Commons Sitting of 24 October 1882

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—Thomas Shaw, esquire, for Halifax; Alexander Craig Sellar, esquire, for Haddington District of Burghs.
PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT—THE APPROPRIATION ACT—CONSTITUTIONAL PRACTICE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD PRNDOLPH CHURCHILL: I rise, Sir, at this early period of the Sitting to move that the House do now adjourn. I wish, with great respect, to call the attention of the House to a grave departure from the Constitutional immemorial practice of the House of Commons which is occurring at the present moment, by the fact of this House being still in Session for the purpose of deliberating on proposals of Ministers at a time long subsequent to the Royal Assent having been given to the annual Appropriation Act, and the Business of the Session having been thereby absolutely closed, and in order to prevent the continuance of so dangerous an irregularity; and to suggest to the House as a remedy, as a safeguard, and as a grave protest against the recurrence of such an attempt on the part of the present Ministry, or of any future Ministry, to disregard well-established and vital principles of Parliamentary government, I propose to move that this
  4
  House do now adjourn. Had I been able to be in my place before the House adjourned in August I should have called attention to this matter at that time; but the House is, perhaps, aware that it was not in my power so to do, or to pursue any close inquiries as to the propriety of the prolonged Adjournment proposed to the House by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stated on August 15th, when he moved the Adjournment, that there were precedents for the course he recommended. Such a statement from so high an authority no doubt prevented either debate or question at the time. I join issue on this point, and state that there are no precedents to authorize or justify the course taken by the Government. It has been hitherto the invariable practice of the House of Commons never to part with the Appropriation Bill until all the Business of the Session was to all intents and purposes absolutely concluded; at which time you, Sir, are accustomed to carry it up to the House of Lords in order that it may receive the Royal Assent; and by that act of yours you relinquish the supervision over the expenditure of public moneys with which you are intrusted during the Session of Parliament by virtue of your high Office. I quote, in support of this positive assertion, from Sir Erskine May's well-known work, at page 633, 8th edition—
  "The Resolutions of the Committee of Supply are reserved until all the Supplies for the Service of the year have been granted, when they are embraced in the Appropriation Act at the end of the Session; and it is irregular to introduce any clause of appropriation into a Bill passing through Parliament at an earlier period."
  And, again, on page 639, Sir Erskine May lays down—
  "When the Appropriation Bill has passed both Houses, and is about to receive the Royal Assent, it is returned into the charge of the House of Commons until that House is summoned to attend Her Majesty, or the Lords' Commissioners, in the House of Peers for the Prorogation of Parliament; when it is carried by the Speaker to the Bar of the House of Peers, and there received by the Clerk of the Parliaments for the Royal Assent."
  The same is again positively stated by, if possible, a higher authority even than that of Sir Erskine May—I mean Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who, in an Appendix to a Report of a Committee

  5
  appointed by the House in 1857 to investigate the whole subject of public moneys, and put in by him in his official capacity as Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day, writes—
  "The final grant of Ways and Means to cover the whole of the Supplies voted during the Session is always reserved for the Appropriation Act: thus, although the House of Commons at an early period of the Session might have voted the whole of the Supplies of the year, they could still hold their constitutional check upon the Minister by limiting the grant of Ways and Means to an amount sufficient only to last such time as they might think proper to give him the means of carrying on the public service, and they are by such limited grants at all times enabled to prevent the Minister from either dissolving or proroguing Parliament."
  I have searched through the records of the House as far as it has been in my power so to do, and I can find no precedent for the House of Commons ever parting with its power to withhold Supplies from the Crown so long as it continues its deliberations. From the days of the Plantagenets the Commons have always jealously insisted that all aids to the Crown, after receiving the assent of the other House, shall be left in their keeping, and be submitted by their Speaker, and by their Speaker only, when and only when all grievances have been heard, and, in their opinion, redressed. If the House will allow me, I will show, by two or three very singular examples, how extremely consistent has been the course of the House of Commons in this matter. In the ninth year of Henry IV., the King being in want of money, and the Commons being greatly disturbed at certain proceedings of the Lords, the King declared, in order to conciliate the Commons, that the grant should be made—
  "In manner and form as has been hitherto accustomed; that is to say, by the mouth of the Speaker of the House of Commons for the time being."
  Again, in the year 1580, in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Lords declared that the return of the Bill of Subsidy to the House of Commons for presentation to the Crown by the Speaker—
  "Was that the use was indifferent either to take it there or send it hither."
  The Commons, on hearing of this, at once resolved—
  "That the use thereof is not indifferent, but always hath been and is that it be sent down into this House and not left there."
  6
  Again, in 1642, a Commission was sent to give the Royal Assent to a Money Bill, and the Commission was fixed to the Bill, so that the Lords could not return it to the Commons to be brought up by the Speaker. The Commons appointed a Committee to consider the question, and the House resolved on their Report—
  "That Mr. Speaker shall go up, and if the Bill be delivered to Mr. Speaker before the Commission be read, then he shall have leave to present it to be passed: but if the Lords do not deliver the Bill into Mr. Speaker's hands accordingly, then he shall immediately return."
  All these instances simply prove the extraordinary anxiety and determination on the part of the Commons never to part with their only shield of defence against Monarchical or Ministerial tyranny until the last moment. In the Reign of Charles II., the appropriation of Supplies by Statute to particular services grew into an occasional practice to guard against Royal extravagance; but after the Revolution this occasional practice, to use the words of Mr. Hatsell—
  "Was made part of that system of government which was then established for the better securing the rights, liberties, and privileges of the people of this country."
  The present practice of withholding the Appropriation Bill till the end of the Session is merely a development of the practice of earlier times. Sir George Cornewall Lewis states, in the same document from which I have already quoted—
  "It may be well here to advert to the Parliamentary check which the Constitution has provided over the acts of the Government while these proceedings are taking place during the Session. The Speaker of the House of Commons is considered to represent the House in all matters of finance brought before him, and to control all proceedings in reference thereto. As the Session proceeds he takes care that any Bill for giving Ways and Means to the Treasury is kept within the amount of the Votes in Supply-previously granted, and at the close of the Session he checks the final balance between the full amount of the Votes in Supply, including the sum required to pay the interest of Exchequer Supply Bills and the Ways and Means already granted, and he limits the final grant of Ways and Means in the Appropriation Act to that amount. In short, the Speaker exercises a direct control over all the financial forms of the House of Commons."
  This power or check was positively exercised by the House in 1784 against Mr. Pitt, a Tory Minister in a minority—an

  7
  event which has happened since, and which may happen again—to prevent his dissolving Parliament—Mr. Pitt, as a matter of fact, did dissolve Parliament; indeed, his whole proceedings at that time are now admitted by all to have been utterly unconstitutional; but he was most careful to spend none of the money voted during the Session except a very small sum—so small, that the succeeding Parliament did not consider that the Resolutions of their Predecessors against an expenditure of money voted before the Appropriation Act had passed into law had been practically violated. But in much more modern times the House has jealously insisted on the principle that no money should be finally appropriated until the close of the Session. In 1841 the Government of the day—of which, I believe, the Prime Minister was a Member—curiously enough tried to appropriate a sum of money to a particular purpose in the middle of the Session by inserting an Appropriation Clause in the ordinary Ways and Means Bill. On this occasion Mr. Speaker (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) interposed when the House came to the clause, and said—
  "Before the Question was put he was anxious to call the attention of the House to what appeared to him to be an irregularity in its proceedings. The clause now before them was a clause of appropriation introduced into a Bill to provide for the ordinary Ways and Means of the year. Now, it was quite unusual and unprecedented to introduce a clause of appropriation into a Bill of this description at this period of the Session. He believed the object the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in view in proposing this clause was to mark the sense of the House on an excess of expenditure in the Departments of the Navy above the amount voted for that Service in the past year, that it might not be drawn into a precedent in future. Such clauses had been frequently introduced into the ordinary Appropriation Bill at the close of the Session; but since the year 1762 there was not a single instance of a clause of appropriation being inserted in any other Bill. Indeed, there was a very remarkable instance to the contrary."—[3 Hansard, lvii. 462.]
  Mr. Speaker then referred to an incident which had occurred in the time of Mr. Pitt; and then went on to use these most remarkable and impressive words—
  "I mention this with the view of preventing the adoption of what may afterwards be found to be a most inconvenient precedent, and because I think that in matters of this description the House ought to exercise more than ordinary caution."
  Well, the Government and the House, in accordance with Mr. Speaker's ad-
  8
  vice, withdrew the clause. The conduct of Mr. Speaker Shaw Lefevre on this occasion illustrates remarkably how thoroughly that eminent man understood the nature of his Office, and how fully aware he was that the Speaker is not only the servant and mouthpiece of the House, but something far higher—the chosen guardian and trustee of allitsPrivileges—anxious, unremitting, Argus-eyed in their defence, whether against an individual, whether against a Minister, whether against the Crown itself. And, therefore, when a Speaker is chosen by the House of Commons, it always selects a Member of long standing, and, like the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, intimately acquainted, not only with its Forms, but its rights. He is assisted, moreover, by able advisers—the ablest whose talents high salaries can secure—so that error or oversight would seem to be almost impossible. The last quotation with which I have troubled the House brings me to the point on which I am most anxious to rivet the attention of the House. The motive of the Government of 1841 in the trifling matter to which I have alluded was an excellent one, intended to prevent a Department exceeding the Estimate of the year; but, even with this excellent motive, the House refused, on the advice of Mr. Speaker, to allow this vital principle to be tampered with—namely, that no appropriation of moneys shall be passed before the absolute close of the Session. But what are we to say of the motives of the present Government in having entrapped the House into the first recorded instance of a departure from this principle? It is extremely difficult, and for the most part unprofitable and unsatisfactory, to attempt to divine motives. But, whatever their motives, this I will say—that the Constitutional practice might have been easily adhered to had the Government been content to prorogue Parliament at the usual time, and to summon it again by Royal Proclamation in the Autumn. But this course would have entailed a Speech from the Throne, an Address in reply, and, possibly, a long debate on that Address that might have been, I admit, inconvenient to the Government. But, after all, what is a debate on the Address? It is merely the first available occasion on which the Representatives of the people formally recite popu-

  9
  lar grievances against the Executive Government; so that the position is this—that the Government, in order to evade a statement of popular grievances, and to confine the discussions of the House to the consideration of certain proposals for the benefit of their own Business, have violated the Privileges of this House in a manner often before attempted, but never before effected, by any despotic Monarch, and, literally, at the present moment, have the House of Commons at their mercy. I may be told that the present majority in the House of Commons have such implicit confidence in the present Government that they have no objection to be placed in that position. But if anybody should suggest to me such a consideration I would repudiate it as utterly slanderous and calumnious. To put it as strongly as I can, I do not believe that if the Angel Gabriel was to take his place on the Treasury Bench as Prime Minister of this country, that even under such fortunate auspices the House of Commons would consent to relinquish one jot or tittle of its Constitutional rights, much less with the present Ministry, of whom not even its most enthusiastic admirers would assert that it was angelic. The Royal Assent to the Appropriation Bill and the Prorogation of Parliament are, by the fundamental principles of our Constitution, inseparably connected, and cannot be divorced one from another, and, practically, have never been hitherto. The House is now deliberating, and will be deliberating, if it continues in Session, with a rope round its neck, paralyzed and emasculated by the deprivation of its only weapons of defence against the Minister of the day. To put it more clearly, suppose a Motion is brought forward on the present state of affairs in Egypt, which is very probable, and it appears in the course of the debate that such a Motion might be carried against the Government, which is not so probable, the Prime Minister has nothing whatever to do, if he wishes to evade a decision of the House, or avoid the stigma of defeat, than to prorogue or even dissolve Parliament—a course he could not possibly adopt had the Appropriation Bill remained in the possession of the House of Commons. But more than that. The Government might await the decision of the House, and be
  10
  placed in a minority, but, owing to the absence of all Parliamentary control, they need neither resign nor appeal to the country for six months, but remain in Office all that time, after a Vote of Want of Confidence—a monstrosity which could not occur had we not parted with the Appropriation Bill; and in the interim thus gained the country might be committed irrevocably to courses which would never have obtained the consent of a majority of this House. But, again, still more strong is my point. Since the Adjournment the British Forces have been engaged in war. Before the Adjournment money was voted for the support of that war. The British Army is now occupying a foreign country. Is it possible—is it credible—that under this Constitution of ours, owing to the acts of the Government in extracting the Appropriation Bill from an unwary and thinly-attended House, no Member can now call in question, although the House is in Session, either the conduct of the war, the expenditure of the money, or the occupation of a foreign country, except by the permission and by the grace and condescension of the Advisers of the Crown? Such a state of things could not have come about if the House had not been entrapped into parting with the Appropriation Bill. I may be told that the present Prime Minister is not likely to act in such a manner. Quite so; but future Ministers may—indeed, they would be perfect fools if they did not, for now they have a precedent set before them which otherwise they would not have had, and which, with a subservient majority, depend upon it they will be sure to use. The Constitution of this country has not been constructed by considerations of what the Minister of the day might or might not do at any particular moment. Its apparently most antiquated and rococo forms are found, on a very slight examination, to possess the highest value for the safety of public liberty, and I refuse to believe that the present House of Commons, in which the great Liberal Party possess a large majority, a Party to whom we owe so much of our freedom, presided over by a Prime Minister whose name has always been connected hitherto with the cause of popular freedom, will allow so dangerous a precedent to pass unnoticed, or suffer the rights and privileges of Parliament, with regard to public

