Commons Sitting of 26 October 1882

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT (MILITARY OPERATIONS)— THE INDIAN CONTINGENT— INCIDENCE OF EXPENSES.
  Mr. ONSLOWasked the Secretary of State for India, What is now the estimated cost of the Indian contingent to Egypt; whether the amount incurred by the Indian Government is to be repaid wholly or in part from the revenues of this Country; and. whether Papers would be presented to Parliament containing the correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of India (regarding the troops sent from India to Egypt) dating back from the first intimation that in case of necessity Her Majesty's Government proposed to employ Indian troops?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, up to the present time the Indian Government has not been able to furnish me with any further estimate of the cost of the Indian Contingent than that which I gave to the House last August. Now, however, that the whole of the Contingent has been re-embarked and the duration of the operations is known, I expect very shortly to receive a revised and more accurate estimate from the Government of India. Till that is received it is impossible for the Government to make a final proposal for the adoption of the House as to the division of the charge; but there are certain
  164
  expenses which have been incurred by the Indian Government which it was always intended to repay, and which, in any event, we shall propose to repay from the Revenues of this country. Papers will certainly be presented; but the Correspondence with the Indian Government in regard to the employment of the Indian Contingent is as yet necessarily incomplete, and I do not think it desirable to print it in its present state.
  MR. ONSLOWasked, if the noble Marquess could state whether the expense would be more or less than what he had estimated—namely, £1,800,000; and, whether Her Majesty's Government proposed, at the present time, to charge any portion of that amount on the Indian Revenue? If that were so, he would, on the first opportunity, move a Resolution deprecating such a course. He also wished to know, whether the Papers would include all the financial arrangements which the Indian Government had concluded?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I have not received any statement or reply up to the present time as to any change in the financial Estimates of the Indian Government. I cannot state what Papers will be presented until I receive them. I have no reason to suppose that the original Estimate I gave will, in the opinion of the Government of India, be exceeded, or even that it will be reached. As to the proposal whether India shall pay anything or not, I have nothing at the present time to add to the statement I have already made.
  MR. ONSLOWsubsequently gave Notice that in consequence of the unsatisfactory reply of the noble Marquess he would repeat the Question that day week.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— OFFICIAL VALUATORS.
  MR. LEWISasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is true that, at a meeting of some of his constituents in Coleraine, on Saturday, the 14th October, a resolution was passed demanding of Her Majesty's Government the dismissal or removal of the Court Valuers recently appointed by or with the sanction of the Government, under "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881;" whether such resolution was forwarded to him, requesting him to sup-

  165
  port and enforce its prayer on the Government; and, whether he has undertaken that he would make it his business to place the views of the meeting as strongly as he could before the Lord Lieutenant; and, if so, what is the result of his representations to the Government as regarded the Valuers being retained or dismissed?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): Sir, a large and important meeting of Ulster tenant farmers, most of whom were my constituents, was held at Coleraine, in the county of Londonderry, on the 14th of this month, at which a resolution was adopted expressing great apprehension at the appointment of Court Valuers, and calling for their removal, on the ground that their appointment was opposed to the letter and spirit of the Land Act, and to the previous practice of the administration of the law. This resolution was forwarded to me, with the view of having it brought before the Government, and I undertook to place the views of the meeting as strongly as I could before the Lord Lieutenant, expressing my belief that they would receive careful attention. I accordingly did so, but am unable to state whether my representations have had any result.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Court Valuers recently appointed were chosen by the Land Commission on their own responsibility, in accordance with the Land Law (Ireland) Act; and, whether Her Majesty's Government interfered in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Court Valuers recently appointed were chosen by the Land Commission on their own responsibility, and the Government did not interfere.

  EGYPT—THE ARMY OF OCCUPATION.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any arrangement or convention has been concluded providing that the cost of the British Army of occupation shall be charged upon the revenues of Egypt?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, no Convention has been concluded; but the question of the cost of the Army in Egypt is, of course, under consideration. I fear that it will not be in my power, looking to the circumstances stated on
  166
  Tuesday by the Prime Minister, to give the House information with regard to it.

  INDIA—LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Correspondence between the Government of India and the various Local Governments on Lord Ripon's Scheme for the extension of Local Self-Government in India?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Correspondence has not been received officially; but I have already asked that I may be furnished with that which is referred to in the Resolution, and with all subsequent Correspondence and orders on the subject. As soon as I receive it, I will say whether it can be laid upon the Table.

  EGYPT—THE TRANSPORT AND COMMISSARIAT.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will lay upon the Table any Reports received from Sir Garnet Wolseley or others on the efficiency, or otherwise, of the Transport and Commissariat arrangements during the Egyptian campaign?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Captain Aylmer), I have to state that Sir Garnet Wolseley has not made any general Report on the Commissariat and Transport arrangements of the Egyptian campaign. The only mention of the Department is in a despatch not yet printed, in which certain of its officers are named as having his entire approval as to the way in which they discharged their duties.

  CRIMINAL LAW—ARMED BURGLARS.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in consequence of the increasing risks from armed burglars, as recently shown in several attempted burglaries, he is prepared to make such alteration in the Law as will invariably add the punishment of flogging to all burglars convicted of making use of deadly weapons, or even at the time being in possession of them?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I have ordered Returns to be prepared

  167
  to show how far the offences referred to are or are not on the increase throughout the country. I have not received the full Returns yet, but only those for the Metropolitan district. In the course of the last year there were two cases in which firearms were actually used by burglars, and three cases in which they were found in the possession of the burglars, but not used. I agree with the hon. Member that this is a matter deserving very serious consideration. I cannot say, however, that at present I have come to the conclusion to adopt the measure suggested. I cannot say how soon I may receive the Returns.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT— APPLICATIONS.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the total number of applications, under the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, which have been lodged with the Land Commissioners; how many of such applications have been heard and disposed of; and, how many dismissed, as not coming within the provisions of the Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, up to and including yesterday, the Land Commissioners had received 3,628 applications, comprising 5,393 holdings. Out of this number of holdings 3,213 were the subject of joint applications and 2,180 of separate applications. In the case of the joint applications, 1,141 conditional orders have been made, out of which number 561 have been made absolute. Orders have not yet been made in the case of the separate applications. Up to the 21st of October six investigators had been appointed. Investigators have reported in about 100 cases, and conditional orders will be made in a day or two. Twenty-four cases have been struck out without prejudice to either party, as to being adjudicated on subsequently. These were cases in which several tenancies were comprised, and where a primâ facie doubt existed, such as would render a local inquiry necessary. So far as I can learn, no cases have as yet been absolutely dismissed on their merits.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether it was not the case that 100,000 tenants in Ireland would be found to be in arrears; and, if he would inquire what was the reason
  168
  that only 5,000 had applied to take advantage of the Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he should require Notice of the Question, in which case he would try and get the information.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— SPEECH OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Address or Speech he made recently to the Liberal Tenant Eight Deputation as to the conduct of the Valuers appointed under the Irish Land Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have no notes of the speech to which the hon. Member refers. My remarks ran to a considerable length, and were entirely framed in reference to what had been said by the gentlemen who composed the deputation. On inquiry of the authorities at the Table, I am told that it is, perhaps, unprecedented to lay a speech on the Table of the House, or rather to lay speeches, for I certainly should have the strongest objection to present my own speech without the other speeches that called it forth, and to which it was a reply. Moreover, there is not the slightest occasion for what would be a most serious innovation upon the Parliamentary practice, because the proceedings of the deputation are very fully reported in the Dublin papers. I read the reports next morning while the matter was still fresh in my mind, and am quite ready to take the responsibility of anything in the report either of The Irish Times, The Freeman's Journal, or The Daily Express.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— OFFICIAL VALUATORS—APPOINTMENT OF MR. BUTLER.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the pledge he gave before the adjournment that Mr. Butler, Secretary of the Carlow Grand Jury, should either resign that appointment or his position as Valuer under the Land Act, has been carried out?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the hon. Member will find, if he refers to my answer, that he is under a slight misapprehension with regard to this matter. What I pledged myself to do was to

  169
  communicate to the Land Commissioners my view that Mr. Butler should be called on to resign one or other of the two appointments. I have accordingly done so on the part of the Government, and I can only express my regret that the Commissioners should have arrived at a determination to allow him to retain both offices.
  MR. HEALY: Might I ask whether this establishes a difference of opinion between the Irish Government and the Land Commissioners respecting the Court Valuers; whether the Land Commissioners think this gentleman ought to hold the two appointments, and the Irish Government think he should not?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is a difference of opinion upon this point.

  FRANCE AND TUNIS—RUMOURED TREATY.
  MR. PULESTON (for Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state the main conditions of a Treaty alleged to have been secretly concluded between the Bey of Tunis and the French Republic, by which Tunis has been virtually made a French Province; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to recognise such a Treaty?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have no official information of the conclusion of such a Treaty, and until the terms of such a Treaty are known to them they are unable to state the view they take of its stipulations.

  EGYPT—MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY—THE CHAMBER OF NOTABLES.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in any plan for the internal government of Egypt, Her Majesty's Government contemplate recognising Ministerial responsibility and the control by the Egyptians, through their Representatives, over taxation and expenditure; and, whether, in regard to any arrangement for the future Administration of the Country, it is intended to consult the Chamber of Notables?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, this Question will be answered by the Prime Minister in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), which is substantially the same.

  EGYPT—APPOINTMENT OF BAKER PASHA.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Baker Pacha, lately a General in the service of the Sultan, has been appointed Commander in Chief of the armed force of the Khedive, at the suggestion, or with the assent of, the British officials now in Egypt; and, whether the scheme, published in the English newspapers, and purporting to emanate from the aforesaid Pacha, by which it is proposed to bring into existence an army of mercenaries, recruited from various parts of the Globe, and officered by Englishmen, meets with the approval of Her Majesty's Government?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Sir Edward Malet informed Her Majesty's Government that the Khedive wished to appoint General Baker to command his Army. Sir Edward Malet was told by telegraph that if the appointment was the personal wish of the Khedive, Her Majesty's Government would make no objection. The Khedive replied that—
  "Not only was it his personal wish that General Baker should come, but also his prayer; that he and his Ministers were entirely of one mind on the subject, and that he earnestly begged that the General would come as soon as possible."
  Her Majesty's Government were not consulted by the Egyptian Government on the steps taken to recruit an army.
  MR. O'KELLYgave Notice that tomorrow he should ask, whether the Sultan was consulted before the appointment of Baker Pasha; and, whether the Government were aware that Baker Pasha had left Constantinople without the permission of the Sultan, and was now in the position of a deserter from the Sultan's Army?

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is true, as has been reported, that
  "Headings of the tunnel or tunnels under the Straits of Dover are being driven with increased rapidity from the French side towards the British Coast;"
  and, whether our Government will remonstrate with that of France with a view to obtain the stoppage of such works?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I have no official information with regard to facts alleged to have taken place in connection with the works of the Channel Tunnel on the French Coast. In fact, I have no other information than what I have gathered from the newspapers. But my hon. and gallant Friend need not be under any apprehension that the Tunnel will be built without the consent and against the will of this country. Under these circumstances, it would not be useful or even dignified for Her Majesty's Government to remonstrate with the French Government upon the matter.

  ARMY—THE FIRST CLASS ARMY RESERVE.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state why it is not intended to demobilise the soldiers transferred to the First Class Army Reserve since June 30th 1881, although the emergency for which these men were recalled to Service with the Colours has now passed away?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Alexander), I have to state that if he refers to the Queen's Proclamation calling out the Reserves, he will see that the emergency therein defined has by no means ceased. I am anxious, however, to discharge the Reservists from the Colours as soon as practicable; and I have already given orders for the discharge of all those who had joined the Reserve before July, 1881.

  EGYPT—ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the statement contained in the "Daily News" of October 25th, that
  "Two Members of the National Chamber, accused of having furnished Arabi with voluntary contributions are now chained together in an underground dungeon, which has only been opened thrice in the last fifteen days. The condition of the prisoners and of the den is foul beyond description. There are scores of such instances illustrative of the cowardly and ferocious character of the attempts to crush the national movement?"
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the attention of Her Majesty's Government was called to the statement to which my
  172
  hon. Friend refers, and Sir Edward Malet has been instructed by telegraph to report immediately on the subject.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS—IMPRISONMENT OF THE REV. S. F. GREEN FOR CONTEMPT.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that, three years having elapsed since the inhibition of the Rev. S. F. Green, the benefice which he held is now vacant; and, if so, whether any reason can be given for his further detention in prison; and, whether he would now advise the Crown to exercise the prerogative of mercy, and to secure his immediate release?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I think I have already stated to the House that I have been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown that this is a case in which the Prerogative of Mercy could hardly be properly or Constitutionally exercised. The hon. Member will see that the matter is one which is within the cognizance of the judicial bodies for contempt of whose jurisdiction Mr. Green is now imprisoned; but I am happy to learn that the Bishop of Manchester has recently brought the case under the notice of the Judge of the Court of Arches, and I hope that the result of that representation may be that which I think everybody will desire under the circumstances.

  EGYPT—DISTURBANCES IN THE SOUDAN—THE "FALSE PROPHET."
  MR. BUXTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any information, which he can lay before the House, or whether he has any reason to doubt the truth of the announcements in the papers of very serious disturbances in the Soudan and Upper Egypt, and of heavy losses incurred by the troops of the Khedive?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, there is no doubt that the Soudan is in a disturbed condition; but there is some reason to suppose that the accounts which have appeared in certain papers are exaggerated. The matter is receiving attention at Cairo.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsubsequently gave Notice that he intended to ask, Whether the Government propose

  173
  to take any steps, and, if so, what steps, in regard to the reported defeat of the Egyptian troops in the Soudan by the troops of the "False Prophet?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Question has already been answered by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State up to the limit of such knowledge as we possess. Of course, it is difficult for me, as I cannot say absolutely when we shall have full information, to state when we shall be in a condition to say more. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put his Question down for Monday, I will give him what information I then possess.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—MURDER OF CONSTABLE KAVANAGH.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, now that a conviction has been obtained for the murder of sub-constable Kavanagh, he will recommend that the fine of £1,500, leviable on the Barony of Ballynahinch, be remitted, either by special action on the part of the Government or by the Government paying the £1,500 to the Barony constable, and thus providing for the family of the murdered man?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the sum referred to in the Question of the hon. and gallant Member was a presentment made under the provisions of the Grand Jury Act, and the Government, therefore, cannot interfere with it.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION— OFFICIAL VALUATORS—APPOINTMENT OF MR. FITZGERALD.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that the County Court Judge of Waterford, Mr. Waters, Q.C. has appointed a Mr. Fitzgerald as Court Valuer in cases coming before him under the Land Act of 1881; whether this is the same Mr. Fitzgerald who was produced as valuer on behalf of the tenants in nearly all the cases heard before the Sub-Commissioners at their recent sittings at Dungarvan, county Waterford, and was introduced to the Court by the solicitor for the tenants, as the "County Court valuer;" whether he is himself an occupier of land in the neighbourhood of Dungarvan, and admitted, on cross-examination, that
  174
  he was not on good terms with his landlord; and, whether he will represent to the County Court Judge the extreme impropriety of appointing a person of this class, with a direct personal interest in the reduction of rents, to value and advise on interests opposed to his own in his own immediate neighbourhood and county?
  MR HEALY: Before the Question is answered, I wish to ask you a Question, Sir, upon a point of Order. The hon. Member refers to the "extreme impropriety of appointing a person of this class, with a direct personal interest in the reduction of rents;" and I would ask, whether, as that involves debatable matter, it can be put?
  MR.SPEAKER, in reply, said, that, although the Question did, in some sense, bring doubtful matter before the House, as prejudging the question, under the circumstances, he did not think it right to interpose between the Minister and the hon. Member, who put the Question upon his own responsibility.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. Waters has been good enough to favour me with a report in reference to this Question. He informs me that, on each occasion on which the Land Commissioners were not able to give him the assistance of an official valuer in the County Waterford, he appointed Mr. Fitzgerald to act as independent valuer for his Court. He states that Mr. Fitzgerald is a graduate of Trinity College, a magistrate of the County Waterford, where he rents the demesne lands of Sea View, near Dungarvan—a very large property of several hundred acres, which he sub-lets to tenants—and a landlord in the County Limerick, and that he has thorough confidence in his ability and impartiality. In a postscript, Mr. Waters further informs me that he knew nothing of what occurred before the Sub-Commissioners, except that Mr. Fitzgerald had informed him he was a witness on behalf of tenants in two cases. Since then Mr. Waters says he has been asked on behalf of three landlords who have cases pending in his Court—one case being on the estate of the Duke of Devonshire—to send Mr. Fitzgerald to value the lands. I have no intention of making any representation on the subject to the County Court Judge.
  MR. TOTTENHAM: I beg to give Notice that, on Monday next, I shall

  175
  ask a similar Question, whether a like objection was made in the County Antrim?
  MR. O'DONNELLgave Notice that, on Monday, he would ask, Whether the right hon. Gentleman knew that the decisions of the Sub-Commissioner in Dungarvan had been received with general disapproval in the neighbourhood?

  SCOTLAND—CROFTERS IN THE ISLAND OF SKYE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in connection with certain civil proceedings, soldiers have been ordered to the Isle of Skye; and, if so, will he explain the circumstances which have called forth a step so exceptional?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, we have, as yet, only received brief telegraphic messages regarding this matter. Until the full official Report, which has been ordered, has been received, the Government will not be in a position to decide upon the steps most proper to be taken for the vindication of the law in the Island referred to.

  EGYPT—RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES AT CAIRO—THE "HOLY CARPET."
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked, Whether it was with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government that Sir Garnet Wolseley attended officially the Mahometan ceremony of the departure of the holy carpet for Mecca; and, if not, whether the course taken on that occasion has been approved by the Government?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the War Office has no information as to the occurrence to which his Question refers, or the reasons for it. After Sir Garnet Wolseley's return at the end of the week, he will, doubtless, explain the circumstances.

  EGYPT—THE SUEZ CANAL.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in any negotiations opened with other Powers, or in any proposals made by Her Majesty's Government for the settlement of affairs in Egypt, care has been taken to provide, firstly, for guaranteeing the freedom of navigation of the Suez Canal, whether for Her Majesty's Ships of War or of the
  176
  Mercantile Marine, both in time of peace and of war; secondly, for securing to the Egyptian people, within the limits of international obligations, and by representative institutions, some control over the legislation, administration, and expenditure of their Country; and, thirdly, for the extinction of slavery in Egypt and the suppression of the Slave Trade in the Red Sea?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the Question of the hon. Member refers to three matters of the greatest possible importance. Two of them refer to the guaranteeing of the freedom of navigation of the Suez Canal, and to the securing to the Egyptian people some control over the legislation of their country, both of these being questions connected with the subject-matter with which the recent Expedition has been concerned. The third matter referred to in the Question does not belong directly to that subject-matter, but to a design and a policy which has been pursued by this country for a great number of years with the deliberate approval—even warm approval—and concurrence of the people. All that I can say at present about these three subjects—and I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with it—is that they do, and will continue to, command the close attention of the Government; and if I do not enter into details it is simply and solely from the belief that to enter prematurely into such details might be disadvantageous to the purposes which, I believe, the hon. Member and the Government contemplate in common.

