Sitting of 31 July 1877

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report—Army (Royal Artillery and Engineer Officers Arrears of Pay) [No 382]; Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines (Civil Employment [No. 383].
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered — First Reading — Fisheries (Dynamite) * [273]; Expiring Laws Continuance * [272]; Rating of Short Tenancies (Dublin) * [274].
Second Reading—Inclosure * [262].
Select Committee—Report—Parliamentary and Municipal Registration. [No. 381.]
Committee—Public Record Office* [182]—R.P.; Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment* [264].
Committee — Report— South Africa [195–271]; Canal Boats (re-comm.) *[247]; Crown Office* [241]; Trade Marks* [242]; Treasury Chest Fund * [253]; Superannuation (Mercantile Marine Fund Officers) * [224].
Report—Parliamentary and Municipal Registration * [59]; Registration of Borough Voters (re-comm.)* [115]; Parliamentary Electors Registration* [53].
Considered as amended—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) [260]; Fisheries (Oysters, Crabs, and Lobsters) * [257].
Third Reading—East India Loan* [215]; Police Expenses Act Continuance * [259], and passed.
Withdrawn—Public Health Act (1875) Amendment* [193].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  METROPOLITAN STREET IMPROVEMENT BILL (by Order.)
  Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Amendments made by the Lords be now taken into Consideration."
  MR. FAWCETTmoved an Amendment that the Lords Amendments be considered on Monday next. He asked whether if he moved that Amendment and the House rejected it he would be able to move a particular Amendment in relation to the Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member propose to move to postpone the consideration of the Lords Amendments?
  MR. FAWCETTreplied that he did.
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Member would be in Order, in case that Motion were rejected, in moving an Amendment in regard to the Bill itself.
  MR. FAWCETTthen moved that the Lords Amendments be considered on Monday next. This was the first time during the 11 years that he had been in that House that he had taken the course of opposing a Private Bill on such a Motion as this. He thought if the House would bear with him for a few moments that he would be able to convince it that the Lords had introduced an Amendment in the Bill which involved a principle of the greatest consequence to every inhabitant of this Metropolis, and, indirectly, to the inhabitants of every large municipality in the Three Kingdoms where public improvements were required and was likely to be carried out. His attention was first directed to the subject by reading the Report of a Parliamentary Committee of the Metropolitan Board of "Works, which was subsequently presented to the Board, and every statement in which was endorsed and approved of. In that Report there was one sentence which struck him first

  213
  with surprise, and secondly with regret, because the Board made itself responsible for the statement that, at the instance of Lord Salisbury, a clause of an exceptional character had been inserted in the Bill in the House of Lords in order to give special and exceptional protection to his Lordship's property. That had been corroborated by the Board, and the Chairman of the Board now in his place would support every word which he expressed in reference to the matter. Nothing was further from his wish than to say anything that could in the slightest degree be supposed to be intended to prejudice Lord Salisbury. He knew that the owner of a large property, whose time was so largely absorbed in public life as was the time of Lord Salisbury, must have many things done by his agents or professional advisers in his name, which he had not time himself to consider, and the importance and gravity of which he did not perhaps accurately comprehend. He desired, therefore, in no respect whatever to bring any charge against Lord Salisbury. But the declaration had been made and commented on from one end of the Metropolis to the other, that a clause had been inserted in the Bill for the special protection of Lord Salisbury; and he knew of nothing during the time he had had the honour of being a Member of the House of Commons which had caused such bitter resentment, as when they heard that a metropolitan improvement had been abandoned, in consequence of the Metropolitan Board accepting a clause inserted at the instance of Lord Salisbury for the special protection of his Lordship's property. He (Mr. Fawcett) desired that that statement should be fully and fairly discussed, and that, if possible, the feelings of bitter resentment and keen annoyance, which he knew to exist, should be removed. He would now proceed to state the facts of the case, and his hon. and gallant Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) was present to correct him if he should state anything wrong. This Bill was introduced to that House as the Metropolitan Street Improvements Bill. It pro-posed to carry out very important improvements; and of all these improvements, he believed, none was of so much importance as the new street from Charing Cross to Tottenham Court Road. That
  214
  street would have been carried through a densely-populated and miserable district, and. would have brought the railways in the North of the Metropolis within easier access from the South and West of London. The Bill was considered by a Select Committee of that House, and a Petition was presented to that Committee, on behalf of Lord Salisbury, claiming that the property of his Lordship should be treated in an exceptional manner. This claim, however, was by Lord Salisbury's counsel abandoned, and therefore it never came before a Committee of this House, and this House knew nothing of it. Now, it would have been fairer if, in the first instance, it had been brought before this House. When the Bill got to the House of Lords, however, a clause was inserted, as stated by the Metropolitan Board, at the instance of Lord Salisbury, and he (Mr. Fawcett) would describe exactly what that clause was, and the House would then see the importance of the issue involved. Hitherto in all the great improvements which had been carried out by the Metropolitan Board, the Board had invariably adopted one principle, and that was not simply to take a barely adequate quantity of land for the construction of a new street, but on each side it had been in their power to acquire a certain strip of land which gave them a valuable frontage which they could re-sell, and were thus able to participate with the other contiguous owners of the property in the advanced value given to the land in the neighbourhood by the improvements carried out at the public expense; and in that way great improvements had been effected at a much less cost to the ratepayers than they otherwise would have been; because the Board had been able in a great degree to recoup themselves for the original outlay. That invariable practice the House had always assented to. But by the exceptional clause which had been introduced into the Bill in the House of Lords the practice had been entirely and fundamentally changed, for the clause distinctly and imperatively asserted that only just so much of his Lordship's property should be acquired by the Bill as would enable the Board to construct the street. What, then, was the position in which the Board was placed? They had to construct the street at enormous cost, and they had no

  215
  chance of recouping themselves with regard to other improvements. The clause went on to state that if the Board should acquire any of his Lordship's property-more than was requisite for the bare construction of the street they should be imperatively obliged, whether they thought it advantageous to the public or not, to sell that land to his Lordship under conditions which would enable him to acquire it at merely a nominal cost. He (Mr. Fawcett) thought that if Lord Salisbury's representatives intended to press this clause upon the notice of the House of Lords, they were bound to have afforded the Committee of the House of Commons an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon it. In the second place, the Chairman and other Members of the Board informed him that they had had to deal with hundreds, he might almost say thousands, of cases of this kind, and in no instance had the House of Lords thought it necessary to protect the owners of property in the same way as they had thought fit to protect Lord Salisbury's property. There was one exception, and it was a striking one. Lord Salisbury said there were several precedents, but the Chairman of the Board would show them that only one was applicable. In 1868, when the Chelsea Embankment scheme was before the House, a clause exactly analogous to the one in question was inserted—in favour of whom? In favour of Lord Cadogan. And how was it inserted? It was considered by a Committee of that House and rejected; but it was afterwards inserted by the House of Lords; and whether they did it with that object or not, the effect of it was that while they did not protect the property of any other owner whatever they did protect that of one of their own body. Therefore, the less said about that precedent the better. It seemed to him that the Metropolitan Board, in declining to carry out the improvements, had, under the circumstances, pursued a course which was unanswerably right. They said that this clause formed a dangerous precedent, because it was impossible for them to accept this clause unless they accepted a similar clause to protect the owner of every property mentioned in the Bill, and not only that, but every single owner of property would have an unanswerable claim to have a similar clause inserted in future. He could
  216
  understand the action of the House of Lords if the clause laid down a general principle, but it did nothing of the kind. It made no other mention than of Lord Salisbury's property. He wished to call the attention of the House to this—that the Board stated that if this clause was enforced the most urgent and necessary improvement in London would become so costly that it would be impossible to carry it out. Therefore the question was whether a clause introduced for the special benefit of Lord Salisbury should arrest the most urgent and necessary improvement in the Metropolis for an indefinite period of time? He (Mr. Fawcett) thought after that statement he need not apologize to the House for having brought the subject under the notice of the House. He believed this matter had been disposed of in the House of Lords rather in a hurry, without considering the great principle at stake, and a strong feeling had been raised in regard to it in the Metropolis. He was not breaking any private confidence when he stated that he believed Lord Salisbury had expressed himself disappointed that the scheme had been dropped by the Metropolitan Board of Works. When he knew what had been done and how serious the ulterior consequences might be, Lord Salisbury might be glad to have an opportunity of re-considering the question. If it should meet the convenience of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg), and the convenience of the House, he would persevere with the Motion that the Amendments should be considered on Monday next; but if the House should wish to consider the subject at once, he would be perfectly prepared to propose that the Lords Amendments be dismissed.
  MR. GORSTseconded the Motion. He would simply confine himself to the statement that the House should not, in his opinion, accept too readily what had been said by his hon. Friend until they had heard the other side. The hon. Member appeared to have a great deal more respect for the Metropolitan Board than he (Mr. Gorst) had. But he thought that the statements of the local Board of Health on the one part, and of the Metropolitan Board on the other, were somewhat highly coloured. His hon. Friend the Member for Hackney had said that the Board were obliged to throw up their contemplated street im-

  217
  provement in the case in question; but the Board were too much in the habit of acting in that way, and had acted so on many occasions. He therefore hoped the House would allow both sides to be heard.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon Monday next."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he thought that he had a full right to speak on this question. He was not in the habit of troubling the House often; but he ventured to state that in all the transactions which he had in connection with the business of the Board he never had more trouble than in this. He felt bound to state to the House that his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney had brought forward this matter in a very able manner. Their object was the same—namely, the good of the public; but he must ask the House to negative the proposition of his hon. Friend. If the House were to come to a decision on the matter, he hoped that decision would be taken to-day. The Bill contained a vast number of important improvements in the Metropolis. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend that the improvement which it was intended to cut out was one of the most important; but he asked the House whether it was wise, or right, or fair that other improvements, North, South, East, and West, for which the inhabitants of those various localities were earnestly anxious, should all be imperilled simply for the sake of one improvement between Tottenham Court Road and Charing Cross? After due and careful consideration the Metropolitan Board of Works had come to the conclusion that it would be better to wait a year or two than to agree to the clause which was introduced in the House of Lords. If such clauses were adopted, local authorities would find it simply impossible to carry out street improvements. Therefore, he contended that the Board over which he had the honour to preside was perfectly justified in dropping the improvement in order to get rid of the clause in question, which was one of a most exceptional character. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) had talked about precedents, and there one or two precedents; but they did not affect the case, except the one
  218
  to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) had alluded. That precedent was created when the Board had before them the great question of the main drainage of the Metropolis. On that occasion the Board decided they had better accept the clause, even at the risk of its becoming an unfortunate precedent—which it had become—than allow the health of the Metropolis to suffer by not carrying out the main drainage in a proper manner. But on the present occasion he thought the Board were perfectly right in resisting the clause. He earnestly entreated his hon. Friend to consider the great improvements which were involved in the passing of the Bill, and not to press his Motion for adjournment. Let them divide at once, if they wished, on the main question whether this House was to be brought into a sort of friendly rivalry with the House of Lords; because after consultation with those who were best able to judge he was assured that to assent to the clause would be to seriously injure the chance of all street improvements.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he was of opinion that the House, in view of the period of the Session, ought to determine the matter now, as it would not be in so favourable a position for doing so a week hence.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,with much deference to the opinion just expressed by the Chairman Of Ways and Means, said, it would be better to postpone consideration of the subject for a few days. It was evident that if they went on with the Bill now they must have considerable discussion on precedents; whereas if they postponed it they would come to the discussion with a knowledge of those precedents, and be in a much better position to deal with the question. As Private Business, the Bill would still have an opportunity of being discussed any day before Public Business was taken. He thought altogether that the hon. Member for Hackney was justified in dividing the House upon his Motion.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: —Ayes 96; Noes 98; Majority 2.—(Div. List, No. 267.)
  Words aided.
  Main Question, as amended, put.
  Lords Amendments to be taken into Consideration upon Monday next.

QUESTIONS .

  POST OFFICE—ROYAL MAIL STEAM-SHIP CONTRACTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEY (for Mr. RATHBONE)asked the Postmaster General, Whether, as in the case of other subsidised lines, notice will be given to the Peninsular and Oriental, and the Royal Mail Steamship Companies to terminate the present contracts as soon as they legally can be terminated; and, whether assurance can be given that ample notice and opportunity will be given to enable all in a position to tender for the services now performed by those Companies to do so?
  LORD JOHN MANNERS,in reply, said, it was usual in all cases before the time arrived when large mail contracts expired to give notice and invite tenders. That course would be adopted in the present case, and ample time would be afforded to all parties not only for sending in tenders, but for their consideration by the Government when they were sent in.

  THE FISHERIES.—QUESTION.
  MR. O'CLERYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If any information, and of what character, has been received by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries from the Admiralty, in reference to the following matter contained in their last Report for 1876, presented to this House on the 27th March 1877:—
  "Being very desirous of obtaining as much information as possible with regard to the manner in which edible fish dispose of their ova, with the permission of the Admiralty we requested the head of the Natural History Department of Her Majesty's Ship 'Challenger' to make certain observations during the expedition of that vessel, with a view of assisting our inquiries. This he kindly consented to do, and at his request we prepared instructions as to the nature of the investigations we desired to have made, and expressed our readiness to assist in the operations in the seas surrounding the United Kingdom. As we have not yet received a report on the subject, we have addressed an inquiry to the Admiralty, and trust shortly to receive the information we so much desire."
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: I am informed by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries that the Admiralty stated, in reply to their question, that no Report had been received on the manner in
  220
  which edible fish dispose of their ova during the progress of this inquiry; and that Sir Wyville Thomson, the chief of the scientific staff, had stated to the Treasury that the staff had no opportunity whatever during the voyage of the Challenger of making observations on the subject.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—SUSSEX COUNTY COURTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. BROWNasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to partition the Sussex County Court district among the neighbouring circuits; and, if so, whether, before carrying this intention into effect, he will give the people of Sussex, and the inhabitants of Brighton, an opportunity of expressing their views on the subject?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he had consulted the Lord Chancellor in regard to the subject, and was informed that the arrangement of County Court districts were always open to readjustment, more especially when vacancies in the Judgeships occurred. The propriety of a re-adjustment of the Sussex County Court district would be considered, and nothing would be done to abridge the accommodation which the public now enjoyed.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1869—IMPORTATION OF FOREIGN CATTLE.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Vice President of the Committee of the Privy Council, If, seeing that the cattle which is now being imported into London from Schleswig-Holstein is entirely free from disease, he will consider the desirability of granting privileges, similar to those now possessed only by London dealers, to all ports, the authorities of which have, in accordance with the Privy Council regulations, provided "properly defined ports" for the importation and slaughter of live cattle?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: The Lords of the Council, while continuing the prohibition against the importation of German cattle, have considered it safe to make an exception in favour of cattle from Schleswig-Holstein, when brought to Deptford under very stringent regulations for slaughter. They can only be

  221
  brought in specially licensed vessels, and must be accompanied by a declaration, signed by the owner in the presence of the English Vice Consul, and certified by the Prussian Government officials, to the effect that the cattle have been bred and fed exclusively in Denmark, Schleswig, or Holstein, and have not been in contact with other cattle. The Order allowing this traffic between Tonning and Deptford was passed on the 18th of June after much consideration, and the Lord President is not prepared to make any further relaxation in the existing arrangements.

ENGLAND AND RUSSIA—THE MEDITERRANEAN GARRISONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLETasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any special Vote will be asked to defray the expenses incident to the equipment and despatch of ships and troops to the East in consequence of the war now pending; whether on that or some other occasion he will give some further explanation before the close of the Session as to the views and intentions of Her Majesty's Government in relation thereto; and, whether, having regard to the complaints in official journals of Russia that Her Majesty's Government should furnish to the House Returns of outrages by Russian troops, he will be good enough to state the nature of any British interest that has called for such publication?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I beg to say that it will not be necessary to submit any special Vote to defray the expenses incidental to the recent despatch of troops to Malta, or of the ships that have been sent to strengthen the Mediterranean Squadron. The expenses are very small, and it is probably very doubtful whether it will be necessary in the course of the present year to ask for any further sum—certainly at present it would not be necessary to do so. With regard to making any explanation or statement as to the views and intentions of Her Majesty's Government before the close of the Session, I am not aware that there is any occasion to do so. Of course, if Her Majesty's Government are questioned on the subject, or if any wish is ex-
  222
  pressed, we shall be ready to give such explanations as the House may think necessary. In regard to the last part of the Question, I do not think it will be convenient to enter here into controversies as to what has been said in the official journals of Russia.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE QUEEN v. CASTRO—EXPENSES OF THE PROSECUTION.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the Return made of the Tichborne Prosecution Expenses, pursuant to Order that such Return should give details according to precedents in other cases, Whether he will be good enough to state why no details whatever are given, especially the names of witnesses retained on the part of the prosecution, but not called; why the precedent of the Welsh fasting girl and the Phoenix Park prosecution have not been followed; and, to name the cases, if any, in which such Return has been refused?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that the information contained in the Return is all the information which, in the judgment of the Government, should be furnished. There is no precedent, except in the case of the Welsh fasting girl, for giving any further information, and in that case the departure from precedent which was made was afterwards admitted to be an error, and one that ought not to be repeated. The information given in the Phoenix Park case was similar to that given in the case to which the hon. Member refers.
  MR. WHALLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman name any case in which the information has been refused?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already stated, Sir, that there is no case in which it has been given.

  NAVY—FLEETMEN OF THE COAST-GUARD.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Why the fleetmen of the Coast Guard, who have re-engaged for ten years' continuous service, are not entitled to the two pence a-day extra pay now offered to seamen of the fleet who may so re-engage?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON: The main object of granting the additional pay of 2d. a-day is to induce men of 10 years' service in the Fleet to re-engage, and thus to secure a sufficient number of men well qualified as petty officers to continue serving in sea-going ships. But when men once enter the Coastguard, though very valuable as a Re-serve, they have very little to do with the Service afloat, and are only embarked for a month every second year. The duties they perform in the Coastguard are very different from and not nearly of such an arduous character as those performed by seamen and petty officers serving in the Fleet. It has therefore not been considered desirable to give to the men in the Coastguard the additional 2d. per day.

SPAIN—SEIZURE OF THE "OCTAVIA."

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, respecting the claims against the Spanish Government arising out of the seizure of the "Octavia" in 1875, Whether claims for compensation, as well as the claim for restoration of the vessel and cargo, were not made by the owner, and by Her Majesty's Government on his behalf?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, he had told the hon. Member on the previous day that the question of damages was not before the Spanish Government, the reason being that Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable that the question of the seizure of the ship should be kept altogether distinct from the question of damages. It was most desirable that the question of damages should be postponed until the question of the seizure of the ship should have been determined. Her Majesty's Government had received information that the ship had been delivered to the Consul at Havana, and therefore that question was now decided. The claims which had been made from time to time with regard to compensation for the seizure and detention of the ship were now before Her Majesty's Government, who were considering the amount of support which it would be their duty to give to those claims.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT, 1876—ENFORCEMENT OF ATTENDANCE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Vice President of the Council, What course is to be pursued in a school district where there are no bye-laws, when children are habitually, and without reasonable excuse, kept by their parents from attending school; to what extent is direct compulsion to be applied to the parent so neglecting to send his or her child to school; and, what will be the action taken by the Education Department if the local authority does not enforce the provisions of the Act of 1876?
  VISCOUNT SANDON: The Questions of my hon. and gallant Friend have so important a bearing upon the working of the Education Act of last Session, and refer so much to matters respecting which I am constantly asked for information by hon. Members and others, that I believe it will be for the general convenience if I answer them more fully than I should otherwise presume to do. It is the duty of the school authority, which must now exist in every part of the country —either as a School Board or a School Attendance Committee—to warn the parent of a child which is habitually and without reasonable excuse kept from school or deprived of efficient instruction that he is breaking the law; and it is the duty of the authority, if such warning is disregarded, to complain to a Court of summary jurisdiction. It is the duty of such Court, if it is satisfied of the truth of the complaint, to name a school, chosen if possible by the parent, which the child is to attend, and to order it to attend such school every time that it is open, or in such other regular manner as is specified by the order of the Court. The school named by the magistrates must be a public elementary school, with a Conscience Clause, and situate within proper distance of the child's home, unless a certified efficient school is selected by the parent. The parent, having failed to do his duty under the general provisions of the Act, has thus, under the magistrate's order, got his child placed under a system of direct compulsion to attend school, and that child is just as much under direct compulsion as if there were bye-laws in that

  225
  district. I need not allude to the later proceedings as to fines and commitment to industrial schools, as I believe they are generally understood. Should the School Attendance Committee or School Board neglect to comply with these provisions as set forth in Section 11 of the Act of 1876, or with any other provisions of the Act, such as those which affect the labour of children, it is the duty of the Department to avail themselves of the large powers conferred upon them by Section 27 of the same Act, and to supersede the local authority, be it School Attendance Committee, or be it School Board, and to appoint officers of their own to see that the Act is enforced thoroughly in the defaulting district, charging the cost of such officers upon the local rates. I should add that Section 13 of the Act specially allows anyone to call the attention of the local authority to any case of neglect to give a child that efficient instruction which is now its stat table right, under the Education Act of last Session. I need not say that we should much prefer that the Act should be worked by the local authority, and that they should manage it in their own way — the Act intentionally allowing much variety of action; and I hear from so many quarters of the great trouble and interest taken by the local authorities in working the Act, and I have such confidence in their general desire to carry out the law when they once know what it is, that I will not contemplate the probability of our having to take the matter into our own hands. In due time, however, we must, of course, make inquiry in every district to assure ourselves that the law is obeyed, and whatever happens we must secure that all children have that education which Parliament and the country mean them to have.
  MR. WHALLEYasked, whether it would not be a reasonable excuse on the part of a parent not to send his child to school, if the school—so far as religious education was concerned—was under the management of a clergyman who was a member of the Holy Cross Society?
  VISCOUNT SANDONrequested the hon. Member to give Notice of his Question.