  11
  moneys, to be so seriously and so fatally infringed. I earnestly urge upon the House to remember the words of Mr. Speaker Shaw Lefevre, that in dealing with, these matters the House should exercise more than ordinary caution to give to them their most serious consideration; and, laying aside for the moment all thoughts of Party discipline or convenience, to remember that they are here, pledged as solemnly as men can be, to see and to take care that the historic freedom of this country shall not suffer at their hands the slightest, smallest, or minutest injury.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have to express my own satisfaction, and I am sure the satisfaction of the House, on seeing the noble Lord again in his place, after what I am afraid has been a tedious, if not a severe illness, and I have to thank the noble Lord for having kindly given me, a few hours ago, Notice of the Motion that he was about to make. With regard to the speech of the noble Lord, I will say that there are certain parts of it which might with perfect propriety have been as warmly cheered on this side of the House as in his own immediate neighbourhood. I am ready, were it the question, to defend to all extremities the conduct of Mr. Speaker Shaw Lefevre in the matter to which the noble Lord referred; but that matter has no connection whatever with the subject now before the House. The question touched by the conduct of Mr. Shaw Lefevre is whether the whole finance of the year should or should not, as a matter of regular practice, be associated together in one and the same Appropriation Bill; and I will venture to say that there is no man who has oftener pressed upon the House, or, I may say, who has oftener wearied the House with laying before them the essential importance of dealing with the financial affairs of the year as one concern, as one comprehensive whole, than the humble person who now has the honour of addressing you. Let us, therefore, altogether dismiss from our memories—in order that we may fairly contemplate the matters before us—these words of Mr. Shaw Lefevre, which have nothing to do with the question
  12
  before us, but which relate to an exceedingly important question, with regard to which I have often witnessed with regret that it does not attract very great notice among Gentlemen not sitting upon this side of the House, but with respect to which I am very glad to see that upon the present occasion the minds of those Gentlemen are fully alive to its momentous character. Now, the censure of the noble Lord, which I think to be groundless, is a censure, not upon the Government, but upon the House itself. The course taken by the House in August last was not a course taken unawares by a thin and empty House, but a course approved by a very considerable Party before the Adjournment, unless my memory deceives me. I announced to the House on the part of the Government the course we intended to pursue; that we thought that the subject of Procedure should not be handed over till next Session, and that having examined what would be the most convenient method of approaching it, we were disposed to think that the best way would be to wind up Business in the ordinary way, to adjourn the House for a considerable period in order to enable Members to refresh themselves after the severe labours which they had undergone, and then to meet again to consider Procedure. Well, Sir, is this censure deserved, or is it not? If it is deserved the Motion of the noble Lord still appears to me to be wholly out of place and unequal to the purpose which he contemplates. The doctrine of the noble Lord is that the passing of the Appropriation Act and the Prorogation are inseparably connected, and he therefore intervenes with a Motion at this particular moment in order to prevent the House from transacting other Business, and to maintain this inseparable connection. But the inseparable connection is not maintained by moving the Adjournment of the House. It is quite evident that if there be anything in the principle of the noble Lord, the Motion which he should have made is not a Motion for the Adjournment of the House, which leaves the matter just as open as it was before the former Adjournment, and in no respect affirms any part of the doctrine of the noble Lord. The Motion should have been a Motion praying for the Prorogation of the House in order

  13
  to maintain that inseparable connection which the noble Lord thinks to be so necessary.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I will make that Motion if you wish it.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord has approached this subject with immense consideration and with a Parliamentary research going back to the 10th year of Henry IV.; and if a review of so many centuries, conducted with the care for which we must, of course, give the noble Lord credit, has not enabled him to make up his mind, it appears to me that he becomes the first person to throw some doubt upon his qualifications both as an adviser of the House for the future, and as censor of its proceedings now. I will deal with two points upon which the noble Lord has touched. First of all, as to the terrible consequences that will arise out of this fearful error into which the House has been led owing to the absence of the noble Lord from its precincts; and, secondly, as to the soundness of the assertion on which the noble Lord has entirely built his argument—that there is an inseparable connection shown by an invariable practice between the passing of the Appropriation Act and the Prorogation of Parliament. I wish the noble Lord had not gone out of his way to introduce elements of contention into a debate which ought to be strictly based upon questions of principle and usage by his reference to the motives of the Government—with which it appears that he is better acquainted than they themselves. He says that their motive was to avoid a debate upon the Address. I am, perhaps, almost as well acquainted with the motives of the Government as the noble Lord himself, and I humbly state to the House as the motive of the Government that our present Business is Business with which the House has made considerable progress; that after a debate of five nights, occupying the whole of the Government time for between two and three weeks, the House arrived at a most important decision, and affirmed a most important part of one of the most important Resolutions of the Government, and that it appeared to us convenient and desirable that our labour should not be lost, and that the House should resume the consideration of the Business of Procedure at the point where it was dropped. Now, there is
  14
  nothing irrational in that representation of the case, and something which may tend to set aside the forced and farfetched view ascribed to us by the noble Lord. But I am not at all afraid to meet the noble Lord upon his own ascriptions. According to him, the natural course would have been to have prorogued Parliament, and to have commenced by a Speech from the Throne and an Address the Session which would virtually have been the Session of next year. Still, I do not hesitate to say that if there is to be an Address and a statement of popular grievances against the tyranny, either of the present Ministry, or of the Archangel Gabriel—I could not make out which—it is far more convenient to the House that the complaint should be made at the usual time than that it should be anticipated by three or four months, and the opportunity lost until the beginning of 1884. This was a very small matter. It was a question simply whether the House, having performed heavy labours, should take an adjournment. The course which was taken was taken with the full knowledge of the House. All parties had ample notice, and, as far as I understand, there was no objection from any quarter. It was recognized, undoubtedly, by those who became the organs of a widespread feeling of the House, in entering into a consideration with us on the footing on which we were to meet in the month of October, and obtaining from us the assurance that we did not intend to ask the House to go on with other Business, but that we should, so far as we were able, confine the proceedings to the question of Procedure. Consequently, I may say that the entire House has been a party to this arrangement. I am not going to throw any responsibility upon the House; but I am going to contend that it was a good arrangement, and that the noble Lord's argument does not apply. What says the noble Lord? He says that now, if a Motion of Want of Confidence is made, or any proceeding initiated inconvenient to the Government, the House will have lost the opportunity of displacing the Government. The noble Lord has a very inadequate measure of the strength of this House, if he thinks its power to displace the Government by a Vote of Want of Confidence depends in the 19th century upon the Appropriation Act. Let the

  15
  noble Lord show me a case where the House has laboured under any disability in that respect, Appropriation Bill or no Appropriation Bill. At all times the powers of the House are ample for such a purpose. But what has the House lost? Because the doctrine of the noble Lord appears to be that the House has lost a good deal by being called together at this time. Now, suppose we had proposed the ordinary course. Suppose we had prorogued in August and. then met again in February, with our six months' rest, in which we might perform any of the atrocities of which the noble Lord spoke. It would have been in the power of the House to displace us. Whatever this meeting of the House is, it is an enlargement, and not a contraction, of the opportunities possessed by the House of Commons for watching, correcting, and controlling the proceedings of the Government; and, therefore, all these terrible consequences which the noble Lord brought upon us in climax—"First of all," said he, "I will show you what will happen, and then something worse than that, and then something still worse than any of them"—what would have been still worse than the whole of them would have been that the House should have been dispersed for six months over the country, leaving the Government to work its wicked will without the slightest restraint. But what is it that has happened? What is this tremendous affair? It is, Sir, that a vital principle of the Constitution has been infringed—an invariable practice has been broken. These were the announcements at the commencement of the noble Lord's speech, and then he made some reference to the Tory Minister, Mr. Pitt, of 1784—the Tory Minister who, three years after 1784, boasted of his Whiggism, and boasted, when Mr. Fox had produced his doctrine about the Regency, that by virtue of that doctrine, "he would un-Whig the gentleman." Such is the accuracy of the noble Lord as to historical facts, though he will recollect that I have given him friendly warning on other occasions that these allegations of fact are most dangerous. If you happen to trip in them your whole ground is cut away from under your feet, and that is just what has happened to the noble Lord, not only in regard to the Tory Minister,
  16
  but in his statement that this is an invariable practice of Parliament, and that it is one of the essential principles of the Constitution. Now, Sir, I beg the House to observe that there are a great many practices of this House which are either almost or quite, perhaps, invariable, and which are not principles of the Constitution at all, but simply subsidiary arrangements, for the sake of convenience, with regard to which it has been advantageous to all parties that they should be clearly known and understood, and from which a gratuitous departure is not permitted. But my answer is, that this is not an invariable practice of the House of Commons; it is a convenient practice of the House of Commons. It is a convenient practice of the House of Commons when the Business of the House of Commons has run in its ordinary channel that the whole needs of the State should be met, and that an opportunity of meeting the needs of the State should be kept open till as nearly as possible the close of the Session, because new needs may arise at any time. For that reason the Appropriation Act is reserved to the end of the Session, that the House may, on the one hand, keep the whole of the financial transactions of the country together; and, on the other hand, give itself the largest and the longest opportunity for meeting the wants of the State. But, Sir, upon remarkable occasions that practice has been departed from. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear!] Then, why did the noble Lord say it was invariable?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said that, practically, they were inseparably connected.
  MR. GLADSTONE: But I say they are not practically inseparably connected, if in practice they have been departed from. The noble Lord said again and again that this was an invariable, vital, and Constitutional principle. I am sorry to say that we have arrived at an experience that has been of a most exceptional character. The state of the Business of the House of Commons is something deplorable, in a degree that I have at other times endeavoured to describe, and I need not greatly dwell upon it now. It is not in any common state of Business that we should have thought of asking the House of Commons to meet in this way in the month of Oc-

  17
  tober. It is a terrible burden to lay upon the shoulders of men who have already discharged labours of the greatest gravity and of the most arduous character from the month of February to the month of August. But, Sir, if it be quite true that there is something novel in meeting in October by adjournment, to consider our Procedure, it would have been still more novel to have prorogued and to have summoned Parliament again for the simple purpose of considering our Procedure, for it was to that simple purpose we were tied, and justly tied, by the House. You cannot, in times of extraordinary pressure, help varying from usages in some particulars. We varied in the smallest degree we could; and I say it would have been a greater innovation to call together the two Houses of Parliament for no other purpose than to consider Procedure in the House of Commons than it was to ask the House of Commons to adjourn from August till October. But it is not an invariable practice. I do not want to undervalue the present practice. It is a convenient and advantageous practice, and ought not to be departed from without grave cause. We have, I am sorry to say, grave cause on this occasion. Now, I have challenged the assertion of the noble Lord, and I will not go back with him to the 10th year of the Reign of Henry IV. I do not recollect, in the range of my own memory, which extends, I am sorry to say, back to the Reform Bill, that the House has made any adjournment after the winding-up of its regular Business. The reason has been that there never has been occasion for its so doing. The House has never been placed in anything like the condition it has been placed in lately. The House has always had, until quite of late years, a fair capacity of dealing with the Business with which it has had to deal. It has now reached a state of things in which it is in danger of losing, not only its efficiency, but its character and honour; and I say that far more special circumstances are before us than were before the House at the time which I am now going to quote. The time is not so very long before my own Parliamentary recollection. It is within the range of my memory as a living man. On the 26th of July, 1820—
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord knows this?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Yes.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I would not have taken that from the mouth of any man but the noble Lord. The noble Lord, knowing that the practice was not invariable, says that he was aware of this, and then he rises and tells us that it is an invariable practice, as well as a vital principle of the Constitution.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I look upon that case as the strongest precedent in favour of my argument.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I observed that the noble Lord quoted a number of cases that appeared to me to be irrelevant; and, therefore, it was a wonderful act of self-denial to have refrained from quoting this. Now, what is the argument, and what is the proposition? That there is an essential and invariable connection beteween the passing of the Appropriation Act and the Prorogation. I am now going to pursue a generous course towards the noble Lord, by quoting fully that which is the strongest argument in his favour. Here are the facts. On the 26th of July, 1820, the Appropriation Act having received the Royal Assent, the House was adjourned till the 21st of August.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Which House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The House of Commons. On the 21st of August, 1820, the Appropriation Act having been passed, the House, having prorogued its Session by adjournment, met after its adjournment and proceeded to transact Business of various kinds. Now, what I submit is, that that entirely smashes, destroys—and, as the noble Lord, being fond of variety of expression, said he would not have the smallest, the least, the minutest change in the Constitution, so I say that it smashes, destroys, and pulverizes the statement of the noble Lord, that there was this invariable union between the Appropriation Bill and the Prorogation. The general union of the two things I admit, and appreciate the value of.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What Business was transacted?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord can refer to the Votes for himself. My affirmation is that the Business of the House was transacted. The noble Lord

