Commons Sitting of 10 July 1884

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Agricultural Labourers (Ireland), Lord Arthur Hill, added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 1, 2,3.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Trusts (Scotland)* [279]; Reformatory and Industrial Schools (Manx Children) [280].
First Reading—Newcastle Chapter* [281].
Second Reading—Prisons (Ireland) (Cost of Conveyance of Prisoners)* [275]; Personal Estates (Scotland) [262]; Oyster Cultivation (Ireland) [43].
Referred to Select Committee—Middlesex Land Registry* [91].
Committee—Report—Yorkshire Registries (on re-comm.) [264].
Considered as amended—Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Amendment* [245].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Colonial Prisoners Removal* [257], and passed.
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (the Labourers Act) (Enniscorthy, &c.)* [236]; Local Government Pro-
666
visional Orders (No. 6)* [240]; Sea Fisheries Act (1868) Amendment* [265], and passed.
Withdrawn—Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases* [218]; Police* [56]; Royal Irish Constabulary* [176]; Coinage* [187]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland)* [109]; Criminal Law Amendment* [271]; Railway Regulation Acts Amendment* [225]; Purchase of Land (Ireland)* [238]; London Government* [171]; Universities (Scotland)* [230].

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND)—DISTRAINT FOR TITHE AT ORMSKIRK, LANCASHIRE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of Government has been drawn to the statement that recently one Peter Freeman, attended by four bailiffs and five policemen, seized the goods of Mr. John Williams, Back Moss Lane, Burscough, near Ormsbirk, Lancashire, in distraint for tithes; that one of the party, named James Draper, felled to the ground Kate Kallaran, aged 18; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will cause inquiry to be made into this alleged outrage?
  MR. HIBBERT, in reply, said, that the Government had no information as to the case referred to, but would cause inquiry to be made upon the subject.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (IRELAND)—WATER SUPPLY AT URLAUR, SWINEFORD UNION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will be good enough to direct the Local Government Board to send an Inspector to report upon the state of the existing supply of water at Urlaur, in the Swineford Union, county Mayo, there being the greatest necessity for same; and, whether the written statement of the sanitary officer that "water is inconvenient" was discredited, and by whom?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I see no reason to direct the Local Government Board to send an Inspector to the district, as they already have full information with regard to the water supply. The statement that it is inconveniently placed for some few of the inhabitants residing farthest from its sources is not, so far as I am aware, discredited. But the

  667
  Sanitary Authority and the inhabitants of the district generally—who have memorialized the Local Government Board on the subject—are agreed that the existing supply is ample for the requirements of the locality, and that no expense should be put on the district for the purpose of increasing it; and the Local Government Board see no reason why they should interfere with the discretion of the Sanitary Authority in the matter.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—FOREST CONSERVANCY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Government will listen to the complaints from the Madras Presidency, that within the past year or so the Natives have had their ancient communal rights of grazing and cutting fuel tampered with by Government, and that, these rights having been recognized by Government till recently, they, the ryots, demur to the surrender of the same; and, whether, in particular, he will cause inquiry to be made into the complaints of the people of Hassanoor, in the Coimbatore district, that, though shrubs grow within a few yards of their doors, they are now forced to go twenty miles to Sattiamungalum, to ask the talook authorities for permission to cut these bushes for fuel?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The India Office has no knowledge of any complaints of the people of Hassanoor. As regards the general question of forest conservancy in Madras, I have to inform the hon. Member that a new Forest Act has lately been passed for that Presidency after a careful inquiry, which established the fact that so-called communal rights in Government forests have, generally speaking, no existence. The Madras Government are anxious that privileges of grazing, wood-cutting, &c., in forests shall be restricted as little as is compatible with the conservation of the forests—an object of the first importance; and I have no doubt they will give most careful attention to all complaints on the subject.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING ACT—LICENCES AND PROVISIONAL ORDERS.
  MR. W. FOWLERasked the President of the Board of Trade, What number of Licences and Provisional Orders
  668
  have been applied for since the Electric Lighting Act became Law, and what number of those applications have been granted, and how many central supplying stations are being operated under the provisions of the Act?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: One hundred and twenty applications for Provisional Orders have been made to the Board of Trade since the passing of the Electric Lighting Act. Of these 73 have been granted by the Board of Trade and confirmed by Parliament. There have been 10 applications for licences. One for Colchester will be granted in the course of a few days. The remainder have not been proceeded with by the applicants. The supply of electricity has not been commenced under any of the Orders.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—DEATH OF MICHAEL WATTERS, OF CROSSMAGLEN, IN MOUNTJOY PRISON—THE PAPERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table all the Papers relating to the death of Michael Watters, of Crossmaglen, in Mountjoy Prison?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot undertake to lay these Papers on the Table. It would be contrary to practice to make public confidential official Reports of this character.
  MR. HEALY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you a Question on a point of Order. Is it in conformity with the practice of Parliament for the Chief Secretary to refuse to lay upon the Table Papers from which both he and the Solicitor General read long extracts on the occasion of a recent debate in this House? I also wish to know whether it is not a right of this House to have Papers which are quoted left upon the Table?
  MR. TREVELYAN(who rose amid cries of "Order"): I presume, Sir, that I may interpose in this Question before you answer it. The Question of the hon. Member was whether I would lay all the Papers relating to the death of Michael Watters on the Table? I have no objection, Sir, to lay upon the Table any Papers that were quoted from.
  MR. HEALY: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman will lay some of these Papers on the Table, as, in the first instance, he declined to lay any at all.

  669
  I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be kind enough to state what Papers he will lay on the Table?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will gladly lay on the Table any Papers which either I or the Solicitor General have quoted from.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—VACCINATION IN BOARD SCHOOLS.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether it was with the sanction of the Education Department that some one (presumed to be in the employ of the local authorities of St. Pancras) on Wednesday last examined the scholars of the Henry Street School to ascertain whether they were vaccinated?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Education Department has not sanctioned, and has not the right to sanction, any visit to schools for the purpose of ascertaining whether the children are vaccinated or not. The managers of the school are the only persons who could sanction such an inquiry.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—DEFALCATIONS OF MR. J. GARDINER, S.S.C., EDINBURGH.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that, in November of last year, a charge was made to him against Mr. James Gardiner, S.S.C., who recently disappeared from Edinburgh, of embezzling, in conjunction with other parties, certain trust funds of Mr. Walter Sim and of the late James Macnee, coach-builder, Edinburgh; and, whether, considering the facts now come to light, he will cause the charge then made to be investigated?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): No, Sir; it is not the case that any such charge was made by me against Mr. Gardiner. About the time indicated a charge of embezzlement was preferred against another person with respect to the estate of one of them, which was duly investigated; but Crown counsel considered that it was not sustained by the evidence. The allegation now made with respect to Mr. Gardiner's dealings with Scottish firms is being investigated.

  THE TRAWLING COMMISSION—LIGHTS FOR TRAWLING SMACKS.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his
  670
  attention has been called to the evidence, as it has appeared in the newspapers to have been given before the Trawling Commission, in favour of the universally-adopted white mast-head light for trawling smacks when trawling, so strongly recommended by the Select Committee of 1880 on fishing vessels' lights, and supported by Members who took part in the Debate on this question in May 1881; and, whether, taking into consideration the fact that the representatives of the trawling interest who were appointed to the Joint Committee on trawlers' lights in 1882 entered their protest against the proposal of red and white mast-head lights, which they regarded as dangerous, and in view of the strong opposition to the red and white lights being made compulsory, he will agree to abandon the idea of these lights, and sanction the present well-known system of one white mast-head light?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: A very great deal of attention has been directed to the subject of trawlers' lights referred to by the hon. Member. Trawlers are required when trawling to carry the same side-lights as other vessels in motion; but they have been in the habit, contrary to law, in many cases of carrying a single white light only, which is the distinctive mark of pilot vessels all over the world. Endeavours have been made to find for trawlers some special light which should at the same time be acceptable to them; and, after consultation with the representatives of the fishing interests, a red light above a white light was adopted by the authorities, and has received the approval of most Foreign Governments. It does not, however, appear that the trawling interests are so far satisfied with the proposal as to warrant a hope that it would be at once willingly and generally adopted; and the Board of Trade propose, therefore, to communicate with the various authorities concerned in order to procure the postponement of any alteration.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—ESTATE OF MR. WYBRANTS OLPHERT—CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Peel, R.M., on visiting, last Friday, the scene of the recent evictions on the estate of Mr. Wybrants

  671
  Olphert, in the county of Donegal, found 165 members of the evicted families, including 60 women, 20 infants, and several aged and infirm men and women, lying in the ditches, and ascertained that they had lain there shelterless during the previous three days and nights; whether, although the guardians and the relieving officer had been notified of the condition of the evicted people, and were quite aware of it, and although the relieving officer was on the scene on Saturday last, no food or shelter was provided, and the people had to depend for the means of sustaining life on the care of the Rev. James M'Fadden, the parish priest; whether the relieving officer provided any conveyance to take the people to the Workhouse; whether, before the eviction of these families, the relieving officer had been supplying several of them with meal, at usurious prices, on the "gombeen" system; whether the Report of Mr. Macfarlane, Local Government Board Inspector, who visited the scene at midnight on Saturday, will be laid upon the Table; whether the parish priest on Monday provided means of transport, and conveyed 140 of the evicted people in a body to the workhouse; whether the landlord who had evicted those families, Mr. Wybrants Olphert, was in the Chair at last Saturday's meeting of the Board of Guardians, and refused to put a Motion instructing to temporarily provide food and shelter for the evicted; whether he also refused to vacate the Chair in order to allow the sense of the Board to be taken upon the Motion; and, what notice the Local Government Board will take of these proceedings?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Captain Peel, on his visit, found that 141 persons had slept in the open air. On the same day on which he so reported, the relieving officer visited the place and offered to the tenants individually and collectively relief in the workhouse and suitable conveyance there on that afternoon. The people, however, refused to accept this offer, stating that they were to go on the following Monday, when the Rev. Mr. M'Fadden would have them all taken together. The relieving officer, who had been rate collector for many years and had peculiar opportunity of knowing the resources of the people, did not consider that they required temporary relief. He offered meal to one
  672
  man, and it was declined. The Local Government Board Inspector, who has made inquiry on the spot, states that it is not the fact that the relieving officer had been supplying the people with meal at usurious prices on the "gombeen" system. The relieving officer bears a high character with the Catholic clergy of his district, and is stated to be upright and generous in his dealings with the poor. On the Monday the parish priest did provide transport to the workhouse for the people who had refused to accept it from the relieving officer on Saturday. The Chairman at the meeting of the Board of Guardians declined to vacate the chair on a suggestion made by one Guardian—no other Guardian approving or supporting that suggestion. No such Motion as is mentioned in the Question was duly put—the Local Government Board Inspector, who was present, having explained the powers already possessed by the relieving officer. The Local Government Board do not feel called upon to take any notice of the proceedings—the Guardians having relieved the evicted persons in a legal manner.

  SALE OF PATENT MEDICINES BILL—INCLUSION OF IRELAND.
  MR. WARTONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he has yet made up his mind as to the inclusion of Ireland in the Bill to be brought in by the Government in the other House for the restriction of the sale of Poisonous Patent Medicines; and, if so, when that Bill will be introduced?
  MR. MUNDELLA, in reply, said, that the Irish Government had not yet communicated to him their decision on the point referred to. It depended upon a higher authority than him whether the Bill would be further proceeded with.

  EGYPT—INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the promised Papers regarding the internal administration of Egypt, and especially the working of the tentative autonomous institutions, will be in the hands of Members, and whether they will be in time for the Debate on Egyptian Affairs following the Conference, so as to enable the House

  673
  to judge of the relations between the Caisse and the Egyptian Assembly in regard to the Budget matters; and, whether the Egyptian Assembly were in any way consulted before the International Tribunals were extended for five years, as were the French and Italian Assemblies?
  MR. GOSCHENwished to ask the noble Lord at the same time, whether the Papers with regard to the general administration of Egypt would include despatches from Mr. Clifford Lloyd and Sir Benson Maxwell, which would throw light upon the controversy between those gentlemen which was going on here?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Egyptian Papers which I promised did not specially relate to the tentative autonomous institutions. They will not be necessary for the debate on the proceedings of the Conference, though I hope to be able to lay them shortly. The Egyptian Assembly was not consulted before the International Tribunals were prolonged.
  MR. GOSCHENasked whether the Papers would also contain despatches from Mr. Clifford Lloyd with regard to the internal administration of Egypt generally?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot at this moment undertake to make a statement on the subject offhand. The Papers I have already promised will not contain Papers relative to the Legislative Assembly, because at this moment the Foreign Office is not in possession of any such communication as would be likely to be of any great interest to the House; but I have communicated with Sir Evelyn Baring, and I believe before long he will be able to present some information to the Foreign Office, which I will be able to communicate to the House.

  EGYPT—BRITISH OCCUPATION—EXPENSES.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the event of the British occupation and Military protection of Egypt being continued for several years, in accordance with the Anglo-French agreement, it is proposed that the ordinary cost of the British troops kept there (apart from the head money for foreign service expenses now paid by Egypt), and the cost of any
  674
  necessary Military operations, should be charged against the Revenue of the protected country or against the British taxpayer?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The question of the charge on the Egyptian Treasury for the Army of Occupation forms part of the general question of Egyptian finance now before the Conference. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's Question at present.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Have orders been given for the despatch of troops to Egypt?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir; no orders have been given for the despatch of any additional troops to Egypt.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) — LOANS FOR TEACHERS' RESIDENCES.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will favourably consider a Bill to do away with the restriction of loans for teachers' residences in Ireland to schools vested before 1879?
  MR. COURTNEY: This matter has not previously been brought under my notice; but I understand my hon. and gallant Friend to allude to the fact that teachers' residences attached to schools vested since May 1, 1879, can only receive aid from the State in the shape of a free grant of £100 instead of a loan of £200. Primâ facie this seems a large and sufficient measure of State aid, and I can express no opinion in favour of a change until I have seen proposals for it in a formal shape.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882, SEC. 8 (PROCLAMATIONS)—THE IRISH NATIONAL LEAGUE MEETING, RATHKEALE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will state upon what grounds, and at whose request, the Lord Lieutenant thought it right to proclaim the proposed demonstration of the Irish National League, which was to have taken place at Rathkeale, county Limerick, on Sunday the 6th of July; whether there are any circumstances in connection with the district of Rathkeale which would point to

  675
  the probable occurrence of a disturbance had a meeting of the National League taken place there; and, whether, in future, he will cause proclamations of meetings to be published in time, and not at the very last moment, when the people have assembled, and when it is extremely difficult to cause them to disperse without coming into collision with the police?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The meeting was prohibited on the recommendation of the Divisional Magistrate and the Constabulary authorities of the district on the ground that, if held, it was likely to be prejudicial to the peace of the district. The circumstances of the district which led to this apprehension were the number of recent agrarian offences—therehaving been 19 within six months in the Rathkeale district—and the number of "Boycotted" farms lying idle, and of farms requiring special police protection in the vicinity. The notice of prohibition was not given at the last moment, when the people had assembled. It was served on the promoters of the meeting between 2 and 3 o'clock on the afternoon of Saturday the 5th instant, and posted in Rathkeale and its neighbourhood at the same time; and as the meeting was announced for 2 o'clock on the next afternoon, the prohibition was made public in ample time to prevent the people from assembling.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked whether it was not the fact that the prohibition was only published in the neighbourhood of Rathkeale on the morning of the meeting, and whether the right hon. Gentleman did not consider it improper to have notices put up on the day that a meeting was to take place, and when the people could not have sufficient notice to prevent them coming in?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the information he had communicated to the House and the information he had got was that the notice was posted up between 2 and 3 o'clock on the day before the meeting. If the hon. Member had any special information to the contrary he should be glad to know of it.

  SPAIN—COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. CARTWRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the statement, reported in The Times of July 5th, as having been
  676
  made in the Spanish Cortes, to the effect that the Spanish Government had notified its dissent from the terms of the Protocol of December 1, 1883, Whether that statement is accurate; and, whether he is in a position to give the House information as to the precise state in which the question of a commercial arrangement between England and Spain is at present?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: As stated in Earl Granville's despatch to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Madrid, printed in the last Parliamentary Paper published on the subject, the two Governments agreed that the Protocol could not be discussed in the Cortes until the Winter Session, or the clauses respecting the alcoholic changes be submitted to Parliament before April, 1885. The Spanish Government at the time this agreement was come to announced that they had certain objections to formulate against the terms of the Protocol. The Note containing these objections reached the Foreign Office yesterday, and is now under consideration.

  SOUTH AFRICA—ZULULAND.
  MR. W. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the publication or issue of advertisements and circulars in the colony of Natal, inviting able bodied men who were prepared to provide their own horses and carbines to volunteer for active service in Zululand; whether Mr. Johan Colenbrander, agent of the chief Zibebu, was the person with whom the volunteers were requested to communicate; whether a number of adventurers have proceeded to the Native Reserve, in response to this invitation, and have been engaged in plundering Natives of their cattle; and, if so, why the Natal authorities took no steps to prevent the organization of this illegal force; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken, or intend to take, to restrain white marauders in Zululand?
  MR. COURTNEY: The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the advertisements mentioned. No official account of the alleged proceedings has yet been received; but Sir Henry Bulwer has been desired to report upon the matter, and when his Report arrives Her Majesty's Govern-

  677
  ment will consider what action should be taken. In the meanwhile, it is clearly impossible to give any authoritative answer to the specific Questions of my hon. Friend.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—RE-APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what principle have the names of the fifty Sub-Commissioners selected for retirement on the 31st proximo been arrived at; and, how many Catholics will there be left on the Sub-Commissions?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Sub-Commissioners selected for reappointment have been chosen as men who will do their work in an able and impartial manner. Their names will be announced in the course of next week. The hon. Member will then be able to ascertain the religion of the gentlemen who are reappointed.
  MR. HEALY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman—as this is important to the people of Ireland—whether he is aware that a strong impression prevails amongst the tenantry that the Sub-Commissioners who have shown interest for the tenants are to be chasséd?
  [No reply.]

  FRANCE AND CHINA.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that the French Government have demanded an indemnity of £8,000,000 from China for the affair at Langson; and, whether he has any information tending to show that the fighting at that place arose because the Chinese General had not received instructions to surrender; and, what steps Her Majesty's Ministers are taking to protect British Commerce with China?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government understand that the French Government have demanded an indemnity from the Chinese Government, but have no information officially of the exact amount claimed. The only authentic information at present received is contained in the statement made by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Chamber of De-
  678
  puties on the 7th instant, a Report of which has been transmitted by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, and has also been published in the newspapers. No special steps are considered necessary at present to protect British commerce with China; but I may remind the House that towards the close of last year an understanding was come to between the neutral Powers, in accordance with which the commanders of neutral men-of-war in the China seas were to concert together for the protection in case of necessity of neutral subjects.
  Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked if it was proposed to lay on the Table of the House the despatch of Lord Lyons to which the noble Lord had referred?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he did not think it would be advantageous to produce the document.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE WEST INDIA MAILS.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the contract for the conveyance of the West India Mails, for which tenders were received on the 1st of January last, will be concluded, and laid upon the Table in time to permit of its discussion before Parliament is prorogued?
  MR. COURTNEY: It was found necessary to give the West Indian Colonies further opportunity of considering the various points involved in this matter. The present contract has accordingly been prolonged for six months, and there is, therefore, no necessity or probability of obtaining the judgment of the House upon the future arrangements during the present Session.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked whether the hon. Gentleman would give an undertaking that no new contract for the conveyance of these mails would be entered into before Parliament had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion upon such contract?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the law provided that.

  THE POOR LAW INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS—INSPECTORS.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the President of the Local Government Board,

  679
  Whether the present staff of four Inspectors is adequate for the efficient inspection and proper supervision of Poor Law Industrial Schools; whether representations have been made from time to time as to the necessity of providing additional help for this important work; and, what steps, if any, he intends to take in the matter?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Although the duties which devolve on the School Inspectors of the Local Government Board are of an onerous character, the Board consider that at present the staff of four Inspectors is adequate for the efficient inspection of the workhouse and district schools, and they have not received representations to the contrary. The district which includes the Metropolitan Unions is probably the heaviest; and if the number of Unions in which the children are sent out to school from the workhouse continues to increase, there may be some ground for a reconsideration of the present districts of the Inspectors.

  NEW SCIENCE AND ART MUSEUM, DUBLIN.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the building of the new Science and Art Museum in Dublin will be commenced, and what is the cause of the delay?
  MR. COURTNEY: I much regret the delay in the commencement of this building; but owing to the necessity of obtaining estimates of the probable cost of the selected designs, it has not yet been possible for the Government to decide upon the one to be chosen. But there is work to be done in the way of obtaining the additional land required and preparing the site; and I will take care that there shall be no delay in proceeding with this.
  MR. GIBSON: Did not the hon. Gentleman state in the debate on the Estimates that one of the designs had been selected and approved of, and that the Treasury only asked £5,000 this year, because they did not intend to spend more?
  MR. COURTNEY: No, Sir, I did not. I stated one design had been recommended by the Committee of Selection; but that until the cost of working out that design had been valued it was impossible to say whether that one would be selected.
  MR. DAWSON: Is not it a fact that the surveyor appointed by the Government or the Treasury or the Board of Works has arrived at a conclusion as to what the cost would be; but that there is only a very trifling difference between the cost and the estimate of the architect, and that there is no ground whatever for the delay?
  MR. COURTNEY: I am sorry to say, Sir, the difference is not slight.
  MR. DAWSON: What is the difference?
  In reply to Mr. GRAY,
  MR. COURTNEYsaid: The amount very much exceeds what is proposed to be saved by interest; but I must point out that it would be unjust to the other architects if we were to proceed with this design recommended by the Committee, without inquiring into the probable cost of their designs also.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MILITIA UNIFORM.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the event of the Kharkee clothing being adopted as the undress of the Line, the same will be issued to the Militia, who at present receive only undress clothing?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No, Sir. The Militia, have only one dress, and it is intended that they should remain in scarlet as at present.

  TREATY OF BERLIN — ARTICLES 43 AND 44—JEWISH HAWKERS IN ROUMANIA.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Despatch has been received, either from Her Majesty's Representative at Bucharest or from the Government of Roumania, relative to the measures taken to prohibit Jewish hawkers in that country from pursuing their calling, and to the refusal to receive petitions from them or grant them any legal redress, in contravention of Articles 43 and 44 of the Treaty of Berlin, which secures to them equal rights to those enjoyed by persons of other religions in that country; and, whether he will communicate the contents of such Despatch, or lay it upon the Table of the House?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have communicated privately to the hon. Member a copy of the despatch which has been received from Her Majesty's Minister at Bucharest. If he wishes it to be laid before the House, and will move for it, there will be no objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to its publication.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—THE UNITED STATES AND THE WEST INDIA COLONIES—CUBA.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Government of the United States are now negotiating with the Government at Madrid for the admission of Cuban products into the United States upon advantageous terms as to Customs Duties; whether any reply has yet been received from the United States Government to the Despatch of Lord Granville, requesting that the British Colonies should be included in favoured nation treatment with the United States, and whether Her Majesty's Government will do all that is possible to expedite a settlement of this question; and, whether any negotiations are now being carried on by Her Majesty's Government with Continental Powers, with a view to obtaining a mutual settlement of the sugar bounties question by means of a Conference or otherwise?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is understood that negotiations in the sense mentioned by the right hon. Member are about to take place at Madrid, and may possibly have been commenced. No answer has yet been received to the Note addressed to the United States Government by Mr. West on behalf of the British Colonies in the West Indies. Her Majesty's Minister will not fail to call attention to the subject again if, after a reasonable interval, no reply is received. As regards the European bounty question, no negotiations are at present being carried on by Her Majesty's Government. I may add, however, that the Board of Trade is the Department which deals with this part of the sugar question.

  SCOTLAND—THE QUEEN'S PARK, EDINBURGH—RIGHT OF MEETING.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is a
  682
  fact that he has forbidden the erection of platforms in the Queen's Park, Edinburgh, for the open air meeting on next Saturday; and, whether platforms have been erected in the park on the occasion of military reviews; and, if so, whether he will not give similar facilities for the holding of popular meeting there?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, he need hardly say that the meeting which it was proposed to hold in Edinburgh on Saturday next had his hearty sympathy, and he should be glad to give any facilities in his power; but he had not felt justified in giving facilities which had always been refused in the past. He found that, on many previous occasions, applications had been made to his Predecessors for permission to erect platforms in the Edinburgh and London Parks, and on every occasion these applications had been refused. He did not think that in the interests of the public generally these applications should be granted. The only exception that had been made was when the Queen in person held a review of her troops. In such cases Her Majesty had given commands for the erection of a platform. He had received a deputation yesterday from the Corporation of Edinburgh on the subject, and he believed he had satisfied them that the demonstration might take place without the erection of tents or platforms.