  EGYPT—REPORTED MURDER OF PROFESSOR PALMER, CAPTAIN GILL, LIEUTENANT CHARRINGTON, AND OTHERS.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, What efforts have been made by the Government to ascertain the existence and whereabouts of Professor Palmer, Captain Gill, Lieutenant Charrington, and their companions?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, no effort has been spared by the Government to ascertain the fate of Professor Palmer, Captain Gill, Lieutenant Charrington, and their companions. The conduct of the search from Suez has been intrusted to Colonel Warren, R.E., an officer who has been

  177
  connected with the Palestine Exploration Society, and who is well acquainted with the district and with the habits of the Bedouins. I need not repeat the account, which has already appeared in the newspapers, of the preliminary steps taken by Colonel Warren previously to the 20th instant. On that day Colonel Warren, with Lieutenants Burton and Haynes, accompanied by about 150 Bedouins, including all the principal Sheiks who could be collected, left Suez for Moses' Wells on their way to Nakhl. We have to-day received from Captain Stephenson, the senior naval officer at Suez, a telegram dated October 26 (this day), which I will read to the House—
  "News from Warren by four Bedouins, dated 23rd, top of Wady Sudr; stopped at mid-day, 22nd, at Wady Cahalin, where Palmer's party last encamped; swept up valley in extended order, short distance found remnants of baggage about a mile from Spring, came on spot where baggage was looted, three private letters, some notes, also volume of Byron's works belonging to Charrington; nothing found belonging to Palmer or Gill. About 17 miles above Spring and 1,000 feet above the sea saw three Bedouins, captured one belonging to Aligal Tribe wearing tobacco pouch belonging to Charrington, states it was given him by Ali Murshed, Sheikh of Terebin, who is said to have killed Palmer's party; hope to get him shortly, as we have captured his wife, children, sheep, &c. Shall not reach Nakhl for a few days; endeavouring to obtain persons implicated in this neighbourhood. All party doing well."
  Besides this search which is being conducted from Suez, inquiries are being independently prosecuted from Gaza, under the direction of Mr. Moore, Her Majesty's Consul at Jerusalem. Her Majesty's Government have every hope that in this way the truth will soon be ascertained. I may add that we have been careful at once to communicate to the relatives of the members of the missing Expedition every item of intelligence as received.
  MR. MACFARLANE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he has considered the propriety of sending a vessel up the Arabian Coast of the Bed Sea, as possibly by that means there may be a chance of finding these missing gentlemen?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, every step that has been taken has been taken under the advice of those on the spot—Mr. West, Consul at Suez, and the various Egyptian officers—who are best acquainted with the Bedouins
  178
  and their habits. Colonel Warren, before starting for this Expedition, had been up the Eastern arm of the Red Sea, and had been for some time at Tor, engaged in obtaining all the information that could be had.

  EGYPT—POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government abide by their Despatch of January 16th of this year, in which Lord Lyons is instructed
  "To state to M. Gambetta that Her Majesty's Government concur with him that the proposal of the Chamber of Notables in regard to voting that portion of the Budget which deals with unassigned resources and the expenses of administration" (i.e. the portion which does not affect the service of the debt) "cannot be agreed to;"
  whether the Conference at Constantinople, representing the "Concert of Europe," still continues its meetings; and, whether he can state what measures Her Majesty's Government are taking to secure tranquillity in Egypt, and to maintain the predominance of British influence in that Country and over the Suez Canal?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, in answer to the first and third paragraphs of the Question of the hon. Member, I can only refer to the statement made by the Prime Minister on Tuesday, in reply to the inquiry of the right hon. Member for North Devon, respecting the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt. As regards the second paragraph, I have to state that the meetings of the Conference at Constantinople have been discontinued.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTinquired whether it was meant that the Conference had actually been broken up?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I can use no other word with regard to the sittings of the Conference than that they are discontinued.

MOTIONS.
  EGYPTIAN EXPEDITION—VOTE OF THANKS TO HER MAJESTY'S NAVAL AND MILITARY FORCES.

    RESOLUTIONS.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he wished to call attention to the fact that the No-

    179
    tice which Her Majesty's Government had given of this Vote spoke of "the military rebellion against the authority of His Highness the Khedive." Seeing that there was an Amendment to be moved, he would suggest to the Prime Minister whether it would not be better to confine the Vote of Thanks to the services of the Army in Egypt, and leave out the debatable matter as to a military rebellion to be discussed on some other occasion.
    MR. MOLLOY, in supporting the suggestion, said, he had given Notice of an Amendment to the 2nd Resolution, that all the words after the words "the occupation of Cairo" should be omitted.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it appears to me that it is necessary, and that it is usual in a Vote of Thanks of this kind, to give a more marked or pointed idea of the character of the services rendered than would be conveyed by a mere colourless reference to military operations. It seems to me as if we were rather ashamed of giving to these military operations their true name. I do not think this Notice can have been brought with the intention of raising any differences of opinion of that kind, and I hope the Amendment will not be moved, because the Vote as it stands can have no possible effect in committing hon. Gentlemen on the point.
    MR. MOLLOY,in reply, said: If the Prime Minister will remove everything of a debatable nature I will be happy to withdraw my Amendment. In order to effect that, the part of the Vote which speaks of a military rebellion should be withdrawn; and if that is not done I shall press my Amendment to a division.
    MR. GLADSTONE,in rising to move the Vote of Thanks of which he had given Notice, said: Sir, I was about to have said—and I have not yet abandoned the hope that I may say—that I was conscious, in rising to discharge the task now incumbent upon me, that I should at least have the advantage of the unanimous sympathy and support of the House, believing that it will be seen that these words—words of description—are words really not beyond the necessity of the case, and are thoroughly conformable to usage, and by no means do more than describe the fact. Nor have they any tendency to commit hon. Gentlemen with regard to their views of the
    180
    ground and nature of the recent complications in Egypt. I shall yet trust that the House is not to be deprived of the advantages and the grace of rendering its thanks to distinguished men without any dissentient voice, or any rival proposals. Understanding the advantages of that concurrence, I must request the indulgence of the House, and commence with this apology—that I conceive it to be extremely difficult to discharge, even ever so partially and imperfectly, what is the duty of an historian by means of any such bald and slight outline of the recent occurrences as I can at the present moment, with propriety, lay before the House. I am sensible that I may fail in justice to many distinguished acts that have been done, and that I may fail in giving the due proportion to the several facts, and to the services of persona to whom I shall have to refer. It will not be, Sir, from a want of desire adequately to perform my duty, nor from a want of a very deep sense that there never was an occasion upon which the Houses of Parliament in this country had either stronger or more unqualified and unmixed reasons to feel from the heart those sentiments of gratitude to which we are about to give formal expression through the medium of the Motion I have the honour to submit. Now, Sir, I will say a few words severally, in the first place, on the operations that have been performed; in the second place, on the Services which, under the authority of Her Majesty, have been engaged in its performance; then upon the principal officers who have had the chief executive responsibility; and, lastly, I would refer to the two highly distinguished men, the Admiral and the General, to whom we are above all indebted, under Providence, for the accomplishment of this great and important success in Egpt. With respect to the operation that has been performed, I know that I have a certain danger to encounter. It is supposed—and I am afraid it is sometimes justly supposed—that among the many great characteristics of the people of this country, there are also besetting infirmities, and that, among our infirmities, there are two which, though opposed in their operation, yet may have a moral connection one with the other, a tendency, on the sudden action of the moment, sometimes to exaggerate difficulty

    181
    and misfortune, and sometimes to overrate successful performance. I endeavour, therefore, Sir, to look at these operations, which will hereafter employ the pen of the historian, as impartially as I can. I would point out, therefore, to the House, in the first place, what was their object. Their object was to bring back from anarchy to order an entire country—a country peopled, if we include the Soudan, by some 8,000,000 of persons, and held against us by a Force that I cannot estimate at less than 60, 000, of whom not less than 50,000 were either enlisted in the actual Army of Egypt or were what may be called Reserve men, or ex-soldiers, of that Army, who had returned to the Colours for the occasion. Now, Sir, the means that we had for performing this operation were those of naval transport; and I could not do any sort of justice to the subject without stating, at least in round figures, what has been done in this respect, for I am bound to say that, on this happy occasion, we owe a debt to the Civil Departments under the Admiralty and under the authority of the War Office, which, even though it may be perfectly true that there are some of these Departments that have not yet reached the acme of perfection, yet is only second to that which we owe to the Military and Naval Services. And let me say what has been done with respect to transport. We had to perform this operation at a distance of more than 3,000 miles, from England to Alexandria and from Bombay to Suez. In the course of less than a month nearly 200 vessels were charged with the Army and the material that they had to convey to the scene of action, and those vessels could not have had a tonnage of much less than 400,000 tons. Such was the amount of the agency to meet the difficulties of the distance which it is in the position of this country—and, perhaps, of this country alone in the world—in these times to command. These transports, again—Ispeak in round numbers—carried 34,000 men, combatants, besides a body of 8,000 to 10,000 non-combatants, and 18,000 animals, intended for service either in the field, or for the civil purposes necessary to the Army. And what, Sir, was the time in which this operation has been conducted by the various Departments concerned? It was on the 20th of July that the Government arrived finally at the convic-
    182
    tion that it was impossible to confine operations to the City of Alexandria and to the Forces in its immediate neighbourhood. It was on the 27th of July that the House of Commons supplied us with the financial resources necessary for the prosecution of the work we had in hand. On the 11th of August a Corps d' Armée of two divisions, complete in every respect, in every arm, and in every branch of supply, had left the ports of this country for Alexandria. On the 5th of August the despatch of the troops from India had commenced. In the course of the month of August the entire Force was landed in Egypt; and on the 14th of September, after a brief, but not inactive nor inglorious period, the General of the British Army was able to write from the field of Tel-el-Kebir, and with the knowledge of the possession of Cairo, that the war was virtually at an end. Well, Sir, we are greatly indebted to some of our fellow-countrymen for these results; and when I turn to the various Services making up the number of the Naval and Military Forces—of course, in the numbers I have given the Naval Force was not included—when I turn to the various elements of that Force, I feel it is difficult, that it is impossible, to award to them, with minute justice, the credit they deserve; but in truth, Sir, their competition with one another has been so vivid and so sustained that it would be hardly possible for me, were I to enter into details, to fulfil the purpose I have described with anything like exactitude. I may, perhaps, remind the House that Sir Garnet Wolseley wrote from the field of Tel-el-Kebir these remarkable words—
    "I do not believe that in any previous period of our military history has the British Infantry distinguished itself more than upon this occasion."
    Sir, as an idea has gone abroad that there is some want of physical force in the British Infantry, unless when it is largely supplemented by the Reserves, the House will not be sorry to learn that the battle, to which I shall have further to refer, was fought with the assistance of only 1,000 men of the Reserve, the whole of the rest of the Army who carried the lines of Tel-el-Kebir being men within the actual term of their service. With respect to the Artillery, its efficiency attracted, I believe, the admiration of all who had the

    183
    opportunity of observing it. With respect to the Cavalry, when I come to refer to Sir Garnet Wolseley I shall have to say a word upon that arm; but it is not of these forces alone that I ought to speak—I should be guilty of a gross injustice if I did not state that the entire Force which came from India was worthy in every respect of the brotherhood into which they had entered with the Army from this country, and that, as has happened before and will happen again, the Navy vied, even upon shore, in military service with its gallant comrades of the Army. I may even say that the limited Force which was drawn from Malta was worthy likewise of the Service to which it belonged. Sir, it is quite truly said that the campaign was a short one. I said just now that the landing of the troops in Egypt continued pretty much throughout the month of August, especially from India, the Indian troops being slightly in arrear of those that came from this country; but I do not mean to say that the war had not commenced in August. Very far from it. It was a month distinguished by active operations; but this campaign must not be measured by the length of time which it occupied. The surrounding circumstances must also be regarded; the distance, the length of sea voyage, the severity of the climate, the march through the Desert, the exposure to physical influences must also be taken into consideration. For my part, I am not ashamed to say that rarely in my life have I witnessed a more touching spectacle than that offered to our eyes on Sunday last by the return of a portion of the Household Cavalry through London. We have been accustomed to look upon those magnificent young men who form the regiments of the Household Cavalry with unmixed admiration for the vigour and buoyancy of their youth, for their very great physical power, for their splendid appearance; but we have hardly ever associated them with the fatigues and sufferings of war. But on that occasion, however, the most careless eye could not fail to observe that those who had left us in the very height of health and vigour had come back, after these few weeks or months of war, worn, wan, and even in some cases emaciated, by the labours they had freely and zealously undergone
    184
    on behalf of their Queen and country. Well, Sir, the Vote which I am about to propose presents specially to the notice of the House the names of those officers whom alone it is possible to select on this occasion, for the conditions of our time require us to proceed by selection, when, if mere merit was concerned, the list which I have presented to the House might, indeed, be indefinitely multiplied and prolonged. The principal officers—I do not speak now of the Admiral and the General—to whom I shall have the honour to call the special attention of the House are men whose names are not unknown to us in previous years. In the first place, I may mention Sir John Adye, the Chief of the Staff, who, as the House well knows, is the second self of the Commander in Chief, and who was so associated with him in the operations of the campaign that it is difficult to draw the line of severance between the one and the other. I then come to the Generals of Divisions, General Willis and General Hamley, to whom the gratitude of the House is due for the admirable discharge of their duties as immediately under the General in Chief in command of the Forces. Next to these, Sir, I present to you the names of Sir Archibald Alison, the Duke of Connaught, Sir Evelyn Wood, and General Graham. Sir Archibald Alison has received the most marked token of the confidence of his Sovereign and of his country in being selected to the chief command of the considerable Force now remaining in Egypt, on which the security and tranquillity of that country as yet chiefly depend. Next, Sir, it is with peculiar satisfaction that the House will notice that His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught has, at every point in the detail of this campaign, earned the commendations of his Commander for his thorough knowledge of his Profession, for his intelligent and considerate care for those under his command, and for his perfect conduct when he led that portion of the Army in the field. We may offer, though custom does not permit us to introduce it in a formal shape, our hearty congratulations to Her Majesty upon this opening promise of the career of her gallant Son, for Her Majesty's maternal affections have been, if it were possible, yet more deeply interested than her patriotic sentiments in

    185
    the issue of this important Expedition. With regard to Sir Evelyn Wood, that experienced servant of his country, though he was, by the chance of war, not present at the centre of operations, yet he was not deprived of the opportunity of showing that he remains worthy of all the reputation which it has been given to him to achieve. With respect to General Graham, I will venture to say a word when I come to speak of Sir Garnet Wolseley. There is one other military officer to whom it is most necessary to refer—I mean Major General Earle, who was in charge of the communications. If the House will bear in mind what is meant by that word, what it was to supply the military and physical needs of the Army by a choice of routes, of which one was the small Sweet Water Canal, never intended for carriage; of which another was a railway, broken up almost all along the line; and of which the third was the Desert, they will understand what kind of service it is that was performed by Major General Earle. Although there are other names that I might dwell upon, I will not do so; because I do not wish, though I may have to do so longer than has been usual upon some of these occasions, unnecessarily to detain the House, for it yet remains to me, in fulfilment of the sketch which I drew at the beginning, to refer to the distinguished men who were the Naval and the Military Commanders of Her Majesty's Forces. They have already accepted the gracious offer of Her Majesty to add their names—Sir Beauchamp Seymour's and Sir Garnet Wolseley's names—to the Roll of Peers; and it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government in due course—and that, I believe, will be very shortly—to submit to the House—following the example which has been set on former occasions—to submit to the House a measure, in connection with that call of those gentlemen to the House of Lords, conferring upon them a suitable annuity in further acknowledgment of their services. With regard to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, undoubtedly it was as Commander of the Fleet in the Mediterranean he found himself charged with the most arduous duties—with duties in respect to the successful performance of which we might have trembled if we had not known, from former experience, much of the nature of the man who was in-
    186
    trusted with the great service at Alexandria. Since the accession of the present Government to Office, and also in performance of his duties as Commander of the Fleet in the Mediterranean—of course, I am not referring now to the propriety or impropriety of any political measure—but the House will agree with me, and I think will unanimously agree with me, that he earned no small title to the gratitude of this country by the extremely difficult services—political as well as naval—which he performed when stationed at Dulcigno, on the Albanian Coast, two years ago; nor can I pass by this occasion without graceful mention of the fact of the admirable manner in which, upon so many occasions, Admirals of the British Fleet have found themselves capable of confronting, and of satisfactorily discharging, political duties of the nicest character which have fallen upon them in connection with the service of their country. It was therefore in the full confidence in this experienced Admiral that we saw him proceed to Alexandria under the instructions he had received; and well did he justify that confidence, for, in Alexandria, he had not merely to conduct with success the important action which is known as the Bombardment, but he had to watch with the nicest care, as a matter of principle, and not merely as matter of vigilant observation, for the moment when it was his duty to act under the instructions he had received. Nothing could be more insidious than the operations by which it was endeavoured to elude his vigilance. According to the information and the advice that we received, had that vigilance been lulled to sleep, had the processes of strengthening the works, which was clandestinely carried on, in despite of formal assurances to the contrary—had these processes been allowed to continue, even for so short a time as for another week, it is too probable that, notwithstanding an overwhelming force of ships, that great operation would not have been concluded without the loss of some of the best blood and vessels of Her Majesty's Navy. Sir, with the valour and skill of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, we have on record that he had to meet an enemy who, on that occasion, showed themselves not unworthy of his steel. It is but just to record that the artillery of the Egyptians was of a high class. It consisted of modern

    187
    rifle guns, though not in weight, as nearly as possible equal to our own, and there was nothing to complain of in point of courage and capacity on the part of those who served them. In fact, there is every reason to suppose that if we compare the Bombardment of Alexandria with an event which, I think, naturally offers itself for the purposes of comparison—the Bombardment of Algiers, also in the Mediterranean, about 65 years ago—we may draw a satisfactory reflection from placing in comparison with one another the amount of loss suffered by the British on the one occasion and on the other; and yet, as I have said, there is no reason to believe that that difference of loss arose from any inferiority of the Egyptian resistance as compared with the resistance which was offered at Algiers. The numbers of the killed and wounded, which I have not now exactly in my recollection, during the action of the Bombardment were—though we deplore that there should have been any at all—yet they were very limited in number. A few tens, or two or three score, I think, would cover the whole statement, which I have not got accurately before me; but it may be in the recollection of the House that the killed and wounded at Algiers, when, for his distinguished services, Lord Exmouth was raised to the Peerage, though the vast majority of them were in the English Fleet, yet, in the entire Combined Fleet that conducted the bombardment, they amounted to a figure not less considerable than 900 persons. Sir Beauchamp Seymour, in conducting the Bombardment of Alexandria, hardly less studied sparing the city than he studied destroying the fortifications. He avoided almost entirely the infliction of damage to the city, for to other causes, to which I will not now recur, and which may not yet have been thoroughly examined, the conflagration of that city was due, and he happily had no responsibility. Sir, it was not merely the conduct of a naval operation which devolved upon Sir Beauchamp Seymour. He had likewise to land his forces, and to man with his men, at a moment's notice, a line of forts. The hostile Army having withdrawn from the city under cover of a flag of truce—and I will not now stop to discuss that most questionable act—Sir Beauchamp Seymour, with his seamen and marines, had to undertake,
    188
    and for six days completely to discharge, the duty alike of the police and the defence of Alexandria—of the police of Alexandria, which had been thrown into confusion by the plunder, the fire, and the conflagration that had occurred, and of the defence of Alexandria in the neighbourhood of a force unknown in its exact amount, but known to be large and known to be hostile. After that portion of his duty had been done, he had to provide—strange, indeed, was the care thus cast upon him—he had to provide for the water supply of the population, for those with whom he was in conflict seemed to think that they were justified in stopping the Mahmoudieh Canal, a measure which could have no possible effect as regarded the enemy in the field, because it is matter of notoriety that a Fleet moves, supplied and provided with means sufficient, and more than sufficient, for creating a water supply for itself, so that the measure was taken with the menace of the greatest suffering possible, of something even more than suffering, possibly of very extensive loss of life, to the population of Alexandria, a population of the same origin and the same nationality as that to which the authors of the measure themselves belonged. Well, Sir, the last great service that Sir Beauchamp Seymour had to perform on this occasion was the occupation of the Suez Canal, for which, of course, he had the supreme responsibility. He was seconded in that and in the whole of his proceedings by the greatest gallantry and skill on the part of the Admirals who served with him, and in particular it is my duty to commend to the honourable notice of the House Admiral Hewett, who took possession of Suez, and was responsible for the Southern part of the Canal, and Admiral Hoskins, whose duty was to occupy the Northern part of the Canal, as far as the important and vital part of it, Ismailia; and I must say I think the world felt a thrill of astonishment and admiration when, after a period of quietude—when people were uneasy—aye, and in this House there was much uneasiness about the Suez Canal and what was to happen to it—those who had foreborne to strike before the time came, struck the moment it had arrived; and before anyone could put a question or raise a difficulty, it was announced that the whole line of the Suez