  19
  wishes that no Business should be transacted at all. Now, it is rather remarkable that at that period they were raising this question. The Adjournment of the 21st of August only sufficed for the transaction of Business of various kinds, and then another Motion was made to the 18th of September, and on that Motion a Member rose to make, not the Motion the noble Lord has made, but the Motion he ought to have made from his own point of view, and to give effect to his views—namely, the Motion for Prorogation. That Motion was actually made on the 21st of August, 1820, as an Amendment, and took the form of a Motion for an Address praying for a Prorogation. But the Mover of that Resolution did not found himself upon the invariable connection between the Prorogation and the Act of Appropriation, which connection he had himself allowed to be ruthlessly broken and trampled under foot that very day; but he founded himself upon an entirely different doctrine—on the ground of the strong objections which he entertained to a Sill of Pains and Penalties affecting the Queen, and which the Prorogation of the Session enabled the House of Lords to carry forward. This Motion for Prorogation—this grand Constitutional Motion—would have given an opportunity, in those great days when eminent authorities sat in this House—such as Mr. Wynn and others—of raising all the ennobling doctrines of the noble Lord; yet not one man uttered a single syllable upon the subject, and the Motion for an Address for Prorogation was negatived without a division. They adjourned again till the 18th of September, and then a Motion of great importance was made—namely, for the appointment of a Committee to search the Lords' Journals for references in regard to the Queen's Attainder Bill. Then a Motion was made for an Address praying for a Prorogation on the same ground, and on that occasion there was a division, 12 Gentlemen voting for the Address, though not upon the ground now brought forward by the noble Lord, but on grounds having relation to the Queen, while 66 voted against it. And then, again—I am almost overcome in the endeavour to read records so dishonouring to the country—on the 18th of September that infatuated House of Commons proceeded to do the same
  20
  scandalous thing it had done on the 21st of August—it received Petitions, and, in fact, transacted various Business which the noble Lord will find regularly recorded. It again further adjourned itself until the 17th of October. Thus the same thing was done three times over by deliberate acts without one single word of objection being raised. I grant that this is a thing which ought not to be lightly done. By all means, under all circumstances, let us adhere to the regular course of precedent and usage; but extraordinary circumstances had then arisen, which, as they thought, justified the separation which the noble Lord objects to between the Appropriation Act and the Prorogation. On the 17th of October, for the third time, did that House of Commons, in its blindness, proceed to contradict the doctrine of the noble Lord and to transact various Business, and then further adjourned until the 23rd of November. On the25th of November it was prorogued. I wish it may be prorogued again at that time, Sir. Dismissing, therefore, all the great personages introduced by the noble Lord, what I contend is this—that the practice which prevails is a good, sound, and convenient practice—namely, that of uniting in all ordinary years the Appropriation Bill and the Prorogation for the reasons I have already stated, but not for any such reason as that if the House wants to kill a Ministry which it has no means of doing otherwise it should do by this means. I think that under circumstances of a special character a departure has been distinctly recorded as a precedent for us, and completely and absolutely warrants our taking the freedom of considering what course is the most practical and the most convenient. That was the course which we invited the House of Commons to take, and the House took it without objection, and I believe the House was right in taking it. If we had begun the Session of 1883 in October, 1882, I believe we should have been adopting a proceeding much more inconvenient than the present; if we had called a special Session with a double Prorogation, I believe we should have been taking a course far more inconvenient to the House, and not only so, but it would have been far more inconsistent with precedent and usage to have called together a special Session of Parliament to consider the question of Procedure

  21
  than to ask the House to adjourn for a period, and then to proceed with the question of Procedure. I hope, Sir, I have now met the objections of the noble Lord. I believe the course we have taken will be found to have the strongest precedent in its favour, and I leave the House to judge whether, upon the whole, the course we have taken is not one perfectly consistent with the principles of the Constitution, and one recommended by strong and urgent considerations.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not intend to enter into the question that has been raised between my noble Friend and the Prime Minister as to the precise course which my noble Friend ought to have taken in consequence of the view he takes of our present situation. I should rather be disposed to assume that my noble Friend desires to put his views before the House clearly and distinctly, and, at the same time, in such a form as to cause the smallest embarrassment to the House, and that for those reasons he chose the course of moving the Adjournment of the House rather than that of raising the question on an Address for the Prorogation. However that may be, I think the House is greatly indebted to my noble Friend for having, even at this late period, called attention to the serious character of the step taken by the Government, with, as I admit, the assent of those Members of the House who were present at the time. My noble Friend speaks as one of those who were not present when this course was adopted, and many hon. Members were, no doubt, absent. The Prime Minister says that some considerable time before the Adjournment he publicly announced in a full House that it was his intention to move the Adjournment of the House, on its rising in August, for the purpose of discussing this question of Procedure in the month of October. No doubt that was so; but the point which my noble Friend, as I understand him, raises, is not whether it was right that the House should meet in October for the purpose of considering the Resolutions on Procedure, but whether it was right to get the Appropriation Act for the year disposed of and reported before that meeting; and whether the Appropriation Act, having been disposed of, ought not to have been construed as the close of the Session of 1882, and we ought not on the
  22
  present occasion to have the beginning of a new Session—that of 1882–3. There was another course which might have been adopted; the House, instead of parting with the Appropriation Act in August, might have voted the money that was necessary for present services and passed a Ways and Means Bill, and we might have still had the Appropriation Bill in our hands ready to be passed at the usual time—namely, at the Prorogation. I venture to say that either of these courses would have been more in accordance with the practice of the House—the almost invariable, practically invariable, course, founded upon experience, and pursued by the House. I do not propose to enter into a discussion of all the precedents that have been quoted. It seems to me that the precedents cited by my noble Friend were exceedingly strong, exceedingly well argued, and founded upon Constitutional practice and reasonable usage. I am bound to say, with regard to the last case mentioned by the Prime Minister, though I have not been able at this moment to get the volume which contains the proceedings of the day to which he referred, if I understand rightly what took place at the time, the House completed its own Business at the time when it passed the Appropriation Act for the year, and, though kept in nominal Session during the Queen's Trial, never took up any new Business. I am not surprised that my noble Friend interjected the observation that this case made for him, and not against him.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The House transacted Business repeatedly.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No, no; not Government Business.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not know the case fully, and I do not wish to enter into it; but I understand that, as a general rule, the House of Commons did not transact any of the ordinary Business of the Government. But here you have a very different case. You have a case in which no emergency has arisen. This is Business to which the House had addressed itself at the very beginning of the Session, with which it had made certain progress, and which the Government found itself unable to carry through at the ordinary time. What did the Prime Minister do? He proposed to put aside that Business for the pre-

  23
  sent, that we should close the usual Business of the Session with the Appropriation Act, and then that we should meet for the discussion of Procedure. The Prime Minister says that he entirely agrees with the doctrine laid down by Sir George Cornewall Lewis and with your Predecessor, Mr. Speaker Shaw Lefevre, that there should be one Appropriation Act passed for the year. Now, I want to know what is the real position that the Government and the Prime Minister take with regard to our financial arrangements at the present time? Does he mean that we are to have no Votes or Estimates with regard to the war that has just been carried on? Does he so adhere to the doctrine, that the finance of the year should all be included in one Appropriation Bill, that he is not going to give us any of the finance of the war until we come to the year 1883? If he takes that course it is a very serious thing; but if, on the other hand, be does intend, now that Parliament is sitting, and expects to be informed on this question, to produce an Estimate and ask for any Supply, he will be obliged, himself, to have two Appropriation Acts in the same Session. Let me point out that, however we may be disposed to adapt our proceedings to the convenience of the Government and the convenience of the House, we are bound to take all possible care that we do not introduce precedents which may be enlarged, and enlarged to a very dangerous extent. If you do not take care what enlargements you make, you will come to this—that it will be perfectly possible to dispense with the close of the Session altogether. You may make one Session with repeated adjournments throughout the whole of a Parliament. I do not see what there is to prevent that if we have no natural close of the Session, such as an Appropriation Bill gives us. When many of us have left town, it will be in the power of a Minister commanding a majority to adjourn for any purpose whatever, and the House may be called upon to adjourn and take up Business in the Autumn so long as it is convenient to the Ministry. The practice is one that ought to be very narrowly scrutinized and carefully watched; and I do not think that my noble Friend is to be set aside by a sort of good-humoured or contemptuous treatment on the part of the Prime Minister, which, no doubt, he
  24
  will be supported by his Party in administering to anyone on the Benches opposite. I certainly think the question which has been raised is one which the House ought seriously to consider and discuss. The authorities that have been cited are of the very highest character; and, if only out of respect to them, and to those eminent persons whose names have been mentioned, I think the matter has been very properly brought forward. But when we consider the real meaning and the real importance of the practice which has so far prevailed, we cannot regard it simply as a practice of convenience, or as one which does not form a principle. It seems to me that the course which my noble Friend has taken in moving the Adjournment of the House is one well suited to the purpose of marking the peculiarity of the occasion. Whether it would be right to follow it up by moving that an Address should be presented to Her Majesty in favour of Prorogation, or for a Committee to search for precedents, or in any other way to take steps for establishing the real rule and principle of the House for the future, is a question upon which I do not just now enter; but I hope that the matter will receive further consideration and elucidation from those who are so well able to throw light on it.
  MR. GORSTsaid, it was difficult to say what was the precise attitude the Government took up with regard to this Autumn Sitting. He would remind the House that the Prime Minister had stated that a considerable time before the end of the Sittings in August last he gave Notice that it was intended to take the course which had now been adopted. His (Mr. Gorst's) memory on that subject was not in accord with that statement. As far as he understood the Prime Minister, he had entirely changed the attitude he took up on the 15th of August last. He then understood the Prime Minister to say that there would be an Adjournment for an Autumn Sitting. He remembered that, up to the very last, the Prime Minister was in doubt whether there should be an Autumn Sitting or a Prorogation; and it was not until the 15th of August, only three days before the House adjourned, and when the majority of hon. Members had excused themselves from further Parliamentary duty, that the Prime Minister finally made up his mind

  25
  to recommend an Adjournment and not a Prorogation, and when he did so he gave as a reason that there were precedents for an Adjournment; but now, however, in answer to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), the right hon. Gentleman took up an entirely different position, for he said that the reason for the Adjournment was to enable the House to provide a remedy for the present unsatisfactory and unprecedented state of things in Parliament. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I made no such admission.] He (Mr. Gorst) asked whether they were sitting now in accordance with precedent, or in opposition to all precedent? If the House were sitting in accordance with precedent, he denied that the right hon. Gentleman had answered the objections of the noble Lord. What did the Prime Minister mean by his declaration, on the 15th of August, that Parliament would be adjourned because there were precedents for doing so? It was the invariable practice to close the Session with the passing of the Appropriation Bill. Sir Erskine May laid it down that it was the practice and duty of the Speaker to retain the Appropriation Bill in his possession until he had been summoned to attend the House of Lords to hear Parliament prorogued; and he should like to ask whether the Government passed by that Constitutional usage on the 15th of August, and whether it was by their direction that the Appropriation Bill was taken up to the House of Lords? Because, if so, it was quite clear that the Government had themselves caused a violation of the Constitutional practice without giving any Notice to or receiving any order from the House. The circumstances of the year 1820 had been quoted by the Prime Minister; but was Parliament to be asked to hold an Autumn Sitting in accordance with the precedent in the case of Queen Caroline in 1820? He (Mr. Gorst) denied, in the first place, that that was a precedent, for there was then a continuous Sitting until the Appropriation Bill was passed; whereas, in the present case, there had been an Adjournment for two months. On looking over the records of the House of Commons in the case of Queen Caroline, he found that during that Sitting no Business whatever was transacted, with one exception—namely, that,
  26
  on one occasion, Mr. Hume insisted on bringing before the House the case of a Mr. Franklin, who had been imprisoned for sedition; but the Government of the day never, in fact, ventured to ask or invite the House of Commons to transact any Business during that Sitting. No one he (Mr. Gorst) was sure, saw the distinction between the two cases more clearly than the Prime Minister himself. It was true that in 1820 the House of Commons continued to sit formally, because the trial of Queen Caroline in the House of Lords was then proceeding, a Bill of Pains and Penalties was passing through the House of Lords, and the House of Commons was kept together that it might pass it, if it came down from the Lords. The Bill was, however, carried by so small a majority of that House that it was ultimately abandoned by the Government; but though the House of Commons was sitting, with three adjournments, from month to month, the Government never dared to ask it to transact any Business. It showed what regard the right hon. Gentleman must have for the fidelity and intelligence of his followers, that the only precedent he could give for the present Adjournment of the House was this one, which, in point of fact, was really no precedent at all. In 1820 they were under a Tory Government and an unreformed House of Commons. In 1832 the reformed House of Commons was brought into existence, and from that date to the present—50 years of a reformed House of Commons, 50 years of a Constitutional Government—no example could be found of the House of Commons having sat for the transaction of Business in such a case as the present. But now, for the first time in 50 years, and for the first time in the history of the reformed House of Commons, the Prime Minister, without giving the House Notice or warning that it was acting without precedent, invited the House to act contrary to all precedent, except that of the case of Queen Caroline in 1820! The right hon. Gentleman had taunted his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) with not moving an Address for Prorogation; but he knew full well that a Motion for Adjournment was the only Motion that could be brought forward before the Motion of which the right hon. Gentleman had given Notice, the discussion of