  FOREST OF DEAN AND HUNDRED OF ST. BRIAVELS.
  COLONEL KINGSCOTEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is prepared to state that Her Majesty's Government will nominate a Commission to inquire, locally and otherwise, into the rights, &c. of the Freeminers in the Forest of Dean; whether he can give the names of the Commissioners; and, whether he will postpone the Second Reading of the Dean Forest and Hundred of Saint Briavels Bill until after the Commissioners have given their report?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Government have decided to appoint a Commission to inquire into certain matters connected with the Forest of Dean; but I am not at present in a position to say what the exact terms of the Reference will be, nor how the Commission will be composed. I do not intend to ask the House to pro-

  683
  nounce its judgment on the Dean Forest Bill until the Commission shall have reported.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND) — LOANS TO VESTED SCHOOLS.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would exert his influence with the Treasury to procure such modifications in Rules 12 and 17 of the Commissioners for National Education in Ireland as to permit of the one-third which, under these rules, is not granted to build vested schools, being advanced by the Board of Works on good local security?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not prepared to press this matter on the Treasury, as there is little reason to suppose that they would consent to the proposition. It does not seem unreasonable to expect that a locality interested should meet a grant of two-thirds of the cost of erecting a school house by supplying the remaining third.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND) — "CORNWALL v. O'BRIEN."
  MR. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, Whether the precedent in Corry Connellan's case is to be followed in regard to Mr. Cornwall's pension; if not, why; what is Mr. Cornwall's present official position; has he been dismissed; and, what is the "fuller information" which his Department are waiting for?
  MR. FAWCETT: Mr. Cornwall, as I stated on Tuesday, has been suspended from duty. I think it will be expedient for me to defer coming to a final decision until the Law Officers have advised the Government upon the case. This being so, the point suggested in the first part of the hon. Member's Question does not arise.
  MR. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly say when the Post Office Estimates are likely to come on?
  MR. FAWCETT: I wish I could fix an early day.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the police are aware of the whereabouts of Mr. G. C. Cornwall, Secretary to the General Post Office; has he any announcement to make respecting the decision of the Law Officers regarding
  684
  him; and, if not, when may it be expected?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The police are aware of the whereabouts of Mr. Cornwall. I am not in a position yet to announce the decision of the Law Officers regarding him. The question whether the evidence in the case will sustain a criminal prosecution is one requiring careful consideration; but I may state that it is the intention of the Government to proceed against all persons against whom evidence is forthcoming.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to give Notice that when the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary comes up for discussion I shall move that the Vote be disallowed.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, whether, pending the decision of the Law Officers in the case of Mr. Cornwall, he has given directions to the police to prevent Cornwall from escaping beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts; and, whether his statement that it is intended to prosecute the persons against whom evidence can be obtained will include the witnesses in the recent trial by the evidence of whom Cornwall's guilt has been brought to light?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The latter Question will have to be seriously considered by the Law Officers. With regard to the first Question, the police are watching Mr. Cornwall.
  MR. PARNELL: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my Question. Have the police orders to prevent Cornwall from escaping beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts? The right hon. Gentleman said the police are watching Cornwall; but I apprehend it is a very different thing to have orders to prevent him escaping from justice. I also wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to follow in this instance the course which the Irish Executive has pursued in the cases of the commission of felonies of another kind, and offer a reward for information with regard to the commission of crimes—[Mr. HEALY: £10,000]—coupled with a promise of pardon to accomplices, because I regard the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made with regard to the witnesses in the late case as calculated to intimidate.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Any reply as to who is going to be prosecuted or not

  685
  coming from me before the Law Officers have examined the large body of evidence before them would tend rather to defeat than to further the ends of justice. The object and desire of the Government is to stamp out these odious crimes, whether committed by persons connected or unconnected with the Government. With regard to the Question whether the police have orders to prevent Mr. Cornwall leaving the country, it is very well known where he is at present. There are no legal means at present for arresting him, except a warrant is issued.
  MR. HEALY: It is a felony, and no warrant is required.
  MR. TREVELYAN: This only shows the extreme difficulty of discussing these matters across the Table in this way. One of the gravest questions is whether it is a question of felony. Till a warrant is issued the Government are perfectly satisfied that whenever Mr. Cornwall is wanted he will be found.
  MR. O'BRIEN: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the Question, which is, whether he can give any guarantee of the safety of the witnesses by whose evidence Cornwall's guilt was brought to light. I may say that, so far as the evidence I have—["Order, order!"]—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of Order in going beyond the limits of a Question.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Then I ask the Chief Secretary whether he expects that I shall give him information before he gives me a guarantee as to the safety of the witnesses? For if he does, I may tell him that I will not trust either him or Earl Spencer with it. [Cries of "Answer, answer!" and Ministerial cries of "No, no!"]
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I may be Chief Secretary of Ireland; but I am an English gentleman—
  MR. HARRINGTON: So was Cornwall.
  MR. TREVELYAN: And if any hon. Gentleman, in putting a Question to me, tells me that under no circumstances whatever will he trust my statement, I shall not answer him.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Arising out of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to ask the Attorney General for England whether it is not legal for a policeman, in case he suspects a felony
  686
  has been committed, to arrest that person, even without a warrant?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I think it better that such a Question should not be asked without Notice.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary whether Mr. Fitzgerald, of Cork, one of my constituents, was not arrested in the streets of London without a warrant, although he was neither accused nor sworn against.
  MR. SPEAKER: This series of Questions is becoming quite irregular. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) is now debating the Question. A Question can be asked, but a subject cannot be debated by a series of Questions.
  MR. PARNELL: In explanation of the series of Questions I felt compelled to ask, I wish to say that the Chief Secretary has steadily declined to answer any one of them.
  MR. HEALY: I wish to ask if the next time when a series of Questions is asked without Notice by the occupants of the Front Opposition Bench—[Cries of "Order!"]—
  MR. SPEAKER: If these Questions continue, I shall be bound to take notice of them. I consider such a proceeding is quite out of Order.
  MR. HEALY: I beg to say that the next time any right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench asks without Notice a series of Questions—[Cries of "Order!"]—
  MR. SPEAKER: I consider the terms of the Question of the hon. Member are not respectful either to the Chair or to the House.
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to give Notice that I shall put further Questions on this subject to-morrow. [Cries of "Name!"]
  MR. HEALY: Name away.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT — FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked Mr. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he will now enforce the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act of 1878, and order the slaughter of animals suffering with foot-and-mouth disease, seeing that the disease is now restricted to two herds; and, whether, in the case of any fresh outbreak, it

  687
  will be promptly dealt with in like manner?
  MR. DODSON: I am sorry to say that foot-and-mouth disease prevails not in two, but in three herds—namely, in Yorkshire, Norfolk, and Surrey. The slaughter of diseased animals would not suffice to stamp out the disease. In one case the owner was willing that all the animals first attacked should be slaughtered; but the Veterinary Inspector of the Local Authority advised him that that would be of no use, as something like 100 animals had been in contact. In answer to the last Question, I may say that the expediency of slaughter, or otherwise, must in any given case depend on circumstances.

  EGYPT—POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE (for Mr. W. H. SMITH)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will be prepared, within the course of the next week, to make any statement to the House as to the present condition of Egypt, and the measures, if any, which the Government may have in contemplation to remedy the state of the Country?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have no intention of making a statement in the course of next week as to the present condition of Egypt. The whole operations of the Government since the occupation began have been a continued and persistent endeavour, attended, as they think, with very great success, to apply such remedies, or mitigations more or less complete, as the case would admit of, to the particular abuses which have undoubtedly existed in the government of that country. But the information respecting this work which is most fit for the consideration of the House, is, as we think, best conveyed by the Papers presented to it; and there is now in preparation a Paper on the subject, which, as we have the advantage of the presence of Sir Evelyn Baring in the country, I think will put the House in possession of more effective and trustworthy information than I could convey in the course of a speech.
  MR. BOURKEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the recent disclosures made by persons holding, or having recently held, official positions of great responsibility in Egypt, in relation to the administration of justice and the management of prisons
  688
  in that country, he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the malpractices alleged to have been committed with the knowledge of the British Government.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not gather what are the particular malpractices to which the right hon. Gentleman refers in his Question. The Government have used their influence, as they think with considerable effect, towards the improvement of the prisons in Egypt; and at the present moment there is rather an important question as to the legality of some of the present regulations in their present form which forms a subject of close consideration by the Government. But with regard to the question of a Committee, I own I have great doubts whether at this period of the Session a Committee of this kind would be desirable. It seems to me much more desirable that the matter should be left in the hands of the Executive Government, and that the House should judge from the information given to it what the Executive Government have done, and should call the Executive Government to account if need be. In the first place, such an inquiry would necessarily involve the summoning of persons from Egypt to give evidence, and that would be very injurious to the condition of the country. I think, also, the right hon. Gentleman will see that, at the present period of the Session, it would be hardly possible to appoint such a Committee even if it were desirable.
  MR. BOURKE: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, and I should like to ask one or two Questions arising out of that answer. The particular malpractices to which I alluded have been summarized by Sir Benson Maxwell this morning in the words "a scandalous scene of English lawlessness and licence." I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Papers already promised contain despatches from Sir Benson Maxwell and Mr. Clifford Lloyd with respect to the differences of opinion which existed between them and other British officials; and, also, whether the Papers that will be presented will contain information with respect to the Codes and the Native Tribunals that are being established in Egypt, because the House is aware that the Papers already presented to the House contain no information whatever upon the Native Tribunals.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I answered that Question just now. It is always difficult to give in an answer the contents of a Blue Book. It is intended to present Papers bearing upon the question of which the Report of Dr. Crookshank is a part. There will also be Papers bearing upon other subjects of internal administration, and with regard to various other matters bearing upon the administration of Egypt. I did not intend the Papers relating to judicial matters to be regarded in any way as the satisfaction of the pledge I gave.
  MR. BOURKE: Will the Papers relating to the disputes between Sir Benson Maxwell and Mr. Clifford Lloyd be included?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I stated just now that this Blue Book would contain the Report of Dr. Cruikshank and other Papers bearing on the subject; but I must altogether decline to give definite pledges as to particular Papers and as to particular subjects.
  MR. BOURKE: I beg leave to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask the Questions I have already put to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

  EGYPT—THE CONFERENCE.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The House will remember that it was stated that in case the Conference came to a successful result the Government would bring forward some Resolution relating to it. Now, at present, no Papers whatever have been presented to the House with regard to the internal administration of the country. Will those Papers be in our hands before the House is called upon to consider this Resolution?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is a little difficult to give a positive answer, because the two subjects mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman are not in pari materia. I cannot say more than this—that if we make any proposition on the subject we shall use our best endeavours to put the House in possession of all the information before us at the time.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
  MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd is to be re-employed in Ireland; and, if so, will any opportunity be afforded before the Session closes of discussing this step?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The case of Mr. Clifford Lloyd is that, in principle, that gentleman is still in the Public Service. When he went to Egypt he still continued to be on the list of Resident Magistrates in Ireland. He went to Egypt and came away upon leave, and, as my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State has acquainted the House, he will not return to Egypt. His leave extends for some considerable time—until September—and no decision has been taken with respect to his future. With regard to the particular place of his employment, and the functions he may be called upon to perform, it will be the business of the Government carefully to consider in what manner his abilities may best be turned to account for the Public Service, and to come to a decision on the point.
  MR. HEALYasked whether, if Mr. Clifford Lloyd was sent back to Ireland, an opportunity would be given of discussing that step before the close of the Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not certain when the decision may be taken with respect to Mr. Clifford Lloyd; but I have no doubt that if anything is done with respect to him we shall have no desire to evade the opportunity, which hon. Gentlemen connected with Ireland certainly are entitled to make, to comment on the appointment of any particular person in the service of the Irish Government. I have not the least desire that the hon. Gentlemen should have any difficulty in this respect—in fact, I think it would be right that we should endeavour, within a short time, to come to a decision. The thing really has not been taken up yet, simply because there was a considerable period of leave to elapse; but we must endeavour to come to a decision as we approach the last days of the Session.

  PARLIAMENT — HOUSE OF LORDS — CONDEMNATORY RESOLUTION.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, in consequence of what has happened in another place, he will arrange for a day for the discussion of a Resolution which has been for some time on the Order Book, to the following effect:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the continuance, unreformed, of a Legislative Chamber of an irresponsible character, and with legisla-

  691
  tive functions founded largely on mere accident of birth, is incompatible with wise legislation and antagonistic to the welfare of the people?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very reluctant to answer any Question about giving a day for the discussion of any Resolution, and in what I have to say to the House in a minute or two, I am afraid I shall speak, not of giving days, but of taking days. Therefore, I am not in a position to hold out any hope to my hon. Friend.
  MR. ANDERSON: As the reply of the Prime Minister is not altogether satisfactory, I beg leave to give Notice that I will repeat it the next time an irresponsible Legislative Chamber — [Cries of "Order!"]—has the audacity to reject a Bill sent up by this House. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The Notice, so far as it reached me, is couched in an irregular form, reflecting upon the other branch of the Legislature.

  PARLIAMENT — THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—THE SANITARY CONDITION OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Has the First Commissioner of Works any proposals to make with respect to the serious complaints made of the sanitary condition of the House?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I regret that I was not in the House yesterday when the right hon. Gentleman put his Question to Mr. Speaker. I had been here for some time previously; but as no intimation, public or private, was given to me by the right hon. Gentleman, or by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), that it was their intention to raise this question, I returned to my Office in order to receive the deputation which I referred to earlier this evening. My attention, however, had been called to the complaints as to the smells in the House on Tuesday evening, and I had made inquiries which convinced me that they were due to causes external to the House, and not to defects of ventilation. One proof of this was that the ladies in the Ladies' Gallery of the Lords complained very much, and that when the windows of that House were closed the complaint ceased. I believe also that the same odours were complained of in Palace Yard and Victoria Street, and through a great part of Westminster.
  692
  It would seem that there was something wrong with the Westminster sewers. I have communicated on the subject with the Metropolitan Board of Works, but have not received any answer as yet. As it appears to be the wish of Mr. Speaker and of other hon. Members that there should be a Committee to investigate the causes of such complaints, I shall make no objection, and I conceive that advantage may result from the inquiries of a small Committee of experts.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS—REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to redeem the pledge under which the Government lies towards the House with respect to indicating what they propose should be the course of Public Business during the remainder of the Session. I think I should state, in the first instance, how we should, in the view of the Government, have stood to-day had no remarkable or peculiar circumstances occurred to influence our views. If there had been no remarkable or peculiar circumstances of that kind, there is no doubt before the House a very considerable mass of Business of a useful and valuable character, in the shape of Bills relating to various branches of the Law and to all the Three Kingdoms and the Principality of Wales. But I think that by a Session not unexampled, but still of ample length, reaching probably to a very late date in August, those Bills might have been disposed of, and very useful additions made to the Statute Book. The remarkable circumstance, however, has occurred in the failure of the Franchise Bill. That Bill, as is known to the House, it has been the great object of the Government to forward ever since the commencement of the Session. For four months it has been before the House, and I think we considered it in 26 different Sittings. The view which the Government take of that particular Bill—I do not, of course, wish to defend it or justify it now in any way—is that it contemplates an object of paramount importance, and that it is their duty to ask the House to arrange its proceedings and plans with reference to the measure being again considered. What we wish to do is this. We have a double object in view. The first and

    693
    paramount duty which, as we think, presses upon us, is to secure by the proper Constitutional and regular method at the earliest possible date the passing of the Franchise Bill, the principles of which have received—in the House of Commons by positive votes, and in the House of Lords by words not deficient in force—the assent of both Houses of Parliament. Next to securing the passing of the Franchise Bill, we are most anxious to keep, both in spirit and letter, all the engagements to which we have come in respect to redistribution—engagements which might, under certain circumstances beyond our control, be seriously disturbed. For the present, however, our object is to gain those two points, and, above all, to be in a condition to secure, if we can, the passing of the Franchise Bill, and also to be in a condition, at the commencement of the next Session, to proceed as we have always contemplated, and to ask the House to proceed with a Redistribution Bill, and to make it, so far as our powers are concerned, the principal object of the next Session of Parliament. We do not see any way in which these two objects can be attained, except by advising Her Majesty to assent to an Autumn Session, and Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to consent to the assembling of the House in the course of the autumn for the purpose of again considering the Franchise Bill. The House will now perceive that if we are to ask hon. Members to make the serious sacrifice of coming here during the Recess for the purpose of passing an important legislative measure, it becomes a very serious question how much more are we to ask for in the discharge of the ordinary labours of the Session. The advice has been patriotically given that there should be an Autumn Session, and that likewise we should proceed with all the Bills now before the House, and, in particular, with the London Government Bill; and that, having passed all those Bills, we should then proceed with the Autumn Session. I refer to that in all good humour, to show what would be our duty, if it were possible, morally, socially, or physically, to exact such sacrifices—I will not say from the House of Commons, but from any possible or conceivable body of men that could be assembled within the walls of any possible or conceivable Legislative Cham-
    694
    ber. It cannot be; and that being so, and having stated that in our view the passing of the Franchise Bill, and next to that the fulfilment of our engagement in respect to redistribution ought to be our paramount object, we have, with regret, come to the conclusion that we have no option except to make a rather sweeping and very impartial sacrifice of a number of valuable measures which the House has either before it or in contemplation. Of course, I do not speak of all the Bills on the Order Book. The common practice on these occasions is to enumerate all those Bills which appear to the Government to be Bills of importance, and Bills likely to make a sensible demand on the time of the House. We have asked ourselves whether there is any exception that we can justly make in this somewhat sweeping devastation? There is one exception we propose to make, of which the principle is generally recognized by the House. The exception is founded upon the consideration that certain Bills have passed through the Grand Committees; and, therefore, the bulk of the labour which the House would have to give to them may be considered primâ facie to have been actually expended, and ought not to be lost. One of these in particular, and the most important, is the Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections Bill. It is, I believe, generally and universally desired. ["No!"] That is my belief. We think it our duty to contemplate asking the House to proceed with that Bill. There is another Bill also of importance, and which, in our judgment, is very valuable. It is a Bill with respect to the Law of Evidence, and as to it, I am not so certain that a universally good reception can be secured for it. It ought to be distinctly understood that we reserve to ourselves entire freedom to proceed with that Bill. With regard to the rest of the Bills coming within the class I have described, I am sorry to say we are not able to find any ground of exemption which, if allowed, would not lead to the raising of various claims which it would be imposible to defend. These important measures—no less than nine in number—are the London Government Bill, the Railway Regulation Bill, the Universities of Scotland Bill, the Education (Wales) Bill, the Irish Land Purchase Bill, the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Bill, the Coinage Bill, the Police Superannua-

    695
    tion Bill, and, finally, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, which has come from the House of Lords, and which, like the other Bills, is certain to occupy considerable time in debate, and involves questions of great difficulty. I do not know if the House of Lords is likely to send any Bills of this class; and, therefore, what I say may be an abstract proposition—namely, that if any such Bills should come from the House of Lords, we should not ask the House of Commons to proceed with them. With regard to the Medical Act Amendment Bill, I will not give a final judgment upon it, upon these grounds—my noble Friend the President of the Council and my right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) are of opinion that they have very nearly arranged the principal disputed points, and a short time will test that; and it is also a Bill which has made considerable progress. It is now in Committee with the mark of "Progress" attached to it, and, that being so, it is a Bill with regard to which we could, without interfering with the course of other Business, sufficiently test whether it is the desire of the House to proceed with it or not. If it is, we reserve to ourselves the title to avail ourselves of that favourable judgment. Under these circumstances, it is obviously our first duty to proceed with Supply, and to make the forwarding of Supply—subject to ample opportunity of discussion—the great object we have in view. This being so, it has, of course, been our duty to ask whether we ought to make further demands on the time of the House. It would not ordinarily be fair, at this period of the Session, and even under pressing circumstances, to raise any question respecting Wednesdays. If we could find that, in the view of independent Members themselves, there was any reasonable expectation of their being able to make effective progress with any of their measures, we might hesitate to think of asking for the Wednesdays which they would lose if they were given to the Government; but the result of our inquiry is that there is no such chance in the remainder of the Session. I regret the interference with the legislation of private Members as much as the interference with that of the Government; but in this state of facts we shall be prepared to ask, upon Notice, and before next Wednesday, that the remaining
    696
    Wednesdays of the Session shall be given to the Government. Subject to any questions which may be put to me, I have made the substance of the statement I undertook to make, and stated what we proposed in a manner, I hope, not offensive. It would be extremely wrong of me to take advantage of a statement of the kind for the purpose of obtaining surreptitiously any kind of judgment from the House. I have stated that in our view it is of vital and paramount consequence that we should concentrate our attention upon the Franchise Bill, and resolutely endeavour to redeem the pledges we have given with regard to redistribution. Everything else I have stated flows, as a natural and inevitable consequence, out of the view taken on the part of the Government, which it was their duty, at the earliest moment, to communicate to the House.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Nobody can deny, or would wish to question, the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has made the remarks he has just addressed to the House; and I hope that in anything that may be said that spirit will be carefully preserved. There are, however, one or two points on which, I think, under the peculiar circumstances of the time, it would be right that some observations should be made; and it would be more convenient that I should put myself in Order by asking leave to move the adjournment of the House in order to consider the statement with respect to the arrangement of Public Business now made by the First Lord of the Treasury.
    Leave being granted—

    ADJOURNMENT—THE MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I have no wish at all to abuse the indulgence of the House by calling attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; but I think we must take notice of the fact that, as he has himself remarked, we are placed in remarkable and peculiar circumstances; and the consequence of that is that certain measures which the Government are sorry not to proceed with must be laid aside; and the right hon. Gentleman also tells us that it is necessary to call Parliament together at an unusual period of the

    697
    autumn for the purpose of proceeding with one particular measure—the Franchise Bill. It is very desirable there should be no misunderstanding on that point. I confess there were expressions of the right hon. Gentleman which I did not fully understand, and I was anxious that those expressions should be cleared up. The right hon. Gentleman says he proposes we should meet in October for the purpose of proceeding at once with the Franchise Bill; and he states that it would be the desire of the Government to proceed immediately afterwards with the Redistribution Bill.
    MR. GLADSTONE, interposing, was understood to explain that he had said he proposed to proceed with the redistribution scheme at the time he had already promised.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: What I really wished—and I think the Government will consider it reasonable that we should have an understanding—is that the scheme of redistribution should be before us in the form of a Bill—["Oh!" and cheers]—before we are called upon to pass the Franchise Bill. I am sorry if that is not the feeling; the words of the right hon. Gentleman were capable of that construction, which, I thought, was the correct one. I will go so far as to say, if it is the desire of the Government that a complete scheme for the representation of the people should receive the assent of Parliament, I am satisfied there is no other way in which that object can be so well and so properly secured. I earnestly trust that course may be adopted. I cannot help calling to mind that early in the Session, when the question was raised why the two could not be proceeded with, the right hon. Gentleman gave as a principal reason that if he brought forward a Redistribution Bill with the Franchise Bill he would be unable to proceed with other measures, such as the London Government Bill. Now, we see the result—the London Government Bill has to be laid aside, and neither object has been attained. [Cries of "Why?"] I believe the right hon. Gentleman will find that much greater facilities will be offered to the passing of the two measures, if they are brought in together as a complete scheme of Reform. I will not dwell upon this portion of the subject, beyond saying that it is my earnest desire to press upon
    698
    the House and the Government my own conviction that this is the best and most promising way of dealing with the question. There are two questions I wish to address to the right hon. Gentleman. The first is a matter of detail, when and in what part of the autnmn he contemplates the House being called upon to meet? It would be convenient for us, and for the country also, to know, as the usual Recess is to be shortened, at what time Parliament is to meet. The other question has reference to the remainder of the Business of the present Session. I want to know what is to be done with regard to any debate on Egyptian affairs? The right hon. Gentleman made no allusion to it; I do not know that it was necessary for him to do so; but it is our duty to ask what is to be done in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman may be able to tell us—I hope now—what is the position of the Business that is being laid before the Conference, and at what time it may be expected we shall receive any communication as to the decisions of the Conference? Or, if any circumstance should occur to prevent a decision being given, he may be able to tell us in what form we may be allowed to express our views on the great and important questions involved in the Egyptian policy of the Government. These are the two questions I want to raise. I do not desire to go into other matters; and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will take in good part, and understand and appreciate the spirit, in which I have made these suggestions. To put myself in Order, I move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: I need not say that when the right hon. Gentleman makes an important suggestion, as he has done to-day, and states that in his belief it is a suggestion which, if adopted, would conduce to the despatch of Public Business, I receive that assertion with the most implicit credence. I have no doubt it is his judgment, but the right hon. Gentleman is, of course, aware that our judgment has, unfortunately, been entirely at variance with his, and, great as has been the difficulties which have beset us in the course we have endeavoured to pursue during the present