    189
    Canal, the new base of operations, Ismailia, with the whole command of Eastern Egypt, was in the possession, and under the disposition, of the British Forces. Although I think, perhaps, I have said as much as necessary, yet not too much, on the subject of the services rendered by the Navy, I will just add this much—two facts which really ought to be noted. It will be recollected that when the Suez Canal was occupied, it was not occupied for the purpose merely of shutting out everybody from the use of it; it was for the purpose of introducing into it, and arresting at the proper point, this vast fleet of transports, nearly 200 great ships which I have described to you; and it is probably within the knowledge of the House that, for the nice business of pilotage through the Canal, that vast fleet of transports had to rely upon British resources, and that service of pilotage was successfully performed by the skill exclusively of British Naval officers; and, further, that while they had to effect this great operation of carrying 200 transport ships into the Canal and discharging them there, the regular traffic of the Canal—I own I was astonished when I heard it—was only suspended for a period of 48 hours. I have said already how these services were followed up by the action of the Marines and of the Naval Brigade during the advance of Sir Garnet Wolseley; but it is no wonder that Sir Garnet Wolseley has recorded himself his sense of his obligations by saying of the Navy that the Army owed them a deep debt of gratitude for the assistance they had given. Well, Sir, it remains for me to speak of Sir Garnet Wolseley himself, and here, again, we were not without the commendation and assurance of anterior service in the case of a man who, though happily he is still comparatively young, and may long, as I trust, remain available for the service of his country, yet in his short life, in his comparatively short career, has had the opportunity of receiving the thanks of this House and of establishing distinguished titles to the public gratitude. First, Sir Garnet Wolseley showed the virtue—not a very common virtue—of successfully keeping his own counsels to himself; and while those prying eyes which do so much to entertain the public, and sometimes to perplex, or even to disturb, the action of a general, were completely
    190
    at fault and befogged, and were dreaming of a useless assault on the difficult forts of Aboukir, Sir Garnet Wolseley, I may say almost in a moment, took firm possession of his new base of operations, and established himself at Ismailia. I believe the whole of the campaign had this, among other merits—that by dint of his insight and experience, and of the valuable assistance which he sought from the most competent and best-informed sources, it was a campaign of which the whole plan was accurately and minutely laid out, as it was within the same time, or even a shorter time, actually, minutely and successfully accomplished. Sir Garnet Wolseley, when he arrived at Ismailia in the middle of August—he arrived at Alexandria on the 15th, and went on the 18th or 20th of August to Ismailia—had not, of course, his entire Force with him; but he found he was in danger of the loss of his water supply, and, under these circumstances, it was necessary for him to make a venture for the purpose of securing it. He accordingly sent forward a portion of his Force, and then came those proceedings well known to the House on the 26th and28th of August at Kassassin. I need not dwell upon their military features; but I believe there was a charge of heavy Cavalry under General Drury-Lowe, which might well be named in its whole features as a subject for just admiration. But the qualities that Sir Garnet Wolseley has shown on this occasion, and the accomplishment of the plan which he intrusted to General Graham, were qualities of hardihood and vigour admirably backed by that General, who, if it were by these proceedings alone, has insured a distinguished name in the military service of his country. These were qualities of promptitude and vigour which were crowned by a complete success. The news of these actions arrived in this country, and that excited the appetite of the public, and in that public I include the entire country—no doubt, of us all. Stimulated by what had been already done, we looked out in eagerness for more to follow, and as day after day passed on from that 28th of August without any action on the part of Sir Garnet Wolseley, the stock of patience possessed by observers both there and here began to run short. The voice of censure upon Sir Garnet Wolseley began to be heard, and it was feared

    191
    that, after all, he was not quite a man of the vigour for which credit had been given him. But, Sir, he was a man of that vigour for which credit had been given him, and he united with that vigour other military qualities not less necessary to form the character of a great General. He paused at Kassassin for a considerable time. Did he do so without cause? I am given to understand, upon what I think is sufficient authority, that as early as the 9th September, at any rate, Sir Garnet Wolseley could have made his attack on Tel-el-Kebir with a moral assurance of victory. But, Sir, there are some victories which are nothing more than the commencement and inauguration of a prolonged struggle. There are other victories which in themselves at once assure the consummation of the great work that the General has in hand; and it was the wise delay of Sir Garnet Wolseley, and his determination, whatever storm of criticism might come upon him, not to stir—not to touch the enemy until he could effectually crush him, and attain at once the objects of the war. It was that quality which caused Sir Garnet Wolseley to wait until he had such a force at his command—until he was able to throw out forward, right and left, such a brigade of Cavalry, for the purpose of surrounding a defeated enemy, that he might perform that great operation which I will describe in the single phrase of converting a victory into a conquest. It is impossible not to dwell for a few moments before I close upon the character of this remarkable action of Tel-el-Kebir. It is not merely remarkable because it was a victory achieved against a force well and securely, as they thought and might think, entrenched, or achieved against an entrenched force by a force inferior in numbers. Sir Garnet Wolseley fought the action of Tel-el-Kebir with 13,000 men. The force which was entrenched within the lines of Arabi, reaching for an extent of three and a-half miles from north to south, was about 26,000 men; but that was not all. Remarkable as the success is, the skill and the consideration—aye, and the humane consideration—with which it was achieved are, I think, more remarkable. Sir Garnet Wolseley waited until he could succeed, and he waited until he could succeed not only with the fullest measure of success,
    192
    but with the smallest measure of loss of human life. We read, Sir, in Shakespeare, this expression—"Victory is twice itself when the achiever brings home full numbers." Well, Sir, it is a happy circumstance for a General to find himself in the condition of one who, having achieved a victory, brings home full numbers; but it is happier and better yet to be in the condition of Sir Garnet Wolseley, who will feel that consolation in his life and in his death that the fulness of those numbers was not owing to accident, or to the weakness of the enemy, but was owing to a deliberate and a well-laid combination, a skilful comparison and adaptation of means to ends, a judicious arrangement for every step of his measures, and the realization in actual experience of all that he had planned. He went forward in the silence of the night. He gave every order with the greatest minuteness and the exactest measure of place and of time. The Army bivouacked until the hour of half-past 2 in the morning. At that hour they breakfasted, and they then went forward upon a computation that, going in the dark through the Desert, this number of corps were to arrive at the lines of the enemy at a point of time, marked out almost to a minute, at daylight, and at that point so marked out they did arrive. They did march in silence through the Desert. It was the boast of the old Greeks that, while their opponents raised military clamour to keep up their spirits, they went in mantled silence to the war, and so it was that marched the Army of Sir Garnet Wolseley. They arrived at the enemy's lines at the very point of time which he had prescribed; and the movement, which was subject to so many chances of error, it is not uninteresting to recollect, was actually—such are the resources—such is the practical utility of science—directed by observation of the stars. It was thus that the force arrived at the lines of the enemy. They had been directed to practise a severe self-denial. They were to fire no shot until they took the first line, and they did fire no shot. They bore the fire of the enemy, they went steadily forward; and to that wise precaution of the General, and wise forbearance and manliness of the men, is in great part owing on our side the comparatively, at least, bloodless character of the battle. Well,

    193
    the House knows with what complete and rapid success this operation was crowned. But one word more is to be said. What followed the battle? The echo, and the fame of it went through Egypt. It did its work at once at every point where the forces of the enemy were gathered together; and the men who had achieved the success at Tel-el-Kebir did not, on that account, rest inactively under the shade of the laurels they had won. Without a moment's loss of time the Indian Cavalry were pushed forward under General Macpherson, to the important point of Zagazig, at the junction of the railways, and that point was occupied at half-past 4, on the very afternoon of the day when the action of Tel-el-Kebir had been fought. More than that, a march of 65 miles to Cairo, beginning on that afternoon, was accomplished by the British Cavalry under General Drury-Lowe, and the gallant and skilful officers who worked under his command. Some of those were Indian; but, of course, the main portion were British Cavalry, and they arrived at Cairo on the afternoon of the 14th. Sir, there was a little incident which is not recorded in the official papers, but which is, I believe, unquestionably true, and may be worth mentioning to the House, because it shows the wisdom of relying much on the moral effect of a victory complete and crushing in itself. A garrison of 10,000 men held the City of Cairo; but all the heart and all the pith was gone out of them in consequence of the news they had received from Tel-el-Kebir. When General Drury-Lowe marched forward with his Cavalry, the first vanguard representing, of course, no more than a few hundred men, though a large body was coming up almost immediately behind them, on this tremendous march—for such I believe I may properly call it—of 65 miles—the garrison of 10,000 men, instead of waiting to resist them, made what I may call a procession of surrender. The Cavalry saw in their front a white line presented by some object which, at first, they were unable to accurately determine; but they found, after a very short interval, that this was the front rank of a body of several thousands of troops marching out of Cairo, apparently well qualified to cope with them, but who had taken the precaution of hoisting on the points of their
    194
    bayonets handkerchiefs, or any rag of white, or anything that would carry a white appearance, in order to signify immediate, absolute, unconditional submission. That was the ripe result of the skilful operations of Sir Garnet Wolseley, and on the very day after the battle of Tel-el-Kebir he found himself in possession of the Egyptian capital, able to give an official and responsible assurance to the Government at home—aye, more than to the Government—to the Sovereign and the nation, that in his judgment the war was ended. I will not detain the House any longer. I have spoken longer than I intended. I have done so under the impression—I would not willingly make too much of what has happened—under the impression—it may be an erroneous impression—that these are remarkable occurrences; that they are qualified to carry into the mind of the House of Commons, and into the mind of the nation, the full conviction that if there has been much labour and much discussion, and much doubt and difficulty and vast expense of late years in connection with our military establishments, the nation does not remain without some return for what it has laid out; that it has not got merely gallant people to depend upon—for that it always had—but that it is approaching at least to a powerful and effective organization; and there will be the conviction that when, in a just cause, there is a great object to be gained, that organization will be found effective in its ends, and that men will not be wanting, whether as Admirals or as Generals, to encounter the immense difficulties and the arduous labours which, in the moment of a crisis, are cast upon them, and to carry forward the flag of their country to honour and to victory. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the 1st of the Resolutions of which he had given Notice.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I rise to say a very few words in seconding the Motion which has been made by the Prime Minister; and perhaps I may be allowed, at the beginning, to express and re-echo the hope, which the right hon. Gentleman expressed in the beginning of his speech, that the graceful act which we are now called upon to perform will not be marred by any want of unanimity on the part of the House of Commons. No doubt, to everyone who

    195
    is connected with the Military or Naval Profession, it must be a source of the greatest gratification and delight to receive the approbation and thanks of the British Houses of Parliament; but that gratification must be greatly enhanced—indeed, it may be said almost to carry its character, according to the unanimity with which that approbation and those thanks are expressed. It is absolutely impossible that in eases of this kind, or in any great cases of military operations, these should not be mixed up with the consideration of the greatness and value of the services performed, questions of political character—questions upon which there must, and will be, differences of opinion, and upon which there must be discussion and division between different Parties and sections in the House. Such, undoubtedly, is the case with regard to these Egyptian operations; but the present is not the time, the present occasion is not the occasion, upon which those differences can profitably be considered; and I say that for two reasons—in the first place, because I think that, as I have already said, it would mar the graciousness of the act we are about to perform; and, secondly, because the discussions themselves would, I acknowledge, be somewhat prejudiced by the very fact of the splendour of the services which have been rendered, and by the eloquence with which they have just been described to us. The speech to which we have listened was in itself a great and an inspiring piece of eloquence. Yet I do not mean to say that, great as the speech was, it exceeded the acts which have called it forth. The services which have been rendered would speak for themselves, even if they had not so eloquent an exponent as the right hon. Gentleman; and, therefore, I wish to say, once for all, that I hope and trust we shall understand that the Vote we are called upon to give is one solely with reference to the Military and Naval operations, and that we in no way, by doing so, or by any construction that can be put upon that Vote, commit ourselves upon questions of a debatable and political character. I cannot quite understand what is the objection which is raised to the expression with regard to the suppression of the Military rebellion in Egypt. I could quite understand, if we were to suppose that, by adopting this phrase, we adopted, without further
    196
    discussion, the Government explanation of the circumstances of the country, that we should be doing that which it would be unreasonable to call upon us to do; but what I understand and appreciate on the part of the Government in introducing these words into the Motion is, that they desire to put on record not only the fact that the services rendered were in themselves noble and conspicuous, but that they fully accomplished the object which the Government, who ordered the operations, had in view, because, as the right hon. Gentleman so eloquently put it, it was a case not of a victory, but for the time being, at all events, of a conquest. Whether the consequences will be such as the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues expect and hope is a matter we shall have to discuss. Whether the conquest is in a strict and real sense complete, and whatever its sequel may be—a matter upon which I entirely reserve my opinion—upon that we may have severe discussion—for the moment, it was a complete transaction, and one which was accomplished greatly to the credit of those engaged in it. I need not say it would be out of place for me to follow the right hon. Gentleman in the details of the advance, and of the actions of which we are speaking. Nor need I undertake to single out and praise any of those whose services have been so well recorded by the Prime Minister. But I would ask to be allowed to make an exception in the case of one of those officers who has, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, a peculiar claim upon our sympathies. I mean His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught. I cannot but feel we are specially interested in the fact that a Scion of the Royal House has gone forth to the duties which his Profession involves, and has discharged those duties in the manner in which he has done. Of the Generals and the Admirals who have commanded in these operations it is really useless for me to speak. We know what they are, and we have known for a long time—recently, at all events—with what very great skill they have conducted the services placed upon them. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman named and singled out a name which I was afraid might not have otherwise been specially mentioned—I mean that of Sir Herbert Macpherson. The fact that he commanded the Indian Con-

    197
    tingent is one which gives him a special claim to our consideration; and there are other Services to which, I think, we ought to pay official tribute, and I would particularly mention the Marine Forces. What is particularly remarkable, it seems to me, in this whole operation is, that it afforded an opportunity not only for the display of individual valour, not only for the display of the strength of one particular arm of the British Forces, but that it has shown in a remarkable manner how the whole Forces of the Empire may, in a short time, and with great precision, be brought to bear on a single point of the Globe. And I think there is this, at all events, which is remarkable in the campaign we have witnessed; in the first place, it has been so short. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of that as if it might be thought that, because it was short, it had not been very significant. I say that the very fact of its having been so short is, in itself, one great and most remarkable feature which distinguishes it amongst other operations. The fact that it was so completely organized and so well arranged as it was in so few weeks is, in itself, I think, one of the great features of the campaign. But there is this also that is remarkable—and I do not know that any other instance can be found—it has been found possible to combine every description of Force of the Empire in the operations. We have had the Artillery, the Infantry, the Cavalry, the Indian troops, the Marines, the Sailors—we have had all these Forces, all of them actively engaged; and it is, in fact, owing to the way in which one was able to come with its Force to the help and assistance of the other that the great success of the operations is due. It would not be just or graceful on my part if, in referring to these actions of our Services, I were to omit to pay a tribute to those who have conducted the operations from home, and who have directed the Departments through which the Services are controlled and equipped. I think I may take up the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman, and say that there is a little more than even the services rendered by the particular Departments on the present occasion to be noted; for the operations which have been so successfully completed are themselves a testimony to the work not of a particular Ministry, but to a succession
    198
    of Administrations, and to a succession of Parliaments in making proper provisions, or endeavouring, at all events, to make proper provisions, for the strength and efficiency of our Naval and Military Forces. We have certainly been able to show—and it is of the highest importance to the country and the world—how rapidly and how effectively England can act upon occasion. I trust that the House may be content upon the present occasion, and more than content; that it will be desirous to evince its satisfaction with the conduct of our troops by unanimously adopting this Resolution. But, at the same time, I may repeat the warning with which I began—that in giving this Vote we by no means accept, what we might be supposed to express, any particular theory with regard to the political questions which are involved.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Thanks of this House he given to Admiral Sir Frederick Beauchamp Paget Seymour, G.C.B. for the distinguished skill and ability with which he planned and conducted the attack on the Fortifications of Alexandria, and the Naval operations in the Suez Canal, which aided materially in the suppression of the Military rebellion against the authority of His Highness the Khedive."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON, who was received with cries of "Oh!" said, he rose to move as an Amendment to the Motion which had been made the Previous Question; and if hon. Gentlemen would give him a proper hearing he would promise to detain them as shortly as he could while explaining his reasons for doing so. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that this was not the time to discuss the policy which led us into the late war; there would be no occasion to do so now, because from what he knew of the Leader of the Opposition and of what he said in the country, he felt perfectly sure not many weeks or days would elapse before the right hon. Gentleman gave them an opportunity of saying what they thought on that policy. He would give the right hon. Gentleman's words the other day at a meeting in Glasgow, when he said—"I believe myself the war was unnecessary, and, being unnecessary, cannot be said to have been justifiable." An unjustifiable war was the greatest crime which a Ministry or a country could commit.

    199
    [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] The Prime Minister cheered that; he accepted the challenge; and, therefore, if they did not have an opportunity of voting on that point before very long all he could say was that the public life of this country would be thought by many to he little better than a political farce. They would probably have to wait a little while, however, because before coming to a conclusion the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would have to consult with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). He did not move this Amendment merely on account of the Egyptian War, to which he was opposed. He was always opposed to special Votes of Thanks to the Military Service. He had looked back to what he had said last May 12 months, when a Vote of Thanks was proposed on account of the Afghan War. He did not think one's own speeches agreeable reading; but on that occasion he found it more disagreeable than usual, because he discovered that he had made two assertions, both falsified by events. One assertion was that he did not fear they should have an opportunity of passing such a Vote so long as the Liberal Ministry were in Office, because they would not go into any such war; and the other foolish remark was that the Radical Party, who had assisted in putting them into power, were decidedly opposed to all aggressive wars. It was with great regret he admitted the foolishness of his remarks, for this war, which he acknowledged had been very popular with the country at large, was even more enthusiastically supported by other classes of the community, by Radicals, Nonconformists, and Quakers. He did not wish to find any fault with the soldiers. [An hon. MEMBER: Or the sailors!]—or the sailors, or the marines. All these brave men had done what they believed to be their duty, and what the country told them was their duty; but was that a reason for a Vote of Thanks to them? Why, we have a celebrated motto—"England expects every man to do his duty," whether soldier, sailor, or Member of that House. If Votes of Thanks were to be given, why not thank the Minister for War? His right hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) had had a great deal of trouble. Why not thank the man who made the
    200
    war, the Prime Minister? He did not see, without disparaging him for a moment, why the soldier was specially selected. The soldier when he entered the Army entered into a contract to do a certain amount of work, and also to run great risks. He entered into a contract to kill, destroy, ravage, anywhere the country pleased that he should go. He got his remuneration, and, more than that, the soldier acquired a great social position, especially in this Christian country, where he was looked upon as the greatest man possible. If the soldiers had done anything more than their duty he did not think he should have found it in his heart to rise and oppose the Vote. What were the facts? He saw an hon. Member of great experience on the opposite side of the House shortly before he was going to Egypt, and he said—"What about these Egyptian soldiers?" The hon. Member replied, as he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) believed too—"Why, they are the worst soldiers in the world." So they had proved themselves to be. They were actually beaten by the Abyssinians, and when he had said that he had said enough. We went to attack these people—we, a rich, powerful country, spending £30,000,000 a-year in preparation, while the Egyptian War Budget was about £600,000—we, with all the resources of civilization at our command, not only with 35,000,000 of people, but with 200,000,000 in India at our back—we, experienced in those wars, for we had made three invasions within the last few years—the Afghan, the Zulu, and the Transvaal—invaded a country with 5,000,000 of people. And now, having been successful, we were singing Hallelujah choruses all through the Kingdom. Was it not a farce to make such a fuss over it? The Prime Minister told them not three months ago that we were not at war, but only bombarding Alexandria—just a little bye-play; and he said that there was not a scrap, not a shred, not a tittle of evidence to show that Arabi had any National feeling at his back. And when we entered into this war without the slightest provocation, as far as he could make out, the soldiers who were attacked fled before us. He could not but feel it to be an anti-climax when it came to the taking of Cairo, the miserable Egyptians fleeing for their lives at the sight of an English soldier.