  27
  which would occupy the whole time of the House. Would the right hon. Gentleman afford an opportunity for a discussion upon an Address to Her Majesty praying for the Prorogation of Parliament? If an opportunity were given to any Member of the House to introduce a Motion of that character, he (Mr. Gorst) felt sure that the noble Lord would withdraw his present Motion and substitute one for Prorogation, so as to allow the Constitutional question being brought forward in a proper manner. The act of the Government in thus assembling Parliament was an act contrary to all Constitutional authority and usage, of which the Prime Minister could adduce no precedent except the evil precedent of the case of Queen Caroline.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gorst) had dealt with the precedent of 1820, which was the great argument in favour of the noble Lord's (Lord Randolph Churchill's) Motion, but which the noble Lord had unfortunately omitted altogether to introduce, was a singular one. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the invariable Constitutional rule was that, after the passing of the Appropriation Act, the House could transact no Business. Then he had gone on to say that the precedent of 1820 was no argument against that, because the House, in fact, transacted no Business, and never contemplated transacting any Government Business, after the passing of the Act in that year. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the House was adjourned three times, for a month each time. But for what purpose did the House adjourn? Why, for the purpose of transacting what he (Sir William Harcourt) ventured to say was the most tremendous Business that a Government ever brought under the consideration of the Crown—a Bill of Pains and Penalties against the Queen Consort. The noble Lord had lost his opportunity of explaining that great precedent, because he had deliberately omitted it from his speech. The fact was that the Adjournments of that Parliament, in August, September, and October, were made in order that the House might receive from the House of Lords a Bill inflicting Pains and Penalties upon the Queen Consort, brought
  28
  forward by the Ministers of the Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in fact, had said that it was impossible to transact Government Business after the passing of the Appropriation Act; but had not amended the case of the noble Lord, because he showed that the House of Commons had actually transacted Business after the passing of the Appropriation Act. The matter, however, stood, as a general rule, that the Government entirely admitted that it was right and proper that the Appropriation Act and the Prorogation should go together; they did not dispute it for a moment, and admitted that that rule ought not to be departed from, except in very grave and serious circumstances. So far the Government and the Opposition were agreed. In 1820 the rule was departed from, because the Government deemed the impeachment of the Queen a circumstance justifying Parliament in going on by successive Adjournments after the Prorogation, in order to consider what the House of Lords might do with that Bill. If that Bill had come down from the House of Lords, and had not been abandoned by the Government, it would have been taken into consideration by the House of Commons. He forgot whether Brougham was then sitting in the House of Commons. ["Yes!"] He was under the impression that he was not—that he had lost his seat. But what were the friends of Queen Caroline doing in the House of Commons, if such an objection was capable of being supported? They knew perfectly well that there was no foundation for the Constitutional doctrine of the noble Lord, and therefore that doctrine was not advanced. The course taken now was not at variance with Constitutional usage, and the only question was whether the Government were right or wrong in thinking that the present was such a case as justified a departure from the usual rule. What his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had meant by saying that the circumstances were unprecedented was, that the circumstances were of such a character as to justify an exceptional procedure. He (Sir William Harcourt) remembered that hon. Gentlemen opposite were far from adopting the course recommended by the noble Lord, which they might have done if they had thought fit. He forgot whether it was the Leader of

  29
  the Opposition or his (Sir William Harcourt's) Predecessor at the Home Office—but it was some right hon. Gentleman opposite—who had asked him to give a distinct pledge on behalf of the Government that no other Business than that of Procedure should be taken; and he gave that pledge. Could anything be more inconsistent than that with the argument of the noble Lord? The Government then said that they could not control the action of private Members, but that, so far as they were concerned, no other Business should be taken. If the great Constitutional doctrine of the noble Lord was well-founded, why did not hon. Gentlemen opposite bring it forward? The Appropriation Act was in their own hands; they might have raised that doctrine on the third reading. On the third reading it was perfectly well known that the House was going to be adjourned. If hon. Gentlemen accepted the doctrine of the noble Lord, or had even learnt it for the first time from his lips, why was it not advanced? They knew that there was going to be a war in Egypt, and that there would be expenditure in consequence. So far from adopting that doctrine, the Opposition entirely agreed to the course taken by the Government, and even asked for a pledge from the Government that no other Business should be taken. How had the Government ill-treated the House in that matter? There never was a case in which the Government more desired to take the House into its confidence, in which more complete notice was given of an intended step, or in which there was more absolute and entire assent on both sides of the House. Both the contention and the Motion of the noble Lord came altogether too late in the day; and he hoped the House would not spend any more time in discussing the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. He (Sir William Harcourt) had really risen, however, for the purpose of saying that the Government did not desire to be understood as setting aside this Rule of the Prorogation and the Appropriation Bill going together. They attached very high importance to it; and it was only because they, and, he believed, the rest of the House, considered that there were circumstances in reference to the Business of the House which composed an exceptional case, that the Government
  30
  proposed to deal with it in an exceptional way, the object desired being, in the future, to save public time and to get through Public Business. It was perfectly idle for the noble Lord to impute to the Government a desire to evade a challenge of its policy. The noble Lord had said that no opportunity would be given of moving a Vote of Want of Confidence. It was open to the noble Lord to propose, if he chose, a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government, who were prepared to meet any number of them. He (Sir William Harcourt) hoped the noble Lord might live long enough to move as many Votes of Want of Confidence as he wished. The more he did that, the better would the Government be pleased. They would not succeed. Even if the Angel Gabriel sat on the Treasury Bench, he believed the noble Lord would move a Vote of Want of Confidence in him. The House and the country knew perfectly well the object of the meeting of Parliament at that time—it was to enable the House of Commons to do the Business of the people better than it had hitherto been done. It was to clear the way in order that more effectual Business might be done next year than had been done hitherto. That was a considerable object, upon which it was worth while to expend the time of the present Session. For that reason it was that the Government had proposed to assemble the House, and for that reason the House adopted the course so proposed.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he did not think the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) would commend itself to the judgment of the House. Because the House had made the mistake of passing the Appropriation Act in August, previous to the Adjournment, there was no reason why they should consecrate that mistake and set a Constitutional precedent subversive of the rights of the people. Such a usage would never meet with the approval of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson) had himself, in 1854, when he was Chairman of Committees, declared that the Appropriation Bill was the last Act of the Session. Hon. Gentlemen would find, according to Sir Erskine May, that the granting of money was the most important duty

  31
  of the House of Commons, and that, consequently, the Appropriation Bill was the proper termination of the Business of the House of Commons. He thought that some attention at least ought to be paid to the opinion of that distinguished gentleman, whose textbook was laid on the Table of the House. He said in that book—
  "The ancient Constitutional doctrine as to the redress of grievances before granting Supplies is now represented in practice by every description of Amendment on the Question that the Speaker do leave the Chair."
  The Crown opened Parliament by recognizing the rights of the Commons to give Supply; and by ancient usage, as laid down by Sir Erskine May, the Speaker took up the Appropriation Act to the House of Lords at the end of the Session, if the Sovereign were there, and addressed him, narrating what had been done in the Session. At that time, he delivered over the Act of Appropriation to what was called by Lord Macaulay a Committee of both Houses, which acted for them during the Vacation. He would merely add one extract from a speech of Lord Palmerston in 1858, when a Conservative Dissolution was threatened. He said—
  "Then it is said they may dissolve. I have no greater faith in their dissolving than I have in their resignation, and I am of that opinion because a Dissolution implies more than the will of the Government. The concurrence of the House is necessary to its own dissolution. They must pass the Appropriation Act and other similar Acts before they can take that step."
  Neither the Prime Minister nor the Secretary of State for the Home Department had brought forward the precedents of which they had spoken. The former right hon. Gentleman had certainly referred to the precedent of 1820, which they on that (the Opposition) side of the House said was none at all, inasmuch as since the Reform Bill the Constitution had taken a new departure. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the doctrine of Mr. Shaw Lefevre in 1841; but he had not alluded to the remarks of Sir George Lewis nor of Lord Palmerston in 1859, nor to the Exchequer Amendment Bill of 1866, nor to Sir Erskine May's evidence in 1878. Although the Egyptian Question was a very prominent one and we had an Army of Occupation in that country, still they had no means of discussing it, because there were no days down for Supply,
  32
  and the Government was supposed to be hatching a policy, while they had no means of finding out what it was. The Government were, in fact, establishing a new precedent, which would deprive the Representatives of the people of the right which they had always enjoyed of not allowing Supply to be given until the grievances were redressed.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 209: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 341.)

NOTICE OF MOTION.

  EGYPTIAN EXPEDITION—VOTE OF THANKS TO HER MAJESTY'S NAVAL AND MILITARY FORCES.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg to give Notice that, on Thursday next, I shall move a Vote of Thanks to the Commanders, officers, and men of Her Majesty's Forces in Egypt.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to give Notice that, on the Motion of the Prime Minister being made, I shall move the Previous Question.

QUESTIONS.

  ARMY—THE GRENADIER GUARDS— CASE OF LIEUTENANT FARRER.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Lieutenant Farrer, of the Grenadier Guards, did, on the 25th day of July last, send a letter to his battalion commanding officer, with a request that it should be forwarded to the Secretary of State for War, and praying that he might be allowed to withdraw his resignation, or that his application to retire might not be acted upon for thirty days, in order to carry through proceedings for the annulment of his bankruptcy, which took place during his leave of absence abroad, and that no notice of the fact had been given to him; whether in that letter he set forth that his bankruptcy was entirely due to the fact that his rents on his Irish property were some years in arrear; whether this letter was approved of, and forwarded to the officer commanding the regiment by his battalion commanding officer; whether, at a subsequent date, on 1st August, he

  33
  wrote a letter to his battalion commanding officer, and enclosed two documents (a statement of how the bankruptcy occurred, and a petition to be allowed to remain in the Army, on the ground that his bankruptcy did not arise from any fault of his own, and for leave to exchange into another regiment); whether his battalion commanding officer forwarded these documents to the officer commanding the regiment; whether the commanding officer of the regiment refused to forward these documents to the Commander in Chief and Secretary of State for War; whether it is the duty of any commanding officer to forward any petitions to the authorities from his subordinate officers; and, whether, under the circumstances, his case may be brought under reconsideration, and, as a sufficient opportunity has not been given him to clear himself with the Secretary of State for War, that his claim for reinstatement may be considered?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the answer to the first five paragraphs of the Question of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. The answer to the sixth is, that the commanding officer of the regiment reported the receipt of the documents to the proper authority, and was informed that the resignation had been accepted and was being acted upon. The answer to the seventh is, that it would depend on the circumstances of the case whether a letter should or should not be forwarded. The facts of the case are perfectly clear. Lieutenant Farrer resigned his commission in May last after his bankruptcy; but, in order that his resignation might not be connected with another matter in which he was concerned, he requested that it might not be gazetted for three months. The course proposed was acceded to; the resignation was definitely accepted, and the gazette postponed accordingly; but a few days before the expiration of the three months he asked to withdraw it, and this was refused. I see no reason for my intervention.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE PROCEDURE RESOLUTIONS—AMENDMENTS TO 1ST RESOLUTION.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he rose to ask the Prime Minister a Question in reference to the Procedure Resolutions.
  34
  If in Order, he would like to know, whether there were any of the Amendments to the 1st Resolution now standing upon the Paper which the Government were disposed to accept?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it will be my duty, I hope, presently, to make the Motion of which I have given Notice, with regard to the Procedure of this House; and, when I make that Motion, I will take the opportunity, as being a most convenient one, of stating what course the Government intend to adopt with regard to one or two points which were left open when the matter was last under discussion.

MOTIONS.
  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE (MR. EDMOND DWYER GRAY, M. P.)

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. GLADSTONE: It will, Sir, be in the recollection of the House that Mr. Edmond Dwyer Gray, a Member of this House, was put into confinement for an offence which is termed contempt of Court, in the month of August last, and that his committal to prison was signified to the House in the regular manner through the Speaker by a letter from Mr. Justice Lawson. The discussion of the matter arising out of that communication was approached before the Adjournment under very peculiar circumstances. It was felt that it was not an occasion on which the judgment of the House should be asked—in fact, to have done so would have been quite contrary to usage—on the merits of this particular case of committal for contempt of Court, or with regard to the Law of Committal for Contempt at large; but it was said that we ought to have proceeded to appoint a Committee for the purpose of ascertaining whether the proceedings which had been taken in this case were within the established and customary limits, and were within the terms of the Motion brought forward on a former occasion with regard to the case of Mr. Whalley—"Whether any of the matters referred to therein demanded the further attention of the House." It will be called to mind that, at the time referred to, in August last, it was stated, on the part of the Government, that they proposed to deviate from the ordinary course

    35
    of proceeding, on the simple and practical ground that if that course were pursued it could not at that period be made effective. A Committee appointed on a question of this kind ought to be a Committee composed, by the best choice that can be made, of those Members who are of great experience and weight, or who are designated by peculiar circumstances as the fittest to undertake an examination of that sort—not an examination of great labour, or of a complicated nature but an examination requiring great accuracy and knowledge of such subjects, and capacity to deal with them; and the fact was that, at that time the dispersion of the House had reached such a point that the Members present in London did not enable us to constitute such a Committee, and it was perfectly hopeless to think of recalling them at short notice for the purpose of proposing it. Well, Sir, I suppose that these considerations weighed with the House. We urged that the re-assembling of the House would be the proper time for considering the matter, and we also pointed out that the investigation of the Committee could have no effect upon the validity, the legal validity, of Mr. Justice Lawson's proceeding, and, therefore, no effect upon the personal liberty of the Member who had been committed. I suppose, Sir, that the House, upon the whole, took that practical view of the matter, and introduced what certainly was, in point of form, an innovation, in accordingly postponing the appointment of the Committee, simply in order that if a Committee were to be appointed at all it might be effective. The House has now met, and this question is, of course, a subject which it is right to deal with. A Member making such a Motion is entitled to deal with it as a question of Privilege, and one which never would be understood to be included within the general declaration of the Government with regard to the subjects of Business to be treated of at these Autumn Sittings of the House. I think it is plain, Sir, when the House has now assembled in large numbers, that we have the means of constituting an efficient Committee. I am glad to know, I believe, by the personal presence of the Gentleman himself in the House, and otherwise from authentic information, that the period of his confinement has been brought to a close, and there
    36
    is no longer any question, therefore, of his own personal liberty; but it remains just as much a matter of propriety as it was before for the House to make an investigation similar to those which it has instituted on former occasions, in order to ascertain that there has been no excess of power, and that the limits of custom and legality have been observed. As far as the formal matter of the committal for contempt is concerned, I do not think, Sir, it is necessary for me to refer to particular precedents at this moment. They can easily be produced should it be the desire of the House to hear them; but it was so completely admitted in August that precedents pointed to the appointment of such a Committee, that I think, in the absence of any question, I may venture to take the matter for granted. I may venture, also, to state my opinion that it would be an impropriety on my part, and that it would be an error, were we to go beyond these confined limits of debate, which have uniformly, I believe, been maintained on similar occasions—that is to say, were we to deal with the question of the Law of Contempt, which is a question of great general interest; and in regard to which, perhaps, I need not too much disparage what I have just said, if I venture to intimate to the House that it is a subject which has been brought much of late into the popular view both on this side and on the other side of the Channel, and that the Government have it in contemplation, not during the present short Sittings, but at the regular commencement of next Session—they have it in contemplation—they hope at a very early period—to submit a measure dealing with the altering the present law. That being so, Sir, I have only to notice a fact which appertains to the regularity and formality of Procedure in this instance. I am given to understand that the Speaker in the Chair has not yet received a formal communication from Mr. Justice Lawson, announcing the release of Mr. Gray; but, although I cannot, therefore, refer to any such communication in the Motion I am about to make, the absence of it does not in the slightest degree affect the propriety of the Motion, because the Motion is to deal not with the release, but with the committal. I think, therefore, I need do no more at the present moment than