    699
    Session, yet we were able to obtain the most emphatic support of this House with respect to the Franchise Bill, and to send the Bill disposing of that which is the basis and the essence of every question of Parliamentary Reform to the House of Lords in ample time for the House of Lords to deal with it. We did that upon very full consideration, and I am bound to say that though the belief of the right hon. Gentleman, as far as it goes, is a favourable factor, we are bound to have regard to the materials of which this House is composed, to the relation and discipline of various Parties, and to the absolute duty of the Government to recognize its responsibility with regard to the Procedure of the House—a responsibility with which no other person or Party can be chargeable. We cannot wholly avoid looking back to the experience of 1866, when the process suggested was attempted. We then judged it more convenient to pass a Franchise Bill without its being complicated by a Redistribution Bill; we endeavoured to take that course; the feeling of the House, upon the whole, was averse; we deferred to the feeling of the House, and we brought in our Redistribution Bill. But so far from finding that we were better off for that concession, it was quite evident that the appetites of our opponents was whetted by partial success, and from the moment of the bringing in of the Redistribution Bill, every chance of the passing of the Reform Bill vanished. Since that time the field of redistribution has been greatly extended. Considering the progress the franchise has made, and may make, it is absolutely necessary that there should be something like systematic and methodical redistribution; but, independently of that, something approaching to a methodical Redistribution Bill must be made in order to present a fair promise of durability. Besides that, the wits of men scientific and others have been to work since 1866 upon every description of question with regard to modes of voting. The changes introduced into the aspects of this subject, and the enormous widening of its field by the various schemes of voting of minorities, by the various theories of proportional representation, and the undoubted right of Members to have a fair hearing for their views, convinced us that the burden which redistribution
    700
    would impose upon the Franchise Bill was not less, but far more formidable than ever it was. With these facts before us, it is impossible for me to hold out to the right hon. Gentleman any expectation of our changing our course. I had certainly thought that my own words had been clear and expressive, because I said that in our view our paramount duty was to promote the earliest passing of the Franchise Bill, and next to endeavour to redeem the engagement under which we had already come with regard to a Redistribution Bill, that engagement being to take the earliest opportunity of introducing it, should we continue to be the Government. [A laugh, and "Hear, hear!"] If we are relieved, and I shall be much obliged to that Gentleman, if he will show me a short way out of my anxieties—[An hon. MEMBER: Dissolve!]—if we are relieved of our function, that settles the matter; but if we are not relieved, we are engaged from the beginning of next Session, so far as depends upon us, to devote that Session, in preference to every other subject, to pressing forward the Redistribution Bill. It may be that that course may be rendered difficult by circumstances beyond our control; but my own earnest desire is to keep that engagement. Well, so much on the subject of the Redistribution Bill, with regard to which I must say that it would require evidence far more conclusive and reaching to a far greater extent than any that is now before me to produce any impression on the deliberate conclusion of my Colleagues and myself that to mix the two questions would be an effectual way of preventing progress with either of them. With regard to the two questions of the right hon. Gentleman, I stated that the Autumn Session would be in the month of October. Certainly, our view of it is that it should be in the second moiety of that month; and if I might venture, without committing myself to a date, I would say that about the 20th of October would be most convenient in the general view of the Government. With respect to the second question, the right hon. Gentleman was not only quite justified in putting it, but if it had occurred to me I should have made mention of it. Of course, any arrangement that could be made for clearing the decks of legislative measures in our own hands cannot possibly

    701
    weaken any pledge we have given with regard to affording opportunities for a discussion or a vote on the conduct and the policy of the Government with regard to Egypt and the Conference, should there be a desire for such a discussion and for such a vote. I consider that to remain wholly unaffected by anything that has been said with respect to legislative subjects. The right hon. Gentleman wishes to know, I think in a practical way, what I can tell him with regard to the progress of the business before the Conference. I will go as far I can in that respect. He will quite understand that we cannot give a binding account or a binding estimate of the time which will be taken by the Representatives of the European Powers in prosecuting particular business with the same confidence as if they were matters which were being carried on within the precincts of the Government itself. There are two Bodies engaged in the work to which we have to look. First, there is the Commission, which is subordinate to the Conference, and the business of which is, I believe, derived chiefly from the Conference. With regard to the Commission I can give a favourable report. Our confident hope is, great progress having been made in its business, that early next week, probably in the first moiety of next week, the Commission will close its labours. That Commission represents in general a class of men better known on the Continent than here, perhaps, by the name of experts. But, in point of fact, it is a solid and difficult work of detail which they have to prepare and elaborate for the purpose of easing the labours of the Conference. We make no doubt that the Conference will meet on the earliest possible day—that is to say, a day or two after the Commission has closed its work—and our belief is that the matter for the consideration of the Conference will be so carefully and thoroughly prepared by the Commission that we may reasonably expect that the labours of the Conference will not require them to extend their proceedings over a great number of sittings. I should not, however, like at the present moment, before the Commission has concluded its labours, to speak of a day for the conclusion of those of the Conference; but we are sanguine that the whole matter will be concluded in such time as in no
    702
    degree to abridge the liberty of Parliament to consider the conclusions that we may present to them before arriving at a period of the year beyond that to which we are accustomed ordinarily to prolong our Sitings. I think that this is as much as I can fairly be expected to say at the present moment.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I do not think anyone would for a moment suppose from the tone of the Prime Minister that we were, as all the newspapers, Liberal and Conservative, inform us, in the midst of a great Constitutional crisis—for anything more meek and mild than the attitude of the Prime Minister, and anything more meek and mild than the attitude of the Liberal Party on this most critical occasion, it has certainly never been my good fortune or the good fortune of anyone else to witness. But, Sir, perhaps I may say—and perhaps the House will pardon a little discussion at this moment, because it is probably about the only opportunity we shall have—that the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made is, to my mind, and I think will be to the mind of many in the country, the most complete and utter exposure of the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and the most complete, and, I will say, unlooked-for and unhoped-for defence of the House of Lords that it would have been possible for the mind of man to have offered. What has the Prime Minister told us is to be the plan of the Government? He tells us that the House is to meet in the autumn in order that we may deal with the Franchise Bill and that the Government may redeem its pledges with regard to redistribution. [Cheers, and cries of "No!"] That, Sir, is the statement of the Prime Minister absolutely. ["No, no!"] Those hon. Members who contradict me upon that point will look very foolish to-morrow morning when they read the reports of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in the newspapers. The Prime Minister said—"We will call Parliament together in the autumn in order that we may deal with the franchise and redeem our pledges about redistribution." [Cries of "No!"]
    MR. GLADSTONE: I may perhaps be excused if I set the noble Lord right. It is quite possible I may have used the expression "dealing with redistribution next Session," but it was perfectly un-

    703
    derstood that I did not mean the Autumn Session.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I must say that I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman in what he says. No doubt, he stated the matter in that extremely confused way to the House, and if I had not remarked upon it my understanding of what the right hon. Gentleman said would have been in the minds of everybody—[Cries of "No!"]—except, perhaps, of the Members of the Liberal Party who have been taken into the Prime Minister's confidence this afternoon. It could have occurred to no other human mind who heard the statement of the Prime Minister that the Government had any other intention than to call Parliament together in the autumn to deal with the Franchise Bill and to redeem their pledges with regard to redistribution. But, Sir, if that is not so; if Parliament is to be called together in the autumn merely to deal only with the Franchise Bill, what a monstrous and, I say, a criminal and dissolute waste of public time it will be. I cannot, of course, hope hon. Members opposite will agree with me on this subject; but there are others out-of-doors who will be inclined to take a more impartial view of the question. What is the position of the Franchise Bill at the present moment? It is one of suspended animation. It is perfectly open to the other House of Parliament to proceed with that Bill to-morrow or at any time before Parliament is prorogued. The Prime Minister has only got to get up in this House and to follow the course that was pursued in 1882—to adjourn Parliament until October, and then, to introduce his Redistribution Bill. The result of such a proceeding would be that the whole question of Parliamentary Reform would be dealt with before the close of this year, and the Prime Minister, if he liked, could take an Election under the new constituencies before Christmas, 1884. In no way whatever could the position of the House of Lords, from the original point of view, be strengthened. I should think it extremely probable that there would be no difficulty whatever in that Bill being read a second time, if he got up and said—"I will adjourn Parliament till October, when I will bring in my Redistribution Bill." What can be the reason why the Government do not
    704
    take that plain and simple course? From what we have witnessed to-night of this wholesale massacre of measures, such as no one in this House has ever before had any experience of, it is perfectly obvious to me that the whole legislative programme of the Government, which was set forth with so much pomp in the Queen's Speech, was nothing but a gigantic humbug, a stupendous imposture, and a prodigious fraud, and was put forward for no other purpose than to delude Parliament and the country, and to serve for the concealment of a revolutionary attack upon the House of Lords. I ask the House to observe the extraordinary amiability of the Prime Minister upon the present occasion; and, at the same time, to carry their minds back to a certain Friday night, about three weeks ago, when the Prime Minister moved the third reading of the Franchise Bill. On that occasion, the Prime Minister warned the House of Lords to—
    "Beware
    Of entrance to a quarrel; but, being in,
    Bear't that th' opposed may beware of thee."
    But, having given this warning, the Prime Minister immediately proceeded to set it at nought; and, having entered into a quarrel, so far from his opponents having to beware of him, they merely laughed at him. Anything more humiliating on the part of a powerful Government than the attitude which they took to-night, compared with their attitude on the third reading of the Reform Bill, I am at a loss to imagine. The right hon. Gentleman defied the House of Lords to mortal combat before the bar of the constituencies in the country; he denied the independent legislative rights of the House of Lords. ["No, no!"] I say that was the speech of the Prime Minister—he denied the right of the House of Lords to act as an independent branch of the Legislature, and he threatened them with the consequences of their throwing out the Franchise Bill. He threatened the House of Lords with practical abolition unless they consented to serve as a Registration Office for his own personal acts. Having thrown down that challenge, and the House of Lords having taken it up, the Prime Minister runs away. So far from challenging the House of Lords before the bar of the constituencies, the Prime Minister has taken every possible step

    705
    to avoid an appeal to the country. Nothing has amused me more, or interested me more, than to observe what I dare say hon. Members opposite have observed—because they have been intrumental in the preparation of the documents—that all the documents which have been carefully sent up from the various local Caucuses of the country have made it their special prayer to the Prime Minister on no account to dissolve Parliament. No doubt, these local wire-pullers and managers are very competent to give advice to the Prime Minister as to the state of public opinion in the country, even if the result of the various bye-elections had not told him what that feeling is. Then, I say, if the Government are going to take up this extremely prudent, not to say pusillanimous, line, the speech which the Prime Minister delivered on the third reading of the Reform Bill was utterly out of place. It can only be called a piece of Falstaffian braggadocio, because this much must be said—that a person who threatens nearly always discloses that he has a weak case. And, further, the fact of the Prime Minister having made that speech almost necessitated the present action of the House of Lords. While the Reform Bill was before this House I did not by word or deed hinder its progress in any way. I say that with our Constitution unwritten as it is, and, in many respects, shadowy and vague as it is, but, at the same time, for practical purposes definite and tangible—I say that a denial in Parliament of Constitutional rights by a person in the position and with the authority not only of the First Minister of the Crown, but of the Leader of the Liberal Party, absolutely necessitates the immediate assertion of those rights in the strongest manner, and on the broadest basis, or else those rights will infallibly perish. I mean this—that if the House of Lords, after the speech which the Prime Minister made in this House, had tamely submitted to the construction of their duty which he proclaimed from that Table, the rights of the House of Lords as an independent Legislative Body would have been almost infallibly at a point where they never could have been taken up again. Anxious as I admit I was that there should not be this division of opinion between the Lords and the Commons, still every hope
    706
    I had of averting that was shattered, and the hopes of many others were shattered too, when we heard that speech of the Prime Minister. And this I will deliberately say, so that the public may know it, even if hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like to hear it—that from my own knowledge of what was the opinion of noble Lords in the other House belonging to the Conservative Party, many Peers of influence and position, whose opinion on this question I had the good fortune to learn—I say deliberately, many of them, before the third reading of the Reform Bill, impressed by the undoubtedly conciliatory attitude which the Prime Minister had adopted, impressed by the line which had been taken on this Front Bench, impressed by the statement of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) that the Bill as it stood was in many respects a Conservative Bill, were prepared to approach the consideration of the Bill with open, unprejudiced, and impartial minds. I make that statement deliberately, because I know it of my own knowledge; and if the Prime Minister on the third reading had addressed this House and indirectly the House of Lords in the tone and manner which he has so carefully made use of to-night, that Bill would have been well on its way, in my sincere and earnest judgment, towards receiving the Royal Assent. Now, just let me notice the statement made by the President of the Local Government Board in a very wild speech which he delivered last night. The President of the Local Government Board stated to his audience that I had said that if a date was inserted into the Bill, the House of Lords would not dare to reject it. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity of qualifying that statement as the most monstrous misstatement which I think was ever made even by the right hon. Gentleman, and of giving to that statement the flattest and the most direct contradiction which you, Sir, in your capacity of presiding over these debates may think Parliamentary. I never said anything of the kind, and I altogether deny the right of a responsible Minister of the Crown—I would deny the right even of an ordinary Member of Parliament—to go and traduce an opponent in a place where that opponent cannot answer him; because I say it is traducing an

    707
    opponent to put into his mouth a sentence which he never uttered, and, moreover, a sentence which I venture to say—and this it is which makes it so annoying to me—was the most imbecile and stupid sentence which could possibly have been uttered by a Member of Parliament. I never said anything of the kind, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to get up at that Table and quote any expression which, by the wildest exercise of his most romantic and romancing imagination, can be twisted into such a meaning as he stated last night; and if he cannot, I call upon him to retract what he said, and to express his regret for having misquoted—I will not say wilfully misquoted—an opponent. As the matter stands at the present moment, the Constitutional crisis is evidently not in this House. The Liberal Party are evidently not prepared for a Constitutional crisis. I know that there is at the present moment a silly person of the name of Schnadhorst who is meeting somewhere with his myrmidons in the back slums of Westminster in order to devise and concert measures for supporting their great master and their great friend. But I do not think they will be encouraged by the tone of the Prime Minister this afternoon. Nothing could be more discouraging, I imagine, to those faithful myrmidons, for, instead of indulging in denunciations of the House of Lords for daring to thwart him, the Prime Minister did not venture even to name the House of Lords for fear of incurring a debate in this House. I know that there are hon. Gentlemen—particularly the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley), and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) and right hon. Gentlemen—and very likely I see two of them sitting there together—who are very fond of getting up in this House and careering about the country and calling themselves the people of England, threatening with the direst vengeance all or any who may hinder them in their way. Well, I do not know whether, Mr. Speaker, you recollect a collection of fables which has been handed down to us from the earliest times under the name of Æsop, and with which hon. Gentlemen opposite, with their vast stores of practical knowledge, are no doubt, familiar. But there is one of those fables, the most delightful and instructive of them all,
    708
    which relates how a donkey, in the course of his morning's peregrinations, came across a lion's skin, and it immediately occurred to his asinine mind—["Question!"]—that if he were to clothe himself in the lion's skin great power and dignity and profit would immediately accrue to him. So he put it on and he careered about the country, and he frightened a great many old women and children; but, unfortunately for himself, he came across a party of men in the neighbourhood of a town who were well acquainted with the elementary facts of natural history, and who quickly detected the disguise, with the result that the unfortunate donkey was soundly beaten and cuffed and kicked. The history does not tell us whether the donkey learnt wisdom, or whether, having been a donkey once, he remained a donkey always. But this I will say—that whenever I see hon. Gentlemen opposite and right hon. Gentlemen getting up in this House and careering about the country and calling themselves the people of England, I think of the lion's skin. I remember Æsop's fable, and I desire to remind the First Lord of the Treasury of what no one can know better than himself, that there is nothing more easy than to detect the difference between the demagogue's bray and the people's roar.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to follow the general remarks of the noble Lord, or take up the points which he has laid before the House in a style so peculiarly his own. His mock heroics and his not very tasteful speech may be left to others to deal with. I present myself before the House only in answer to the challenge which the noble Lord has addressed to me. The noble Lord told me at Question time to-day that he intended to make allusion to this matter, and to do so by way of personal explanation. I at once made myself as rapidly acquainted with the speeches of the noble Lord during the debates on the Franchise Bill to which I referred last night as I could do in the time. But I took down only a very few words from his speeches, because I was not aware that reference would be made by him to the subject on an occasion giving an opportunity for debate. I can, therefore, only refer Members who desire an expansion of the passages to his speeches generally

    709
    upon the Franchise Bill. The noble Lord made a great many speeches on the Franchise Bill.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No; I did not.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: On two afternoons, I find, when there were matters of great importance being discussed the noble Lord came down. The noble Lord on the 23rd of May—I will ask hon. Members to read the whole speech of the noble Lord. ["Oh, oh!"] lam very sorry to inflict the task upon hon. Members, and if it had depended upon me I would not do so. On the 23rd of May the noble Lord made a very bitter attack indeed on his own Front Bench. The Motion before the House was the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley), which was to prevent the Bill coming into operation until a Redistribution Bill had been passed. The noble Lord made two speeches on that Amendment. He attacked the Front Bench opposite. Speaking of the pledges given by the Government, made in words less strong than have since been used, he said that he was completely satisfied of their binding force; and he then attacked the right hon. and gallant Member, and said that he supposed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must have some motive in the Amendment, but he could not conceive what that motive was; but that at last he came to the conclusion that the motive must be to damage the chances of those who wished to see this date put into the Bill; and by "this date" he meant the date proposed by the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey). The noble Lord, in one part of his speech, spoke of "the date," in another of "this date," and in another of "a date sufficient to give time" to pass a Redistribution Bill. The noble Lord attacked the right hon. and gallant Member—thus, by implication, speaking of himself as one of those who desired to pass the Bill, and of the Front Bench, as not desiring to pass the Bill. He repeated over and over again that there were those who did not wish that this Franchise Bill should become law—talking of his own Front Bench.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Not at all.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Does the noble Lord, in the face of this
    710
    House, mean to tell the House that that speech of his—both those speeches of his—were not a direct attack upon his own Front Bench?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Certainly it was not.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I will ask hon. Members to read that speech. I trust that the newspapers throughout the country will reprint that speech. The noble Lord, after distinguishing between those who wished to damage the Bill—those who did not wish the Bill to become law, and those who did wish it to become law, said that the former knew that if this date was put into the Bill the Bill would become law.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: A date.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The noble Lord used the words "this date," and in another sentence "at a date sufficient to give time"—I suppose for the passage of a Redistribution Bill. He said they knew that if this date was put into the Bill, coupled with the pledge of the Government to introduce a Redistribution Bill, it would hardly be possible—it would certainly be in the highest degree dangerous—for the House of Lords to throw out the Bill.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that is not the expression he quoted last night. The words he then purported to quote were—"The House of Lords would not dare to throw out the Bill."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I maintain, and I believe it will be the opinion of the majority of the House—of the House as a whole—that if these words mean anything, they mean nothing more or less than that. I was using a short form of the noble Lord's words in saying that the House of Lords would not dare to throw out the Bill. I spoke last night by my recollection. I have applied to many of my Friends, and they all think the words were some such words as I have quoted.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Quote the words.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I cannot. But I assert that nothing could be stronger than the form of words used by the noble Lord in the only report of them that I have had time to consult—namely, that it was hardly possible, and would be in the highest degree dan-

    711
    gerous, for the House of Lords to throw out the Bill.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I say one word? [Cries of "No!"] The date I alluded to was 1887, the date proposed by the hon. Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey).
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I heard the hon. and learned Member who sits by the noble Lord, and who so frequently gives him good advice, which he does not always follow, suggest that the words should be "this date;" but the noble Lord sometimes said "a date," and sometimes "a date sufficient to pass a Redistribution Bill." At all events, the Amendment of the right hon. and gallant Member was negatived by the House very largely at the instance of the noble Lord. He attacked the Amendment.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did nothing of the kind.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Well, I am much surprised to hear the noble Lord say he did not attack the Amendment. The noble Lord is reported in The Times newspaper—
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I must rise to Order. I ask you, Sir, whether it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman, or for any Member of this House, although he be on the Treasury Bench, to make an assertion as to the conduct of another hon. Member when that hon. Member has flatly denied that assertion, and when he directly repeats that he made no such statement.
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is putting his own interpretation upon what the noble Lord said.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish, Sir, to point out that the right hon. Gentleman, by implication, accuses me of having told a direct falsehood. Is that in Order?
    MR. SPEAKER: If I had thought there was anything out of Order I should have called the right hon. Gentleman to Order. The noble Lord has made a charge against the right hon. Gentleman, and the right hon. Gentleman is endeavouring to answer the charge by giving his own interpretation of what passed. I see nothing disorderly or irregular in what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I was within hearing.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I deny it, flatly.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Well, I will only repeat my statement that I hope every hon. Member will read these two speeches, and that every newspaper in the country will reprint them at full length. The noble Lord has drawn a distinction between the date then proposed and the date ultimately inserted in the Bill. I will allude to no matters that are not public. At all events, there was a second debate upon this Bill when a good deal of time had elapsed—namely, on the 17th of June. On that occasion the date moved was that of the hon. Member below the Gangway—my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). That date was universally accepted by the House. ["No!"] The Leader of the Opposition appealed to my hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Albert Grey) to withdraw his Amendment, and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was inserted without any opposition.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: There was a Division upon it.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The noble Lord did not divide against it. That has no bearing upon my case. I am only concerned with the noble Lord. The noble Lord made a speech on that occasion, and I will ask the whole House again to read that speech. The noble Lord expressed himself as being favourable to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and said not one word about any other date. He expressed himself completely satisfied with the pledges given by the Government.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Quote what I did say.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I will remind the House of the tremendous storm of cheering from the noble Lord's own side. I cannot quote ironical cheering. On that occasion the noble Lord was not only pleased at our agreeing to the insertion of a date in the Bill; but he made a speech in which he said that only one thing more was wanting to its completeness.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Quote.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I should keep the House till Doomsday if I were to quote all the speeches of the noble

    713
    Lord; but he said that the only thing wanting was a Boundary Commission. That proposal was accepted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and the noble Lord ceased from troubling, and from that time forward he appeared to support the Bill.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: It is not at all my duty to interfere in the dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). The noble Lord is well able to defend himself; but it is within my own recollection, and within the recollection of all those who sit on this side of the House, that my noble Friend distinctly expressed his objection, not to the Amendment of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Stanley) upon its merits, but simply on the ground of the time at which it was proposed. No doubt my noble Friend voted in favour of that Amendment. There is a dispute between the right hon. Baronet and my noble Friend as to the speeches of the noble Lord. I prefer to believe the word of my noble Friend to that of the right hon. Baronet. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has unintentionally expressed a doubt as to the veracity of the right hon. Baronet, and I trust he will not persist in the use of the expression. I am further called upon to interfere on other grounds. The noble Lord, upon a Motion that the matter was of urgent public importance, was perfectly within his right in making a personal explanation; and in the course of that personal explanation he made charges of a certain kind against the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman has replied to those charges; and I am bound to say that I do not think the personal question between the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman ought to go any further. I hope the House will not continue to discuss the personal question; but that the right hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to the Question of Adjournment. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw any expression which implies a doubt as to the veracity of the right hon. Gentleman.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Most certainly; I at once follow your ruling. It was not my intention to make any imputation against the veracity of the right hon. Baronet; but it was my intention to dispute the accuracy of the statement he has made. I will give the House some reasons for doubting the accuracy of the statement of the right hon. Baronet upon this point by a reference to another statement in the same speech which my noble Friend has quoted. The right hon. Baronet does not, at any rate, follow the example of my noble Friend, who, when he has anything to impute to his political opponents, does it to their faces and on the floor of this House; but the right hon. Baronet, when he wishes to do so, does not do it on the floor of this House, but goes down to a Liberal meeting in Middlesex and makes his attack there. The other day he made a statement to which I am anxious to call the attention of the House. Now, Sir, the right hon. Baronet, in very different tones from those which the Prime Minister has, if I may venture to say so, with great honour to himself, assumed this evening, directly threatened the House of Lords yesterday at the meeting to which I refer. He said that they had not exercised their powers with due regard to common decency; he threatened them with destruction if they persisted in that course; and, having done that, he proceeded to make a direct charge against the Conservative Party in this House of Obstruction. Well, now, charges of that kind have been very often made, but hitherto by irresponsible Members of the House, or by junior Members of Her Majesty's Government; but, so far, no attempt has been made by anyone to produce proof of their accuracy. But what did the right hon. Baronet say? I quote his words from an organ which represents his own opinions, and which, therefore, I have no doubt, accurately reports him. The right hon. Baronet is reported to have said that, in prophesying the course the Conservative Party have now taken, he had formerly described the policy of the Conservative Party as a policy of Obstruction in the House of Commons, and of rejection of the Franchise Bill in the House of Lords; and he added—
    "Charges of Obstruction have been somewhat dangerous, because, although we were all

