBSON

said, he thought the Prime Minister's statement had covered 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 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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 CHURCHILL

said, 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. SPEAKER

ruled that the Amendment of the noble Lord would come before the Proviso proposed to be inserted by the Prime Minister.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, 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 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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 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 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 HAY

asked in what way the voting was conducted in the Select Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had referred?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, 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 CROSS

said, 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 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. GORST

said, 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. NORWOOD

said, 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 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 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-BOOTH

said, 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. BRYCE

said, 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- 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. BARTTELOT

said, 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. WHITLEY

said, 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 AYLMER

understood 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. GIBSON

said, 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. DODSON

said, 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, 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. GIBSON

asked if it was intended to have witnesses examined before the Standing Committees?

MR. DODSON

said, 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 CHURCHILL

asked 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 CROSS

said, 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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 CROSS

said, 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 WOLFE

said, 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 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. GORST

said, 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 CROSS

said, 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. DODSON

said, 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- 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. SMITH

said, 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, he did not see how Chambers of Commerce and other bodies were to bring forward their views.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, 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 CROSS

said, 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. TALBOT

said, 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 CROSS

said, 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.