    37
    read to the House the Motion I am about to make, and place it in your hands. I propose, Sir—
    "That the Letter of the 16th August 1882, from the Right Hon. Mr. Justice Lawson to Mr. Speaker, informing the House of the commitment of Mr. Edmond Dwyer Gray, a Member of this House, for contempt of Court, be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of considering and reporting whether any of the matters referred to therein demand the further attention of the House."
    I ought to say, before sitting down, that I believe I am acting upon established usage in making the present Motion, without waiting to give Notice of Motion, making it at the first moment when it could be made. But I may point out to hon. Members that the making of the Motion does not immediately bring about the sitting of the Committee—that a selection of names must be made to constitute the Committee, and Notice must be given of those names—there will necessarily be a delay of some days, or probably not more than one day, before the Committee can be actually appointed. Such was the case on the last occasion when a Committee was appointed with reference to the case of Mr. Whalley, and such is the case now. I do not intend to propose, together with the Motion I now move, any list of names of Members to compose the Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Letter of the 16th August 1882, from the Eight Hon. Mr. Justice Lawson to Mr. Speaker, informing the House of the commitment of Mr. Edmond Dwyer Gray, a Member of this House, for contempt of Court, be referred to a Select Committee for the purpose of considering and reporting whether any of the matters referred to therein demand the further attention of the House."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. PARNELL: I have heard, Sir, with great satisfaction from the Prime Minister that the Government proposes, at some future time, to lay propositions with regard to the Law of Contempt before the notice of Parliament; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of that intention which he has just expressed, it would not be desirable to enlarge the scope of the Reference to the Committee, with the view of investigating the general question? While I make the suggestion, I am not at all sure that the terms of the Motion, of which the right hon. Gentleman has just given Notice, do not per-
    38
    mit an inquiry by the Committee into the general question of policy apart altogether from the immediate case of the arrest itself; but if the attention of Parliament is to be directed to the matter, it appears to me that the labours of the Committee would be, to a great extent, of a formal character and thrown away if the general question were not to be inquired into. We all admit Mr. Justice Lawson acted within his powers in ordering my hon. Friend (Mr. Gray) into custody, and in releasing him from that custody. We admit that he acted according to the letter of the law as it at present stands; and what we desire to put before the House and the country at large is that it is important to have it declared on the authority of such a Committee as the one now proposed, that this law, giving such a power to a Judge—the power, practically, of sentencing a man to perpetual imprisonment without appeal—is of such an anomalous character that it requires alteration. My hon. Friend has no desire to seek redress regarding the injury which he considers has been done to himself personally; but he is desirous that what he has gone through may serve as a basis for attracting public attention to the very anomalous state of the law as it stands at present, and therefore I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be desirable to make the matter perfectly clear? Has the Committee, under the terms of his Resolution, power to go into the general question; and if it has not that power, is it not desirable that it should be given? Otherwise I fear that the deliberations of the Gentlemen composing the Committee, who are, according to the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, to be Gentlemen of experience and weight in the House, will be thrown away, and will be so much loss of time; if, on the other hand, the Committee, by the terms of the Reference, have the power, would it not be desirable expressly to say so in order that no doubt should arise afterwards?
    MR. LEWIS: Sir, when this matter was before the House on a former occasion, I took leave to say, on the general question of the power of commitment for contempt of Court, that I thought the experience of the last 25 years on the subject was of that character that it undoubtedly required Governmental Parliamentary interference. The sort

    39
    of contempt which has sometimes been committed is a contempt which the Judges have brought upon their Courts themselves. In point of fact, the power of committing for contempt has sometimes been exercised by Judges in a very remarkable way. We have heard of Judges who put it into force because there was not a sufficient number of javelin men to escort them through the town. There are other cases also in which the Judges have forgotten both themselves and the Courts in which they sat. The case we have now under consideration is one in which the party has been committed for contempt outside of the Court; and, whatever may be the merits of that case, the power held by Judges to sentence persons to imprisonment and the payment of heavy fines, without the power of appeal in any way, in whatever way it may be exercised, is a power which must ever be thoroughly obnoxious to our views of freedom and justice in this 19th century. I do not very often agree with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Parnell); but I confess that, inasmuch as we have been drawn away from our pleasures and occupations at this time of the year, we may as well utilize ourselves and endeavour to employ the time of the House and of the Committee for the purpose indicated, not only in the speech we have just heard, but in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Bill or measure, which has just been suggested by the Prime Minister as likely to be introduced next year, will not be impaired at all by the consideration of what might be the amendments or improvements made in this law by a Committee of Gentlemen of high authority in the House. It is a matter of the gravest possible character. We know that the Judges will endeavour to hold tenaciously the power they now possess; and we know that they look with considerable dissatisfaction upon any infringement on the rights and jurisdictions which they have so promptly and freely exercised hitherto. But I think the House will find that it will be a very good preliminary for legislation on this subject that the Committee should have under their consideration, even for two or three sittings, the very grave public questions which are involved in this matter. The case is enlarged in interest, and the general question is in-
    40
    tensified in importance, by the particular circumstances with which this Motion deals. I, for one, ventured to say on a former occasion that I thought Mr. Justice Lawson was right in the punishment with which he visited the offence in this case; but it is the peremptory way in which the punishment was administered that causes public dissatisfaction and brings discredit on our Courts of Justice. What is the case? It is the case of a Member of this House, who has been Lord Mayor of the City of Dublin, and who is at this time High Sheriff of that City, who, according to the view of the case generally entertained, did undoubtedly commit himself in a very grave and remarkable way. But what was the punishment accorded to him? It was three-fold—he was fined, imprisoned, and held to bail, under circumstances which might have resulted in a very long term of imprisonment. How was it administered? Was it administered with anything like deliberate notice? Notice was given the night before for next morning. Was that the sort of notice upon which any Member of this House should be dealt with by a Judge, however experienced and able? What was the extent of the punishment? Why, it was of the most severe character. Not too severe, however, if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) will allow me to say so, for the offence he committed; but the greater the offence, the greater the necessity that that offence should be deliberately considered, and all the circumstances duly weighed, in order that justice should be respected throughout the land. It is impossible that this power should be continued to be exercised in our Courts of Justice in the way it has been exercised in this case, with any hope of retaining respect for the administration of the law. This offence was committed, I admit, under circumstances of great aggravation; but the punishment was administered in the worst possible way. It is one thing to commit a person caught flagrante delicto, for contempt committed in the presence of the Judge; but this is a case in which the offence was committed out of Court. The trial was actually over, the jurisdiction of the Judge, ad rem, was actually finished; and it was then the Judge took upon himself to exercise this power only upon a few hours' notice, depriving a distinguished

    41
    person of his liberty, of his property, to the extent of £500, and possibly of his future liberty. It seems to me that this is a very grave case, and I am happy to know that there is a prospect of the occurrence of such a case again being prevented by legislation. The great Sidney Smith said that you never could get a railway properly managed until two or three railway directors were killed. So, in the same way, we would never have this matter taken up by Parliament, but for the fact that a distinguished Member of this House, who has been Lord Mayor of the City of Dublin, and who is now its High Sheriff, is taken by the collar, on a few hours' notice, and turned into prison, a part of his property stripped from him, and a heavy punishment threatened if he does not give bail. If, therefore, anything is to be done, it appears to me that it would be most desirable to refer the whole question to the Committee. We know that it will have nothing to do under the terms of the Motion of the Prime Minister. Why should it not, however, have something real to do, if it is to take in hand this grave public matter? What should be the restrictions which should be placed on Judges? What are Judges? Who are Judges? The answer might be made, and, no doubt, truly, that they are gentlemen clothed in ermine. Many of them have been appointed—and in Ireland it is said they are always appointed—for political reasons. I will not express any opinion on that. I am afraid that the record, if inspected, would be too serious to look upon. I am afraid we should find that there is hardly a Judge on the Irish Bench who has not ascended the Bench through the greasy ladder of politics. In Ireland undoubtedly it is so; in England, also, it is often unfortunately the case, though, no doubt, Lord Chancellors of late years have broken through this most pernicious custom of making political appointments which we know must affect the administration of justice. Do Judges make no mistakes? Have they no tempers like other men? Have they no prejudices like other men? Have they no bias like other men? In other words, is it to be supposed that the process of swearing in a Judge turns a black-hearted man into the most fair-minded, dispels all his bias and prejudice, and perhaps transforms him into an angel of light? Why, Sir,
    42
    we have had some wonderful stories of the manner in which Judges have shown their feelings, in which those learned gentlemen do not appear to the greatest advantage; and I think it is high time now that such a change should be brought about as will remove one of the greatest scandals connected with the administration of justice. If the Motion of the Prime Minister is not changed, I certainly shall vote for an enlargement of its terms, so that the Committee should take into consideration what are the restrictions which should in future be placed upon this power of committing for contempt of Court, and to what extent it should be intrusted to Her Majesty's Judges.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, if I understand the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), which has been supported by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), who has just addressed the House, it is that the Resolution of my right hon. Friend should be altered in its terms, with a view to extending the inquiry of the Committee to the general law, instead of confining it to the subject of the committal of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray). I must at once remind the House that this is a question of Privilege, affecting one of our own Members. If it was other than a question of Privilege it could not be brought on as it has been at this particular time, for not only would it be against the Rules of the House of Commons to bring it forward, but it would not have been in accordance with the pledge given by the Prime Minister before Parliament separated two months ago. The House will recollect that the question of Privilege is only raised when it affects the law as applied to Members of the House. If, therefore, the Motion was applied to the Law of Contempt with reference to the subject in general, it would at once place the Motion outside the area of this Privilege. I apprehend, therefore, that it would not be in accordance with the Rules of the House to extend this Motion, which has reference to a question of Privilege only, to the consideration of what the general Law of Contempt is, for that subject is not before us. If the measure that has been referred to by my right hon. Friend should be found to be insufficient, then

    43
    a Motion could be made for the inquiry as to whether that measure be, or be not, sufficient to meet the requirements of the subject. But to mix up these two matters, one of which is a question affecting the Privilege of a Member of this House, and the other the question of the general Law of Contempt, would, in my opinion, not only be out of Order, but would be an unwise course to take, especially after the announcement which has been made by the Prime Minister.
    MR. SEXTON: Sir, we heard with satisfaction the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, because we attached to the terms of the Motion which he submitted a far wider meaning than we are now permitted to attach to them after hearing the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General). When I heard the Prime Minister say that the Select Committee shall be entitled to inquire into all the matters referred to in the letter of Mr. Justice Lawson, I imagined that the chief function of the Committee would be to inquire into the general Law of Contempt. One of the matters referred to by Mr. Justice Law-son is the committal by that Judge of a Gentleman brought before him for contempt of Court; and I understood from the Prime Minister that, among all the matters referred to in that letter to be dealt with by the Committee, the general Law of Contempt would be one. But now the hon. and learned Attorney General raises a point far more ingenious than practical when he says that, because the matter comes before this House in the shape of a Motion concerning Privilege, it cannot go beyond the question of Privilege. We have heard from the Prime Minister that the Government mean, at an early date, to introduce a measure dealing with the general Law of Contempt of Court. Am I not entitled to ask, then, in view of that intention, why should not the Committee to be appointed be enabled to gather evidence which may place this House in a position to say, when the Government measure is produced, whether or not it ought to pass? I consider the hon. and learned Gentleman's view of the case an exceedingly narrow one; and it seems to me an extraordinary thing that, because the question immediately before the House concerns a Member of the House, therefore the
    44
    action of the Committee should be limited to the consideration of the personal case. I say deliberately that if the Committee to be appointed only inquire into the regularity and legality of Mr. Justice Lawson's proceedings, it may as well not be appointed at all—nay, better not, because it will be an empty formality, and can result in nothing. We all know perfectly well that the warrant of committal was regularly made out, and that there is no Statute Law governing the privileges of Judges in this matter. It is a mere matter of custom, limited by the discretion of the Judge who is acting; and the discretion of the Judge simply means his indiscretion; and if the Committee only inquire whether the Judge acted regularly and legally, and according to custom, it is a foregone conclusion what their finding will be. We all know that the Committee will report that Mr. Justice Lawson acted legally and regularly, and according to custom; and that they had no fault to find with his view. I object to the elaborate farce of appointing a Select Committee on the subject merely for the purpose of telling us that. We know already that if the Committee be limited to this view it will exonerate Mr. Justice Lawson. What we wish to know is, whether the Committee will be allowed to deal with the burning question which is agitating the public mind in Ireland, a question upon which hundreds of Petitions have been received by Irish Members, and which we are precluded by the Rules of the House from presenting? No episode in recent Irish public life has created such excitement and apprehension as the arbitrary conduct of Mr. Justice Lawson in this case; and if the Government intend, at an early date, to introduce to the House of Commons a measure dealing with the general Law of Contempt of Court, we are entitled to claim that the Committee to be appointed should not be limited to the personal question of the imprisonment of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), but that, in the spirit of common sense, the Committee should be empowered to collect evidence which may enable the House to review the whole question, and say whether this arbitrary power should continue to be exercised by the Judges of the land.
    MR. PLUNKET: Sir, I do not intend to say a word now upon the general