    715
    perfectly acquainted with the facts, they could not be sufficiently proved."
    That is a very wise maxim, and, perhaps, before I have done, the right hon. Baronet will be sorry he did not himself bear it in mind. He went on to say—
    "That has ceased to be the case. A few days ago we had an example of Obstruction which has been officially proved."
    The right hon. Baronet went on to quote from the official entries in the Journals of the House with reference to the Motions for the adjournment of the debate on the Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, the ruling of the Speaker that one of such Motions was an abuse of the Forms of the House; and he stated that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Mr. Sclater-Booth, Members of the late Conservative Government, voted for that Motion. Now, Sir, I shall state fairly the purport of these observations if I sum them up thus—that my right hon. Friend and myself were guilty of direct Obstruction in voting for a Motion which you, Mr. Speaker, had ruled to be an abuse of the Forms of the House. If this had been merely a personal charge against myself, I should not have cared to trouble the House upon the matter; my conduct is to be judged, principally, at any rate, by my constituents and my own conscience. I will say more than that—that even if my right hon. Friend and myself had voted for this particular Motion nothing could have been more unfair than to charge the whole Conservative Party with Parliamentary Obstruction on that account. It would have been as fair to have charged the whole Liberal Party with Obstruction in the late Parliament, on account of certain proceedings on the part of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet, however, professed to quote the Journals as to a certain action, which he attributed to my right hon. Friend and myself as official proof of a policy of Obstruction on the part of the Conservative Party. Now, Sir, what are the facts? I refer to the Divisions of the House. Here is the record of the Divisions; I, Sir, was not in the House when the Question on this Motion was put; I never heard your ruling, and I took no part in the Division. My right hon. Friend was in the House; he took part in the Division, and he voted against the Motion. This is a specimen of the way in which such charges are manufactured by a Member
    716
    of the Cabinet for political consumption among ignorant people. I do not wish to impute to the right hon. Gentleman that he has knowingly made an untrue statement with regard to myself and my right hon. Friend; but the statement is untrue for all that, and I hope he will have the manliness to avow it, and to express his regret for having made the charge. For my own part, I would sooner have voted for half-a-dozen Motions of Adjournment than, in the position of the right hon. Gentleman, have made personal charges recklessly against my political opponents, without first taking the trouble to prove their accuracy. Now, have I put nothing before the House which should justify me in preferring the statement of my noble Friend to that of the right hon. Baronet? I hope the right hon. Baronet, if he refrains from taking the wise and Constitutional course recommended by the Prime Minister, when next he descends into the streets, will at least take care that the charges he makes against political opponents are true.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have no right to address the House again; but I trust I may claim its indulgence after the direct attack which has been made upon me. The right hon. Baronet has made three distinct statements, as far as I understand him. First, that I charged the Conservative Party with Obstruction on a recent occasion which could be distinctly and officially proved; that I did so out of this House, at a meeting, instead of doing it in the House; and that in the charge I included his name and that of the right hon. Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth). The third statement I at once withdraw; I was mistaken, and I express my extreme regret for having made it. The argument upon which the right hon. Gentleman wastes such an extraordinary amount of indignation—["No!"]—I say "Yes"—was that for the first time there was official proof of Obstruction by the Conservative Party. The right hon. Baronet contradicts that statement, and says I ought not to have made it outside, but inside the House. But the official record exists, and I will read it to the House. As to the statement that the charge was first made outside, I rose in my place the moment after the Division. I called the attention of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the

    717
    Front Opposition Bench to it, and the matter was the subject of a debate that lasted a considerable time; but no regret was expressed towards Mr. Speaker for the defiance of his authority. On that occasion I find that the first Motion was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross); the second Motion was made by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot); and the third was made by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Hicks). On the third Motion the Division List states—
    "Thereupon, Mr. Speaker, having stated his opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Forms of the House, put the Question forthwith:—Ayes 22; Noes 83."
    And in the Division List I find the names of three of the Conservative Whips.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What has that to do with it?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: What has that to do with the official proof of Obstruction? It shows that those who are responsible for the management of that Party in this House supported a Motion which was declared by the Speaker to be an abuse of the Forms of the House. Mr. Akers-Douglas, the Member for East Kent, Mr. T. Thorn-hill, the Member for West Suffolk, and Mr. Rowland Winn, the Member for North Lincolnshire, voted in the minority; and I thought the matter was so important, and so worthy the attention of the House, that I immediately rose to call attention to the fact at the time. I can only regret that I, unfortunately, included the names of two right hon. Gentlemen which were not there.
    Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH: I have not had an opportunity of reading the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and I had no idea that he alluded to me in it. My conduct was somewhat marked on the occasion, and I am surprised that he should have fallen into the error he did of saying that I voted in the Lobby with the minority. After the expression of regret on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, I have not a word further to say on the subject; but I think it rather hard that any Gentleman should have his name brought prominently forward in a public meeting, in this manner, either in London or elsewhere, and be represented as voting in
    718
    a certain direction when he did not so vote. There is, however, nothing discreditable in moving Motions of Adjournment, only the practice, unfortunately, is too common. Having said so much, I will venture to recall the attention of the House to the question raised in the earlier part of the discussion. I certainly fell into the same error as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). I thought from the statement of the Prime Minister that it was the intention of the Government to introduce, not only a Franchise Bill, but also a Redistribution Bill, at the beginning of the new Session. I understood the Prime Minister to say that we should meet in October in order to take the Franchise Bill, and to enable the Government to fulfil the pledge they have given to bring forward a Redistribution Bill. That was my understanding of the language of the right hon. Gentleman; and I must confess that I fell into the same error as my noble Friend. If the next Session of Parliament was to commence in October, how the House was to suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of a Redistribution Bill in connection with an adjourned Session after Christmas, I really do not know. I have been entirely misled; and I only allude to the circumstance to express my regret that such is not their intention, and a hope that they will reconsider their decision. I am satisfied that if the Government desire to make progress, and to induce Parliament to pass this measure of Reform as a whole, they will act wisely if they not only bring forward the Franchise Bill in October, but, simultaneously, introduce with it their Redistribution Bill. I should not have alluded to this, but for the questions which have arisen between my noble Friend and the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board. I followed my noble Friend in that discussion, and I must express my opinion that what my noble Friend said was, that if the Prime Minister desired the House of Lords to look favourably on a Franchise Bill, he must insert a date in the Bill. Nothing could be more different from the language used by my noble Friend than that which has been imputed to him, that the House of Lords would be afraid to deal with a measure in which a date had been inserted.
    MR. T. THORNHILL: As my name has been mentioned with regard to the Division which took place a few nights ago, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in my defence. I know I am supposed to be one of the Whips for my Party; but I do not consider myself an official, because I suppose that an official means a person who receives some pay. I may say that I have received no pay up to the present time; indeed, the case is rather of a contrary character. I thought that on the occasion in question I had a right to vote as I liked, without being liable to be blamed by the right hon. Baronet opposite for having done so, especially as a great many hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches did not vote with the Prime Minister. I protest against my name being brought forward by the President of the Local Government Board.
    MR. HICKS: After the very marked manner in which the right hon. Baronet has alluded to me, I think I shall not be transgressing the bounds of moderation if I ask the kind indulgence of the House for a few minutes, even from hon. Members who sit below the Gangway, while I make a few observations upon the subject. After the reference to myself, I beg to draw the attention of the House to what the state of Business was on that occasion. We had all come down for the purpose of listening to a great debate on a Vote of Censure upon the Egyptian Question. The Prime Minister moved that the Orders of the Day be postponed in order that the Vote might be discussed. What took place afterwards? The Prime Minister's own followers, by the direction of the Whips of the Party—the paid officials—went into the Lobby and voted against him. The House was then called upon to discuss questions which they were not prepared to deal with; and after discussing a Bill in regard to which there were a great number of Amendments on the Paper, they proceeded, in defiance of the Votes of this House on previous occasions, to make progress with a Bill, which, instead of diminishing the burdens of local taxation, proposed to add to them. We were here without our Leaders—withont those who had been in the habit of taking a prominent part in the discussion of these questions; and I and other Members had to consider whether it was fair and just and
    720
    right to the ratepayers of the country that we should go on with the measure under the circumstances to which I have alluded. We were told that there were 330 Members present in the early part of the evening, but many of them had never been in the House since; and, among the rest, our Leaders were absent, not having had the slightest idea that the question was intended to be brought on. In moving the adjournment, I had no notion that I was doing anything out of Order. The power to move the adjournment is the only weapon which the minority have to protect themselves against the action of a tyrannical Government. My action was taken after consulting with a few agricultural Members sitting around me, and it had nothing whatever to do with the Conservative Party in this House.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I hope, at least, that we have now got rid of personal questions. I have no desire to take part in the controversy any further than to say that the last two speakers have entirely overlooked the point of the charge made againt them—namely, that they continued to support that vote for a Motion for Adjournment after the Speaker had declared—as it is entered on the Journals—that the Motion was an abuse of the Forms of the House. If a man is a paid official or not—and it is a fair subject of comment, and also of censure—at all events, I am fully of opinion that if he votes for a Motion, declared from the Chair to be an abuse of the Forms of the House, he is a person who may be fairly charged with Obstruction. [Cries of "Oh!"] That is my opinion. The point is, that Gentlemen opposite do not think that that is Obstruction, and they support that policy now by their cheers. They accept the doctrine that to vote for such a Motion, declared by the Speaker to be an abuse of the Forms of the House, is not Obstruction. [An hon. MEMBER: Who accepts it?] I assert that to support a Motion which is declared to be an abuse of the Forms of the House is Obstruction. [Cries of "No!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite deny that proposition. They think it is a proper Parliamentary way of supporting the dignity of the House to vote down the opinion which the Speaker gives. I am content to leave the matter as it stands; and if a large number of Gentlemen did not take

    721
    that view on that occasion they show by their cheers now that if they had been there they would have taken it. [Cries of "No!"] Then, why do they shout against my assertion that it is Obstruction to go against the ruling of the Speaker? [Cries of "Hear, hear!"] I accept those cheers as an absolute confirmation of the statement I have made. I will now proceed to other matters, for I do not desire to pursue that any further. The country is now in a position to judge of that view, and I am happy to see that it is endorsed by the cheers of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), one of the leading Members of the Front Opposition Bench opposite. [Mr. GIBSON: It was not.] Now, I go to a more important matter, and it is the assertion coming from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) that he had joined in the extraordinary misapprehension, as he calls it, which was entertained by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)—namely, that the Prime Minister, by his language, had intimated that the Government had ever contemplated introducing a Redistribution Bill in the Autumn Session. Nothing can be more contrary to the intention of the Prime Minister or of the Government, and I do not myself understand how that idea could have prevailed in the mind of anyone who heard him. Perhaps we, who know so well what the view of the Government is, saw it clearer than hon. Gentlemen opposite did. From the very first, we have always maintained it to be absolutely necessary that the Franchise Bill should be passed first. That is the view which we stated at the commencement of the Session, on which we acted all through the Session, and which we propose to act upon in the Autumn Session of this year. We are of opinion—and when the words of my right hon. Friend are reported it will be found that he said—that the Government will be prepared to introduce the Franchise Bill, and the Franchise Bill alone, in the Autumn Session. In our opinion it is necessary that that Bill should be disposed of in the year 1884, in order that we may fulfil the pledge which we have given to devote the year 1885 and the energies of Parliament to the passing of a Redistribution Bill. That is distinctly our view, and it is de-
    722
    sirable that there should be no misapprehension about it. It is for that purpose that we have most reluctantly sacrificed a great deal of useful legislation. [Cries of "Oh!"] Yes, Sir; we have done it with great regret. We think that it is a great sacrifice, and the country will have to understand that, so far as the Government are responsible for the conduct of affairs, no Business of importance to the nation, no Bills or legislation of any kind of importance can be proceeded with until the Franchise Bill has been disposed of. Let there be no mistake about that. It is for the Franchise Bill that all these measures now and hereafter are sacrificed. We will keep before the country the Franchise Bill, and the Franchise Bill alone, until that matter is disposed of; and I hope there is no ambiguity about that statement. The noble Lord was dissatisfied because he thought the Prime Minister was too tame in his language. He said—"Are we not in the midst of a Constitutional crisis?" The noble Lord told an admirable fable from Æsop which is capable of more than one application. In his attitude he reminded me of another familar story—that of the Irishman who walked through Donnybrook Fair trailing his coat, and asking if anybody would tread on the tail of it. The noble Lord seemed extremely distressed that the Prime Minister had not made a violent speech. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] He said it was pusillanimous; but I would describe it as not being violent. The noble Lord is a great critic of style. He has criticized two speeches of the Prime Minister; one of them as being so violent that it lost the Bill, and the other as so tame that he is afraid it will lose the Ministry. The noble Lord is difficult to satisfy. He thinks the Prime Minister is too violent at one time and not violent enough at anothor. And I suppose that when my right hon. Friend, having acquired the ripe experience of the noble Lord, has become a master of style, he will learn not to outstep the juste milieu which is characteristic of the oratory of the noble Lord. The noble Lord is mistaken if he thinks that the Prime Minister or his followers have departed from the spirit of that passage of Shakespeare which was quoted in the speech to which he referred. We are not anxious to enter into a quarrel; but

    723
    the noble Lord will find that when a quarrel is forced upon us we shall not retreat from it; and the question whether or not there is a Constitutional crisis rests not with us, but with another Body altogether. The noble Lord has yet to learn that it is not the people who use the biggest words who are always the most resolute. If the noble Lord should ever be placed in a position of responsibility, I hope he may not deserve the taunts that he has addressed to-night to the Prime Minister for having, in circumstances as grave as I venture to say as any which have ever occurred in this country, used moderate language befitting the responsibility of his Office. I do not think that his Conservative Friends either in the House or out of it will thank the noble Lord for the inflammatory language he has used tonight, or the attempt he has made to exasperate the spirit of Party, and to endeavour to taunt those who are opposed to him into language, and into courses of violence, on which they are most reluctant to enter. That is all that is necessary for me to say with regard to the speech of the noble Lord. I would not have risen except on account of the serious misapprehension that seems to have arisen in reference to the attitude of the Government. I wish it to be clearly understood—and I speak on behalf of the Government—that from this time forth, with reference to the House of Commons, in the House of Commons, and out of the House of Commons, we have only one object; and that is to prosecute, before all things, to one end—to its legitimate end—the passing of a Bill for the enfranchisement of 2,000,000 of the people.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: From the somewhat pompous and inflammatory style of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, I think he must, during his remarks, have forgotten for a moment that he was addressing this House, and have thought that he was already engaged in that campaign against the Tory Party and the House of Lords to which he is looking forward with such satisfaction. He accused my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) of using inflammatory language, and he praised by contrast the Prime Minister for his moderate utterances in this House. Unless public re-
    724
    port has much falsified what occurred at the meeting of the Liberal Party to-day, we shall get a very different idea of the moderation of the Prime Minister when we read to-morrow's newspapers from that which we may gather, either from the Prime Minister's speech in this House this evening, or from the general tone of the advice just given to us by the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman taunted the Conservative Party with Obstruction. It would be easy to quote from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own career very gross instances of Obstruction. Similar instances might also be readily cited from the career of the right hon. Gentleman who now sits next to him. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.] And I would ask whether any more obstructive proposal, in the strictest sense of the term obstructive, was ever made than that which has been made by Her Majesty's Government to-day? Obstruction is a waste of the public time, by which measures of public utility are imperilled; and I say that the Government, by coming down to the House to-day and throwing over all their Bills, and announcing an Autumn Session, have gone through the most obstructive operation ever performed by any Ministry. Every hour which has been spent by either House upon any Bill, and even upon the Franchise Bill itself, will be absolutely thrown away by the action of the Government. Nor is that all. But how will the time be spent when you have got your precious Autumn Session? I presume that the House of Lords will do just what they have done now. And the Autumn Session will be as absolutely wasted as the Spring Session. And why do I think that the House of Lords will do that? Why, because every argument which should induce them to do it in July will exist in October or November; and there will be this additional argument—that the Government, by having an Autumn Session, will show that they are afraid to do what the House of Lords has declared they ought to do—namely, appeal to the country. I cannot understand why hon. Gentlemen should doubt that the Franchise Bill must meet with a similar fate in the Autumn Session. Do they think that the other House will be frightened by the loud talk of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite? By

    725
    their manifestations they seem to say they think so. I decline to believe that any assembly of English Gentlemen are to be frightened by such bluster as that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), or ribaldry such as that of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers). No man on the Conservative side of the House would support an Assembly which was incapable of performing its primary function; and if the House of Lords were to continue to exist under such circumstances it would only exist by the contemptuous indifference of its enemies. I rose, however, to point out to the House and the country, as clearly as possible, that the course which the Government have determined to adopt of dropping every measure of public utility in this Session and wasting the next Session of Parliament deserves the name of wilful and persistent Obstruction.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has thought it right to apply the word "bluster" to language that I have used. I can only say that I have never used any language outside the House which I am not prepared to use in it. I claim that I have said nothing elsewhere about the House of Lords which is not fairly within the mark of criticism, and, as I think, of just criticism. I am not, however, going now to argue this question. I will only say one thing, and that is, if I wanted a good argument against the House of Lords—if I wanted an argument to justify that contemptuous indifference to which reference has been made, I should find it in the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. He is like the executioner in Barnaby Rudge, who was delighted with hanging and scourging other people, but when his own turn came to be hanged his screams were more heartrending than those of his victims had been. The noble Lord can find nothing more original, nothing more witty, nothing more high bred, than to compare a political opponent to a donkey.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I never called him so. I never imagined that the hon. Gentleman would put the cap on.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: This is surely a rather juvenile kind of irony; it is a
    726
    species of youthful sarcasm which I hope the noble Lord will get the better of. I am not sure that there are not fables relating to lower organisms than donkeys which, if one wanted to do it, might be applied to the noble Lord. But the point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House is an argument and a statement of facts on the part of the noble Lord. He said that had it not been for the language used by the Prime Minister in moving that the Bill be read a third time, certain Peers among noble Friends of his own would have voted in favour of the Bill.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said that, to my knowledge, I sincerely believed that there were many noble Lords who would have approached the question of Reform in a different way, and with open and impartial minds.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: The noble Lord distinctly said the Bill would have been well on its way to the Royal Assent by this time. Does the noble Lord deny that he said that?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said that I believed it might have been on its way to the Royal Assent. ["Oh, oh!"]
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am not going to argue this question with the noble Lord. I am speaking in memory of the words which are in the possession of the House. Whatever the noble Lord said hon. Members in the House heard it; and, at all events, he attributed very important action on the part of noble Lords in the other House to resentment of the words spoken by the Prime Minister. Does the noble Lord deny that?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Certainly not.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: The noble Lord admits that important action was taken in the other House because of their resentment.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I stated my opinion.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I cannot go into these metaphysical distinctions of knowledge, and belief, and opinion. I want the noble Lord and his Friends to consider what that statement means. It means that the House of Lords, or an important section of it, in a moment of crisis, is going to plunge affairs into confusion, is going to provoke irritating discussions, and is going to throw the

    727
    Business of the Session out of gear, not out of public spirit, but out of pique. Let the noble Lord say what he pleases; let the words of the Prime Minister be objected to as much as he or his Friends like; let them be charged with petulance if you choose. I say that even if they were petulant—which I, for my part, by no means admit—yet they were only a few words; and to think that the Members of a great Party, the Members of a great and august Chamber, are to produce all the confusion we see for the sake of a few petulant words—I want no stronger argument than this when I next have occasion to go careering about the country. I did not rise for the purpose of noticing the noble Lord's fables—Æsop's and others. There is one matter of much greater importance in regard to which I wish to make a suggestion. I think what has happened since the Prime Minister traced the probable course of Business in the Session must make it more doubtful even than it was whether that programme is likely to be carried through. What I wish to suggest is that it would be much better to take all the time between now and the Prorogation in order to push on the remaining Business of the Session.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was sorry that the strife and quarrels of Parties had resulted in wrecking the Franchise Bill. There was not one of the Three Kingdoms which so much required a measure of enfranchisement as Ireland. Nowhere did there exist so much as in Ireland the necessity for granting to an important but unenfranchised class a voice in the legislation which so closely concerned their welfare. He believed that the vast majority of the electors of the Three Kingdoms were in favour of household suffrage in the counties, and he believed that the House of Lords would discover that that was the case; but, at the same time, he could not understand why the Government shrank from accepting the challenge of the Lords. The Tories had openly defied the Government upon the question of the extension of the franchise; and instead of taking up the glove which the Peers had thrown into their face, Her Majesty's Government fell back upon the refuge of an Autumn Session. What did they expect from an Autumn Session? As a matter of course, unless the Peers were as contemptible and cowardly as their
    728
    bitterest opponents alleged, the proceedings of the other evening in the House of Lords must simply be repeated in October or November, when the Franchise Bill was again before Parliament. The only manly and the only wise course was to accept the challenge of the Peers, and to demand the verdict of the constituencies. The Irish National Party, at any rate, were not afraid of a Dissolution. And, in the meantime, how did it fare with Ireland that day? Why, if there were no other reasons, the proceedings of the Imperial Parliament today too clearly proved what a farce, what a delusion, what a mockery was Imperial legislation for Ireland. What had become of the Government measures which professed to remedy even admitted defects in the Government legislation for Ireland? What had become of the boasted Land Purchase Bill, which was to have been the parent of so many magnificent possibilities to Ireland? It had been dropped, it had been abandoned, because the Government, instead of meeting the challenge of the Peers, had preferred to cling to Office for a few more miserable months under the pretext of a useless Autumn Session. What was now the prospect for the remainder of the present year, for the whole of the coming year, and perhaps for another year into the bargain? Instead of any remedial and useful legislation being introduced for Ireland, English attention and English politics would be occupied with the sterile recriminations of the two English competitors for Party and for place. He called upon his countrymen in Ireland to reflect upon the spectacle of to-day. It showed how once more the dearest wants of Ireland were sacrificed to the miserable exigencies of English Party ambition. It was only the other day that the columns of the Irish National Press were filled with heartrending accounts of the cruel evictions in Donegal, in Mayo, in Kerry, and in a dozen other Irish counties besides. How many more helpless families would be cast upon the roadside during the months and during the years that the two English Parties would be fighting out their quarrels by mutual vituperation upon a hundred English Party platforms? The manner in which all useful Irish legislation was thus cast aside was another and crowning argument in favour of a Party in Ireland, and among the Irish

    729
    race, which he was glad to see increasing day by day—a Party which taught the Irish race that not on the floor of that House, but on a wider area, must the great struggle for Irish National independence be fought and won. He equally condemned the anti-Irish attitude of the Tory Party, for if there was one thing more conspicuous than another in all their speeches to-day, it was their utter indifference to and their utter oblivion of the fact that there existed such a place as Ireland. He called upon his countrymen to meditate upon its lessons, to fortify themselves in the firm resolution to trust in themselves and in the millions of their countrymen throughout the world to win for Ireland Ireland's right to National Self-Government.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKpointed out to the hon. Members for Ireland that the interests of their country were as much involved in the passing of the Franchise Bill as the interests of England. He regretted the remarks of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), because he hoped even now that the House of Lords would defer to what was certainly the general wish of the country. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) seemed disappointed at the courtesy and moderation of the statement made by the Prime Minister, and surprised that no violent speeches had been made from that side of the House. This was not, however, from any want of conviction or determination; but they entered into the contest—if enter into it they must—coolly and with calmness, because they had the certainty of ultimate victory. As regards the Bills now before the House, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state what course he proposed to take with reference to the rehabilitation of the coinage. The Coinage Bill only dealt with one part of the question, and he supposed the Chancellor would proceed with the rest of the scheme. He trusted the Savings Banks Act Amendment Bill would not be proceeded with this Session, for it had only recently been printed, and its details would require much consideration. Although anxious at all times to preserve the rights of private Members, yet as no useful legislation could now take place he would impress on the Government the desirability of taking the whole of the time of the
    730
    House for the purposes of the necessary Business.
    MR. GRANTHAMpointed out that they had heard a great deal of warm language used with regard to the House of Lords; but when the Peers rejected the Ballot Bill some years ago they were threatened in exactly the same way. And in the following Session an improved Ballot Bill was brought in, which the House of Lords then agreed to. In the same way the present delay might lead to an improved Franchise Bill, and that next Session a complete scheme of Reform would have passed both Houses. He believed that in the near future, when the franchise and redistribution had been satisfactorily passed, the Liberals should agree with the Tories in their satisfaction at the action of the House of Lords.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, that on other occasions the House of Lords had taken up positions antagonistic to the views and wishes of the people of this country, but had found it advisable to alter their minds and their votes. Noble Lords might adopt a similar course in the Autumn Session. It was a significant sign that one-half of the Bishops had abstained from voting on Tuesday, and the other half had supported the Reform Bill. No doubt the Notice which had been given by an hon. Member of his intention to move a Resolution declaring that the Bishops should be removed from the House of Lords had had some effect in bringing right rev. Prelates into sympathy with the wants and wishes of the people. The majority of Peers in favour of Earl Cairns's Motion was not so large as had been expected, and 30 votes would be sufficient to alter the verdict of the Lords. It was asked what would happen if the Lords threw out the Bill a second time. He could only say the supporters of the Government were perfectly satisfied with the prospect. The Prime Minister had given universal satisfaction to his own Party by the course he had taken, and had spoken in strict moderation in explaining the policy of the Government. If there were a protracted agitation in the country the responsibility must rest on the House of Lords. He doubted the professions of Lord Salisbury and his friends as to their anxiety to pass the Franchise Bill, looking at the declarations of the Conservative Leader antagonistic to organic