    201
    He believed if our troops met men as brave as themselves they would fight and overcome them. But if it came to a Vote of Thanks it was not to the English troops but to the Egyptians they should have moved it for running away. We were making just a little too much of it, and he thought that the military officers themselves were beginning to feel that they were a little overdoing it. It reminded him of a scene that had been described, in the last of the Egyptian Blue Books, how the Khedive was sitting in his palace while we were bombarding his town of Alexandria, and his Pashas were coming in and telling him about it, and some of them were in tears; but the account went on to say—"A distribution of decorations by the Khedive followed, and confidence was greatly restored." If Peerages and annuities were to be given now to our gallant soldiers, what would the country do when our Army should ever have to fight real soldiers? Why, we should be bankrupt in the matter of decorations, and there would be nothing left worthy of bestowal. They should remember that it was possible that before long we might have a war with Russia, and the Prime Minister had already given them a hint that we might have to go to the Soudan to have a turn with the False Prophet. He would ask the House whether we had not done enough in connection with this war? Were we not making ourselves a little ridiculous? We have had banquets, addresses, triumphal entries, thanksgivings in the churches, and the Prime Minister on a balcony in Pall Mall on Sunday last. And all this because, forsooth, after tremendous preparations, we had licked these miserable Egyptians. He really thought that the way in which we were going on was an insult to the British Army, and he, for one, did not want to insult it. It seemed to him as if we were expressing our surprise that the Army had been brave, hardy, and successful. Well, he should have been very much surprised if it had been otherwise. Did they know what Colonel Ewart, of the 2nd Life Guards, said, when one of the addresses that were flying about was presented to him by some ridiculous person or other in a country town? He said—"We have done what English troops are in the habit of doing—our duty." Of course
    202
    they had, and they did not want these extravagant Votes of Thanks. He warned Radical Members, if there were any, not to vote for the Motion under the idea that it was a complimentary vote to the poor fellows who had been engaged in hard service, for it was nothing of the kind. The Motion was really nothing more than a homage to the military spirit and Profession which brought unnumbered evils to England, and Europe, and the world. This was the reason why he ventured to move the Previous Motion.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Motion?
    MR. STOREYseconded the Amendment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Original Question be now put."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had come down to the House prepared to vote with the Prime Minister, and he had not been convinced that he ought to take a contrary course by the speech of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). The hon. Member had stated that our soldiers had only done their duty. Well, there were so few people in this world who did do their duty that we need not grudge a Vote of Thanks to men who had done it so well and bravely as our troops had. His hon. Friend also said that the Prime Minister exaggerated when recounting the exploits of those who took part in the Expedition. But of such exaggeration he did not complain. Had our soldiers met foemen worthy of their steel, they would have given an equally good account of them. On occasions like the present some exaggeration in panegyric was undeniably graceful. He would say no more in reference to this point, except that he felt sure that the Prime Minister would agree with him that Agamemnon gained a great deal in reputation by having all the imaginative eloquence of Homer to describe his battles. Turning to the terms of the Resolution, he found that certain controversial matter had been introduced into it. He referred to the words—"the complete suppression of the Military rebellion against the authority of the Khedive." No one could deny that those words raised controversial matter, and he very much regretted that the

    203
    Prime Minister had not withdrawn them. He would point out that when we spoke of a military revolt we assumed that it was a revolt of soldiery unsupported by the wishes of the people. But it appeared to him from the Blue Books that the whole Egyptian people were on the side of Arabi and not on the side of the Khedive. He denied that it was justifiable or fair to describe what had taken place in Egypt in this insulting manner. In a rebellion against a despot, he regarded the rebel and not the despot as the patriot. He should be very sorry to give a vote that would involve the idea that he agreed with the opinion that we should interfere to support a despot against a rebel. There was another point which also caused him regret. He had been under the impression that the Vote of Thanks was to be all that the House would be asked to pass, and that it would be almost an insult to those gallant Commanders, Sir Beauchamp Seymour and Sir Garnet Wolseley, to offer them a sum of money as if the House supposed that personal interest was the spur which had induced them to do their duty. When the Vote dealing with pecuniary rewards should come before them, he should oppose it unhesitatingly. At the same time, he thought that he and some other Gentlemen on that side of the House were put in a difficulty with regard to this Resolution. They were willing to give a Vote of Thanks to the Forces, but they were not prepared to compromise their opinions by voting in favour of the proposal of the Prime Minister, so long as these words which he had taken the liberty to call controversial remained. He did not know what other Gentlemen might do, but he should walk out of the House when the division took place.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped the House would forgive him for a few minutes while he made an appeal to the Prime Minister as to the form of this Resolution. When the right hon. Gentleman had been appealed to from below the Gangway as to the insertion of those words, to which he thought most just exception might be taken, as introducing controversial matter, he had replied that they did not bear that character at all, and suggested that they were in accordance with forms which had been previously used. He (Mr. Edward Clarke), however, contended
    204
    that the words "military operations," which many hon. Members desired to see inserted in the Resolution, instead of the words "military rebellion," would be in more consonance with former precedents. On the last two occasions when similar Votes of Thanks were given, in 1879 and 1881, the expression "military operations" was used, and in 1840 and 1858 Votes of Thanks had been proposed in the same terms. If the Government made their present Resolution to accord with the previous ones, they would avoid putting any Member in a difficulty with regard to the controversial matter. He wished to support the Vote of Thanks to the Army and Navy; but the war was not for the suppression of a military revolt, and when the time came for a discussion upon the Egyptian policy of the Government there would be a controversy raised on that point. As the Prime Minister had stated that the words in the Resolution relating to a military rebellion were not intended to carry any sanction of the policy of the proceedings in Egypt, it was hoped the right hon. Gentleman would omit them, and so avoid all danger of division of opinion on the subject.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, he thought there was another feature of this question which was passed over by the House—namely, that Arabi was not only not considered a traitor by his people, but that he was not considered a traitor by the Sultan or by the Khedive. They had seen it stated that there were numerous documents in existence which would prove that he was not only in the confidence of the Egyptian people, but in the fullest confidence of his Sovereign. Therefore, he thought the suggestion of his hon. Friend was perfectly correct, and that the debatable matter referred to should be withdrawn from the Vote now before the House. Personally, he felt very little admiration for the achievements of the British arms in Egypt, and when he said he had not been in any degree influenced by the eloquent speech of the Prime Minister, the House would infer that he had formed a very low estimate of the whole transaction.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had listened with as much attention as any supporter of the Government to the conscientious efforts of the Prime Minister to make a

    205
    mountain out of a molehill. At the same time, he should protest against the attempt to smuggle the Ministerial view of the transactions in Egypt into a Vote of Thanks to the troops engaged in the recent campaign. They were told by the Premier that the concluding words of the Resolution were not binding on the House. If so, why were they introduced into the Resolution at all? They were asked in this Vote to declare that there had been a complete suppression of the military rebellion against the authority of His Highness the Khedive. There was hardly a word in that clause which was not a mis-statement, at least a mis-statement from the conscientious view of those who opposed this war in the beginning as criminal, and who did not cease to regard it as criminal because it had been successful. There had been no complete suppression of the movement in Egypt. It would spring up as strong as ever to-morrow if the garrison which was holding down the nationality of Egypt was removed. The suppression of the Egyptian national protest would not be complete as long as they kept British bayonets at the throats of the Egyptian people. It was not a rebellion against the authority of the Khedive. When Sir Beauchamp Seymour bombarded Alexandria Arabi was Minister of War to the Khedive; and if the insufficient forts under his control had succeeded in beating back the assaults of the most formidable Navy in the world Arabi would have been further decorated by the joint approval of the Khedive and the Sultan. It was a mockery to say that there had been a military rebellion against the authority of the Khedive. The name of His Highness the Khedive was a mere pretence behind which to conceal the most aggressive policy that ever animated the enterprize of a British Minister. He did not desire to say a word against the bravery of the British Army in Egypt. That Army was composed of the best fighting races in the world. He supposed there were enough Irishmen in the Highland Regiments alone to carry the assault on Tel-el-Kebir. If the Premier meant that his statement should in any degree be accepted as a contribution to an impartial history of the subject, he might have mentioned a few circumstances bearing on the defence made by Egyptians to a formidable Army opposed
    206
    to them. He might have mentioned that the Egyptian Army of 60,000 men did not three months previously consist of more than 10,000 nominal soldiers. He might have mentioned that long before the Inflexible cast her first shell into Alexandria the Egyptian Army had been practically destroyed, not by open warfare, but by the treachery of European Controllers, who had broken up the Egyptian defences, who demoralized the Egyptian Army, and who, upon a single day, cashiered 25,000 trained Egyptian officers. The reason why the Suez Canal was so easily captured was because the Egyptian people believed the statements made from the Treasury Bench, that the Suez Canal ought not to be brought into the field of warlike operations. The nationality of Egypt was not suppressed; and neither in England nor out of it did one man in a hundred believe that the uprising of the armed fellaheen of Egypt was a mere military rebellion against the authority of a contemptible Khedive, who was now the nominee of the foreign garrison who held down his country. The Premier might make statements such as those just listened to; but throughout the world a different opinion would be held from that which was the official view of the Liberal Party.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 354; Noes 17: Majority 337.—(Div. List, No. 345.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    1. Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the Thanks of this House he given to Admiral Sir Frederick Beauchamp Paget Seymour, G.C.B. for the distinguished skill and ability with which he planned and conducted the attack on the Fortifications of Alexandria, and the Naval operations in the Suez Canal, which aided materially in the suppression of the Military rebellion against the authority of His Highness the Khedive.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the Thanks of this House be given to General Sir Garnet Joseph Wolseley, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., for the distinguished skill and ability with which he planned and conducted the Military operations in Egypt which resulted in the Victory of Tel-el-Kebir, the occupation of Cairo, and the complete suppression of the Military rebellion against the authority of His Highness the Khedive."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he moved to leave out the words "and the complete suppression of the military rebellion

    207
    against the authority of the Khedive." He had not the slightest objection to the Vote of Thanks to the Army; but he submitted that the operations of Arabi Pasha ought not to be described as a military rebellion; and he was certain that the words to which he did object had prevented many Members from voting in the last division.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out the words "and the complete suppression of the Military rebellion against the authority of His Highness the Khedive."—(Mr. Molloy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I cannot help thinking that I will be able to show the House, and also the hon. and learned Member who has moved the Amendment, why he should not persevere with his Amendment. The first question is the true import and bearing of this description. The movement made by Arabi is described as a military rebellion, and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)—I will not say he is justified in the breadth of his proposition, but I think he is justified to a certain extent—said that most people would admit that to describe a movement as a rebellion is not necessarily a condemnatory description. It is an established historical name. The history of the war under Charles I. is known as The History of the Great Rebellion; but there were many Gentlemen of this House who accompanied Hampden in that rebellion, who thought it right to do so, and therefore it is not a condemnatory description. It is a description of a plain fact. [Mr. O'DONNELL: No, no!] Well, what is the use of crying out "No, no!" The hon. Member for Dungarvan will not convince me by crying "No, no!" It is a plain description of a fact that this was a rising against the constituted authority of the country. ["No, no!"] Yes; it was a rising, in which the parties who headed it forced themselves, first of all, upon the Notables, and then into the Ministry, and compelled the Khedive, under fear of his life, to accept them. That is what I call a military rebellion, and it is not a condemnatory description, but simply a matter of fact. Then comes the hon. and learned Gentleman
    208
    opposite (Mr. Edward Clarke), who says it is contrary to precedent; but I assure him it is according to precedent. There is no doubt, in certain cases where the operations for which Votes of Thanks have been given have been operations of a more or less undefined character and object, they have been described as military operations and nothing else. I believe we ourselves described the operations of Sir Frederick Roberts, in asking for thanks for him, as military operations. How else could we have described them? They were a march to victory gained against a personage in Afghanistan, for the purpose of supporting a military occupation of Afghanistan for the time, and securing Her Majesty's Forces. There was no fixed and defined result which we could describe; but after the Battle of Waterloo you could not have thanked the Duke of Wellington for the military operations in Belgium, nor after the Peninsular War you could not have thanked the Duke of Wellington for the military operations in Spain. Where you have a definite result, as you have in this case, you describe it, and that is what has been done here. I beg attention to this, as it bears strongly on the appeal I make to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. In 1861 a Vote of Thanks was moved to the combined English and Indian Forces in the operations in China, which terminated in the Treaty of Pekin; and here I want to point out, first of all, that the description in that case goes a great deal further towards committing the House than the description in the present ease, which, I contend, does not commit the House at all; and, secondly, though there was considerable discussion and objection to the policy, no one on that occasion moved an Amendment to the Vote. On reference to Hansard, it will be found that the Vote contained the words—
    "That the thanks of this House be given to Lieutenant General Sir James Hope Grant," and so on, "for the skill, zeal, and intrepidity with which they conducted the operations in the north of China, which terminated in the capture of Pekin, whereby an honourable peace has been obtained on the terms proposed by Her Majesty."
    There were Gentlemen in that House who entirely disapproved of the whole proceedings, who thought it was anything but an honourable peace, but quite the reverse, and who took objec-

    209
    tion to the policy; but no Amendment was moved. These proceedings are of a solemn and rare character, in which the whole legislative authority of the country—that is to say, of Parliament—is accustomed to move together. Uniformly, the Vote of Thanks is moved to the different descriptions of Forces by the two Houses in the same terms. Let me represent to the hon. Member in what position he is asking the House to place itself. We have just voted Sir Beauchamp Seymour our thanks, and that without any opposition on the Main Question, for naval operations which aided materially in the suppression of the military rebellion against the authority of the Khedive; and now the hon. Member invites us to move a Vote of Thanks to Sir Garnet Wolseley for military operations in Egypt which are not to be described, and, in fact, to give a lower and fainter description to the services of Sir Garnet Wolseley than we have given to those of Sir Beauchamp Seymour. We cannot do that. It seems to draw a most invidious distinction. I think it will go far to involve the hon. Gentleman in an approval of the Bombardment of Alexandria, while he does not approve of the attack on Tel-el-Kebir. If the House adopts the unparalleled proceeding of two forms of thanks—one for the Army and one for the Navy—let me also observe to the hon. Gentleman that we now have it on sufficient authority that the other Branch of the Legislature has voted thanks in the terms proposed; and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman really will see that his Amendment would involve us in a strange anomaly, placing us first at variance with the House of Lords, and secondly with ourselves. Under those circumstances, I hope he will be satisfied with saying "No," if he thinks fit, when the Question is put. But perhaps he may now be disposed to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, it was perfectly true that the House was in a difficulty, and that, having passed a Vote of Thanks to the Navy, it could not now consistently refuse to pass the same Vote to those who were concerned in the military operations. He thought, however, that when the observations of the Prime Minister as to the real meaning of the words in question were sent forth to the country they would be considered
    210
    rather curious. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that rebellion was the only term that could be applied to the proceedings of Arabi in Egypt; and he illustrated his contention by reference to the rebellion in the 17th century, which certainly had the historic sympathy of many Members of the House; and the House was now called upon to express its thanks to the Land and Sea Forces for doing that which might turn out to have been a most unfortunate mistake, having regard to the future and the freedom of Egypt. The Prime Minister said it was a fact that the Military Party forced itself on the Chamber of Notables, then into the Ministry, and then on the Khedive. He (Mr. Clarke) ventured to demur to those propositions. There was no evidence in the Papers that the Military Party did force itself on the Notables, and when the Khedive accepted the new Ministry in Egypt, he did so on the unanimous representation of the only Parliamentary Chamber which Egypt had to look to. As to the Khedive, and the rebellion against the Khedive, it was like the old history of the Roses of York and Lancaster—one Party took the King prisoner, and then in the King's name called the other side rebels. We took the Khedive prisoner. Practically, he had been under the control of this country; and now the Prime Minister insisted on thanking the Military and Naval Services of the Crown in a form of thanks which made them apparently officers of the Khedive in putting down simply a domestic insurrection against his power.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he thought it was somewhat unfortunate that the expression which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) proposed to omit should have found its way into the Resolution of Thanks, because if they adopted the Resolution as it stood it would place the House in an almost unprecedented position. The House would have done an act which it had never been called upon to do before by a Minister of the Crown, or by a Government of the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland. Practically speaking, if they adopted the Resolution they affirmed by the deliberate judgment of the House of Commons that Arabi Pasha had been guilty of rebellion against the Khedive. He hardly thought that this House, or, indeed, anybody in

    211
    England, was in a position to form that I judgment, because they had no evidence before them. But if they were in that position, the fact remained that this was one of the charges which at the present moment was a subject of judicial investigation before a tribunal in Egypt. The Government, therefore, placed themselves, he had no doubt, unwittingly in this position. While, on the one hand, they had taken precautions that Arabi Pasha should have a fair trial as regards the charges which had been made against him, they, on the other hand, invited the House of Commons to declare before the tribunal had investigated those charges that Arabi Pasha was guilty. He (Mr. Parnell) submitted that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for King's County had not put himself out of court by having, through an oversight, due to the confusion and noise consequent on a division, failed to propose the Amendment at an early period.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, that the reason why he had not moved his Amendment on the 1st Resolution was because he understood from Mr. Speaker that he could not do so in consequence of the Amendment moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson).
    MR. DAWSONsaid, that in justice to Arabi Pasha, whose life was at stake, some Members of the Government ought to make a formal announcement that, no matter what decision the House of Commons might come to on this Resolution, the condemnation of Arabi Pasha implied in it would not be allowed to prejudice the trial about to take place in Egypt. Why was he to be condemned first and tried afterwards? He thought it was a great boast of the English nation that when a man was on his trial judgment was suspended until the trial was ended.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that, according to the doctrine laid down by Mr. Justice Lawson in the case of the High Sheriff of Dublin, if the House affirmed that Resolution as it stood, the Prime Minister would be guilty of contempt of the Court that was trying Arabi, and would be liable to imprisonment by that Court. [A laugh.] This was not a matter to laugh about, because the two cases were perfectly identical—not quite identical, because the law was rather stronger against the Prime Minister than against
    212
    the High Sheriff, because all that was done in the case of the High Sheriff was to criticize the means after a verdict had been arrived at; but in this case the Prime Minister asked them to declare positively that the prisoner at the bar was guilty of the offence of which he was charged. Therefore he submitted that the Prime Minister was bound in honour and fair play to do one of two things—either to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for King's County, or else to submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Court which was now trying Arabi Pasha in Egypt, in order that he should be punished for his contempt of Court.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 230; Noes 25: Majority 205.—(Div. List, No. 346.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    2. Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the Thanks of this House he given to General Sir Garnet Joseph Wolseley, G.C.B., G.C.M.G., for the distinguished skill and ability with which he planned and conducted the Military operations in Egypt which resulted in the Victory of Tel-el-Kebir, the occupation of Cairo, and the complete suppression of the Military rebellion against the authority of His Highness the Khedive.
    3. Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the Thanks of this House he given to,—

    General Sir John Miller Adye, K.C.B.; Vice-Admiral William Montagu Dowell, C.B.;

    Lieutenant-General George Harry Smith Willis, C.B.;

    Lieutenant-General Sir Edward Bruce Hamley, K.C.M.G., C.B.;

    Major-General Sir Archibald Alison, Baronet, K.C.B.;

    Rear-Admiral Sir William Nathan Wrighte Hewett, V.C., K.C.B.;

    Rear-Admiral Sir Francis William Sullivan, K.C.B., C.M.G.;

    Rear-Admiral Anthony Hiley Hoskins, C.B.;

    Major-General His Royal Highness Arthur, Duke of Connaught, K.G., K.T., K.P., G.C S.I., G.C.M.G.;

    Major-General William Earle, C.S.I.;

    Major-General Sir Henry Evelyn Wood, V.C., G.C.M.G., K.C.B.;

    Major-General Gerald Graham, V.C., C.B.;

    Major-General George Byng Harman, C.B.;

    Major-General Drury Curzon Drury-Lowe, C.B.;

    Major-General Sir Herbert Taylor Macpherson, V.C., K.C.B.;

    And to the other Officers and Warrant Officers of the Navy, Army, and Royal Marines, including Her Majesty's Indian

    213
    Forces, both European and Native, for the energy and gallantry with which they executed the services they have been called upon to perform:
    4. Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That this House doth acknowledge and highly approve the gallantry, discipline, and good conduct displayed by the Petty Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, and Men of the Navy, Army, and Royal Marines, and of Her Majesty's Indian Forces, European and Native, and also the cordial good feeling which animated the United Force.
    MR. GLADSTONE: There is a question of a supplementary character, and that is to move that the said Resolution be transmitted by the Speaker to Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour and to General Sir Garnet Wolseley, and that they be requested to communicate the same to the several officers and men referred to therein.
    Motion agreed to.
    5. Ordered, That the said Resolutions be transmitted by Mr. Speaker to Admiral Sir Frederick Beauchamp Seymour, and General Sir Garnet Joseph Wolseley; and that they be requested to communicate the same to the several officers and to the men referred to therein.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.—RESOLUTIONS.