    45
    question as to whether the law ought to be altered on the subject of committals for contempt of Court, because a time will come for discussing it when the Government propose their measure. I only wish to say that, while reserving my opinion on that subject, I cannot be here without entering a short protest against the observations of the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Sexton). I think it would be a great misfortune in the interests of the public, as well as of the Judges, who have been intrusted with such great responsibility lately under the Act passed for the repression of crime in Ireland, and who have been, and will be, exposed to such great danger in the discharge of their duties—I say I think it would be a great misfortune if any idea should go abroad from anything said here that there was a general impression in the country, or in this House, that grave or serious charges could be brought against the learned Judge (Mr. Justice Lawson) in the course he has pursued. I merely wish to express my own belief in an opposite direction to the hon. Member who has just spoken. I hold that Mr. Justice Lawson, who has been referred to, acted in the strictest discharge not only of his legal right, but of his duty, under most difficult circumstances. When the matter was last debated in this House, I ventured very briefly to express my view on the subject, and said that if the matter was again brought up I should be prepared—and I am now prepared—to maintain the views I then held; but I do not think it would be his wish, or for the interest of the House, that I should enter on the subject now. I therefore simply enter my protest against the idea that there is any imputation conveyed on the conduct of the learned Judge by anything that has happened in this House to-day. If the question is raised in a formal way I shall be prepared to maintain and vindicate the action of the Judge on that occasion.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Motion which I am now about to make has been in the possession of the House during the whole period since we last assem-
  46
  bled; and I think that when the plan of the Government was generally glanced at in connection with the question whether it would be best to proceed by Prorogation or by Adjournment, it was felt that if we were to have a meeting in the Autumn at all, that meeting ought, generally speaking and apart from exceptions which might be absolutely necessary and altogether of a peculiar character, to be devoted to the purpose of Procedure alone. The position of the House would be perfectly intolerable if they were to be asked now, at the close of October, to enter upon a general renewal of the Session with the chance of giving two days a-week—the portion of time at the command of the Government—to Procedure, and of debating all other subjects on the other three days of the week. The House, I think, will not expect me to enter on a general argument in support of that proposition. We shall support it if it is contested; but I think it is not too much to say that the House has gathered together to-day with the full understanding and the full intention that this Autumn Session shall be devoted to the consideration of the subject of Procedure, to the exclusion of general Business. That being so, I do not know that it is necessary for me to say more than to remind the House, in the first instance, of the general position in which the Government stand in regard to this subject, and then to state how we propose to proceed on one or two points that were left open at the time when we were last in Session. A complaint has been made that Government Business was going to be proceeded with in the House, and it is quite true that this Business has come to be Government Business. But I think it is not too much to say that it has not come to be Government Business by the arbitrary will and pleasure of the Government, but by the absolute and clear necessity of the case, and with the view simply to the advantage of the House in the discharge of its duties. If even now it were possible for the House to adjust a machinery by which the whole subject and responsibility of Procedure should be taken from the shoulders of the Government and resumed by the House itself, such a proceeding would be in the highest degree advantageous to the Government, and, as far as one at least of the Government is concerned, it

  47
  would be profoundly acceptable to him who now acts on the part of the Government. But it was generally admitted last year that the efforts of the House to adjust this matter by a conference of Members themselves in a long series of Committees had been futile and ineffectual, and that it remained to be considered whether, by putting into operation that degree of influence which the House is always inclined for the public interest to accord to the Government of the day, it might be possible to put the question into a channel which would be more likely to lead to a successful issue. That is the way in which this has come to be the Business of the Government; but although it is the Business of the Government in this sense, that it is their duty to prosecute it with all their power, it was originally the Business of the House; and it is the House itself, for its own honour and on its own responsibility in the face of the nation, which must finally decide this matter. We shall press our propositions, and, having done what we can to bring them into the best form, we shall press them by every argument we can use upon the House. But we recognize that the authority of the House, and that the responsibility, the honour, and the character of the House are the things which are principally involved in this matter, even more than the responsibility or the honour and character of the Government. That being the position in which we stand in regard to this subject, and with the intention to devote ourselves, to the best of our ability, towards prosecuting it, I will refer now to one or two matters which fall within the scope of the Question put to me a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen). The House is engaged in the discussion of the 1st Resolution, and to that 1st Re-solution in its main proposition we undoubtedly intend to adhere. That was the declaration with which we bade farewell to the subject in the last Sitting, and it is the declaration which I repeat, without dwelling on it any further at the present moment, as the ground of our proceedings. I mention it now simply to give information, and not to recommend this or that mode of proceeding. But there may arise some points of the Resolution as to which we may reserve our liberty. We have con-
  48
  sidered the whole matter with, care; we do not see how it can be improved; and to its main propositions we undoubtedly intend to adhere. With regard to the 2nd Resolution, it is a question of importance, and, in one sense, of delicacy. The Resolution runs thus—
  "That no Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall he made, except by leave of the House, before the Orders of the Day, or Notices of Motions have been entered upon."
  And, speaking generally, I think it is admitted that this is not merely a question of the removal of an evil, but I should not use language too strong for the occasion if I said it was the abatement of a nuisance. However, it is to be borne in mind that there may be particular occasions when such a Motion for Adjournment, in general so unacceptable, would be reasonable and proper; and though it may fairly be said that it is not wise to leave it to every single Member of the House in the exercise of his own discretion, yet it would not be wise to exclude the consideration of those occasions. What, therefore, we are disposed to admit is this—that it may be right on certain occasions to provide a machinery which shall have the effect of referring it to the judgment of the House whether there shall be an Adjournment or not. But we think that it ought to be subject to these several conditions:—It ought not to be done until the Questions have been brought to a close; it ought not to be done excepting upon the desire of an adequate number of Members; it ought not to rest with every Member to give the House the trouble of a division on such a subject. And I am inclined to hope that if the words which we shall propose are found to be adequate to give effect to the ideas that I have just expressed, the matter of this Resolution may be rather readily disposed of. I would just read the words as we intend to propose them in lieu of the words which have until to-day stood on the Notice Paper. Our No. 2 Rule would run thus—
  "That no Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall be made before the Orders of the Day, or Notices of Motions have been entered upon, except by leave of the House."
  That substantially agrees with the Resolution as it stands at present. Then I go on with these words—

  49
  "The granting of such leave, if disputed, being determined upon Question put forthwith; but no decision shall be taken thereupon unless demanded by forty Members rising in their places, nor until after the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of."
  One thing I ought to have mentioned at the outset, and that is an Amendment which we propose to introduce into the 1st Resolution. It is substantially the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey); but we make an alteration in the terms of that Amendment, the reasons for which I will explain in a moment. The hon. Member proposes to leave out, in line 2, the words "to be," and to insert "until the subject has been fully discussed." It is meant to lay down the principle, to which we entirely accede, that the power given by the Resolution shall never be put into operation till after adequate discussion; but we propose to alter the word "fully" to the word "adequately." Our reason is that a Motion may be made which contains extremely important matter, but which is totally irrelevant to the subject before the House, and ought, therefore, to be put aside without "full" discussion. I remember a case which confirms us in this view. It was in the days of Mr. Feilden, the Member for Oldham. Mr. Feilden, I recollect, had benevolent but somewhat obstinate sentiments with respect to the Poor Laws, and he once made a Motion on that subject, and introduced most important matter; but he made it on a question in which Lord John Russell was concerned, and Lord John Russell vigorously protested against the discussion of Mr. Feilden's Motion; and, indeed, there could be no reason at the time why the matter of that Motion should be fully discussed. With that view, and believing that the word "adequately" is quite capable of conveying the sentiment in which the House will generally concur, we propose, with the alteration I have mentioned, to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland. It has been felt very generally in the House that, while restrictive Rules are in many cases required for the better regulation of our proceedings, there is a great want of liberal and relaxing Rules, especially in relation to what is known as the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule, which at present operates with extreme stringency, and
  50
  that at the discretion of every and any Member of the House. Now, there are various questions that may be raised with regard to this Rule. An hon. Baronet on the opposite side of the House has given Notice of important Amendments to our Resolution, some of which may deserve the consideration of the House; but as regards the substance of the Rule itself, we propose to introduce an Amendment which will have the effect of exempting from the operation of the Rule two very important classes of Business—Motions for leave to bring in Bills; and, in the second, Bills that have passed through Committee. Therefore, the 8th Resolution, according to the proposal we make, will stand thus—
  "To amend the Standing Order of the 18th February, 1879, and 9th May, 1882, by inserting, after 'Standing Order,' in line 10, the following words:—'Motions for leave to bring in Bills, and Bills which have passed through Committee.'"
  The House is aware that before the Sittings of August ceased I temporarily withdrew the Resolution relating to Committee of Supply. We have always contended that it was impossible to bring about any great change in the Procedure of the House by penal and restrictive Rules; and that if the House was to bring itself to the level of the demands made upon it, it must be by changes of another character, such as the revival of the Monday Rule about Supply, and the delegation of the powers of the House in Committee to what are called Standing Committees. As regards that delegation of the powers of the House, we think it is impossible at the present time to do more than to make an experiment of it in matters which will be quite safe, but which will enable the House to judge how far the experiment is satisfactory, and what progress can be made in that direction. As regards Supply, I withdrew the Resolution originally on the Paper, and intimated that we would endeavour to devise something of a more effective character. We have considered with much pains various methods by which this end might be gained. There have been plans suggested at times for divesting the House of the whole detail of Supply; but we are anxious that, while our proposal should have the promise of being effective, it should not innovate more than cannot be avoided

  51
  upon the established usages of the House. Under these established usages, Friday, which was originally a Government night, has become a Members' night. It has become a Members' night with very few and insignificant exceptions; but it is desirable the House should bear in mind that Friday used, in the regular course of the House of Commons, when Business was far less urgent than it is now, and when less Business was initiated by Ministers, to belong to the Government. And when the present Regulation was made that Friday should be a night of Committee of Supply, it was contemplated and expected and intended that a large portion of that night should be available for Government Business. In the year 1866 we had great difficulties, as the Government of that day, in finding time enough for the discussion of the Reform Bill, and by that time Friday was threatening to slip out of the hands of the Government altogether. I was at that time the Leader of the Government in the House, and I argued that the Government was then almost reduced to two nights a-week; and Lord Derby, who replied on the part of the Opposition, pointed out that Friday was intended, subject to deductions in consequence of Motions on going into Committee of Supply, for the Government service; and he protested against my saying that we had only two nights a-week, because then the Government kept a sensible, if not a very large, portion of Friday night, which it has since entirely lost. Now, we do not propose to make any change as regards Friday, or Wednesday, or Tuesday, though we reserve it to ourselves, if necessary, to ask the House to consider whether, at an earlier period than has sometimes been chosen for the purpose, it shall begin 2 o'clock Sittings on Tuesdays specially, and perhaps only, in order to obtain Supply. Subject, then, to the conditions I have stated, we shall ask the House to enlarge the Monday Rule, and to extend it to other days on which Government Orders have precedence, providing, however, that Members shall have power to bring forward relevant Motions upon the three great classes of the Estimates. The enlargement we propose to make in that power of Members is, that it shall apply, not only to the three classes of the Estimates, but
  52
  likewise to Votes of Credit, specified as such. It is quite plain that there is no description of proposal which a Government can make to the House which more usually involves large questions of policy than those Votes of Credit. In 1860 we proposed a Vote of £3,500,000 for the China War, which involved some considerable questions of policy. In 1870 we proposed a Vote of Credit of £2,000,000, which involved much larger questions of policy with regard to Treaties which Her Majesty had been advised to make with Germany and France for the security of Belgium. In 1878 a Vote of Credit was proposed by the late Government, which likewise involved very large questions of policy; and, undoubtedly, the Vote of Credit we ourselves proposed this year with regard to Egypt was the most natural occasion that could possibly be desired or suggested for raising, not only questions relating to the conduct of the Government in the Egyptian proceedings, but questions vitally affecting them in regard to the measures they might have taken. Therefore, we propose to give Members the power to raise discussions upon Votes of Credit as well as on the three great branches of the ordinary Service. Our proposal will, therefore, stand thus—
  "That, whenever the Committee of Supply stands as the first Order of the Day on any day, except Friday evening, on which Government Orders have precedence, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, unless on first going into Supply on the Army, Navy, or Civil Service Estimates respectively, or on any Vote of Credit, an Amendment be moved, or Question raised, relating to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply."
  If we were about to proceed to the discussion of these Resolutions to-night, it would be proper to go into them more fully; but as the House will see them in print to-morrow, and will have ample time for their consideration before coming to a vote, I will not detain the House any longer.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: What about the Rules with regard to General Committees?
  MR. GLADSTONE: They stand as at present. I beg to move the Resolution of which I have given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Consideration of the New Rules of Procedure have precedence of all Orders of