  SPAIN—SLAVES AND COOLIES IN CUBA.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
  226
  Affairs, If the Government have received any reports from Her Majesty's Consuls in Cuba, either this year or in 1876, respecting the condition and treatment of the slaves or Chinese Coolies in that island; and, if so, whether he is prepared to lay such reports upon the Table of the House?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, the questions as to slaves and Coolies were quite distinct, so far as the Reports received by Her Majesty's Government were concerned. He had laid Papers in reference to the first part of the Question upon the Table of the House a few days since, and he hoped they would be in the hands of hon. Members to-night or to-morrow. His right hon. Friend would find on looking over such Papers that the information in the hands of the Government regarding the slaves was neither very voluminous nor interesting. With respect to the second part of the Question, he could add nothing to what he had stated on the subject in reply to a Question put to him by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke).

NAVY—ASSISTANT PAYMASTERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, looking to the present condition of the List of Assistant Paymasters, and the almost total cessation of promotion, he can hold out any hope that the Admiralty will consider during the Recess whether any remedy can be devised for this growing evil?
  MR. A. F. EGERTON,in reply, admitted that the grievance of which the Assistant Paymasters in the Navy complained was a real and not an imaginary one. The subject had been under the consideration of the Admiralty, and he hoped shortly to be able to announce that they had taken steps to remedy the evil.

PARLIAMENT—ORDER AND CONDUCT OF BUSINESS—A SELECT COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he rightly understood him on Friday last, when proposing Resolutions which the House had adopted, that it was his in-

  227
  tention to propose Resolutions on the same subject, and to move for a Committee of the House early next Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, he had been rightly understood. What he said was that it was the intention of the Government in the Recess to examine carefully the different recommendations that had been made by Select Committees which had sat upon the subject of Public Business, and to consider the whole question preparatory to initiating some scheme which would be submitted to a Select Committee early next Session. The Committee would not be bound by the scheme that might be submitted to it, but would undertake a general survey of the whole question.
  MR. WHALLEYafter this statement would not bring on his Resolution on this subject.

  SOUTH AFRICA BILL. [Lords.]
  (Mr. J. Lowther.)
  [BILL 195.] COMMITTEE.
  [Progress 25 th July.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [5.15 P.M.]
  Union (continued).
  Clause 4 (Naturalization of subjects of the Orange Free State and Transvaal Republic or Union).
  MR. J. LOWTHERmoved that the clause be postponed.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he rose to move to report Progress not with any desire of persisting in it, but simply in order that the Government might explain in what light they regarded many of the clauses of the Bill. If the Bill was simply an enabling Bill, it was quite clear to him that they could not permit clauses to remain in the Bill which seemed to bind down the Government to either a federal or a legislative union. Would it not be better to leave to the Colonies themselves to effect the union if they desired it? and was it necessary to have a special enabling Bill passed for the purpose of a legislative union in South Africa? It was not fair at this period of the Session to ask the House to spend hour after hour in debating clauses of such a character as those in this Bill, now they had given the Colo-
  228
  nies permission to unite on the terms which they thought fit. The hon. Member was proceeding to speak on other topics relating to the South African Colonies, when—
  MR. WHALLEYrose to Order. He desired to ask, if the hon. Gentleman was in Order in speaking on points which were beyond the purview of the Bill? The subjects to which the hon. Gentleman was addressing his remarks might, perhaps, have been properly discussed on the Motion for the second reading; but they were not relevant to the subject-matter of the clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Peterborough is quite right in recalling to the Committee the fact that the observations which the hon. Member for Dungarvan is making would have been much more suitable on the second reading of the Bill. I do not feel at liberty to stop the hon. Member in his statement of the reasons which induce him to make his Motion to report Progress; but it is my opinion that he is travelling somewhat beyond the object of the Bill before the Committee.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was obliged for the Chairman's indulgence, and he entertained respect for his opinion. The only reason why he had ventured to bring forward these statements at all was, that since the very decisive vote on the 3rd clause yesterday, there had been a change in public opinion, and the intentions of Her Majesty's Government had come to be viewed in a different light. He would withdraw his Motion to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Gentleman that he had announced his intention to be to move to report Progress; but he had not done so.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that in order to obtain an answer to his Questions, he would move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. O'Donnell.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,said, in answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Donnell), he had consulted his hon. and learned Colleague the Solicitor General on the question, and they were agreed in opinion that in order to enable the various South African Colonies to form

  229
  a Confederation or legislative union there must be the agency of an Imperial Act of Parliament. Where a Legislative Assembly existed—as in the Cape Colony and Natal—it was quite possible for them to form a simple union; but their legislation must be confined to the regulation of their internal affairs. If they desired a complete legislative union, they could only effect it by an Act of the Imperial Legislature.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, Whether it would be competent under this Bill, for any two Colonies—say Griqualand and Natal—to confederate as a legislative union without a special Act of Parliament?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, it was his opinion it was competent to Her Majesty, under this Bill, to authorize, by Order in Council, the confederation or legislative union of any two Colonies, without reference to the question of the general Confederation of all the South African Colonies.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not quite understand the position in which the Committee stood. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had raised a very important question, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had not fully answered it. The Attorney General had stated, with a certain qualification, that union between the South African Colonies could not take place without an Act of Parliament; but had not explained whether the passing of the first three clauses of the Bill and the Preamble were sufficient to enable the Government to carry out their intentions without going on to discuss the remaining clauses. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to the effect of the first three and the subsequent clauses of the Bill, when—
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENrose to Order. He wished to know, what were the limits of discussion on a Motion to report Progress, and whether it was competent for the hon. Member, on a Motion for reporting Progress, not only to discuss points which would presently come before the Committee in clauses not yet reached, but actually to go back to clauses which already had been discussed?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a Question which it is not very easy to answer. I understand that there is practically no
  230
  limit to the range of arguments which a Member may bring forward on the Motion to report Progress, provided only they be directed to enforce his Motion: the only subjects excluded being clauses and Amendments to particular clauses which would come before the Committee subsequently. In the event of the hon. Member referring to such Amendments, I should feel it my duty to arrest him in his progress. As for the rest, it must be left to the conscience and sense of propriety on the part of the hon. Member himself to judge of the arguments proper to be used on such an occasion.
  MR. PARNELL: I regret that the right hon. Member on the front Opposition bench (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) should have thought it necessary to use his privilege to interrupt me in my arguments. The only result of that course must be to derange the current of my ideas, and prevent me from doing so soon or so efficiently what otherwise I was endeavouring to do as succinctly and clearly as I could. The hon. Member again proceeded to allude to provisions contained in the subsequent clauses of the Bill.
  This course produced much dissatisfaction and general murmuring, until at length—
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTrose, and said: You have already ruled, Mr. Chairman, that an hon. Member cannot discuss the clauses of the Bill on a Motion to report Progress; but the hon. Member for Meath on this Motion to report Progress is going into a discussion of the whole of the measure; and not only so, but is pursuing that course deliberately. Sir, in this matter there is no use beating about the bush any longer. The hon. Member may say what he likes, but I maintain that the course which he is taking is nothing more or less than a deliberate attempt to obstruct the progress of the Bill.
  MR. PARNELL: I rise to Order. ["Order! "] I move that the words of the hon. and learned Member be taken down. ["Order! "]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the words used be taken down. [Loud, cries of "No, no!"] The hon. and learned Member for Oxford is in possession of the Committee, and must be allowed to pursue his observations.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said that the course taken by the hon. Member for Meath was a deliberate attempt to obstruct the progress of the Bill. That was the statement I made, and I adhere to my words. I will now tell the Committee why I made the statement. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) got up at the beginning of the proceedings and immediately moved to report Progress; and he proceeded at considerable length to discuss the whole character of the Bill and its bearings. He afterwards proceeded to put a great number of questions to Her Majesty's Government which had to do with points of principle that might have been debated upon the introduction of the Bill—upon its second reading—upon going into Committee— upon the Report — or upon the third reading. For the purpose of discussing those points the hon. Member for Dungarvan moves to report Progress—not upon any of these occasions, but when we are in Committee. Sir, I bow entirely to the ruling which you have laid down; but if it be the strict law of Parliament—as I have no doubt it is after what you have said—that upon a Motion to report Progress a Member is at liberty to discuss the whole principles of a Bill, the sooner that Rule is altered the better. All I can say is, that in all my experience no Member of this House has ever thought fit to strain the use of that liberty as the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) has done. I repeat that this is obstruction. And I would point to the fact that the hon. Member for Dungarvan, more moderate in his obstruction, actually offered to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress, but that notwithstanding that, the hon. Member for Meath was going on with a long and protracted speech upon the merits of the Bill—after the hon. Member for Dungarvan had announced his intention of withdrawing his Motion. Therefore, notwithstanding that announcement, we are to have speech after speech, apparently, spun out with the greatest deliberation, not merely upon Motions to report Progress, but Motions to ask leave to withdraw Motions to report Progress. Sir, if this is not deliberate obstruction, I do not know what the meaning of those words is. But I hope that the House of Commons is strong enough to deal with conduct of this de-
  232
  scription. If it does not do so, and do so effectually, it does not deserve the position which it holds in this country. I trust that all who have the reputation of the House at heart will stand by those who lead the House—Her Majesty's Government—will stand by the House, and that the House will stand by the Government in resisting that which has now become positively insupportable. These dilatory Motions are made day after day, and. night after night, our Business is protracted hour after hour, and we cannot but feel that the whole system under which we transact Business in this House is breaking down, and that whether or not it is the intention of some Members to break it down, the tendency of their conduct must be to destroy that system. Sir, I sincerely trust that the Government will persevere with this Bill, and that they will not be driven from their course by the dilatory Motions to which I have referred. I hope they will carry the Bill as it stands; and that they will show that the House of Commons has sufficient inherent vigour to deal with a small minority who endeavour to destroy its utility and usefulness. [Loud and continued cheers.]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member for Oxford has asked me a Question, as to whether the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was in Order.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg pardon—I accepted your ruling.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I may again point out that it is not in Order in any discussion in Committee to anticipate a debate which may hereafter arise on a Question which may be later submitted to the Committee. It is, therefore, not in Order on a Motion to report Progress to discuss subsequent clauses or Amendments to those clauses.
  MR. PARNELL: I will continue my observations—[Loud and increasing expressions of dissatisfaction]—subject, Sir, to your ruling, which I shall observe. I do not understand you to rule that it is out of Order to discuss the clauses of the Bill, but merely that it is out of Order to discuss the Amendments. ["No, no!"] I would like to ask whether, at the time I was interrupted by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), I was proceeding in such a way as to make myself out of Order. At that time I was referring to the con-

  233
  tents of the index to the Bill. I would also, ask whether I shall be in Order in replying to the attack which has been made upon me by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member certainly appeared to me to be travelling into the subsequent clauses of the Bill at the moment the hon. and learned Member for Oxford rose to Order. With reference to his other Question—as to replying to the observations of the hon. and learned Member, I think he will see that it is not desirable, the point of Order having been already ruled, to renew a discussion upon that subject.
  MR. PARNELL: [Amid continued cries of "Order!"] May I not refer to the observations of the hon. and learned Member with reference to what has taken place recently. ["No, no!"] Am I not to be allowed to answer the attack which has been made upon me— an attack which, I maintain, is altogether unjustifiable—I will not say " untruthful." ["Order, order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: No doubt, if the hon. Member, having been made the subject of certain remarks, wished to make a personal explanation, the indulgence of the Committee would afford him that opportunity within certain limits; but he would only be in Order now in addressing the House in confining himself to the Question before the House— the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I regret that, owing to the various duties which a Member of this House has to perform, it has not been possible for me to hear the whole of this discussion. Until a little while ago I was absent from the House, attending to other functions; but I understand the hon. and learned Member for Oxford made an attack upon the hon. Member for Meath; but that he now withdraws what he said, and thus deprives the hon. Member for Meath of the opportunity of a reply.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not withdraw anything I said.
  MR. O'OONNOR POWER: Then I ask you, Sir, should the hon. Member for Meath not be heard in reply?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already said that the ruling on the point of Order which was raised having been made, the hon. Member for Meath will not now be in Order in making any reply
  234
  on the Motion to report Progress. Had he wished to do so, he might by the indulgence of the Committee have made an explanation before the ruling was made.
  MR. PARNELL: I am obliged to you, Sir, for the pains you have taken to explain how matters really stand; for I confess that at first I was somewhat puzzled, for I thought I was precluded from referring to the attack of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford by the Rules of the House; but it now appears I am only precluded because I did not refer to it at the time. I thoroughly appreciate the justice of your ruling, which seems to me to be in accordance with common sense; and I shall take care on any future occasion, when an attack may be made upon me, to reply to that attack before you make your ruling. The general tendency of the Bill—
  MR. NEWDEGATErose to Order. It had been intimated to the Committee that it was out of Order to refer to the general tendency of the Bill, and he moved that the hon. Member for Meath be not further heard in this debate.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had not fully gathered the ruling which he had laid down. The rule was, that matters to be debated in Committee should not be discussed on a Motion to report Progress.
  MR. DODSONthought that the Committee would make more rapid progress if hon. Members would confine their remarks to the discussion of the subject-matter of the Bill, leaving it to the Chairman to call attention to any departure from the point of Order. His humble advice was, that the hon. Member for Meath be allowed to make his address to the Committee, whether long or short, subject to the interposition of the Chairman when out of Order.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would venture, following the other hon. Gentleman, to make an appeal to the Committee to go on with this Bill. As he understood, the object of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) in moving to report Progress, was to suggest that, the 3rd clause having been passed, a great deal of the rest of the Bill was unnecessary. But he begged to point out that it was not competent to the Government to entertain that view. The object of the Bill was

  235
  to enable the Crown by Order in Council to confederate certain Colonies and States, and the greater portion of the Bill consisted of provisions regulating the power of the Crown in making those Orders in Council. It was for the Committee to say whether those conditions should be imposed on the Crown. The Bill was a lengthy one, no doubt; but if the Committee would fairly grapple with it, and go through the clauses without distracting their attention by matters which were really outside the clauses, it would be possible, he thought, to make very good progress to-night. He earnestly entreated them to go on with the Bill in that way. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had given notice that he proposed to omit a considerable number of clauses as not being absolutely necessary, and he hoped the Committee would refrain from discussing those clauses when they came to them. If those clauses were laid aside, the number remaining would be manageable; and, though some of them would require discussion, they might, he hoped, get through the Bill to-night. What had passed would sufficiently indicate the temper of the House—that they were determined to persevere with the Bill. [Cheers.] He was most reluctant to enter into personal controversy—their object was to get on with Business. He hoped that this discussion would now close, that the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan would be withdrawn, and that the Committee would proceed with the clause. The very next clause the Government intended to withdraw — but, unquestionably, it would be their duty to support the rulings of the Chair. [Cheers.] The Government were determined to do so [Cheers], and the Committee, he was sure, would do so—[Cheers]—the hon. Member for Meath had expressed his readiness to be guided by the rulings of the Chair, and he hoped he and his Friends would do so.
  MR. PARNELLquite re-echoed what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said—that all Members should be guided by the rulings of the Chair. But the Question which had been asked by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and not answered, was whether the Government had not in fact obtained all the powers that were requisite; and, if so, what was the use
  236
  of proceeding with the other parts of the Bill?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLobserved that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had distinctly answered that Question. He stated that under Clause 3 the Government had obtained too much power, and the subsequent clauses were in restraint of that power.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the subsequent clauses gave power for a federal union and nothing else.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would withdraw his Motion to report Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed, That Clause 4 be postponed?
  MR. O'DONNELLobjected to the withdrawal of the clause, because it was the only clause which enlightened the Committee as to one of the most' important proposals of the Bill. If the clause were withdrawn he could not consistently proceed with some of the Amendments of which he had given Notice relating to subsequent clauses— all his Amendments were linked together.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Motion before the Committee was not the withdrawal but the postponement of the clause; and to discuss any Amendment upon the clause would be out of Order.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, some explanation was due to the Committee with regard to the change of face just effected by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary. He desired to know if it was the intention of the Government to drop the clause altogether, or did they intend that it should be discussed hereafter? He considered the clause to be one of very great importance.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the course which he proposed to adopt was quite consistent with that which had been indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was quite usual to defer the consideration of clauses. On arriving ultimately at the clause, he intended to propose that it should, be struck out.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he wished to know, what would be 'the effect of striking out the clause, and in what position the inhabitants of the Colonies therein referred to—the Orange

  237
  Free State and the Transvaal Republic —would then stand?
  MR. A. MILLSsaid, the hon. Member for Dungarvan should raise these questions hereafter.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he should be departing from the general practice of the House if he replied to the question now. At the end of the Bill he would be fully prepared to answer any question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped they would not waste any more time on this question. The course taken by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary was simply intended to save time. The only way to save time was to postpone the clause. That did not imply that the important question raised by it was struck out of the Bill. Whether this clause was in or not, the inhabitants of the Transvaal were British subjects.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in his opinion, if this clause was struck out, and if the Orange Free State or the Transvaal were annexed, the inhabitants of these States all became British subjects; with this qualification, that perhaps you would have to treat the annexation as a cession of territory, and there would be a time allowed for any inhabitants who did not desire to become subjects to leave the territory.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had said that the object for postponing this clause was to save time. That was on the Irish plan of lengthening the blanket by cutting off a piece at the bottom to sew on the top. He would suggest that the hon. Member for Dungarvan should withdraw his Amendments, and discuss the question whether the clause should or not stand part of the Bill?
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, the clause proposed to be postponed was mere surplusage. The inhabitants of these provinces would be British subjects with or without the clause.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was willing to accede to the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). His reason for striking out the clause was that it would eventually be surplusage.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member for Dungarvan had a right to say—"If you wish to strike out the clause, do so; but let us know whether it remains in or not. If it remains in, I
  238
  shall bring on my Amendments on the Report." But if the clause was struck out, the hon. Member would be in the position of having a perfect right to ask the House to entertain any Amendments he might put on the Notice Paper, for the purpose of carrying out something he thought ought to be in the clause.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that after the statements of the hon. and learned Attorney General and the learned Serjeant, that the people of the districts named would have all the rights of British subjects, he was willing to consent that the clause be postponed.
  LORD ESLINGTONsaid, all this arose from the natural want of experience in Committee in that House of certain hon. Members opposite. They were novices to the practice, and did not fully understand what course was sometimes convenient in Committee. Their habits of industry were considerable—and he asked them, with the greatest respect and in a friendly spirit, to work a little harder at the Forms of the House.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he felt very much obliged to the noble Lord for the very kind and good advice he had given them. He had always appreciated his courtesy and good nature in dealing with hon. Members on that side of the House, and in his treatment of Irish questions when he had fully understood their bearings. Clause 4 was a very important clause, and if not passed, some substitute would be required. As the clause stood at present, it would compel all the inhabitants of the Transvaal Republic to be British subjects whether they would or not. Why should the Dutch be forced to become British subjects? The hon. Member was proceeding to comment on the clause, when—
  MR. E. JENKINSrose to Order. He asked, was it competent to discuss the clause on the present Motion?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was not out of Order in discussing Clause 4 on the Motion that it should be postponed; but it would be out of Order to discuss any Amendment of Clause 4.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had to express his obligation to the Chairman for the continued protection he had afforded him in the face of the persistent interruptions he had been subjected to on points of Order—and he

  239
  begged to point out that in none of these had the Chairman ruled against him. The hon. Member proceeded to say that he could not concur in the dictum of the Attorney General on this question. He was sorry the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was not in his place. He remembered reading, about 10 years ago, some Letters of the hon. Member on International Law, which gave him the impression that he was a sensible man, and if he were present, he might assist the Attorney General in explaining how any question of International Law could arise between this country and a people who were already British subjects. The clause, as it stood at present, compelled all the inhabitants of the Transvaal to be British subjects, whether they liked it or not. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) said he intended to strike out the clause; and the Attorney General said it would amount to the same thing, for that according to International Law these people would still be British subjects. He wanted to know whether, if this clause were struck out, all the inhabitants of the country who chose might remain without the necessity of becoming naturalized British subjects?
  MR. J. LOWTHERthought the Committee ought to do one of two things. Either they ought to withdraw the clause, and, at the same time, all discussion upon it, or else they ought now to discuss the question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. If the hon. Member for Dungarvan withdrew his Amendments, he should be most happy to answer the question which had been addressed to him; but he objected to the adoption, on a Motion to postpone the clause, of the almost unprecedented course of discussing the question "that this clause stand part of the Bill." He hoped that the hon. Member for Dungarvan would elect which course he would pursue, and that the Committee would not be entrapped into two discussions of the same subject.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsuggested to the hon. Member for Meath that when the clause came up he should move a Proviso that these people should not be British subjects.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the hon. Member would respond to this appeal, and withdraw his Amendment. He could not in his experience remember a
  240
  case in which, when a Government wished to drop a clause, any Member tried to force a Committee to discuss it. He must, therefore, call on the hon. Member, unless he wished to confirm the opinion of those who thought his object was to waste time and prevent the progress of the Bill, to accept what he believed was the almost universal course— namely, not to insist on the discussion of a clause which the Government intended to drop. The question whether the clause should be dropped or not was a fair subject for discussion; but it was a waste of time to go on amending something which they knew was not to be retained in the Bill.
  After some words from Mr. O'DONNELL,
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the difficulty the hon. Member appeared to be in was this—He did not like to be called upon to vote that this unamended clause stand part of the Bill, because if amended as he wished it to be, it would then have his approval. He, (Mr. Lowther) therefore, would make this suggestion. He would raise no objection to the Amendments if they were proposed without speeches, and if it were agreed that the Question should afterwards at once be put that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  MR. O'DONNELLaccepted the proposal, observing that the hon. Member in making it evidently relied on the strength of the majority of Noes which he could command.
  The Amendments were then put, and agreed to, as follows:—
  In page 2, line 29, leave out " admission into, "and insert "perfectly voluntary and uncoerced accession to;" in page 2, line 31, after " persons," insert "without distinction of race or religion," and leave out " and enjoying the rights of citizenship within; " and in page 2, line 33, after "subjects," insert "or subjects of any Foreign State, African, or other."
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he too, had an Amendment on the Paper.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would not object to that either.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that Amendment would stultify the Bill— which, perhaps, was intended by the hon. Member.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it would not signify at all.
  Amendment made, in page 2, line 33, after "shall," insert "if they so desire it, and go through the form to be hereafter provided."
  Question proposed "That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. O'DONNELLthereon proceeded to argue that the clause as amended was necessary in order to provide safeguards not only for the rights of English colonists, but to those whose citizenship, commenced under the Dutch Government and whom we had now transferred without consulting them, and of the large number of Native inhabitants who without their own consent were made subjects of the Queen. He contended that it was only right to introduce a special provision allowing a right of option within a fairly limited period to the inhabitants of these States. The hon. Member was proceeding to call attention to International Law so far as affected the question, when—
  MR. WHALLEYrose to Order. He contended that the hon. Member, in dealing with the question, was not in Order. His hon. Friends had made a gallant effort to put a stop to the Business of the House, but he thought they were not in Order in discussing this question which had nothing to do with the subject matter of the clause. ["Order!"]
  MR. BIGGARcontended that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was in Order. [Loud cries of "Order!"]
  MR. GOLDNEYimmediately asked, whether the hon. Member for Cavan was in Order in addressing the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had ventured last evening to lay down that it was quite competent for a Member to refer to such a subject, at the same time that it was not in Order for him to enter into a lengthy disquisition upon it.
  After further remarks from Mr. O'DONNELL,
  MR. PARNELLagain rose to speak; but his attempt—for the hon. Member had now addressed the House many times on this Question—being put down by overwhelming cries for a Division, the hon. Member moved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Parnell.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 149: Majority 146.—(Div. List, No. 268.) [B.M.]