    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [EIGHTH NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [20th February],
    "That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, during any Debate, to be the evident sense of the House, or of the Committee, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the House or the Committee; and, if a Motion be made 'That the Question be now put,' Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such Question; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, the Question under discussion shall be put forthwith: Provided that the Question shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a Division be taken, unless it shall appear to have been supported by more than two hundred Members, or unless it shall appear to have been opposed by less than forty Members and supported by more than one hundred Members."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    And which Amendment was,
    In lines 1 and 2, to leave out the words "or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House."—(Sir Henry Drummond Wolff.)
    Question again proposed, "That the words 'or to the Chairman of' stand part of the Question."
    MR LEWISsaid, he rose to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth. The most important thing to be dealt with was the Obstruction which they met with in Committee, where the "monster" had been most successful and most disastrous in its results; and he claimed for himself an honest desire to participate in any measure that would really have the effect of putting down that Obstruction. He could not help thinking, however, that the particular mode in which this Obstruction was dealt with by the whole scheme of the Government was most unsatisfactory, and was likely to lead to entire disappointment and be ineffectual. Supposing that Obstruction of a most serious and absolute character was attempted by some Members of the House on a Motion that certain words be omitted from a clause, and the Chairman, by the exercise of this authority, closed the debate, did the House believe that would put an end to the Obstruction? Would it net be the cause of irritation, and rather lead to increased Obstruction subsequently than bringing things into a satisfactory state? An observation fell from the Attorney General which struck him as rather remarkable. Dealing with the question as to whether the casual Chairmen should be allowed to exercise the same power as the ordinary Chairman of Ways and Means, he made use of the remark that the Chairman of Ways and Means would not be compelled to leave the Chair to the tender mercies of the casual Chairmen, because, by the operation of this Rule, there would be an end to Obstruction, and, therefore, the necessity for those long Sittings would not arise. But what was Obstruction? Why, it might arise 200 or 300 times in the course of an evening in Committee; and, therefore, the idea of the Chairman having the power to put au end to Obstruction upon one Amendment, having a real tendency to advance the progress of the whole Business of the Committee, seemed to him entirely contrary to the ordinary experience of the House. For his own part, he believed the real remedy with regard to Obstruction in Committee was rather to be found in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and in that of his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr.

    215
    Gregory). Take that of his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex. He was not entitled to discuss the question now; but he thought they might find some remedy for Obstruction in Committee by putting an end to the ridiculous power of speaking any number of times upon the idea that it was securing free and open discussion. If they were to limit the power of any Member to speak any number of times upon any Amendment, and otherwise shorten the proceedings of the Committee, it appeared to him, speaking without any partizanship whatever, that that would be much more likely to be successful than the course proposed by the Government in this Resolution. It was a common idea, especially with hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Obstruction began with his right hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther), the right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), and the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins). He would read to the House an extract from a letter of Lord Palmerston, written in 1844, set out in Ashley's life of that statesman, page 464. He there said—
    "The experience that they" (the then Government) "had on the Irish Arms Bill must have shown them that a compact body of opponents may, by debating every sentence and word of a Bill, so obstruct it that a whole Session is scarcely long enough for carrying through one measure; and, of course, the Irish Members on our side, and all the English and Scotch Radicals, would sit from 'morn till eve and from eve till dewy morn' to prevent any more stringent law being enacted."
    That showed that the Obstruction with which they had to deal had been in existence for a period of at least 40 years. He confessed that it appeared to him that the instrument they proposed to forge by that Resolution was either too blunt or too sharp, and for this reason—namely, that the probable effect of using it would be to render the Obstructionists more crafty and determined, and thus to bring about delay rather than progress. It was perfectly ridiculous to imagine that Members would consent to the Chairman of Committees stifling discussion every three or four hours. Such a power was impracticable, and would break down and appear ridiculous in the hands of the Chairman of Committees. The House was placed in a somewhat peculiar position with regard to the
    216
    Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, which proposed to leave out the words "Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House." The Prime Minister had said that he intended to deal with the very question which was involved in the Amendment; but they had not heard from him how he intended to do so, and the House was not, therefore, placed in a position to deal effectually with the Amendment. He knew the right hon. Gentleman would tell them that they would have an opportunity of debating and of voting against the Resolution when it assumed its complete form; but surely they were entitled to ask for some information from the Government as to the character and extent of the alteration which they proposed to make in the part of the Resolution which was attacked by the Amendment. Was ever so distinguished an Assembly placed in a more ridiculous position by its Leader?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow him to explain. His hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) had stated in his speech that he (Mr. Gladstone) had previously agreed to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), which stood next on the Paper. On reference to the reports, he found that he had made that statement; and, therefore, he was now prepared to take that course.
    MR. LEWISsaid, that in that case there would be no provision for casual Chairmen. It appeared to him that they were going from bad to worse, for frequently when a casual Chairman occupied the Chair it would be more necessary than at any other time to make use of the power proposed to be given. That proved to his mind the extreme good sense of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) when he said that it was impossible, in the varying conditions of the House and Committee, to provide for these evils by one Resolution. In the case of the Speaker they had not a political official to deal with; but the Chairman of Ways and Means was usually a man of strong Party bias, who was constantly to be seen in one Lobby or the other. In the event of any great question involving heated feeling, such as the disestablishment of the Church, coming before the

    217
    Committee, would it be satisfactory for the Chairman, who might have taken a foremost part in bringing forward the subject, to exercise the new and most obnoxious power which it was now proposed to confer upon him of enforcing the clôture upon, perhaps, half of the Members present? The truth was that the whole of the 1st Resolution was founded upon a misconception. The circumstances attendant upon each of the coups d' état that had occurred in that House when Members had been deprived of the right of free discussion had been most unfortunate. It would not, of course, do to admit that the Chairman had made a mistake; but the fact remained that the Members of that House had been punished for offences which had been committed during their absence. When he first entered that House it would have been morally impossible for any man to have stood up and defied it for five minutes together, and Obstruction had arisen from the fact that new Members neglected to learn their first Parliamentary lesson—namely, that their respect was due to the remaining 651 Members. It had, however, in some instances been asserted that the object of the Government in imposing the change upon the House was not to put down Obstruction, but, as a Liberal Marquess had stated to his constituents the other day, to force through certain political nostrums which were obnoxious to the Conservative Party, and which, unless that change was effected, they did not see their way to carry. That was why they were suspicious about this measure. He doubted if the Liberals could gain any benefit or credit with their Party or the country if such were their motives. At all events, even if they were beaten in this matter, the Conservatives would have the satisfaction of knowing that they were endeavouring to support true and genuine freedom.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, complaint was made at the close of the Sitting of the previous day that the discussion on the Resolution was unfairly spun out. He did not think so. Many of the Members had come to London at this season at great inconvenience, and all, he believed, with reluctance. They bad no desire to remain longer than was absolutely necessary for getting through the Business the Government had sum-
    218
    moned Parliament to transact. There was no wish, so far as he knew, in any part of the House to beat out the debates unduly or to delay the inevitable. If they were to be compelled to swallow the nauseous draught the Cabinet had compounded for them, the sooner it was over the better. There were some points that must be discussed, and discussed in detail and with minuteness, and one of them was the Amendment before the House. It was one of the most important Amendments to the 1st Rule. He had had its importance vividly impressed upon his mind by a notable circumstance that took place earlier in the Session. During the discussion on the Coercion Bill he left the House one evening at 10 o'clock. He was accompanied by an hon. Friend of his—a Member for an Irish county. They both left unconscious that they had committed any offence against the Rules of the House. Returning the next morning, between 9 and 10 o'clock, his hon. Friend found that in his absence he had been tried and condemned at the instance of the Chairman of Committees. He had a high opinion of the fairness of the House of Commons. He did not believe that, consciously, the House would do an injustice to any man; but he must say that that transaction had left a more unpleasant impression upon his mind as to the length partisanship could be carried by an official than anything he had seen since he had been a Member. The hon. Friend to whom he was referring was condemned for proceedings that took place in his absence, and when a casual Chairman was presiding; but the punishment was inflicted upon him at the instance of the Chairman of Committees, who did not witness the conduct he complained of, and who dogmatically and decisively pronounced judgment upon facts he was unaware of. He should oppose, therefore, most strenuously the giving of the Chairman of Committees such powers as the Resolution proposed to confer. He agreed with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) when he said that no number of Rules would ever do away with Obstruction. If the House was to assume the regular and orderly character that the Government seemed to think it had lost, it could only be accomplished by a better spirit and a higher tone pervading the entire Assembly. They did not keep order in the streets by the

    219
    laws or policemen, but because the mass of the citizens knew that it was their interest and their duty to contribute to its maintenance. They gave and took in their intercourse with their neighbours, and did not punctiliously stand upon points so long as substantial justice and fair-play were observed. It should be the same way in the House of Commons. But the Rules had been enforced against a section of the Members so strictly that that feeling had been destroyed. It was by its restoration, and not by any Rules such as the Prime Minister had proposed, that the Legislature would reach that position of effectiveness that they all desired to see it attain. There were certain points respecting the Amendment on which they were all agreed. First, they all admitted that the position of the Speaker was superior to that of the Chairman of Committees. The Speaker was a semi-judicial officer. He was raised above the ordinary influences of partizanship. He could be intrusted with, and was supposed to exercise, his power with absolute impartiality. The Chairman, however, held a different position. He was a partizan. He mingled with Members in the Lobbies and in the Corridors, voted in Divisions, and performed the ordinary functions of a Party Member. It was impossible to suppose that he was not influenced by his daily contact with his Colleagues. This was admitted; and, strangely enough, the Prime Minister, when admitting it, drew, from it an argument in favour of conferring upon the inferior officer the exceptional power. It was the most extraordinary reasoning he had ever listened to. The right hon. Gentleman arrived at the conclusion by contending that as the Chairman was an inferior officer he would feel his responsibility, know that his conduct was keenly scrutinized, and would be excessively careful in giving his decisions. Now, he (Mr. Joseph Cowen) supposed that tortuous mode of reasoning had its influence; but he owned that he could not follow it. On another point they were also agreed—that the Obstruction to the Business of the House took place chiefly in Committee. The subjects that were there discussed, and the Rules that obtained, supplied inducements and opportunities which did not exist in the House generally. They admitted these three
    220
    points, therefore—that the Chairman was an inferior officer, that he was a partizan, and that at the time he presided Obstruction was most rife. They gave the Speaker power to close the debate by a simple majority. He said they gave that power; but it was very questionable whether that was conferred in an unqualified sense, for the Rule as it stood was a complete puzzle. Some friends of his contended that they could extract 16 different meanings from it. But, be that as it might, under the Rule no doubt the intention was that the Speaker should have the power of initiating the closing of a discussion, and to close it by a bare majority. It might be right or it might be wrong to give the Speaker that power. He thought it was wrong. He, however, was not arguing that point then. But surely it was not right to give the same power to the inferior officer and the partizan that they gave to the judicial officer. The best way to deal with the matter would be, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, to divide the duties of the two, and make one Code of Rules for the Speaker, and another Code for the Chairman. But the Government refused to do that. He would make a further suggestion—that if the Speaker was to be empowered to close the discussion by a bare majority, the Chairman of Committees should only be empowered to close it by a majority of two-thirds or three-fourths. By that means the highest officer would have power to deal in the House in one way, and the inferior officer would deal in Committee in another. He did not know whether the Government would accept his suggestion; but he was quite sure, if they could see their way to do so, it would shorten the discussion and facilitate the passage of their Regulations.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, he thought the suggestions of the hon. Member who had just addressed the House were worthy of consideration. He was of opinion, however, that if the debate upon the Procedure Rules was to proceed at the same pace in the future as in the past two days, it was impossible to imagine when the House could get through the discussion of them. The debate had already lasted too long. It was in the power of the Government to put a stop to it, if they chose, by announcing their intention to revert to

    221
    their Resolution of a few months ago, and to give up the clôture by a bare majority. The debate at present was unreal. They were conscious of what mystic writers called "a presence" among them which, though unseen, was felt by all—that presence was the bare majority Rule, of which they, none of them, could get rid. He would therefore suggest that the Government should give up that Rule altogether; and he believed that if hon. Members opposite who were known to dislike it would boldly speak out their opinions they would greatly assist in bringing that about. The intention of the Prime Minister to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), with the addition of certain Rules by which the House would be enabled to invest casual Chairmen of Committees with the powers of the regular Chairman, made it clear that the whole subject would have to be re-opened; in which case it would not be desirable to pass what was necessarily an incomplete Resolution. If the Chairman of Ways and Means was to possess the same powers as the Speaker, it would be logically necessary to place casual Chairmen in the same position, and, he supposed, the Chairmen of Grand Committees also—unless in Grand Committees Obstruction was never likely to impede the proceedings—otherwise they would have this "curious" spectacle, a spectacle of perfect order while the Chairman of Ways and Means was in the Chair, and should he be ill, or absent from other causes, absolute disorder under the presidency of his locum tenens. If on that side of the House so considerable a change was opposed, it was not to be presumed that such opposition was in the interests of Obstruction. Their desire was, not that Obstruction should continue, but that it should be put down by other and better methods. He would only add a hope that Her Majesty's Government, by reverting to the compromise agreed to by them some months ago, would remove the difficulty in which their proposals had placed the House.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means was responsible, but indefinite. At any rate, he had found no definition of it in any of the Regulations of the House, except in that which provided
    222
    for the performance of his duty as Deputy Speaker. The fact was that the Committees of the House might be presided over by any Member except when the House was in Committee of Ways and Means. The Chairman of Ways and Means had no prescriptive or statutory right to preside in Committees other than those of Ways and Means. They had the highest authority for that, because the Speaker, in answer to a question on the point, had stated that—"It was arranged that ordinarily the Chairman of Ways and Means should take the Chair on Government Bills and sometimes on other Bills." And, again, in answer to another question, the Speaker said—"It has been the invariable custom of this House for many years to allow any Member of the House to take the Chair on a Bill." And the statement of the Speaker was confirmed by the Prime Minister, who said that—"It was Sir Robert Peel who first induced Mr. Greene to take the Chair on certain Committees, but not on all. "The consequence was that an hon. Member below the Gangway immediately gave Notice that the next time the Chairman of Ways and Means was absent he would move that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) should take the Chair. He did not know that the House would wish that the power of clôture should be put into the hands of the hon. Member for Cavan. They were asked now to consent that the most stringent Rule ever proposed in any Parliament should be intrusted to any chance Member who might be Chairman of a Committee. The Chairman of Ways and Means was always a Member of the Party in power, and looked to that Party for promotion; and on that ground alone there was good reason for rejecting the proposal of the Government, and for adopting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that the debate had been singularly remarkable for silence and for ignorance—entire ignorance on the part of Her Majesty's Government of the scheme they had submitted, and persistent refusal to answer questions put by what was called "the inquiring Party." Except the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), only two other supporters of the Government had spoken, and of these, one had

    223
    wisely excused himself from voting at all, because he did not know what he would be voting about; and the other, the hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke), would give a hypothetical vote—he would vote for the Government if they amended the Resolution which they had put on the Paper. With these exceptions, all their other supporters, rising young barristers and others, held their tongues. And yet it was but rarely that a young politician below the Gangway got an opportunity of supporting by a speech a Ministerial proposal. He had sat below the Treasury Bench, and he knew that to be the case. Why was it that they had been thus silent? Simply because they did not know what the Resolution was. But there was another Party—the Party which usually sat behind him, but which was now apparently at dinner—whose silence was remarkable. It was simply in consequence of the exuberant and persistent rhetoric of those hon. Members that the clôture was demanded. It was common talk that the côdture was aimed, not at the Conservatives, but at the Gentlemen who came from Ireland. Their privileges of speech were to be curtailed, and they had nearly all felt the rod wielded by the Chairman of Committees. It was, therefore, wonderful that only one of their number should have spoken on the present occasion. Why had they been silent? The hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) had let "the cat out of the bag" by saying that the Irish Members took little interest in the question of the clôture because their presence in that House would only last a short time. He would like to know how the Government had "squared" the hon. Members from Ireland. Had the Government tampered with them by promising them a separate Parliament on College Green? [Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"] He asked the Government to tell the House whether the hon. Member for Carlow had founded his observation on any real fact? [SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Question, Question!] He was not surprised at the impatience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary—
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I rise to Order. I would ask you, Sir, whether the hon. and learned Member has yet said one word in reference to the
    224
    Amendment before the House? [Cries of"Oh!"]
    MR. CHAPLINalso rose to Order. Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman in Order in interrupting another Member with a statement?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had made no statement.
    MR. CHAPLINreplied, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had in effect stated that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had not said a word in reference to the Amendment.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member for Chatham is reviewing the debate which has taken place. I do not think it right to interpose.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he felt no surprise at the displeasure shown by the Home Secretary at his line of argument. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was very anxious that he should speak within the four corners of the Resolution; but what was the Question before the House? His own supporter, the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), could not tell what it was. The Government maintained an obstinate silence. If they were all as sensible as the hon. Member for Berkshire, they would follow his example and walk out of the House, and leave the Government to settle the matter in a Commission consisting of themselves. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: Hear, hear!] The Government had not told them what the power was which they were asked to intrust to the Chairman of Committees. How could the House decide to grant the power before they knew what it was to be? He understood that casual Chairmen were not to have the power. How, then, were Chairmen of that kind to preserve order? The hon. and learned Attorney General had said that when once the Rules were passed they would never see a casual Chairman. Surely that was an absurd statement. Could the Attorney General guarantee the perpetual health of the Chairman of Ways and Means? Then the Government had refused to say what was to he done in the case of Grand Committees. The House ought to be placed in possession of the scheme they were told the Government were going to produce. It was all very well for the Government to draw upon the faith of their own supporters; but they had no right to draw upon the faith of the

    225
    Opposition. What he would advise the Government to do—and he tendered the advice with the greatest possible deference and humility—was first to make up their own minds as to what it was they intended, and then to rise frankly and explain the scheme to the House.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that the position of Chairmen of Grand Committees and of casual Chairmen could not properly be discussed in connection with the Amendment before the House. With respect to Chairmen of Grand Committees, the Government had stated that they were not to be invested with the power of closure. The leading organ of public opinion had stated that Grand Committees would be nests of Obstruction if that power were not given to the presiding Members. But it should be borne in mind that the Bills which would be referred to Grand Committees would not be measures likely to provoke Obstruction. If Obstruction should arise, the proper course would be to report the fact to the House, with the intimation that the Committee could not deal satisfactorily with the Bill. The main point now was whether the Chairman of Ways and Means should have the power which they proposed to give to the Speaker. The case sought to be made out by the Opposition in support of the Amendment had been conclusively answered from their own side of the House in the speech of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), who had repudiated the idea that the Chairman of Committees was a political creature, and had vindicated the dignity of that high Office. The right hon. Gentleman had shown that the powers intrusted to the Speaker must be vested in his permanent Representative; and, therefore, until that speech was answered, notwithstanding the taunts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he saw no reason why they on the Liberal side of the House should waste the time of the House in discussing the question.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was very glad that at last they had had a speech from the independent Benches on the opposite Bide, for if there was not a conspiracy of silence, or a confederacy of muteness on the other side of the House, there was, at all events, an extraordinary coincidence which brought forth no debate. He always heard the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler)
    226
    with very great pleasure on account of the great ability with which he spoke, though he did not always agree with him. He had listened to the whole course of this debate with some knowledge, and with considerable attention; and he was bound to say that, with the terms of the 1st Resolution before him, and having had the benefit of this debate in the earlier part of the Session, he never heard anything more relevant than the speeches made from the Opposition Benches. Now, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister announced at least three times since they had assembled that the House had been summoned at this exceptional and inconvenient period to resume its labours for the purposes affecting the efficiency and repute of the House, it would be reasonable to demand that they should have been summoned, at all events, to a fair debate. He did not think it was legitimate, he did not think it was wise, to indicate to the country that the Government had summoned their followers for a mechanical function of voting. He hoped that as the debates proceeded they would sometimes have an expression of the independent views of independent Members. This debate might not have taken place, or might have been shortened, if the Government had not altered their views with reference to a two-thirds' vote as a substitute for a bare majority. The powers that were proposed after the communication of the Prime Minister in May last were the powers of initiating a clôture on a two-thirds' majority. That was an intelligible and regulated power. That power he might have been willing to assent to, not because he liked it, but because, having regard to all the circumstances, it was a matter that could not be further contested. But the Prime Minister had thought it right to propose a bare majority; and now they had to consider the depository of this vast power of initiating clôture by a bare majority. They were bound to regard jealously and with the greatest possible suspicion the person to whom they gave that power. He was unwilling to give that power even to the Speaker, or to any of those who might succeed him. He recognized the logic of facts, and was aware that previous discussions had indicated that some form of power or other might be given by Resolutions of the House, and that they had passed Votes which they were