  53
  the Day and Notices of Motions on every day for which they may be set down."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, as far as regards the statement just made to the House, we have to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having placed very clearly before us the view which the Government take, generally speaking, with respect to these Resolutions. But, while I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not thought it right to propose any modification in the 1st Rule, which is now under discussion, and which is the one upon which there is a great deal of feeling, I take some comfort from what I thought I heard fall from the right hon. Gentleman in the opening part of his observations, when I understood him to say that, although, the Government would not make any alteration in the Rule as they proposed it, and were prepared to support it in the form in which it stands on the Paper, yet they considered the matter as one on which the House would have to pronounce its opinion; and I gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that it would be free to all Members, of whatever Party or section of the House, to exercise an independent judgment upon the Amendments which might be brought before them on the Rule. My feeling with regard to clôture is, I must honestly confess, the same as it has always been. I object to it on principle as an unnecessary and inconvenient Rule. But if the majority of the House be determined to adopt that principle, at all events it will be a matter for consideration what limitations should be accepted; and I trust we shall be allowed to obtain the free opinion of the House upon the Amendments which shall be submitted, and especially upon the Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). With regard to some of the other Resolutions, the right hon. Gentleman says very fairly that he cannot expect the House to pronounce an opinion upon them without seeing them in print. I would, therefore, urge upon the House that it is quite necessary that it should not commit itself, in one way or another, until we have had time for considering the Resolutions very carefully. No doubt, the words must be scrutinized, and I quite understand that that is the spirit in which they are pro-
  54
  posed. But I must raise a question which I think the House is bound to ask. It is perfectly true that we have been called together on the present occasion for the purpose of considering the Resolutions and doing a particular class of Business. But it is impossible for us not to see, now that we are assembled, and have upon us the general conduct of Parliamentary Business, that it must be our duty to question the Government upon some very important matters which I do not desire to force inconveniently upon the notice of the House, but which I am obliged to mention now, because we are asked to vote upon Resolutions the effect of which would be to give the Government the entire command of the time of the House during the Session—the Government putting down their Resolutions every day they pleased, and, therefore, obtaining the absolute right of shutting out every other question whatever. If that be not done so strictly as to shut out the Government themselves from proposing a Vote of Thanks to the Army for its conduct in Egypt, so much the better. The House will receive with pleasure any Motion which Her Majesty's Government may make on that subject in a few days. But, if what I have said be the case, it is our duty to consider whether there are not other questions which it will be our duty to discuss. Without raising prematurely a discussion on controversial matters, I am now about to ask the Government, and to press them to give us a satisfactory answer to the question, whether they do intend, before the House rises for the Prorogation, to give us an opportunity of discussing the questions connected with the recent Expedition to Egypt? Of course, the Government may say that there are some questions which, of course, we cannot discuss; but we want to know—first, whether there are Papers to be presented, and, if so, to what date they will come down? Next, we are anxious to be informed as to the general character of the policy which Her Majesty's Government are now pursuing, because that is a matter upon which we are very greatly in the dark—we want to know what is the policy which they think this country should adopt with regard to Egypt—whether we are to continue our armed occupation of that country, and, if so, what is to be the nature of that

  55
  occupation, and what responsibilities we assume with regard to it? We want to know, also, how far these questions have been made a subject of discussion with other Governments, and what, in the judgment of Her Majesty's Government, is likely to be the outcome of the operations into which we have entered. There is another class of questions upon which we have a more intimate right to demand information from the Government, and not only information, but something still more definite—I mean with regard to the expense. There can be no reason for reticence upon such a matter. Whatever questions may arise with regard to foreign relations, there can be no doubt that much expense has been incurred. We want to know whether it is covered by the Vote of Credit taken a few months ago; and, if it is not, whether it is the intention of the Government to submit further Estimates, and, if so, whether that will be done in the course of the present Session? Looking at this matter from the point of view from which we have been taught to look at it by the right hon. Gentleman, we must feel that this is one of those cases in which the expense of the war, so far as it can be estimated, ought to be provided for within the current financial year. We want to know whether that expenditure is to be defrayed by Vote of Parliament, or wholly or in part in any other manner. All sorts of rumours have been spread abroad on that matter. We know that to some extent the cost of the Expedition is to be charged upon the finances of India. But we do not know to what extent. It is now time for us to get some information on that point. A statement was made by the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) before we adjourned with regard to the sum which, somewhat to his surprise and dismay, he found was likely to be required. But I am misinformed if the amount then spoken of has not been largely exceeded. I wish to know whether it is intended to increase the charge upon the Indian Exchequer; and, if so, whether the House will be consulted upon the point before it rises? Again, with regard to other rumours which are afloat, I think we ought to have some assurance as to the idea which has been put forward that a portion, perhaps a large portion, of the expenditure is to be thrown upon
  56
  Egypt itself. That is a matter of a very serious character, as to which we have a right to ask for information. Now, I mention these questions, not in any captious spirit, or with a view of interposing delay in the way of proceeding with the Business; but I put them because we are now asked to give up the whole of our time at the demand of the Government. If we give that to the Government, and if they do not give us an opportunity of discussing these matters, we shall be absolutely powerless, and absolutely at their mercy. I think, therefore, we not only have a right, but it is our duty, to put these questions to them, and press for an answer before we come to vote on the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has now submitted.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I cannot complain of what has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, and I will give him the best answers in my power; but one part of the subject to which he alludes involves questions of great delicacy and difficulty. That is the part which refers to the details of the policy to be pursued in Egypt. The first question of the right hon. Gentleman referred to the presentation of Papers. Well, Papers are to be presented tomorrow coming down to the close of the Sitting in August, and in the course of four or five days further Papers will be distributed coming down to a late date in September, so that the information in the possession of the House will be very much enlarged. Even if it were possible to overcome the formal difficulties which attend the presentation of Papers, I am not aware that we could go much further than that, viewing the nature of the subject-matter of the documents. The next question is that of the policy to be pursued in Egypt. Of course, that subject raises a group of most complex and intricate considerations. We have again before us questions relating to all the parties whose number and whose varied positions with regard to one another rendered the earlier stages of this subject so exceedingly difficult. No doubt, the position is now changed in the very important respect that the matter lies more in the hands of this country, and that the Government of the Queen is not fettered in the extreme degree and manner in which it was fettered six months ago by the engagements which it found

  57
  existing, and by the relations in which the various parties stood to the question in Egypt. Still they are matters of very great delicacy and difficulty, and upon this part of the subject I cannot hold out any expectation that it is likely that we can lay down systematically any scheme for the approval of the House during the few weeks that are likely to fall within the scope of the questions which have brought us together. Our declarations must be very reserved. But the right hon. Gentleman may say—"It is quite possible, from the course which matters appear to be taking, that there may be a disposition to attack the Egyptian policy of the Government." Now, I say at once, should that be the case, that would constitute an exception, and we should think it right to make arrangements which would enable any matter of that kind to be brought to an issue. The time during which these questions have been under consideration is, after all, a very limited time, and the intrinsic difficulty of some of them is extreme. Notwithstanding that, I am not prepared to shut out that view of the case to which I have alluded, if it is taken by the right hon. Gentleman. He may reply to me—"Yes; your declarations must, undoubtedly, be bounded by your sense of public duty; but do not, therefore, require the whole House to be silent." I would reply that that is a contention which we should desire to consider in a spirit of equity. I can give the right hon. Gentleman one assurance, which, perhaps, he may think of more practical value than attaches to anything which I have yet said. The right hon. Gentleman adverted to the shape which matters might assume—that we might apply ourselves resolutely, as I trust we shall, to deal with the question of Procedure, and that after Procedure would come the Prorogation; and the right hon. Gentleman said—"Are you prepared to say that no time is to be allowed before the Prorogation for discussing a subject of this kind?" Now, undoubtedly, nothing that we have said with regard to our general desire to proceed effectively with Procedure, or to confine these Sittings to Procedure, would preclude any reasonable proposal for discussion after we have got through the bulk of our work with Procedure, and before the actual Prorogation. Therefore, I certainly hope that practical in-
  58
  convenience will not be experienced upon this subject by Gentlemen who take a natural and great interest in it. We must endeavour to proceed in consonance with the general sense of the House. Undoubtedly, we are not disposed to view the expression of opinion on a subject of that kind in the light of Party only, and equity should govern the proceedings to be taken. Another point has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and with regard to it my answer is of a quite different kind. That is with regard to the question of expense. There can be no reason whatever for secrecy in this matter. There may be a reason for silence, but the only reason can be want of knowledge. Secrecy with respect to expenditure certainly there shall not be. As soon as we are able to convey any valuable information to the House about the expenditure on the war, we will do so. I will now venture only to say three things. First of all, I by no means desire to convey the opinion that it will be necessary for the House to enter further into the consideration of Votes of money. I do not speak positively, but, as far as we are able to judge, I do not see that it is likely that we shall have to ask the House for any further Vote during the remainder of the present Session. Secondly, with respect to the Indian expenditure. It is quite true that my noble Friend spoke under some sense of dismay—a feeling which, I must say, I most fully shared—of the scale of expenditure connected with the limited contingent that it was proposed that India should furnish to the Expedition. But my noble Friend has had no reason to anticipate that that large estimate will be largely exceeded, no information on the subject of excess of expenditure over the estimates having yet come within our view. That the Vote of Credit will absolutely suffice for all that has been done is more than I will venture to say. But this I will say—that I think, when we look back to the expense of other wars, to the magnitude of the objects in view, and to the mode and time in which they have been accomplished—though I cannot speak of any particular figure—yet I do cherish the hope that the House will be of opinion that the expense that has been incurred on the present occasion has not been out of proportion to the magnitude

  59
  of the interests involved. The question of contribution from Egypt, either prospectively or otherwise, is a question which I conceive to enter rather into the question of policy than into that of expense; and I would say, in conclusion, that I think there is good hope, with regard to the subject of expense, that before long information will be supplied more worthy of being submitted to the House than any which we now have. I think I have now gone over all the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and I trust he will think I have spoken in a spirit not dissimilar to that in which he has brought them forward.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he hoped there would be no proposal for Saturday Sittings.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that House had been called together at a most unusual time, and in a most unprecedented manner, to consider the proposed Rules of Procedure. It was not likely that this would be the only question discussed, for other matters had been referred to by his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford Northcote) which would have to be considered; but at the present moment he did not wish to enter into them. He, however, wished to have an explicit answer with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister intended to do with respect to the first of his proposed Rules. The right hon. Gentleman, it would be remembered, had made a proposal earlier in the Session to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, consenting to a modification of this 1st Rule; but at the end of the Session the right hon. Gentleman said circumstances had occurred that had altered the whole situation. But there were many of them in the House who could not see how that situation had been in any way altered. [Laughter.] Well, if for the convenience and the necessity of the Government it was right that that Rule should in its main provision be altered—namely, that a bare majority should not be able to carry closure, then he, for the life of him, could not see what bad occurred since to exclude any alteration in that proposition. He, for one, had been absolutely against closure at all. As a humble individual, he should vote against closure in any of its forms; but it would be a very different thing if the proposition was
  60
  that there should be a certain majority—and that no inconsiderable majority—which was to carry that closure. If, however, by a bare majority of 1 it was intended that closure was to be carried, he hoped there were many men spirited enough, not only on his side of the House, but also upon the other side, to oppose such a proposition, for he had met men of the other side of the House in other places who stated distinctly that they had been coerced into voting for the Rule as it then stood, and that had they been able they would vote against it, because they believed conscientiously it would be a most mischievous Rule—that it was absolutely fatal to freedom of debate, and that it would tend to lower the constitution of Parliament more than anything else that could be done. He ventured to ask the great Conservative Party sitting on his side of the House at any price not to allow such a Rule as that to pass, but to fight against it to the bitter end. He saw the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary laughing. He was glad when he saw the Home Secretary laugh that peculiar laugh of his, because he then knew that that right hon. and learned Gentleman thought and believed the Conservatives would do what they said. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had told the House the great object of closure was that men's mouths should be shut on certain occasions, and that irrelevant discussion should be stopped. But he showed by what he said that he was alluding to the Opposition and not to his own Party. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), therefore, ventured to say that if that Resolution were put in the form and shape which the right hon. Gentleman had strongly intimated—and of which intimation he was sorry his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did not take more notice—for he believed that it was the intention of the Government that that Resolution should be carried as it stood, he ventured to say, standing there in his place, that, so far as he was concerned, he would do everything that he honourably could, so long as the Forms of the House would permit, to prevent the carrying of a Rule which would abolish that freedom of speech which he believed had placed the right hon. Gentleman who was at the head of the Go-