  AYES —

  Kirk, G. H.

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. Biggar.

  MR. BIGGARimmediately moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair. The Motion being received with much dissatisfaction, Mr. Biggar explained that he made the Motion with the view of affording his hon. Friend the Member for Meath the opportunity of addressing the Committee. [Cries of "Order!"] It was right that the hon. Member should be heard. ["Order!"] If these interruptions were continued, he would insist on his Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair—if they would give the hon. Member a hearing he would withdraw it. "[Order!"]
  MR. J. GOLDSMIDrose to Order. The hon. Member for Cavan had acted as a Teller on the last Division, and he wished to ask whether, under the new Rules, the hon. Member was not disqualified from making the present Motion?
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the hon. Member was in Order.
  MR. BIGGARasked, whether his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was precluded from speaking on the Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair?
  THE CHAIRMAN,in reply, read the Resolution as follows:—
  "That, in Committee of the whole House, no Member have power to move more than once, during the Debate on the same Question, either that the Chairman do report Progress or that the Chairman do leave the Chair, nor to speak more than once to such Motion: and that no Member who has made one of those Motions have power to make the other on the same question."
  MR. PARNELLrose (amid continued cries) to point out that in the Notice of Motion which was distributed to hon. Members before the debate on the new Rules the words of the Resolution read differently. They were to the effect that no hon. Member should have power to speak more than once "to such Motion."
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the Resolution had been amended from its original form.
  MR. PARNELLinsisted that according to the Rule as it now stood he was entitled to speak on the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair. It was a Motion distinct from the preceding Question.
  [The dissatisfaction now prevailing throughout the House was so great that the hon. Member, unable to gain attention from his usual seat, advanced to the Table, from which position he again put his Question.]
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he could not undertake to say that the Member for Meath was not entitled to speak upon the Question.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to ask his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan to withdraw his Motion. If the Committee would only listen for a few minutes to what he had to say in reply to the statements of the hon. and learned Attorney General in reference to International Law—[Loud cries of "No, no!"] —the information which the hon. and learned Attorney General threw out to the House having been obtained in reply to Questions he put to the hon. and learned Attorney General—["Divide!"]
  MR. WHALLEYunderstood the Chairman to say, in reference to this very question of International Law, that the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was going into the question with too much elaboration, and was, therefore, out of Order. Therefore, he wished to know whether the hon. Member for Meath was not now out of Order in entering upon the question of International Law? If he (Mr. Whalley) could only succeed in getting the Member for Meath twice out of Order, and the Member for Dungarvan twice out of Order, and a few other Irish Members twice out of Order, they would not be able to speak again in this Committee—and he should be very glad of it.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member for Meath said he wished to speak for the purpose of advising the hon. Member for Cavan to withdraw his Motion; but immediately the hon. Member endeavoured to return to a Question which had already been disposed of—in doing which he was out of Order.
  MR. BIGGARagain rose to speak; but
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was not entitled to address the Committee, unless to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that was the very object for which he had risen.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Question having been again proposed,
  MR. PARNELLagain addressed the Committee at considerable length, but his speech was received with continued cries of remonstrance and dissatisfaction and calls for a Division. At length—
  Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 2; Noes 134: Majority 132. — (Div. List, No. 269.) [B.M.]

  AYES—

  Kirk, G. H.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLEES—Mr. Parnell and Mr. Biggar.

  MR. GOLDNEYsaid, before the Committee proceeded further he desired to suggest a course which would in some way shorten their labours and put an end to scenes which many of them had witnessed with regret. He had read the Bill through carefully, and it appeared to him—as, indeed, it had been admitted by many Members—that the whole principle and all the powers that Parliament wished to invest the Crown with were practically contained in the third clause, which was already passed. The remainder consisted of details, which might be left to the Colonial Legislatures. As the Bill stood with Clause 3 in it, it was workable and could be put in operation. He wished to put it to the Government whether they could not safely and fairly accept the Bill as it stood, without considering any of its details? [Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!] The details were not essential to the Bill, and they might be agreed to as between the Colonial Legislatures and the Colonial Office. Perhaps the simplest way of carrying out his suggestions would be for the Chairman to report to the Speaker that the Committee desired to report the Bill without further consideration of its clauses. He therefore moved that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Goldney.)
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the course suggested by the hon. Member might appear convenient, but what would the effect of adopting that course be on the public mind when they knew what had taken place? [" Hear, hear!"] The Government had carried through the other House a Bill to confer on Her Majesty in Council great power, with certain limitations which the other House of Parliament deemed important. The Bill came to this House and met with obstructions offered by a very small minority. If the Government adopted the suggestion now made, they would abandon all the safeguards which were deemed essential by the other House in deference to factious opposition in this House.
  MR. PARNELLmoved that those words "factious opposition" be taken down.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the words were words very commonly used, and he did not think therefore there was any necessity for taking them down.
  MR. PARNELLsaid; that if the words were Parliamentary he would withdraw the Motion.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought they might have been spared the interruption, which showed the dominant spirit of the hon. Member; but now that he had raised a question of Order it ought to be stated that while the hon. Member and his Friends repudiated in this House any intention to obstruct Business, the language of the hon. Member, and of his hon. Friend sitting near him, out-of-doors was that they gloried in his obstructiveness.
  MR. PARNELL,rising to Order, called upon the hon. Member for his proofs.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the question was hardly one of Order. The Question was the Motion to report Progress, and perhaps the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would consider whether his observations were germane to that Question.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the Motion was preliminary to the abandonment of the remainder of the Bill, and as a specific reason had been given for the
  246
  Motion he thought he had a right to comment on the reasons assigned for it. As he was saying—he asserted that the hon. Members for Meath and Cavan had, out of the House, proclaimed their success in obstructing its Business. ["Hear, hear!"] Referring to the night when the House was detained till a very late hour, extending its sitting into the following morning, it was reported in The Manchester Examiner of the 16th of July, that the hon. Member for Cavan had used these expressions—
  "Speaking of the action of Irish Members in the House of Commons on the night when the sitting was prolonged until past seven o'clock in the following morning, Mr. Biggar said, by what they did they covered themselves with glory, and if this could be done by two or three Members, what would 60 be able to do? "
  He was lamenting that the Irish Members did not support him in this course of obstruction, and if this were a correct report—
  MR. BERESFORD HOPErose to Order. What the hon. Member was quoting might be very interesting, but, for his part, he did not see what it had to do with the question before the Committee.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member for North Warwickshire of a very ancient rule, that "he who digressed from the matter to fall upon the person" committed a breach of Order.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was speaking to the reasons assigned for the proposed abandonment of the remainder of the Bill, which abandonment for such reasons would be derogatory to the House. All that had happened showed that the Government were anxious to pass some Bill, that they were indifferent to the restrictions upon the exercise of that which would become part of, or equivalent to, the Prerogative under this Bill, so that they could pass it: they were therefore ready to abandon the remaining clauses of the Bill, and for this purpose were availing themselves of the obstructiveness of a few hon. Members in order to coerce the action of the House. This was a very questionable proceeding. He lamented that the House had manifested so much patience as it had done when the Members for Meath and Cavan had so strained their privileges as Members of the House, and when they had so long acted in a manner disrespectful to the House. He

  247
  should not oppose the action of the Government; but when it was proposed to omit those clauses of the Bill which contained the definitions and restrictions that alone rendered safe the exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill, he could not help deprecating the course which the Government were prepared to pursue.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he could quite understand the remarks of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, although he could not agree with him. He had studied the actual Bill more than the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had done, and the alleged limitations introduced into the Bill in the other House were, to his mind, no real limitations. If the Government, on their own responsibility, were prepared to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), he should not think it necessary to protest against it. He wished, however, to state that on his own side of the House they were as determined as Members of the Ministerial side to support the Government in carrying this Bill. It would be most inconvenient if, in consequence of anything that had happened, the Committee should be prevented from debating and considering any clause that really required discussion; but he thought that the Government might fairly ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to assist them at any sacrifice of time in getting this Bill made into law. [Cheers.] Whether it was well-advised in the Government to introduce so important a Bill so late in the Session, and whether the Colonial Secretary would not have done well to be satisfied with the annexation of the Transvaal and to put off the Bill until next Session, he would not now discuss; but he was quite sure that for this Bill now to be thrown out in consequence of any opposition from so small a number of Members would be a most destructive proceeding. [Loud cheers.] Hon. Members on both sides must make up their minds to incur some personal sacrifice, and the Bill might require some very late Sittings. He was one of those who wished to test their present Rules and put them to the fullest proof before he admitted that they were not sufficient, and the Rules of the House permitted their sitting from now indefinitely. [Cheers.] If the Government came to the conclusion that the Com-
  248
  mittee ought to proceed with the Bill at this sitting, he was ready at some sacrifice, and forgetting that he was now in his 60th year, to give them all the support in his power. [Cheers.] He could not sit down without expressing his great pain and regret that it should be necessary, in order to get the Bill passed, to make any such statement or announce any such intention. But it had come to this—that they must not allow the real Business of Parliament to be defeated, and the House to be made the laughingstock of the country. [Cheers.]. A term had been used in the Lobby, and he did not see why it should not be used in the House—that "relays" of Members might be necessary to assist each other in passing this Bill. He saw no objection to this course, because he wished to see how far it would enable the House to get through its legislation without being obliged to submit to the permanent loss of its privileges. Although he would not object to giving up the clauses, he would advise the Government to stand by the Bill. [Cheers.]
  MR. PELL,after the manly and straightforward speech of the right hon. Member for Bradford, trusted that the Government would take heart. Instead of sacrificing the clauses of the Bill, he hoped that the Government would be prepared to sacrifice some time and to stand by their guns. [Cheers.] He should regret if the Government by a change of front should lead the country to believe that three or four Members below the Gangway opposite had succeeded in their purpose of obstructing the progress of this Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped that the Committee would waste no more time over this matter. The Bill had been so framed that by passing the 3rd clause the most important point had been attained. With regard to the remaining clauses, his hon. Friend (Mr. J. Lowther) proposed to omit several which the Government regarded as unnecessary; but he doubted whether it would be possible, without misconception, to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney). Clause 3 having been carried, the question now rested with the Committee. If the Committee were content to give the Government the great and unlimited powers conferred by Clause 3, it was not for the Government

  249
  to stand in the way. Inasmuch, however, as such an alteration might be misconstrued into a change of front, he hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Goldney) would not press his Motion. The Government cordially appreciated the hearty support it had received from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) throughout the progress of this Bill. It was, of course, unpleasant to think that long and protracted Sittings might be required; but it was necessary for the Government, at whatever sacrifice, to press on the Bill—especially with those clauses which were essential. When the Committee came to the clauses which the Government proposed to omit, he trusted that they might be allowed to be negatived without further discussion. Several clauses remained on which a discussion might fairly be taken. He hoped, therefore, there would now be a display of the businesslike character of the House—that the Motion would be withdrawn, and the consideration of the clauses it was proposed to retain be proceeded with. [Cheers.]
  MR. GOLDNEYexpressed his readiness, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to withdraw his Motion.
  THE CHAIRMANhaving stated the Question, That leave be given to withdraw the Motion?
  MR. COURTNEY,as one of those who had opposed the Bill, called upon the Committee to consider the position in which they were placed. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Pell) said he knew little or nothing of the clauses, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford intimated that the Bill was one which need not have been brought forward.
  MR. PELL: What I said was, that I had no technical or very accurate knowledge of the clauses.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I did not say that the Bill need not have been brought forward, but that it might safely have been put off till next Session. Having been brought forward, I said I thought every effort ought to be made to pass it.
  MR. COURTNEY: The right hon. Gentleman thought the Bill might safely have been put off, and yet he counsels hon. Members to sit up all night to pass it. Even if they characterized the oppo-
  250
  sition to the Bill as rowdyism, was not rowdyism being sought to be encountered by rowdyism. ["Oh, oh!"]
  MR. WHALLEYrose to Order. They were not discussing rowdyism, and the hon. Member seemed to wish to excite that spirit of anger the display of which he deprecated in others.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Liskeard was out of Order in applying the word "rowdyism" to the proceedings of that House.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had not characterized the opposition to the Bill as rowdyism. What he said was, that if it were so considered, was not rowdyism encountered by rowdyism? However, he would withdraw the expression, and call on the Committee to consider its own dignity and the dignity of the House. He protested against the invitation to hon. Members to remain up all night as a proposal unworthy of the House.
  MR. WHALLEYagain rose to Order, protesting against being lectured by the hon. Member for Liskeard.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he did not think that the hon. Member had transgressed the Rules of Order. The hon. Member for Peterborough was himself out of Order in interrupting the hon. Member.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, if the hon. Members who had opposed the Bill had travelled beyond their right the Chairman would have called them to Order. If, on the other hand, it was found that the Rules and Forms of the House allowed hon. Members too much liberty, they ought to be revised.
  THE CHAIRMANagain pointed out to the hon. Member that the Question before the House was, that leave be given to withdraw the Motion to report Progress.
  MR. GORSTobserved that hours had been wasted in interruptions, questions of Order, and irrelevant discussions. The Government were willing to withdraw certain clauses. Why should they not be allowed to do so and the Committee at once proceed to the consideration of the residue of the Bill?
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENgave the Government credit for honestly intending to proceed with a measure which he for one believed would be of advantage to the community. He had supported them in doing so, and hoped they would

  251
  persevere if it were necessary to sit until Saturday night next. It was worth while, however, to consider whether Her Majesty's Government ought not to be content with passing three clauses, and not to ask the Committee to sit up for several nights to gain the small victory of suppressing three or four hon. Gentlemen. It was agreed that the first three clauses contained all the principle of the Bill, and he submitted that it was an unworthy threat of passing the remainder by overpowering the physical strength of their opponents.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the position of the Government was this—that having passed some important principles in the Bill by very large majorities, they did not feel themselves justified in asking the assent of Parliament to abandon the other valuable portions of the Bill. He regretted the obstruction and personal references which had been made, and which he thought would not tend to elevate the character of the House in the eyes of the country. He hoped they might now be allowed to resume the Bill at Clause 5, and that they should confine themselves to the Amendments on the Paper. It was undoubtedly the wish of a great majority that the Bill should be proceeded with. Some of the clauses which remained to be considered were of great importance, and it was most desirable that they should be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the assertion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), that he (Mr. Biggar) gloried in obstruction was not in accordance with the fact. He had not done so, and on the morning of the very late Sitting he was not present in the House.
  MR. O'DONNELLbegged to say, in reference to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, for whom he entertained a great respect, he should be sorry if the Committee should be guided by any wish on the part of any Gentleman, or number of Gentlemen, to turn the discussion into a question of physical endurance. For his own part, if he saw that this was to be a question of that sort, he would be no party to put to a test the physical endurance or the calibre of the right hon. Gentleman. He had very strong feelings on this Bill, but he wished to fight it fairly, according to the Rules of
  252
  the House; but he begged to remind the Committee that in the event of physical endurance taking place the advantage of the odds would be by no means on the side of the majority, for six or eight Members of extraordinary physical power would be quite equal to 500 ordinary Members of that House. [Ironical cheers.]
  MR. PARNELLthought that they had better go back to the subject of the Bill. Very little time had been spent in the discussion of the Bill, and three or four hours in personal discussions; but they had not been raised by him, or by hon. Members acting with him. He thought they might make satisfactory progress with the Bill if hon. Members would not interrupt and not create personal discussions. He protested against threats being held out to him about a trial of physical endurance; and if the House of Commons divided itself into relays he and his Friends were in sufficient numbers to divide themselves into relays also.
  Motion to report Progress, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 (Construction of subsequent provisions of Act), agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Provinces).
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Clause enacted that "the Union shall be divided into such provinces, with such names and boundaries, as the Queen may direct." He proposed to insert words which would vary the titles of the territories that might be confederated so as to distinguish between the importance of such territories.
  Amendment moved, in page 3, line 1, after "provinces" insert "and dominions."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the point was a new one. He thought some practical difficulties might arise from the use of the word "dominions; " but he would consider whether anything could be done to meet the hon. Gentleman's view before the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved to insert after "Queen," in line 2, the words "by and with the advice of the Union. Parliament."
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 4; Noes 118: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 270.) [B.M.]

  AYES —

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  Power, J. O'C.

  Parnell, C. S.

  TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Biggar.

  Amendment moved, line 2, to leave out "Queen may direct," and insert "general Government and Legislature of the Union may direct."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. LOWTHERsaid, it was already provided that their consent must be obtained.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. COURTNEYmoved, in line 2, after "direct," to insert the following Proviso:—
  "Provided always, That no Colony or State shall be divided into Provinces except with the consent of the Legislature of the said Colony or State, or of some committee or other body duly appointed by such Legislature, with authority to consent to such division."
  MR. GOLDNEYrose to Order. He wished to ask, whether the Amendment was not the same in effect as that of the hon. Member for Meath, which had just been negatived?
  THE CHAIRMANruled that it was, and that, therefore, it could not be submitted to the Committee.
  MR. COURTNEYurged that his Amendment was different from that of the hon. Member for Meath.
  THE CHAIRMANdecided that it was substantially the same, and that, consequently, it could not be proposed.
  Clause agreed to.

  PART III.—EXECUTIVE POWER.
  Clauses 7 to 9, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 10 (Constitution of Privy Council of the Union).
  MR. PARNELLmoved an Amendment, in line 17, that the Privy Councillors to be summoned should not exceed eight in number.
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND and MR. WHALLEYthought it would be undesirable to limit the number as proposed.
  MR. BIGGARsupported the Amendment.
  After some discussion,
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELL (for Mr. O'DONNELL)proposed to move an Amendment on the clause, which he said he did not exactly understand—which Amendment was, in line 22, after "general," to insert
  "for reasons capable of justification in the Parliament, and another part shall consist of certain ex-officio and representative members, namely, the elected chairmen or speakers, during the term of their office, of the two Houses of the two Houses of the Confederation Parliament, and the elected chairmen or speakers, during the term of their office, of the Provincial Legislative Councils."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was not respectful to the Committee to move an Amendment which the hon. Member himself did not understand. If he proposed to take up the Amendment of any hon. Member who was not in his place, he should be prepared to explain it.
  Amendment moved, line 20, after "Parliament," to insert "half the number to be chosen from the Legislative Council and half from the House of Representatives."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  After short discussion,
  Amendment negatived.
  After some further discussion, Clause amended by omitting the words which directed the Members of the Council to be summoned and chosen "from among the Members of the Union Parliament."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 11 to 13, inclusive, agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
  Clause 14 (Command of armed forces to be vested in the Queen.)
  MR. PARNELLproposed to insert the following Proviso at end of clause.:—
  "Provided always, That such Forces shall not be used save for the purpose of executing the laws of the Union, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions when it is necessary so to use them."
  He thought such a limitation ought to be provided, and hoped the Government would accept it.
  MR. J. LOWTHERobjected to the Amendment.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERthought it would be a great mistake if the Amendment was accepted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  An Amendment moved, to add at end of Clause—
  "To be exercised within the territories of the Union in conformity with the laws of the Union: Providing always, That nothing in this Clause is to be taken as abolishing or diminishing the prerogative of the Crown to provide for the defence of the Empire at large against the foreign enemies of Her Majesty the Queen."— (Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. O'DONNELLsupported the Amendment, which he explained was intended to provide against the abuse of power by the Government. The hon. Member was proceeding to argue that the command of the military Force by the Government might readily lead to a collision with the Native races, when—
  MR. WHALLEYrose to Order. He thought the hon. Member was deliberately obstructing the Business of the House. He wished to be informed by the Chairman, whether the hon. Member had not in the letter and the spirit disobeyed his ruling? The hon. Member proceeded to refer to several points, when—
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that no one was more disorderly than the hon. Member for Peterborough himself when raising points of Order.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the hon. Member for Peterborough was himself out of Order.
  MR. O'DONNELLresumed. He urged the importance of providing that the exercise of military authority should be limited to cases of defence of the Empire against attacks of foreign foes.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the Amendment contemplated a Colonial policy, contrary to the Imperial policy of this country, which, under the Constitution, was impossible. It was only necessary to state what was the real scope of these Amendments to ensure their being rejected by an enormous majority.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, that practically the Amendment would tie the hands of the colonists in such a way that they would be unable to defend themselves. The whole point, however, was properly dealt with by the 46th clause.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had misrepresented him. What he had said was, that the policy of the Colonies might differ from that of a ruling party
  256
  at home, as had happened in the case of the American Colonies, when the result was the disruption of the Empire.
  MR. PARNELLsaid the hon. and learned Member for Oxford ought to know that there were many provisions in this Bill which were opposed to the Constitution of this country.
  After some further discussion, Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 15 (Seat of Government).
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved to insert in the Clause, which provided that "the seat of Government of the Union shall be such place as the Queen may direct," after the word "place," the words "within the territories of the Union reasonably and freely accessible to the Members of the Union Parliament and other citizens of the Union."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not think the words could with propriety be inserted. In the selection of a future capital, Her Majesty's Advisers would advise her to select a place which would commend itself to the Colonies generally.
  MR. BUTTthought the Amendment consisted of ignorant words that were an idle mockery.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENwarmly protested against the time of the House being trifled with by a discussion of so childish an Amendment. By all means let the Committee discuss any points of principle raised by any hon. Member, but what principle or what sense was there in such an Amendment as that now moved? Of course, the Capital of the Confederation would be in the territories of the Confederation, and, of course, everybody would desire that it should be accessible to the people of the Confederation. Such an Amendment was much as if, in a Bill which provided that an hon. Member should walk from the Table of that House to the door, some one should move that in so doing he should put one foot before the other. It was a mere waste of time to move such Amendments.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, the question of selecting the Capital of the Union should be left to the Colonies themselves. He moved to leave out from the word "the," in line 22, and to insert the

  257
  words "the Legislatures of the Union may determine," thus giving the Colonies the power of fixing upon the Capital.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 22, to leave out from the word "the," to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "Legislatures of the Union may determine."—(Mr. Edward Jenkins.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out, that to adopt the Amendment would be to raise at the very inception of the Union an element of strife.
  MR. J. LOWTHERdeclined to accept the Amendment.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLwas in favour of retaining the word "Queen" in the clause, deeming it desirable that the influence of this country should be felt so long as the connection between it and the Colonies was maintained.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 204; Noes 6: Majority 198. — (Div. List, No. 271.) [B.M.]

  NOES —

  Burt, T.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Conor, D.M.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Smith, E.

  TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Donnell.
  Clause agreed to.

  IV.—LEGISLATIVE POWER.
  Clause 16 (Constitution of Parliament), agreed to.
  Clause 17 (Privileges, &c, of Houses).
  On this clause, which provides that—
  "The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Legislative Council and by the House of Assembly and by the members thereof respectively shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Union Parliament, but so that the same shall never exceed those for the time being held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and by the members thereof."
  Mr. COURTNEY and Mr. PARNELLmoved verbal Amendments, which were negatived.
  MR. J. LOWTHERmoved to omit the words "for the time being," in order to insert "at the time of the passing of such Act." The object of the Amendment, he stated, was to define the powers
  258
  of the Assembly, as existing at the present moment, and so as to prevent them from being from time to 'time varied as alterations might take place in the British Legislature.
  After a few words from Mr. E. JENKINS and Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL,
  MR. J. LOWTHERexplained that the clause as it stood would expose the Colonies to the same danger as Canada had experienced, which it had been necessary to provide for by a special Act.
  MR. BUTTsaid the best thing to do was to give the Colonial Legislatures the powers which the two Houses of Parliament possessed at the time the Act was passed.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the clause now before the Committee had been copied from the Act dealing with the Victoria Legislature, and it would be better to retain it. If the Parliament of this country should afterwards increase its powers, a general Act might be passed extending those powers to the Colonial Legislatures.
  MR. COURTNEYwas surprised to hear that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) should wish to restrict the powers of the local Parliament. The question was, whether that Legislature should start with limited functions, or should gradually acquire wider and wider duties like our own. It was not desirable that 50 years hence a quasi-antiquarian research into its power should be necessary.
  After some further discussion, Question put—
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18 (First session of Parliament).
  The clause enacts that "the Union Parliament shall be called together not later than twelve months after the Union."
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved an Amendment, to leave out "twelve" and insert "six."
  After a short discussion, in which Mr. LOWTHER, Mr. O'DONNELL, Mr. HERMON, and Mr. PARNELL took part,
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Yearly session of the Parliament).
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he proposed to strike out the clause. He wished to omit this and a number of other clauses, because it was desirable to exclude from the Bill mere matters of machinery that might, after consultation with the local authorities, be more conveniently dealt with by Order in Council.
  MR. O'DONNELLthought the clause ought to be retained, but was of opinion that eight, instead of 12 months, should be the interval between the sitting of one Parliament and another.
  Mr. PARNELL and Captain NOLANspoke in favour of retaining the clause.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFpointed out that the too frequent meeting of Parliament was felt to be a grievance rather than otherwise in some of the Colonies, inasmuch as it caused men to be taken away from their occupations more frequently than was convenient.
  MR. COURTNEYthought the clause a most important one. One of the essential principles of Parliamentary government was that the Representatives of the people should meet at least once a year.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he feared that the proposal to strike out the clause was but the natural consequence of the number of Amendments to the Bill which had been placed on the Paper and the opposition with which it had been met. The subject, however, was important, and although he would not oppose the omission of the clause at that stage, he hoped the Government would think the matter over before the Report.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLpointed out that the omission of a number of clauses, as the Government proposed, would have the effect of giving additional powers to the Government. The clauses seemed to have been deemed necessary when the measure was framed, and no sufficient explanation was now given of the reasons for omitting them.
  MR. CHILDERSsupported the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bradford.
  After some further discussion,
  Question put, "That the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 21; Noes 129: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 272.) [A.M.]

  AYES—

  Barclay, J. W.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Brogden, A

  Brooks, M.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Cowen, J.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Fawcett, H.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Macdonald, A.

  Milbank, F. A.

  Monk, C. J.

  O'Shaughnessy.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Smith, E.

  Taylor, P. A.

  TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Captain Nolan.

  Clause struck out.
  The Legislative Council.
  Clause 20 (Number and constitution of Legislative Council).
  The clause enacts that—
  "The Legislative Council shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, consist of such number of Members, representing such divisions of the Union, and being so qualified and appointed, as the Queen may direct."
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that a nominated second Chamber in our Colonies had been tried in Canada, and had proved an utter failure, whereas the elective Chamber in the Cape Colony received the respect and had the authority which, if it were any use at all, it should have. He had ventured to suggest a scheme, although in the present state of the debate he could not expect it to be discussed. It was that the Legislature in each division of the Union should elect such number of Members as the Queen might direct, and in the election of such Members of the Legislative Council each Member of the divisional Legislature should have as many votes as there were Members to be elected by that Legislature, and should be entitled to distribute such votes amongst several candidates, or to accumulate them upon any one candidate at his pleasure. The only novelty in this proposal was the cumulative vote; but he apprehended that it would produce a more respected, stable, and suitable Chamber than any other method.
  Amendment moved—
  In page 5, line 8, after "appointed," to leave out "as the Queen may direct," and insert "in the following manner (that is to say): the Legislature of each division of the Union shall elect such number of members as the Queen may direct, and in the election of such members of the Legislative Council each member of the divisional Legislature shall have as many votes as there are members to be elected by that Legislature, and shall be entitled to distribute such votes among several candidates or to accumulate them upon any one candidate, at his pleasure."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Government intended that the question as to whether the Legislative Council was to be nominated or elected, wholly or in part, should be left for future consideration.
  MR. COURTNEYremarked that in the draft Bill which had been sent to the Colonies, it was provided that the Council should consist of such persons as the Queen might direct. His proposal was founded mainly on the scheme for electing the Senate of the United States.
  After discussion, Amendment negatived.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas rather in favour of an elective Upper Chamber, but did not think it was the business of that Committee to settle the point. He proposed to insert instead of the words "so qualified and appointed," the words "and shall be so constituted, as the Queen may direct."
  MR. J. LOWTHERaccepted the Amendment. He would not prejudge the question whether this Council should be elected, nominated, or partly elected and partly nominated. The desire of the Government was in that respect to conform to local opinion.
  Amendment made.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Government how long they intended to go on with the Bill that night. There were strange rumours circulating in the Lobby, which induced him to ask this question. Were the sitting to be protracted to an unusual length as had been rumoured, great inconvenience would be occasioned. He was himself quite willing to sit as long as might be desired, but he thought that Progress, at all events, ought to be reported at 4 o'clock.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Government were in the hands of the Committee. They did not wish to press the matter beyond what was felt to be desirable. ["Go on! Go on!"] He could not fix a limit, but he believed both sides of the House were anxious to proceed with the Bill. His desire was to proceed with the Bill and to conclude it. [Cheers.] The principles of the Bill had been thoroughly discussed and accepted, and he thought that if a little forbearance were exercised, real progress might be made.
  MR. PARNELLmoved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped the Bill would be proceeded with.
  MR. DILLWYNthought the request of the hon. Member for Meath a very reasonable one. He thought there should be some limit of time at which the consideration of the Bill in Committee that night should end. He hoped the Committee would not go on longer than another hour.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURThoped the Government would persevere.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it appeared that things had come to this pass—that four Members declared that they would coerce the House—
  MR. GRAYrose to Order.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was quite in Order.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, as long as the Government wished to proceed with the Bill, the House should be prepared to support them.
  MR. FAWCETThoped the Government would pause in the course on which they were evidently embarking. Rumours had been circulating in the Lobby that evening which had given him great pain. Before it was known whether the consideration of the Bill was to be conducted in a business-like fashion or not, it was rumoured in the Lobbies that the Government were determined to keep a House till 8 in the morning, or perhaps continuously, till 6 to-morrow evening, and for this purpose intended to adopt the perfectly unconstitutional plan, as it seemed to him, of bringing down relays of Members. Now, no one could say that the discussion during the last hour and a half had not been of a most important and business-like character. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"] He believed the hon. Member for Meath was willing to withdraw his Motion on the understanding that Progress should be reported about 2 o'clock. If the Government kept a House all night, it would not be only with three or four Members they would have to deal. Meanwhile, he would advise the hon. Member for Meath to

  263
  withdraw his Motion, and not renew it till 2, or a quarter-past 2, when it would be seen what the intentions of the Government really were. [Cries of dissent from the Government benches.]
  MR. BIRLEYhoped the Committee would not listen to the arguments of the hon. Member for Hackney. Forbearance had already been carried to the utmost limits, and it was necessary for those who wished to get on with the business to show that their resolution was as strong as that of the small knot of obstructive. He advised the Government to persevere with the Sitting until they had passed the Bill through Committee. Such a course was due to their own dignity. The Government ought to be supported.
  CAPTAIN NOLANconcurred in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hackney.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very happy to take the advice of the hon. Member for Hackney. He begged leave to withdraw his Motion, which he said he would not move again till 2 o'clock.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DONNELL moved, in line 9, after "direct," to insert—
  "Provided always, That the number of members from each province or dominion shall he fairly and, as exactly as possible, proportionate to the total population of such province or dominion."
  After a few words from Mr. W. E. FORSTER,
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 21 to 24, inclusive, struck out.
  Clause 25 (Constitution of House of Assembly).
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That, in the apportionment of members, and in the determination of the qualifications of electors and members, provision shall be made for the due representation of the natives in the Union Parliament and in the Provincial Councils, in such manner as shall be deemed by Her Majesty without danger to the stability of the Government."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. COURTNEYopposed the Amendment of the hon. Member, considering that the Amendment of which he had himself given Notice was simpler and more effective.
  MR. E. JENKINSsupported the Amendment, but regretted that the Bill did not comprise a complete scheme for the political enfranchisement of the Native races.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsupported the Proviso, and said that the best course would be to leave the arrangement to be carried out by Lord Carnarvon, who had always shown himself considerate of the rights of the Natives.
  MR. COURTNEYthen moved his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
  To leave out from the second word "members," to the end thereof, in order to add the words "no discrimination shall be made of race or of colour in respect of members or of electors."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 147; Noes 20: Majority 127. — (Div. List, No. 273.) [A. M. 2.0.]

  NOES —

  Anderson, G.

  Ashley, hn. E. M.

  Barran, J.

  Bell, I. L.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Brogden, A.

  Colman, J. J.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Earp, T.

  Fawcett, H.

  Gray, E. D.

  Harrison, C.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell F. H.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Smith, E.

  Taylor, P. A.

  TELLERS—Mr. Courtney and Mr. Parnell.

  Amendment (Mr. J. Lowther) agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  The House of Assembly.
  Clause 26 (Summoning of House of Assembly).
  MR. GRAYmoved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress," and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Gray.) [A.M. 2.15.]
  The Motion being received with general and continued cries of disapprobation—
  MR. J. LOWTHER,in refusing assent to the Motion, urged the Committee to proceed with the consideration of the remaining clauses. The Amendments

  265
  of which Notice had been given were not of importance, and would not lead to long discussion. It was important that the Bill should be passed, and a little perseverance at the present moment would save hon. Members a great inconvenience, and he trusted he should not be thought wanting either in courtesy or candour if he added that the Government would not feel that they had discharged their duty until they had afforded the Committee an opportunity of concluding their labours during the present sitting. [Cheers.]
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he had no desire to thwart the Government, or to put hon. Members to inconvenience, but he thought the Committee had sat as long as it was possible to give due attention to Business; but he desired to have an assurance from the Government at what hour they would consent to report Progress ["No, no!"] Well, he asked, would they consent to report Progress when daylight arrived? [Cries of "Oh, oh!"]
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, it seemed they were going to have another scene. It was reasonable that they should have some limit to the Sitting of the Committee. Would the Government consent to report Progress at the 40th clause which completed the provisions of the Bill, as regarded the general Government of the Union? ["No, no!"]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The question is one, not for the Government, but for the Committee. Hon. Members must bear in mind the manner in which the patience of the Committee has been tried. The Government proposed to strike Clause 4 out of the Bill. Two or three hours were spent in discussing the proposal, the object of the omission being the same as was aimed at by the Amendments. Then certain hon. Gentlemen challenged the Attorney General on points of International Law, and nearly three hours were spent before we got that matter settled. If hon. Gentlemen had got up at the beginning of the evening and had said— "We will fix the portions of the Bill which we will get through to-night," the Government might, perhaps, have made some arrangement of the kind. But it is past that now, and we can agree to no other terms except that we will sit here until we finish the Bill. [Loud cheers.]
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, the right hon. Baronet had again charged hon. Members on that side with being responsible for the delay. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that his accusation had not a shadow of foundation. Referring to the rumours said to be circulating in the Lobby, the hon. Member was understood to say that he did not hesitate to say that the Government had accepted the odium of the conspiracy which had been got up by Members of the Party opposite, for the purpose of crushing the Irish Members. ["Order, order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The word "conspiracy" must be withdrawn. [Cheers.]
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERattempted to proceed, when—
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid: Sir, I rise to Order, and to ask you, whether the word "conspiracy," used in any sense whatever, is a proper term to be applied to the House of Commons?
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I did not apply—[ "Oh, oh!"]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I know the habit of denying words which are in the hearing of hon. Members. I say that the word "conspiracy" has been applied to Members of the House of Commons by one who is a Member of the House of Commons; and I hope, Sir, you will insist that the word shall be withdrawn by that Member unconditionally.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already called upon the hon. Member to withdraw the word, and I think he will see he must withdraw it before he proceeds with his remarks.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I have only to ask—[Loud cries of "Withdraw!"] I did not accuse the Government of conspiracy, but I said that they had been accused of it. ["Oh, oh!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I again call upon the hon. Member to withdraw the word he has used. It will be open to him to offer any explanation afterwards.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I perfectly understand you now, and what I say is this—[Cries of "Withdraw!"] If I used the word conspiracy—[Loud expressions of dissatisfaction.]
  THE CHAIRMANagain required the hon. Member to withdraw the expression.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: If I did use the term, I withdraw it. ["Oh, oh!"]
  [This indirect disavowal of the expression alleged to have been used excited general and continued dissatisfaction. Theories of "Withdraw," and expressions of disapprobation were such as to drown the various attempts made by the hon. Member for Mayo (as was understood) to question the fact of his having used the expression attributed to him, or to explain the sense in which he intended to be understood.]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member has no right to say "If I did use the term." [Cheers.] We all know that he used it. We all heard it with our own ears. [Cheers.]
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Not as applied to—[Cries of "Order!" "Withdraw!"]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,again rising, Mr. PARNELI exclaimed "Sit down!"
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I ask you, Sir, whether any hon. Member has a right to order me to sit down? If the hon. Member for Meath repeats that expression I shall ask you to call him to Order. I say quite calmly that every Member in this House heard the hon. Member for Mayo apply the word "conspiracy" to Members of this House. ["No, no!"] Well, the hon. Member's ears must be very differently constructed from those of other Members of the House. Every Member, except the hon. Member for Meath, heard the hon. Member for Mayo charge Members of this House with conspiracy, and I hope that the Committee will, without condition or qualification, insist upon the hon. Member for Mayo withdrawing that word. [Cheers.]
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, there was no doubt that the word "conspiracy" was used; but he understood the hon. Member for Mayo to say that the Government had suffered themselves to rest under the odium of a conspiracy. ["No, no!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think I am justified, after what has been said, and by the evidence of my own senses, in once again calling on the hon. Member for Mayo to unreservedly withdraw the word "conspiracy." I shall call upon him to take that step, and I shall expect him to rise in his place to do so. If he does not do so, I must ask the Committee to act on the Resolution which has been recently adopted.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I withdraw the expression. I would have done so a while ago if I could have clearly understood what the Chairman has now established by his ruling. ["Oh!"] What I said, or intended to say, was that the Government were content to rest under the odium of the charge of conspiracy which was openly preferred against them in the Lobby. Until you convinced me to the contrary, I did not believe that I had used the word irregularly. The hon. Member went on to support the Motion for reporting Progress, amid continued cries of dissatisfaction, and declared that, if the Government were determined to use their power to put down freedom of discussion, he and those who acted with him would exert their privileges to the utmost in order to defeat those parts of the measure to which they were conscientiously opposed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was glad of the determination to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had come; and for his part, he was prepared to support the Government in carrying on the Bill, so as to finish it at that Sitting. Majorities had rights as well as minorities; and this was an attempt by a minority to override the rights of the majority. He thought he was entitled to say that the time had now come when the majority had a right to insist on enforcing their determination, and so long as the Government were prepared to continue this discussion, and as long as he had strength, he was prepared to support them.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that several hon. Members had so strained their privileges as to endanger them, and he thought it his duty, in defence of those privileges, to support the Government in the course they were now taking. The Forms of the House were founded on the assumption that every Member was careful of the honour and dignity of the House, and was prepared to bow to the majority as soon as sufficient time had elapsed to give the country a fair notion of the action of the House. That time, in the present case, had elapsed, and those who now delayed the measure were abusing their privileges and violating the essential principle of the Rules.
  MR. BIGGARdenied that the hon. Members with whom he acted were Obstructionists. ["Oh, oh!"]
  MR. KIRKprotested against the charge that in the course they had taken, he and other hon. Members ever intended obstruction. They desired that the clauses of the Bill should be discussed at reasonable hours, and there were precedents to justify them in the course they had adopted.
  MR. PARNELLasked for proof of the charges that had been brought against him. The Speaker had said it was a breach of Order wilfully to obstruct. If he had been guilty of obstruction, why did they not bring forward some distinct instance? The hon. and learned Member for Oxford was a lawyer—["No, no!"]; well, he had always understood so, and he would not have brought such a charge without evidence before the meanest jury in the Three Kingdoms.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member has asked for proofs, and I will give them. In my Profession, however, it is not necessary to prove everything—some facts are so notorious that all tribunals take them for granted, and I believe that the House of Commons will take "judicial notice" of the course pursued by the hon. Member for Meath. There is one thought present in the mind of everyone, and it is this— that some half-a-dozen Members are trying to defeat the House of Commons. The House of Commons has determined not to be defeated [Cheers]:—though I must admit the ingenuity of those who are attempting it, for in fact they have as many aspects as Proteus, sometimes defiant, and sometimes specious. The issue, however, is a very simple one. It is whether the authority of the House is to be degraded in the presence of the English nation. [Cheers.] That is the issue which we are determined to fight, and we will not allow a small minority to wreck this famous Assembly. Whatever sacrifices may be necessary to prevent that great disaster, those sacrifices we are prepared to make. [Cheers.] The people of the country know and care very little for the Forms of the House— those Forms were made at the time when the Members of the House respected it [Cheers]—the English people will look at our conduct, and will determine whether or not the House of Commons is capable of doing the Business of the nation; and if the House will stand by the Government, the Government will stand by the
  270
  House. As for the hours of discussion, the settlement of that detail is well within the discretion of the House; but the hon. Members for Meath and Cavan go about the country and say—"We will make the House of Commons do its Business at the hours of which we approve." [Cheers.] We tell them that it will do its work when it pleases. [Cheers.] I read a speech delivered by the hon. Member for Meath about a fortnight ago to an assembly of country persons. I will not pledge myself to the accuracy of the report, but he said that his idea of a Parliamentary policy was not a policy of conciliation, but of retaliation. [Cheers.] I am certain that I read words to that effect. [Cheers.]
  MR. PARNELL: I must ask you, Sir—if there be a sense of what is right or wrong—whether the hon. and learned Member is in the right to give incorrect versions of what I have said?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and learned Member was replying to an appeal of the hon. and learned Member for Meath—but no doubt the discussion was wandering.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am sure the hon. Member for Meath is not a man who will repudiate his words. ["Hear, hear!"]
  [Mr. NEWDEGATE handed the Manchester Examiner to Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, who read the passage referred to, as follows—"If they were to have a Parliamentary policy, it must not be one of conciliation but of retaliation."]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member's presence of mind forsook him when he made that speech, and the House will know what to think of his policy. [Loud cheers].
  MR. PARNELLrose—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member had already spoken.
  MR. O'DONNELL,who spoke at great length, defended the "policy of retaliation"—What was there wrong about it? They were only paying the Government back. He spoke for the advanced Party in Ireland, and he said if they could not have "conciliation" they would have "retaliation."
  MR. BUTT,with much warmth: Sir, the hon. Member for Dungarvan has no right to speak in this House on behalf of the Irish Party. He has no right to use on his lips the name of the Irish Party. [Cheers.]
  MR. O'DONNELL,who was encountered with loud cries of dissatisfaction, replied: Sir, what I said was, "I speak for, not the Irish Party, but the most advanced, or, if you please, the most disaffected portion of the Irish Party." [Continued dissatisfaction].
  MR. BUTT: I deny that those who act contrary to the pledges given to the Irish Party are members of that Party. I know that the Irish Party repudiate the Member for Dungarvan. I would be false to myself—I would be false to my country—if I did not repudiate him. If I thought he represented the Irish Party and the Irish Party represented my country—but it does not—I would retire from Irish politics as a vulgar brawl, in which no man could take part with advantage or honour to himself. [Loud cheers.]
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 5; Noes 154: Majority 149.—(Div. List, No. 274.) [A.M. 3.25]

  AYES —

  Biggar, J. G.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLERS—Mr. Gray and Mr. Parnell.

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  CAPTAIN NOLANhoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would now take a more conciliatory course. ["No, no!"] What, he asked, would be the result of carrying on this contest till mid-day? The House would then have to take up Scotch Business which was fixed for that day. ["No, no!"] He remembered that the first Session he sat in that House, a "policy of obstruction" was carried on by a clever young barrister who then sat below the Gangway. That young barrister was the present hon. and learned Member for Oxford.
  Sir JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG and Mr. O'CONNSOR, POWERaddressed the House.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that when he entered the House of Commons a few weeks ago he did so with a feeling of respect for the House; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had forced him into the position of being considered an Obstructive. The hon. Member for Mayo had been called to Order for using
  272
  the word "conspiracy." But what were the facts? When he (Mr. Gray) came down to the House yesterday as early as 12 o'clock he was told on the terrace that a conspiracy had been entered into by certain Members. He used the word "conspiracy" on his responsibility as a Member of that House, and he would not withdraw it. ["Order, order!"]
  MAJOR DICKSONmoved that the words be taken down.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman withdraw the expression?
  MR. GRAY: It is impossible for me to withdraw. I simply stated that I had been told there was a "conspiracy."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman said he used the words on his own responsibility. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. GRAY: I—[Cries of "Order" and "Withdraw!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member unreservedly withdraw the word?
  MR. GRAY: Certainly, Sir, I withdraw it. The hon. Member went on to say that on entering the House he was told an arrangement had been entered into by hon. Members for sitting in relays during the whole night for the purpose of forcing the Bill through Committee. He expressed astonishment that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had identified himself with that party.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he felt bound to protest against what he, however, knew was the predominant feeling of the House. In consequence of the misconduct of four Irish Members the majority were going to deprive Members like himself of a fair opportunity of expressing their opinions on questions connected with the Bill. Let there be put forward a distinct charge against hon. Members, and if it were proved, no one could more cordially join in condemning them, or in supporting Her Majesty's Government than he would. But the course now pursued was a mistaken one. ["Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"] It was a course which he feared would be fatal to good and fair legislation. For his part, he could but deeply regret the decision at which the Government had arrived, and the course upon which they had entered.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 5; Noes 144: Majority 139.—(Div. List, No. 275.) [A.M. 4.0.]

  AYES—

  Biggar, J. G.

  Gray, E. D.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Connor Power.

  [The numbers having been announced, Mr. RAIKES left the Chair, which was taken by Mr. CHILDERS:—It was now 20 minutes past 4 of the clock of Wednesday morning.]
  MR. PARNELLmoved the omission of the words "a member" from the Clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order! The Question I have to put is that Clause 26 stand part of the Bill?
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 5: Majority 136. — (Div. List, No. 276.) [A.M.]

  NOES —

  Biggar, J. G.

  Gray, E. D.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Connor Power.

  Clause 27 (Members of Council not to sit in House of Assembly).
  MR. J. LOWTHERmoved to strike out the clause.
  MR. PARNELLmoved to omit the words — ["Order!"] — "A member." The hon. Member asked whether, according to the ruling of the Chair, he was not entitled to divide, as he believed he was, against every word of the clause?
  THE CHAIRMAN: An Amendment must be consistent with sense. (Loud cheers.) I call upon the hon. Member for Meath to show how his Motion is consistent with sense. (Cheers.)
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to move, Sir, —(after a pause)—I candidly confess I cannot explain.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Then I call upon Mr. O'Donnell, whose name appears next on the Paper.
  Mr. O'DONNELL: I beg to move the omission of the word "not."
  THE CHAIRMAN: Without explanation I cannot make sense of the Amendment.
  MR. O'DONNELL: If the word "not" be omitted, the person referred to in the clause, instead of not being capable of voting, would be capable of voting.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the time was coming when the House would pronounce upon the course of wilful obstruction which had been pursued. [Loud cheers.] The hon. Member for Meath had moved an Amendment which he avowed he could not explain. Whether that was or was not wilful obstruction was a matter which the House would, he hoped, have an opportunity of deciding. For his part, he trusted, they would go on until the English people and the Irish people— for the five or six Members who were obstructing the Public Business could not be considered as representing the people of Ireland—would know what was really meant by the course which was then and had been for some time past adopted. He hoped the Committee would go on steadily step by step, and at least they would have evidence before them on which they could arrive at a righteous verdict.
  MR. GRAYrose to Order, and inquired, whether the observations of the hon. and learned Member were pertinent to the Question before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the observations referred to were entirely pertinent.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwent on to say that the Committee well knew what the meaning of the series of Amendments before them really was. It was this—to defeat the Bill, to prevent the House transacting the Business of the country. He hoped, therefore, the Committee would not condescend to discuss them. [General cheering.]
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had no doubt that the object of the Amendment, whatever it might be, was not to expedite the Public Business; but they were sent there not to pass every measure that might be proposed by a Government, but to consider it and deliberate upon its probable effect. For his part, he protested against the sacrifice of the Business of the House—its character and its dignity—[Ironical cheering]—by the irregular manner in which it was sought to punish four or five Members. Legislation had ceased, deliberation had ceased, and he therefore thought it time for him to withdraw. [The hon. Member left the House.]
  LORD FEANCIS HERVEYremarked that evidence of the obstructive tactics of the five Members opposite was gradually accumulating. ["Hear!"]
  CAPTAIN NOLANthought the country would consider the quality of the evidence as well as the quantity.
  After further disturbed discussion,
  MR. BIGGARmoved to report Progress. [A.M. 4.35.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Captain NOLAN and Mr. O'DONNELLsupported the Motion; the latter deprecating the display of temper made by Sir William Harcourt, who, he hoped, would not labour longer under the delusion that he was the conscience-keeper of the House, and would not speak more than five times oftener than any other Member.
  MR. E. JENKINSexpressed regret that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan)—an officer on full pay in Her Majesty's Service— ["Hear, hear!"]—should be found associating himself with a course of obstruction which was utterly unprecedented in the history of Parliament, and which was bringing that House into disrepute in the eyes of the country and throughout Europe. Things intended to reach the Irish people had been said about intimidation; but the House knew by the evidence of their senses the nature of these proceedings, and he hoped that if this course of obstruction continued, Her Majesty's Government and both sides of the House would be prepared to deal with those hon. Members in a manner which would at once vindicate the rights and privileges of the House and assert its dignity. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. PARNELL,referring to remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, denied that he had hitherto pursued a policy of retaliation. His line of action this Session had been in accordance with what was preached in the Sermon on the Mount, for he had returned good for evil. ["Oh!"] He asked, whether any hon. Member could look him in the face and say that he had not done good to their laws that Session? Had he not improved their Prisons Bill? Had it not been left to him to look after the ordinary interests of humanity? The only thanks he had got were the charges which were
  276
  brought—in a manner which he would not characterize—against him in company with other Members. But he had never expected thanks. He did not value the thanks of that House. He was satisfied with having done his duty, and if his interposition in the debates on the Prisons Bill, and in the debates on the Bill now under consideration, had proved an obstruction, he could only say it was through no fault of his, but was due to circumstances which he could not alter —it was because the House of Commons had been charged with four times as much work as it had any capacity for.
  MR. C. B. DENISONpointed out, as a proof of the obstruction, that the last Amendment moved—which he described as a mere nonsense Amendment—was totally inconsistent with one on the Paper, Notice of which had been given by the same hon. Member himself.
  MR. CALLANexpressed regret that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) should have made a reference in the worst possible taste, and equally ill-intentioned, to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. That reference came with ill effect from the hon. Member for Dundee, who ought to have remembered that when the agitation of last Autumn was going on, a gallant officer, a friend of the hon. Member's, declared that if we went to war for Turkey he would not draw his sword in her defence.
  After a few words from Mr. O'CONNOR POWER,
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 129: Majority 124. (Div. List, No. 277.) [A.M.]

  AYES—

  Gray, E. D.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  Parnell, C. S.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Biggar.

  CAPTAIN NOLANrose to call the attention of the Chairman to words which had been used to him by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Puleston). The hon. Member, who was sitting on a bench not usually occupied by him, had said that he (Captain Nolan) was guilty of gross impertinence in objecting to his sitting on that side of the House. He wished to know whether the words thus spoken were in Order?
  MR. PULESTONsaid, that the words attributed to him had been used. He

  277
  was sitting on the cross benches, and could not avoid the use of those words.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the expression was out of Order.
  MR. PULESTONat once withdrew the words.
  MR. PARNELLmoved that the Chairman leave the Chair. He would not waste any words on the Motion— it was not worth while.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 5; Noes 130: Majority 125.—(Div. List, No. 278.) [A.M.]

  AYES —

  Biggar, J. G.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. Gray.

  MR. GRAYmoved to report Progress. He said that while physical strength was left to him he would vote against the obstruction which right hon. Members on each of the front benches had placed in the way of himself and those with whom he acted.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Gray.)
  CAPTAIN NOLANspoke in support of the Motion.
  MR. PARNELLrenewed his protest against the obstruction which Her Majesty's Government had interposed. How, he asked, could simple Irish Members like himself do their duty if they were met with the course of conduct which the Government and their supporters at both sides of the House had adopted? The hon. and learned Member for Oxford, who had great experience in our Courts of Justice, and understood how to plead away a man's life—["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMANobserved that the language used by the hon. Member was such as ought not to be used.
  MR. PARNELLsaid he would, of course, and with pleasure, withdraw the observation he had used. He did not use the words in an offensive, but rather in a flattering sense. It was the highest compliment to any criminal lawyer to tell him that he knew how to plead away a man's life, even though that man
  278
  might be innocent. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. and learned Member for Oxford, during his career at the Bar, never had a worse case than he had now when he endeavoured to prove a charge of deliberate obstruction against him and other hon. Members. For his own part, he could not understand how Gentlemen in their sober senses could persuade themselves that such a charge had the slightest foundation. He did not believe the English people had those notions of fair play which they boasted so much about. He had always considered that many individuals among the English people were neither more nor less than big bullies, who would bully while they could and while they dared, but who, when they were met with determination and a little more courage than they themselves possessed, shrank from the encounter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not rise to reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Meath, because everybody must perceive the object with which his speech had been made. [Cheers.] They were engaged in a contest of endurance, and he would make a few remarks on the conduct of the contest. They had really to decide that morning, or to-night, or perhaps tomorrow morning—whether their present Rules would suffice for the management of their proceedings. A few Irish Members had made use of those Rules with the object of endeavouring to prevent this Bill being carried. The Committee were now making use of those Rules in order to secure that the Bill should be carried. The supporters of the Bill were in a large majority, and its opponents were in a small minority. The majority ought not to be defeated, and it would be their own fault if they were. [Cheers.] He could not but think that if 50 hon. Members remained for the purpose of taking part in divisions the other hon. Members present could leave the House to return to it refreshed. The immediate question was, whether a large majority could outlast and out-endure a small minority? If they could not, then the time had arrived when they should re-consider their Rules. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would leave the conduct of affairs, for some time at least, in the hands of his Colleagues, and seek the rest which, from his arduous duties and

  279
  his long attendance in the House, he must so much require. [Cheers.]
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERheartily echoed the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman, and acknowledged the kindliness which had prompted his remarks. Some of his Colleagues would, no doubt, relieve him for a time from attendance in the House in order that he might husband his strength for the unfortunate contest in which, from no fault of theirs, they found themselves engaged. They were now endeavouring and were determined to resist a systematic policy of obstruction which was commenced, not late in the evening, but at the very commencement of Public Business. Under these circumstances, they had nothing to do but to persevere in their resistance as long as it was necessary to do so. It might be that the Bill before the Committee would last throughout the sitting that day (Wednesday); but if it did, he could assure the Scotch Members that the Government would find a day for the discussion of the Bill which had been fixed for the Wednesday sitting. He would ask hon. Members to be a little chary of rising to Order. They would be quite safe in leaving matters of Order in the hands of the Chairman, and the Chairman might rely upon the support of the House.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERcommented at length on the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and maintained that the Government were already beaten in this contest, because there had been more time consumed to no purpose than would have been needed to get through the remaining clauses of the Bill.
  After further discussion,
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 5; Noes 118: Majority 113.—(Div. List, No. 279.) [A.M. 6.30.]

  AYES —

  Biggar, J. G.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  Parnell, C. S.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLERS—Mr. Gray and Mr. O'Donnell.

  After this Division, Mr. CHILDERS left the Chair, which was taken by Mr. W. H. SMITH. It was now half after Six of the clock of Wednesday morning.
  MR. PARNELLmoved that the Chairman do report Progress, and chal-
  280
  lenged the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, who had put the Question when the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Kirk) was attempting to address the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Parnell.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chairman cannot be challenged.
  MR. GRAYsaid, it was perfectly competent at any time for an hon. Member to challenge the ruling of the Chairman of a Committee, and the Question was then referred to the Speaker for his decision. It was a serious constitutional question, and he called on the hon. Gentleman who now occupied the Chair to pause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is in the power of any hon. Member to rise to challenge the decision of the Chair on a point of Order; but if the Chair rules that the hon. Member is not in Order, and that the decision that he has given is correct, then the only course open is to make a Motion to report Progress; and then if the Committee think fit, the Motion is carried and the Speaker is called in. Does the hon. Member for Meath move to report Progress?
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he desired to challenge the ruling, and it now appeared he was right in doing so.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 4; Noes 118: Majority 114.—(Div. List, No. 280.) [A.M.]

  AYES—

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. Gray.

  Question, "That Clause 27 stand part of the Bill," again put.
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved that the Chairman should leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  MR. C. DENISONprotested in the strongest manner against the systematic course of obstruction which for so many hours had been indulged in.
  MR. GRAYsupported the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and

  281
  entered Ms protest against the course pursued by the Government. No doubt the majority might in time succeed in wearing down the seven Irish Members.
  An hon. MEMBER: There are only four.
  MR. GRAYsaid, the others were gone to take rest and refreshments, after the example of the Ministerial tactics. They would soon be back, and then they would rest themselves.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsuggested that it would be a graceful act on the part of the minority to yield. ["No, no!"] He sympathized with the hon. Member for Tipperary, that they were enduring considerable physical distress, and recognized the gallantry with which the struggle had been carried on. But there could be no doubt of the ultimate result, and he thought it would be a good plan to let the Bill pass, on the understanding that the more important Amendments should be considered on the Report.
  MR. PARNELLthought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal could hardly have been made seriously, and he would find that it was not likely to promote the passage of the Bill. The Government was bringing up its Reserve forces; but so could they. The first mail boat would bring them also from Ireland; and even in London the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) was peacefully asleep, and would soon return like a giant refreshed. He himself hoped soon to be in a similar state of repose.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN,in addressing the House, having made use of some strong expressions, was immediately and peremptorily called to Order by the Chairman.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 4; Noes 122: Majority 118.—(Div. List, No. 281.) [A.M. 7.40.]

  AYES —

  Biggar, J. G.

  Gray, E. D.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Parnell, C. S.

  TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. O'Connor Power.

  MR. O'CONNOR POWERmoved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. O'Connor Power.) [A.M. 7.40.]
  MR. BIGGARsupported the Motion. He was, he said, the more able to do so, having had a long sleep and a good breakfast.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsupported the Motion at length.
  SIR CHARLES RUSSELL,as an officer holding Her Majesty's commission, disclaimed on the part of officers who were Members of the House, and of officers of the Army who were not Members, any participation in the conduct of the hon. Member who had just spoken. Although that hon. Member was still an officer of the Army on full pay, he was one of the principal leaders of those who systematically obstructed the business of the House.
  MR. GRAYhoped the observations just made would be withdrawn. If they had been made outside the House they might be answered otherwise than they could be in it.
  MR. O'DONNELLprotested against the language used by the hon. and gallant Member in respect of the conduct of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway. If there was anything to object to in the conduct of his hon. and gallant Friend, it ought to be brought before the House. Did the Government really mean to go on with the contest of physical endurance to test the Forms of the House? If so, and speaking for himself, he never felt in better training to support a policy of physical endurance.—["Oh!"]
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that this was not a question of the use of the Forms of the House, but the abuse of the Forms of the House. [Cheers.] It was not a question of physical endurance, but of wilful and persistent obstruction; and, sooner or later, it would be judged not by the House alone, but also by the country. [Cheers.]
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 98: Majority 95. — (Div. List, No. 282.) [A.M. 8.20.]

  AYES—

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  TELLERS—Mr. Gray and Mr. Biggar.

  Mr. W. H. SMITHhere left the Chair, and was succeeded by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON. It was now twenty minutes after Eight of the clock of Wednesday morning.
  MR. KIRKmoved that the Chairman leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Kirk.) [A.M. 8.25.]
  MR. BIGGARsupported the Motion.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, that the fact of his being an officer on full pay in Her Majesty's service having been adverted to, he wished to explain that it had no influence on his conduct. He had told his constituency when he canvassed them that it would make no difference in his votes. He had nothing to do with the politics of any other officer, and he was not to be influenced in political matters by any of his brother officers. As a rule he never talked politics with other officers, although on military matters he was, of course, desirous to learn from them. With regard to the present contest, he wished to know where it was to end? Would not the Government make one suggestion in the nature of a compromise?
  MR. GRAYwished to make another appeal. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Quite useless!] He was about to appeal to the second relay of Ministers whom he now saw on the Treasury Bench. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, it appeared, gone home to seek that needful repose which the Home Secretary had apparently enjoyed. He appealed to the Home Secretary, whose patience had been shown on the Prisons Bill, to say what object was to be gained by prolonging this contest. If the majority of 400 or 500 won a victory, it would not be a moral victory, and they might fail to beat the minority of five or six after all. Was it not the part of the stronger party to make concessions? ["No!"] Well, then, the weaker party—[An hon. MEMBER: Goes to the wall]—must go on vindicating the principle of protecting the rights of minorities. It was known yesterday at 12 o'clock that relays of Members were to be formed to beat the minority of five or six. Was that a position which the Government were prepared to defend? He would ask them to hold out the olive branch to the minority.
  MR. O'DONNELLwas proceeding to refer to the conduct of Public Business, and to the necessity of some change in the arrangements of next Session, when—
  THE CHAIRMANcalled the hon. Member to Order, and intimated that he was travelling beyond the question before the House.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that in these frequent Divisions there was no more merit than in a feat of pedestrianism. Would not the Government meet the minority half way, and propose some terms of surrender and fair capitulation, and not call upon them to lay down their arms without some of the honours of war?
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that no one was more opposed to legislation after midnight than himself, but they had now got to a reasonable hour in the morning—[it being half after 8 A.M. of Wednesday.] He therefore hoped the Government would go on. He had just come down to look after some Scotch Bills, and had obtained the assurance that a day—and a good day too—would be given for their consideration. He had some Amendments on the Paper on this South Africa Bill, and he for one was now quite ready to go on. [Cheers.]
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 3; Noes 77: Majority 74.—(Div. List, No. 283.) [A.M. 9.0.]

  AYES —

  Kirk, G. H.

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. Biggar.

  AYES—

  Kirk, G. H.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLEES—Mr. Parnell and Mr. Biggar.

  AYES —

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  Power, J. O'C.

  Parnell, C. S.

  TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Biggar.

  NOES —

  Burt, T.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Conor, D.M.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Smith, E.

  AYES—

  Barclay, J. W.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Brogden, A

  Brooks, M.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Cowen, J.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Fawcett, H.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Macdonald, A.

  Milbank, F. A.

  Monk, C. J.

  O'Shaughnessy.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Smith, E.

  Taylor, P. A.

  TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Captain Nolan.

  NOES —

  Anderson, G.

  Ashley, hn. E. M.

  Barran, J.

  Bell, I. L.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Brogden, A.

  Colman, J. J.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Earp, T.

  Fawcett, H.

  Gray, E. D.

  Harrison, C.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell F. H.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Smith, E.

  Taylor, P. A.

  TELLERS—Mr. Courtney and Mr. Parnell.

  AYES —

  Biggar, J. G.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLERS—Mr. Gray and Mr. Parnell.

  AYES—

  Biggar, J. G.

  Gray, E. D.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Connor Power.

  NOES —

  Biggar, J. G.

  Gray, E. D.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Connor Power.

  AYES—

  Gray, E. D.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  Parnell, C. S.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Biggar.

  AYES —

  Biggar, J. G.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. Gray.

  AYES —

  Biggar, J. G.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  Parnell, C. S.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLERS—Mr. Gray and Mr. O'Donnell.

  AYES—

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F.

  Power, J. O'C.

  TELLERS—Mr. Parnell and Mr. Gray.

  AYES —

  Biggar, J. G.

  Gray, E. D.

  Kirk, G. H.

  Parnell, C. S.

  TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. O'Connor Power.

  AYES—

  Kirk, G. H.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  TELLERS—Mr. Gray and Mr. Biggar.

  AYES —

  Biggar, J. G.

  Nolan, Captain

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  TELLERS—Mr. Kirk and Mr. Gray.

  Question again proposed, "That Clause 27 stand part of the Bill? "
  MR. GRAYmoved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Gray.)
  MR. BIGGARsupported the Motion on the ground that the great majority of hon. Members present were not in a position to give an intelligent vote upon the Bill.
  CAPTAIN NOLANurged the Government to give way in their own interest as well as for the sake of Public Business.
  MR. O'DONNELLspoke at some length, and was proceeding to discuss the general question, when he was called to Order by the Chairman. After some further observations, chiefly on the

  285
  question of physical endurance, the hon. Member again entered into general considerations, whereupon—
  THE CHAIRMANwarned the hon. Member that if he persisted in his line of argument he would be called to Order for the second time.
  After further debate,
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 3; Noes 75: Majority 72.—(Div. List, No. 284.) [A.M.]
  AYES— Kirk, G. H. Nolan, Captain O'Donnell, F. H.
  TELLERS—Mr. Gray and Mr. Biggar.
  Question put, "That Clause 27 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 3; Noes 77: Majority 74.—(Div. List, No. 285.) [A.M. 10.0.]
  AYES — Kirk, G. H. Nolan, Captain O'Donnell, F. H.
  TELLERS—Mr. Gray and Mr. Biggar.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 28 (As to election of Speaker of House of Assembly).
  MR. GRAYmoved to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Gray.)
  Mr. BIGGAR and Mr. O'DONNELL addressed the House at length.
  MR. E. JENKINS,in answer to an objection of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) against legislation by Order in Council, pointed out that in opposing Clause 3 he had advocated that very legislation by Order in Council against which he now protested.
  After discussion,
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 89: Majority 86.—(Div. List, No. 286.) [A.M.]
  AYES — Kirk, G. H. Nolan, Captain O'Donnell, F. H.
  TELLERS—Mr. Gray and Mr. Biggar.
  MR. BIGGARthen moved that the Chairman leave the Chair, observing
  286
  that although he might seem to be somewhat persistent in his opposition to the Bill, he was only desirous to make it as perfect as possible.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he felt that the conflict ought to come to an end, and he thought that the Government ought to meet them half-way. He did not wish to intrude upon the Committee one moment more than that the exigencies of the debate compelled him, but in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), he had to say that when he objected to anything more being done after the enabling 3rd clause being passed, he did so on the express ground that if the Government were going to do anything by Orders in Council, they now had a complete and full authority, but that if they were going to do it by enactments, then they ought to introduce proper safeguards into those enactments.
  MR. GREGORY MR. GREGORY rose to Order. The hon. Member was addressing himself to the general Question.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he understood the hon. Member for Dungarvan was replying to the hon. Member for Dundee; but he would remind him that on a question to report Progress a wider discussion would not be relevant.
  MR. O'DONNELLcontinued. He thought that the Committee ought to meet them half-way. The fact was that the Government were themselves steeped to the very lips in the obstruction with which they charged the Irish Members.
  MR. MACDONALDrose to Order.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he could not say that the hon. Member was out of Order.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had now returned to the House. As the right hon. Gentleman had not had the advantage of hearing the arguments he had addressed to the Committee, he would venture to repeat them [which the hon. Member proceeded to do at great length, and to the great dissatisfaction of the Members present.] He was, he said, fully conscious of the absurd position which he occupied; but his action, and

  287
  that of his hon. Friends, was entirely due to the course which was taken by Government.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he did not rise to waste advice upon hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but he wished the Committee would take notice of the situation. Here, after sitting up all night, they were in the same block they were in the night before. The House surely ought to be master of its own proceedings; but the course which had been pursued during the last few days would deprive it of all control over the Public Business, and cut at the root of representative Government altogether. As the representative of a large constituency, and on behalf of the dignity of this great Empire, he protested against the House of Commons being subjected to the dictation of two or three Members, and it would be a disgrace to the House if it was submitted to. The time had, in his opinion, arrived when the passage of the Balkans must be forced, and he begged the Government not to be afraid, for they might rest assured the House and the country would support them. He hoped they would never suffer the House to be placed under a despotism of this kind. If it had been a respectable despotism he should not so much care.
  CAPTAIN NOLANwas sure that if the hon. Baronet had been in the House during the discussion of the previous night, he would admit that the conduct of the Irish Members of whom he complained was not so reprehensible as he seemed to think. The fact was, that they had discussed the clauses of the Bill fairly, and that it was not till 10 minutes past 2 that they had urged that Progress be reported. He suggested that the House should adjourn; and then at 12 o'clock they could meet again and take up the Scotch Business that stood upon the Paper for that day (Wednesday).
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, the leader of a large party of five, had taken upon himself to act as negotiator, not only for the Government, but for the whole mass of the House. The hon. Member had taken a course which would hardly be approved by the House. The power of the House must be called forth in dealing with those Members who had obstructed the Business of the
  288
  House. What was the position of the House at this moment? The hon. Member for Dungarvan, who told the House that he did not wish to obtrude his observations on the House, about two hours ago proposed an Amendment to the clause under discussion, and the Under Secretary accepted it. Did they put that Amendment to the decision of the Committee? No. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) moved to report Progress, and the hon. Member for Dungarvan voted for Progress and against his own Amendment. Again, another Motion was made that the Chairman do leave the Chair, and the hon. Member for Dungarvan rose and supported it. And then the House was told that there was no obstruction. [Cheers.] But the country was becoming alive to what was going on, and those Gentlemen would be judged by their acts, and not by their words.
  MR. MONKsaid, that the memory of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway must be very treacherous, or the statement which the hon. and gallant Member had made was an insult to the intelligence of the House. [Cheers.] The hon. and gallant Member had stated that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) was altogether wrong in stating that the Motion for Progress was made at an early hour that morning. Why, that was the very first Motion that was made the moment Mr. Raikes took the Chair. [Cheers.]
  CAPTAIN NOLANexplained that he was absent from the House at the time.
  MR. MONK: If that were so he thought it insulting to the House for the hon. and gallant Member, having been absent during the time the Motion was under discussion, to come down and state things of which he knew nothing. The Secretary of State for War had said that this was a matter with which the House must deal. Well, he trusted that hon. Members, whether above the Gangway or below the Gangway, would show what they thought of those who were obstructing the Business of the House, and had obstructed it not only with regard to this Bill, but during the whole Session. [Cheers.]
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he had so far taken no part in these debates, but he did wish to say a few words now. He thought no one would accuse him of any laxity in the defence of the rights of pri-

  289
  vate Members, or of minorities. He had always maintained these rights to the utmost of his power, and had opposed the Government last week in their new Rules, the first of which he had characterized as unnecessary for the purpose intended and dangerous on other accounts, and the second as useless for the purpose of stopping persistent obstruction; and he thought most hon. Members would admit the latter point to be abundantly proved now, when, in spite of the Rule, this obstruction had gone on for nearly 20 hours. If there were any great principle at stake in this contest he could sympathize with it, even if he differed in opinion; but he could see no principle but that of obstruction. For many hours they had had nothing but Motions for Progress, or leaving the Chair, varied by an occasional Amendment that was not serious, but only to make nonsense of the clause. He thought it was more than time for the House to interpose—indeed, five hours ago, he had privately suggested that course to the Home Secretary, and if it was time then, it must be far more so now. The course he thought should be taken was, not under the new but under the old Rules, to report to the House with the view of passing a Vote of Censure on the Members in question. It might be thought by some that that was too mild a course, and that from the spirit hitherto exhibited those hon. Members would disregard a Vote of Censure; but the House would at least have the satisfaction of feeling that it had carried forbearance to its extreme limit, by taking first the mildest of the severe measures in its power, and if that was not effectual he, for one, would not hesitate about suspension; but he did wish to try the milder step first. The powers of the House were abundant for the occasion, and he would urge Government to proceed now to put them in force.
  MR. GREGORYbriefly addressed the Committee.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he would readily accept the responsibility for everything he had said and done. He wished to know what it was that the Government intended to do. The responsibility for the demoralization of the House at the present moment rested with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose action on Wednesday last was the fons et origo of
  290
  the whole mischief. He had failed to show strength where strength was wanted. Had he taken strong measures at once, the present state of things could never have been reached. He could understand such a step as a Motion suspending them from their Parliamentary duties, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not the courage to submit such a Motion. Let him proceed on his Resolution—he and his Friends were ready to meet him.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the hon. Member who had just spoken had taunted and defied the Government and the House to take immediate action against him and the other hon. Members. He would tell the hon. Member that if such action had not been already taken it was not because of the weakness of the House or the Government. [Cheers.] But it was necessary that the proceedings should be taken in the presence of the people of England, of Scotland, and of Ireland. [Cheers.] And this forbearance had been exercised in order that the people of the United Kingdom might understand the character of that condemnation which it would be the business of the House to pronounce. They wished to give those hon. Members rope. [Loud cheers.] They wished it should be seen that no amount of forbearance on the part of the House of Commons had had the smallest effect on the conduct of those hon. Members. The reason why the House had endured so much and would endure still more was, that the true conduct of those Members might be understood and the justice of the House of Commons might be acknowledged. [Cheers.]
  MR. PELLwished to call attention to a statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, which, as a Member of Parliament and a Gentleman, he ought not to have made. A few minutes ago the hon. and gallant Member addressed the House, and started with an assertion which was inconsistent with fact, and which as a gentleman and Member of Parliament he had no right to make without good reason. The hon. and gallant Member stated that the Motion to report Progress was made at a late hour last evening, or rather at an early hour this morning; he was contradicted by the hon. Member for Gloucester, and what

  291
  was the hon. and gallant Gentleman's excuse? It was that he was not in the House at the time, and was not aware that the Motion had been made at an early period of the evening. Well, he (Mr. Pell) had himself been long sitting in the House endeavouring to assist in working a machine which was now cutting nothing but chaff, and he begged to tell the hon. and gallant Member that he ought to have ascertained his facts before making such a statement.
  CAPTAIN NOLANregretted very much that he should have been mistaken in what he had stated. He had been absent from the House until 8 o'clock the previous evening, and he had no idea that a Motion to report Progress had been made in his absence. He apologized for the mistake he had made, but he did not think it deserved the severe animadversion of the hon. Member opposite.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he did not wonder that those who had not had the advantage of a few hours' rest should be so incapacitated that they were unable to recollect correctly what had passed on the previous night. It could not be repeated too often that the moment the Chairman took the Chair yesterday evening, about a quarter past 5 o'clock, the hon. Member for Dungarvan moved to report Progress. He thought that on the part of the House hon. Members had a right to demand, not only of the Government, but also of the Leader of the Opposition, whom he hoped soon to see in his place, that some definite action would be taken for the purpose of enabling the House of Commons to proceed with the Public Business, which was now being delayed to the greatest possible detriment and injury of the State. If they wanted anything to induce them to come to that determination it was supplied in the daring speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary, and the insulting way in which the Leader of the House had been treated, because he happened to possess an amiable and placid spirit, and had not thought proper to resent, as many of them would have done in a more formal, distinct, and intrepid way the insults which had been cast upon him night after night. [Cheers.] Was it to be said, because the right hon. Gentleman did not rise and show that he possessed a nettled spirit, that he was an unworthy Leader of the House?
  292
  They did not ask a character either for themselves or their Leaders from such persons as those. [Loud cheers.] To understand what a Leader of the House of Commons must be, a man must have, even though it were only to a small extent, the spirit of a Statesman; to understand what a gentleman should be and should do, he must have a gentlemanly mind. [Loud cheers.] It was vain to expect figs from thistles, and there was no expectation of finding from that quarter of the House to which he referred any appreciation of the kindly, dignified, and forbearing conduct of the Leader of the House of Commons. If the House was to endure these taunts and this mode of proceeding much longer, certain hon. Members must understand that if they wished to be martyrs they would have an opportunity of being such; and he wished them joy of every single admirer of their proceedings, which were nameless among men who had any character and standing.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, it was necessary to treat the crisis at which the House had now arrived with calmness and dignity, and if the Government thought it necessary to take swift and strong action they should have his most cordial and hearty support. No one was more anxious than himself to protect the rights of minorities, in dealing with whom majorities were bound to exercise patience and forbearance; but if there were certain obligations incumbent upon majorities in regard to minorities, there were certain reciprocal obligations upon minorities; and when those obligations were persistently neglected, and the patience and forbearance of the majority were night after night abused, it was time to take action to secure the due performance of Public Business. Appeal after appeal had been made to those qualities which gentlemen ought to possess if they were fit to be Members of that House—to their conscience, their good sense, their good taste, and their good feeling. But appeals had unfortunately been made to conscience where, so far as the Committee could discern, there was no conscience; to good sense—well, he hardly liked to express his opinion of the amount of good sense apparently possessed by those to whom that appeal had been made; and to good taste and good feeling, where those qualities had

  293
  been conspicuous by their absence. [Cheers.] When time after time a minority, rejecting all considerations of its obligations towards the majority, went on as a small minority had done during the past 20 hours, he thought the time had come for swift and strong action, and the House ought to submit to the degradation no longer. [Cheers.] He wished it to be distinctly understood that, while they on that side of the House felt it to be their mission to protect the rights of a minority and to protect the right of free speech, they were driven and forced by the conduct of the minority on that occasion to join the Government in any action which they might take to prevent the abuse of such rights. He sympathized with minorities which held out upon points of principle and made use of those Forms of the House which existed for the protection of minorities. But whilst even to such action there must be limits, the case was widely different here, where no question of principle was raised, but hour after hour was wasted in discussions upon trivial and useless Amendments and obstructive Motions to report Progress. One Amendment had been moved empowering the Union Parliament to do something before the Union Parliament would be called into existence; and, although this had been pointed out to the Mover, he had persisted in dividing the Committee. Another Gentleman had divided in favour of reporting Progress when his Amendment had actually been accepted by the Government, and the whole procedure of the minority had been one of mere obstruction and delay. The spirit which had actuated minorities during the whole experience of Parliament had been entirely neglected by this minority, and conduct had been persisted in day after day and night after night which made those on his side of the House avow their readiness to support the Government in the strongest measures which they might think it right to propose, in order to show the country that the House of Commons was not to be bullied or intimidated from discharging its duty to its constituents and carrying on the Business of the country.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not wish to say anything in reply to the observations of the hon.
  294
  Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray); and, so far as I am individually concerned, I treat those observations with perfect equanimity. But I do feel that I am in a responsible position, holding as I unworthily do the post of Leader of the House, and while I thank most cordially my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. C. Lewis) for the expressions he has used, I feel that I should also thank not only my hon. Friends on this side, but also hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, for the very great kindness and forbearance I have experienced at their hands in what I shall venture to call very exceptional and trying circumstances. I do feel it to be of importance that it should not be supposed that through any fault of mine the House has been allowed to get into a false position. My right hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), has said that he and those about him are, in a certain sense, peculiarly guardians of the rights of minorities. But I cannot admit to my right hon. Friend that he and hon. Gentlemen near him are more interested in guarding those rights than I am or than we are. I have always felt during these trying discussions, and have expressed my strong conviction, that it was one of the most sacred duties of this House to be jealous to an extreme in guarding those rights which have for so many years—I may say for centuries— been the great safeguard of the liberties of this country. Sir, the House of Commons has had in former times to contend against many encroachments of different characters. It has done its duty in resisting the encroachments of arbitrary power, and in various ways it has always stood up and done the duty which the country has entrusted to it. But there is no duty more sacred than this duty with regard to ourselves—it is of the utmost importance that we should not allow ourselves, under any sense of provocation however trying, and especially that we should not allow ourselves, under any irritation caused by personal taunts, to forget the duties which we owe to ourselves and to the country, to maintain our attitude and to do whatever we may feel necessary calmly, deliberately, and in an orderly manner. Now, Sir, we have been endeavouring both in the action taken last week with regard to the amendment of some of our Rules,

  295
  and in the course followed during the last few nights in Committee on this Bill, to keep within the strict Forms of the House in dealing with Gentlemen who have tried its patience to the utmost. We have endeavoured to work on the old lines which have been found sufficient in former years. I greatly fear that that attempt has been found on the present occasion not a successful one, and that it may become necessary to adopt some other course. But if we are forced to do that, it must not be at the moment chosen by those who have been thus far obstructing us—it must be at the moment that we ourselves shall choose. It must be at a moment when the House is as full as can be reasonably expected, and when we have the advantage of the presence of those who have the longest experience in the Business of the House, and whose standing is such as to give weight and authority to what we may do, but whom I do not see at present in their seats. But I would desire once again, with all temperateness, to press upon those Gentlemen who have been so long keeping matters in suspense, whether they would not avail themselves of this opportunity which yet remains. [Loud cries of "No, no!"] I would appeal to them whether they would not avail themselves of the time which yet remains for re-considering the position they have taken. [Renewed cries of "No, no!"] We have endeavoured to carry on the discussions on the Bill upon its old lines and the old principles. There are one of two courses open to the House. One course is to persevere in what we have been endeavouring to do during many hours—to induce the House to go on with the Bill in the manner in which the Bill ought to be conducted. There is not the smallest reason why we should not continue to discuss the Bill, laying aside, as far as we can, the animosities and passions which have troubled us for some time. I think some further time may be spent in following out that course. But if it should appear that it is impossible to make progress with the Bill in that way, it will be for the Committee to consider whether it should not take some different course—report the circumstances to the House, and leave it to the House to say what should be done. I am reluctant to believe even yet—seeing well
  296
  the position in which they stand, and the course which it may be necessary to adopt—that there may not be a change of attitude on the part of the hon. Gentlemen; and therefore for the present, in the absence of Gentlemen whom I do not see among us, I hope that the Committee will persevere and try to carry the Bill through in the ordinary course by considering the clauses. ["Hear, hear!"]
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he rose to make a few remarks on the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to say a few words by way of explanation. [Cries of "No! no!" "Withdraw! Withdraw!"] It was perfectly clear he could only speak with the indulgence of the Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly stated that he desired to hear some expression of opinion which might guide him in his future proceedings. All through this contest he (Mr. O'Donnell) felt that he would have most willingly got out of it if he could have done so consistently with the engagement which he had entered into. He understood that the contest was to have been a contest between his hon. Friends and the supporters of Her Majesty's Government on a system of relays. As long as the matter was to be fought out on terms of physical endurance, he felt it impossible for him to budge one inch; but he gathered from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that if ever there was any intention to wear out his hon. Friends and himself by physical endurance, that intention had been given up. ["No, no!"] Now they were threatened that the power of the House should be directed against them. That altered totally the conditions of the contest, and he did not feel at all bound to continue it under the circumstances. With respect to the charge brought against him by the Secretary of State for War—that he had voted against the Amendment which he had himself proposed—he asked, was it not a fact that the acceptance of that Amendment was illusory on the part of the Government, the object being to throw out both the clause and the Amendment? He asked, whether it was fair to accuse him of obstruction because he met the tactics of the Government by similar tactics?
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, that the observations of the hon. Member (Mr.