    227
    prevented from challenging. Upon the question whether the power that was given to the Speaker as to the initiative of the closure of a debate should be extended to the Chairman of Ways and Means, it was necessary to consider what had been the distinction existing between those who held the high Office of Speaker and those who held the honourable, but not so high, Office of Chairman of Committees. The distinction was obvious. The Speaker was the first Commoner in the Realm. The second Commoner in the Realm, he (Mr. Gibson) believed, was the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department. Now, no one would put the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees in the same category. The former was given a pension to indicate that he was placed beyond the slightest obligation of looking again to Office or any public employment. In addition to that, by public usage, he was entitled to the offer of a Peerage, so that the broadest distinction was drawn between him and the Chairman of Committees. The idea that had been suggested that anyone who filled the subordinate and temporary Office of Chairman of Committees could be regarded in the slightest degree as being in a position resembling that of the Speaker struck him as nonsense. Speakers on one or two occasions had descended from their high Office and become a Prime Minister, or Secretary of State; but, as a rule, the Speaker's high Office was well recognized by himself, as well as those surrounding him, as the goal of their ambition in that House. As regarded the Office of Chairman of Committees, he had no doubt the duties of that Office were discharged in a perfectly proper and upright manner, and no one recognized more than he (Mr. Gibson) did the high character of the right hon. Gentleman who had filled the Office of Chairman of Committees; but the House knew the operation of strong political opinion. Was the power to be confined to the Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means, or was it to be extended to any casual Chairman? He listened to the debate of last night, and he read the report in The Times of the speech of the President of the Local Government Board, who spoke with immense authority on this subject, both as a Cabinet Minister and as having himself filled the Office of Chairman of Com-
    228
    mittees. And these were the words of the right hon. Gentleman—
    "The Government felt that in a long Committee of the Whole House it might be absolutely necessary that a Chairman who temporarily relieved the regular Chairman should be able to take the initiative in regard to closing the debate. On behalf of the Government, he wished to say that if they were allowed to dispose of the present Amendment, and to reach that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston, the Government would then be prepared to make a proposal, with regard to these temporary Chairmen, which they hoped might meet the views of the House."
    Was not the meaning of these words that yesterday the Cabinet were of opinion that it was necessary that the temporary, casual Chairman should be enabled to take the initiative in regard to closure? If that was the view of the Government yesterday, what was their view to-day? He was entitled to have an answer to that question. Was the view which the President of the Local Government Board expressed yesterday the view which the Government entertained now, or had they during the night changed their minds? He wanted to know whether the view which bad been expressed yesterday by the President of the Local Government Board represented the view of the Government that day?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I will give him an answer.
    MR. GIBSON: I would prefer the President of the Local Government Board, who spoke the words, to reply.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish an explanation, I will not give it.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he would yield to the Home Secretary, although he did not consider it regular for one Cabinet Minister to explain what another Cabinet Minister meant.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTcomplained that he had been treated with incivility, and denied that he rose to reply for another Cabinet Minister, but simply in answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question as to Cabinet changes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had charged the Cabinet with having changed their minds. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had read what the President of the Local Government said; but he

    229
    did not read what the Prime Minister afterwards said. The Prime Minister stated that he was willing to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), which expressly confined this power to the Chairman of Ways and Means. The words were so expressed, and left no room for misunderstanding, and he was astonished that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have misunderstood them.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he was quite ready to receive any explanation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he did not think that the Home Secretary had at all mended the aspect of affairs. Yesterday the Cabinet was represented by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, and the President of the Local Government Board. He had quoted from the utterances of the President of the Local Government Board, which expressed, with the greatest significance and clearness, the judgment of the Cabinet. Later on, the Prime Minister was told by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) that he had given a pledge that he would accept the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Preston. That the Prime Minister did not deny, and pointed out that it was intended to bring forward some simple Rules of the House with reference to casual Chairmen; but he never withdrew in terms the unqualified and open language of the President of the Local Government Board. He wished to know whether the House was to assume from the statement of the Home Secretary, that they were to hear no more as to the casual Chairman having any power whatever under this Rule?
    MR. DODSON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right in saying not under this Rule.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that he put a more favourable construction upon the Home Secretary's words. He understood from the Home Secretary that after the Prime Minister's statement they were to be assured that no one, except the appointed Chairman of Ways and Means, could ever have power to use the clôture. He was now told by the President of the Local Government Board that that was not so, and that it was intended to give them their powers under another Rule. If that were so,
    230
    he would like to know what was the difference between the statement of the Cabinet that day and their statement yesterday? He understood the Home Secretary to state that they had no longer the right to rely upon the statement of the President of the Local Government Board, in consequence of the Prime Minister's acceptance, in a qualified way, of the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Preston. Now, he was given to understand that under another Rule the casual Chairmen were to have the power of closure. If that were so, then the Prime Minister accepted an Amendment, and killed it by a Rule subsequently framed. He hoped the Cabinet would think over the matter in the night, and endeavour to arrive at some conclusion which would, at all events, be capable of being easily apprehended by a moderate understanding. One word as to the statement of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) with reference to Grand Committees. He did not think the hon. Member did justice to the arguments of the noble Lord who introduced that topic. It was true that the matter was not in the terms of this Resolution; but it was a legitimate test by which to measure how this Rule would work, to see whether the Government had examined into all their operations so as to make them one coherent whole. If the Government had not until yesterday considered what was to be the position of Chairmen of Grand Committees it showed that they had not considered this matter in anything like an exhaustive way. If the Chairmen of Grand Committees were not to have these powers, then, as Bills were to be delegated to these Committees for all purposes, a large scope was left for the Obstruction which it was so necessary to check. The Prime Minister had said more than once that the Grand Committees were only a kind of experiment; but unless the Rules on that subject were presented in a more defined shape they would be likely to give rise to a considerable amount of discussion. Before the debate closed, he was bound to say that hon. Members opposite had done nothing to prevent its closing from its very opening. He would venture to suggest that it would keep up appearances better, and give the discussion more the semblance of a debate, if some

    231
    representative speakers were put forward on the other side.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that the reason for summoning Parliament at that time was the necessity of putting some check upon the licence of debate. He had always understood that hon. Members opposite were of opinion that the time had arrived when the Rules of Debate of that House should be altered. That, at all events, was the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, when he brought forward his Resolutions with regard to Obstruction; and matters had not mended since. There were now 116 Amendments upon the Paper, and if hon. Members all spoke upon this Amendment it was difficult to see when the debate would close. Yet they were taunted because hon. Members on that side of the House had not followed the example of those on the other side in discussing this Amendment at length, however much their speeches might have been mere repetition. Nothing was to be gained by useless repetition. It was of no use making speeches on this side of the House, repeating over and over again the same answers. Indeed, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had listened to the debate as carefully as he said he had done, he would have discovered that many of the speeches made upon his own side answered one another. For instance, they had been told over and over again that the proposal to invest the Chairman of Committees with the power of initiating the clôture was something terribly dangerous; but the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had that night said that it was a very harmless proposal indeed. According to his (the Solicitor General's) understanding, debate meant using argument with a view to convincing hon. Members, and answering argument which had not yet been answered. He adhered to that definition; and would say, moreover, that such arguments as had been used on the other side of the House had been fully and effectually answered on this. That might be a benighted view, but that was the view taken on this side of the House; and that was the reason they did not enter into a long discussion. With respect to the argument based on the difference in the position occupied by the Speaker and that
    232
    occupied by the Chairman of Committees, on which so much stress had been laid, he did not see much force in it; for when the power was given to the Speaker to Name an hon. Member for wilful Obstruction and disregard for the authority of the Chair, the same power was given to the Chairman of Committees. [An hon. MEMBER: Subject to appeal.] The hon. Member said, "Subject to appeal." That was to say, the Speaker was called into the Chair to put the Question to the House again. Did the hon. Gentleman think there was any protection in that? If so, he would tell him that it was a protection of a most shadowy description. The power of Naming Members initiated the proceedings, for all the rest depended on the vote of the House. The same thing would take place here. Neither the Speaker nor the Chairman of Committees could close the debate. All that was proposed was that he should have the power of initiating the Motion; the ultimate decision would rest with the House. He did not think it possible to find a case of closing by the Chairman in which it would not be possible to raise the same question again before the House. For instance, if there was an undue stoppage of the discussion in Committee of Supply, the question might be raised on Report; or if, in the case of a Bill, there were no Report, then there might be a discussion upon the third reading. If there was to be a closing power at all—and the House had decided that there should be—it would be idle to give that power to the Speaker only, and to refuse it to the Chairman of Committees. He had heard the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) say that on the question of Obstruction reliance must be placed upon the spirit and feeling of the House. He wished it were possible to rely upon the spirit and feeling of the House. The time had gone by for doing so. He thought they had now arrived at a position for the determination of this question. It had been said that if the Government told hon. Members what it was they proposed to do, the House would know how to vote; but they had had the plainest intimation of what was to be done. Then, with regard to the question of the casual Chairmen, the Prime Minister had said that that question would be separately dealt with.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: What the Prime Minister said was that he would adopt the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Preston. Since then he had suggested some modification, and now he has gone back again.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL): All the right hon. Gentleman said was that that question would be dealt with as a matter by itself. This question of the casual Chairmen was a sort of red herring drawn across the path for the purpose of prolonging this debate, the speeches of hon. Members opposite consisting in asking at one moment what was the use of giving that power to the Chairman unless it was also given to the casual Chairmen, and at the next moment saying what a monstrous thing it would be to give them such a power. The Government had no desire to confuse the issue, but to keep to the plain issue as it arose upon each Amendment.
    MR. GIBSONasked leave, by the indulgence of the House, to read the statement made by the Prime Minister on May 1, as reported in Hansard. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I will take this opportunity of stating in regard to the Notice given to-night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), which proposes to recognize the Chairman of Ways and Means—being an Officer of the House—but to wholly exclude from the operation of the Resolution casual Chairmen—Chairmen pro hac vice—that it is an Amendment that I think perfectly reasonable, and one that we are prepared to accede to."—[3 Hansard, cclxviii. 1900.]
    SIR JOHN MOWBRAYsaid, he yielded to no man in his desire to restore the fair fame of the House of Commons and to restrain undue licence of debate; and, therefore, he approached that question in no Party spirit, and with every wish, as far as he possibly could, to support the propositions of the Government. But he found himself very much in the position described the other day by his hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), who said that the cart was now being put before the horse. Indeed, it seemed to him that the horse had been led out and was being put into the shafts without its being understood what sort of a cart, whether a light or a heavy one, it was to have attached to it; and, however inconvenient it might be to the Treasury Bench to be interrogated as to their intentions, he felt that, until
    234
    he knew under what circumstances the power given by the Resolution would be vested either in the Speaker or in the Chairman of Committees, he was unable to give a vote on the particular question before the House. He could not vote with the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), because he thought there was great force in what was said as to the necessity of putting down Obstruction in Committee, and that they would be dealing with only a part of the question if they did not deal with Obstruction in Committee. He also felt that the Chairman of Committees, though undoubtedly not so high an officer as the Speaker, was yet, in many respects, clothed with much of the dignity and authority of the latter; but he asked what was to be the majority on which the clôture was to be put in force? And, until he knew that, he was unable to vote with respect to this proposition. On the 6th of May the Prime Minister told them that he accepted the proposition of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). That concession had since been withdrawn; but on Tuesday night the Prime Minister made a speech of apparently a conciliatory character, which left them a hope that some compromise might yet be come to on the matter. He did not even now abandon that hope, notwithstanding the attitude assumed by the Solicitor General, who, though an able exponent of the views of the Government, was not in the secrets of the Cabinet; and the Cabinet seemed not yet to have quite made up their own minds on the subject. If they would allow the question to be decided by the real judgment of the House, without Party feeling being brought to bear upon it, he felt confident that they would arrive at the decision that the clôture should only be applied by a proportionate majority—say, of three-fourths or two-thirds, but not by a bare majority. Then he should be willing to give that authority to the Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means. With regard to casual Chairmen of Committees, he did not think it was dragging a red herring across the path to raise that point. On the contrary, the question which had been put in regard to it was a fair one, and one which they were entitled to have answered. Casual Chairmen had to be called in to act at all-night Sit-

    235
    tings—occasions when the clôture might have to be put into operation; and, therefore, it was right that the House should know what the intention of the Government was in respect to those cases. In regard to the Chairmen of Standing Committees, he did not think the matter was of so much importance, because he hardly thought the Government would propose to confer that power on them, the proposed appointment of these Committees being only an experiment. In conclusion, if the proposal of the Government was that the clôture was to be enforced by a bare majority, he should feel bound to vote against the Resolution, whether the power was to be exercised by the Speaker or by the Chairman of Committees. But if, as he hoped, the decision of the House would be that it should only be applied by the vote of a fair proportionate majority, then he should think that the Chairman of Committees should be clothed with the same authority as the Speaker for initiating it.
    MR. SALTsaid, there was a very unnecessary, though by no means unnatural, feeling on the part of many Members on the other side that the discussions on the clôture were being carried to an unseemly and unnecessary length. He, however, rose to put before the House no Party considerations whatever, but some very practical reasons why it was absolutely necessary that they should proceed very cautiously, and possibly very slowly. They were now dealing with a matter of the greatest importance with regard both to the past history of the House and to the future management of the House by means of Resolutions. They were, in fact, thus dealing with a matter of far greater importance than three-fourths of the Bills which were introduced into the House; and they might incautiously pass some sentence in a Resolution which, when passed, would be adopted as a Standing Order of the House, and there would afterwards be great trouble in getting it altered if its alteration should become necessary. It should be remembered that in dealing with a matter by Bill there were five opportunities on which they could challenge the principle of the Bill, and two on which they could discuss it in detail; whereas, when they proceeded by Resolution, there were only two opportunities of challenging its principle,
    236
    and only one of discussing it in detail. It therefore became all the more necessary that the House should understand the mind of the Government on that subject; and it appeared to him that there were now on that particular question three minds of the Government. There was first the mind of the Prime Minister, then there was the mind of the President of the Local Government Board, and there was also the later mind of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. It had been urged by the Solicitor General that the stage of Report would still follow that of Committee; but it must be remembered that the 11th of the proposed Rules would make a considerable alteration in the stage of Report, which was to be taken without a Question being put unless there were Notice to re-commit. The House had now before it three minds of the Government; and, seeing that the question could not be raised at later stages, as in the case of a Bill, it was only fair and right that they should pause until they knew what the mind of the Government really was.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, they must recollect that these Resolutions would not only affect the House of Commons for the present time, but the House of Commons in generations which were to come; and, therefore, he thought it was incumbent upon them that they should have the most ample discussion upon them, and upon every Amendment which would come before the House. He saw it stated in a newspaper to-day that the Conservative Party had already shown signs of Obstruction. That might be the feeling of some hon. Members opposite; but the Conservative Party did not care one straw, nor mind one iota, of what might be said or done by the Birmingham wire-pullers, and were not to be daunted by anything that might appear in Radical newspapers. There were two kinds of Obstruction. There might be legitimate Obstruction of a particular measure, such as the Prime Minister had offered to the Divorce Bill, or there might be an abuse of the Forms of the House, such as Irish Members had resorted to, and for which Rules should be framed to put down; but this Resolution would operate solely against legitimate Obstruction. The altered condition of things rendered it necessary and inevitable that there should be more talk in the House now

    237
    than there had been in the past. It was not at present known how even the Speaker was to say what was the evident sense as to whether a debate should close; and, therefore, while objecting that the Speaker should have such power, they were still more determined in their objection to the Chairman of Ways and Means having it. The present Chairman of Committees was of a somewhat nervous and excitable temperament. ["Oh! oh!"] He did not speak in disparagement of the Chairman. He could not help being nervous and excitable; but on a question of great political significance, if the Chairman of Ways and Means lost his head, as he might do, he (Mr. Onslow) thought a great Constitutional wrong would be done to the House. The right hon. Member who preceded Mr. Playfair was of a somewhat more calm and phlegmatic disposition. ["Oh! oh!"] He did not wish to speak disparagingly of any Gentleman; but he could not help thinking that the Chairman of Committees might lend himself to the Party influences of the Prime Minister. For instance, if he had heard it said that it was desirable to get so many votes at a Sitting, and if by 12.30 sufficient progress had not been made, he might consider it his duty to put the clôture on a particular discussion, which might be of great interest and importance, in order to get the remaining Votes passed; and a dictatorial Prime Minister might, by a nod or a wink, suggest that the time had come for doing so. As the Prime Minister had just returned to the House after being absent some hours, and it was their duty to get some further explanation from him, he moved that the House do now adjourn.
    MR. RITCHIEseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Onslow,)—put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he wished to advert to the unfortunate arrangement by which the Question was put in a form that would probably prevent the House from fully discussing, until they came to the very end of these debates, the important point as to whether the Speaker or a Minister of the Crown should have the responsibility of proposing the
    238
    clôture. In his opinion, if they were to have the clôture at all, it ought to be put into operation by the open and direct initiative of a Minister of the Crown. Nothing could be more grossly unfair than the action of the presiding authorities in the French Chambers towards minorities. Hon. Members ought to consider the possibility, and even the probability, of the Chairman of Committees being a Party man, whose main object would be to pass Government measures and to suppress criticism hostile to the Ministry of the day. It was impossible to consider the working of the power of the gag placed in the hands of a Ministerial nominee without taking into consideration the other changes with which they were threatened under the subsequent Rules to be proposed by the Prime Minister. It was a pity that this important question of the clôture had been placed in the forefront of these Rules, for without a due consideration of the changes to be introduced by the subsequent Rules, they could not be in a position to judge of the alterations which would be introduced in regard to the Offices of the Speaker and the Chairman of Ways and Means. For example, the proposed Grand Committees, each consisting of 100 Members, would be picked and packed in order to represent the policy of the Minister of the day. After a Bill had passed through a Grand Committee, and came under the scope of the Chairman of Ways and Means, or some other functionary dependent on the will of the majority, what was the position which independent Members would occupy? They would have been excluded from the Grand Committee by the Government Whips, and subsequent discussion in the House would be prevented by the apposite application of the gag by the Ministerial nominee in the Chair. Yet the Government would endeavour to escape the responsibility, for they would pretend that they had nothing whatever to do with the application of the gag and the suppression of hostile criticism. Independent Members would be at the mercy of the Government. It would be in the recollection of every Member of that House that during the course of the present Session the Government snatched a division on the Bradlaugh Question by issuing a four-line Whip on the Lords' Inquiry to the Land Act. The sup-

    239
    porters of the Ministry attended in force, and the Bradlaugh Question was unexpectedly brought forward. It was a very pretty stratagem; but it was not serious, because in the present state of things, when liberty of discussion still existed, independent Members were able to speak against time, until the Opposition could muster their ranks. But, under the New Rule, the clôture would be applied whenever it was needed for the purposes of the majority. It was not Irish Obstruction which would be put down, but the right and power of free discussion. Irish Obstruction had thoroughly done its work. He had long since denounced the weapon of Obstruction, which ought only to be resorted to as a remedy for unendurable wrong and in case of urgent necessity. Obstruction, as the weapon of a small Party, was a chimera and a delusion. Already, Irish Obstruction belonged to a museum of fossils; and such Obstruction could be put down by a two-thirds, or even a four-fifths or nine-tenths majority. But an unscrupulous Minister and an unscrupulous majority, if that power were intrusted to a Chairman of Ways and Means, who was always a Government nominee, would thereby bring about an exaggeration of all the evils inseparable from the system in the case of the proposed Grand Committees. Independent Members would be excluded from those Grand Committees, and then gradually from the House itself. If he were a member of a revolutionary party—of such a party as had supported Mazzini and Garibaldi—he would be glad to see the establishment of the clôture, because it would inevitably tend to the destruction of the powers of Parliament in this country; it would reduce the people of this country to the condition of those nations which had no free Parliaments, and would make Parliament the creature and the minion of the most powerful demagogue of the day.
    Question put, "That the words 'or to the Chairman of' stand part of the Question."
    The House divided:—Ayes 202; Noes 144: Majority 58.—(Div. List, No. 347.)
    MR. RAIKESmoved to amend the 1st Resolution by inserting in line 2, after the first "of," the words "Ways and Means in." The object of the
    240
    Amendment was to exclude from the exercise of the somewhat invidious powers and privileges which it was proposed to confer upon the Chairman of Ways and Means such amateur and temporary Chairmen who might be called upon at a late hour of the night to take the place of the official Chairman. In his opinion, the Chairman of Committees had very important and responsible duties to fulfil, and occupied in Committee a position analogous to that held by the Speaker in the House itself; and there being no appeal, as some appeared to imagine, from the decision of the Chairman to the Speaker, it was necessary that the temporary Chairman, who was freed from all responsibility on leaving the Chair, should not be intrusted with powers which might, perhaps, be conferred without much danger upon the official Chairman, whose salary was dependent upon the annual Vote of the House. He hoped that they would hear from the Prime Minister something which would re-assure the House with regard to various suggestions which had been thrown out from the Treasury Bench during his absence as to the course which the Government proposed to adopt, and which, so far as he understood it, amounted to taking away the substance, while granting the form of this Amendment. When they had sanctioned the principle of this Amendment, it would be hard that on a subsequent day they should be asked, practically, to reverse the principle by creating some new personages clothed with more or less indefinite powers for presiding over a more or less indefinite body, and armed with the authority which this Amendment sought to remove from amateur Chairmen. The right hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed, in line 2, by inserting after the first word "of," the words "Ways and Means in."—(Mr. Raikes.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman correctly understood that it was the intention of the Government to assent to this Amendment without any qualification or condition whatever. It was, however, only just to the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr.

    241
    Stanhope), whose recollection of his utterances on this subject he provisionally accepted yesterday, that he should say that, having had an opportunity of referring to the debate, the exact purport of which had escaped him, he now finally adopted the hon. Member's statement of what he had said as accurate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes) appeared to be labouring under an impression, or an apprehension, which he (Mr. Gladstone) hoped and desired to be able to remove from the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman was under the apprehension that the Government intended to introduce in connection with this scheme of Resolutions, or during the present Sitting of the House of Commons, some new plan by which they would again propose that whatever power of closing debate might be given to the Chairman of Ways and Means should also be given to a casual Chairman. Now, the Government had no intention whatever of making any proposal during the present Sitting on the subject of casual Chairmen. They did think, however, that it had been felt by the House that the present provisions for the appointment of casual Chairmen, and the absence of any special qualification, were not quite satisfactory; and it would be proper, and he hoped it would not be found difficult, to improve those provisions. During the next Session, or at any future period, the question of making better provision might be considered. But there was not the slightest intention of mixing up that subject with the present debates, or to make any proposal upon it in connection with the present Resolutions; and, so far as casual Chairmen were concerned, hon. Members might banish them from their minds. He had no wish to speak disparagingly of casual Chairmen, for some of them had been found extremely valuable, and useful, and even distinguished upon occasions; but he proposed to banish them altogether so far as this Autumn Sitting was concerned. He hoped he had now removed all apprehension on the subject; but, before he sat down, he wished to give in his distinct adhesion to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes) had said with reference to the position of Chairman of Ways and Means. The right
    242
    hon. Gentleman held that position himself with ability and distinction; and he (Mr. Gladstone) must bear his testimony to the fact that, although the right hon. Gentleman out of the Chair was as stout a Party man as any in the House, yet in the Chair he would as soon have his case judged by the right hon. Gentleman as by anybody. He wished to remind the House, after the very disparaging remarks which had fallen from different hon. Gentlemen in the course of the debate, of a fact which was indisputable—namely, that, although it was perfectly true that the Chairman of Ways and Means did not preclude himself from voting in the ordinary divisions of the House, yet that nothing was more rare than for the Chairman of Ways and Means to be seen taking a share in any Party debate. He often assisted the House upon the consideration of Private Bills; but he most rarely assisted the House by his judgment in a Party discussion. He had been conversing on this subject with a right hon. Friend, and he had stated that he had a difficulty in recollecting a case in which the Chairman of Ways and Means had interfered in a Party debate. He was reminded of a case which very much strengthened his argument—the case of Mr. Massey, a highly respectable Member of the House, who filled the position of Chairman of Committees some years ago. On one occasion, Mr. Massey did take part in a Party debate on the Reform Bill; but he took part in it by speaking against the Party with whom he usually acted. This fact, he hoped, would do something to mitigate any disposition which might exist in any quarter to disparage the impartiality of any hon. Member who might happen to occupy the position of Chairman of Ways and Means. He hoped that the House, having regard to prior experiences, and not to speculation on the future, would have no apprehension as to the impartial judgment of the Chairman of Ways and Means; and he had spoken these few words because he was convinced that the House of Commons had a great interest in maintaining the high position of that officer—an interest he would not say equal to that which it had in maintaining the position of the Chair itself, but one only second to the interest it had in maintaining the position of the Chair. He

    243
    concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston in the general view he entertained of the Office of Chairman of Ways and Means, and he also concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in the Amendment he had proposed.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, as a Member of the Tory Party, looked with some suspicion upon the interchange of flattering compliments between the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes) and the Prime Minister. They had seen the right hon. Gentleman, as a leading Member of the Tory Party, getting up to propose an Amendment, and making flattering observations upon the Prime Minister and the Government; and immediately afterwards they found the Prime Minister getting up to accept the Amendment, and making flattering observations upon the right hon. Gentleman who had moved it. Of course, if that sort of thing was to go on much longer the Autumn Session would not be of very long duration. He thought that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend was undoubtedly a great improvement on the Resolution, now that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had been rejected; but he thought that even the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was itself susceptible of improvement, and, with the permission of the House, he would suggest how that Amendment might be improved. It was quite unnecessary that he should take any part in the shower of compliments which had fallen upon the Chairman of Ways and Means. He would certainly say nothing against him; but he was unable to say anything in favour of him. No doubt, there was a good deal of conventionality in what had taken place; but he and other hon. Members who sat below the Gangway in that part of the House were not accustomed to exchange compliments with each other. As to the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means, there was no doubt about it whatever; and the public knew perfectly well, and the House knew perfectly well, that the Chairman of Committees was always a partizan. The great effort usually made by the Chairman of Ways and Means was not that he should avoid appearing to be a partizan, but that he should not appear to be too much of a partizan.
    244
    [Cries of "Oh!" and "No!"] At any rate, that was his (Lord Randolph Churchill's) opinion, and he believed that to be the great effort of the Chairman of Ways and Means. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members said "Oh!" but it was a well-known fact that the success of a Chairman of Committees was that he had not appeared too much of a partizan. The Prime Minister appeared to hold a very extraordinary opinion in regard to the Chairman of Committees. If he had understood the right hon. Gentleman rightly, he had praised the late Chairman of Committees (Mr. Raikes) because he constantly voted against his Party. ["No, no!"] If that was not so, he begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon for having misrepresented him. If, however, it really were so, he would advise the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to recommend his own Chairman of Committees to take the same course on some occasions. What he wished to suggest to the House was that they should add to the end of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the Member for Preston these words, "after consultation with Mr. Speaker." ["Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite might cry "Oh!" but there was more in the suggestion than appeared at first sight. They knew that in all well-regulated public schools the power and the privilege of flogging were always reserved for the head master, and were never intrusted to the usher. He thought, therefore, as the Prime Minister appeared to him to be very much inclined to treat the House of Commons of the present day as Dr. Keats used to treat his boys in the public school of Eton in olden days, the House would act very wisely if it took some care to provide that this extreme power of punishment should only rest with the highest authority in the House. If the Chairman of Committees noticed that Obstruction was going on in the House, he would be able at once to suspend the Sitting of the Committee, but for so long a time only as would enable him to consult the Speaker upon the matter, and to inform the House that he had the support of the Speaker in any action he felt it desirable to take. Curiously enough, he was reminded of a circumstance which happened only two Sessions ago. The House would recollect that on the occasion to which he referred the Chairman

    245
    of Committees gave a decision which was one of the most extraordinary ever arrived at in the House of Commons. The Chairman imagined that it was in his power to put to silence a very highly-respected Member of the Tory Party; but some hon. Members sitting below the Gangway on that side of the House imagined that he had no such power. They disputed the ruling of the Chairman. The Prime Minister did not happen to be in the House at the time, and in the end the Chairman of Committees left the Chair and proceeded to consult the Speaker. When he returned, he came back with the knowledge that he had not the power to do what he thought he had a right to do. In that case there was no inconvenience and no considerable delay of the proceedings. The Committee was only suspended for a very few minutes, and it had, therefore, been demonstrated that it was perfectly easy for the Chairman of Committees to consult the Speaker without interfering in any way prejudicially with the Business of the House. There was this further advantage in such a course—that if the Chairman of Committees, in consulting the Speaker, gave him a report as to the state of affairs in the House which might not subsequently turn out to be one which fairly represented the nature of the proceedings, the Speaker would be very chary how he gave his sanction to the closing of a debate in Committee in future. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) could not help thinking that the House would feel very much happier and more satisfied upon the question of closing a debate in Committee if there was in every case to be an appeal from the Chairman of Committees to the Speaker. His right hon. Friend the Member for Preston had already pointed out that there was the very strongest difference between the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means and that of the Speaker. There was one difference which had not been pointed out before, and which he was obliged to his right hon. Friend for having reminded him of. His right hon. Friend said that the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means could always be called in question, because it was necessary that the Vote for payment of his salary must be moved for every year in Committee of Supply. That was a fact which he thought was very well
    246
    worth remembering. But what did it come to? It came to this—that the Chairman of Committees was paid by the House; but, of course, if the Government were in any way annoyed or displeased, or put out by the conduct of the Chairman of Committees for not sufficiently enforcing the clôture, they would take steps which would practically enable them to get rid of the offender. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite appeared to object to that statement. "Am I dog, that I should do this thing" was always said by the person who did the deed; and it was perfectly certain that there were persons in that House, connected with the conduct of Public Business, who might be capable, under provocation, of visiting the Chairman of Committees with their displeasure. Without, however, insisting that such a course would be pursued, he simply desired to point out that the Chairman of Committees was absolutely dependent upon the Government of the day, and that without the assistance of the Government of the day he would find it difficult to get his salary voted. [Cries of "Oh!" and "No!"] It was no good saying "Oh, oh!" and "No, no!" Nothing annoyed the Prime Minister more than when the Irish Members did that, and he did not see why other hon. Members should be subjected to the same kind of interruption which the Prime Minister in his own case disliked so much. He had no wish to detain the House longer; but he submitted that the Amendment he proposed to move would be a great improvement upon this most extremely defective scheme of Her Majesty's Government, and he hoped the House would accept it.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment of the noble Lord would, I think, come in properly after the word "House," in line 2; but the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes) is complete in itself. It would then read in this way—
    "That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker or to the Chairman of Ways and Means in a Committee of the Whole House—after consultation with Mr. Speaker."
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHrose to Order. He had given Notice of an Amendment after the words "a Committee of the Whole House," to insert the words "not being the Committee

    247
    of Supply." If the noble Lord's Amendment were adopted and inserted in the place suggested by the Speaker, it would, he apprehended, be impossible for him to move his Amendment.
    MR. O'DONNELLrose; but—
    MR. SPEAKER, interposing, said: I apprehend that even if the House were to adopt the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) might still follow.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthen moved to further amend the 1st Resolution, by inserting, after the word "House," in line 2, the words "after consultation with Mr. Speaker."
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 2, by inserting, after the word "House," the words "after consultation with Mr. Speaker."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONE(after a pause) said, he had been waiting for some indication from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), who was his Leader on this occasion, and whose Amendment it was proposed to amend, as to the light in which he regarded it. If the Amendment of the noble Lord were agreed to, he (Mr. Gladstone) should propose further to amend it by the introduction of a Proviso—
    "That inasmuch as it is essentially necessary that Mr. Speaker, in order to review in a satisfactory manner the decisions of the Chairman of Ways and Means, should be acquainted with the merits, it shall hereafter become the duty of Mr. Speaker invariably to be present during all debates in Committee."
    MR. O'DONNELLremarked, that the observations which the Prime Minister had just made threw a new light on the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and he did not think that it was a reassuring light. It now appeared that the kind of Obstruction to be put down under the New Rules was not that kind of Obstruction which was so notorious and general that it would come to the ears of the Speaker in the ordinary course of events; but it seemed to be the intention of the
    248
    Prime Minister and of Her Majesty's Government to put down any appearance of delay which might not have reached the proportions of Obstruction, or even have gone beyond the proportions of legitimate discussion. The conduct of the Government in the matter confirmed the worst suspicions that had been expressed. Assuredly if there were a case of real Obstruction requiring the application of the gag, it would come to the ears not only of the Speaker, but of much less important persons; and it was that kind of Obstruction the House believed the Resolutions to be directed against. But now they had it from the Prime Minister himself that he contemplated a state of things in which it would become possible for the Chairman of Ways and Means to interfere in all sorts of minor provocations, and against whoever it might please the Chairman of Ways and Means to silence, even although no Obstruction had occurred such as would call the attention of the Speaker of the House to what might happen to be going on in Parliament. As he had said already, this was a confirmation of some of the worst suspicions which had been given expression to in the course of the debate that evening. He felt compelled to say that, unless the Chairman of Ways and Means were required to consult with Mr. Speaker, there would be very little guarantee indeed that the limitation proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), and accepted with suspicious readiness by the Head of the Government, would be any guarantee at all. It was all very well to talk about the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means being brought before the House if he were guilty of any misdeed. That was a mighty theoretical possibility; but he (Mr. O'Donnell) entertained a strong opinion that the worse the conduct of the Chairman of Ways and Means happened to be, if that conduct were committed in furtherance of the Business of the Government, it would receive their hearty and thorough support. As for the idea of the annual recurrence of the consideration of the salary of the Chairman of Ways and Means being any guarantee for the fair play of a Ministerial Chairman of Committees, he thought, on the contrary, that the knowledge that the getting of the salary was dependent upon the

    249
    goodwill of the Leader of the Government would make the officer in question a more subservient tool of an unscrupulous Prime Minister. He did not think that any misconduct on the part of the Chairman of Ways and Means, when committed in defence of the Government policy, would result in anything else than the enthusiastic support of the Government majority. Although every man who went with the Government into the Lobby to support the Chairman of Ways and Means would be quite ready to admit in private conversation that the conduct of the Chairman was indefensible, nevertheless every one of them would give his vote in defence, and, if necessary, in laudation of that conduct. The House was blindly following the lead of the Prime Minister, and before the dozen Commandments the right hon. Gentleman had invented were completed, the House of Commons would find itself in a position in which the most Bismarck-ridden Assembly on the Continent would find nothing to envy.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he should like to say one word before the House came to a decision upon the Amendment of his noble Friend. He really found himself unable to take the view which seemed to be favoured by the Front Benches on both sides of the House, that the Chairman of Ways and Means was a person possessed of such extraordinary impartiality that he was, in point of fact, in a similar position to that of the Speaker himself. The Amendment of his noble Friend was intended to provide a security, not that the Speaker should sit in the House of Commons during all Committees, in order to review the conduct and decisions of the Chairman of Ways and Means on every particular point, but simply to secure that before the Chairman of Ways and Means exercised the extraordinary powers which it was proposed to confer upon him, and which they were told were only to be exercised in cases of Obstruction, they should in such cases have the security of the approbation of the Speaker before the extraordinary powers were put in force. When he heard the Prime Minister speaking of the extreme impartiality of the Chairman of Ways and Means, he could not help recollecting an incident which occurred two or three days after he became a Member of the House. He well remembered the present Lord
    250
    Cairns, who was at that time a distinguished Member of the House of Commons, speaking from the Front Opposition Bench, use this language—that from the Chairman of Committees nobody in the House of Commons expected impartiality. All that was expected of him was that he should exhibit a decent appearance of impartiality. He supported the Amendment because it would give the House the security of a consultation between the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Speaker.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the discussion which had taken place furnished another illustration of the inconvenience to which he had drawn the attention of the House yesterday. He had then pointed out the difficulty that might arise when the House was sitting in Committee without the Speaker in the Chair; and it seemed to him that it would have been very much more convenient to have followed the practice of which the Speaker gave the House an example last year in regard to the Rules of Urgency, and to have dealt with these two matters separately. It had, however, been otherwise decided by Her Majesty's Government, and the House was now engaged in the middle of the discussion of the 1st Rule. They had arrived at the point when it became necessary to give the initiative for some purpose or other yet to be defined. They had already come to the conclusion that the initiative was to be given to the Speaker when the House was full, and the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chair, and also to the Chairman of Ways and Means; but to no other person when the House happened to be in Committee. He did not think they could get beyond that; and if they attempted to make distinctions, they would only find themselves landed in confusion. For this reason he did not think they ought to entertain such a proposal as that which had been made by his noble Friend. He felt that there ought to be a distinction between cases when the House was in full possession of its faculties; of course, he used the word "faculties" in its proper sense, and it was a perfectly accurate word to use. There ought to be a difference when the House was in full possession of its powers and faculties, and when it was in the less perfect condition it assumed when in Committee. He had no doubt

    251
    they ought to place in the hands of the Chairman of Ways and Means powers of a disciplinary character, and that he should possess ample means for securing order and putting a stop to wilful Obstruction; but it would tend, he thought, to confuse rather than to improve the Resolution if they were to attempt to introduce into it any further discretionary power such as that which had been proposed by his noble Friend.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that if the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) went to a division he would certainly vote with him. The Amendment merely provided for an appeal from a man who must necessarily be to some extent inexperienced, who found himself placed in a position of great difficulty, and to whom very considerable powers had been given. The Speaker was the natural person to whom the Deputy Speaker should refer. It would cause no official delay. At the outside 20 minutes would be sufficient to enable the Chairman of Ways and Means to consult the Speaker, and to reconsider any step he might have taken. The Prime Minister maintained that the Speaker, not being present at the Sittings of the House in Committee, would not be in a position to judge of the merits of the question upon which his advice was asked. He attached very little weight to that argument. It would equally apply to the decisions of the Judges of Appeal. Every Judge of Appeal was accustomed to overrule or support the decision of the Court below, although he had not heard the case in the first instance, and all his knowledge of it was derived from the report made to him of the facts. In the same way the facts of the case would be reported to the Speaker by the Chairman of Ways and Means. He was sure that the statement made by the Chairman to the Speaker would be accurate, and that the Speaker would experience no difficulty in giving his assistance and advice to the Chairman.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 204: Majority 148.—(Div. List, No. 348.)
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought they had now arrived at a time when it was desirable to move the
    252
    adjournment of the debate. They had reached the important Amendment which his right hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had placed upon the Paper.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that no such Motion could be made at the present moment, seeing that there is no Question before the House.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I was about to move the adjournment of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the next Amendment has a claim to be heard.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: If it would not involve the loss of my right to move the Amendment, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he does not think the time has now arrived when the adjournment of the debate or of the House might be agreed to?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the hour (12.15) is quite early, and I think the discussion may be continued a little longer. There are an enormous number of Amendments upon the Paper, and the ordinary Business of the Session is continued until a much later hour. Perhaps, in three quarters of an hour from the present time, it may be advisable to adjourn.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHthen moved, as an Amendment to the proposed 1st Resolution, in line 2, after the word "House," to insert the words "not being the Committee of Supply." The right hon. Gentleman said, he had not asked the Prime Minister to consent to the adjournment of the House because he was not prepared to go on with his Amendment, but because he thought there was a general feeling that the adjournment should now take place. If he had been mistaken, it showed, at all events, how difficult it was to ascertain what the general feeling of the House was. He hoped, in the few observations he was about to make in introducing the Amendment to the House, that he should not repeat himself, or give occasion to any other hon. Member to repeat any of the arguments or representations which had been placed before the House that day and yesterday. He would assume, for the purposes of his argument, that there was to be an initiative of the clôture by the Speaker and also by the Chairman of Ways and Means; and what

    253
    he contended, and sought by the Amendment to secure, was that the initiative by the Chairman of Ways and Means should not be permitted in Committee of Supply. It was one thing to prevent or to put an end to wearisome debates by means of a new, a strong, and, he had almost said, a violent process; but it would be quite another thing to extort the public money by means of the same course of procedure. He believed that there was a Constitutional and a very serious practical objection to the use of this instrument for closing debate in Committee of Supply. It would be altogether inapplicable to the proceedings of the House in Supply. It was entirely inapplicable to such proceedings; and he thought that no hon. Member who took the trouble to read the Resolution would fail to come to the conclusion which, he came to when he read it some months ago—that it was not drawn with a view to its being applied to any proceedings in Committee, much less to the proceedings in Committee of Supply, but that it was drawn with the view of putting a stop to those protracted discussions which had been going on from day to day and from week to week, and of which they had had for several years so much cause to complain bitterly. Any hon. Member who remembered the remarkable speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) in the early part of the Session would recollect that that was the burthen of the song of the noble Marquess, and that the noble Marquess pointed out that it was to debates of that character that the Resolutions were to be applied. The noble Marquess even went still further, and named certain hon. Members whom he supposed would be the first victims of the New Rules. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was of opinion that the clôture was entirely inapplicable to the proceedings in Committee of Supply. Everybody knew what the proceedings in Committee of Supply were. They came on generally at a very inconvenient hour—at an hour of the day, sometimes, when the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson) declined to make a speech or address the House at all. This was not from any fault on the part of those who were interested in the discussion of the Estimates, or who desired to take part in their discus-
    254
    sion, but from the fault of the Government, who preferred other and more interesting Business, or the fault of Members who allowed interminable Motions to intervene before the House was allowed to go into Committee of Supply. The House at 9 o'clock, when it went into Committee of Supply, was very often in an empty condition; and how was the proposed new Rule to be worked with the House in such a state, if it should appear to the Chairman, under such circumstances, during any debate, that sufficiently rapid progress was not being made? The position of the House would be this. The great majority of hon. Members would have gone to dinner. The few who remained in the House desired to address themselves to the Business before the Committee; but there were only one or two Members on the Treasury Bench, and none at all on the Bench opposite. Was the conversation which ensued on the Question being put from the Chair in any sense debate? He thought not. The Question put to the Committee was that a certain sum of money be granted to Her Majesty, whereupon hon. Members, who felt it their duty to do so, moved Amendments or asked questions, to which they expected replies from the Treasury Bench. But if this Resolution were adopted it would be easy in Committee of Supply for the Chairman to hold that the debate had gone on to an unreasonable length, and the general sense of the two divisions of the House might seem to sanction the adoption of the clôture; and in that way an important Amendment, which might have come before the Committee, had time been given, would be shut out, and the money would be obtained without further discussion. But what was the evident sense of the House which the Chairman had to ascertain? His hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), for instance, might get up in his place to oppose the salary of the Lord Privy Seal; and, perhaps, a number of Gentlemen of the same way of thinking, who intended in the course of an hour or two to return from the Lobby or the Dining Room to give their vote in favour of his Motion, might be absent. It was clear, then, that the sense of the House, as represented by these Gentlemen, might be quite different from the real sense of the House at the time. He said, therefore,

    255
    that the procedure by way of clôture was entirely opposed and inapplicable to the Business in Committee of Supply; moreover, he held it to be unnecessary. It was chiefly the second readings of Bills that were opposed in an Obstructive manner—certainly, as far as his experience served him, it was not discussion in Supply that required to be dealt with in the manner proposed by the Resolution. Again, there were other directions in which procedure in Supply might be greatly improved; and they already had an intimation of the views of the Government on this subject, because they proposed to extend their system of progress in Supply to other than Government nights. If it were not irrelevant he should be inclined to object to the very limited opportunity for discussion on going into Supply which the Government proposed to afford, and he would rather say that when once a Class of the Estimates had been opened no intervening Motion should be admitted until that Class had been completed. That plan he hoped the Government would adopt in preference to the stringent and limited expedient which they had indicated; and, further, he would remind the Committee that there were other Resolutions on the Paper which would greatly facilitate procedure in Supply. But his strongest objection was to the highly unconstitutional character which the application of the proposed power might assume. Hon. Members were aware that at certain times nothing could exceed the anxiety of a Government to get money; and there were many conceivable circumstances under which, if the clôture were in force, he did not think a Chairman of Committees would refrain from endeavouring to assist them in this respect. Anything more unsatisfactory to the people at large could hardly be imagined than that the Government of the day should be able, by means of this stringent Rule, pointing a pistol, as it were, at the head of the Committee to obtain money in Supply, and at the same time to silence those who desired to express their grievances in a Constitutional manner. This was neither an exaggerated nor a fanciful view of what might take place, and he asked hon. Gentlemen to say whether his anticipations were not likely on many occasions to be realized? It was
    256
    on Monday, the 13th of March last, that the Army Estimates were taken in Committee of Supply, and on the evening of the previous Friday the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War came down and stated that on the following Monday the first Vote must be passed—an announcement which in that House he had never heard paralleled. It was not, however, so bad as what followed, for the right hon. Gentleman, on the Monday, did not begin to make his very important Statement until 1 o'clock in the morning, and having taken ample time in its delivery, the Committee were then and there required to pass a Vote of £4,000,000 for the Army. He would not go back into all the circumstances, but peculiar reasons were alleged for the desire on the part of the Government to press for a Vote on that occasion—reasons, however, which were not well founded, inasmuch as they proceeded on a too scrupulous estimate of the time required for the progress of a Money Bill through Parliament. Knowing, then, the desire of the Government and the natural wish of the Chairman to facilitate the progress of Government Business, no one could doubt that had this weapon of the clôture been available at the time it would have been put into operation, and £4,000,000 would have been extorted from the Committee of Supply without any discussion, and with a precipitation which hon. Members on that side of the House, having knowledge of the mode in which financial Business should be conducted, believed to be entirely unnecessary, or who, at all events, felt that the conduct of the Government was overstrained. He believed he had made out—first, the want of applicability of the clôture to the usual course of Supply; secondly, that it was not required in view of the other improvements proposed for the conduct of Business which would probably be adopted by the House; and, thirdly, that the proposal was unconstitutional. Under these circumstances, he believed the House would pause before accepting it. In submitting the Amendment of which he had given Notice to the consideration of hon. Members, he expressed a hope that if the other Resolutions should not find favour with the House, the Government would endeavour to find out some other means of facilitating

    257
    progress in Supply. Without any wish to prolong the present discussion, he mentioned that expressions of encouragement were frequently given to hon. Members in criticizing the Estimates from the Front Benches on both sides of the House, and Members of the Government were accustomed particularly to point out that full and ample discussion was desirable. His own view was that, since the time when full and detailed explanation of the Estimates was given to the House weeks and months beforehand, the right of discussion and criticism should be as free as possible, but that it should be used as little as possible by Members of the House. He did not think that much practical good arose from the conversational inquiries across the Table of the House upon matters which, after all, were to be found set out on the pages of the Estimates, and he was not one of those to encourage discussion of that kind. It was, no doubt, one of the Constitutional functions of the House that it should vote in Committee of Supply with absolute freedom. He believed, however, that the proposed application of the clôture to procedure in Supply might be made great use of, he would not say by an unscrupulous Government, but by a Government pressed with regard to its finances; and he thought they ought to obtain from the present occupants of the Treasury Bench a distinct declaration that they would not make use of any such means of pressing forward their financial Business. The attention of the Government had probably been called to this point, although, in the earlier part of the Session, no allusion had been made to it. It seemed to him that the idea of the Government should be more clearly framed, and that much more stringent Regulations should be introduced if the clôture were intended to be made applicable to such a Constitutional right of the House as the voting of public money. For these reasons he begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 2, by inserting, after the word "House," the words "not being the Committee of Supply."—(Mr. Sclater-Booth.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'not being the Committee of Supply' be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the question which had been raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was one that it was perfectly fair to bring to the special attention of the House; but it was also one upon which it appeared quite clear to his mind that the balance of the argument was altogether against the Amendment proposed. He might say, in the first place, that he saw no advantage in bringing into this discussion a reference to the "£4,000,000 night." It was to be deplored that they found themselves obliged to go into Committee of Supply, as they did on that occasion, at 1 o'clock in the morning, and that a most important statement of the Minister of War should have been made at an hour when it was too late to be reported, and when it was impossible to have a proper attendance. That the Government should be compelled to take that large Vote of money under those circumstances was certainly a strange proceeding, the recurrence of which they would do their utmost to prevent. But this was wholly due to the precedence given to preliminary Motions; and so far from its being supposed that the Government had, on that occasion, any reason to complain of the House, or of any disposition on the part of the House to prolong the debate unduly, they were very thankful for the assistance rendered them in their endeavour to act in conformity with the law; and, therefore, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the occasion in question afforded the slightest opportunity for the application of the proposed Rule. The right hon. Gentleman had advanced several arguments in support of his Amendment. He said, in the first place, that Supply came on not infrequently in the more early hours of the evening, and at a time when there was a limited number of Members in the House. But they had made an absolute provision to prevent the stoppage of debate at a time when, owing to the very limited attendance of Members, the Government might have an undue preponderance, by the Rule embodied in the 1st Resolution, which absolutely required that whatever might be the number of Members opposing, there must be, at least, 100 Members as a minimum supporting the application of the Rule. The idea, therefore, that this was to be done by a handful of Members in a

    259
    House, comparatively speaking, empty had no foundation. The right hon. Gentleman then said there was nothing to justify the application of the Rule to procedure in Committee of Supply. He was sorry to differ from him on this point; but there had been frequent occasions of difficulty in Committee of Supply, and it would be in the recollection of the House that "All-Night Sittings" had to be held in consequence of the disposition which had been shown to retard Business. But was there any reason for exempting a particular class of Committees from the Rule which it was proposed to apply to Committees in general? He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that they should be most careful of the Privileges of the House in regard to Supply; and, anxious as ho was to see efficiency restored to their Procedure, he should be most jealous of limiting the right of any Member of the Committee to speak as often as he thought necessary. Let the House consider whether they should, on that ground, exempt the Committee of Supply from the operation of this Rule. So far from its being the fact that in Committee of Supply there were fewer opportunities of moving Amendments than in Committee on a Bill, their number was very much greater; and for this reason—when in Committee on a Bill, if, after an Amendment had been disposed of, another Amendment, not identical with it, but approximating to it, were proposed, the Chairman would probably rule it out of Order; but if an approximate Amendment were proposed in Committee of Supply it could not be so ruled. If, for instance, it were proposed to reduce a Vote by the sum of £600 and the Motion were negatived, an hon. Member could then move a reduction of £550, which might be followed by another proposal to reduce the Vote by £500, and these could not be ruled out of Order by the Chairman, because each Motion was specifically different from the others. Therefore, while the power of speaking in Committee of Supply was unlimited, and he hoped would remain so, the power of moving Amendments in Supply was far greater than it was in Committee on a Bill. But what was the procedure which followed Committee on a Bill? The Bill was reported, and no Question was put from the Chair but "That the Bill be now considered."
    260
    Members who desired to raise questions must themselves frame their Amendments and make their references to particular parts of the Bill. But what was the case in Supply, where every Resolution of Committee must be cited from the Chair, and a distinct opportunity of amendment must be open to all Members of the House? For these reasons, he believed it was essential that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman should be rejected. Supply was the most important Business of the House; and, therefore, it ought to be the last to be submitted to gagging laws.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he could assure hon. Members that he had had some experience of this question in Committee of Supply. He had heard with some surprise the statement that after an Amendment to reduce a Vote of £600 to £550 had been moved and rejected, Motions to reduce it to £500, £450, and so on ad infinitum could be made. He did not think it possible for such Motions to be made. When he had ventured upon that course he had always been quickly stopped by the presiding authority; and he really could not say that the presiding authority had been very wrong in stopping him. He was afraid the Prime Minister was unacquainted with the later practice of the House. There was strong reason why the Committee of Supply should be free from the operation of the Gagging Clause, and that was that Supply was the main Business of the House of Commons—the Business which, above all other Business, should be protected against Ministerial interference or the arbitrary action of Ministerial nominees or placemen. If the experiment was to be tried, and the gagging laws were to have application, they ought to be applied to other Departments of the Business of the House, and they ought to see whether Supply could not be left unaffected by this Resolution. The only result of applying the gagging laws to the Business of Supply would be that the Government, knowing they bad power to shut up discussion, would put off Supply to the last moment, when, under the plea of Urgency, they could manufacture as much "evident sense of the House" as they needed.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would not detain the House more than a moment or two in supporting the Amendment of

    261
    his right hon. Friend. With regard to the Navy Estimates for the last two Sessions, for a variety of reasons they had been introduced at a period of the year which hon. Members on both sides of the House had recognized as extremely inconvenient. With regard to these Estimates, there were a limited number of naval officers and others in the House who possessed special information on these subjects—certainly not 40, which number was necessary to make the quorum which had been alluded to as necessary to support the discussion. Under this New Rule, then, the discussion on the Navy Estimates might be put a stop to at any moment. The Prime Minister, having other things to attend to, was seldom present during the discussion of naval subjects. Many others were usually absent; and it might be difficult to make a quorum. The right hon. Gentleman himself, however, would admit that the subjects discussed—involving, as they did, the expenditure of £10,000,000 or £12,000,000—were subjects which should be adequately discussed in the House. But, seeing that the presence of 140 Members would be necessary to close such a debate, if the discussion of the Navy Estimates was being taken in August, and the Government found it inconvenient to allow it to continue, they could easily bring down 100 Members to silence the 40 who were discussing those Votes, and shut up the debate. The result of that might be that they might have £10,000,000 voted without discussion at all. During the time he had had the honour of a seat in Parliament he had known only two Speakers; but he had sat under seven Chairmen of Committees; and he was sure, from the way in which subjects in Supply were disposed of, that in the future the Navy Estimates would be shut out of discussion unless this Amendment were agreed to.
    MR. SALTsaid, they must consider the operation of the clôture, not with regard to hon. or right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Ministerial or the Opposition side of the House, but with regard to the position and action of some Government at some future time, and possibly at a very near time. They must remember that every future Government would not only apply the Rules that existed in the House of Commons, but be guided and be trained up by the
    262
    Rules they found in existence when they acceded to Office. They might be tempted to use the Rules they found in existence in a manner that was not intended when the Rules were first framed. He did not wish to make too much of this; but, at the same time, it was a point they should not lose sight of throughout the whole of those discussions. There was one other thing he wished to say on this matter. As to Supply, it was extremely important, both for the sake of the House and the country at large, that there should be, not only no real interference with the freedom of discussion in Supply, but no apparent interference with it. It ought not to be possible to interfere with it; but, more than that, it ought to be impossible for anyone, either inside or outside the House, however hostile to the Government of the day, to be able to say that the Rules of the House had been so framed that it was possible to interfere with the freedom of Supply. With regard to the application of this Rule to Supply, he would observe that if it were once applied to it, it would he extremely difficult to withdraw it afterwards; and, on the other hand, if it were not applied to Supply, and were found to work exceedingly well in those cases in which it was applied—which it might do, for he was not at all prejudiced in the matter one way or the other—it would be very easy indeed to extend it to Supply, fie should say in all business matters, large or small, and especially in matters of great Constitutional importance, such as those they were now discussing, it was very much wiser to go below or within what they wished rather than above or beyond it—it was not only wiser, but very much safer, and better for the House and everybody concerned. It was the wise and business-like way of acting. If they abstained from applying this Clôture Rule to Supply, if it was found to work well in other cases, there would be no difficulty at some future time in extending it to Supply.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is to be regretted that any necessity at all should have arisen for the adoption of Rules for the limitation of debates. Everyone knows it would be much better if Members were willing universally to bow of their own accord to the general sense of the House, and to refrain from prolonging debates when

    263
    the general sense of the House that they should terminate had been manifested. All, however, must now acknowledge that the time has gone by for us to expect that. There is a certain section of Members who are not disposed to allow such manifestations to guide their course of conduct, and it is generally admitted that some restrictions on the liberty of debate are necessary. That being so, I would ask the House to consider whether it is wise to exclude any class of debate from the operation of the Rule the House may think it necessary to adopt? If the House should ever—I trust that the necessity may not occur—but if the House should ever at any future time have again to enter into a contest with organized Obstruction, hon. Members may rest assured that every weapon at the disposal of the House will have to be made use of to put a stop to it. It would be, in my opinion, the height of folly to pass Rules restricting debate on certain subjects, and yet, by the omission of Supply, acknowledge that Obstruction in that important Business may take place. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said he did not know that Obstruction had taken place in the Business of Supply. Well, perhaps it has not taken place so frequently in Supply as on other occasions; but I can recollect during recent years several occasions on which large majorities on both sides have been reluctantly compelled to sit up the best part of the night at the will of a small minority to pass some Irish Votes. That kind of thing has not only occurred during the existence of the present Government, but I find that in 1877 a precisely similar case occurred—during a period when the late Government were in Office. On the 2nd of July, 1877, on the Army Estimates, at half-past 12 o'clock, the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) moved to report Progress, and he did so for the purpose of calling attention to the absence of Irish Volunteers from the English Volunteer Vote. The Government protested against the course that was being taken, and entered into a long contest with a small number of Irish Members. The usual course was followed—namely, Motions to report Progress, followed by Motions that the Chairman do leave the Chair, and various attempts to count out the House. Several
    264
    scenes, so common on those occasions, took place, and all I would call attention to is the concluding observation of the remaining Member of the Government (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), who was then the sole occupant of the Treasury Bench. He said that—
    "The probable result of the course pursued would be an alteration of the Rules of Debate, and a curtailment of the privileges of Members."
    Notice was then taken that there were not 40 Members present, and the House stood adjourned at a quarter past 7 in the morning.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the remarks of the noble Lord who had just sat down were very interesting, and threw some light on the intention of the Government as to the further progress of the proposition now before the House. He understood the noble Lord distinctly to state—and he heard it with great satisfaction—that in the proposals Her Majesty's Government had submitted with a view to restrict debate, they had had in their minds only the fact that there was a certain section of Members in the House who were unwilling to defer to the general opinion of the House. No one would for a moment venture to suggest that that could be truly stated of the whole of the Members who sat upon that (the Opposition) side of the House, or of the minority of one, whatever Government might be in Office. He hoped, therefore, that they might have some further statement, when they came to the proposal of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), which would show that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to adopt that proposal to meet the evil they really desired to put down. The noble Lord had gone on to say that he would give them an example of the way in which Votes in Supply had been obstructed under the present system. The noble Lord had not ventured to suggest that Votes in Supply had ever been obstructed by the general body of the Opposition in that House. The noble Lord had simply quoted instances where, both in the time of the present Government and in the time of their Predecessors, the Irish Votes had been resisted by a very small minority indeed. The noble Lord had gone on to say that the hon. Gentleman who was Secretary

    265
    to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) on one occasion, when Obstruction in Supply was practised, expressed his opinion that the privileges of Members in debate must in some degree be restricted. That was undoubtedly true, and it was proposed to restrict the privileges of Members in debate in Supply precisely on those points on which Obstruction then proceeded; for what did he find in the 2nd Resolution that the Prime Minister had placed on the Paper? He found there certain provisions laid down that, if adopted, would render it absolutely impossible for any small number of Members to defer a Vote taken in Supply by the means adopted on the occasion referred to. And, again, he found that Obstructive Motions of the kind mentioned, and which he had no doubt had been made use of on many occasions, were to be put down by the authority of the Speaker, or Chairman of Ways and Means, without appeal of any kind to the House. He certainly must say that, looking at these proposals of the Government, it seemed to him that everything that was necessary to enable the House to proceed fairly and properly with the consideration of Votes in Supply was met by the other proposals which Her Majesty's Government had placed on the Paper, and that, in pressing the application of this particular Rule to Supply, they were pressing a Rule not required to deal with the topic they were discussing, and likely to be understood—as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) had said—by the country as limiting the privilege of debate in Supply, which was the proudest privilege of the House.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had sat patiently three-quarters of an hour which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said would enable the House to dispose of the Amendment, and yet the discussion had not terminated. They were in the middle of a most important debate with reference to Supply; and the Prime Minister himself, knowing the importance of the discussion, and knowing the time that had elapsed, would not, he would venture to say, further object to adjournment. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would, therefore, move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am very sorry the hon. and gallant Baronet has moved the adjournment of the debate. [Sir WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Why?] Because it appears to me to be a pure loss of time. In my opinion, the question is a very fair one to raise; but it is one of limited scope. ["No, no!"] Yes; I think so. We have discussed it and sifted it tolerably well. I have a high opinion of the ingenuity of several hon. Members of the House; but it seems to me that even they must be unable to discover new topics for discussion on this Amendment. However, as this is the first night of the debate, I will assent to what appears to be the general wish of the House—namely, to the adjournment of the House.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
    House adjourned at One o'clock.