    731
    changes; and with regard to the coming struggle he was sure it would be a short one. Though the agitation might not take the form it did in 1831, still, with the increased direct power the people had over the House of Commons, and the increased indirect power they had over the other House, there could be no doubt as to how the struggle would end than there ever had been as to the issue of any struggle which had been finally settled, and in which the popular cause triumphed. They would find opposed to the action of the House of Lords all those whom the Bill had proposed to enfranchise, and the great majority of those who already possessed the franchise.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, there was one Bill in the Orders—namely, the East Indian Unclaimed Stocks Bill—to which he had a very strong objection. Although he supposed it would not be proceeded with, he hoped some Member of the Government would be able to say so. He also wished to know, as a matter of convenience, about what date the Prorogation would take place? The House was aware that the Government was pledged to give full discussion with respect to Egyptian affairs; and, of course, on his side of the House they would wish to know the probable date, so as to make their plans for that discussion. It was very desirable that a full House should be present on the occasion.
    MR. BRYCE, as a Metropolitan Member, complained of the conduct of the Government with regard to the London Government Bill—conduct which, he said, had greatly discouraged the municipal reformers of the Metropolis, and had correspondingly elated the enemies of the Bill. He expressed no opinion regarding the Bill itself, but desired to point out that if they had doubted their power to carry it this Session they had better not have brought it in, and, anyhow, ought not to have moved the second reading unless they were resolved to get the second reading. If the Government did not intend to press the second reading, why had time been occupied which might have been devoted to useful work? They knew last Thursday, when the second reading was moved, as well as they did now, that the Lords would throw out the Franchise Bill. He believed that considerable discouragement had been given to the cause of municipal reform in Lon-
    732
    don by the action of the Government with regard to that Bill, since its withdrawal before a second reading had been obtained would be claimed by its opponents as being practically a victory.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, the scene that they had witnessed that evening was extremely humiliating to the English nation. If his dusky Majesty the Maori King occupied a seat on the Gallery and inquired what was the cause of all this excitement, he would be surprised to find that it was a petty personal quarrel between an English Lord and an English Baronet. What occurred that afternoon? They had been listening to the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and the foolishness which he was indulging in appeared to have been contagious, for the Home Secretary followed in his usual ponderous and weighty manner, and his speech was little less foolish. If the Members of the House had paid for their admission to a theatre they might have been amused at the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and the Home Secretary, and might have found some enjoyment in them. But the feelings of an average Irish Member of Parliament who had spent the afternoon listening to such speeches must be and could not be otherwise than profoundly sad. There were a number of Irish measures on the Paper which should be proceeded with, instead of having the whole afternoon occupied with silly speeches and the settlement of personal quarrels. It was intolerable that the Irish Members should be compelled to sit there listening to these personal assaults by one English Gentleman upon another English Gentleman, while they were impressed with a great sense of the fact that their country was being neglected. He regretted the intention of the Prime Minister, as stated by him that night on behalf of the Government, to abandon many of the measures which were to have been got through that Session in order to discuss the Franchise Bill. If the Government were not afraid of the House of Lords they should have accepted the challenge which was flung down by them and gone to the country. He protested against the conduct of the Government in abandoning the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Bill in order to have an Autumn Session for the purpose of

    733
    again discussing the Franchise Question in that House. Such a determination on the part of the Government would be viewed in Ireland with pain and regret. It was a monstrous thing that such a Bill should be abandoned simply through fear of the House of Lords. He protested against the practice of turning that Chamber into an arena for the settlement of private quarrels while the interests of Ireland were being neglected.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the debate had been worn so thoroughly threadbare that he rose only to answer one or two questions. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) asked what was to be done with the Coinage Bill and the Savings Banks Acts Amendment Bill, and the East Indian Unclaimed Stocks Bill had also been mentioned. These were Bills of the third rank, and were not of sufficient importance to be included in the list with which the Prime Minister dealt. While the Government would be glad to proceed with those Bills, if there was no serious opposition to them, yet, on the other hand, they should have to consider that it was their chief duty to close Supply; consequently, if the opposition to any of these Bills was likely to cause a great expenditure of time, they would have to share the fate of the more important measures. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had made a remark which he was bound to take notice of in one or two sentences. He complained of the action of the Government with respect to the second reading of the London Government Bill, for he said they must have known that the Bill could not be proceeded with, as they must have been aware of the threatened action of the House of Lords on the Franchise Bill. The hon. Gentleman complained of the Government having commenced that discussion. He (Mr. Chamberlain) must say he thought his hon. Friend a little ungrateful, because it was at the strong desire of himself and other hon. Members primarily interested in this question that the Government commenced the debate. So far as the Government were concerned, at all events, they were perfectly bonâ fide, and they hoped to make real progress with the Bill. It was too much of his hon. Friend to say that the Government were
    734
    aware of what would be the result of the action of the House of Lords. It was impossible for the Government up to the last moment to know, although undoubtedly threats were uttered by Members of the Conservative Party, what the action of the House of Lords would be. There were many who believed that the House of Lords would be wise in time, and would not take the extreme course they had pursued with regard to the Bill. With regard to the last question put to him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bourke) whether they could give any idea of the date of the Prorogation, the Government would be delighted, he could assure the House, to make a prediction if they could do so with any confidence; but the date of the Prorogation depended on the course of Supply. They should do all they could to advance it, and nothing except the promised debate on the Egyptian Question would be allowed to interfere with progress with Supply. The Government hoped, though they could not give an assurance, that Supply might come to an end earlier than it had done lately, and that the Prorogation might take place in the early part of August.
    Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, in reply to the challenge of the Home Secretary, that the Conservative Party and the House of Lords were not afraid of an appeal to the people. They challenged the Government to come to a Dissolution, to which, no doubt, the Government did not wish to have recourse. The Government had deliberately swamped more than 20 Bills, which they might have carried to a successful conclusion in the ordinary manner, and they did that in order to get up a Party agitation, which might serve them in their contest with the House of Lords. If they were so anxious to pass a Franchise Bill and a Redistribution Bill, why not call Parliament together a few weeks earlier in 1885, instead of having an Autumn Session and throwing all the blame on the House of Lords? Probably the result of the agitation about to be got up would be that they would spend a good deal of money on drums and banners, and then send round the hat to pay the expenses. The House had heard from the Home Secretary that the Franchise Bill was to take precedence of everything. But that very

    735
    Home Secretary told the House a few days ago that he would not answer for the cholera if the London Government Bill did not pass. And so they had been told by the President of the Board of Trade that the preventible loss of life at sea was terrible; and yet, in the teeth of these declarations, both the London Government Bill and the Merchant Shipping Bill were dropped. One word with regard to the charge of Obstruction brought against the Opposition. The proceedings the other night were very exceptional. The Conservative Party on that occasion found themselves jockeyed out of a great debate, and several measures were brought suddenly on while a number of Gentlemen who were interested in those measures were absent. He was not present at the time; but he understood that the House was confused, and neither side knew what to do. Three Divisions took place. He was aware that the Speaker ruled that the last Division was a breach of the Privileges of the House; but he would respectfully point out that that was a case upon which there might be a difference of opinion. As had been stated before, the President of the Local Government Board and his Colleague the President of the Board of Trade adopted tactics in 1878 which, if followed by Gentlemen on the Conservative side, would have called forth expressions of reprobation from Members on the other side. The Conservative Party need not be in the least alarmed by the wild but calculated menaces of the Radical Party, who would probably find the House of Lords more popular than they imagined. There had been two or three significant elections lately—in the populous constituency of Mid Surrey, and in the very important manufacturing and populous constituency of North Warwickshire. In both the cry of the franchise against the House of Lords was raised, and the result was the return of the Conservative candidates by bigger majorities than ever. He hoped the House of Lords would stand to their guns, and would insist on the Government bringing in a fair, honest, and complete Bill. The country understood the case very well. It understood that the Prime Minister had only to insert a clause in the Franchise Bill to insure that it would not come into operation until the Redistribution Bill was passed,
    736
    and the Franchise Bill would be passed, not only in October, but now in July. The object of the Government was to go to the country on the new electorate without redistribution, in which event the Radical faction, the men of the Caucus, would not only have the Conservative Party at their mercy, but, in addition, their own more moderate Colleagues in the Cabinet.
    MR. WARTONsaid, with reference to the charge of Obstruction on the day when the House met to discuss the affairs of Egypt, that the Government ought not to have taken advantage of their own wrong, but ought to have adjourned the House instead of bringing on Bills when Members interested in those Bills were not present to discuss them.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the House was not now discussing what took place on a previous debate, but the arrangement of Business for the future.
    MR. WARTONsubmitted that though the Speaker ruled on the occasion in question that what had been done was an abuse of the Forms of the House, that did not make it wrong for a Member to vote according to his conscience.
    MR. BIGGAR, as a spectator for a considerable time, wished to point out to the Government the manner in which time had been wasted by them. The Government had alleged that they could not pass both a Franchise Bill and a Redistribution Bill this Session; but he was strongly inclined to controvert the statement. Much time was lost over the Egyptian Question. They knew, as a matter of fact, that Members on the Front Opposition Bench were never anxious to challenge a discussion on such a subject unless they felt the ground sure under their feet, and they were perfectly justified in what they had done, because there never was more gross mismanagement from first to last in any country than that of the Government. They went first to Egypt on account of the bondholders, and now the only thing they could promise them was a reduction in the rate of interest.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order in discussing during this debate the details of the Egyptian Question.
    MR. BIGGAR: I am anxious to show that the Government have wasted time—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in Order in continuing this debate upon Egypt.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he only wished to show that the Government had wasted time in a manner which made it impossible for them to deal with matters which they ought to have dealt with. They wasted time by not giving information, and that led to a system of Questions and cross-examinations day after day. Then there was the case of the London Government Bill. One would have imagined that the Government meant to pass it; but they wanted it only as an Election cry. It came very badly from hon. Members opposite to threaten an agitation against the House of Lords, because he believed if the question of the Franchise Bill was to be decided by ballot in that House a larger majority would be found against it on the other side than there was the other night in the House of Lords.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to offer a few remarks about the general conduct of the Government in regard to the management of Irish Bills. Before doing so, he thought it right, as one who had voted in the Division to which the Home Secretary and the President of the Local Government Board had taken exception, to protest against the extraordinary dictum that because he had voted in support of a Motion which the Speaker had declared to be an abuse of the Rules, therefore he was guilty of Obstruction. The Government were attempting to set up the Speaker as a species of fetish. He had great respect for the Speaker and his rulings; but so long as the Rules of the House permitted them to vote despite the ruling of the Chair, it was futile to describe that voting as Obstruction. It did not lie with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to speak of Obstruction, for in the last Parliament he was in continual conflict with the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Raikes), and defended the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) by the hour for Obstruction. He had heard with astonishment the cool statement of the Prime Minister that the Land Purchase Bill was to be dropped. The Government had promised, on the 4th of March, to bring in that Bill; but they did not introduce it until June, and then, on the
    738
    10th of July, it was dropped, as being of no consequence. The truth was, that the Government never intended to carry that Bill, and merely intended to dangle it before the eyes of the Irish people to amuse them. Yet two Morning Sittings had been wasted on the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, and three nights on the London Government Bill. These five Sittings would have sufficed to pass the Land Purchase Bill. It was atrocious that right hon. Gentlemen who had shown themselves so incapable of measuring out the time of the House should make a charge of Obstruction against another Party because of a Division which occupied five minutes. The cry was purely factitious, and intended for the General Election. Having listened to the speeches of the Prime Minister and of the Solicitor General for Ireland as to the necessity for curing the defects of the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act, he was surprised at their not even shedding a tear over the coffin of the Government measure. He did not think Public Business was advanced by bandying about charges of Obstruction. It was a pity that the time of the House should be spent in wranglings of that kind. The Government intended to pass measures to which the Irish Members entertained a strong objection, and to refuse to pass measures in which they were deeply interested. In that quarter of the House there was the strongest objection to the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill, and he warned the Government that if they persisted in pressing forward that measure the Session would not be brought to a close by the 1st of August. He would give to that Bill the same amount of opposition as to the renewal of the Crimes Act, because he regarded some of its provisions as fatal to the liberties of his country. Supply must be passed, and in Committee of Supply the Irish Members would have to debate the history of a number of Government officials—the tastes of gentlemen like James Ellis French, Gustavus Cornwall, and Corry Connellan. The Government pretended that they were now going into a struggle with the House of Lords. For his own part, he had not the slightest confidence in the bona fides of the Government with regard to this matter. He had no confidence in the House of Lords; but knowing, as he did, that the Cabinet

    739
    was stuffed with Lords, the notion of the Government getting up an agitation against the House of Lords was ridiculous. The House of Lords was absolutely safe to throw out the Bill as many times as they pleased. They would be great fools if they did not. They were not such fools as to take a pig in a poke—to take the Bill without a Redistribution Bill. He would gladly take part in an agitation against the House of Lords; but it was absurd to talk of it. But the Caucus of Birmingham would pass its resolutions, the penny newspapers would talk about a tremendous crisis. But their Leaders did not believe a word of it. Would anybody tell him that the Home Secretary was not quite satisfied with things as they were? [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Not everything.] Not with Irish Members, perhaps. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were in the House of Lords he would do the same thing as the House of Lords. He was glad the House of Lords had thrown out the Bill. There were some sincere persons, like the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who really desired to get up an attempt at such an agitation; but it was too ridiculous.
    MR. PARNELL: I wish to express my dissent from the Parliamentary law which was laid down by the Home Secretary some hours ago, that everybody who votes for a Motion of which the Speaker has expressed his disapproval is guilty of Parliamentary Obstruction. This dictum of the Home Secretary is decidedly new, and it is also a distinct advance upon anything we have heard yet with regard to the Law of Obstruction. It is in my judgment the most audacious statement I have over heard proceeding from the Government Bench on this question.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Pardon me—[Cries of "Order!"]—
    MR. PARNELL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman can explain afterwards.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But that is not what I said.
    MR. PARNELL: It would simply lead to this, that the independence of Members would have to be surrendered to the Chair and the Government Bench. For my part, if I had been in the House the other night I should have been too glad to have voted in the minority as a
    740
    protest against the waste of time by the Government in persisting with the Bill in question. To set up such constructive Obstruction is, I trust, a long way in advance of anything which will ever be thought of for suppressing the independence and liberties of unofficial Members in this House. There has been much talk about Obstruction in this and other Sessions. The term Obstruction has been generally applied to the opposition of Irish Members to measures of an unconstitutional character which the experience of their working has shown to be against the interests of their country. The charge of Obstruction now made against Conservative Members was then made against Irish Members. The Conservatives now see the result of their foolish and ill-judged action in joining with the Government against the Irish Members. I consider that the charges of Obstruction which are now made against Gentlemen sitting on the Conservative Benches have just as little foundation as the charges of Obstruction made against the Irish Party. The charges against the Opposition and the other House of Parliament are made because they have asserted the rights which the Constitution gave them. Then we are told that because the Franchise Bill was opposed there is no time for other measures. Although I have been a fervent well-wisher of the Franchise Bill, I am bound to say that the charges of Obstruction which were sought to be trumped up against the Opposition in regard to it are most unfair, and entirely unfounded. The House of Lords had a Constitutional right to throw out the Franchise Bill or any other Bill—just as much right as hon. Members sitting on the Ministerial Benches had to pass it—and it is unfair Party conduct, in my judgment, to make charges founded upon their action against a Body which is recognized in the Constitution, and which has equal rights with this House in the Constitution. So long as this House chooses to tolerate the existence of a Second Chamber constituted of hereditary and irresponsible Legislators the Government is certainly not entitled to make charges of Obstruction against that Body for their action within the Constitution. If you wish to do away with them act in a straightforward manner, and take steps which are necessary to get rid of them.

    741
    These charges of Obstruction are absolutely unmaintainable, and the common sense of the country will see through them and judge how unfounded they are. I am not very much concerned with regard to this struggle which we are told is about to take place between the two Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords has always been an enemy of the Irish people during the 82 years which have elapsed of the Parliamentary connection between England and Ireland. It will be to a certain extent to our advantage, of course, if really Radical measures are taken as a result of the present position. But I do not believe that these Radical measures will be taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) has told us that it is impossible to expect that any real axe will be directed to the root of the evil, in view of the fact that the present Cabinet is stuffed with Lords. I join with my hon. Friend in his belief. No doubt, the people of England will do their part; but it will be much cry and little wool, and in the end we shall find things will remain as they are, and the foundations of the Constitution will still be unshaken. Whatever is done the Parliamentary outlook for Ireland is hopeless. During the whole of this Parliament there was no real desire on the part of the Cabinet to give any time that they could possibly help to the consideration of Irish Business. That Ireland has benefited has not been because of the Cabinet, but it has been because agitation in Ireland rose to such an extent that it was absolutely necessary to meet it by remedial legislation. Had it not been for this agitation we should have been left to whistle for legislation during this Parliament. Parliament is overburdened with work, and Governments are obliged to take refuge in the cry of Obstruction because there is not time for one-tenth of the urgent Business that ought to be done. Yet no influential section of politicians has any idea of doing the only thing that would remove the block. Irish Members, therefore, have practically no interest in facilitating the Business of the Government; and there is no reason in the world why we should abate our attempts to lay bare the infamy of English misrule in Ireland and the iniquity of Dublin Castle. We have not had one single measure passed for our coun-
    742
    try this Session, and there were only one or two small ones at the end of last Session. The Government have scandalously mismanaged the time at their disposal. They brought forward the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, which nobody wanted. I wish to express neutrality with regard to that question, but at the same time I am bound to say nobody in Ireland that I could discover wanted it. They spent two days discussing it. These two days devoted to the Irish Land Purchase Bill, amended in a way to meet the views of all Irish Members belonging to every section of the House, would have been sufficient to pass that measure, and we should have had something of utility for the country. The Poor Law Guardians Elections Bill passed its second reading without opposition. I am speaking in the interest of Public Business when I say it would be right to devote some time to the Committee stages of those Bills belonging to private Members which have passed second reading. Why should not the Government, between now and the end of the Session, give to the perfecting of these Bills two or three Government nights? I regret exceedingly that we should have lost this Session; but having carefully watched the conduct of Parties, I do not think there is any ground for the charge of Obstruction. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan in protesting against the Law of Evidence Bill. That is a measure we should not feel justified in assenting to without serious consideration and extensive discussion. It is not fair to persist with a measure of this contentious character. I trust that we may have some reassuring statement from the Government with regard to this Bill and the Poor Law Guardians Elections (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the Peers had thrown out the Franchise Bill, and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) threatened that they would do it again. That was an important statement, coming from him. The rejection of the Bill had been accompanied by a speech which, for contempt of popular will and popular opinion, had, perhaps, never been equalled. It would be childish for this country to occupy its time in any agitation to induce the House of Lords to pass the Franchise Bill when again introduced.

    743
    The crisis which they were now entering upon, and which had been created by the other House, was a very serious one. It was no more nor less than a conflict between a few hundred gentlemen and the people of this country. The question was, whether the people now living in England were to be a self-governing people or not? It would be a waste of Breath to try to induce the House of Lords to pass the Bill. There was an amount of latent anger in the country at the idea of the popular will being controlled by any power not of a representative character which would insist on that power being removed out of the Legislature of the country. This was the only thing he was concerned about. He would have been glad if the Bill had been passed; but, as it was not passed, remembering how former measures had been emasculated or thrown out, he said the country had borne this long enough, and this feeling must be the key-note of any agitation which might take place. It was useless for the Government to complain of Obstruction, or that measures were delayed. They were under Party government—a form of government which he believed in. It meant government by a majority, and that majority should be used freely and with effect. He should not complain, if he was in a minority, of the majority having their will; but he claimed, when he was in a majority, that that majority should have its will. He thought that the simple remedy for Obstruction would be for the Government, at the commencement of each Session, to bring forward a limited number of measures, and keep the House sitting until they were disposed of.
    MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEadmitted that if the House of Lords were an anomalous Institution, out of harmony with the spirit of the times, it would be better that it should be reformed; but, in his opinion, their recent action was within their power, and had the approval of the country. The hon. Member who spoke last seemed to want to govern the country by means of the Birmingham Caucus of 900, as against the 500 Members of the House of Lords. So far as he was concerned, he was quite content to set the 500 of the Upper Chamber against the Birmingham Caucus, and let the country decide between them. He failed to see why redistribu-
    744
    tion should not be dealt with as well in October as it could be in January. He was quite ready to go to his constituents, and support the action of the House of Lords.
    MR. CLARE READasked what would be the Business for to-morrow?
    MR. COURTNEY: The Government propose to take Supply.
    MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he objected to the scheme of government by majorities proposed by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings), and said that if minorities were to be trampled on as he desired, there would be an end to all respect for the decision of the House. He advised the Government, who themselves, when in Opposition, originated the existing form of Obstruction, to cease making such a charge against their opponents, because it was apparent that under that charge they desired to hide their own delinquencies, their own delays, and their own inefficiencies. If the Motion had proceeded from the Irish Benches, they would have been told they were occasioning Obstruction; while this waste of four hours of the public time was allowed without any protest. The Irish Members had a special reason to complain of the manner in which Irish Business was put upon the Notice Paper of the House. The Government put forward upon the Notice Paper measures which were most objectionable in their character to the Irish people, while they left in the background questions upon which there would be no dispute. After a Coercion Bill, they were shown some measure of practical good to Ireland, and they were told that they must first swallow the Coercion Bill. This Session the Government had put forward the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, which had been simply jockeying every measure of real importance to Ireland, and then they were told that they could get no legislation until that was passed. The Government simply offered a premium for Obstruction by their action. With regard to the Constitutional question, he maintained that if they were to have government by Party, they must have a Government in which the minority should have some voice as well as the majority; and it would be highly detrimental to the interests of the country if, whatever Government happened to be in power for the time, it should have an absolute and uncontrolled

    745
    exercise of their will. As to the rejection of the Franchise Bill by the House of Lords, he was one of those who thought that it would confer a great boon upon a large class. It had been said that the House of Lords had exercised their Constitutional right in rejecting it. While no one would deny that, he contended that they would not have exercised that right if the Government had really been in earnest about the Bill. They had been told that the House of Lords would throw it out again, and they would be safe in doing so, unless, in the meantime, the Government took the trouble to press upon them the fact that it had really the support of the people, and so force it through Parliament. While there were so many Members of the House of Lords, and expectant Members, there would be no idea of reality about the intentions of the Government.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERregretted the empty condition of the Treasury Bench and the absence of any Cabinet Minister. The Government had told them that they intended to call the House together on the 20th of October, that Her Majesty had been pleased to take that advice, and the discussion of the question of an Autumn Session was therefore of no avail. What he wished to impress upon them was that if they were to be called together again on that date they had a right to ask that the present Session should be brought to a conclusion at the earliest possible moment. He appealed to the Government to deal with the matter in a practical, common-sense way, and not to nibble at one or two Bills and to say that they would try to pass this Bill and that Bill. If they were going to sacrifice all the larger measures of the Session it would be idle attempting to get the minor measures passed, and it would be far better at once to sweep from the Order Book every Bill of a contentious nature. The House was bound to sit till Supply, which was greatly in arrear, was passed, and he would suggest that if the Session was to be brought to an end at the time the House desired it was absolutely necessary that the Government should at once take possession for the rest of the Session of every working day in the week. Therefore, in the Motion which the Prime Minister would make on Monday or Tuesday he thought the right hon.
    746
    Gentleman ought to ask the House to extend the Rule which enabled the House to go into Supply on Mondays and Thursdays without any questions being raised to Tuesdays and Wednesdays, so that they might set to work and finish the Session. If independent Members as well as official Members were to be asked to come there on the 20th of October, they had a right in return to ask the Prime Minister to put an end to all those disputable Bills and to afford facilities for passing through Supply, which must occasion great discussion, in order that they might bring that Session to as early a close as possible.
    MR. MACIVERsaid, he had the strongest objection to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He thought that in asking the Government to deal in a practical, common-sense way with any subject, that hon. Member was reckoning without his host. There stood on the Notice Paper for next Wednesday a Bill relating to shipping which could not receive the discussion which from its importance it deserved, if the Government were allowed to appropriate the remaining Wednesdays of the Session. The hon. Member was proceeding to quote opinions expressed by Sir Thomas Farrer, the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade, when—
    MR. SPEAKER, interposing, intimated that he was not in Order.
    MR. MACIVERsaid, he disclaimed any intention to discuss on the present occasion the details of any Shipping Bill; he would, however, conclude by respectfully but earnestly protesting against next Wednesday being taken by the Government instead of being devoted to the consideration of a measure of vital public importance, which really involved no question of Party.
    MR. GREGORYwished to second the appeal which had been made to the Government by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton to clear away from the Order Book the mass of Bills which they could not now hope either to pass this Session or to discuss for any practical purpose, and to wind up the Session by proceeding only with such Business as was absolutely necessary for the interests of the country.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the development of circumstances, since he made his statement earlier in the evening, showed that probably the Government

    747
    would not be justified in spending the time of the House in dealing with the Law of Evidence Amendment Bill, and, though reluctantly, he should be prepared to withdraw it. He would also consider what had fallen from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and also from the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), who, he must say, always spoke with much authority on questions relating to the Business of the House, because he brought to them not only a very intelligent but also a very dispassionate and impartial mind. The Government and the House were in this position. There were five working days in their week, and of these, speaking generally, two were available for the purposes of Supply. With regard to the other three days, any legislation being out of the way, it would be a very great solecism if they destroyed a large number of Bills of great importance, some of which had made considerable progress, and also Bills of private Members which had likewise made some progress, for the purpose of nominally putting forward Supply, but really of spending the day in the discussion of preliminary questions. He therefore thought it was evident that if the destruction of those Bills proceeded much further it would be necessary, in order that the House might consistently attain its own object—namely, the rapid termination of the Session, to apply, as a temporary measure, the Monday and Thursday Rule to some further portion of the week.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that they would, no doubt, all wish to get away as fast as they could; but as there seemed to be some confusion in the minds of hon. Members below the Gangway, he wished to ask the Prime Minister whether the Autumn Session would terminate by Prorogation before Christmas, and whether they would start with a new Session at the beginning of the year, or whether there would be a continuous Session from October until the next year, with an Adjournment of Parliament instead of a Prorogation?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Autumn Session would be an extra Session.
    MR. GIBSON: Complete in itself?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, he would appeal to the Government to take into consideration a Bill which the Scotch people were greatly interested in—the Police Bill. He thought it did not contain much controversial matter, and the Bill promised to be of great advantage to Scotland.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDappealed to the Home Secretary to bring in a Bill with regard to the office of Public Prosecutor. A Committee had been sitting considering this matter, and it was hoped that by the change the Committee had recommended a largo saving would be effected to the public, and also that justice would be administered in a much more satisfactory manner than hitherto. He believed that but a very short Bill was necessary to enable that change to be made; and he, therefore, hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would still be able to introduce one.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to add his appeal to that of the hon. Baronet as to the Scotch Police Bill. The Committee had nearly finished its labours, and the Bill, after it passed the Select Committee, was not likely to lead to any contention. Another Bill which the Scotch people were very much interested in was the Secretary for Scotland Bill, and although he had heard that this Bill was to be sacrificed he hoped that would not be so. He suggested to the Government that it would be to the benefit of Public Business to consider the necessity of doing away with the Half-past Twelve o'Clock Rule.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had placed the proceedings as to the Autumn Session in an altogether new light. They were only beginning to understand now what was intended by the statement which the Prime Minister had made to the House with great temper and reasonableness in the earlier part of the evening. Many Members on the Opposition side of the House were under the impression that it was intended to present the two measures of franchise and redistribution together. ["No, no!"] That was an erroneous impression. He believed it was now clear that the Autumn Session, which was to begin on or about the 21st October, and was to close before Christ-

    749
    mas, was to be complete in itself, and that in the following year there was either to be a new Parliament or a new Session. Was the House to understand that the Autumn Session, beginning on the 21st of October, was to be confined to the isolated transaction of the Franchise Bill, that the Government did not intend to introduce any other Business whatever, and that as far as they were concerned this was to be the sole Business? Private Members who brought in Bills, or who dealt with other topics, would have to leave them in an incomplete condition when the Session closed at Christmas. He desired, in these circumstances, to know what the precedent of the Government was for this course of action? If there was no precedent to produce, the Government would then have taken on this occasion a course of procedure entirely without precedent, entirely exceptional; and they would be in the position of having deliberately abandoned their measures because they had found that they were not calculated to meet with public approval, or because they had not nerve and courage enough to go on with the measures which at some time or other they thought were good.
    MR. GLADSTONE: We have all spoken.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I believe that I have the right to say a few words in reply; and I must express my great astonishment that the question of my right hon. and learned Friend has met with no answer at all. It would have been perfectly easy for some hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench to give an answer; or, if there was no one who had not already spoken, the indulgence of the House would have been gladly extended upon so important a matter to any Minister who had addressed the House. We have not had the advantage of being at the Foreign Office to-day. I do not know what the hon. Gentlemen who have had the advantage of being present at the Foreign Office to-day can have known. They have probably known all through a great deal more than we have known; but so far as the Members on this side of the House are concerned, we have been arguing the whole evening that the Autumn Session was to be of a character such as we have known in former years. There have been some Autumn Sessions which have been in
    750
    continuation of the Session in the earlier part of the year. I quite understand that that is not the Session now proposed by the Government, because it is intended to bring forward a Bill which has already been before the House, and to enable the Government to bring it forward again there must be a new Session. Therefore, I perfectly understand that after the Prorogation, which is to take place in the course of a few weeks, there is to be a Session in October which is to be a new Session for the purpose of taking up the Franchise Bill. We have had a good many other cases in which the Session has commenced in the autumn, and gone into the following year; but I never remember to have known or seen or ever to have read of a Session that was to be adopted at the end of the year, to be complete in itself in that year, deliberately undertaken as a new Session, to be called only to deal with a single measure, and which is expected to last only a few weeks. I think we have a right to know upon what precedent this proposal is founded. If there is no precedent, we have a right to know, at least, the reasons for the peculiar mode adopted. I think the House has not been fairly treated. The right hon. Gentleman began with what seemed to us a very moderate statement, made in thoroughly good temper and in good spirit, and one which we so accepted; but I am bound to say that we have not been treated fairly in having been allowed to continue the discussion during the whole of the evening under an impression entirely different from that which is really the fact. I think we ought to have an answer to the question of my right hon. and learned Friend. I wish, therefore, to know whether it really is the intention of the Government to call Parliament together in October, to begin the Session with a regular Queen's Speech, to discuss a particular measure, and then, when that measure has been disposed of, to close the Session altogether; afterwards to take a new Session, beginning with another Queen's Speech—a waste of time quite unnecessary—for the purpose of going on with the other Business closely connected with the Franchise Bill? The Government have, no doubt, much to consider with regard to the course they ought to take with respect to this Bill; but I do think also that the House has a right to be informed

    751
    with regard to this matter at the earliest period.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman has invited someone to answer the question. The uncertainty may have arisen, and I take the blame upon myself, through my not having expressed myself as clearly as I should have done. I intended to say, as clearly as I could, that it was the intention of the Government to have two Sessions of Parliament—and I used the words "two Sessions" advisedly—one Session this year, to be devoted exclusively to the Franchise Bill, and another Session next year in which we are to fulfil the pledges given about redistribution. Hon. Members cannot now complain that I have not distinctly told them what we intend to do. The right hon. Gentleman also asks about precedent. It is not easy to quote precedents off-hand, as I have not had occasion to verify them; but my recollection is that in the days of the first Reform Bill, Parliament was called together to consider the sending up of the Reform Bill a second time to the House of Lords, and that no other Business occupied the attention and time of Parliament. But as to precedents for the course we propose to take, Parliamentary precedents are always made when the occasion is adequate for them, and I venture to think that this is an adequate occasion on which we are entitled to make any precedent which the condition of affairs requires. As to Bills, to my mind it is very difficult to make a distinction between one Bill and another, or to give satisfaction to everybody, for any distinction which did not include the Bills in which other hon. Gentlemen took a special interest would not by them be regarded favourably. There is a good rule in bankruptcy that there is to be no favour shown to any creditor, and it would be a species of fraudulent preference to favour any particular Bill in our present state of bankruptcy of legislation. This bankruptcy of legislation, and the impossibility of proceeding with any measure of legislation, is part of the penalty we have to pay as the result of what has occurred. Those who suffer from the absence of that legislation must bear in mind the cause and who is responsible. That is the answer the Government make to all appeals of this character. I may go further, and say
    752
    that I refer not merely to past Bills, but to Bills in the future, and I wish to repeat that in the opinion of the Government, so far as they can direct the Business of this House, there can be no other Business of any importance undertaken now or hereafter until the question of the franchise has been finally disposed of. As far as we are concerned, the House of Commons can and will do nothing until that Business has been disposed of. I hope that declaration is distinct, and that it will not mislead the House as to our intentions or as to our view of the situation. We have desired to pass the Bills which have been mentioned, and others which have not been mentioned. That being the case, we say that, as far as we are concerned in the conduct of Public Business, we cannot advise the House to transact any other Business whatever in the way of legislation until our primary and supreme object has been attained by the passing of the Franchise Bill into law.
    MR. E. STANHOPE: It seems to be quite clear that there is no precedent for the course the Government are taking, and I think, that before they adopt this course, they should search for precedents. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members may object, but I am entitled to discuss the matter, and to discuss the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister has always shown the greatest deference to Parliamentary precedent, and whenever he has been able to produce a precedent, he has always done so in favour of the course he was adopting. I think I am therefore justified in saying that the Government have searched for precedents in support of the course they are pursuing, and have not been able to find any, or they would not have put up the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to say that they are not bound by precedents. The right hon. Gentleman tells us the Government do not want a precedent, and that they are going to act without one. We now have the full meaning of the course which Her Majesty's Government are about to adopt. In the present controversy the greatest watchfulness will have to be exercised, and care must be taken that the proceedings of the Government are strictly within the lines they are entitled to take. There is one thing more. If the action now proposed to be taken

    753
    by Her Majesty's Government is adopted, we shall, at the end of the present year, have had six Sessions in the present Parliament, and I think hon. Members will recollect very well that in the course of the last Parliament they heard, over and over again, animated attacks upon a Conservative Government for entering upon a seventh Session. After telling us that we were acting in a manner almost unconstitutional, for the right hon. Gentleman to propose now to take a sixth Session in the course of the present year, and then to come to Parliament again next year to wind up the Business in a seventh Session, is, I think, a matter deserving the attention of the House.
    MR. RYLANDS: I cannot say that I attach much weight to the last statement of the hon. Gentleman. It is proposed that there shall be an Autumn Session for about two months, and to urge that as a ground of complaint against the Prime Minister because that Autumn Session will make six Sessions is hardly a matter worthy of the notice of the House. The Prime Minister, in his reference to this matter, alluded to Annual Sessions. I rise now as an independent Member to express my gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for rising to the position I think the nation has demanded of them. Hon. Gentlemen, opposite talk about precedents; but whether there are precedents or not—and I believe that practically there was a precedent in regard to the great Reform Bill—but whether that was so or not, I think the Government are perfectly justified in the course they are taking. With the majority of the House of Commons at their back, and the public opinion of the country in their favour represented by the majority in this House, they have been treated with contempt by another branch of the Legislature, and we, the majority of the House, would be perfectly justified in making a new precedent if we thought it right and necessary to do so. I have heard the determination of Her Majesty's Government with the greatest satisfaction. I believe, until this issue is decided, it will be perfectly futile to attempt any other legislation; and I shall be glad indeed if Her Majesty's Government will recognize that as fully as possible with reference to all the various measures which are now upon
    754
    the Table of the House. I trust that, as soon as they have had an opportunity of obtaining Supply, they will adjourn the House, in order that hon. Members may take council with their constituents. As to the Government establishing a new precedent, if it be a new one, their only object is to carry out a measure which the country is anxiously expecting; and I believe their action will ultimately result in the triumph of the majority of the House, and of the opinion of the people.
    MR. MOORE: I do not think there is any considerable amount of interest taken in the question of the franchise in Ireland, although, no doubt, we do anticipate in the future considerable gains from the passing of that Bill. At present there is an absence of interest in the question, and I think it is impossible to point to a single meeting, or to a single resolution in Ireland in favour of the Franchise Bill. I do not know whether the number of Members representing Ireland is likely to be increased under the new franchise. At present we have 103 Members; and all that I can point to at present is that there have been very important questions which the Government have promised to deal with and have failed. So far as Ireland is concerned the Session has been a perfectly barren one. There is one question which affects that country most nearly—namely, the permanent settlement of the Land Question on a lasting and satisfactory basis; and I must say that the postponement of the Purchase Bill is a severe blow to peace, order, and security in Ireland. As a supporter of the Government, I deeply regret that that measure has been abandoned; and I should like to ask whether that portion of the Bill which deals with the constitution of an Appeal Court under the present administration of the Land Court is likewise to be abandoned? Because, whatever may be said of the measure itself—and I am not here to say that in every clause it is a desirable measure, or that it is not a measure that requires considerable amendment—still I must say that it is a measure in the right direction and based on sound principle. I wish to ask the Government if they are prepared to throw over the Bill which proposes simply to carry out the law effectually in Ireland? The clauses referring to the

    755
    Appeal Court, which this Bill contains, are of paramount importance, because everybody knows that the Appeal Court is at present blocked. I do not wish to discuss the principle of the Bill; but I must say that the measure contains certain clauses which are absolutely necessary in order to remedy the dead-lock now existing. [Cries of "Order!"] Hon. Gentlemen may cry "Order!" but the simple question is one of definite and immediate importance in regard to the administration of the Land Act, and I regret to find that Her Majesty's Government are about to allow this House to disperse without passing a measure to improve the condition of the Land Court in Ireland. We have also had an important discussion on a question which is now of secondary importance—namely, the Labourers' Bill. The Chief Secretary has raised objections to that Bill, some of which are of a weighty character; but when that Bill was thrown out we were given to understand very clearly that either a Royal Commission would be issued, or a Select Committee appointed, not to inquire into the measure proposed by my hon. Friend opposite, but into the working of the Act of last Session. The case was one of pressing importance, and I contend that the settlement of the Purchase Clauses, involving, as it did, the condition of the labourers in Ireland, was a question of paramount necessity. [Cries of "Order!"] I think the question is peculiarly one of Order. We are discussing the state of the Public Business and the "massacre of the innocents," as it is commonly called; and among the Bills abandoned I cannot help expressing my regret that these two important measures should have been included, when a very few hours would have served to complete one, and the appointment of a Committee, or the issue of a Royal Commission, would have paved the way for the settlement of the other. All the work of legislation has now been thrown into arrear, and when we come to Supply we shall, undoubtedly, lose our grip over the Executive Government. No one will deny that these are most important questions for the Irish people, who are now living under the stringent provisions of a Coercion Act; and it is also desirable that some means should be afforded for discussing the appointments which have been made in Ireland. Recent inves-
    756
    tigations have shown that we cannot keep too strong a check over Irish officials. I deeply lament the course the Government feel themselves bound to take. So far as regards the interests of Ireland, whatever hon. Members may think, and whatever amount of abuse in reference to another Assembly may be thought to condone the shortcomings of Legislative Pusiness, I can only say that the Session, so far as Ireland is concerned, has been a most barren and unfruitful one.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I should not have intruded upon the time of the House but for the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). His manner of viewing the majority of the House is quite different when the majority happens to be a Liberal one from that which he adopts when the majority is composed of Members who now sit on this side of the House. When the Conservatives were in Office, the hon. Member was fond of speaking of them as a tyrant majority, who did not represent the people of England; but now that the Liberal Party are in a majority he sees everything from a couleur de rose point of view, and does nothing but express his gratitude to them for throwing over the measure they are now abandoning, endeavouring all the while to throw the blame upon another Assembly. It seems to me that the Government were only too anxious to get rid of these puny measures, or, as some hon. Members have characterized them, those "miserable measures." Personally, I should be very sorry to apply those words to them; but I must allude to the extreme despotic tone which has been assumed by the Liberal Government. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down alluded to the coercion under which Ireland is at present suffering. No doubt, Ireland is suffering from coercion; but, if she is, it is not for want of provocation, for it was the action of a certain section of the people of that country which brought about the coercion of which they now complain. But I deny that this House has been guilty of anything that would justify the act of coercion it is now threatened with. A fresh Session is to be appointed for the latter part of the year, and during that Session we are told that no measures will be allowed to be brought forward, and that the House

    757
    will consider nothing except what the Government chooses.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No.
    MR. MACARTNEY: I certainly heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary say so.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said that, so far as the Government were concerned, they would promote and encourage no legislation except what was necessary for settling the question of the franchise.
    MR. MACARTNEY: The words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were—"We cannot and will not allow any other Business to be brought in."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: No.
    MR. MACARTNEY: If I misquote the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall be glad to be corrected. I certainly understood him to say that no Government Business, except the Franchise measure, would be undertaken; and I suppose if any hon. Member on this side of the House were to introduce a Bill, or to endeavour to press one forward, he would be looked upon as an Obstructive. May I ask whether, if allusions are made to Egypt or South Africa, or other matters which interest the public, it will be regarded as Obstruction, and that nothing will be considered except this darling pet of the Government—the Franchise Bill? It is just possible that the next Session may be brought to an end without a Franchise Bill being carried. If so, when a third Session is summoned, is it the intention of the Government that no Bill of any kind shall be introduced until the Franchise Bill is passed? The Government certainly appear to be acting as if they had the ball at their feet, and they are treating with complete contempt all those who do not agree with them.
    MR. TOMLINSON: There is one matter which has not been alluded to, but which is a matter of great importance. We were promised last Session that the Indian Budget should be brought forward on an early date. It was generally admitted that it was discreditable to bring the Indian Budget forward at the fag-end of the Session, and I have risen now to ask what steps the Government propose to take in regard to bringing that Budget forward?
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I should also like to ask when the Government intend to bring in the Navy Estimates? I put that question in consequence of the short discussion which took place with the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War the last time the Estimates were before the House. It was then understood that the Criminal Law Amendment Bill was to be the means of partially correcting certain defects due to the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Acts; but it is more important now to have an understanding as to the course proposed to be taken in reference to these Acts, in consequence of the announcement made by the Government to-night of their intention to withdraw the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. The noble Lord will recollect that a deputation waited on him not long ago, when he told the deputation that the Contagious Diseases Acts would be dealt with by the Criminal Law Amendment Bill. I think it is desirable, having regard to the results which may follow, that the Government should give the House an opportunity of discussing the question at large now that the Criminal Law Amendment Bill has been withdrawn—I believe the noble Lord will confirm what I say—that an opportunity may be given for raising the question either on the Army or the Navy Estimates. I therefore wish to know whether the Army or the Navy Estimates are to be discussed first? Perhaps, if the noble Lord is not able to answer the question now, he may be in a condition to make a reply to-morrow.
    MR. TOMLINSON: I trust that I may receive an answer to the question I have put in regard to the Indian Budget.
    [No answer was given.]
    Question put, and negatived.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

      CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
      (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £31,846, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

      759
      necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Officers of the House of Lords."
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he hoped that, as they had now wasted a considerable amount of time, they were about to proceed to business. It seemed to him almost providential that on the day they resumed the consideration of the Civil Service Estimates the very first Vote should be that which the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair had just proposed to the Committee. There were a good many details in the Vote to which exception might be taken, as the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords were much larger than those of the corresponding officers in the House of Commons. For instance, the Black Rod received a salary of £2,000 a-year, whereas the Serjeant-at-Arms received only £1,200. The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod received £1,000; the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms only £800. The First Clerk in the House of Lords £2,500; the First Clerk in the House of Commons £2,000; the Second Clerk in the House of Lords £2,000; while the Second Clerk in the House of Commons only received £1,500. There was no reason why these discrepancies should exist. But he did not propose to attack the Vote upon these minor items, because he was going to ask the House to refuse the entire Vote. He had given Notice of his intention to move the reduction of the Vote to a sum which would have been sufficient for a librarian and a housekeeper; but he found already that £12,000 had been voted, and he thought the exigencies of the case would be better met by asking the House to refuse the remainder of the Vote. If a Vote were brought before the House for a picture gallery, containing pictures nobody cared to see, the Committee would absolutely refuse to pass it; but how much more reason was there to refuse a Vote for officers to fulfil functions which were considered pernicious to the whole country? He had no desire to speak with disrespect of the House of Lords. It was a co-ordinate branch of Parliament, and as long as it remained so it ought not to be spoken of with disrespect. It was composed of gentlemen who, individually, were perfectly honest and honourable men;
      760
      but he thought they were men who possessed very little wisdom, and who were exceedingly narrow-minded in their particular capacity. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "Oh!" but that was a matter of opinion, and it was certainly the opinion of most of those who agreed with him. He did not complain of them for looking after their own interests like other gentlemen. They owned hereditary rank; they were in the House of Lords as Legislators by the mere accident of birth, and they were taken almost exclusively from one class of the community—namely, the great landed proprietors. That being the case, they only looked after their own interests—the interests of land; and not only did they look after their own interests, but, as their interests were bound up with things as they were, they wished things to remain precisely as they were. History showed that they had been opposed in every single instance to Liberal measures, and they must continue to be opposed to Liberal measures from the very nature of their existence. He was himself personally in favour of one Chamber; but it was not necessary that hon. Gentlemen should entertain that view in order to vote with him on this occasion. He understood quite well the argument in favour of having two Chambers. He could easily understand another House composed of hereditary members of the aristocracy. He did not himself think that it was desirable; but he could understand why other Gentlemen thought it was. If, for instance, all those gentlemen were what Burke represented that the Members of the House of Commons should be in his famous letter to the Duke of Bedford, he thought the theoretical objection to an hereditary House of Peers might be differently weighted by the practical advantage of having such excellent and good men as Legislators. But in this country we had Party government, and in the House of Lords there were Party men. That must be so as long as they had persons who belonged to one Party or the other. They must have ambitious Leaders in the House of Lords, who were naturally anxious to acquire power, when the occasion demanded, to rally to themselves the support of obscure Peers who had the instincts of Conservatism in them, and who were able to dominate the will

      761
      of the House of Commons unless that will went with them. It was all very well when a Conservative Ministry was in power. The machine worked admirably then, because both Houses were in unison; but when a Liberal Ministry was in power and responsible for the administration of the country, how was it possible to pass measures in the House of Commons, and also in the House of Lords, where there was a Party majority against them? They all knew what occurred. He presumed that in the Cabinet, when any measure was brought forward, someone said—"You must do so and so in order to carry it in the House of Lords." The result was that measures were emasculated from their very birth before they came into either House of Parliament. They then went up to the House of Lords. The House of Lords, as a general rule, was too clever to throw out a Bill except on rare occasions; but they proceeded to cut out certain parts of the Bill, and to add other provisions by way of amendment, and then sent the Bill down again to the House of Commons. In that way it became a matter of compromise, and it was not necessary for the House of Lords to throw out the whole of a Bill if the House of Commons would consent to yield upon certain points, the Lords yielding upon others. The result was, that when a Liberal Ministry was in power that Liberal Ministry found itself unable to carry out its own views and opinions in regard to the Government of the country. The House of Lords could do more than that. Being composed essentially of Party men, it could force a Dissolution of the House of Commons whenever it wished. [Cries of "No!"] He said "Yes," although hon. Gentlemen said "No." He would suppose a case. Let them suppose a Reform Bill brought in; let them suppose that it was sent up to the House of Lords, and then thrown out again; let them suppose a third Session, and a Reform Bill thrown out again.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I have been waiting for some time to see how the hon. Member proposes to connect the observations he is now making with the Vote for the payment of salaries now before the Committee. The Vote is for the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, and has nothing to do with the political power enjoyed by the House
      762
      of Lords itself as part of the Constitution of the country. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member to direct his observations to the Question before the Committee, which is the Vote for the payment of salaries of certain officials of the House of Lords.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he could perceive how it was. The Chairman had not yet seen how he was going to connect his observations with the Vote before the Committee. Now he was not going to ask the House to abolish the House of Lords on this occasion; but what he wished to say was that the country regarded the retention of the House of Lords, as a Second Chamber, as a pernicious principle.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that, by the courtesy of Parliament, Members in each House are called upon to speak with respect of Members of the other House.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would not think of using in that House language of a disrespectful character in regard to the Members of the other House; but out of the House he would use what language he liked. [Cries of "Name!"] Out of that House he claimed his right as an Englishman, and he considered that he was at perfect liberty to go before his countrymen and attack any Institution which impeded and prevented the progress of the country. If that was not allowed in the House itself, how was he to explain the ground on which he objected to the Vote? Could it be said that if a Vote were brought forward for the payment of officials in charge of a picture gallery that they could not discuss the pictures in that gallery? If that was the ruling of the Chair he had nothing more to say, and he would only remark, with regard to the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, that he was simply expressing an opinion as to the necessity of retaining those officials. If any hon. Member wished to know what the opinion of the country was let him go to a Liberal meeting, and he would find a general feeling that in the view of the people of the country no money was no utterly wasted, and worse than wasted, than the £31,000 which was now spent on the officials of the House of Lords. If they asked why, all he could say was that he was not permitted to inform them. He knew that many of these officials individually were

      763
      excellent and worthy men; but somehow the country had come to the conclusion that the money of the nation could not be worse spent than upon these officers. As, however, he was precluded from going into this matter, and as the House of Commons was obliged to vote upon these salaries without expressing an opinion as to the necessity of the officials themselves, he would take a Division upon the Vote without saying another word.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) intended, as he understood, to object to the whole of the Vote, and the consequence of rejecting the Vote would be that, so far as the House of Lords was dependent upon it, it would have to rely upon voluntary contributions. Thus, if the Motion of his hon. Friend were carried, they would have to witness the scandalous spectacle of the House of Lords putting out a notice that for the future prosecution of Business they were dependent on voluntary contributions. He could hardly think that that was a stop which the House could contemplate with any sense of justice. Already the Committee had passed one Vote to provide the House of Lords with fuel, and with candles; and, having gone so far, he thought they ought not to withhold the Vote which had reference to the salaries of the officers of the House. If his hon. Friend had made his appeal to the Committee on the ground of extravagance in regard to the payment of the officers of the House of Lords, and had proposed a reduction of the Vote on that ground, he would have been disposed to agree with him, and would have been quite ready to support him on a Division, because it was somewhat remarkable that while the expenditure for the officials of the House of Lords was £43,000 a-year, the officials of the House of Commons, who had to work during very much longer hours, and were required to perform much more extended functions, only cost the country £51,000. From that comparison the Committee must see that there was room for a considerable reduction of expenditure in the salaries and expenses of the officers of the House of Lords. He hoped the hon. Member for Northampton would forgive him if he ventured to say that his hon. Friend had taken up a somewhat unreasonable
      764
      position. If his hon. Friend would substitute for his present proposal a more reasonable Motion to reduce the Vote by by £1,000 or £2,000, he would be happy to support it.
      Mr. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the hon. Member for Northampton commenced his remarks by saying that it was almost a godsend in the present position of affairs that this Vote, in connection with the House of Lords, was the first to come before the Committee.
      MR. HEALY: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the observations of the hon. Gentleman have any relation to the Question before the Committee?
      THE CHAIRMAN: I have not yet had an opportunity of judging.
      Mr. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, it was not necessary for the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) to have been so very impatient, as he would have an opportunity by-and-bye of addressing the Committee himself. The country would now have some idea of the depth of low comedy to which the antipathy of a certain section of the House towards the House of Lords extended, and of its really artificial nature. The proposal now before the Committee was to refuse the necessary means for allowing the Business of the House of Lords to be carried on. According to the ideas of hon. Gentlemen opposite there should be no coals provided for the Opposition Lobby in this House, and that when a Liberal Ministry were in power every facility should be withdrawn from their opponents for carrying on an Opposition. If hon. Members were consistent, why did they not make a direct proposal to that effect? The Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton rested on the assumption that everybody who opposed the measures of a Liberal Government must be starved into subjection, or made to die of cold. Now, he belonged to those who believed the presumption was that Liberal measures were bad until the contrary was made apparent.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now departing from the Question before the Committee.
      Mr. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would not even treat seriously a Motion which proposed to reduce the Vote for services which had already been rendered, especially as

      765
      the hon. Gentleman himself admitted that there must be a Second Chamber.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: No.
      MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he would not trespass at any length upon the time of the Committee; but he wished to call the attention of the Treasury Bench to a particular point connected with this Vote. It was this—that the accommodation provided for the Members of the House of Commons in the House of Lords might be very materially improved. In the House of Commons they provided comfortable Galleries for the Peers, and they were always pleased to see Members of the House of Lords when they came down. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, speaking for himself, he was always pleased to see them. But when he went up to the Upper House, he found that the accommodation provided for the House of Commons was of the most inferior description.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I may point out that the hon. Member is now discussing matters which would be more appropriately referred to upon another Vote.
      MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he differed from the views which had been expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), and he hoped that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) would go to a Division upon the subject. With regard to the remark made by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) as to the discussion commencing in low comedy, he thought it would not end in low comedy. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton, and he would not hesitate to disallow the provision for coal and fuel, because it appeared to him that the House of Lords were now providing themselves with a material which was calculated to do away altogether with the necessity for a supply of that kind.
      MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKwished to point out to hon. Members opposite that a salary of £4,000 was paid under this Vote to the Lord Chancellor for the performance of certain functions in the House of Lords. Some years ago an arrangement was made in reference to the salary of the Lord Chancellor, by which that noble and learned Lord became entitled to receive £6,000 from the Consolidated Fund, and £4,000 under the present Vote. Therefore, if the reduction proposed by the
      766
      hon. Member for Northampton of the whole Vote, or the partial reduction suggested by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), were agreed to, the result would be that the country would be deprived of the services of its principal Law Officer. In their haste to do something disagreeable to the House of Peers, hon. Members opposite had entirely overlooked the fact that the salary of the principal Judicial Officer of the country was included in the Vote. It would, therefore, be a great misfortune if hon. Members below the Gangway were to succeed in their efforts.
      MR. RYLANDSwished to draw the attention of the Committee to two points—one was that the general expenditure on account of this Vote was very excessive, and the next was that the rate of payment was higher for the officials connected with the House of Lords than for those who were connected with the House of Commons. He thought, in the interests of economy, there might be a considerable reduction in these items; but, at the same time, he could not support the proposal of the hon. Member for Northampton, because he thought it right to point out that towards the amount of money they were asked to vote they received something like £30,000 a-year in the shape of fees for duties performed by the House of Lords. Having received fees to that extent, they were only called upon in reality to pay the charges which exceeded that sum. At the same time, he was of opinion that the salaries paid were higher than they ought to be; and as he was not indisposed to make a definite reduction, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £30,846, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Officers of the House of Lords."—(Mr. Rylands.)
      MR. HEALYsaid, he was surprised that the Committee had had no explanation of this Vote from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, because he was sure that hon. Members would have listened with great delight to his defence of the House of Lords, and his justification of the Estimate now presented to the Com-

      767
      mittee for their assent. He confessed that he had waited for some time in order that they might have had a suitable reply to the arguments addressed to the House against this Vote by hon. and Radical Gentlemen of a revolutionary frame of mind like the hon. Member for Northampton. He should have listened with pleasure to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, if he had felt it his duty to defend the Vote, and if he had passed a suitable eulogium on the purposes for which the Committee were asked to pay the money. He was disappointed in finding that it was left to an hon. Member like the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) to take a statesmanlike view of the question. He was surprised to find that the sentiments of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) did not more widely prevail in that part of the House, and that there were some Gentlemen who, whatever might be the fate of certain measures to which they were deeply attached, were still willing to stand by the necessity of paying adequate salaries to a number of gentlemen they did not know anything about, and for doing they did not know what. It was gratifying to find such general patriotism. He thought, however, that the Committee were somewhat embarrassed by the series of rulings which the Chairman had just delivered, and he presumed that the House would now be called upon to vote the items included in the Estimate seriatim. The first item was that for the Lord Chancellor. Well, suppose they began with the salary of the Lord Chancellor. He would ask, did the hon. Member for Northampton object to the Lord Chancellor? He should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman objected to a noble and learned Lord who performed such great public duties as the Lord Chancellor. They all know that the Lord Chancellor presided over the Assembly which the hon. Gentleman had criticized, and he presumed that it would not be out of Order for any hon. Gentleman to address himself to the question whether the Lord Chancellor was an absolute necessity to the House of Lords. He would not say that it was desirable for hon. Members to address themselves to the question whether the House of Lords was an absolute necessity to the Lord Chancellor, because that would be out of Order, but they might discuss whether the Lord
      768
      Chancellor was necessary to the House of Lords. Of course, that proposition was necessarily somewhat involved; but he should say, if he were asked to give his own opinion as to the necessity of a Lord Chancellor, that he was not necessary at all, or, at all events, he was very dear at £4,000 a-year. In his opinion, that noble and learned Lord did not do a sufficient amount of work to justify the payment of that large sum of money. They knew that the Speaker of the House of Commons had to sit here for very long hours; and if he were to enter into a comparison of the utility of a Speaker of the House of Commons and contrast it with the value of a Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords, he thought the balance to the credit of the Speaker would be very considerable. Therefore, if the economical mind of the hon. Member for Northampton had been stirred by the payment made in regard to the Lord Chancellor, he presumed the hon. Gentleman would have been in Order in asking for some defence of the Vote now before the Committee. What did the Lord Chancellor do to entitle him to £4,000 a-year? The noble and learned Lord sat in the Cabinet. Was it for that that he got £4,000 a-year? Probably, and he said it with all respect, there were some Members of the Liberal Government who were worth even £4,000 a-year. No doubt, there were many Members of the Tory Party who would say they were not; and, perhaps, if they were to have a good Lord Chancellor, or if they wanted a Lord Chancellor at all, they would not be able to get a good one for much less than £4,000 a-year. It was said that the hon. Member for Northampton did not recognize the serious bearing of a question of this kind, and that if they wanted to have a Lord Chancellor they must be prepared to pay for him. The next Vote was an item for the Sergeant-at-Arms in attendance on the Lord Chancellor. He had been so impressed by the ruling which had been given by the Chair, that he found it difficult to criticize the Vote in any other way without incurring the censure of the right hon. Gentleman, which he very greatly wished to avoid. Well, the next item was for the Serjeant-at-Arms in attendance on the Lord Chancellor. He would like to hear the Secretary to the Treasury discuss the relative value of the amount of work done by the Ser-

      769
      jeant-at-Arms in attendance upon the Lord Chancellor as compared with that performed by the Serjeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons. Was this officer really worth £1,500 a-year. He understood that the Serjeant-at-Arms sat in the House of Lords only for a very limited period—that the House met at a quarter past 4, and that it generally disposed of all its work by a quarter past 5; on the other hand, the Serjeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons came down to the House at 4 o'clock, and was frequently in attendance until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. These were facts which might induce some hon. Members to support a reduction of the Vote in the sense which had been moved by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and probably many of them would rather take a Division against the Vote as a whole; but, unfortunately, he must confess that he had considerable difficulty in dealing with this Vote in consequence of the ruling of the Chair.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member—
      MR. HEALY: Not learned, Sir.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has entirely misunderstood what I said. It is quite competent for the Committee to discuss the duties performed by the officers of the House of Lords, and to submit any proposal for diminishing the salaries; but what I stated was that this Committee has no power to interfere with the constitution of Parliament, and that by the courtesy of Parliament Members of this Chamber are bound to speak with respect of Members of the other Chamber.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he thought he had been very respectful indeed; but he considered it necessary to discuss this question on the utility of the Vote as a whole. If they were expected in that House to speak with respect and to act with respect towards Gentlemen in "another place," he thought it was not unreasonable to discuss the converse of that proposition—namely, how Gentlemen in "another place" acted in respect of Members of the House of Commons. If that were so, he was certainly prepared to say that the House of Lords had not acted with very marked respect towards the House of Commons. [Cries of "Order!"] He hoped that hon. Members would kindly hear him, because he was bound to discuss the Vote, so far as
      770
      the House of Lords was concerned, in reference to its utility, and he must discuss the utility of it in reference to the utility of the institution for which it was voted. Of course, he did not propose to discuss the Constitution of the country; but what he said was that they were entitled to receive that relative amount of respect for which they paid £43,000 a-year, and that they were as much entitled to receive respect from the House of Lords as the House of Lords was entitled to receive respect from them. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the House of Commons paid a considerable amount of money for the House of Lords, while the House of Lords paid nothing for them. That was an additional reason why they were entitled to expect more utility from an institution they were required to pay so largely for. This was not the first time, he thought, that a Motion of this kind had been moved; and, that being so, the general ruling of the Chair on the subject was somewhat novel, and was scarcely guided by the authority of the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessors. He found that the House of Lords paid their Chief Clerk, or, as he was styled, the "Clerk of Parliaments," £2,500 a-year. Now, he would ask any hon. Member who was acquainted with the House of Lords whether there was the same amount of complicated work performed by the Clerks in "another place" as there was in the House of Commons? Of course, they knew that they had exceptionally valuable officials in that House, who were extremely able and learned men. Probably they were equally able and learned in "another place;" but he certainly thought he had heard complaints of the way in which some of these gentlemen in the House of Commons dealt with the Business of the House; and if that were so, it would be quite in Order to discuss the question. There might, however, be an opportunity afforded of discussing it on the next Vote; and he would, therefore, prefer to postpone his observations in regard to that subject until they came to that Vote. On glancing over the present Vote he found that there were a number of extremely large salaries paid. Of course, he was not going to ask for an explanation in regard to every item; but he saw they were paying £2,000 for a Black Rod, and he thought that sum was

      771
      really more than such an official ought to be entitled to. He was strongly of opinion that they could got a Black Rod for less than £2,000 a-year. Then, again, there was a Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, who received £1,000 a-year, while the principal door-keeper had £600. He thought those amounts were very large, and perhaps it was the largeness of the salaries paid that induced the House of Lords to take up an aggressive attitude towards the House of Commons. Probably, if the salaries paid in the House of Lords were not of this large and voluptuous character they would not find the same amount of aggressiveness prevailing there as that which was exhibited at the present moment. If they voted down all the salaries for that Assembly, what would be the position of the case? Why, that their Lordships would not be able to go down to the House of Peers at all if they had not these men to guard them, especially after what had recently occurred. In paying large salaries of this kind they should consider the effect it had. The effect of paying large salaries induced noble Lords to go down to the House of Lords and place themselves under the protection of Clerks of Parliaments, Reading Clerks, Clerks Assistants, Black Rods, Yeoman Ushers of the Black Rod, and so on; but if the salaries were refused, they would have no one to manage their affairs, and the result would be that they and their official Staff would melt away altogether. He, therefore, believed that the refusal of Supplies to the House of Lords would have an excellent effect. If the staff of policemen were reduced, for example, either their Lordships would not come down, or they would be more likely to acquiesce in the decisions of those who paid their officers, and it would be found easier for the House of Commons to pass their measures. They might, in fact, have payment by results. The Black Rod now got £2,000 a-year. He would suggest, then, that the next time it was necessary to summon an Autumn Session, or when the Estimates were next presented, and they found everything going on unsatisfactorily, they should reduce the salary of the Black Rod by £ 1,000 a-year. He did not mean to say that that was exactly the way to meet the crisis which now existed; but why should they pay a
      772
      large sum of money for keeping up an institution of this kind which had no effect whatever except to thwart the legislation of the House of Commons. They were now paying £43,000 a-year; why not begin to cut it down to £30,000, then to £20,000, next to £10,000, and, finally, from £10,000 to £5,000 or £1,000, and reduce the Lords and their officials to bread-and-water salaries? The discipline thus brought about would have a marvellous effect, and their Lordships would be much more inclined to acquiesce in matters of reform that were passed by the House of Commons.
      MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he hoped that the hon. Member for Northampton would go to a Division, and regretted that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman had not been received with that earnestness by hon. Members below the Gangway which the hon. Member was entitled to expect, seeing that the Motion was only the logical conclusion of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister when he attacked the House of Lords the other day. This was the Vote under which the salaries of the House of Lords were paid. The Prime Minister had declared that the House of Commons were entitled to act by themselves without regard to the House of Lords. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton had at once taken the matter up, and had put, in a practical shape, exactly what the Prime Minister proposed. He hoped, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite would support the hon. Member; and he trusted that the hon. Gentleman would insist upon a Division, in order to show whether his Friends were prepared to support the Prime Minister in the only logical conclusion at which they could arrive. For his own part, he certainly should not vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton; but he should walk out of the House. He should like to leave the Front Bench opposite and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to get out of the difficulty in the best way they could. As he said, the only logical conclusion they could come to in regard to the agitation against the House of Lords was to support the hon. Member if they were really in earnest; and if they were not, let them throw him over, and show the country that this was only a humbugging agita-

      773
      tion which they were afraid to carry to a practical issue.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) propose to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000?
      MR. RYLANDSsaid, that, with the leave of the Committee, he would withdraw the Amendment.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it seemed to him an extraordinary thing that no Member of the Government had risen to offer at least a justification or defence of the Vote. No doubt, there was much in the Vote which did require justification and defence, because it comprised money jobs and sinecures. He would take the case of the Assistant Accountant, who received a salary of £350 a-year for the performance of merely nominal duties. Who was the Assistant Accountant? It appeared from the foot-note that he was an old man who was on the retired list of Admirals; that he was provided with an official residence; and that he received fees as an officer of the Order of the Garter. There were many things which it would be as well for the Secretary to the Treasury to explain to the Committee. No such system was pursued in the House of Commons, and it was the duty of the hon. Gentleman to explain or justify the system adopted in the House of Lords.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member had expressed his disappointment that he (Mr. Courtney) had not risen earlier in the debate; but it appeared to him that it would have been altogether irregular on his part if he had risen to reply to the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), seeing that they had been ruled by the Chairman to be out of Order. The question of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was in a different position, because it related to a financial matter to which the attention of the Committee might be properly directed. He might say, however, that the hon. Member had only made a cursory examination of the Estimates, and had not perfectly mastered the details of which he complained. He thought the hon. Gentleman had somewhat confused the emoluments of the Assistant Accountant with those received by the Black Rod, who was an Admiral, and was also in receipt of fees for his
      774
      own use. He ought to explain that the salaries in the House of Lords were originally paid by fees received by that House; but some time ago an arrangement was made with the Treasury, who received the fees, and with the House of Commons, who voted the salaries. For some time the fees received were quite equal to the salaries paid; but of late years they had not reached the amount of the salaries. For instance, the fees this year amounted to £30,000, against an expenditure which reached £43,000. In 1882–3 the receipts were £39,000, which were very nearly equal to the salaries voted in that year. As the fees now received by the House of Lords were handed over to the Exchequer, it was a matter of delicacy to interfere with the salaries paid by the House of Lords, and which were fixed by statute. The matter, however, would not be lost sight of; and as the attention of the Committee had been directed to the apparently excessive nature of the salaries, he would endeavour to ascertain, from time to time, what steps might be taken to reduce the amounts paid to a more reasonable limit. He was under the impression that on the last occasion the Office of the Black Rod became vacant there was a Committee which sat upon the Office, and effected a considerable reduction. He hoped it would not be forgotten that all these salaries were originally paid by fees, and that the fees now received by the Treasury, although they did not quite meet the expenditure, very largely contributed towards it.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should like to know what the nature of the fees received by the House of Lords was, because a large amount of the legal business of the House of Lords consisted of Scotch appeals. As, at all events, it was admitted that the fees received did not fully meet the expenditure in the House of Lords, and as it was further admitted that the salaries paid were extravagant, and as there was no reason why there should be any extravagance, he should certainly vote for the reduction of the Estimate.
      MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was not disposed, after the remarks of the Secretary to the Treasury, to persist in the Motion for a reduction of the Vote; but he hoped the paring down which had been commenced would be continued. He did not know how far the Treasury had

      775
      any influence over the Committee upon the Office of Black Rod; but he was afraid it was very slight indeed. Great dissatisfaction had been expressed in the House of Commons against the extravagant expenditure in the House of Lords, and he thought it might be met by some other reduction.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDintimated that, as his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had withdrawn his Motion, he would propose the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £30,846, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the Bum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
      MR. JUSTIN HUNTLYM'CARTHY said, it seemed to him that the Government ought to receive with gratitude the suggestions of his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), as they would get them out of a serious difficulty. He thought the country would be disappointed if the Treasury Bench failed to set a good example by following the opponents of this Vote into the Division Lobby.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, his hon. Friend proposed to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000, and the Chairman had put the Question, "That the sum of £30,846 be granted to Her Majesty." In the event of that Vote being rejected, would the Committee have an opportunity of voting upon the whole sum?
      THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had asked the question because other hon. Members might wish to move further reductions.
      THE CHAIRMAN: First of all, I shall put the reduced sum, and then, in the event of that Motion being rejected, I shall have to put the Original Question for the entire sum.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided: — Ayes 33; Noes 138: Majority 105.—(Div. List, No. 156.)
      Original Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 23: Majority 124.—(Div. List, No. 157.)
      (2.) £36,388, to complete the sum for the House of Commons Offices.
      MR. R. N. FOWLER (LORD MAYOR)said, he wished to make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whom he was glad to see in his place, to consider whether the salaries of the officers of the House were commensurate with the duties which they performed? They had heard a great deal as to the salaries of the officers in "another place" being too large; but he did not believe that that was the case. On the contrary, he believed that the officers of the House of Lords were not more than adequately remunerated. There was, however, no doubt that the officers of the House of Commons had a great deal harder work to discharge than the officers in the other House of Parliament. He did not consider that the time during which the two Houses sat was any index of the amount of labour which the officers of either House had to undergo, because he apprehended that the officers of the House of Lords had to work when their Lordships were not sitting; but, as he had said before, there was no doubt that the officers of the House of Commons worked harder than the officers of the other House. The question was, therefore, whether the officers of the House of Commons should not be placed on larger salaries? He thought they should be, and therefore he appealed to Her Majesty's Government as to whether they could not increase the present salaries? He had made this appeal on former occasions, and to a previous Financial Secretary to the Treasury whose untimely death they all deplored; and he thought it was now time for the Government to consider whether they were doing justice to a body of men who were doing worthy service, and to whom the House was largely indebted. A great deal of extra work was sometimes thrown upon these officers. Two years ago there was an Autumn Session, and year after year the hours in this House became later and later, and while Members of the House could remain or leave as they pleased the officers of the House were obliged to stay till the House adjourned. Under these circumstances, he hoped

      777
      the Government would see their way to increasing the salaries of these officials.
      MR. HEALYsaid, no one could have received more courtesy from the Clerks at the Table than he had; but he wished to say that in his view, instead of those gentlemen having the power of revising Questions to be put upon the Paper, there ought to be a Committee for dealing with such matters. As there were no rules for the guidance of Members as to what they ought or ought not to ask, it was, he thought, too much to say that the Clerks at the Table should have such absolute discretion; and, therefore, he thought there should be a small Committee appointed each Session to whom such matters might be referred. The work and labour thrown on the Clerks at the Table by Irish Members he admitted was enormous; and it must be so when local friction arose almost every day, upon which there must be conflict between Members and the officials. Either Rules of the House should be drawn up, so that a Member might know what to do, or else Members should be allowed to put down Questions in their own way. The Speaker was at all times open to be advised by the officials especially when the Speaker or Chairman was new and could not be expected to have 20 or 30 years' experience; but he objected to Members having to depend on opinions supplied by the officials. What he should like to have was a Standing Committee, so that Members might be able to appeal to a competent body who should have written Rules to guide them. The present Speaker was comparatively new and inexperienced, and was bound to resort to the Clerks continually for advice and information, and that practically gave the officers of the House control over Members. He thought a Committee appointed by the House would be far more valuable as a last resource; and if Members thought there was any point that was not sufficiently brought out would be able to debate it on the appointment of this Committee. At present if the Chairman decided one way there was no appeal, because everyone knew what was the consequence of coming into collision with the Chairman, and was careful to avoid that. But if a Committee was appointed it could not be said that a Member was denouncing the infallibility of the Chairman; and, therefore, he would suggest
      778
      that great inconvenience would be avoided if a Committee of this kind was appointed. The officials of the House were naturally anxious to get on with the work of the House; and when Members wished to bring grievances before the House they took a different view of the functions of the House, and might consider it far more important to pass Bills which the country did not want, such as the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, or the Sunday Closing Bill, than to consider the grievances of Members. He would like to know whether in another Session the Government would consider this idea of the appointment of a Committee of Referees to whom questions of dispute could be submitted. This matter concerned Conservative Members as well as Irish Members. Liberal Members dare not ask any Questions at all; but when they were in Opposition, as he trusted they would be after the General Election—and he should do his best to put them in that position—they would, no doubt, display great activity, and come into conflict with the authorities, and then they would find it a very agreeable thing to have a Committee of this kind. Therefore, he hoped the House would consider this question, not in a Party spirit, but with a view to relieving the Clerks of functions which must sometimes lead to conflict. It was too much to say that when the Speaker was new and inexperienced the House must be the sole guardian of its own Order. That could not be. It was not the Members of the House who decided everything, and the Speaker, with whom the decision rested, had no rules to guide him. It was no use for the Liberal Party to get up a cry because Questions were asked; for if there were grievances, those grievances must, and would, break out. The Government wished to shut up everything; they wanted to have their own way; and if they could not have it, then they accused Members of Obstruction. It would also be well to have a Committee to whom questions of Privilege and other matters with respect to personal questions and disputes could be referred, instead of having unseemly wrangles such as there had been.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I will say a few words upon the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor,

      779
      and the hon. Member for Monaghan. The Lord Mayor has suggested that it would be desirable to raise the salaries of the officials of this House; and he has said, rightly enough, that it is not in the power of any private Member to propose to raise those salaries without the sanction of the House. The House is, probably, not aware that the salaries of the officials are specially regulated by Statute. There is under the Statute a Committee, consisting of Mr. Speaker, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Master of the Rolls—if he be a Member of the House—the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General, by whom the salaries of the officers of this House are regulated, although, of course, the salaries can be reduced in Supply when the Vote for the salaries comes on. It is not the function of the Treasury to deal with these salaries, although the Treasury may deal with some of the allowances. Therefore, if the question of increasing the salaries of the officers of the House should be raised, that would be considered, in the first place, by that special Committee—and, as a matter of fact, I have acted on this Committee with both the late Speaker and the present Speaker; and if it should be the opinion of the Committee that any particular salaries ought to be increased or decreased, provision is made accordingly. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), putting aside some of his remarks, I am bound to say that the hon. Member stated the case very fairly. He admitted that Members came very constantly to the Clerks at the Table, and received from them every courtesy and assistance. But he suggests that the Clerks at the Table, in dealing with Questions proposed to be put by hon. Members, would really be benefited by the assistance of a Committee appointed by this House, and that before these Questions appeared on the Paper the Committee should decide whether any alterations should be made in them, and the form the Questions should take. The putting of Questions occupies much more of the time of the House than formerly; but I fear there would be nothing gained, but, on the contrary, much time lost, by having a Committee to supervise the wording of Questions. I have great doubt whether, practically, many cases have arisen in which the
      780
      decision of the Speaker as to the propriety of particular words would have been overruled by a Committee of the House. The hon. Member talked about the infallibility of the Speaker being recognized by the present practice, as if he were a Pope; but this is not so. Indeed, there are two opinions about the infallibility of the Pope; and it is sometimes held that it is subject to the review of a General Council. Undoubtedly, the decisions of the Speaker are strictly subject to the review of the House; the Speaker cannot decide on any question of this sort finally, for it is always in the power of the House to overrule such a decision. I remember that the late Dr. Kenealy, in a matter of this kind, did contest the decision of the Speaker, and the House affirmed the decision of the then Speaker. But I would put it to the House whether—I was going to say in its own interest, but I would say in the interest of those who ask a large proportion of the Questions—anything would be gained by the proposal? Now what happens about Questions? The great majority of them are put on the Paper the day before they have to be answered. In some cases hon. Gentlemen give two or three days' Notice—sometimes even longer; but a very large proportion of the Questions put at Question time only appear on the Paper that morning. I do not know that it is the case with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy); but some of the hon. Members who sit on the Front Bench below the Gangway opposite express a good deal of dissatisfaction if a Minister is not able, almost off-hand, or, at any rate, within a few hours after he receives Notice of a Question, to give an answer to it. Now, what will be the position of hon. Members who are in the habit of asking Questions if, instead of their Questions being dealt with promptly, as they are now by the Speaker on the representation of the Clerk at the Table, they have to go before a Select Committee? They could not possibly go before a Committee except on Notice. Moreover, I do not think it is practicable to expect Members of the House to form a Select Committee to meet every day to consider Questions put on the Paper the day before. I cannot, therefore, help thinking that if the proposal were adopted it would cause great inconvenience and delay to the Questioners.

      781
      I doubt whether it will not be better, as a matter of public convenience, to leave things as they are now. My impression is that the change would result in such great inconvenience that the House would very soon revert to the present practice. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) will recognize that the subject is a perfectly new one, and that I am only answering his remarks by stating what, at the first blush, appears to me to be the difficulty which surrounds it. I should be sorry offhand to give a final opinion pledging the Government on the subject; but my first impression is that the House would dislike the change which the hon. Member proposes. I hope, therefore, the House will not be committed to such a change until Mr. Speaker, and the Government, and those who are in the habit of asking Questions, have had more opportunity of considering the proposal.
      MR. STORERsaid, he did not rise so much to oppose this particular Vote, because he felt, as he was sure other hon. Members felt, that the officers of the House fully deserved the salaries they at present enjoyed, as to express his surprise that the ultra-Liberal Members who sat below the Ministerial Gangway appeared to have abnegated altogether their functions of keeping that inspection over the expenditure of the House, which was their profession, and which ought to be their practice. Nowadays there were only 20 or 30 Liberals who were found to go into the Lobby in favour of any question of retrenchment. He reminded this Liberal Ministry who entered Office on the promise of retrenchment that the time was rapidly approaching when all the Votes would be inspected by the country in a very different sense in which they had hitherto been inspected. In view of the present depressed condition of trade and agriculture, the people of the country were surprised that a considerable reduction had not taken place in official salaries. That a revision of every salary from the highest to the lowest would have to take place before long if things continued as at present there was little doubt. Land was yielding now one-third less profit than at any previous period. When wheat was the staple commodity as much as 56 s. a-quarter was received; but now it only yielded 36 s. a-quarter. The
      782
      people would, before long, demand that official salaries and the general expenditure of the country should be reduced in a like proportion. He did not wish to obstruct the Vote, but merely to impress these facts upon the minds of hon. Members.
      MR. HARRINGTONsaid, he agreed in the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). He fully recognized the courtesy of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had met the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Healy); but the difficulty still remained. Undoubtedly some such plan as had been suggested would have to be devised in order to meet the difficulty in question, which was growing in proportions every day. He confessed that when he compared the Standing Order which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had read with the ruling of the Chair on several occasions, he felt himself in a greater difficulty than ever in reference to the putting of Questions. He did not wish to complain in any way of the ruling of the Chair as to whether Questions came within the Standing Order or not; but he could not help saying that when the ruling of the Chair was against him, an hon. Member felt it very bitterly. Only a few days ago he endeavoured to put on the Notice Paper a Question which he believed in strict accordance with the Rules of the House. He measured those Rules by Questions he had seen on the Paper from time to time, and he did all he could to bring his Question strictly within the lines of other Questions he had seen. The Question he wished to put raised a subject of considerable importance affecting a large class of people in Ireland. It was a subject of the most urgent public importance, and with the permission of the Committee he would briefly describe it. For some time there had been a considerable feeling in Dublin with regard to proselytizing efforts, which were made in connection with certain Homes, and he wished to ask a Question with regard to an excursion, given by one of the Homes, with which the family of a Judge was connected, and in which a County Court Judge had actually participated. The County Court Judge and others had induced a Protestant clergyman to preach on the occasion of the ex-

      783
      cursion to Roman Catholic children. He (Mr. Harrington) took the matter up because he considered the Judge had been guilty of gross misconduct, and he thought it was a fitting subject on which to put a Question. He was, however, precluded from putting a Question; and, strange to say, while he was endeavouring to ask the Question, the Judge was sitting in judgment upon one of the proselytizing Homes for having detained a Catholic child against the consent of her parents. He (Mr. Harrington) did not complain. There was simply a difference of opinion between him and the Speaker and the Clerks at the Table as to whether the Question was admissible. Certainly, had there been any Rules to which he could have had recourse so as to bring his Question within the limits of Order, he should have been glad to have complied with them. Though he did all he could to adapt the Question to the Forms of the House, he was precluded from putting it, or even any part of it. He did not hesitate to say that there would really have been a saving of time had he been allowed to ask the Question; because now he should feel bound to move, at the proper time, to disallow the salary of the Judge in question.
      Mr. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he noticed an item of £429 for police attendance on both Houses of Parliament. Was that a charge for police attendance inside or outside the House? Of course, as far as the House and Palace Yard were concerned, hon. Members had every reason to thank the police for the way in which they discharged their duties; but the police stationed just outside Palace Yard were very negligent in the performance of their duties. At the commencement of every Session they heard that the approaches to the House were to be kept open for Members; but his experience was that hon. Members very often ran great risk to life and limb in approaching the House. Just outside Palace Yard there was usually a great concourse of vehicles; but the police did nothing at all to facilitate the passage of Members to the House. He should, therefore, like to know whether this Vote included anything for the police stationed outside the House, because if it did, he should be inclined to move to reduce the Vote.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Vote only applied to the services of the police
      784
      within the House; but the complaint of the hon. Gentleman as to the conduct of the police outside Palace Yard was certainly inconsistent with his (Mr. Courtney's) experience.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the courteous manner in which he had met his (Mr. Healy's) proposal. Of course, the proposal he made was only intended to apply to Questions about which there was any dispute. He would like to make a suggestion with regard to another matter which foil upon the Vote for the House. He thought some readier means ought to be adopted of allowing strangers to communicate with Members. Very often half-an-hour elapsed before a card or note was delivered to a Member. He would like to know whether that was the fault of the staff—whether there were sufficient attendants? He scarcely thought there were. Again, if a Member was wanted there was no knowing where to find him. Surely some system might be devised by which it would be possible to let a stranger know at once where to find a Member, or where to deliver a card to him. Again, there was another matter which was worthy the attention of the authorities of the House. Members were frequently put to a great deal of trouble with regard to the Notices given in the House. He was of opinion that there should be a series of printed Notices. For instance, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) must find it a very inconvenient thing to be continually writing out blocks to Bills. He (Mr. Healy) did not see why the hon. and learned Gentleman should not have forms at his disposal, and in the same way forms might be provided for Questions. At present, Members were required to write out, perhaps half-a-dozen times a day, the full heading, "I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland," or, "I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade," just as the case might be. There were forms for admission to the Strangers' Gallery and the Ladies' Gallery; surely it would be a small matter for Her Majesty's Stationery or Printing Department to supply forms for Questions and other Notices, which could be procured in the Library or Lobbies of the House. The supply of such forms

      785
      would save a great deal of labour, especially to such an energetic and hardworking Member as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), who really was most constant in his attendance, and went through more labour than any half-a-dozen other Members put together. What he (Mr. Healy) suggested was a very small matter, involving very little expense; and therefore he trusted his proposal would receive the favourable consideration of the Secretary to the Treasury or the First Commissioner of Works.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that in this Vote there were a number of small items for fire-lighters, watchmen, and others. He believed that a salary of £500 a-year was paid to the Surveyor of the Sanitary Arrangements of the House. Now, it appeared to him that that was a sinecure appointment. [Mr. COURTNEY: Buildings in Class I.] Yes; but this was not a building, but a man, and he received a salary. That salary should be provided for in this Vote; and if it had been, he should have asked the Secretary to the Treasury if the Inspector of the Sanitary Arrangements of the House ever visited the House at all; and, if he did, how often a week?
      THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Gentleman was not entitled to refer to the official mentioned, inasmuch as the salary was not included in this Vote.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was objecting to the defective form in which the Vote was submitted to the Committee. He complained that an item which ought to appear did not appear in the Vote, and that in consequence he was precluded from doing what he wished.
      MR. COURTNEYexplained that the form of the Vote was more correct as it stood. This officer was attached to the building, and was a person whom he had frequently seen about the House.
      Vote agreed to.
      (3.) £39,609, to complete the sum for the Treasury.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to repeat a question as to the way in which the Estimates were arranged, to which he had on a former occasion called attention; and whether a full list of persons receiving pensions under the Superannuation Vote would be given each year?
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked what the Treasury proposed to do with regard to other classes of Civil Service Estimates, such as the Votes for writers; and also what they would do with respect to the division of clerks?
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, that a Parliamentary Paper, issued during the last few days, dealt with the question of the lower division of clerks, and gave particulars as to the decision of the Treasury. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), a full list of persons receiving pensions under the Vote in question had been issued until recently; but it had been thought sufficient to give in future the annual additions to the list and omissions from it.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he regarded this matter of including the pensioners as one of the greatest importance. It was very important, in his opinion, that the public should be able to see this list, and the question of expense was too small to be worth considering. He, therefore, hoped there would be some further explanation on this point. The hon. Member had said that a reform was instituted by himself; but the reform had been carried too far in the case of Mr. Corrie Connellan. It was monstrous that this list of pensioners should be hidden away in a lumber room, and he hoped the Government would give a satisfactory explanation; otherwise he would be obliged to push the matter a little further.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Monaghan was quite right, for Members were perfectly entitled to know who these pensioners were. If this information was given, he thought it probable that more money would be saved a year than the information would cost for printing.
      MR. HEALYsaid, that as he was unable to obtain the courtesy of a reply from the hon. Gentleman, he thought Progress had better be reported, so that the hon. Gentleman might have time to consider the matter and make up his mind upon it. Unless the hon. Gentleman could give some assurance upon the matter, he should make this Motion.
      MR. COURTNEYpromised that before the Vote for pensions came on he would consider the matter.
      MR. BIGGARsaid he accepted the promise of the Secretary to the Treasury as reasonable, and was in favour

      787
      of a change from the new to the old system. He thought the House should exercise supervision over the various Departments as far as possible within reasonable limits.
      Vote agreed to.
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
      Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    PERSONAL ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 262.]
    (Mr. Cochran-Patrick, Mr, Craig-Sellar, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Webster, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Dalrymple.)
    PERSONAL ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL.— [BILL 262.]

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Mr. COCHRAN-PATRICKsaid, the object of the Bill which he was about to ask the House to read a second time was to clear up the difficulty which existed in the legal procedure of the two countries with regard to personal estates of domiciled persons. As to the manner of doing this, he was prepared to admit that there might be other means of gaining the same end, although that which he now proposed commended itself most to his judgment.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Cochran-Patrick.)
      THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, there could be no doubt that there was a difference between the laws of the two countries which ought to be reconciled. He need not go into the matter further than to say that it was one that, in his opinion, ought to be made the subject of legislation, which there seemed to be room for not only on this, but on various other matters of jurisdiction as between the two countries. They were all agreed that this subject should be dealt with; and therefore, without affirming that the present Bill went to the root of the whole question, he was prepared to assent to its being read a second time.
      THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, his right hon. Friend spoke entirely from the Scotch point of view. He was not going to differ from him with regard to the second reading of this Bill; but he would remark that the question which it involved was a very difficult one, and that Englishmen had some slight interest in
      788
      the matter. The Bill did not deal with the property of domiciled Englishmen and Scotsmen in the same way, and it was his opinion that that was a matter which ought to be dealt with on some common basis. The principal object to be kept in view was that the estates of persons, wherever domiciled, should be administered where they could be administered most economically, and the question was as to the best way of carrying that into effect. He was not quite satisfied that the best way was proposed in the Bill. He quite agreed that everything pointed to the desirability of arriving at an agreement on this subject in accordance with the views of both countries; and he had only risen for the purpose of raising the question as to whether the best way of doing that had been found.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

    YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 264.]
    (Mr. Dodds, Mr. Charles Palmer, Mr. Barran, Mr. Isaac Wilson.)
    YORKSHIRE REGISTRIES (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 264.]

      COMMITTEE.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Clause 1 (Short title).
      MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he had had a number of letters sent to him on the subject of the Bill; and as they required consideration, he trusted that no further progress would be attempted at that hour (1.55).
      Mr. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he was, of course, in the hands of the hon. Member who had just spoken. But there was this to say. It was open to the gentlemen on whose behalf the hon. Member spoke to have made their representations with regard to the Bill at an earlier stage. The Law Societies in Yorkshire had sent to London a committee who, after a full conference with the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, had expressed themselves fully satisfied with its provisions as amended by the Select Committee.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Illingworth.)
      MR. OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press his Motion to report Progress. The Bill had been referred to a Select Committee, of which he was Chairman, and had been most carefully considered; and he believed it had been received with almost unanimous approval by those persons in Yorkshire who were interested in the matter.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this Bill might be good for Yorkshire; but he doubted whether it would be good for the country at large. The fact was that the passing of these good measures for particular localities would prevent the adoption for the country as a whole of a thorough system of registration of title. He believed it would be better to drop both this Bill and the Middlesex Registry Bill, and wait until some comprehensive and settled scheme had been worked out which was capable of application at once to every county in the Kingdom. That was a work which would be worthy of a great and statesmanlike Administration. If the matter was to be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion — if there was to be an Act passed for a county in the North and another Act passed for a county in the South—he was forced to the conclusion that the rest of the country would be left in its present disgraceful condition with regard to the registration of titles.
      MR. A. PEASEthought the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) hardly understood the position. There was a registration in Yorkshire now; but an improved one was desired. If Yorkshire had to wait for the whole country it might be required to wait for ever. Personally, he could not understand how the passing of this Bill would be a barrier to the adoption of a scheme of registration applicable to the country at large.
      MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he was afraid he should be obliged to oppose the Bill unless considerable Amendments were made. At any rate, he must ask that the debate be adjourned. He must therefore press the Motion that the Chairman do now report Progress.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Clause agreed to.
      Clauses 2 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
      Clause 27 (Memorials, &c. exempt from stamp duty).
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, he objected to this clause, inasmuch as it provided for the abolition of the Stamp Duty on Memorials. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) would see that it was impossible for him (Mr. Courtney) to assent to the clause.
      Mr. STUART-WORTLEYconsidered the proposal was founded on the principle of justice. As his hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) knew, he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) had no choice, in face of the opposition of the Treasury, but to assent to the omission of the clause. He, however, assented most unwillingly.
      MR. A. PEASEsaid, he thought the Committee ought to be told how the matter stood. In Yorkshire they had to pay Stamp Duties on title deeds; but, in addition, without any service rendered, they were, by Act of Parliament, charged 2s. 6d. for Memorials of registration of deeds. Every cottager, therefore, who bought a small cottage had, in addition to the expenses of conveyancing, to pay 2s. 6d. He (Mr. A. Pease) agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) that there was no justification whatever for the charge. It was rather remarkable that the Treasury should seek to retain this charge when the people of the country were demanding that the transfer of land should not only be made simpler, but less expensive. By the Bill which had been introduced by the Government relating to the transfer of land in Ireland, very considerable reductions had been made in respect of the Stamp Duties. He thought the Treasury might have treated Yorkshire a little more liberally.
      MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would attempt some defence of his opposition to the clause. Especially when there was no service rendered, this seemed to be a very arbitrary charge.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, in answer to the argument that this duty was an exaction of payment for which no service was performed, that in the case of every stamp duty no service was rendered. Stamps were a portion of the machinery by which the taxation of the country was levied. The general law required that all Memorials, wherever registered, should pay a stamp duty of 2s. 6d.; and by this clause it was proposed to exempt Yorkshire from the operation of

      791
      the general law. To make an exception in favour of Yorkshire would be most invidious.
      MR. DODDSsaid, he did not think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was justified in saying that this would be peculiar to Yorkshire. There was no registration of deeds in any county of England, except in Middlesex and Yorkshire; and why the people of Yorkshire should have to pay this exceptional and additional charge he could not understand. In 1853 a Bill relating to the registration of land throughout the Kingdom generally was introduced in the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor, and that Bill contained a stipulation that the Memorials should be free from Stamp Duty. The Bill, however, never came down to that House. There was no justification whatever for the charge; and he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) would not consent to the striking out of this clause.
      MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) thought fit to go to a Division he, for one, would support him. He confessed that he heard a Radical Secretary to the Treasury defend this charge in Middlesex and Yorkshire as a very proper charge with considerable astonishment. It always had been one of the chief points of the policy of the Liberal Party to make the transfer of land as cheap as possible. This was a wholly indefensible charge; and he could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) had received a mandate from the Treasury to oppose the clause, on the ground that it was a blow at the Stamp Duties.
      MR. COURTNEYpointed out that the Stamp Duty of 2s. 6d. on Memorials extended to all Memorials wherever registered, as, for instance, in the Court of Chancery. Indeed, any Memorial registered in any Court in England or Ireland was subject to a 2s. 6d. Stamp Duty. If hon. Gentlemen referred to Clause 97 of the Stamp Act of 1870 they would find the duty distinctly laid down.
      Mr. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he supposed that, as a matter of fact, the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue could not afford to part with the duty, because, in case the Revenue
      792
      shrunk hereafter, they would not be able to re-impose the duty. They, however, knew that all the charges on registration ought to be done away with, as being charges which restricted the conveyance of land.
      MR. DODDSsaid, he might, perhaps, be permitted to point out that if a small conveyance was now registered at full length in the North Riding of Yorkshire no additional duty was payable; but if, with the view of saving expense, a short Memorial was registered, a duty of 2s. 6d. attached. It was a most unjust and indefensible charge.
      MR. HEALYsaid, it was very gratifying to see the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) take an interest in registration. He should like to ask whether the hon. Gentleman's son was the solicitor for the Bill?
      Clause negatived.
      Clauses 28 to 52, inclusive, agreed to.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

    OYSTER CULTIVATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 43.]
    (Mr. Blake, Mr. O'Shea, Colonel Nolan.)
    OYSTER CULTIVATION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 43.]

      SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Blake.)
      MR. TREVELYANsaid, he had no objection, on the part of the Government, to the Bill being read a second time. When the Bill was in Committee he might feel it his duty to propose certain Amendments.
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  MOTIONS.
    REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (MANX CHILDREN) BILL.

      LEAVE. FIRST READING.
      MR. HIBBERTmoved for leave to bring in a Bill—
      "For enabling Manx children to be sent to Reformatory or Industrial Schools in Great Britain."
      MR. WARTONinquired whether the authorities of the Isle of Man had been communicated with?
      MR. HIBBERTsaid, it was at their request that the Bill was introduced.
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill for enabling Manx Children to be sent to Reformatory or Industrial Schools in Great Britain, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 280.]

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS (IRELAND).

      MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
      MR. SEXTONmoved—
      "That the Select Committee on Agricultural Labourers (Ireland) consist of Twenty-two Members."
      He explained that if this Motion were agreed to it was his intention to move "that Mr. Trevelyan be added to the Committee." It was of great importance that the right hon. Gentleman should be added to the Committee, because it was well that the Chief Secretary should have his mind accurately informed upon the subject. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would allow his name to be added. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he expected or intended that the Committee should make material progress during the present Session.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That the Select Committee on Agricultural Labourers (Ireland) consist of Twenty-two Members."—(Mr. Sexton.)
      MR. TREVELYANrespectfully asked the hon. Gentleman not to press the Motion. He assured the hon. Member that he should await the Report of the Committee with the very greatest interest. He did not introduce the Labourers Bill; but, as the hon. Member was aware, he took an extreme interest in it. The framework of the Bill, no doubt, required amendment; and, therefore, there was no fear of his not examining most carefully the results produced by the Committee. The Irish Office would be represented by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker), than whom none was more competent; and the
      794
      Treasury would be represented by an hon. Gentleman who had taken a great interest in the question—the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone). He (Mr. Trevelyan) would be glad to serve on the Committee if he could; but he assured the hon. Gentleman that during many weeks of the Session he had absolutely no spare time whatever in the course of the day except the time that he was waiting for Irish Bills to come on on Wednesdays. He was quite unable to spare the time which would be necessary for a Select Committee; but the hon. Gentleman might rest satisfied that in case the Government brought in an amending Bill no ill effects would result from the fact that he (Mr. Trevelyan) had not served on the Committee. As to the labours of the Committee, the Government would be very glad if progress could be made by the Committee during the remainder of the Session. His impression was that the Committee would probably begin by examining the President of the Local Government Board, and perhaps the Legal Advisers, and perhaps the Inspectors; and it was not impossible that they might find, from the evidence of these gentlemen, that the elucidation of the subjects they desired elucidation upon would be promoted by a postponement until the arrangements under the Provisional Orders were carried out. He thought it very probable that the Committee would find that an adjournment at the end of the Session would be a very useful adjournment. At any rate, he hoped the Committee would set to work at once.
      MR. SEXTON: What day will they meet?
      MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Members of the Committee would settle that amongst themselves. His hon. Friends who would be official Members desired that the Committee should meet with as little delay as possible.
      COLONEL KING-HARMANreminded the Chief Secretary that the Assizes were about beginning, and several of the hon. Gentlemen on this Committee would have to attend the Assizes.
      MR. HEALYsaid, it was unusual, when the House was going to meet for an Autumn Session, to have a Select Committee appointed in this way. He thought it unlikely that the Committee could finish its labours in the next fort-

      795
      night; and he thought that was a point worth the consideration of the Government.
      MR. TREVELYANadmitted that this was an important matter; but the Committee would proceed as far as they could. The question whether the Committee should be re-appointed during the Autumn Session would have to be considered.
      COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends had postponed the Bill until the Assizes were beginning, so that it would be impossible for Irish Members to attend.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

      TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
      On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to amend "The Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1867," ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 279.]
      House adjourned at half after Two o'clock.