  297
  O'Donnell) should not be allowed to pass without one remark. They all understood the character of this contest. It was a contest between those who would destroy the honour and authority of this House and those who would maintain them. [Cheers.] And as he understood the feelings of the House, they were these—they would accept no concession from the Party to which the hon. Gentleman belonged [Loud Cheers], and they would make no concession to them, because they knew it was perfectly useless. [Renewed Cheers.]
  Motion put, and negatived.
  Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill;" put, and negatived.
  Clauses 29 to 33, inclusive, negatived.
  Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
  Money Votes. Royal Assent.
  Clause 36 (Appropriation and Tax Bills), agreed to. [A.M. 12.0]
  Clause 37 (Recommendation of money votes).
  MR. O'DONNELL,moved, in page 7, line 15, after "general," to insert "acting with the advice of Ministers responsible to Parliament," his object being to give the Colonies some more effective guarantee for Constitutional Government than was contained in the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 7, line 15, after the word "General," to insert the words "acting by the advice of Ministers responsible to Parliament."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it was quite uncalled for.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 2; Noes 137: Majority 135.—(Div. List, No. 287.) [A.M. 12.10]
  AYES — Gray, E. D. Nolan, Captain TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Biggar.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Royal Assent to Bills, &c), agreed to.
  [Mr. RAIKES, having returned to the House, resumed the Chair. It was now ten minutes after Noon of Wednesday.]
  Clause 39 (Disallowance by Order in Council of Act assented to by Governor General).
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved to omit the words "within two years from the receipt thereof by the Secretary of State," on the ground that that period was too long to permit this Bill to remain hanging over the heads of the Colonies, inasmuch as it might promote intrigues in the Colonial Legislatures.
  Amendment moved, lines 28 and 29, leave out "within two years from the receipt thereof by the Secretary of State."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERopposed the Amendment.
  MR. BIGGARsupported the Amendment, but would prefer one year to two.
  MR. GORSTpointed out that the words objected to were restrictive ones, and without them the Bill would hang over the heads of the Colonies indefinitely.
  MR. O'DONNELLwithdrew his Amendment in favour of that of the hon. Member for Cavan.
  MR. BIGGAR MR. BIGGAR moved to substitute "one year" for "two years," in the clause.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he could not accept this Amendment either.
  After some further discussion.
  MR. GRAYsuggested that at length —[it being now 25 minutes past 12 o'clock]—Her Majesty's Government should consent that Progress should now be reported. [Determined cries of "No, no!"]
  MR. PARNELLalso urged that Progress should be reported. The hon. Member for Dungarvan was physically unable to proceed with the numerous Amendments which stood in his name upon the Paper. [Ironical cheers.] He therefore proposed that Progress should now be reported, and that the Government should proceed with the Business on the Paper for to-day. [Loud cries of "No!"] He begged to move that Progress be reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the Committee—not the Government— had come to a resolution to carry this Bill through at this Sitting. [Loud cheers.] If the hon. Member for Dungarvan was exhausted, it was because he had exhausted himself in Motions that Progress be reported and that the Chairman leave the Chair, instead of proceeding with his Amendments. Had the hon. Gentleman proceeded with his Amendments, the Bill would have passed through Committee long since. If the hon. Member was exhausted, the Committee were not, and they intended to proceed with the Bill. [Loud cheers.]
  MR. O'DONNELLprotested against the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in seeking by mere physical force to hurry this Bill through Committee. If the Bill were forced through the Committee in one Sitting in obedience to the resolution of the Government, it would fail of that careful consideration which so important a measure demanded. They were now about to deal with a very important branch of the subject — the clauses relating to the provincial government, and the all-important clauses relating to the distribution of legislative powers, and therefore he urged upon the Government the necessity for reporting Progress.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEmost emphatically repudiated the assertion of the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government were endeavouring to pass this Bill by mere physical force. It was not Her Majesty's Government who had come to the resolution to pass this Bill through the Committee, but the Committee who were determined to assert the dignity and the respectability of the House against the attacks of the smallest and most contemptible minority— ["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMANrose—
  MR. SULLIVANalso rose, and moved that the words of the hon. Member for Cambridge University should be taken down. [Loud cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. and learned Member who had just risen that he was guilty of great disrespect to the Committee as well as to the Chair in rising to speak when the Chairman had risen. He must point out to the hon. Member for Cam-
  300
  bridge University that the words he had used were entirely un-Parliamentary, and must be withdrawn.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he would of course at once withdraw the words which he had used, and he begged to apologize to the Chairman and the Committee for using them. He was going on to say that during the time that he had been in Parliament he had never seen such loud pretensions to courage, such bold determination "to die upon the floor of the House," and see the remaining Members dead around their own corpses, so suddenly, so amusingly, and so unexpectedly collapse upon a general suggestion of vaguely contingent unpleasantness in store for troublesome Members.
  MR. SULLIVANwished to explain why he had moved that the words uttered by the hon. Member for Cambridge University be taken down, and to apologize to the Chairman if he had been guilty of disrespect to him. It would be remembered that there had been a ruling the other evening that words objected to should be taken down at once, before any further debate intervened, and he was afraid that some other hon. Member might by speaking preclude him from moving that the words of the hon. Member for Cambridge University should be taken down, if he did not rise at once—["Agreed, agreed!"] He emphatically declared that those shouts of "Agreed" would not improve the difficulty of that day. He had endeavoured to compose difficulties; but when those shouts of opposition arose, the blood was excited, and they knew with what result.
  Motion (Mr. Parnell) negatived.
  Amendment (Mr. Biggar) negatived.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That no Act shall be annulled by such disallowance which relates to purely internal matters of the Confederation, and which has been passed in two preceding Sessions by the Confederation Parliament."— (Mr. O'Donnell.)
  MR. J. LOWTHERopposed the Amendment, which he did not think the hon. Member could be serious in proposing.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 3; Noes 164: Majority 161.—(Div. List, No. 288.) [A.M. ]
  AYES — Biggar, J. G. Nolan, Captain Sullivan, A. M.
  TELLERS—Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Parnell.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 40 (Signification of Queen's pleasure on Bill reserved).
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved, in page 7, line 36, to leave out all after "have," to end of clause, and insert
  "force unless six months have elapsed from the day on which it was presented to the Governor General for the Queen's consent without any signification that the said assent had been refused, or that the Governor General is only prepared to assent thereto subject to certain amendments to be specified by him."
  MR. J. LOWTHERopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived; Clause agreed to.

  V. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT.
  Clause 41 (Appointment of Presidents of Provinces).
  MR. COURTNEY,who had given Notice of an Amendment
  In page 8, line 7, after " officer," leave out to end, and insert " to be entitled the President of the said Province, and to be elected for such term as the Queen may direct by the electors for the time being entitled to elect members of the Legislature of the said province,"
  said, he would not move it, as it was clear that all Amendments would be treated in the same way and be rejected without discussion.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 8, line 8, after "direct," to insert " by and with the advice of the representative Council or Parliament of such province or dominion." —(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 42, 43, and 44, agreed to.
  Provincial Councils.
  Clause 45 (Council for each province.)
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved three Amendments; in line 20, after "Council" insert " or Parliament; in line 21, after
  302
  "and" insert "a House or two Houses of Legislature, and"; in line 21, after "Councillors" insert "or Councillors and Members of Assembly."
  MR. J. LOWTHERhaving intimated his willingness to accept these Amendments,
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLobjected to the Amendments being accepted by the Government in order to avoid obstruction. The Amendments, and especially the second, would enable an Upper House to be set up in these Colonies.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that the Government were prepared to accept suggestions for improving the Bill from any quarter. The danger which the hon. Baronet feared was a imaginary one, the Amendments merely having reference to the issuing of Orders in Council.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

  VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER.
  Powers of the Parliament.
  Clause 46 (Legislative authority of Parliament) agreed to.
  MR. E. JENKINSrose and said this was a most important clause, which, in reference to the interests of the Natives, ought to be well considered.
  Some discussion followed, in which Mr. W. E. FORSTER and Mr. GORST took part, urging that great care should be taken in dealing with the question to which the clause referred.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLconcurred that the question was one of great importance, and urged that the Government should reconsider the matter. Land tenure in some of the provinces in South Africa was so bad that it absolutely prevented the Natives from holding lands.
  MR. WHITWELLhoped, in reference to the importance of the clause and the great interests which were involved in the question, that the Government would reconsider it.
  MR. J. LOWTHERintimated that the law of the Colonies was Roman-Dutch, and that the case of those Colonies was very different from that of New Zealand. The Government would, however, consider the question.
  Clause agreed to.
  Exclusive Powers of Provincial Councils.
  Clause 47 (Subject of exclusive provincial legislation).
  MR. COURTNEYurged that this was a most important clause, and that it was desirable, relating as it did to marriage and the law of evidence relating to the marriage law in the Colonies, that it should be settled by the Confederate Parliament. In his opinion there ought to be one uniform law for the whole of the Colonies.
  MR. E. JENKINSsupported the views of the hon. Member for Liskeard.
  MR. J. LOWTHERadmitted the importance of the question, and was understood to say that the Government would consider it.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 48 (Concurrent powers of legislation respecting immigration); Clause 49 (Appropriation, &c, of provincial revenue); Clause 50 (Distribution of powers may be varied); and Clause 51 (Allowance or disallowance of provincial laws), severally agreed to.

  VII. REVENUES; DEBTS; ASSETS; TAXATION.
  Clauses A to K, inclusive, agreed to.

  VIII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
  Clauses 52 to 63, inclusive, agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. W. E. FORSTER the following new clause was agreed to, and added to the Bill:—
  (No Order in Council made under this Act regarding the establishment of the Union to be operative unless published on or before Aug. 1, 1882.)
  The powers hereby conferred upon Her Majesty with reference to the first establishment of the Union shall not be exercised after the first day of August, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, and no such Order in Council made in pursuance of this Act shall have any force or effect unless duly published in the "London Gazette" on or before that date.
  SCHEDULE—OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, agreed to.
  Then at ten minutes past Two o'clock on Wednesday afternoon—
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 271.]

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILLS 184–260.]
  (Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he had given Notice of several important Amendments, the discussion of which would occupy some time, and he hoped the Bill would not be proceeded with to-day. There were many Irish Members absent who would wish to take part in the debate who could not, under the circumstances, be expected to be present.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKdeprecated any further delay. There were plenty of Irish Members present, the Bill had been long before the House, and the Amendments that had to be considered had been for weeks on the Paper.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, he should be sorry to do anything unreasonable which would inconvenience Irish Members; but, at the same time, he would suggest that they should proceed with the Bill until they arrived at some point which was likely to create prolonged discussion. He hoped no opposition would be made to that proposal.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE: I rise to Order. Perhaps you, Sir, will be able to explain. I see that there is Notice of opposition to this Bill on the Paper, as well as to some subsequent Business, and I respectfully ask whether, as it is after half-past 12 o'clock of the night between Tuesday and Wednesday, these matters can be brought on?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not easy to form an opinion upon the application of the Rule in the peculiar circumstances in which the House is now placed, and there being a doubt on the question, I think that it should be resolved in favour of freedom of action on the part of the House.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, he should vote against proceeding with the Bill under the peculiar circumstances in which they stood that night. [Laughter.] Yes; it was Tuesday night. It was impossible for the House to ignore the fact that it had been sitting for nearly 24 hours; and although it had been enabled to accomplish this by the plan of arranging relays of 50 or 60 Members

  305
  at a time—which he admitted was quite right, as all was fair in war—he, nevertheless, submitted that it was hardly reasonable to attempt to deal with a Bill of the gravity attaching to the measure before the House under the circumstances he had alluded to.
  SIR HENRY JAMES,who admitted that the greatest respect was due to the opinions expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), and also the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken, nevertheless expressed a hope that the Bill would be proceeded with. He quite agreed with the observations of the last speaker that the House could not forget what had taken place during the last two or three and twenty hours, and it was with a full recollection of that that he trusted the House would go on with the Bill. If they did not proceed with it, they would virtually be giving effect to the tactics which they had sat so long to defeat. It was precisely in consequence of what had so recently occurred that the House desired to protest against anything which should have the effect of giving the slightest success to the tactics he referred to; and he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would proceed with the measure, and that in doing so they would receive the support of the House.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that as he had taken some interest in this Bill, he perhaps might be allowed to express the opinion that there was no reason why they should not endeavour to make some progress with the Bill. He did not see that they were likely to have a better opportunity than they then had of making progress with the measure. Irish Bills were usually brought on very late at night, and he had from time to time protested against the bringing on both of English and Irish measures at a late hour. For so doing, he had incurred the censure of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury and front Opposition benches, and in other parts of the House; but, as it was now only half-past 2 o'clock, the day was still young, and there was really no reason why they should not be able to give their attention to the clauses of the Bill —at least, there was no reason but one, and that perhaps might not be deemed of very great importance—he alluded to the spirit and tone of the House. He thought that the House—and in saying
  306
  this he was speaking of the hon. Members who had taken part in the proceedings of last night and that day—he thought the House was scarcely in a frame of mind to take part with proper effect in deliberations on the Irish Judicature Bill. He was, however, disposed to think that this frame of mind might not be of much importance; because he had noticed that when Irish Bills were brought forward the House was generally conspicuous by its absence, except when the division bell was rung, and hon. Members on both sides rushed in to vote as the Whips directed them. Therefore, he thought that the frame of mind which, he was sorry to say, appeared to possess the House, was probably not of much importance as regarded the deliberations on this Bill. He thought, as they had an opportunity of getting on with the measure, they might make progress with it for a couple of hours—the present opportunity being the last they were likely to get on any other day of the Session if the Bill was really intended to pass. At the same time, he would point out to the Attorney General for Ireland that he ought to try and adjust his means to his ends; and if he did not think he could get through the Bill with all the numerous Amendments that were on the Paper, and others that it might be necessary to introduce, it would perhaps be better not to proceed with the measure any further this Session. This, however, was entirely a question for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider. He knew the time the Government had at its disposal for the consideration of the Bill during the remainder of the Session, and upon him, therefore, rested the responsibility as to whether the time spent upon the Bill should be wasted or not, or whether the Bill should be pressed forward until it could be passed. It was a new revelation for the House to have an Irish Bill brought forward at this period of the Session; but with regard to the question on which he had risen, he thought that they might fairly make some progress with the Bill.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: I rise for the purpose of pointing out that the statement made by the hon. Member for Meath is, like most of his statements in reference to the conduct of Public Business in this House, perfectly inaccurate.

  307
  The hon. Gentleman has stated that it is the habit of hon. Members to come in at the sound of the division bell and vote as the Whips direct. That is the baseless claptrap used by those who seek to discredit the conduct of Business in this House.
  MR. PARNELL: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the words of the hon. Gentleman are in Order?
  MR. SPEAKER: I see nothing out of Order in the words used by the hon. Member.
  THE O'DONOGHUE: It is a very exceptional circumstance for any question to come before this House which hon. Members have not had before them for a considerable period, and had the fullest opportunity of considering both the main points and the Amendments.
  CAPTAIN NOLANsaid, he had often been at the door of the House when the Whips were asked by hon. Members whether they were "ayes" or "noes." It was perfectly impossible that this should not happen with a large Party; but how an affirmation to that effect could be described as baseless claptrap he could not imagine. He suggested that the Bill should be postponed, and that another Irish Bill—the County Courts Bill—should be taken.
  THE O'DONOGHUEdid not deny that the Whips were asked questions; but he objected to any statement from which it might be inferred that votes were given by direction the first time a question came before the Committee.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. MELDONmoved, in page 38, after Clause 59, to insert the following new clause:—
  (In every Court where there shall be jury trials there shall be Official Shorthand Writers.)
  "To every Court of the High Court of Justice in which jury trials shall be held there shall be attached an Official Shorthand Writer, who shall be appointed by the President of each Division, and on each Circuit there shall be appointed two Official Shorthand Writers who shall be appointed by the senior going Judge of Assize on the Circuit on which the vacancy may arise."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that it was a most important clause, and that it would benefit suitors and economise the judicial strength.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)questioned whether the adoption of the clause would confer the benefits stated, and hoped that it would not be adopted, as in its present form it would certainly cause much expense to suitors.
  After short discussion,
  SIB MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHsaid, he thought some words might be inserted which would enable a step to be taken in the direction indicated where it was thought desirable, but it must involve a very unnecessary expense if a large number of such fixed salaried officers were appointed.
  MR. M'LARENtestified that great economy resulted from the employment of shorthand writers in Scotland. All that was needed was an enabling power.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause 4 (Union of existing Courts into one Supreme Court of Judicature).
  MR. BUTTmoved the omission of "the Landed Estates Court." He objected to the increase of the salaries of the Judges of that Court from £3,000 to £3,500 a-year, and making them Judges of the Supreme Court. He sketched the constitution of the Court in 1849, and the qualifications of the Judges on their appointment as Commissioners at £2,000. There was no reason for raising the salaries now. Neither would have been appointed directly to such a position, and he therefore designated it as a job to elevate them gradually and to raise their salaries in a measure of law reform. It was a serious question whether the system of the Court should be continued, because great mistakes had been committed, and the estate of one man had been sold to defray the debts of another. The reading of titles entrusted to the Examiners was so important a matter that a Judge ought to devote his whole time to it, and ought not to have his mind distracted by liability to judicial duties, which, besides, there was no necessity to assign them. It was impossible to adopt a more injudicious way of creating Judges. It was lowering the dignity of the Bench, and it was increasing expenditure need-

  309
  lessly, for the salaries were much less while the duties were more onerous. The Bill was not receiving adequate discussion; but, if the Government were determined to pass it, he supposed it must pass, although it might require immediate amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, to leave out the words " and the Landed Estates Court."—(Mr. Butt.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to Be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. CHARLES LEWISsaid, he had never listened to a more inconsistent speech than that delivered by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt), who had magnified the duties of the office of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court, and then had scornfully spoken of the addition of £500 a-year as a monstrous job, and that the Bill should be stopped in order to prevent the job being perpetrated. The attack of the hon. and learned Member was not upon the system, but it was a personal attack upon the Judges. [Mr. BUTT: No, no!] He said that neither of the two gentlemen who filled the offices of Judges would have been selected by the voice of the Profession as competent to perform the duties.
  MR. BUTT: May I explain —and everybody in Ireland knows it—that at the time that those gentlemen were appointed, if salaries of £3,500 and the position of a Judge at the Supreme Court of Judicature had been attached, the present gentlemen would never have been appointed. Men of far different standing would have been appointed.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISremarked, that that only showed that a great many other persons' mouths would have watered for their positions. He dared say that a great many competitors of the two learned Judges, if the salaries had been £3,500 when originally nominated, would have wished to occupy their place; but was that an argument for abstracting the Court from the High Court of Justices? It seemed to him that there was something more behind this very elaborate attack on the Landed Estates Court and its present Judges; and he wanted to know from the hon. and learned Gentlemen what was the meaning of those two Judges being treated with so much scorn and contempt? Those Judges had
  310
  a most serious responsibility put upon their shoulders, and any want of time or attention might transfer an estate from one person to another, and the hon. and learned Member had told them that this had been done once. The most eminent conveyancers must have made mistakes; but in the whole course of 26 years the hon. and learned Member could only point to one mistake. Was that any justification for an elaborate attack, not only upon the system of the Court, but on the present Judges? He invited any legal Member who had anything to say against the professional character of the two Judges to say it openly and distinctly, and not in any covert way. He was amazed at the hon. and learned Member making such an attack on two Judges without so much as a scintilla of a fact to support it. He was himself no slavish admirer of Judges, for he had frequently said that they were not immaculate, for though they wore the ermine they were just as liable to mistakes as other mortals; but he challenged any hon. Member to say, as regarded Judge Flanagan, a man of a most excellent capacity and distinguished character, whether he did not discharge his duties in a becoming manner; and he was afraid that the hon. and learned Member must have heard his rumours amongst the disappointed and envious in the Four Courts, which he ought to have kept there and not have repeated in that House.
  MR. MELDONsaid, he had listened to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, and he had failed to hear anything which reflected upon the Judges who administered the Landed Estates in Ireland. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Limerick that the Landed Estates Court was formed for a special purpose, with special functions of a most important character, and these functions would be most materially interfered with if this Bill passed. The Landed Estates Court was formed at a particular crisis of Irish history, when large numbers of Irish estates were greatly encumbered, and the functions of the Court were really to sell the lands and get rid of the incumbrances. There was no necessity for those two Judges being attached to the High Court of Chancery. That was no reflection upon the Judges themselves. Judge Flanagan was probably more experienced before he was

  311
  appointed one of the Judges of the Landed Estates Court than any man in Ireland, and the present Judge Ormsby, on matters of title and things of that kind, discharged his functions better, probably, than any other man. But he did not see why large salaries should be given to them, and he feared that great injury would be done to the property in Ireland by giving them extra duties to perform.
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGcertainly thought that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick had made a personal attack on the two Judges. He had had considerable experience of the way in which these Judges had performed their duties, and he could say that Judge Flanagan was a very distinguished member of the Court, and Judge Ormsby had discharged his functions to the satisfaction of the public at large. They examined for themselves those points in the titles to which their attention was called by the examiners. They could not have neglected their duties if they had committed only one mistake in 26 years. He did not think that it was fair or just to attack the character of a judicial officer, and it was the duty of every Irish Member to try and elevate the position and sustain the honour of those who held high judicial positions in Ireland.
  MR. KING-HARMANtestified that the Judges discharged their duties laboriously and efficiently.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKobserved that the propriety of giving the Judges new duties was fair material for discussion, but to impute to them that they were not fit to perform these duties was an allegation entirely destitute of foundation. The Judges had additional salaries given to them, because they had additional duties imposed on them by this Bill; they had to take their share of the business of the Court of Chancery, and to go Circuit when requested. To say that these Judges did not read the titles, but left them to a subordinate officer, was a grave charge which ought to be answered, and the answer he gave to it was that there was not one particle of foundation for the statement. He had practised before them, frequently on questions of title arising on the abstracts before the Court, and he invariably found them giving the greatest possible attention to every
  312
  minute detail, and exhibiting such an intimate acquaintance with the titles before him, as could only have been acquired by a most careful perusal. The mistake referred to had no connection with the personal duties of the Judges, it occurred in a case in which there was personation, which might have been committed in any Court.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, the question was whether the Landed Estates Court, which had been described by one of their most eminent Judges as "An excrescence of their judicial system," should remain isolated, or brought into harmony with the High Court of Justice in Ireland? He ventured to put it broadly that it was desirable, when they were re-organizing the judicial system, to gather all the Courts together. Her Majesty's Government had determined that the Landed Estates Court should no longer remain an excrescence of the judicial system. Its jurisdiction was very wide and its importance could hardly be exaggerated. It came upon him by surprise to hear, and it was quite inaccurate to state, that these learned Judges did not read the abstracts of titles. At present a very substantial and large part of the business of the learned Judges was transacted in their own Chambers and involved inquiries into titles. It was necessary for them, for the due discharge of their duties, to exercise the powers of the Court of Chancery. If it became necessary, one of these Judges could go Circuit. The reasons for making those Judges members of the High Court appeared unanswerable, when their new duties and enlarged jurisdiction were considered.
  MR. BUTTsaid, it was hopeless to go to a division; but by every word that he had uttered he would abide.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BIGGARmoved the insertion of words which would have the effect of bringing the Bankruptcy Courts in Ireland and their officials within the general scope of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 3, to leave out the word "Court," in order to insert the words "Bankruptcy Court."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)replied that this very point was considered in the Judicature Bill for England; but it was found advisable to omit the Bankruptcy Court. The Irish Bankruptcy Court was worked most efficiently and more cheaply than that of England, and it was thought that it was better to leave untouched a Court which was working so well, and accordingly it was not introduced into this Bill.
  MR. M'LARENexplained that bankruptcy was managed by one Court in Scotland at about half the cost of bankruptcy proceedings in Ireland.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Clause 6 (Constitution of High Court of Justice in Ireland.)
  MR. PARNELLsuggested that the number of the Judges in the Landed Estates Court should be reduced to one. Two highly paid Judges were quite unnecessary, the duties of the office could be carried out in a more satisfactory way if instead of one of them a lawyer of experience was appointed. He moved, therefore, an Amendment providing that when any vacancy occurred a Royal Commission should inquire whether or no the staff could not be reduced.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 4, line 29, after the word "patent," to insert the words " Provided always, the vacancy thus occasioned shall not be filled up until a Commission shall have been issued by Her Majesty under Her Royal Sign Manual to ascertain and report whether the business in connection "with the Division of the High Court of Justice (hereinafter termed the Chancery Division) makes it requisite that such appointment should be made, nor until the expiration of a period of forty days after the date of such report, if Parliament be then sitting, and if Parliament be not then sitting, until the expiration of a period of forty days after the commencement of the then next Session of Parliament."— (Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. M'CARTHY DOWNINGpointed out that this subject had been fully discussed at a previous stage, and to discuss it now would be sheer waste of time.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)observed that, irrespective of the appointment of a Royal Commission, Government would
  314
  be bound, in the event of a vacancy taking place, to consider the desirability of filling it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 7, to leave out from the word "up," to the word "Parliament," in line 15, inclusive.—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 19, to leave out the words "and none other, as if this Act had not been passed," in line 20, in order to insert the words " till altered as by this Act directed."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment made.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that the Attorney General for Ireland had proposed to go on with this Bill for two hours or so; and two hours having expired, he moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have to point out to the hon. Member that at the present moment there is no debate to adjourn.
  Clause 8 (As to Judges of Court of Bankruptcy).
  MR. MELDONmoved, in page 6, line 32, after "Act," to insert—
  "Every order of the Judges of the said Court made on appeal from any order of a chairman may be appealed from to the Court of Appeal constituted by this Act, in the same manner as appeals from other orders of the said Court."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Existing Judge of Admiralty).
  MR. BIGGARmoved an Amendment to limit the patronage in reference to the appointment of Judges in the Irish Admiralty Court.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 34, to leave out the words "rights of patronage."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)opposed the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noe 1: Majority 154.—(Div. List, No. 289.)
  NOE—Nolan, Captain
  TELLERS—Mr. Biggar and Mr. Parnell.
  Clause 10 (Constitution of Court of Appeal).
  MR. BIGGARmoved to reduce the number of extra Judges of Appeal to be appointed under the Act by one.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 5, to leave out the word "two," in order to insert the word "one."— (Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. BUTTremarked that they were not under the customary Rule requiring the adjournment of the House at 6 o'clock on Wednesday.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: According to the strict Rules of the House, there is no limit to this Sitting. The intention of the Government, however, is that we should adjourn at the usual time for rising on Wednesday—6 o'clock—and I think before that time we shall be able to make considerable progress.
  MR. PARNELL: On rising to move the adjournment of the debate I wish to point out that the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is by inadvertence contrary to a statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, who said at the commencement of the debate that he desired to go on for two hours or so. [Interruptions.] Well, this is a question of some interest to us, though I do not suppose the matters arising in the Bill are of any interest to Englishmen. My desire is that this Bill should be discussed when the Committee is in a frame of mind in which they might be able to do some justice to it.
  CAPTAIN NOLANseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Parnell.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON): I spoke in general terms, saying I think that in two or three hours we might advance sufficiently far with the Bill, and the three hours are not up yet.
  MR. GOLDSMID: I think it is the duty of the Government to decline to adjourn at all until after the Business is concluded. After the proceedings of the hon. Member who sits beside me (Mr. Parnell) and of the hon. Member who sits behind me (Mr. Biggar), I do not think we ought to consider their personal convenience at all. It appears to me that we should now finish the Orders of the Day for Tuesday, although we are sitting on Wednesday, even if we sit till 12 o'clock—and if we are kept till that hour, so much the worse for these hon. Members and so much the better for the House—because it would show that the House is not going to be overruled in the management of its Business by two or three Members who speak on every question—those they do not understand as well as those they do understand. I would further add that a long list of Amendments has been proposed by the hon. Member behind me (Mr. Biggar) touching matters of law, though he knows no more about law than I do about medicine, and that appears to be an additional proof that certain hon. Members are in the practice of abusing the Rules of the House for the purpose of speaking on every question at enormous length without understanding the subject upon which they address the House. I therefore hope that instead of stopping in half-an-hour we shall go on.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould say a few words in answer to the hon. Member for Rochester. The Government did not propose for the convenience of hon. Members to adjourn; but they had to consider the general convenience of hon. Members, and they must have some regard to the convenience of the officers of the House. On Wednesday it was the usual practice to conclude their Business at a quarter to 6 or 6 o'clock, and he saw no reason, in the circumstances of to-day, for extending their discussions beyond that time. They therefore thought it reasonable that the Business on the Paper should be carried on as far as it was possible to do within the time. Then they had to regard the wish expressed by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt), to whom they owed some consideration. The hon. and learned Member had said that it would not be convenient that there should be a discussion of his Amend-

  317
  ment on Clause 13 at this time, if there was not a fair chance of carrying it to a conclusion. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought, therefore, that the proposal of the Government was a reasonable one. Of course, the House would understand what the real nature of that proposal was. They thought it would be desirable to go on until they reached that Amendment; and, according to the usual reckoning, they believed it would be perfectly possible to do that within the time he had named. Therefore, he proposed that the House should go on with the Amendments on Clause 10 or 11, or on whatever other clause there were Amendments, and stop when they reached the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick. If there was any further Business on the Paper they would go on with it.
  MR. PARNELLrose amid cries of "Spoke!" "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw the Motion?
  MR. PARNELL: I do, Sir.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR HENRY JAMESpointed out that the effect of the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) would be that they would have one Judge sitting in appeal over three Judges in the Court below. He trusted the Amendment would not be accepted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)also opposed the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 155; Noe 1: Majority 154.—(Div. List, No. 290.)
  NOE—Nolan, Captain
  TELLERS—Mr. Biggar and Mr. Parnell.
  Further Proceeding deferred till Tomorrow.

  FISHERIES (OYSTERS, CRABS, AND LOBSTERS) BILL— [Lords.]
  (Mr. E. Stanhope.)
  [BILL 217.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Amendments made.
  MR. BOUNDmoved, in page 3, line 11, to leave out the word "one,"
  318
  in order to insert the word "three." He did so on the ground that his constituents on the coast of Essex who were affected by legislation upon oyster fisheries needed more time given within which persons might petition against an Order of the Board of Trade made under the provisions of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868—that it was in the recollection of the House that witnesses before last year's Committee proved that oyster dredgers went long distances in the pursuit of their calling, and were much absent from home, and that, consequently, more time was needed in case Orders of the Board of Trade affecting their interests were applied for.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, to leave out the word " one," in order to insert the word " three."
  Question proposed, "That the word ' one ' stand part of the Bill."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 8, after the word "flat," to insert the words—
  "Provided always, That Sussex lobsters, known to the trade as Bognor lobsters, may measure in like manner not less than seven inches."— (Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments made.
  Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

  PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE BILL [Lords].
  (Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  [BILL 182.] COMMITTEE.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, this Bill was looked upon with some apprehension, which was natural, considering its subject-matter, but which, he believed would be found exaggerated, or might be made so by prudent Amendments. It would be some satisfaction if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could state what was the greatest possible extent to which the destruction of documents would go.
  MR. ASSHETONregretted that no steps had been taken to appoint a Committee in conformity with a suggestion

  319
  of Sir Thomas Hardy, to inquire what documents ought to be destroyed, and what documents ought not to be destroyed.
  MR. W. H. SMITHthought it was not desirable at present to enter upon the subject referred to by the hon. Members. He was most anxious to get the Bill into Committee. The provisions of the Bill had been most carefully considered, and he would undertake that the Committee should be resumed on an early date, and that due consideration should be given to the point which had been raised.
  Bill considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ORDERS OF THE DAY (WEDNESDAY).
  MR. W. H. SMITHmoved the adjournment of the Orders of the Day which were on the Paper this day (Wednesday) till to-morrow. He said that the first two Orders would be the Board of Education (Scotland) Bill and the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Bill.

  FISHERIES (DYNAMITE) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ISAAC, Bill to prohibit the use of dynamite or other explosives for the purpose of catching or destroying Fish in public fisheries, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ISAAC and Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD DENISON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 273.]

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, Bill to continue various Expiring Laws, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM HENRY SMITH and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 272.]

  RATING OF SHORT TENANCIES (DUBLIN) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BUTT, Bill to declare and amend the Law relative to the rating of premises held for short tenancies in the City of Dublin, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BUTT, Mr. MAURICE BROOKS, and Mr. GRAY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 274.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Six o'clock, P.M. (Wednesday).

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Report —Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act (1857) Amendment* (156).
PRIVATE BILLS.
Standing Orders Nos. 115. and 116. considered, and amended, and to be printed as amended: Then it was moved to resolve, That in every Bill by which an existing gas company is authorised to raise additional capital, provision shall be made for the offer of such capital in shares or stock to be paid up within a limited period by public auction or tender at the best price which can be obtained; agrèed to: Ordered that the said Resolution be declared a Standing Order, and that it be entered on the Roll of Standing Orders, and be printed.—[The Chairman of Committees.) (No. 165.)
RUSSIA AND POLAND—PRINCE TCHERKASKOI.—QUESTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD KINNAIRDwished to ask Her Majesty's Government, If they can state whether the Prince Tcherkaskoi, who has been appointed Chief Civil Commissioner in Bulgaria, is the same person who was appointed President of the Committee for re-organizing the Kingdom of Poland after the Insurrection of 1863; and if they can lay on the Table of the House any Reports of Her Majesty's Consuls on the social condition of and present state of things in Poland? One of his reasons for asking these Questions was, because he thought that before long the neutral Powers would have to mediate between Russia and Turkey, and he hoped that when that time arrived the course which Russia had hitherto taken when other countries fell under her dominion would be remembered, in order that the people of the Turkish Provinces might be secured against what the Poles had been obliged to endure. He feared that it was too probable that some provinces in the East would become subject to Russia, and it would be well that they should bear in mind what had been the conduct of Russia in "re-organizing" the territories that had fallen under her yoke. He thought the recent appointment of Prince Tcherkaskoi as Chief Civil Commissioner was lamentably significant. Ge-

  207
  nerally, the best means we had of judging of a man was by his antecedents. Well, Prince Tcherkaskoi had been appointed Chief Commissioner for re-organizing the Polish Provinces; and what had been the results of the re-organization of the Kingdom of Poland by the Commission presided over by Prince Tcherkaskoi? The autonomy granted by Treaties to the Kingdom of Poland had been entirely destroyed. All the central institutions of administrative justice and of public instruction had been suppressed at Warsaw and transferred to St. Petersburg. Under an administrative decree, Russian officials had been empowered to banish Poles to Siberia on mere suspicion and without any trial. Thousands of Poles had been banished in that manner. As all judicial proceedings were carried on in the Russian tongue, an unfortunate Pole had no chance of justice. The Polish language had been, in fact, suppressed, though there were under the Russian rule more than 6,000,000 of people whose native language was Polish. Five-sixths of them, at least, knew no other language. Yet, even in "the Kingdom of Poland" the Polish language had been banished from all official transactions and replaced by the Russian. In all the schools—even the primary schools—instruction was given in the Russian language only. In the ancient Provinces of Poland the Polish language was even more rigorously persecuted. It was forbidden under penalties to have Polish inscriptions over shops, to make out tradesmen's bills in Polish, or to address letters in that language. Even the speaking of Polish was forbidden in all public places, such as cafes, restaurants, hotels, and railway stations. In the Russian schools, the Universities, and scientific schools, only a small number of Polish students in proportion to the total number of students were admitted. The proportion was usually 10 per cent. In the ancient Provinces of Poland—Lithuania, Volhynia, Podalia, &c.—the Polish and Catholic inhabitants were forbidden to acquire property except by direct succession. Their Lordships might have read in the newspapers that no fewer than 50,000 had been converted to the Greek Church. How were conversions to that Church effected in Russia? The Correspondence presented to the House of Commons in March last
  208
  would tell their Lordships. It appeared from that Correspondence that in the district of Minciewicz the peasants surrounded the church and defied the military to introduce the priest; that the former, with their wives and children, were finally mastered and surrounded, and were given the option of signing a declaration accepting the priest; that on their refusal 50 blows with the nagaska, or Cossack whip, were given to every adult man, 25 to every woman, and 10 to every child, irrespective of age or sex; and that one woman who was more vehement than the rest, received 100. Those were a few of the features of Russian rule. Those were a few of the things which had resulted from the system of administration established in Poland by the Prince who was now to fill the office of Chief Civil Commissioner in Bulgaria—he could bring forward many others. There were people who, looking at Russian atrocities and comparing them with what had been done by the Turks in Bulgaria, were inclined to think—"It is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other." He doubted if it would be possible to exaggerate the cruelty practised by Russia in Poland, and he therefore felt justified in putting his Question.
  LORD HOUGHTONtrusted their Lordships would allow him to say a few words almost of a personal character. In the debate which had taken place in their Lordships' House a few weeks since—on the 15th June—regarding the treatment of the Uniate Christians and others of the Greek Church in Russia, he had asserted that, dreadful as these events were, out of character with our time, carrying us back to the time of the persecution of the Albigenses, to the treatment of the Christians of the Low Countries, to the manner in which the Huguenots were treated in the time of Louis XIV., nevertheless these events in Poland had not struck him with so much surprise as they had others, because for near half a century he had been connected with a Society which enabled him to understand the condition of affairs in Poland. A short time after that debate there appeared in a Russian newspaper what could hardly be considered the mere statement of a private enemy—because the Press in Russia was always submitted to political censorship —stating that one of their Lordships

  209
  had made public avowal that for a quarter of a century he had been a member of a Polish Revolutionary Committee. The Society of which he was a member was the Literary Society of the Friends of Poland. It was mainly a charitable organization, and quite apart from political agitation. Its office had been mainly to supplement private charity, and to distribute the fund which had been applied by the British Government to Polish refugees. The condition of Poland, though abandoned diplomatically, nevertheless lived in the mind of the British people. During the present Session allusion had been made to the Society in the House of Commons, and the Vote itself was objected to on the ground that it was so very long ago since the insurrection that there could be no longer any person who could participate in the benefit. The number of participants had decreased, no doubt, but some were still in existence. The fund was under the direction of Major Azenleski, holding an office in the War Department of this country, a gentleman of honour and discretion. He (Lord Houghton) had distinctly stated that the Society was not of that revolutionary character which had been attributed to it; and as a proof that his statement was strictly accurate, he might remind them that when the Emperor Nicholas was in England he offered a contribution to the funds of the Society, which he (Lord Houghton) declined. With regard to the Question of the noble Lord, as there seemed a prospect of wealthy and important districts coming under the sway of Russia, he must be allowed to remind their Lordships that the whole population were not of that identic nationality which would under any circumstances enable them to live happily together. In Bulgaria there was a large population of Mussulman proprietors, and a large population of Catholic Christians hostile to the Greek Church; and there was no reason, supposing the Russian rule to be established in these Provinces, why similar measures should not be introduced to what had been introduced in Poland. It was not a question of interference between a Government and its subjects whom it was oppressing. If we had been justified hitherto in interfering as we had done for the benefit of the Christian population, we were justified now in laying
  210
  down the principles by which we considered how protection was to be secured to them. He thought experience had shown that the Russians were capable of great oppression, and therefore it was advisable that there should be some expression of opinion on it by the Government.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the Uniate Christians were not the only persons to whom he wished to call the attention of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), nor were the Roman Catholic Church and the Polish the only interests who suffered under the all-crushing tyranny of the Russians in Poland. The German language and the Protestant population of Lithuania —the descendants of the Teutonic Knights also suffered from the Russianization of that Province. He would ask the Secretary of State, when laying any Papers on the Table, to include Papers showing the treatment of the Kourlanders and Lithuanians.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not think your Lordships will ask me to go into a discussion of those matters relating to the way in which the internal administration of Poland is conducted. There are two objections to such a course. In the first place, it would not be either customary or suitable to the position which I hold. In the next place, the acts to which the noble Lord (Lord Houghton) referred were committed 14 years ago, and at a time when I was not responsible for the conduct of public affairs; and I am not sufficiently familiar with what passed in Poland at that time to be able to either affirm or dispute the assertions which have been made. With regard to the first Question of the noble Lord, I understand that the Prince Tcherkaskoi, who is now employed in Bulgaria under the Russian Government, is the same person who, in or about the year 1863, held an administrative office in Poland. As for the Papers for which the noble Lord has asked, I must point out that it is only under peculiar and exceptional circumstances that it is a proper course to lay on the Table of your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament Papers which relate not to international subjects, but purely and entirely to the internal administration of foreign countries. I do not mean to say that there never have

  211
  been exceptions to that rule; but I think that circumstances must be shown to justify an exception before the ordinary practice ought to be departed from. Now, I do not see that in the present instance it would be desirable to lay on the Table of your Lordships' House the large collection of Papers which might be brought together with the object of showing what was thought of Russian administration in former years. I have not inspected those Papers, and I am not aware whether there are any of recent date which bear on the points raised, and which could be produced without a violation of the rule to which I have referred. But I would just point out that inasmuch as Prince Tcherkaskoi held his office in Poland for three or four years only, and considering the length of time which has elapsed since he retired, it is not likely that Papers bearing on circumtances which occurred at that time would throw much light on the present condition of affairs in Poland.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, Four o'clock.