  61
  vernment in that proud position which he occupied, not only in that House, but before the whole of the country.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the Prime Minister had observed that the Egyptian War would compare favourably with other wars; but he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) should like to know to which of the other wars the right hon. Gentleman referred. Did he refer to the Crimean War, which was the work of a Liberal Cabinet, and whose fruits the Liberal Party wholly wasted in after years, or to the Afghan War, which had an infinitely greater object than this Egyptian Campaign in view—namely, to keep 250,000,000 of our fellow-subjects in India free from Russian tyranny and oppression? He thought the House had a right to know what were the ends the Government had in view with regard to Egypt to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. He believed that British influence and orderly government might have been maintained in Egypt without any war at all. But this country was determined that, whether or not those ends might have been obtained without war, this war should not be fruitless—that what had been so gallantly won in the field should not be lost in the Cabinet, and that the predominance of England over Egypt in future should be secured. And he thought it would be the duty of the Government to furnish information with regard to their Egyptian policy before the House rose for its Prorogation. With regard to the 1st Rule of Procedure, he hoped there would be a most determined resistance on the part of Members on both sides of the House to clôture by a bare majority. There could be no valid argument for such a clôture. No reason had been given why the offer made to the Leader of the Opposition by the Prime Minister last June should not have been recommended by him this Session to the judgment of the House.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked whether the Prime Minister's remarks as to an attack being made on the Government policy applied only to the Opposition, or whether, if that policy were attacked by other Parties in the House, facilities would be given for discussion? It was to secure such an opportunity that he had given Notice that he would move the Previous Question when the
  62
  Vote of Thanks to the Army was moved on Thursday. He did not intend to go into the whole policy of the Egyptian War. He would take an independent ground. He hoped the Prime Minister would state whether he would give to the House an opportunity, before this Session broke up, of discussing the whole of the Egyptian Question.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, he was not insensible to the necessity of some alteration of the Rules of the House. He believed there was a very general desire on the part of Gentlemen sitting on the Conservative Benches to restore the efficiency of the House. That being so, he was sorry to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Chaplin) should have liked a more distinct answer from the Leaders of the Opposition as to whether they intended to oppose the Motion the right hon. Gentleman had submitted. He gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's opening speech that he and his Colleagues, and, he presumed, his Party behind him, saw something to induce them to adhere to the formal and essential proposition of the 1st Resolution. That was what he (Mr. Chaplin) called a declaration of war. And, that being so, all the Conservative Members and all Members who valued liberty and cherished freedom should consider what course they would pursue on this occasion. By accepting that proposition, they put it entirely out of their power to raise any question whatever, however important, except by the permission of the Government. He need not now enter into a variety of questions which were raised before the country which were most important, and to many of which his right hon. Friend referred. In passing, he might say that there was one question before all others which, he thought, demanded the immediate attention of the House, and he was sorry it had not been already raised—namely, the terrible suffering of our wounded soldiers in Egypt, and on their return from Egypt. The second effect of the acceptance of this Motion was that the House would be taking the first step forward in the direction of this clôture Resolution. It was perfectly idle for the Prime Minister to expect the Party who were determined to oppose the 1st Rule of Procedure to agree to a course which would do nothing less than entirely suppress debate.

  63
  Under these circumstances, he would move the adjournment of the debate, and he thought there were good reasons for agreeing to that Motion. The Prime Minister had announced a variety of changes in this Rule; and it was not unreasonable to ask that Members should see those changes on Paper before they were invited to discuss them.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  MR. HICKSsaid, he would support the Motion for Adjournment. He objected to this French clôture. Yes; and he objected to other French customs which were being introduced into the government of this country, and regretted that the compromise proposed in May last had not been accepted and held to. If that were again taken up he would vote for it, as he did not wish to see this contest continued. It had, however, been withdrawn without any conceivable reason except the extraordinary power of the Prime Minister. He thought that the House had a right to know what the Amendments to the Resolutions were that they were to be called upon to consider before they gave the Government the great power they asked. They ought to know whether there was to be any concession upon the 1st Rule; and they should have an assurance from the Prime Minister that he would not use the influence of his Government to coerce the votes of those who sat behind him before they proceeded any further.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he thought it only right to observe that, in his opinion, the House had been rather taken by surprise by the course which had been adopted by the Prime Minister that evening. Hon. Members came there expecting, no doubt, to be invited to adopt the Resolutions now before them on the Paper. No doubt, they also had every reason to expect that they would have the Resolutions put before them in substantially the same form; but he (Mr. Raikes) did not think that anyone in the House expected that they would have been met with the very considerable modification that had been made in them, coupled, as it was, with a demand for their instant consideration. It seemed to him that the Prime Minister had hardly treated them so fairly as they might have expected in asking them to
  64
  pass a Resolution, pledging themselves to postpone all other questions that might come before them, in order to consider Resolutions not yet actually upon the Paper. It was one thing to give Notice of important changes in important proposals, and another thing to ask them to pledge themselves to consider those proposals before they could judge what they would be. For his part, he very much regretted that no hint had fallen from the Prime Minister as to his intention to accept any modification in Rule No. 1. The Prime Minister had offered no explanation of the causes which had led him to change his position with regard to these proposals, and hon. Members had certainly not expected to find the right hon. Gentleman so perfectly obdurate upon the subject, for when the House separated they had fair reason to believe that the right hon. Gentleman was of the same opinion as he was in May as to the necessity for a modification in Rule 1. They were now told that there was to be an alteration in Rule 1, conceived in the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). Ho (Mr. Raikes) did not know whether that alteration was likely to tempt the hon. Member into the right Lobby; but it did not seem to him that the proposed Amendment was a substantial alteration, or that it would make much difference in the Resolution. They were also informed that there was to be an alteration in No. 2. So far as he could gather, the change proposed to be made was to make it necessary for 40 Members to express, by rising, their wish that a Motion for the Adjournment of the House should be made, in order to enable it to be entertained. Something of that sort might be advantageous, although he would prefer that the assent of 21, and not 40, Members should be required, as he thought that number would be sufficient, it being practically the majority of a quorum of the House. Then there was an alteration in the phraseology of the Half-past 12 Rule. He did not think that that had any effect upon the Motions on the Paper. But there was one other alteration of the greatest importance, and that was an alteration in dealing with Committee of Supply. They were asked, practically, to enforce and establish the renunciation of the ancient practice of

  65
  discussing grievance before Supply, and to leave the old practice existing only in certain restricted and circumscribed limits, upon the occasion of the introduction of the three great classes of Estimates. They were asked to give up absolutely, for Government Business, not only Mondays, but every night in the week except Fridays, and also to enable the Government to take Tuesday Morning Sittings throughout the Session for the discussion of Supply. A result of that would be that when Tuesday Morning Sittings were held, it would be very difficult to make a House in the evening; and thus, practically, Fridays would be the only days that hon. Members would have for bringing forward questions distasteful to the Government. It was, however, only possible to take one division on the Motion for Supply; and, therefore, by inducing their followers to put down Motions for the few available open days throughout the Session, the Government could practically prevent the expression of any hostile opinion on their acts. No doubt, the proposal had certain administrative merits, and they must sympathize with a Government in desiring to get its Supply through; but it required a certain amount of courage on the part of a Government to come forward with a proposal of this kind. He ventured to think that he had made out a case for not pressing these proposals upon the House as if they were familiar with them. Hon. Members ought to have an opportunity of familiarizing themselves with the proposals of the Government, which was not possible if their discussion was commenced at 12 o'clock to-morrow. It was also a most important question to consider how far they were to surrender the whole of their liberty of discussion during the present Session by giving priority to these Resolutions. The Prime Minister had, it was true, expressed his willingness to give up some time to the discussion of anything like a formal Vote of Censure or hostility; but he had declined to offer a few days' grace for a discussion of the affairs of Egypt. That discussion might have taken place that day, if the issue of the Papers on the subject had not been so conveniently postponed till the day after the meeting of Parliament. He (Mr. Raikes) hoped that, on that side of the House, consideration would always be shown in
  66
  circumstances of difficulty; but, at the same time, they owed something to their constituents; and how could Members face them if they had to go back and say they allowed a state of things to exist by which the mouths of Members were absolutely closed on matters of such vital importance as the Egyptian Expedition and Egyptian policy? Personally, with the opportunity of opposing this Resolution, he should have a clear conscience in the matter; but he did not envy hon. Members opposite representing large Northern constituencies if they should have to face them at such a juncture. He trusted the House would pause before passing the Resolution in its present form; and he trusted that, if it was ultimately passed, it would be with a modification which would except Notices of Motions, so that by saving Tuesdays for private Members, they might do something to maintain the credit of Parliament and vindicate the duty they owed to their constituents.
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply to the question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), said, there was an established tradition in the House that, whenever a large number of Members desired to raise a question touching the existence or policy of the Government, an opportunity should be given them for that purpose. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Raikes), he objected to going forward with this Resolution, upon grounds which appeared to be fatal to one another; he objected to going forward with the 1st Resolution because it was not altered, and he objected to going on with the other Resolutions because they were altered. It was very difficult to meet these objections, so as to make them hang upon the same thread. This was essentially a preliminary Motion, intended to be disposed of at the very commencement of the Sitting; and, therefore, as a matter of course, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) did not require to be told that the Government could not possibly agree to his Motion for Adjournment. So far as there was any reason, or colour of reason, in it, it appeared to turn upon the fact that two Resolutions were proposed to be altered, and that the alterations were not yet upon the Paper. In

  67
  order to meet that objection, he (Mr. Gladstone) would undertake that those two Resolutions should be laid on the Table that night; and, if the House wished to have the opportunity of seeing the Resolutions as a whole upon the Paper, he was willing to go further, and say that he would postpone the consideration of them until to-morrow. It was quite certain, from the discussion there would be, that no important change could be made until the House had had the most ample opportunity of considering it. That, he thought, was a fair offer; and, under the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite would not persevere with his Motion for Adjournment.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that, on the understanding just stated by the Prime Minister, that none of the Resolutions should be taken that night, after the preliminary Motion had been disposed of, he could not help thinking it would be well for his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) to accept that offer, and not to persist with the Motion for the Adjournment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he would venture again to ask whether nothing could be done with regard to Tuesdays? If these were excepted from the Resolution, the Business of Parliament might go on in the usual fashion. He would move the omission of the words "and Notices of Motions" from the Resolution—an Amendment which would leave precedence to the Government for the Resolution on every day except Tuesday.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "and Notices of Motions."—(Mr. Raikes.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'and Notices of Motions' stand part of the Question."
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT,in supporting the Amendment, said, that, without much chance of success, he ventured to hope that the right hon Gentleman the Prime Minister would agree to this proposal. There were many reasons why he should so agree. Only that night the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had stated
  68
  his intention of moving the Previous Question when a Vote of Thanks was to be moved, and which he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had hoped would be given unanimously to the Army and Navy of the country, who had so distinguished themselves in the late war in Egypt. But, supposing the proposal which had been put forward by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Raikes) was rejected, then the House might have, on the occasion of the Motion for the Vote of Thanks, all sorts of side questions and side issues raised on a Motion that ought to be unanimously voted. They would most likely be raised then, because it would be the only opportunity afforded for raising a discussion upon the Expedition to Egypt. Probably such subjects as the Transport, the Commissariat, and the Medical Department of the Army would be raised; and, he would ask, with what dignity could the House give a Vote of Thanks after a discussion of questions of such magnitude? The Secretary of State for War would not deny that these were questions deserving immediate attention—questions that ought to be discussed during the present Session of Parliament; but if the House was precluded from bringing such forward in a regular manner, then they would be introduced at inconvenient times and in irregular ways, and in a manner not for the best interests of the country. When, on a Motion for a Vote of Thanks, the Previous Question was raised, no one could foretell how far the discussion would be carried on a Vote that ought to be an unanimous Vote of the House. He ventured to hope that the Prime Minister would take into consideration that these points he had mentioned were questions that ought to be discussed in the interests of the Army, but not on a Vote of Thanks.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, of all ways of relaxing the stringency of the Resolution, that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Raikes) appeared to be the worst. The hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) spoke as if he could determine what should be discussed on Tuesdays if they were excepted; whereas the fact was, that private Members, like the hon. and gallant Baronet, had no power of determining what should be discussed if they obtained the Tuesday. All a private Member could do was to

  69
  take his chance at the ballot with 600 other Members of the House. They had determined that a great effort should be made; and, by a great deviation from usage, they had called upon Members, at great sacrifice, to meet the Government for a great purpose. Were they then to renew what was one of the most farcical of the proceedings of the House—namely, the system by which the House met at 4 o'clock, and after two or three hours of work before dinner, nine times out of ten was "counted out?" He hardly thought, in view of those facts, the right hon. Gentleman would persevere with the Amendment.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the history of Parliamentary Procedure showed that, compared with the former arrangement, the Government had gained one day in the week, which they had taken away from private Members. Formerly Thursday was a private Member's night, and though Supply used not to be set down for Friday, yet the Motion for the Adjournment till Monday, which was then necessary to prevent the House from sitting on Saturday, gave the same opportunity to Members for the miscellaneous discussion of all questions as the present Motion for Supply. Lord Palmerston introduced the present system, and thereby gained a day. Therefore, so benefited as they were, Ministers had no cause to complain.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would remind the House that, when a "count out" had occurred on a Tuesday, it had generally happened after an unusually late Sitting the previous night.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 96; Noes 46: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 342.)
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 47: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 343.)
  Ordered, That the Consideration of the New Rules of Procedure have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on every day for which they may be set down.

  PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the time had arrived when, in fulfilment of his en-
  70
  gagement to the House, he ought to move that this House do now adjourn. He would move accordingly.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. BROADHURST,rising, said, he opposed the adjournment. ["Oh, oh!"] He wished to move that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, in order that the Bill which stood next on the Orders of the Day—the Payment of Wages in Public-Houses Prohibition Bill—might be considered.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Motion before the House is, "That this House do now adjourn."
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he understood that the object of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), in opposing the adjournment of the House, was that the Bill which stood next on the Orders of the Day might be proceeded with. He did not know whether the Government proposed to stop that Bill, which was a very important one.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he would point out that the Prime Minister distinctly stated last August that the Government would not encourage any private Member in pressing forward a Bill when the House re-assembled. He thought it was highly improper on the part of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) or the hon. Baronet (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) to press Her Majesty's Government to break the pledges which they had given to the House. That was not the way to carry any Bill, to attempt to force it against the wishes of the House and of the Prime Minister. If they intended to do that, he should oppose them in every possible way. He hoped, however, that hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree to the Motion of their Leader, and not raise a wrangle on the Question of Adjournment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock.