Sitting of 11 July 1879

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Industrial Schools (Powers of School Boards)* [242].
Committee—Report—New Forest Act (1877) Amendment (re-comm.) * [210].
Third Reading—Customs Buildings * [228]; Slave Trade (East African Courts) * [232], and passed.
Withdrawn—Spirits* [203].
The House met at Two of the clock.

QUESTIONS.

  THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE.—QUESTION.
  MR. WAITasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will be prepared to recommend that among the members of the Royal Commission about to be appointed to inquire into the condition of Agriculture, one member at least should be a skilled trader in Foreign grain?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, as the composition of this Commission is under the consideration of the Government, I cannot answer the Question of my hon. Friend precisely; but I can assure him that his suggestion, and others that may be made, shall have the careful consideration of the Government.

  THE LATE PRINCE IMPERIAL—THE FUNERAL EXPENSES.—QUESTION.
  MR. BURTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the arrangements for the funeral of the late Prince Louis Napoleon will involve an expenditure of public money; and, if so, whether a Vote will be submitted to the House on the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, said, there would be no occasion to submit to the House any Vote of public money in respect of the arrangements referred to. There might be some small expenditure for ammunition and for the use of a vessel for the conveyance of the Prince's remains to this country. The expenditure would, however, be very slight, and no Vote would be submitted to the House.

  CYPRUS—PUNISHMENT OF GREEK PRIESTS—THE PAPERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. GLADSTONEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Papers relating to the misconduct of certain British functionaries in the cases of two Greek Priests in Cyprus will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, I have consulted my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, and I have to state that we are waiting for further Reports from the Government of Cyprus on the subject. When the Papers are complete, they will be presented to Parliament.

  ROYAL CONSTABULARY (IRELAND)—THE TOWN INSPECTOR OF BELFAST.

    QUESTION.
    MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is the ease that the town inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary at Belfast has recently been suffering from serious pulmonary disease, and that he has latterly been obliged to absent himself from his duties for a considerable period; whether it is true that he has been in active service for forty-seven years; and, having regard to these circumstances, how much longer is it intended to ask him to continue to occupy the office of town inspector?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I have received a Report from the gentleman referred to, which will, no doubt, give the hon. Member satisfaction. It is not a fact that he was suffering from pulmonary disease or any other complaint. He informs me that he never was Setter. He was absent on urgent private affairs. There is no intention to interfere with his office.

  IRELAND—THE ALLIANCE AND DUBLIN CONSUMERS' GAS COMPANY—THE ELECTRIC LIGHT.—QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, Whether he is aware that the Alliance and Dublin Consumers' Gas Bill was allowed to pass through this House containing clauses which confer, directly or indirectly, powers of Electric Lighting on the Alliance and Dublin Consumers' Gas Company, notwithstanding
  162
  the recommendation contained in the Report from the Select Committee on Lighting by Electricity, that—
  "Gas Companies, in the opinion of your Committee, have no special claims to be considered as the future distributors of Electric Light;"
  whether he has any objection to state the circumstances under which the Bill containing such powers was allowed to proceed; and, whether he will now, or when the Bill comes back to this House, take steps to have all such powers expunged?
  MR. RAIKES: Sir, in reply to the first part of the Question of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), I have to say that when the Dublin Consumers' Gas Bill passed through this House, it did not contain any direct clause conferring the power to which he refers. I may further state that the Bill was read a third time, and left this House upon the 9th of June; whereas the Report of the Committee on Lighting by Electricity, to which he has referred, was not presented to the House until the 19th of June. I may also say, as he has asked me to state the circumstances under which the Bill was allowed to proceed, that I have given it a good deal of attention. I had several interviews with both the promoters and opponents of the Bill, and I stipulated that any clause, directly or indirectly conferring those powers, should be expunged, and that was done. In Committee, as I am since informed, a clause was inserted at the instance of the General Post Office, which, although it conveyed no new powers, might possibly be misconstrued in connection with a paragraph in the Bill as recognizing some powers as to supplying the Electric Light. The matter, however, was not brought before me by the parties interested in this House. But I have since received a representation from the Corporation of Dublin on the subject; and, the Bill being then in the House of Lords, I at once communicated with my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees in that House (the Earl of Redesdale). I believe that the clause as to the powers has been struck out in the other House, and I am quite satisfied that the Bill as it now stands, contains no power in excess of that already granted to the Company by the Act of 1866.

  ARMY DISCIPLINE AND REGULATION BILL—CORPORAL PUNISHMENT—THE SCHEDULE.—QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCKasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it has escaped his observation that, under the arrangements contained in a Paper issued on the 9th of July, headed "Memorandum explanatory of Schedule relating to Corporal Punishment," flogging cannot henceforth be inflicted for the crime of drunkenness on duty under arms in presence of an enemy, a crime which has been found to be the fruitful source of almost all other military offences; whether it is his intention to retain the use of corporal punishment as a deterrent to the commission of this crime; and, if that is not his intention, whether he will now consider the advisability of abolishing flogging altogether as a punishment for British soldiers in the field?
  COLONEL STANLEY,in reply, said, the subject had not escaped his notice. The views of the Government upon it had already been expressed by him, and they would be carried out by Amendments which were now standing on the Paper.

  PARLIAMENT—ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS—ORDERS OF THE DAY, TUESDAYS AND WEDNESDAYS.

    QUESTION.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONdesired to put to Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question relating to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman intended, to make on Monday next with reference to the Business on Tuesdays and Wednesday during the remainder of the Session. His hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had a Notice on the Paper for Tuesday, the 22nd inst., relating to some unfulfilled portions of the Treaty of Berlin. He did not know whether his hon. Friend had yet placed on the Paper the exact terms he proposed to move; but, at all events, the subject was one of great importance and interest, and he thought the Government would be of opinion that an opportunity should be given for the discussion of his hon. Friend's Motion. Perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would state, Whether he could give the day which his hon. Friend had already secured?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in reply, admitted that the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was one which the House ought to have an opportunity of discussing, and he would undertake to make such arrangements that the hon. Member would have the same advantages that he would have possessed but for the intention of the Government to make the proposed Motion on Monday next with reference to the conduct of Public Business. He would also make arrangements for the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) relating to the water supply of the Metropolis.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE—NOTE-TAKING IN THE MEMBERS' SIDE GALLERY.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. SPEAKER: Before I call upon the hon. Member for Meath (Mr.Parnell) to address the House, it will be convenient that I should state, with reference to the Minutes of debates in Committee, taken by my direction, which are about to form the subject of discussion, that great misapprehension apparently prevails in reference to these Minutes. So far as I am concerned, if any hon. Member desires to move for the production of these Minutes, I have no objection, and should advise that, if the House think fit, they be laid upon the Table as an unopposed Return.
    MR. PARNELL: Sir, in reference to a matter which occurred yesterday, it devolves on me to submit a Motion to the House, and to ask the House to say that that occurrence is a breach of the Privileges of this House. It will be within the recollection of many hon. Members that yesterday, during the proceedings of a Committee of the House upon the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, the hon. and. learned Member for the county of Louth (Mr. Sullivan) called the attention of the Chairman to the presence of a young gentleman, one of the officials of the House, who was seated in the Gallery set apart for Members, and who appeared to be engaged in taking notes of the observations or speeches of certain

    165
    hon. Members of this House. The hon. and learned Member for Louth submitted to Mr. Raikes, the Chairman of Committees, that such a practice was not in Order, and, subsequently, upon his Motion that Progress should be reported, in order that your opinion might be obtained upon the question, Progress was reported, and you, Mr. Speaker, took the Chair. Upon a question being addressed to you by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, as to whether the presence of this young gentleman in the Gallery taking notes of the proceedings of the House was in Order, and after some observations had been made, and whilst other observations were being made upon the matter by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), you, Sir, intimated that it was time you should express your opinion on the question; and I find that, according to the Minutes of the House, which we received this morning, you made this statement—
    "As the House is aware, according to the practice of the House, Minutes of our Proceedings are taken from day to day. These Minutes are published under the title of the Votes and Proceedings of the House. As lately it had come to my notice that there had been great and unexpected delay in the progress of the Army Discipline Bill in Committee, on my own responsibility, and for my own information, I desired that Minutes should be taken of the Proceedings on the Bill of a more full character than those which are taken from day to day. And Mr. Speaker concluded by stating that those Minutes have no reference whatever to any particular Member or body of Members of this House, and that they are fair and impartial Reports of the Proceedings of this House."
    And now, Mr. Speaker, I wish, before proceeding with my Motion, to explain that I desire, as much as possible, in what I have to say to avoid any personal reference, or to impute anything either to yourself, Sir, or to any Member of this House, indicating that I suppose anything that has taken place, or that has been directed by yourself, has been directed with any other motive, or any other intention than that of carrying out the duty which you, Sir, consider you ought to carry out, and for which you are responsible to the House. I shall, in what I have to say, avoid, as far as possible, any personal references that are not necessary to my subject, and I shall endeavour not to introduce any irrelevant matter. The Motion which I have to submit to the decision of the House is in the following terms:—
    166
    "That any Report or Record of the Proceedings of this House, or of a Committee of the Whole House, made, taken, or kept by officials of this House as an official act or otherwise without the previous Order or sanction or knowledge of the House, and for purposes not revealed to the House, other than the Votes or Minute of the Orders and Proceedings of the House or of the Committee of the Whole House, taken at the Table by the Clerk or the Clerk Assistant, is without precedent in the customs and usages of Parliament, and is a breach of the Privileges of Parliament and a danger to the liberty and independence of debate."
    That is the Motion I propose to submit; and I think I shall be able to show, by reference to one or two precedents, that the House has always been extremely careful in past times to guard against the carrying away of any Minutes, or the making of any notes of its proceedings, other than the Minutes made by the Clerk at the Table of the House when the House is in Session, or by the Clerk Assistant when a Committee of the Whole House is in Session. First of all, I wish briefly to enumerate to the House some of the points which occur to me as being necessary to be understood with regard to the duties of the Speaker of the House. Some considerable misapprehension appears to have grown up lately in the minds of certain leading Members of the House as to the functions and authority of the Speaker. It seems to have been supposed by some hon. Gentlemen that the Speaker of this House has an original authority. Now, that is not so. The Speaker of the House of Commons is chosen by the Members of the House of Commons, and he has not that original authority which the Speaker in "another place," possesses. Nor has he the original authority which the Speaker in some foreign Assemblies possesses, and the assumption of which original authority this House has always been very careful to guard against. Now, I find at page 239 of Hatsell's Precedents, that we have some very important information as regards the duty of the Speaker. For instance, we find in Section 2, that—
    "On the 27th of April, 1604, the House agreed for a rule, 'That if any doubt arise upon a Bill, the Speaker is to explain, but not to sway the House with argument or dispute.'"
    Then, in Section 3, we are informed that—
    "On the 23rd of May, 1604, there is a very curious entry in the journal, on the Speaker's having been guilty of an irregularity, in de-

    167
    livering to the King a Bill of which the House had been in possession."
    Again, in Section 4—
    "On the 21st of June, 1604, the House agreed for a rule,' That when Mr. Speaker desires to speak, he ought to he heard without interruption, if the House he silent and not in dispute.'"
    I merely lay these matters before the House, in order to show what has rather been called in question lately, that the Speaker of the House of Commons has no original authority. Then, again, in Section 5, I find that—
    "On the 9th of March, 1620, there is a long debate, in which the conduct of the Speaker was very much blamed;' That he came out of the Chair without the consent of the House, being required by the greater voice of the House to sit still;' 'That he sometimes neglects his duty to the House, in intricating or deferring the question and hath made many plausible motions abortive;' 'That Mr. Speaker is but a servant to the House, and not a master nor a master's mate; and that he ought to respect the meanest Members, as well as those about the Chair.'"
    Then, I find, again, in Section 7, that—
    "On the 28th of January, 1677, complaint is made of an irregular adjournment of the House by the Speaker, Sir Edward Seymour; which he justifies himself to have done by the King's command."
    Lastly, in Section 8, I find, that—
    "On the 19th of December, 1678, a Standing Order is made, 'That Mr. Speaker shall not at any time adjourn the House, without a Question first put, if it be insisted on."—[Hatsell, ii. (The Speaker.)]
    I do not wish to go into all these precedents, because I think that what I have read already will be admitted as clearly establishing my point in regard to the original jurisdiction of the Speaker. I will, however, read the observations which Hatsell makes in reference to the powers and duties of the Speaker. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Speaker, he says, in page 242—
    "The Speaker, though he ought, upon all occasions, to be treated with the greatest respect and attention by the individual Members of the House, is in fact, as is said on the 9th of March, 1620, but a servant to the House, and not their master; and it is, therefore, his first duty to obey implicitly the Orders of the House, without attending to any other commands. This duty is extremely well expressed, in a very few words, by Mr. Speaker Lenthall, who, when that ill-advised Monarch, Charles the First, came into the House of Commons, and, having taken the Speaker's Chair, asked him—'Whether any of the five Members that he came to apprehend were in the House? Whether he
    168
    saw any of them? And where they were? 'made this answer—
    "May it please your Majesty,
    "I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak, in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me; whose servant I am here; and humbly beg your Majesty's pardon, that I cannot give any other answer than this, to what your Majesty is pleased to demand of me.".—[Ibid.]
    Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that I have sufficiently established my point with reference to the original jurisdiction of the Speaker—namely, that there is a very considerable difference between the power and authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons and the power and authority of the Speaker of almost every other Legislative Assembly. In almost every other Legislative Assembly, the Speaker has original jurisdiction. He has power given to him to do certain things of his own option; but, in our case, the matter is entirely different. He is the interpreter of the Rules and Orders of the House, and in matters of debate, he is the guide and director and the preserver of the Order of our debates; but it is not within his power or function to do anything which has not been previously ordered or sanctioned by the House, or which is not a Rule of the House. And now I come to my next point, and that is, that the taking down of any Minutes, other than the Minutes taken down by the Clerk at the Table or by the Clerk Assistant, when the House is in Committee, is irregular. This is also a matter for which there are very important precedents, which show that this House has always been very careful to guard the taking of Minutes other than those taken by the Clerk at the Table. I find, on referring to the work I have already quoted—Hatsell's Precedents, at page 265, Section 1, that—
    "On the 17th of April, 1628, the Lords desire the Journal of the House of Commons to be brought to a conference that they may see the speech of a learned Member, in the 18th year of James the First; to which message the Commons answer—'That there was no resolution of the House, in the case mentioned; and that the entry of the Clerk of particular men's speeches, was without warrant at all times, and in that Parliament, by order of the House, rejected and left.'"
    After that, in Section 2, we find that the House—
    "On the 25th of April, 1640, ordered that Mr. Rushworth, just admitted Clerk Assistant, do not take any notes here, without the pre-

    169
    cedent directions and command of the House, but only of the Orders and Reports made in this House."
    Then, I find in Section 3, that—
    "On the 1st of December, 1640, the Clerk and his Assistants are to be enjoined that they suffer no copies to go forth of any arguments or speech whatsoever."
    In Section 4, I find that—
    "On the 10th of December, 1641, Sir Arthur Haselrig moved the House against the Clerk, for suffering his Journals or Papers committed to his trust, to be taken by Members of the House from the Table; the House upon this declared,' That it was a fundamental order of the House, that the Clerk, who is the sworn officer and intrusted with the entries and the custody of the Records of the House, ought not to suffer any Journal or Record to be taken from the Table, or out of his custody; and that if he shall hereafter do it, after this warning, that at his peril he shall do it.'"
    Section 6, says that—
    "On the 1st of March, 1676, information being given of a mis-entry made in the Journal, in the year 1672, in prejudice of the privilege of this House, and of an omission of an entry in the Journal of this Session, a Committee is appointed to examine and rectify it and report it to the House."
    The appointment of the Committee shows the importance which the House attached to the entries contained in the Journals. In Section 9, we find that the House—
    "On the 4th of May, 1780, 'Resolved, That the Papers and Accounts presented to this House be carefully preserved by the Clerk, in whose custody they are intrusted; and that no person be permitted to take the same from the House under any pretence whatever; and if any person shall presume to take any Papers or Accounts from the House, that the said Clerk do forthwith acquaint Mr. Speaker, that the House may be informed thereof.'"
    That authority further says—
    "The duty of the Clerk is summed up in a very few words, in the oath which he takes, before he enters on the execution of his office—' Ye shall make true entries, remembrances, and journals, of the things done and past in the House of Commons.'"
    "We see it is, 'without warrant,' that he should make minutes of particular men's speeches; and that he ought to confine himself merely to take notes of the orders and proceedings of the House. These he and the Clerk Assistant both do in their Minute-books at the Table; and from these Minutes, the Votes, which are ordered to be printed, are made up 'under the direction of the Speaker.'"—[Hatsell, ii. (The Clerk—His Duty.)]
    Well, now, Mr. Speaker, I have gone through the evidence which I think necessary for the making out of my case,
    170
    and I think that I have shown—firstly, that the Speaker has no original jurisdiction; and, secondly, that this House has always disapproved of the making of any Minutes other than those Minutes which are made by the Clerk or the Clerk Assistant at the Table. I wish to say, for myself—as it has been said by some people, the authority for which I have no means of estimating, because, of course, I have not taken any steps to watch this young gentleman in the execution of his duty; but it is said that he has made notes of particular Member's speeches in this House only, and that he has noted down the time occupied in the making of such speeches—for my own part, I shall have no objection whatever to any notes that may be made of anything I have ventured to say from time to time in this House; but what I wish is this—that this shall be done in a regular manner. If Mr. Speaker considers that, at any time, it is necessary for him to have fuller Minutes than the Orders and directions and customs of Parliament sanction, his proper course would be to come to the House and say—"I desire for the proper execution of my office that fuller Minutes should be made of the Proceedings of Parliament than those which have been made; that they should specify things which are not specified in the Minutes and Proceedings of the House;" and that having been done, the House would not have been deprived of its jurisdiction and authority in this matter. The House would then be able to direct that these Minutes, as desired by Mr. Speaker should be made, and the House would not be deprived of the opportunity of deciding and judging of a matter with regard to which I have shown, by precedents, the House of Commons has always been exceedingly jealous and tenacious. I do not wish to occupy the time of the House further, and I will conclude by merely moving—
    "That any Report or Record of the Proceedings of this House, or of a Committee of the whole House, made, taken, or kept by the officials of this House as an official act or otherwise without the previous order or sanction or knowledge of the House, and for purposes not revealed to the House, other than the Notes or Minutes of the Orders and Proceedings of the House, or of the Committee of the whole House, taken at the Table by the Clerk or the Clerk's Assistant, is without precedent in the customs and usages of Parliament, and is a breach of the Privileges of Parliament."
    MR. SPEAKER: I wish to point out to the hon. Member that the Resolution placed in my hands does not correspond with the words of the Resolution as moved by the hon. Member. [Mr. PARNELL: If I am in Order, I will explain.] The hon. Member concluded with these words—" and is a breach of the Privileges of Parliament." But the Notice placed in my hands goes on to say—" and a danger to the liberty and independence of debate." Does the hon. Member wish to drop those words?
    MR. PARNELL: Yes, Sir.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of seconding the Resolution which has just been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Meath. I intend to follow his example, and to assure you, Sir, that it was not from any disrespect of your authority that the proceeding I ventured to take yesterday, in reference to the matter which is now submitted for the consideration and decision of the House, was taken, nor is there any intentional disrespect in my action to-day in seconding the important Motion which has just been made. When we had an opportunity yesterday of putting to you, Sir, a Question on this important question, you were kind enough to inform us that the reports which were being taken by the gentleman who had been placed in the Gallery were only an extension of the Minutes taken in the usual way by the Clerk at the Table. The ground on which I felt that the proceedings in the Gallery could not be defended upon any reference to the proceedings of the Clerk at the Table was this—that the Minutes taken by the Clerk at the Table are printed, and circulated, read, and examined, and submitted to the Members of this House; that the reports which were being taken in the Gallery of the House had not been submitted to the House; that they were ordered by you, Sir, without any Order from the House, without the knowledge of the House, and without the sanction of the House; and it was upon those grounds, and not at all from any desire to question your motives, Sir, in making the arrangement, that I felt justified in questioning the proceeding and in expressing the opinion that I am here today to reiterate, that the proceeding was altogether without precedent in the history of the House of Commons, or in
    172
    the Records of Parliament. If you had felt it to be necessary, for the more efficient discharge of your difficult duties, that you should have these reports taken, I think it would have been only fair to the House to have asked the consent of the House, and to have given the House an opportunity of saying whether the proposed arrangement was one which was in accordance with practice and precedent, or one likely to effect the great public object which, undoubtedly, you had in view in making the arrangement. Now, my hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) has shown, conclusively, that there is no original authority in the Speaker of the House; that whatever authority he wields and possesses, he wields and possesses as the representative and mouthpiece of this House. I say, then, that that being so, I cannot understand how an act of this kind can be sanctioned, unless it has been ordered by the House itself; and I look upon that as the very strongest point—it is the object of the Resolution moved by my hon. Friend to assert here to-day. Now, reference has been made to the difficulty which the House has felt in passing the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, and you, Sir, were pleased to refer to the protracted discussions upon that Bill as your principal reason for authorizing these unusual Reports to be taken; and there can be no doubt that by referring to the particular discussions which have taken place on a particular Bill, you call up before the mind of the House, and the mind of the country, those who have taken the most prominent part in the subjects discussed. That being so, is it not natural that a number of the Members of this House, who have taken a conspicuous part in the discussion of that Bill, should feel that this arrangement was one that was levelled at them, and, in this way, that their independence as Members of Parliament might become entirely fettered by the arrangement. Now, Sir, unfortunately, a misapprehension which frequently prevails about the conduct of our Business here is reflected in the information that is circulated to the public out-of-doors. I was surprised to find in a respectable morning paper which I read this morning, that our object was asserted to be an attack upon the Speaker of the House when the Speaker of the House was ab-

    173
    sent. Now, my object, on the contrary, was to prevent a discussion of the conduct of the Speaker in a Committee of the House, and I moved to Report Progress, so that I might bring back the whole venue of the case to the House with the Speaker in the Chair. I, therefore, give the statement contained in that newspaper a most unqualified denial, and I brand it as a deliberate falsehood on the part of the public writer of that journal, who has had the temerity to print such an account. It has been said, on more than one occasion, that if certain Members of this House continue to exercise their privileges in a manner which has been found irksome to Her Majesty's Government, it might be necessary for the House to take certain action with regard to those hon. Members. I do not know how far suggestions of that kind have had any influence on you, Sir; I only know that it was your duty to take notice of any unusual proceeding in this House. I do not find fault with the anxiety which you have exhibited as to these proceedings with regard to the dispatch of Public Business, and I say, once again, that there is no Member of this House who has a more sincere admiration for the manner in which you have usually discharged the duties of your high office than I have. But I trust it is not inconsistent with this opinion to believe that, in a particular instance, you have done what, on a further consideration of all the circumstances of the case, you might yourself be inclined to think unwise and unnecessary. Now, that is all. But the intentions of any hon. Member of this House, and particularly of the highest authority of this House, do not colour the effect of the proceeding. When anything is done which is unprecedented and unusual, and it may be used as a precedent for further action, we have not merely to ask ourselves what was the motive with which the thing was done. I have no doubt the motive was a perfectly honourable motive; but the House is to ask itself—what has been the effect of the thing that has been done? That is the question submitted to the House by the Resolution of my hon. Friend. It is an extraordinary thing that hon. Gentlemen who are proud of the character of the House, and of its dignity, should feel themselves restrained in making reference to any particular oc-
    174
    casion. My hon. Friend the Member for Meath said yesterday—and in saying it he expressed the sentiments of most of his countrymen in this House—that in every case where the decision of the House has been recorded, there was no other course open to them than to bow to it. Let it be known here to-day, and let it be known in the country, that we have never, on any occasion, refused to bow to the decision of the House. Let it be known also that we have never refused to accept the ruling of the Chair on a distinct point of Order. Now, these are cases in which we have been greatly misrepresented. I only intend to trouble the House with a few words more, and I have simply this to say—that references as to the pains and penalties which may follow my action as a Member of Parliament will not have any influence on my conduct as a Member of this Assembly. I am here as a Member of a Party that has been sent into this House to carry a great object. I may say that it is nothing less than to win the legislative independence of a nation; and if the Irish Members are in earnest in carrying forward that great mission, there are no pains and penalties which Her Majesty's Government can inflict which they will not be prepared to encounter, rather than allow themselves to be fettered in the discharge of their public duty. But I appeal to English Members to consider the position in which they are placed to-day. They are now, perhaps, for the first time in the memory of the oldest Member of the House, called upon to say whether they will sanction or repudiate what, I think, has been proved to be a gross violation of their Privileges. If it were not for the Irish element which is mixed up in this question, I believe the House would lose no time in recording its repudiation of the action which the highest authority has thought proper to take; but because of the national prejudices which have been allowed to be mixed up in the consideration of this question—for that reason only, English Gentlemen and Scotch Gentlemen—hon. Members of this House from England and Scotland, will have to be on their guard against their own prejudices. They must remember that if they consent to the striking-down of any Privilege an Irish Member possesses as a Member of this House, they are sanctioning the

    175
    striking-down of Privileges equally their own. It will be very curious if, in the future history of the British Parliament, it shall be said, and said with truth, that that nation which was last admitted within the portals of the Constitution, that country which was the last admitted to a share in the Government, was the first in the great hour of trial to that Constitution to come forward as its only vindicator. It would be still more unworthy of the past history of the House of Commons, if we should ever have to say of it, what Byron said of an ancient classic people, that—
    "Its self-abasement paved the way
    For villain bonds and despot sway."
    I have only to reiterate my determination to go on in the discharge of my duty, respectfully submitting to the decision of the House, strictly acting in accordance with the Rules of the House, firmly planting myself within the safeguards of the Constitution, and defying intimidation, whether it comes from public journals, or from any other source that may be influenced by the coloured reports of our proceedings which these journals transmit throughout the country.
    MR. SPEAKER: In order to insure accuracy, I must ask the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to bring up the terms of his Resolution.
    Resolution brought up, and read accordingly.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That any Report or Record of the Proceedings of this House, or of a Committee of the whole House, made, taken, or kept by officials of this House as an official act or otherwise without the previous order or sanction or knowledge of the House, and for purposes not revealed to the House, other than the Notes or Minutes of the Orders and Proceedings of the House, or of the Committee of the whole House, taken at the Table by the Clerk or the Clerk Assistant, is without precedent in the customs and usages of Parliament."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I hope, Sir, that the House will not allow itself to be led away by the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) into any discussion foreign to the matter which has been brought before us. We entirely acknowledge that our fellow-Members from Ireland are as much interested in the preservation of the Pri-
    176
    vileges of this House as any Members who sit on this side of the House, and we entirely acknowledge their right, if they think that those Privileges are in danger, to call attention to the subject, and to make any Motion which they may think necessary for their protection. And I would further say, with regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), that I think there is no question whatsoever as to its being entirely within the right of any Member of this House to call attention to the conduct of Mr. Speaker, if he thinks it right to do so, and that the House is fully entitled to pronounce its judgment on any proceeding on the part of Mr. Speaker on which it may think it right that judgment should be passed. There can be no doubt, whatever, and you, Sir, have more than once expressed such a sentiment to the House, that the Speaker is not the master of the House, but the servant of the House. But I venture to say there is nothing in the conduct you have pursued since you occupied that Chair which has shown that you have been in the slightest degree forgetful of the relations in which you stood to the House. Never, I will venture to say, has any one of your distinguished Predecessors occupied that Chair with a higher character for entire impartiality, dignity, firmness, and courtesy, in the Chair. Now, Sir, having said so much, I hope I may venture to add that, recognizing, as we do, the manner in which you have fulfilled your obligations to the House, it is not too much to express the hope that the House will, in turn, fulfil its corresponding obligations, and that both, as a matter of justice and fairness to Mr. Speaker, and as a matter of convenience in the conduct of our proceedings, and in respect also of the dignity of this Assembly, we should endeavour in all that we do to maintain an attitude of strict and sincere respect for the Officer who presides over our deliberations. That respect must not be respect of the lips only. I do not wish to enter unnecessarily into painful controversy; but I do hope the House will bear in mind that it is not consistent with that respect to come as near as possible to the limit which borders upon a contrary course of conduct. Now, Sir, the hon. Member for Meath, in the form of a Motion, has submitted certain propositions to the House. It is

    177
    impossible to consider these proposals apart from the circumstances which have given occasion for their being brought before us. Whatever might be our opinion of any abstract Resolution of the nature of that which we are asked to put upon record, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that it is intended as a reflection and a sneer upon the conduct which you, Sir, have pursued, and which you have announced to the House. We cannot but remember that this has grown out of an occurrence which took place yesterday, when Notice was taken of the presence of a gentleman who was taking notes in the Gallery, with regard to whose proceedings you were invited to give some explanation. Upon that question being raised, the explanation which you gave was this—that the gentleman in question was there by your direction, that you had desired that Minutes should be taken of the proceedings on the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill of a fuller character than those which are usually taken from day to day. Those Minutes were taken by your direction, and for your information, and I beg to submit to the House that in taking that course, you were, in the opinion of the House, fully justified in the course which you took. I think it is incumbent on the House, if they are satisfied that the course you pursued was one which you were justified in taking—I think it is incumbent on the House, regarding the relations in which we stand to our Speaker, and having regard to the fact that your conduct has been challenged—I think it is incumbent on the House to support you by putting upon record their sense of the propriety of your conduct in this matter. Now, Sir, I apprehend that there is no question whatever as to the right of Mr. Speaker to be cognizant of the proceedings of Committees of this House. There is no doubt, whatever, that when the House is in Committee, it is within the right of Mr. Speaker to take his seat among the other Members, and take part, if necessary, in the debates, and in any division that may take place in Committee. It is not now usual that he should do so; but many of us can remember occasions when Mr. Speaker has taken part in debates in Committee. I understand that it is within the right, and that it is part of the duty, of Mr. Speaker to take notice of the proceedings
    178
    of Committees, not in his capacity as a private Member, but even in his capacity as Speaker, for I observe here, that, amongst our Rules—Rule No. 211 runs thus—
    "If any sudden disorder should arise in Committee, Mr. Speaker will resume the Chair without any Question being put."
    It is, no doubt, the case that it is necessary the Speaker should have cognizance of what passes in Committee, in order that he may take such measures as he thinks necessary for keeping Order in the House. Well, Sir, then the question also arises, whether, if Mr. Speaker may himself be present, may he, or may he not, require that information, when he is not present, should be taken for his guidance and convenience by any other person? I apprehend that there is no question about that. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath said that it is entirely contrary to the Orders of the House that any Notes should be taken in the House, except the Notes taken by the Clerk at the Table and published day by day. That is not so. It is not in accord with precedent that we should lay down such a Rule. For many years it has been the practice of the Clerk to take Notes of the names of hon. Gentlemen speaking, and the length of time they speak, and these Notes have been kept for the information of the authorities of the House, but have not been printed or circulated among the Members of the House. I hold in my hand one of these books, which dates back to the year 1850, and I see the names of every hon. Member who spoke, the hour at which he rose, and the number of minutes he was engaged in speaking, recorded here, and that, I believe, has been a practice which has been continued since that time. It is not covered by the hon. Gentleman's Motion; but it is a practice which, I apprehend, is perfectly consistent with the Privileges of the House. I can see no difference in that practice, and what has recently been done by your orders, except that there is a little more information—a very little more information—in the Minutes that have been taken by your desire, and for your guidance and information. I wish, then, to ask the House if it is not for the convenience of us all that such a record should be kept? We know perfectly well that we cannot have complete information conveyed to us as to full

    179
    details of debate in the printed Orders. We know that the reports circulated by the Press give a tolerably full account of what takes place in the House; but on such occasions as those to which reference has been made—discussion in Committee—when there are frequent and short speeches, we know quite well that the Press will not report them; and if you wish to have anything like an accurate idea of what takes place in Committee, it must be by some means of an exceptional character that we can obtain the information. I would point out that you, Mr. Speaker, have, on more than one occasion, like your Predecessors, on other occasions, been asked to give evidence before a Select Committee of this House, in order to guide us on questions relating to our Rules and Proceedings, and the advice given to us on these occasions by our Speaker has always been advice of very great value. It is perfectly well known that one of the questions which have occupied of late the attention of a Select Committee has been, whether it would be right, or not, to put any restriction upon the great latitude which at present exists in debates in Committee, and it is not at all an undesirable thing that the Speaker should inform himself in regard to the proceedings in Committees, so that the question being raised, and his advice being sought, he can give that advice with a knowledge of the circumstances. But, Sir, I am only suggesting reasons which may have induced you to take the course you have, in taking steps to obtain information for yourself. What your motives were, are, of course, in your own breast, and I do not see that there is any occasion on the part of the House to ask for them. We are not injured by what has taken place, nor do I see anything that need arouse our susceptibilities. The hon. Member for Meath has founded his complaint on precedents and Rules which he found laid down in old text books in regard to the publication of our debates. But the hon. Member and the House are perfectly aware that many of these Rules were adopted at a time when we held a wholly different theory with regard to the propriety of the publication of our debates. In the days from which he chiefly draws his examples, it was considered by the House of Commons that it was most undesirable and most im-
    180
    proper that a stranger should even come in and listen to the debates, or that the Proceedings should be in any way published, because the effect of such publication might, in those times, have caused inconvenience, and might have led to an interference with the freedom and Privileges of Parliament. Therefore, it was that steps were taken not only to exclude strangers—not only to forbid the unauthorized publication of reports, but also to restrain the liberty of the House itself in the matter of taking Notes. But, surely, all that relates to a time which has entirely gone—[Cries of" No, no!"] I hear some murmurs of "No;" but I must say they proceed from a quarter of the House where I should have least expected them. I should have thought that the Gentlemen who are now so sensitive in regard to these Notes being taken, were exactly the Gentlemen who were most anxious to obtain free and fair publication of our proceedings. I should have thought—though I said I would not refer to the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Mayo, that Gentlemen who had so high a task imposed upon them to give battle, as they say, against such odds would desire to appeal to public opinion, and make their sentiments as widely known as possible. Instead of thinking it something threatening and menacing to them, I should have thought the privilege of being reported as having spoken a great many times, and having taken an active part in a debate, would have been matters they were proud of. It is not for me to enter into that mysterious problem as to what are the motives of these hon. Gentlemen in taking these proceedings. I will content myself, attention having now been called to the matter, by taking the step of opposing the Resolution by some Amendment which shall affirm our confidence, Sir, in your conduct. I feel that that is not only due to you, but it is due also to ourselves. We know perfectly well that, at the present time, there are great difficulties in the conduct of the Business of the House. We know perfectly well that there are great difficulties attending any alteration in our Rules or Standing Orders, and we know also that it is within the power of any Member, by following the letter of the Rules, to cause inconvenience to the House, and, perhaps, tend to lower its character in the eyes of

    181
    the public, although it is probable that he would do so at the expense of his own reputation among his fellow-Members. It seems to me the very first duty we owe to ourselves and the House in which we have the honour to sit—the first duty, on our part, is to support the authority of the Chair, and to assure Mr. Speaker of our readiness to assist and stand by him, when he finds it necessary to take any step with a view to the conduct of Business in a business-like manner. Therefore, I will move, as an Amendment to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Meath—
    "That Notice having been taken while the House was in Committee, of the presence in one of the side Galleries of a gentleman engaged in taking notes of the proceedings of the Committee; and Mr. Speaker having informed the House that the gentleman was an officer of the House, and was so employed under his direction, and that the notes taken by him were for the confidential information of the Speaker, this House is of opinion that Mr. Speaker was justified in the directions given by him and is entitled to the support and confidence of this House."
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I rise, Sir, to second the Motion which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman. It will not be necessary, fortunately, that I should detain the House long in explaining why I do so. The reasons which have induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move the Amendment are so obvious that they can be stated in a very few words. In the first place, I must say that I think the House will now, at all events, admit that it was fortunate we adjourned the consideration of the question until it could be deliberately taken up, and much more convenient than the course that was originally suggested. It is extremely desirable that such a subject should be brought forward as calmly, as deliberately, and with as much absence from excitement as possible. I think the House will be disposed to admit that this was a question entirely within the right of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) to bring before the House, and he has done so in a speech of great moderation. I can only trust, if it is necessary that this discussion should be at all protracted, that the further debate may be continued in the same spirit. There are one or two observations to which I wish to make reference. The hon. Member has argued at considerable
    182
    length a question as to the original jurisdiction of the Speaker. Now, that does not appear to me to be a subject on which it is necessary to dilate; but I must, however, say that the hon. Member in describing the functions of the Speaker has once or twice used an expression which, if not altogether inaccurate, does not, at all events, accurately describe the position of the Speaker of this House. The hon. Member has said that the Speaker is only the servant of the House, and he has brought forward precedents to show that Speakers have described themselves in that manner. Now, Sir, I think in all matters of external authority, the Speaker, undoubtedly, is only the servant of the House; but I do not think that expression adequately describes the position he holds within the House. The Speaker, as we all know, is not only the servant of the House, but he is the highest authority within the House; he represents the House itself, and is the embodiment of the authority which the House must possess over its Members for the preservation of Order. Therefore, the description which has been given, though not altogether inaccurate, is still scarcely adequate. The right hon. Gentleman, who has just spoken, has naturally referred to the precedents given by the hon. Member as to the jealousy of the House in former times with reference to the taking of Minutes of its Proceedings. It must, however, have been obvious to any Member, that these precedents referred entirely to a time when the House entertained a strong and natural jealousy of permitting any reports of its Proceedings. Every precedent which the hon. Member has brought forward refers to the taking and publication of Minutes of the Proceedings of the House. It would have been easy to have found far more numerous precedents referring to the publication of debates, as to which the House, up to a much more recent period, entertained great jealousy. Now, Sir, it seems to me that the reasons of the proceedings on the part of the Speaker, of which the House received information yesterday, are extremely obvious and extremely simple. It is a matter which is known to every Member of the House, that the delay in our Proceedings has been a matter not only of public notoriety, but of discussion in the House, more or less, during the last two

    183
    or three Sessions. It has also been the subject of inquiry before a Select Committee of this House, and it may again become the subject of inquiry. It is natural, usual, and expedient, when such inquiries take place, that the Speaker of the House and the Chairman of Committees, the highest authorities in the House, should be selected by such Committee to give it information, advice, and guidance. That course was taken. These Gentlemen were examined before the Committee; but I think it will be in the recollection of every Member of that Committee that, on account of the extremely meagre character of the ordinary Minutes of our Proceedings, neither the Speaker, nor the Chairman of Committees, was able to lay before the Committee the full and complete information as to the causes which led to the protracted character of our Proceedings, and the delay which had arisen, which they would have desired to do. Under these circumstances, it was extremely natural that the Speaker should consider it necessary, in case further inquiry was thought desirable, to place himself in possession of the means of giving the House full and impartial information regarding the circumstances. Well, Sir, though I think that the precedents quoted by the hon. Member had very little, if any, application to the present state of things, I am quite willing to admit that it might be difficult to find any record of precedents directly applicable to the proceeding which has been directed by Mr. Speaker. But I think that absence of precedent is not to be wondered at, and ought not, necessarily, to influence our judgment. The fact is, the present state of things—and I am not now going to express any opinion upon it—is altogether without precedent; at all events, to be more correct, without precedent of any ancient date. It is a state of things which is not absolutely new, and which, not to go further back, dates at all events from the time of the last Parliament. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members who sat in the last Parliament, that a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen, some of whom now occupy distinguished positions on the Bench opposite, thought it necessary, in the discharge of their duty, to discuss at very great length the provisions of measures which were brought forward by the Government of that day. That
    184
    example has been followed to a great extent—I am not going to say it may not have been improved upon—and the effect is, that certain measures of the Government are, at present, discussed at a length so great, that almost the whole time of the House is absorbed in their consideration; and the consequence is, that other measures which have been brought forward cannot be considered at all, or have to be considered very inadequately; and, further than that, some measures of great interest, which independent Members desire to bring forward, scarcely find time for discussion, and the Business of the House in Committee of Supply has to be postponed to a period of the Session when it can only be discussed in a very perfunctory manner. That is a state of things without any ancient precedent, and it is, therefore, only natural that there should be no ancient precedent for any remedy which it may be possible to apply to it. I am not now going to discuss what remedy, if remedy there be, should be applied—at all events, it is safe to say that it is a condition of things which, however patient the House may be—and I think no one will deny that the House has, under the circumstances, shown great patience—the House will not permanently endure, and for which it will be driven some day to find a remedy; and it is of the very first importance that, if any remedy is to be sought for, it should be sought for deliberately and with full information. I think that, under these circumstances, not the censure, but the thanks, of the House are due to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, who has taken upon himself the responsibility of obtaining for himself and, if necessary, the House that information which is necessary. I cannot think for a moment that it is a proceeding invidious to any Member or set of Members in this House. Not one of us doubts—however much we may object to the way in which hon. Members discharge their duty—that what they do is, in their opinion, in discharge of their duty, and I cannot see how it can be supposed to cast the slightest reflection on any Member of the House that full and accurate information should be obtained. I have only, in seconding this Amendment, to add on the part of Members who sit upon this side of the House, my tribute to that offered by the right hon. Gentleman as to the perfect

    185
    and complete impartiality with which you, Sir, have discharged the duties of your high office. Circumstances have occurred within the last two or three years which have called for the exercise of great judgment, temper, tact, and impartiality; and I must say that I think every hon. Member—whatever view he may take of the conduct of the House towards him on particular occasions—must, upon reflection, bear witness to the perfect impartiality he has received at your hands. I have risen with these few remarks, Sir, to second the Amendment which has been moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "Notice having been taken while the House was in Committee, of the presence in one of the side Galleries of a gentleman engaged in taking notes of the proceedings of the Committee; and Mr. Speaker having informed the House that the gentleman was an officer of the House, and was so employed under his direction, and that the notes taken by him were for the confidential information of the Speaker, this House is of opinion that Mr. Speaker was justified in the directions given by him, and is entitled to the support and confidence of this House,"'—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID,who rose amid cries of "Divide, divide!" said: I think, Sir, all will be of opinion that our proceedings to-day will not be improved by hon. Members opposite exhibiting such impatience the moment a Member who, I suppose, they imagine may in some points disagree with them, rises to make a few observations. I think that you will admit, Sir, that ever since I have had a seat in this House I have been willing to bow to your authority, which I have also endeavoured to support, so far as I can, in every way. Therefore, in my opinion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not put the issue which is to be considered to-day quite fairly, when he said this was a discussion on the question whether you were strictly impartial or not. I apprehend that nobody either in or out of the House, would venture to dispute the assertion that you
    186
    are, or refuse to acknowledge the cheerful kindness that you show to every Member in the discharge of his duty; and if we want to establish a question of practice, I, for one, do not in any way desire to question it. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman said that this was a question of free and full publicity; but, in my view, the Notes you desired to have taken were not for the purposes of free or full publicity, but for the purpose of giving you a record of our Proceedings in Committee, of which you have a right to be cognizant, and nobody, so far as I know, has disputed your absolute right to be so cognizant. But, Sir, the point is this—if it is desirable, as it may very well be, that more accurate Notes should be taken of the proceedings in Committee, I should have thought it desirable that the Leader of the House should rise in his place and propose some plan by which that could be done. The result of that would be that we should all have the benefit of those Notes, which, I have no doubt myself, might be of great use to us all. Therefore, if the practice, which you, Sir, in your discretion have thought it right to initiate, is to be continued, I should venture to suggest that these Notes should be regularly published, in order that other Members may have the advantage of the information which they may contain. By this means, we should get over some difficulties and avoid those large issues which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, in my opinion, unfairly endeavoured to raise. I took down the right hon. Gentleman's words. He said it is convenient for us all that such records should be kept. How can it be convenient for us all that such records should be kept, if we are not to be informed of what those records are? Therefore, I should venture to suggest that there might be considerable advantages if these records, which, you Sir, have directed to be prepared, could be published for the advantage of us all. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the Notes which have been taken since 1850, and also to Notes which are sent to the Clubs; but I wish to point out that these are not official records, and could not be referred to in any debate in this House. The point, however, which I especially desire to submit to you is this, if, as I have no doubt, you have found these Notes of

    187
    advantage, would it not be better to give them a more official character, and allow all hon. Members to see them and benefit by them?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I do not, Sir, feel quite certain whether I ought to intrude myself upon the House on this occasion, when it is evident that the House thinks—and I confess that I concur in the opinion—that there is no occasion for a lengthened debate; but it is one of those opportunities when, if I must run the risk of incurring an error, I would rather run the risk of incurring an error by speech than of committing an error by silence. I have sat here under the rule of five different Speakers, and this is the first occasion that I can recollect the submission of a Motion to the House impugning in any way the conduct of the Gentleman who fills the Chair. That is sufficient to mark it as a grave occasion, and everyone must feel that it deserves that character. However, Sir, a great change has taken place in the Motion, to which I wish to call the attention of the House. When we were first informed of the nature of the Motion which the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) intended to submit, it was a Motion which made three assertions. The first, and by far the smallest of these assertions, was that the act, of which he had felt it to be his duty to take notice, was an act which was without precedent, and that it was not conformable to the usages of the House; the second assertion was, that it was a breach of the Privileges of the House; and the third assertion, more formidable than either—though the second was formidable enough—was that that breach of the Privileges of the House "constituted a danger to the liberty and independence of debate." Undoubtedly, Sir, allegations of that kind, entertained, as as they undoubtedly were, conscientiously and sincerely, were those which a Member, having that belief, might very well think himself called upon to submit to the notice of the House; for it requires no argument to show how profound is the interest of this House, not only in the integrity and impartiality, but in the sound and strong judgment of their Speaker, and how serious would be any deviation from the line of accuracy, on his part, in dealing with the questions which he has to determine. Therefore, I fully admit the sufficiency of the cause
    188
    which the hon. Gentleman had before him. But, strange to say, we are now about to vote upon a Motion, from which not indeed the whole, but by far the larger portion, has entirely disappeared. There has been withdrawn the assertion that the Act constituted a danger to the liberty and independence of debate. In the speech of the Seconder of the Motion the expression, indeed, was used, that your proceeding, Sir, had been a violation—a gross violation—of the Privileges of the House; but that assertion, which stood as we had supposed in the Motion, has likewise been withdrawn, and we are now called upon by the hon. Member for Meath to give our votes simply for an allegation that the act which has been done is an act not conformable with the usages and precedents of the House. That, certainly, is a reduction of the indictment upon which I cannot but congratulate the distinguished and eminent person who was the object of that indictment; but it is nevertheless a reduction upon which I cannot congratulate the hon. Member for Meath, who ought to have measured the amount of the necessity before him, and the nature of the challenge he wished to deliver, before proceeding to take so serious a step as that of bringing your judgment into question in a manner which does not admit of compromise. It is not possible to pass by an occasion of this kind. It is the very first dictate of the commonest justice to the Speaker in the Chair, nay, more, it is the first necessity of our own existence as a deliberative Assembly, that we should have no mistake whatever as to the position of our Speaker. Either he possesses our confidence or he does not. I must say that while no one can regard with pleasure an occurrence of this kind, yet it brings with it to my mind, at least, this satisfaction—that I believe in the discharge, Sir, of your weighty duties, you will find your hands not weakened, but strengthened. I will not refer to any of those subjects, more or less extraneous to the debate, which have been touched upon, especially by the Seconder of the Motion; but I wish to give in my entire adhesion to the statement of my noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition, on the subject of the general idea of your office, and likewise to the argument, which appeared to me alike clear and conclusive, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the practi-

    189
    cal considerations which, it is obvious, must have governed your mind, Sir, in the particular course you thought it expedient to take. But this I wish to do, as it has not yet been done—I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that if we are to adopt the reduced and attenuated Motion of the hon. Member for Meath, we shall, Sir, along with you, condemn the practice which it now appears has been in use for 20 years. I do not dispute our title to condemn that practice; but it has never been formally brought before the House, while even many hon. Members of the House have probably been ignorant of its existence. I frankly own I am not disposed to condemn it. I see no reason why the information should not be had; indeed, I believe it to be very convenient information; but strange, indeed, would be our position if we were now to make the condemnation of that practice which has undoubtedly been within the knowledge of many Members of the House from time to time, and which has never attracted a word of disapproval or legislative censure on the part of Gentlemen who now sit at the Table, and who have sat there for 29 years, because of the existence of that habit of noting down particulars which has to-day been informally made known to us. I entirely concur with those who think it is idle to go back to the precedents of the 17th century, unless with the purpose of reading them accurately and applying them with justice. Otherwise, they would be absolutely misleading. The precedents, of which the hon. Member for Meath has quoted a score of instances, are beyond all doubt; but they are precedents which appertained to the integrity of the functions of the House and to the independence of its Members. It was impossible, under the Tudor and Stuart rule, for the Members of this House to have any security, even for their personal liberty, if the sentiments which they individually expressed were liable to be made known to the Sovereign. We cannot, I am afraid, deal with this Motion in any other way than by subjecting it to a distinct negative. For my own part, however, I entirely concur in that which I believe to be the general sentiment of the House with respect, Sir, to your conduct in the Chair. I will even go one step further, and will say I am quite sure that when
    190
    the Seconder of the Motion himself paid a tribute to that conduct, he intended that tribute to be sincere and emphatic; and although he thought it his duty—I think, very unhappily—to except the present occasion from the scope of his observations, I am convinced that he, too, and, in fact, every Member of this House, with respect to that conduct in the Chair, entertains but one and the same opinion. The opinion of the House being perfectly clear and intelligible on this point will show that we recognize your object, Sir, to be the simple object of placing yourself in a position to advise the House in case of your being called upon for your weighty and authoritative opinion upon any question concerning the Order of the House and concerning the conduct of Business. We believe that you have been governed only by the one sentiment which always prompts you—namely, the desire to discharge your functions in the most efficient manner. Knowing that sentiment, we desire to reciprocate it on our part by every declaration in our power.
    MR. COURTNEYthought that every Member of the House must feel deeply conscious of the extreme gravity of the discussion in which the House was now engaged. He wished to explain why he felt constrained to take a different course from that which appeared to have been resolved upon by the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), and why it seemed to him to be impossible to adopt the Amendment which had been moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped it was unnecessary for him to repeat what had been said by every speaker—that he entered into the discussion with the most profound respect for the Speaker, and the deepest admiration of the very impartial and, he might say, the good-natured way in which the right hon. Gentleman had presided over their proceedings. [" Divide !"] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich had told them that, although he had sat in the House under five Speakers, he never, until now, knew a Motion brought forward impugning the conduct of the Speaker. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] He hoped that, while he was venturing to make the few observations he purposed,

    191
    hon. Gentlemen would give him the benefit of a little silence. It had been shown that Mr. Speaker had taken original action. It had also been shown that that original action was of a nature inconsistent with precedents, and unauthorized as far as precedents were concerned. If it were to be defended at all, it must be defended upon grounds which must be examined, because they were inconsistent with the past history of the House. What was the kind of defence which had been offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and supported by the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the action on the part of Mr. Speaker was of public utility. Now, he was not prepared to deny that; but it should be borne in mind that the Chancellor of the Exchequer also referred to the Notes as being confidential. Consequently, any argument as to the utility of the Notes, on the ground of their public character, failed altogether, when it was also stated that they were confidential. It might well be that such Notes might have been useful for public purposes; but, then, they were taken without authority. It was clear that, from the time of Rush-worth, the House had had control over the Notes which were taken; whereas the Notes which had led to the present discussion were taken in a perfectly private way, and were not known to, or sanctioned by, the House. Moreover, if similar Notes had been taken by the Clerk at the Table since 1850, where was the necessity for new action? The defence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer altogether failed on that ground also. The argument of the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs went straight to the question. He urged that the House was dealing with an evil which was unprecedented, and that, therefore, unprecedented remedies must be applied. He (Mr. Courtney) entirely approved of that statement. The weakness of the House had been that, for some time past, they had not recognized the unprecedented conjuncture of circumstances. They were dealing with men who had small respect for traditions, and set at naught mere conventions and understandings; and, in the presence of this fact, it would be necessary to institute new Orders and Regulation's. But the evil had been public,
    192
    and the remedy must be public. To take action privately was not the way to deal with this unprecedented evil. Lawyers stated that hard cases made bad law, and he was afraid that the difficult position in which hon. Members were now placed might lead them into injudicious courses. He spoke not without some feeling on the question, because, two years ago, his own wings were nearly singed. At that time, the conjuncture was difficult and unprecedented. The House, with the connivance of its Leader, and the approbation of one right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) and of one hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) on the front Opposition Bench, took a course which had since been deeply regretted. They were paying, at the present moment, in South Africa, for the folly then committed. Now they had, again, an unprecedented evil, and, instead of approaching it publicly and discussing it publicly, and adopting public means for its suppression, private and unrevealed means were being taken for its suppression. The course they were adopting would not remedy the evil, and the taking of such a course was deeply to be regretted. The means taken did not approve themselves to his conscience. The situation was a most difficult one, and they ought to approach it by other measures, and correct it in another manner.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that if for the last 50 years, a sort of record had been kept of the number of occasions on which hon. Members spoke, and of the amount of time each speaker occupied, he was sure that a perusal of it would at once free him (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) from a charge of frequently intruding himself upon the House. With respect to the subject before them, if it had been publicly proposed by the Leader of the House, or by the Leader of the Opposition, that officials should be appointed to take Notes with the view of the furtherance of Business, and of bringing to bear the judgment of the House under the peculiar circumstances with which they were all familiar, he would have voted for the Motion. He believed it was essential that the Business of the House should be carried on with despatch, and there was a good deal to be said to show that the Business had not been carried on in

    193
    a manner that was satisfactory either to the House or to the country. At the same time, he did not think it was fair to leave the question on the footing of personal confidence in Mr. Speaker. He regarded that as putting the matter on an entirely false issue. He had, in common with almost every hon. Member on that side of the House, the highest possible respect for the judgment and fairness of Mr. Speaker. The consideration which he freely extended to the humblest Member, and the patience with which he listened to them from time to time, were borne in mind gratefully by many, and by none more than by himself (Sir Joseph M'Kenna); and he would say, for his own part, that up to the time when the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) withdrew a part of his Motion, which appeared to bear a contrary interpretation, he was perfectly prepared to vote against it. But the question now stood in quite a different position. The Motion asserted that an unprecedented practice had lately been originated by Mr. Speaker; but it would now appear from the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the two gentlemen who had been employed taking Notes in the side Gallery were merely continuing a practice which had been previously adopted since 1850. If that were so, there was an end of the question. He did not think the position had been clearly met by that explanation. Mr. Speaker had stated, with much more frankness than anyone else, that he required the information for his own guidance; and he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) could easily imagine that Mr. Speaker felt that the information was necessary. If, therefore, any Member of the House, or Mr. Speaker himself, had initiated the question whether the information should be supplied, he would, without going further into it, have voted in favour of its being supplied; but, in the circumstances which had actually occurred, he thought it would have been infinitely better if the practice which had been adopted on the present occasion had been initiated under the direct authority of the House.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was surprised at the form which the attack upon Mr. Speaker had assumed. Hon. Members opposite, of the Home Rule section, two or three years ago, voted, as did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, and as he (Mr.
    194
    Newdegate) also voted, that the House should have something tantamount to official reports of its debates. The House then refused to accede to that proposal. But that decision ought to justify Mr. Speaker in the opinion of the minority on the occasion to which he referred, in the course Mr. Speaker had taken, upon his own authority, in order to secure for himself fuller information. He was surprised that hon. Members who voted for Mr. Hanbury Tracy's Motion on that occasion should now turn round and impugn Mr. Speaker's conduct. He was surprised that hon. Members who voted for the Motion, that the reports of the debates were insufficient, should now turn round, when they felt themselves in a difficulty, and impugn the conduct of the Chair, for that was the inference that must be drawn from the present Motion. These same hon. Gentlemen had protracted the debates in Committee of the Whole House on various Bills, he (Mr. Newdegate) thought, unjustifiably, and thus had increased the difficulty. It was impossible that Mr. Speaker could attend in his place during such protracted discussions in Committee, and now when he pursued a course which the House had sanctioned since 1850 for the purpose of obtaining the information so necessary for the discharge of his functions, to whom any question that arose in Committee was referred, these hon. Gentle-men impugned Mr. Speaker's conduct. In his view, nothing was so important as to support the authority of the Chair. They all knew the impartiality and kindly temper which Mr. Speaker invariably manifested—unsurpassed by any Speaker in his long experience. He held that the hon. Gentlemen who had, by their own conduct, brought about the state of things which existed, ought to be made sensible of the importance of maintaining the authority of the Chair. He was confident of this—that if the House would preserve its own dignity they must now assert it by maintaining the authority of their Speaker.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I think it may be regarded as a remarkable incident in the debate that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) has spoken for several minutes without once going out of Order. On rising on this occasion, I think it is unnecessary for me to add my voice to the general chorus

    195
    of praise as to the admirable manner in which Mr. Speaker discharges the duties of the Chair. No one feels or recognizes more fully or thoroughly than I do the genuine kindness, the consideration, and the upright impartiality with which the right hon. Gentleman fulfils his important functions. But all that is quite beside the question now before the House. I listened with attention to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), and I heard him blaming, or finding fault with, the moderation of the Resolution of my hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich has certainly habituated us for some time to the use of vehement denunciation, and it is evident he has not acquired an appreciation of moderation of language. But I think that the course which has been pursued by my hon. Friend the Member for Meath in dealing with this grave and delicate subject will commend itself to the judgment of the House, and that it may be conceded that, if he has committed fault at all, it is well it has been committed on the side of moderation. The speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs, consisted almost entirely of just praise of the impartiality of Mr. Speaker, and of recognition of the undoubtedly honourable character of his motives. But that has nothing to do with the question before the House. The real question—and I am treating it generally, and not as regards the special case before us—is, as to whether or not Mr. Speaker should, without the previous sanction of the House, employ confidential reporters, in order to inform him upon the proceedings of Members of that House at a time when he is absent. That is the real question before us, and it has not been touched upon at all by either the Proposer or Seconder of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) has alone raised the question in its true character. Now, we do not object to Mr. Speaker's right to be informed of the proceedings of Parliament that take place during his absence from the House. We do not object to an official record being kept; but in the interests of Mr. Speaker himself, of the House, and of hon. Members, we object to hon. Members being spied upon by
    196
    confidential informers, of no matter how high an authority. It is said that this information is required, because questions of the gravest importance may be brought up. But let me ask the House to consider the two positions. One is that of a Speaker who has become aware of the proceedings of this House through regularly organized channels, under proper safeguards for impartiality, and with proper safeguards for accuracy, and with proper safeguards for veracity. All these questions, Sir, I may point out do not touch you; but they do touch the media of your information. A Speaker who can give evidence on information, the means of collecting which have previously been authorized, sanctioned, and regulated by this House, is a Speaker who gives his evidence and advice in the gravest circumstances with every guarantee that his advice should carry with it all the weight it should carry. But, on the other hand, let us consider the position of a Speaker, who being asked his opinion on the conduct of Business in this House, can give no answer less impotent than this—" I was not in the Committee at the time these proceedings took place; but I have learnt from a couple of menial inferior officials of this House, not sworn, not under any guarantee, not under any safeguard worthy of the dignity of this House, or the gravity of the emergency. I have learnt from these two inferior officials "—their private character may be what you will, but I am dealing with their public weight—" I have learnt from them so-and-so, and can give no other assurance than this most limp hearsay evidence." Is it not absolutely certain that the advice of the most respected Speaker who ever sat in your Chair would not be worth more than the weight of the lightest dust that blows, when founded on no stronger evidence than that of a couple of unauthenticated, unguaranteed inferior officials depending upon you? It is impossible, if the object of Mr. Speaker is to become informed of the proceedings of hon. Members of this House, and if the object of Mr. Speaker is to acquire the means of giving this House advice upon certain circumstances which have happened in its Business. If such is his object then in choosing worthless agents of this kind—I use the word without reflection on the individual ["Order, order! "]
    SIR LAWRENCE PALK: I rise to Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether it is Parliamentary language to speak of the officials of this House as "worthless agents?"
    MR. SPEAKER: I am sure the hon. Member will feel that expressions of that kind are unbecoming when applied to officers of this House. They are gentlemen like ourselves, and the hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, withdraw the expression.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I thought I clearly explained that I used these words entirely with regard to the legal effect and technical weight, so to speak—["Withdraw ! "]—I several times pointed out that I would use the word purely in its legal bearings. [" Withdraw, withdraw ! "] I will use the word "unguaranteed," then; but I have a perfect right to use the word I did. The strength of any machinery is only the strength of the weakest part; and if a Speaker desires to have full and complete information, should he not choose a means which should be not of the weakest, but of the strongest kind? In all this, neither your impartiality of intention, nor the possible gravity of future emergencies is contested; neither do we object to the taking of official reports, nor to the taking of unofficial reports of the nature contributed to the public Press; but, as I said, in the interests of every individual, in the interests of this House, in the interests of the permanent authority of Mr. Speaker, we object to a means of information of this irregular and unauthentic character receiving the approval of this House. Do we know, does this House know, has this House any opportunity of knowing, what is the system on which these unofficial reports are taken? Is it a method of a full report of the speeches, or a careful précis of the speeches, or is only the substance of the speeches given? Are interruptions mentioned? Are calls of Order mentioned? When a Member on the Ministerial side of the House rises, as Members so frequently rise, to call the speaker to Order, is that carefully taken down? Is it noted that that call to Order gave rise to such-and-such a discussion? Is it noted—which so frequently happens—that the call was rejected by the Chairman? In a word, what guarantee have we that all the circumstances are such as would com-
    198
    mend themselves to the general approval of this House? The private respectability of these confidential reporters may be what it may; but without some testimony, without any guarantee of any legal character, how can this evidence, which is no more than legal testimony, weigh with this House, or with the country, if adduced in support of any decision of Mr. Speaker? Unanimously in this House, and most warmly and emphatically on these Benches, without a doubt or hesitation, do we accept your declaration that you have no arriére penéee directed against any individual, and that there is no bias in this note-taking. Sir, we have accepted that statement, and this House has accepted it; but, leaving that case, I will take the case of any other Speaker who has recourse to these means. Does he not infallibly expose himself to comments outside? There is a necessity in these days of publicity that the proceedings of this House should be able to bear the test of publicity out-of-doors. At this moment, while every Member has declared that he accepted your assurance that it was with no intention of prosecuting or intimidating individual Members that these Notes were taken—on this very day, what is called the leading journal of this country, The Times, absolutely states that you have taken these steps for the purpose of bringing an indictment against certain Members of this House. That is, as we know, a false statement, for which you are not responsible; but it is a statement which reckless writers outside your jurisdiction have the power of making, when the agents you employ are not absolutely guaranteed, and have not previously been submitted to the careful approval of the House of Commons. Yes, Sir, it is not only in our interests, but in the interests of Mr. Speaker, that we make this Motion. Sir, if the agents you employ, or which any Speaker uses, have not previously passed through the ordeal of the examination and approval of this House, it is open to a public journal, with a slight sense of its responsibility, as evidently is done by The Times on the present occasion, to contradict your explanation, to refuse to recognize the truth of your assurances, and, in spite of your declaration to the contrary, to say you have set all this machinery in motion for the

    199
    purpose of bringing an indictment, or of supporting an indictment, against certain hon. Members. It is to defend you, whom we all respect and revere, from the liability to these misrepresentations, that I support the Resolution of the hon. Member for Meath. It has been said that this House is in a difficult position, and we can readily agree, and we can quote reasons which led us to this conclusion, other than those given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington). I think it is calculated to put this House in a difficult position when a Minister of the Crown, and a Member of Her Majesty's Government, can venture, in a public meeting, to speak of hon. Members of this House, not only Irishmen, but Englishmen, and to denounce them to their country as English and Irish revolutionists. This House is, indeed, in a difficult position, when the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with the connivance and the approval, or, at any rate, without that direct rebuke which, I submit, ought to have followed from his Colleagues, dares to speak of Members of this House—presumes to speak of Members of this House—has the insolence to speak of Members of this House—as Irish and English revolutionists. When a Member of Her Majesty's Government rises, and, with little veil and little concealment, asperses the Parliamentary character of hon. Members, they ought to begin their attempt at an indictment by first apologizing for the grossly un-Parliamentary conduct of their noble Colleague. We are not English and we are not Irish revolutionists; we are sincere Constitutionalists, seeking to gain and to maintain the respect of the peoples of these Kingdoms by the zealous performance of our duties, and by the careful consideration of a Bill which seems to be brought in in order to provoke Amendments.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Bill is not now before the House.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I did not intend, Sir, to convey the impression that I was referring to the Bill. I was only referring to the general conduct of the Government from day to day. "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." It has already been
    200
    repeatedly observed in this debate, not on these Benches, but on the front Opposition Benches, that the most objectionable practices attributed to us began with the sanction of Gentlemen now in power, and that the Leaders in these practices which are now called objectionable have been loaded with office and emolument. At the same time, Sir, in justice even to those who grant us such little justice, I would beg to observe that these practices, deemed so objectionable, date further back than the last Parliament. It will be within the knowledge of even superficial students of Constitutional history that Lord John Russell declared, in regard to his Reform Bill of 1860, that that Bill was choked and deprived of every chance of being carried through the House by the accumulation of Amendments piled upon it. In the debates relating to the first Reform Bill, a staunch Constitutionalist, Sir Charles Wetherall, after delaying the House by repeated Amendments, after sitting beyond midnight, and through the small hours of the morning, until those small hours began to get great ones—on the House rising, and it being discovered that rain was falling outside, audibly regretted that "he had not known it was raining, or he would have treated the House to a few more divisions." I would venture even to submit a small piece of advice to those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have so copiously advised us. The best way to prevent a difficulty in the despatch of Public Business is to occupy the House with Public Business worthy of the name. I can say, with absolute certainty, that no opposition will be offered to the discussion of substantial measures of real importance, really conducive to the public good. I utter these observations in support of the hon. Member for Meath; and I trust, in any further discussion, the question of your impartiality, Sir, and of your fairness, which was never doubted, will not be again brought in question, and trailed between the House and the real object in dispute. It seems to me improper of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to turn the House from the real question by panegyrics upon you, Sir, which you do not really require, and by disclaimers and repudiations of charges upon your motives which were never made. The question is the

    201
    sort of report which you have chosen to take, and whether it might not be amended? This House is willing to place at your disposal every means which may be required for your full and complete information with regard to the proceedings of this House; and speaking for myself, and, I am sure, speaking for many of my Colleagues, it is not I or we who would regret a full and complete account of the proceedings of this House. Sir, if the number of times that hon. Members have risen to Order, and only in disorder—if the number of Notices which led to debates, and which the Chairman has declared to be without just cause—if these are reported, it is a pity that the report could not be completed by something like a representation of the numerous, but inarticulate, interruptions which often interfere with the free discussion of Public Business in this House.
    DR. KENEALY: This, Sir, is a very great and grave question, and I regret very much that we have not had the opinions of a larger number of Constitutional lawyers than we have had; because if there be anything upon which this House, from its first foundation, has prided itself, it is upon securing the independence of Members in their Parliamentary position. It is the opinion of a great many here, whether rightly or wrongly founded I will not inquire, that the policy recently adopted, not only by hon. Members on the other side of the House, but also by the threats freely indulged in by newspapers which we know are in the pay and employment of the various Parties, are calculated in the highest degree to fetter the independence of Members. In the very article referred to by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), I find the leading journal describing Irish Members, who have rendered such valuable assistance in this House by their Amendments to the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill—who have cut out of it, in a great measure, one of the most objectionable features by which it is disfigured—designated by the insulting name of "filibusters." Now, Sir, that is intimidation; and I only wonder—indeed, I regret—that the Irish. Members have not thought it fit to bring the editor of The Times to the. Bar of the House, for using language so highly derogatory and insulting, Irish Mem-
    202
    bers, Sir, and a great many English Members, think that this practice, recently adopted under your auspices and sanction, of having clandestine and nocturnal reports made of speeches delivered here by hon. Gentlemen, is calculated, I have no doubt, without your sanction, your design, or intention, to operate upon them as a species of terrorism in the discharge of their duty. Therefore, I think every Constitutional lawyer in the House, at all events, ought to express in some way his opinion as to the way in which this new mode of Parliamentary procedure should be met. I have listened with great attention to the arguments on both sides. I observed that whenever the Tories wish to establish or to introduce any new system of despotism, they can always rely upon the aid of the Whigs. Indeed, this is one of the greatest incentives to the Tories violating the Constitution, which they are not usually disposed to do, having much more regard in their political proceedings for the Constitution than the Whigs. I notice that they never evade the Constitution that they do not reckon upon Whig support. Accordingly, when they come forward to-day to support this step, which I humbly regard as an unconstitutional proceeding, they have every Whig precedent in its favour. No one was aware that under the Administration of Lord John Russell, in 1850, these secret documents which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day produces were first invented. I was extremely anxious, when the right hon. Gentleman produced that extremely suspicious pamphlet, that he should favour us with a specimen of its contents. I do not know what it contains. We are all left in blissful ignorance of that; but I am very glad that the debate has occurred, if for no other purpose than that it will let the public know that in the Whig Administration of 1850 there was first devised a system of espionage on the Members of this House. That system is perfectly dishonourable, in my judgment, and disgraceful to the Administration of that day, because nobody knows what particular light he figures in in that volume. The right hon. Gentleman has not favoured us with a specimen of the last thing the Whigs have invented. We are asked to-day to support what I cannot characterize in

    203
    sufficiently strong language, but what I must protest against as a system calculated to interfere with hon. Members in the due discharge of their duties. We do not know the words written down. We cannot tell what comments may be made. We do not know what the reports are. We have no information, and we can have no knowledge of the spirit of the reporter. We cannot tell whether he takes down word for word, or whether he gives what he believes to be the substance of the speech. This reporting is calculated to excite a species of terrorism in the minds of hon. Members, for they know not what may be produced afterwards against them, if you, Sir, should be called again before a Committee to decide what should be the punishment for obstruction. When the Divorce Bill was first introduced, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) is reported to have said that he had the very strongest objection to its provisions, and that he was prepared to take a Division upon every clause, every section, nay, upon every line and word of the Bill. If that is not obstruction calculated to bring this House into contempt, I do not know what is. Irish Members have not gone so far as that, nor within 100 miles near it, and yet they are universally denounced by speakers and newspaper writers as though they were the greatest nuisances and the worst obstructionists ever known. In justice to those Members representing Irish constituencies, they ought to protest against this language being used to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not advanced any argument against those introduced by the Proposer and Seconder. There is no doubt whatever that all precedent is against the employment of private reporters by anybody. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich thought he had established a very great point, when he said that the circumstances differed very essentially from the circumstances of the time when the various precedents were laid down which were quoted by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). He said, in the days of the Tudors and the Stuarts, that it was necessary to prevent Members of the House from being intimidated, and that, therefore, the House was exceedingly jealous of its Privileges. I quite believe that; but there
    204
    is another kind of tyranny, which may be just as powerfully exercised over Members of the House, in their Parliamentary character, as that of the Tudors and the Stuarts—and that is, the tyranny of an overwhelming majority, who may be led by their Leaders to do an act of quite as much injustice. When the word "terrorism" was used, it was very well used, for we have observed nothing but a threat of unknown punishments, which are held, like the sword of Damocles, over the heads of the Irish Members, for endeavouring to amend as bad a Bill as was ever presented to the House of Commons. I shall support the Motion, Sir, not from any want of respect for you, but because I think this is a dangerous course for us to enter upon, and because we are told by those who are best calculated to give an opinion that it is likely to operate as terrorism. When, therefore, the hon. Member for Meath goes to a Division, I shall be found in the same Lobby.
    MR. SULLIVAN: I am sorry that Her Majesty's Government have evaded the issue raised by the Resolution before the House. That proposes to condemn an act, the Amendment to praise a man. That is not the way in which so grave a Parliamentary issue ought to be met, if it is met at all, by Her Majesty's Government. The act proposed to be condemned is one which is to be dealt with according to the customs and usages of Parliament. If, upon that view, it can be defended, let it be defended; and if it is to be tried and condemned on such an issue, let it be condemned. What has this Motion to do with praising an individual? I feel, and I think many others do the same, that they are free to accept the Amendment, and yet to vote for the Resolution; and I say, candidly, that I should have voted for the Resolution in an infinitely stronger form than that in which it is before the House of Commons. It is a common and shallow line of argument to represent an opponent as making a personal attack, and then, if that charge is resented, to say he is hauling down his flag. To-day we have the snare set before our face; but surely this is undignified when our liberties are on their trial, to descend to mere flattery of the Speaker, who is listening to them in the Chair. I shall deal with all this in a sentence and pass it by, because I scorn

    205
    to call it argument. There is none in this Resolution. I think I can speak for my Friends present, when I say that we impugn not your sense of justice, integrity, and impartiality, but an error of judgment by committing an act which is without precedent in the annals of this House, and is dangerous to the liberties of debate. Let us see exactly how Her Majesty's Government deal with it, and how the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs, at their command, regards it. If they have searched the records for precedents, they have nothing to substantiate the position, taken up by Her Majesty's Government, who were brought into Office very largely by the persistent policy of obstruction which certain of their Members pursued towards the late Government. Having rewarded those professional obstructors of Government measures with office and a seat on the Treasury Bench, they now come down and wince under the treatment which they themselves employed towards the Army Purchase Bill and the Irish Church Act. I concede to the right hon. Gentleman who, for what he has done, has been made Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right to do that which he has done. Indeed, I have never challenged it; but when he comes into Office a cry is raised by hon. Members because we offer resistance to the mischievous and obnoxious propositions of the Treasury Bench. I say that we are in our right in doing that which we believe to be vital to the interests of the country, and availing ourselves of those means which the wisdom of our ancestors provided for a minority fighting in defence of public liberty. This line of conduct which we follow has been recognized for years, and it must now be taken into consideration in connection with the threats of imprisonment or expulsion from this House, which we are told are now being considered, in order to silence the legitimate opposition of Members of this House. The fact that certain Members have spoken so many times is to be made a ground for an indictment. How is it to be substantiated? The public records ought to supply it. We pay thousands a-year to Mr. Hansard for a faithful record of our proceedings, and, surely, upon that record Her Majesty's Government might elect to proceed, or threaten to proceed, towards imprisonment or expulsion from
    206
    this Assembly. But what is the course adopted to obtain evidence? If the mind is not free, the Member is not free, and his language is not independent. In such a state of things the Government have made five ineffectual attempts to grasp a Member of this House, with a view to punishing him. They have made a spring upon the indicated prey; but it has eluded their grasp, for the Treasury Bench was wrong, and he was right. Again and again the Minister has made a spring upon him, to punish and expel him, and once more he has found the President against him, and that it was a Minister who was in disorder, and that the victim was actually within Order. In this state of things, we find an official in that part of the House set apart for Members of the House as an official act, for that is the difference between him and the Clerk at the Table, making a secret and a surreptitious record of the proceedings of this House. Is it honest to threaten Members in this way? We cannot tell what the record is. There seems to be a sort of tally or score of the rising and sitting down of hon. Members. It is not a faithful short-hand report. What it is nobody can say, for it is taken without the previous knowledge and assent of this House. If you thought it right for the House of Commons to have a more perfect record than the Clerk at the Table takes, it would have been within your province to announce to the House what you thought desirable. Instead of that, we find this gentleman there taking these Notes. I say, if this had happened in the time of Pym or Hampden, someone would have been sent to the Tower to-day. I say that a man would have put himself in serious peril if, in the reign of either Charles or James, any Member of this House had stationed an official in the Gallery to spy on the proceedings and to get a secret and surreptitious record of them. Where is this record? We declare that it is without precedent. Now, Mr. Speaker, I warn the House of Commons that there is never a time when it is more necessary to be deliberate and calm than when you are about to step forward to inflict punishment upon any Member of the House. That is just the time when this House ought to be free from excitement, or anger, or irritation. Above all, if you are intending to menace

    207
    with expulsion or penal consequences any Member of this House, you will deprive the act of all moral weight in the country, and of all real substantial force in the House, unless you take your proceedings towards him fairly, openly, and with notice to him of what you are going to do. You have no right to go secretly behind his back and make up a record against him. I warn you, Gentlemen—["Order, order!"]—I warn this House, Mr. Speaker, and I rejoice to find hon. Members are so careful of the rules of debate—I warn the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, to remember that this Institution is destined to last for hundreds of years, as it has come down to us for centuries before, and let us not purchase, by a sacrifice of any of the liberties of this House, the momentary gratification of a triumph over a minority so small. You may strike down a few Members who are troublesome to the Government, not to the House; you may strike them down, you may fetter them, you may silence them; but please recollect, Mr. Speaker, that as long as they entrench themselves behind the precedents, usages, and customs of this House, they are in a position which you cannot assail without disaster to the country at large. Therefore, I say tonight, if this be, as we declare it to be, an act which cannot be fortified by reference to precedent; if it is an act which would have been resented in the days when the liberties of this House were fought for at peril to life and limb; it behoves us, for the sake of the future which comes after us, that this shall be no precedent, and shall meet with the prompt repudiation of the House of Commons. I hope the House will understand me. I desire to impeach, in the strongest language consonant with the highest personal respect for you, Sir, the correctness, in a Parliamentary sense, of the course of procedure which you have adopted. I desire to be understood as offering against that act my solemn and most vehement protest, believing, as I do, that it must be fatal in the end in establishing a precedent.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has placed some Members of the House in a considerable difficulty by the course he has taken. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) in thinking
    208
    that he has not fairly met the practical question before the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to get out of his difficulty by moving a Vote of Confidence in yourself. I have only to say, Sir, that I should join with the utmost sincerity in voting that confidence in you. Upon the other hand, we have before us a definite Resolution, a definite declaration; not referring to your general conduct, but to one precise act of which it is intended to complain. The Resolution proposed by my hon. Friend is, in plain words—that an act has been done without precedent, and that it is, therefore, open to objection. I, for one, feel morally coerced to give my vote in favour of that Resolution. At the same time, if the House will allow me to say so, I should be perfectly willing, and I should rejoice, to join with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in declaring my fullest confidence in the impartiality, the justice, and the honour of Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor of the Exchequer began his speech in a manner which seemed very like trifling with a great question. He began by a panegyric on Mr. Speaker, which we all must endorse. He then went on to say that Mr. Speaker had always been so just, and impartial, and kind to us, that, therefore, it was our business to support him on all conceivable occasions. It is not in that way, by an interchange of courtesy and kindness, that I feel bound to support the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is, of course, our duty to support him. It is a necessary condition of the Business of this House and of the discharge of all Public Business, that we should lend him our habitual and steady support. This, however, is merely a question of whether, in one single instance, a certain act done was or was not according to precedent, and is or is not open to objection? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, apparently, had not quite made up his mind as to the character of the act. I remember that Lord Palmerston, describing in one of his letters a certain debate in this House, in which several distinguished Gentlemen took part, gives great praise to some of them, but singles out one or two, and quietly observes that those hon. Gentlemen, having no clear idea in their minds, conveyed no clear idea to the House. It seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on this occasion,

    209
    had no clear idea of the purpose of the act of which we are complaining, and, therefore, has failed to convey any idea to the House. He spoke of it, over and over again, as if it were some new and happy device for having better records of the debates of this House. He said of some of my hon. Friends near me—" These are the gentlemen who asked for fuller reports, and yet they object to the publicity which would surely bring on them all the praise they desired." "Why, Mr. Speaker, to have heard that argument, one would have supposed you had discovered some new and valuable method of publishing our debates, of trumpeting them to the end of the world—of placarding any great speech made in this House at Charing Cross. I will ask any hon. Member whether that is the nature of the proceedings taken, or whether this is merely a new way of keeping a clearer and more precise record of all the speeches delivered here? I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and ask, whether the ringing cheers with which they greeted some part of the debate last night, the amount of emotion and even of passion which they displayed, were really called up by the discovery that some new plan had been invented for keeping a record of our debates? I need not appeal to them. I can appeal to a higher authority—yourself, Sir. You yourself, Sir, the other day, made a statement of the purposes of this new arrangement, very different from that in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to make us believe he really believed. In your explanation, you distinctly stated that this new device had reference to certain difficulties raised to the passing of a particular measure in the House of Commons. Yet, to have heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one would suppose that Mr. Speaker had nothing better to do in his leisure than to fill his mind with records, carefully prepared, of all the speeches made on the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, and to read them for his own personal edification. You, Mr. Speaker, have distinctly explained that, and have put aside any attempt to put an erroneous delusive colour on the action itself. This is, then, distinctly some new practice to be adopted with reference to an alleged new procedure in the House of Commons. The thing itself is new; it is without
    210
    example or precedent, and it has direct reference to some measure to be introduced for the purpose of making a change in the Business arrangements of the House of Commons. Is it wonderful that hon. Members take alarm at the way in which it was introduced? It may be that the House may be pleased to alter the arrangement of its Business. We have heard a great deal of talk about obstruction. We hear so much talk, indeed, of it, that the very denunciation of obstruction becomes an instrument and an agent of obstruction. Almost as much time is taken up in denouncing it as is spent in promoting it—if anybody is really purposely carrying it on. I am not going to discuss that question. I am content to know that I have never taken any part in it, and really do not believe that there is any Member in this House who is influenced by a mere desire to obstruct its Business, or who would wish to postpone any particular Motion without a definite and legitimate purpose. Let it be observed, also, that this obstruction is not quite so new an act as hon. Members suppose. I do not think I can quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) in awarding the merit of that invention to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Long before he had the chance of gladdening the debates of this House obstruction was a constantly employed and constantly denounced weapon of warfare. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) spoke of the -Reform Bill introduced by Lord John Russell in 1860. That was, indeed, admittedly crowded out by the mass of Amendments poured in, not from the Opposition for the most part, but from the luke-warm Liberals behind the Ministerial Benches. But there was then another form of obstruction, which, I am happy to say, we have not seen in recent times—corporal or physical obstruction. I remember perfectly well, on one occasion, that an attempt was organized to count the House in the middle of that debate, and that a great number of energetic Conservative Gentlemen went outside, and endeavoured, by sheer force and personal strength, to keep Liberal Members from getting back to their places. An hon. Gentleman, whom I do not now see in his place, a well-known Member of the Conservative

    211
    Party who sits below the Gangway, had then the distinction of being complained of to your Predecessor, by an hon. Gentleman now a Judge in this land, who declared that he interposed his considerable bulk between him and the door, and so prevented him from coming in. That is only one species of the obstruction which has always been a more or less recognized, and much complained of, weapon in Parliamentary warfare. Those who wish to push a Bill through naturally complain of those who obstruct it; and those who object to a measure are only too happy to use some obstruction themselves, or encourage others to adopt it. I remember that in this House, some years ago, an hon. Gentleman, who is now the Governor of a Colony, used to divide the House again and again, with a small band of four or five Members, until, indeed, the sun shone in on these windows, in order to defeat a measure to which he was opposed, and he was an honoured Member of the Conservative Party. It may be that a proposal will be made for restricting in some way the liberty of debate and the rights of minorities; but I trust that no such attempt ever will be made, and that if made that there will be sufficient public spirit in the House to resist any such change in our legislation. If it ever is to be attempted, if that most serious change—more serious than any yet introduced in our time—should ever be sought for, it ought to be done fairly, openly, and deliberately, and every proceeding or act, however small, that leads up to it should be done with the full knowledge of the House, and in the full light of open day, that not only the House but the public at large may know the importance of it. Let me venture on one illustration of the danger of overbearing a small minority, taken from the history of another country, and on the statement of a great man who died some two years ago—M. Thiers. He has left on record that if the French Chamber could but have had 48 hours' more debate, 48 hours' more of speech-making and discussion, the unhappy war with Prussia would never have been commenced. He declared, as a mere statement of fact, that the explanations extorted from the Government would have so opened the eyes of the people, and so changed the condition of affairs, that no Ministers would have dared to
    212
    venture upon a war in the face of such admissions; but the small minority were crushed by the Parliamentary system existing in that country, and at a certain time the triumphant majority overbore them. Well, for a time, they had their triumph; but that triumph brought France to temporary ruin. I do not think any such terrible emergency will arise in our time, or in any time, in this country; but in making our arrangements as to the Business of this House, we must not make them merely and solely in preparation for the life we are accustomed to, but they must be adapted to stand the strain of a great difficulty to bear the burden of some sudden national crisis. At all events, it is certain that such a change will call for serious and solemn debate, and that nothing can be more dangerous than to have any proceedings leading up to it suddenly sprung upon the House as a mere surprise. Therefore, I cannot help thinking that the House has some reason to complain of this act, however insignificant or unimportant in itself, which has been lately done. I do not wonder that certain Members in especial have taken it up with a greater sense of alarm than the House in general. Some hon. Gentlemen do not trouble themselves much about the future, and are not even deeply concerned in the actual measures now going on. I think it is rather unfortunate that that phrase—the Business of the House—should be so often used as to lead Members away from a true sense of their public duty. The Business of the House is not to push legislation through at express speed, but to have Bills carefully and steadily prepared and made perfect; and if, in the course of that work, there is more delay than the patience of hon. Members can sometimes bear, I would ask them, fairly, is it not better to put up with that than to imperil the rights of however small a minority in the House? The great pride and characteristic of the English Parliament has been that no overbearing majority can silence the minority, and this I trust will always be its chief distinction and its glory. But if there is a change to be made, it must be made solemnly and seriously, and must not be in the nature of a surprise. I believe that this act is without precedent, and is part of the intention of some of Her Majesty's Ministers to

    213
    go on to further legislation trenching on the liberties of the minority and on the rights of free speech. I, therefore, feel morally compelled to support the Resolution; although I should, at the same time, feel the greatest readiness in expressing the fullest and most complete confidence in the justice and fairness of Mr. Speaker.
    MR. HOPWOOD: Sir, I always show the greatest respect for all I have ever heard you say; but feelings of even affectionate regard for you should not guide us in this matter. I do wish there was an intermediate course by which we could bear our unfeigned testimony to your conduct in that Chair and in every relation of life, and yet say that we think that the course you have recently adopted should not be continued. ["Divide, divide!"] I must say that I hope the convictions of hon. Gentlemen will not lead them to interfere with the convictions of other hon. Gentlemen. This is so painful a ground that we now take that we are not likely to have done it lightly, and we do not desire to be longer about it than is absolutely necessary. The affirmation we make is that this course is without precedent, and that if it is without precedent it is dangerous to the Privileges of the House. I think nobody can contend that it is not new in principle, and if it be out of our power to ascertain or control it before it is done, it is dangerous and subversive of our Privileges. I go that length, although my hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) may have withdrawn those words. I regret extremely that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) should have turned that taunt upon us with all the power of language with which he always appeals to his hearers. For the first time in my political life the sound of his voice brought no pleasure to me, because I thought he was perpetrating an unfairness which was below the level of his very high position and talents. Not one of the hon. Gentlemen who have advocated the Amendment seemed to me to state anything worthy of notice as an argument. On the right and on the left the advocacy is based upon what I must say is not quite candid—on a pretence, forsooth, that this was a means resorted to to secure a fuller account of our debates and proceedings.
    214
    You, Sir, never put it on that ground. Everyone knows you are incapable of anything like equivocation, and you have put it upon this ground—that you want these facts for your own information and for the service of the House, a motive we all recognize; but is it so defined in the plea now put forward? They admit it is without precedent, and then, forsooth, when we refer to the precedents and the language held in former days, they tell us, in nearly so many words, that these are musty precedents, and are not at all to guide and direct our relations. Musty precedents, indeed, is the language. Is the language of your noble Predecessor who said—"Ihave no eyes to see, and no ears to hear, anything the House does not allow me to see and to hear"—do they mean to say that that is a musty precedent? If it is one at all, it proves our case. We maintain that the Speaker has no power of originating anything. Is that an origination? Who can doubt it? Can the same power place a detective in that Gallery to watch the movements of particular Members of Parliament? In what does that differ? You appoint a Clerk. What is he to watch? You are informed; and when we inquire who has done this thing, then we are told it is by the order and direction of the Speaker. Then the right hon. Gentleman opposite actually defends it on such a ground as this—that Mr. Speaker is, forsooth, a Member of every Committee, and may be present if he likes and take a note of everything that goes on. Who denies that? Why condescend to such an ordinary truism, such a Parliamentary truism? How does it advance the discussion? All this proves to me that the right hon. Gentlemen on both sides feel that there is a difficulty in straightforwardly defending what has been done. I wish, Sir, you had risen in your place and said—"I find what I have ordered has given occasion for some remark, and I have consequently directed its discontinuance." I believe that would have satisfied the whole of the House, and that many who will vote for the Amendment would have been glad to have been saved the necessity. I should have been glad to be spared the necessity of making any remark. Every Member must speak for himself; but I think that as no one has said, no one can say, that it is a wise act on the part of

    215
    the Chief of the House to place somebody to take a note of what its Members do, and that for an avowed purpose, and in connection with a notorious assumption that some hon. Members of the House are supposed to have practised obstruction in the discussion of a most faulty Bill. Does it not imperil Mr. Speaker's position as the man we are all under, who is set above us to decide in calm impartiality between us, of every Party or section of a Party, and on whom the obscurest Home Ruler or the humblest individual ought to be able to rely for fairness? Oh! Mr. Speaker, it does seem to me that this proceeding is a dangerous one for which I am sorry, for which I think by this time you are sorry, and I am sure the inmost conscience and heart of the House cannot and will not support it.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYER: I have abstained from taking any part in these painful proceedings, because I cannot concur with the views of hon. Members opposite with whom I act sometimes. [An hon. MEMBER: Sometimes!] I act with them when I think they are right; and I abstain from acting with them when I think they are wrong. I think on the present occasion they have made a false step, which will be injurious to the influence of the Irish Members in this House. I maintain that the whole of our Parliamentary procedure depends upon the respect paid to Mr. Speaker, and if that is in any way diminished or impaired, it may be fatal to Parliamentary government in this country. Anybody who has read history, or attended to precedent, will see there are a very few cases in which a Resolution has been moved, aimed at Mr. Speaker, and it has only been done under the gravest circumstances. Mr. Speaker is much more than the servant of this House. He is the President of this illustrious Senate. Sir Erskine May, whom everyone acknowledges as an authority, very well sums up this matter when he says—" He is the representative of the House itself, its powers, its proceedings, and its dignities." What is the occasion on which this Resolution has been moved? "What has occurred? Hon. Members opposite had some grounds to be suspicious. They found there was a person taking Notes, of whose authority to do so they knew nothing. They had a right to make inquiries, and I do not
    216
    find fault with them for bringing the matter before the House. But when, Sir, you told the House that this was done by your direction and for your own use, so that you might be better able to perform your duties, the matter ought to have terminated at once. Instead of that, it was carried on; an attempt was made to move a Vote of Censure in a hasty manner, and then a Resolution is brought forward, bringing the gravest charges against Mr. Speaker—charges so grave and so unfounded that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was obliged to give up part of them. He maintains that what he complains of is unprecedented. Now, no one has a greater respect than I have for precedents; but it is one thing to be without precedents, and quite another thing to be acting against precedents. You may require a new precedent, and because a certain thing has not occurred before that is no reason why it should not occur. If this is unprecedented, it is not, therefore, contrary to precedent. But, from the speeches of hon. Members, it might be supposed that the Star Chamber was to be revived and Notes were to be taken down secretly and brought before the House. But what are the real facts of the case? In the Press Gallery we have Reporters who give full reports of what is going on to everybody who chooses to read them. Then an officer took down the hour at which Members rose and sat down. Was not that already sent from the Cloak Room to all the Clubs in London? I shall vote for the Amendment, because a charge is never brought against Mr. Speaker except for a great breach of Privilege, and because we ought to show on the Books of the House that we had the fullest confidence in the impartiality of Mr. Speaker.
    MR. E. JENKINS: As I propose to support the Amendment, perhaps the House will forgive me, if I state the reasons which have led me to that conclusion. I am, naturally, very sorry to differ with many of those with whom I am very often in association; but I cannot help feeling in regard to the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) that the plea he has put forward, powerful as it is, and calculated to influence—and I know that it has influenced the judgment of many hon. Members on this side—that it really does set aside that which is at the bot-

    217
    tom of all these proceedings. He took exception to the fact that the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) had asked the House to take into consideration the circumstances in which the Business of the House was placed. My hon. Friend was, I think, hardly fair in stating that the noble Lord used that as an argument. It is not true that the noble Lord had pointed to that as an argument; but he did allude to it, as a matter which this House was bound to take into consideration in forming a judgment upon the action taken by Mr. Speaker. I feel that it is the duty of everyone, and especially of those who were most Liberal, most Radical, and most in love with Parliamentary government, to take this opportunity of protesting in the most solemn form against the disgrace which is being brought upon Parliamentary government by the proceedings to which the noble Lord has alluded.
    MR. CALLAN: I rise to Order. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) refers to disgrace being brought on this House by hon. Members. ["Order, order!"] He stated that disgrace was being brought upon this House by the proceedings of certain Members. I have to ask you, Sir, is it in Order for any Member to make such an assertion?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins) is in possession of the House, and I see no reason to interpose. It will be open to the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) to make any observation he may think proper in commenting upon his remarks.
    MR. E. JENKINS: No doubt, one will be subject to these interruptions; but they will not deter me from saying what I feel it to be my duty to say. It is a matter which this House is bound to take into consideration in forming its judgment in relation to the action of Mr. Speaker. It must consider the state to which this House is brought partly by the action of certain Members—[Mr. PARNELL: Including the hon. Member for Dundee.]—and partly by the weakness of its Ministers. Surely, of all the hon. Members who ought not to interrupt me in the observations I am making, it is the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). If the slightest sound is ever emitted from the opposite Benches when he is speaking, he immediately addresses
    218
    those Benches in a tone of deprecation of such interference with the liberty of Parliament. Yet, when I happen to disagree with him upon one point, I find myself immediately interrupted. But, to come back to the point before the House, I wish to ask the House to consider really, after all, if this is a question to be governed entirely by precedent? I am bound to say—and I am sure, Sir, it will not be misunderstood by you or any Member of this House—that when this matter was first brought to the attention of the House, and when I heard that a certain gentleman was sitting in the Gallery of the House taking these Notes, that the first impression upon my mind was a disagreeable one, and that I felt anything but sure that there might not be some ground for the objection taken to it. No sooner, however, was your explanation given—and it was a perfectly satisfactory explanation—than I felt that the object which Mr. Speaker had in view was not a mere espionage of this or that group of Members, but simply to afford himself the opportunity of giving that evidence which it is indubitable will have to be given before dealing with the manner in which our Rules and precedents are to be improved. It seems to me we are not bound to go back to precedent to defend Mr. Speaker in the exercise of his private judgment. For the purpose of enabling him to form an opinion, he sets a clerk to perform a duty, which is not, by any means, a duty of an unpleasant character—a duty which is simply statistical. [A laugh.] Hon. Members laugh, because they choose to impute motives to Mr. Speaker. [" No, no! "] If they do not impute motives, what is the meaning of all these proceedings? I say this thing is a mere statistical registration, which is serving Mr. Speaker fairly to initiate a proceeding of another character without any arriére pensée. I defend it, Sir, upon the ground which you have stated, and that is simply that you require this for the information of your own mind and for the purpose of forming a judgment with relation to any change which may be suggested. [Mr. SULLIVAN: Against whom?] I say Mr. Speaker is justified by the proceedings which have taken place in this House, even supposing that he had an ulterior motive in taking the action that he did. There-

    219
    fore, I do not see my way to support the proposition, especially in view of the fact that the Speaker is only the enibodiment of the authority, but also of the dignity of this House, and that we have repeatedly seen how often it is placed in peril by the hon. Members who are bringing forward this Motion.
    MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN: Sir, I rise to make a few observations upon one point especially dwelt upon by the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), and by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). Those hon. and learned Gentlemen spoke of the protection which the Forms of the House afforded to a minority; and I think the hon. and learned Member for Louth particularly said "that they were designed in order to prevent a majority crushing a small minority." Now, I suppose, that if there is one thing more dear than another to Englishmen it is the principle of being bound by the decision of the majority; but it is perfectly well known, also, to be an essential principle of our Rules and Regulations that the same question should not be debated twice. If that means anything, it is that the decision of the House having been once taken upon a question, it should not be reverted to and brought forward again. You cannot have a more decisive affirmation of the absolute decision of a majority ruling questions which we bring forward in this House. I desire also to offer a few remarks upon the point which has been brought forward by hon. Members that obstruction was constantly resorted to in former days in this House. After a Parliamentary experience of 27 years, I can say, without hesitation, that I have never known obstruction organized in such a manner to prevent the passage of measures until during the last Parliament, when those hon. Gentlemen who have been alluded to took a certain course with regard to measures introduced by the last Government. I fully remember the very great fear which I entertained concerning the future Business of the House. I said, again and again, that we were straining the Forms of the House in a dangerous manner, and that it could not otherwise result than in very serious consequences to the authority of the House of Commons. The very unfortunate course taken at the period referred to has been persisted
    220
    in by hon. Members, and exaggerated very largely during the present Parliament. We have a great duty to perform to our country, and we are sent here to legislate for our country's good, and it is not to be supposed that we can so far forget that duty as to permit it to be interfered with by the obstruction offered to the progress of the Business of the House. Therefore, I do not hesitate to warn hon. Gentlemen that it will be absolutely necessary for the great body of the Members of this House carefully to consider in what manner they will prevent the continuance of this distinct and organized obstruction to the performance of their functions and the Business of the country. The delay of measures has now become a science; and hon. Members in adopting that course keep within the Forms of the House of which they have a perfect knowledge; but they, nevertheless, prevent the carrying on of the Business of the country. We have a large number of Orders on the Book, and yet the consideration of one particular measure introduced by the Government has so taken up the time of Parliament that those charged with the responsibilities of Office have found it quite impossible to get through their Business. Such a state of things cannot be allowed to continue. For my own part, I should certainly not wish to see the Forms of the House altered; but some remedy must be found, although the form which it will take must be a matter for grave consideration. The hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) has stated that you, Sir, had "secretly and surreptitiously" placed a stranger in the Gallery to report our proceedings. But that gentleman could be seen from any part of the House, and, surely, it was open to anyone to observe that Notes were being taken. Therefore, I cannot think for an instant that the words "secretly and surreptitiously" can be applied to that proceeding. Sir, I can only say that, charged as you are with the difficult function of presiding over the Business of the House, you are, in my opinion, perfectly justified in the course which you have taken, inasmuch as the Rules and precedents of Parliament are established as they become from time to time necessary.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Sir, I think this is one of those occasions upon,

    221
    which, we may regret that some of the forms of Parliamentary procedure in foreign countries are not in existence here. It seems to me that this is eminently an occasion upon which—in France, for instance—a Motion would be made, that the explanation of Mr. Speaker having been received the House should pass to the Business of the day. The only Motion analogous to that which we have is that of moving the Previous Question; and I imagine that if I, or, as I should greatly prefer, some old, experienced, and highly-valued Member of this House, were to make that Motion, the House of Commons, as well as the country, would be spared a very unpleasant issue. With the permission of the House, I will state my reason for considering the issue to be of that character. It is impossible, I think, to treat this matter as a light one, or to put it upon the ground that something has been done by your authority which is a matter of every-day proceeding. We have heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, to the majority of hon. Members, has been a revelation, that for many years past a record of the number and duration of the speeches of hon. Members has been kept by the Clerk at the Table, and that such record has been kept for statistical and useful purposes. Now, for my own part, I should like to know something of the history of that record; when it was commenced; at whose instigation it was commenced; whether it has been regularly kept since that time; the number of volumes, who has access to them, and what they contain? But if we accept the explanation which has been given—and I, for one, am far from offering any opposition to it—that record must contain everything which can be desired by Mr. Speaker or by the House. But with what object was that procedure changed? I have no hesitation in avowing my belief that the object was to obtain a record of the proceedings of Members of this House, to be used for penal purposes hereafter. But if it was necessary to have more accurate records than those hitherto kept, why was not the House informed of this necessity? My whole nature revolts at the idea of anything like espionage being introduced into the House of Commons. I feel myself unable to control my emotions when I think that something is
    222
    being done behind the backs of hon. Members, for the purpose of accomplishing an object which may be either good or bad, but of which we know nothing. Sir, it is not a favourable feature of the closing years of this Parliament that hon. Members should be willing to resort to so un-English a proceeding for the purpose of putting down obstruction caused by the action or language of a small minority of this House. I myself, both in the House and at the expense of some popularity out of it, have expressed my extreme disapprobation at anything in the nature of organized obstruction. I have never taken part in such obstruction, and I have expressed, both through the Press and by word of mouth, my opinion that whenever organized obstruction is practised it must lead to the clôture which is carried on in foreign Assemblies. I am not sure that the plan of silencing hon. Members might not even now be proposed, and that it was not actually proposed by Mr. Bernal Osborne; but if it be necessary to silence hon. Members, surely it is for the Leader of the House to come forward and make the Motion, and allow hon. Members to deal with it. But to put upon hon. Members something in the shape of pressure, through the Speaker of the House, appears to me to be a course unworthy of the House of Commons. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House would not, perhaps, feel this pressure, because they are Members of a large majority; but it would tell very much against those who are Members of a weak and insignificant minority. Sir, I feel it would be extremely unbecoming in me, as I think it has been unbecoming on the part of several hon. Members, to indulge in panegyrics upon the conduct of the Chair. I have been brought up with the idea that Mr. Speaker was the Representative of the majesty of the Commons of England, and thus it would no more occur to me to dispute his authority, or to question his impartiality, than it would occur to me to question the authority of the Sovereign. For that reason, the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to me particularly objectionable, inasmuch as it would make it appear to be desirable that the House should express an opinion upon the impartiality of Mr. Speaker. Sir, I think this is a matter

    223
    which ought to pass without question, as I am certain it would pass without question in any Assembly brought together in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions. I think it would be desirable, in the interest of the dignity of the House, and looking to the view which in future may be taken of the record of our proceedings, that this Motion should not be divided upon. Has it come to this—that the House of Commons is about to affirm, on the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is desirable that confidential information as to the proceedings of Members should be conveyed to Mr. Speaker when he is out of the Chair? I cannot think that our forefathers would have suffered that course. If a Division is taken, whilst I shall vote, as I cannot help voting, in favour of the truism that the course which has been taken is unprecedented, I shall, at the same time, regret that I am prevented doing that which I desire to do—namely, to affirm my complete confidence in the impartiality and honour of Mr. Speaker; for it will be impossible for me to assent to the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which declares that it is desirable that confidential information as to the conduct of Members of the House should be conveyed to the Speaker when he is absent from the Chair. I desire to call the attention of the House to another aspect of this question. If it be necessary to have more accurate information as to what takes place in this House, what is the reason that the House of Commons has so persistently refused to organize a system for reporting our proceedings? While we refuse to have the recognized system of reporting which exists in almost every Legislative Assembly in the world, with what consistency can we vote that it is desirable, or to be tolerated, that an official of the House shall be put into the Gallery to take notes of what is said by hon. Members? But I say that it is not proved that we have not during this very Session organized the proper means to obtain information as to what takes place in Committee. The House will recollect that, in consequence of several Motions which were brought forward at various times with reference to a Report of the proceedings of the House, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject, and
    224
    sat for a very considerable length of time. The House will also recollect that if the newspaper reports of the speeches of hon. Members in debate were defective, and not given at the desired length, it was found that what was said and done in Committee was still more defectively reported, and that, therefore, Mr. Speaker was authorized to enter into arrangements with Mr. Hansard for reporting the proceedings in Committee. Now, I have referred to the report furnished by Mr. Hansard of our proceedings in Committee upon occasions when I have been present, and am able to say that anything more accurate, or more full, cannot possibly be conceived. Those reports are perfectly full and accurate, and, therefore, if it be desired to know how often hon. Members speak, it can be ascertained from the authorized version of our proceedings published by Mr. Hansard; and if it be desired to know what an hon. Member has said, his words will be found accurately recorded in that publication. But if this question of how long and how often hon. Members speak is to be debated in this House, how far back are we to go? Is our inquiry to be confined to the proceedings on the Bill now before the House for the better regulation of the Army? or shall we go back many Sessions, and ask how often the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) spoke in Committee on the Divorce Bill, and inquire how often right hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke on the Ballot Bill? Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) whether there was, or was not, an organized system of obstruction to the progress of the latter measure, which was placed in his charge? Was there any less persistent opposition to its progress through the House in any one of its stages than there has been to the passage of other measures? Take, again, the question of Abolition of Purchase in the Army, and let hon. Members examine their consciences, and say whether they did not do everything in their power to obstruct the Business of the House—for that is the phrase now in use—upon that occasion? The difference between the proceedings of my hon. Friends and the proceedings of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite at that time is that they did not understand their business so

    225
    well as my hon. Friends understand their business. But if the latter are to be charged with this vice of obstruction, they certainly have the right to refer to the record of the good which they have done. I repeat that, so far from approving of obstruction, I deeply disapprove of it in any form which has not the definite and distinct object of preventing the passage of a measure supposed to be bad, or of promoting the progress of measures supposed to be good. What would have been the condition of prisoners in this country if there had not been persistency on the part of my hon. Friends here in amending the Prisons Bill? I have not the smallest hesitation in saying that certainly one-half, and probably two-thirds, of the Amendments of my hon. Friends to that measure were carried in this House; and I can go further, and say that every one of those Amendments which, went to the protection of the liberty of the subject was carried by the persistency of my hon. Friends. Again, to whom is the country indebted for the abolition of the old Mutiny Bill, and the consequent introduction of a mitigated measure by the Government, if it be not entirely to that small minority of hon. Members whom you wish to crush? Further, the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill, which it is expected should pass through Parliament without inquiry, has been met by certain Amendments on the part of my hon. Friends characterized as obstructive. But what is the position of this matter? Why, my hon. Friends have carried very nearly one-half of their Amendments, and every one of those has been approved by universal consensus outside this House. Is it for these services rendered to the country that you are now to introduce, for the first time into the House of Commons, a penal record of what my hon. Friends have done? What, I ask, is the object of this record? Is it so to deal with those hon. Members that the fire may be taken out of their speeches, in order that the legislation of the country may proceed without criticism? Sir, I should, rejoice if this were Wednesday, instead of Friday; because, in that case, it is quite possible that some hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite would not be able to compress their observations within such a compass as would, by the Forms, allow us to come to any
    226
    actual conclusion upon the matter before the House. But, as it is, I regret that we shall be called upon to divide upon this Resolution. For my part, I shall vote with the hon. Member for Heath (Mr. Parnell), for, whether I think his proceedings wise or not, I shall never, as long as I sit in this House, desert his principles. On the other hand, much as I should like to testify the deep and profound respect which I feel for the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair, I cannot join the Government in expressing its satisfaction that confidential information has been acquired by means of an organization of officers of this House as to the conduct of hon. Members entitled to address the House of Parliament.
    MR. CALLAN: Sir, I do not agree with the wish expressed by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that this was Wednesday instead of Friday. I wish to go at once to a Division, but desire to express my regret at the manner in which this question was put upon the Paper of the House. I must say, Sir, that it would have been an act of common fairness and courtesy to you, had due Notice been given before the subject was brought forward. I must also express my regret at the manner in which it has been meet by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has not met it as he should have done by a direct negative, but in a manner quite fallacious and evasive, and one which is, besides, in direct conflict with the announcement made from the Chair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has put in his Amendment that these reports are confidential in their character; whereas you, Sir, stated that you were ready to lay them upon the Table of the House, if hon. Members thought it necessary to move for them as a Return. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich have come forward and said that this is no new course of procedure, but that these Minutes have been taken for a period of 29 years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that exact Notes were taken since the year 1850 of the times of rising and sitting down of hon. Members. I have in my hand the Book referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which I trust, for the honour of the House, he had not read when he made that statement.

    227
    The first entry in which my name occurs relates to—
    "The Peace Preservation Bill, Ireland; second reading; Mr. George Moore moved an Amendment, Mr. Callan seconded it."
    No hour is here given. This is the first error; and I now turn to the year 1873, when we had a Turnpike Trusts Bill before the House, and amongst those who divided on that occasion I find the Members of the present Government. That was a case of real obstruction. I find the first Teller was the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). The Teller in the next obstructive Motion was the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Lowther); and, again, on the next obstructive Motion, the Teller was the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade (Viscount Sandon). The Teller in the next Motion against this Turnpike Bill, which was in Committee over six hours, was the Whip of the Conservative Government; and then, as fourth Teller, came the hon. Gentleman who represents the India Office in this House (Mr. E. Stanhope). There is no entry whatever on that occasion of any speech of mine. I turn now to the year 1877, when the House sat for 26 hours on the South Africa Bill, and there is no entry of any speech made upon that Bill. How can we, then, but characterize the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, holding this Book in his hand, as inaccurate, and as a flimsy pretext, misleading to the House? It will be in the memory of the House that, last Monday, I questioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this subject, and in his answer he declined all knowledge of these proceedings, referring me to you, Sir. You gave no answer, and, in consequence, I believed then, and continued to do so until you disavowed it, that you were wholly unconnected with the matter in dispute, and that the Notes had been taken by some unauthorized person.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 421: Majority 392.—(Div. List No. 159.)
    MR. SPEAKER: According to the Orders of the House, this Sitting is suspended until Nine o'clock, when this debate will be resumed.
    228
    And it being Seven of the clock, further Proceeding stood adjourned till this day, and the House suspended its Sitting.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE—NOTE-TAKING IN THE MEMBERS' SIDE-GALLERY.

    RESOLUTION.
    PROCEEDING OF THE HOUSE further resumed.
    Question proposed,
    "That the words' Notice having been taken, while the House was in Committee, of the presence in one of the side Galleries of a gentleman engaged in taking notes of the proceedings of the Committee; and Mr. Speaker having informed the House that the gentleman was an officer of the House, and was so employed under his direction, and that the notes taken by him were for the confidential information of the Speaker, this House is of opinion that Mr. Speaker was justified in the directions given by him, and is entitled to the support and confidence of this House,' be added, instead thereof."
    MR. GRAY: I beg to propose as an Amendment to the said proposed Amendment to leave out all the words after "this House," in line 7, in order to insert the words—
    "Declares that the practice of this House prescribes that the Clerk Assistant do not take any notes here without the precedent directions and commands of the House, but only of the Orders and Reports made in the House, and that the entry of the Clerk of particular men's speeches was without warrant at all times."
    After the Division, Sir, which was taken in the early part of the day, I should not have thought it desirable to test the opinion of this House upon this question any further, but that I do not think the issue raised by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the original Motion now negatived, puts the question before the House in distinct and unmistakable terms. Instead of drafting a Resolution in my own terms, I have taken the words from previous solemn declarations of the House, which hon. Members opposite will, therefore, either have in terms to negative, or in

    229
    terms to endorse. I find, Sir, from reference to Hatsell's Precedents, that on the 17th of April, 1628, one of those musty precedents, which hon. Gentlemen opposite will now have to destroy—
    "That the entry of the Clerk of particular Members' speeches was without warrant at all times."
    Now, that is a declaration of the House, which, of course, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, and the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs, and of other hon. Gentlemen, has probably become musty. Therefore, the sooner it is removed from our precedents the better the noble Lord and other hon. Gentlemen will be pleased. The Amendment I propose will enable them distinctly to destroy this musty precedent. I find that Hatsell also declares in terms—
    "That the Clerk ought to take notes of nothing but Orders and Reports of the House."
    This, also, is a precedent, which the sooner it is destroyed the easier we shall get on with our new mode of conducting Business. On the 25th of April, 1640, it was—I think this has been quoted, before, and it is the last time it will be quoted in this House, because it is to be destroyed—that our Predecessors solemnly ruled—
    "That their Clerk Assistant do not take any notes here without the precedent directions and commands of this House, but only Reports or Orders made in the House."
    Now, we have introduced new precedents from to-day, and I am desirous that hon. Members shall in terms, by their votes, destroy this precedent. This is—in 1640—of course, a very old and musty precedent. No doubt, this matter is a very serious one, and it is no good cloaking from ourselves that the proposition to which I invite the House is, more or less, in the nature of a censure on the Chair. I very deeply regret to have to vote censure upon the Chair, or to propose an Amendment which means the same thing. However, I do feel very decidedly, with all respect to yourself, Sir, and the position which you occupy that on this occasion you have exceeded the powers which you up to yesterday possessed, though, probably, if you acted in the same manner this evening, you would
    230
    not exceed your powers, after the vote of to-day. I find, on the 9th April, 1620, another musty precedent, which we will clear away—
    "That the Speaker is but the servant of the House, and not the master nor the master's mate, and ought to respect the meanest Member as well as those about the Chair."
    The respect of every Member also probably means that every Member will respect the Chair. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, for myself, I yield to none of the hon. Members who call "Hear, hear! "in respect to the Chair, and I yield to none of them in respect for the precedents of this House. But I do not believe it is properly within the function of the Chair to destroy this precedent without the authority of the House; and that is the reason why, very briefly, I shall ask the House, by negativing my Resolution, to destroy these musty old precedents. Now, Sir, several speakers to-day suggested that the action of which complaint has been made was merely one for which no precedent could be found against it, but that it was not against precedent. I really think the quotations which I have read from the Journals of the House prove distinctly that it was a distinct violation of precedents; that it was, in terms, a violation of the Ordinances of the House. If those Orders, by being observed for 200 or 300 years, by never having been deviated from during that time, have thereby become obsolete, then, of course, the proceeding was within the function of Mr. Speaker to carry out; but if a precedent, the longer it is observed the stronger it becomes, then, the fact that for 200 years it has never been departed from, so far would make it deserving to be treated with respect, on the ground of the traditions of this House, as well as the liberties of hon. Members. And there was a certain amount of want of candour in the way in which it was discussed to-day. In the explanation with which you favoured the House, and which has been put into print, in order that there shall be no mistake made about it, you frequently and distinctly declared that you adopted exceptional courses, in order to meet exceptional circumstances. That, of course, was entirely the fact; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that it was merely carrying out a system which had been in force ever since 1850. [" No,

    231
    no!"] I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say so; and the noble Lord the Member for the Radnor Boroughs distinctly took up the same inference from the speech, and stated that this had been a practice which had continued in operation since 1850. I think the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was certainly calculated to leave that impression on the minds of hon. Members. That, no doubt, was contrary to the fact that it was only introduced within the last day or two. I do not intend to trouble the House with any long speech on this Motion. I am only desirous to put the matter plainly and distinctly before the House. If these old Privileges are to be abolished, if these precedents are to be swept away, let them be swept away in terms; and let the hon. Gentlemen who voted against the Resolution of my hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) vote also, in terms, to destroy these old musty precedents quoted in my Resolution. I was desirous to bring this matter forward; but I have done so very briefly, and will give to hon. Members, as soon as they desire it, a Division on the question, for it is not my desire to obstruct other Business on the Paper for tonight. I have never stood up to speak against time, or to interfere with the Business on the Paper. I simply place a plain issue before the House, to vote "Aye "or "No "upon it. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    To leave out from the words "this House," in line 7 of the proposed Amendment, to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "declares that the practice of this House prescribes that the Clerk Assistant do not take any notes here without the precedent directions and commands of the House, but only of the Orders and Reports made in the House, and that the entry of the Clerk of particular men's speeches was without warrant at all times,"—(Mr. Gray,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR OSBORNE MORGAN: I had hoped, after the crushing majority of this morning, a majority more decisive than any I ever remember, that my hon.
    232
    Friends below me would have been content with spoiling, if not our temper, at least our dinner and our digestion, and would have allowed this matter to pass; particularly as the result of bringing this Motion forward will not be to obstruct Government Business, but to obstruct the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). It has, however, been thought necessary to renew the challenge; and I suppose we must meet it. I am bound to say of this charge that I do not think I ever saw so great a hubbub about so small a matter.
    " This Liberal ocean into tempest tossed,
    To waft a feather, or to drown a fly."
    The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) referred to 1640, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) confesses his readiness to go to the Tower, and to follow the example of Pym and Hampden. Why, he might as well express readiness to be hung, drawn, and quartered on Temple Bar. Is there, in the whole of Europe, a single legislative or deliberative Assembly, the Rules of which are so free, and offer so much liberty of discussion, as those of this House? I will ask, again, is there a single Legislative Assembly which sits under so beneficial and mild a rule as yours? I think, if my hon. Friends had a taste of the iron rule of M. Gambetta, they would soon find out the difference. Then, why is this debate to be prolonged? I am not like the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy), or the hon. and learned Baronet opposite (Sir George Bowyer), and I do not pretend to be a Constitutional lawyer; in fact, I do not know what that is; but I have had the honour of sitting in this House nearly 11 years, and I have always understood that the ruling of Mr. Speaker upon questions of internal management or arrangement was a thing supreme, and could not be questioned. You have given your explanation, Sir, and, I may say, a fairer or more straightforward explanation I have never heard; and we are bound to receive it. I say we are accustomed—even hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are accustomed—to associate the honour and fair name of the House of Commons with the honour and fair name of Mr. Speaker; and in supporting your authority we are supporting the authority of the House

    233
    of Commons. Then, what are they afraid of? Surely, they are crying out before they are hit. When this "terrorism" is sought to be exercised, then, and not till then, it will be time for them to speak. In the meantime, as I do not want to prolong the debate, I will only say this—that it will be a bad day for this country, and a bad day for England, and, allow me to add, a bad day for Ireland, when the authority of the Chair, particularly on a question of this kind, comes to be called in question.
    MR. BIGGAR: During the progress of this debate, I have been rather startled by some propositions laid down by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian), who spoke earlier this evening, laid it down that if a Division were against the minority the minority should not consider whether it was right or wrong, or in Order, and should not ask for any further decision on the question for all time to come. That was his experience of 26 or 27 years of Parliamentary life; but, surely, the hon. Gentleman must have occupied his time very strangely, if he does not know that all the great questions have been carried, ultimately, after having been supported by very small minorities at the early stages of the proceedings. With reference to the practical question before us to-night, we have been treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the noble Lord who leads the Whigs, to a false issue. The issue is not whether we have confidence in you; but whether, by the advice of certain parties, you introduced a new system without asking the sanction of the House? The question of reporting in this House was discussed at some length in the House last Session, and the House refrained from giving any decision on that question; and for that reason I think it is still more undesirable to introduce any new system without asking the consent of the House.
    COLONEL KING-HARMAN: In this cricket week, when so many hon. Members have been studying cricket, a little anecdote may illustrate what has brought about a good deal of debate. I was once talking to a gentleman acquainted with an hon. Member in this House, at that time rising into some public notoriety, and in the course of conversation I was told he was a hard hitter, a good block, a bold twister, but that he always
    234
    quarrelled with the umpire. I cannot help thinking that there is a little desire to quarrel with the umpire in the whole of these proceedings.
    MR. JACOB BRIGHT: We are talking of proceedings of this House not open to hon. Members. We have the reports of Hansard, and any Member can correct any speech he may make. Then, again, we have the reports in the public Press, and any Member may correct errors in the public Press; but if we have an official Report here, of which we are kept in the dark, and it is not open to Members of this House, in future, some extraordinary sentiments might be produced and attached to individuals which they never uttered at all. One other remark I wish to make. I think it unfortunate that the authorities of this House should, at any time, take any course which serves only to produce irritation in the House, and which does not control whatever evil may be complained of, and which even does not tend to control that evil. According to these views I have voted, and fully explained the vote I am about to give.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I quite understood that there was no objection whatever to produce those Notes which were taken; and, therefore, that is a complete answer to my hon. Friend (Mr. Jacob Bright). I do not rise to prolong this discussion, because I think this House is anxious to proceed to Business; but reference has been made by several speakers to those Members who sit below the Gangway, and, therefore, I just wish to say, as one who generally occupies that position, that 1 believe that the great majority who sit here entirely agree with the rest of the House in the decision which they have already come to.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish to say a very few words. I think it is necessary to take notice of an observation or two which has fallen from a hon. Member below the Gangway, because I think he misunderstood a reference or two I made to another Book, which has been kept for the last 30 years, or thereabouts, and which I mentioned in answer to the Motion of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). It seemed to imply, though it was impossible to refer to all precedents, that no Notes should be taken in this

    235
    House, except the Notes which, are taken on the Table, and are circulated in the morning. I did not refer to those Notes which are taken, and have been taken for the last 30 years, as being an exact precedent for what is done, but in order to show that it had been the habit for many years to take Notes, which are not circulated with the Notes in the morning, and I referred to them, and mentioned that these Books did contain very much the same amount of information as I understood from the description that the Notes recently taken contained. ["No!"] Then, these Notes contain something more. Well, the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) afterwards obtained one of these Books—not the one I was quoting from—the only one I had seen of the date of 1850—and he mentioned, what was quite correct with regard to it—that it contains the name of every speaker, and it contains the hour at which he rose and sat down, and, therefore, that, of course, showed the hours and minutes he spoke. I believe the later Books do not contain all these particulars. The information I quoted is from the early Books; and some others I have since seen contain a record of the time for which every Member spoke. The hon. Member for Dundalk also observed that some speeches he had recently made were not referred to; but, as I understand, this Book was kept only of the proceedings of this House, and not of the Committee. It appears that, of the Notes recently taken, the first are taken during the Sitting of the House, and are convenient as showing what Members have spoken in the debate, and, therefore, showing what Members have a right to speak. The question I raised was not a question whether the proceedings to which attention had been drawn was a mere continuation of that practice; but I pointed out it was not correct to say that there was no other form in which Notes were taken, except these Notes which are taken and printed. I do not think it is at all necessary to go into any further discussion; but I would point out that, in the Amendment placed on the Paper, I do distinctly raise the question whether Mr. Speaker was or was not justified in the directions given, and I maintain he was so justified. I understand the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) to propose to condemn these words, and to declare point
    236
    blank that he was not justified. I do not at all object to that issue; I think it is right and proper to raise it, for there can be no doubt, if my Amendment is adopted, that the House will declare that such Notes as these now taken may be legitimately taken at the orders of Mr. Speaker, and that the House approves and sanctions such proceedings. I think there can then be no complaint as to ambiguity. I have endeavoured by rising at once in this way to go to the matter of which complaint has been made, and distinctly to ask the House to justify that proceeding. I do not see how that can be called evasion, and I hope we shall have a clear verdict upon the question.
    MR. CALLAN: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has taken the earliest opportunity to remove the injurious effect which my explanation and his statement must have caused. A statement made to-day was incorrect, and, in almost every particular, misleading, and it does not become the Leader of this House flippantly to make such a statement before this House. ["Oh, oh!"] Flippantly, I say, as to the character of documents which he is now obliged to confess he did not examine, except by casually looking into a Book placed before him. Casually looking at the Book, also, I saw it was incorrect; and when I brought it down I saw—for I have a fairly retentive memory—that there were no entries made when this House was sitting in Committee, while these of which we now complain are taken in Committee. There are two points to which I wish to allude—first, the Resolution proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is, in very fact, the opposite to the statement you made that the documents are open for any hon. Member, and that if anyone thought fit to move for them, you would ask the House to grant them as an unopposed Return. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, after hearing that statement, thought fit to trammel and fetter your discretion by a Resolution that these Notes are for your confidential information. If only for your information, the purpose for which they are taken is not yet revealed, and I regret some person on the Government or front Opposition Bench has not been authorized by others who have not a right to speak in this House to state that the rumour to which I alluded last

    237
    night is incorrect. I had hoped that the Chief Clerk at the Table would have authorized some Member of the Government, or some Members of the front Opposition Bench, to state that no use has been made of these Notes; that no consultation has been held upon them for the purpose of adopting measures against Members of this House. That is the gravamen of the charge, that the Notes have been inspected by the Clerk at the Table, and that other paid officers have been consulted as to what steps should be taken for indicting Members of this House for their conduct in this House. I hope, for his own honour and independence, he will give that statement contradiction.
    MR. A. MARTEN: I think the charge made is most unfounded. The hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan) accuses the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom everyone, irrespective of Party, must desire to maintain in his position, of having made a most flippant statement. That is a phrase which I confess I think is one which the hon. Member, if he had consulted his own self-respect, ought not to have addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who transacts his Business before the faces of all of us, will, I am quite sure, feel when such a charge is brought against him that it is totally unfounded. But with regard to the particular circumstances of the matter with respect to which the language was used, what was the statement made by him with reference to the Notes which for a series of years have been taken with regard to what passes in this House? [" Divide, divide !"] I beg the attention of the House to this point, because it is necessary to be considered, in order that the nature of the charge, and the facts with regard to the previous history of the Notes taken in this House may be thoroughly understood. For nearly 30 years it has been the practice that Notes should be taken, not of all debates, or of all proceedings, but of most of the principal debates which have occurred in the House, as distinguished from proceedings in Committee. It is quite true that these Notes have not been taken with regard to proceedings in Committee, and have not been taken with regard to all the proceedings in this House; but with reference to the Notes being taken occa-
    238
    sionally and not continuously, I may point out to that fact as furnishing a complete answer to the statement made by the hon. Member for Dundalk, early in the day, by which he professed to be able to point out numerous deficiencies in these Notes, which he said he had compared with various proceedings within his own experience. [Mr. CALLAN: I made no such statement.] If I am in Order, I am in the recollection of the House, when I say the hon. Member for Dundalk did make a reference to these Notes being imperfect. The explanation of that supposed imperfection is that these Notes were taken, not in Committee or on all occasions, but were taken only during actual debates of importance in this House. I myself have had the opportunity of referring to these Notes. They consist of a list of speakers with a list of the hours at which they rose, and, occasionally, there are notes—brief notes—which refer to some matters which are supposed to be of some use to Mr. Speaker. These Notes were taken solely for the benefit of Mr. Speaker himself; and to enable him to preserve a record in the cases in which they were taken of the debates before him in the House. I quite agree that none of them refer to the proceedings in Committee; but they are of essentially the same character as the Notes which have now been taken in Committee; and you, Sir, were pleased to inform the House, when the matter was called in question—on having your attention brought to the fact that the proceedings on the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill did occupy an extraordinary amount of time—that you desired, for your own information, to know what was occurring. With regard to the position of the Speaker during Committees, there is this most important observation to be made—that when Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair, though generally he is believed to be, and during long Committees is, absent from the House, yet, very frequently, during brief Committees, he sits on the Treasury Bench. He is, however, in theory, always supposed to be present, and by the Rules is entitled to resume the Chair to decide any point which suddenly arises, or requires his interposition to preserve Order. It follows that, as Mr. Speaker is himself supposed to be present, he is supposed to be cognizant of everything that goes on and when

    239
    any question arises, without any special report made to him, to know what is occurring. No doubt, when the Committee confirms a Resolution, the Committee reports that vote to Mr. Speaker, not for his personal information, but to him as the Representative of the House. The Committee reports, and when Mr. Raikes reports to Mr. Speaker he represents the Committee in making a formal Report of the proceedings to Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker then communicates it to the House, and the House makes an Order with regard to the order of the proceedings. That is entirely different from his knowledge of what goes on as a Member of this House, and also different from his knowledge, occupying the highest position as he does, of what goes on in Committee. If I am not wearying the House, I may refer to a very important statement made in April, 1814, on the question of the speech made by the Speaker of that day. The question there arose as to what was the position of the Speaker with regard to the Committee. Now, if I may be permitted, without wearying the House, to read a few words from the debate I should like to do so, because they deal with a most, important matter—namely, the exact position of Mr. Speaker with regard to the House itself. Of course, in all my observations I do not refer to Select Committees and Committees upstairs, but to Committees of the Whole House. On the 22nd of April, 1814, the then Speaker (Mr. Abbot), in his address to the House, discussed the technical objection that the Speaker can know nothing of what passes in a Committee, either as to the proceeding or as to the reasons on which the proceeding is founded. That was the objection taken. The answer made by Mr. Speaker Abbot was, that it was strictly his duty to be there "as Speaker," and to be cognizant of all that passes, although, by indulgence, his absence may be excused—
    "And it is so much his duty to be present that, if necessary, he may (as has happened in my own time), upon his own observation of what is passing, and upon his own responsibility take the Chair 'as Speaker' without the leave of the House, to put an end to any disorder that may arise in the Committee."—[1 Hansard, xxvii.483.]
    I will not read further; but that proves that Mr. Speaker is as a Member of the House, and is also, "as Speaker," conscious of everything that goes on in
    240
    Committee. Physically, it is impossible for Mr. Speaker, with his onerous duties, to remain here during the many hours we are in Committee. It would be a most intolerable burden to place on him, in addition to the enormous Public Business which weighs upon him, and has to be transacted every Session, that he should also be present during the whole of the proceedings of every Committee. Therefore, he is perfectly justified, on the most technical grounds, for his own information, in obtaining these Notes which have been taken of proceedings in Committee. Now, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) produced, with a great deal of ceremony and emphasis, precedents which rather chime in with us on this side. He inferred from some cheers which he heard that we thought them musty precedents of no value. I say that I entertain the highest respect—no one can entertain a higher respect than I do—for precedents, especially precedents with regard to the proceedings of this most ancient and honourable Assembly. But the precedents with which we are acquainted all prove that although, from time to time, there have arisen difficulties in maintaining the discipline of the House and in carrying on the Public Business, yet, from time immemorial, the House has always asserted its authority over individual Members, and invariably, in the end, notwithstanding many difficulties and much delay, has proved successful. With regard to the particular precedents cited, there was one on the 17th April, 1628. All I understand that to refer to is that the Clerk at the Table is not to take a shorthand note of everything which occurs in this Sitting. I want to ask the hon. Member how is that applicable to the present case? Because the complaint is that a verbatim report is not taken. We are told that if we were to have a verbatim note taken of our proceedings, and these Notes were published, hon. Members opposite would be only too delighted, as there would then be a full report to the nation of all that took place here. They would be right glad, they say, to challenge the House to the issue that everything they have done has been entirely justified by the motive which actuated them, or by the object; but I say all this is totally inapplicable to what we are now considering. If the Clerks were to begin

    241
    taking Notes of particular speeches, then it is possible that that precedent, if antiquated and old, yet none the less worthy of respect now than it was at that time—that that precedent might be put in force. But I should like to know what pretence there is for suggesting that any officer of the House of Commons is taking Notes of particular Member's speeches? The complaint is that they do not do it; but that merely a Note is taken of the names and number of times that hon. Members rise, and the time they occupy, not of what they say. No attempt has been made to go into the details of this precedent. But I believe it will be found that the precedent of 1628 was the time when shorthand notes were coming into vogue, and were extremely popular. We have preserved to us diaries taken by Members at that period. I can point also to law books, in which are contained verbatim reports of the proceedings which took place in those days. These, then, were the first times that verbatim reports were introduced, and, no doubt, the complaint was that the Clerk at the Table was exercising his skill as a shorthand writer in taking down particular speeches, and not attending to the duties incumbent upon him of recording the Orders of the House. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I think that may be so. The next precedent referred to is the 25th April, 1640—we do not come to these precedents in order of dates, but quite promiscuously—and that is that the Clerk Assistant do not take any Note of the proceedings of the House, except with the sanction of the House. Now, as I understand it, that was a precedent of the same description as that of the 17th April, 1628. It was, of course, immediately after the meeting of the Long Parliament in the reign of Charles I. It was immediately upon that assembling, and I have no doubt it was merely a repetition of the precedent of 1628, and was to prevent the Clerk from doing that which would interfere with his ordinary avocations. It merely said the Clerk Assistant; it did not refer to the Clerk. Another precedent referred to was the 9th March, 1620, which will go back to James I. There, as I understand, the precedent is thus laid down that Mr. Speaker was bound to respect every Member of this House. I appeal
    242
    to both sides of the House, and to all sections of the House, confidently, whether our Mr. Speaker does not most impartially respect every Member? It is quite clear that in the time of James I., 1620, that that was a time when most violent struggles were going on with regard to Imperial, Constitutional, and social questions; and I have not the slightest doubt that the origin of that Rule had no reference whatever to a gentleman in the Gallery taking an occasional memorandum with regard to those persons who might address the House, but was addressed to some act indicating a supposed partiality of the Speaker with regard to different quarters of the House, or to different Members of the House and the Government. That precedent merely was that Mr. Speaker is bound to respect every Member, and to afford to him, whether seated below Mr. Speaker or above him, according to the old arrangement of places, fair respect. I ask the House, in confidence, what is the value of these precedents? I say that if they were in point and useful I should be the first to advocate their being upheld. But I say they have nothing whatever to do with the present subject. To bring forward this Resolution is to give the entire go-by to the main question put forward, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Amendment proposed, and to attempt to raise a false issue, having nothing to do with the present question. That question, as I venture to say, is of the very simplest description. Although the matter is a very small one, it is capable of being looked at from a high Constitutional point of view. I apprehend everyone in this House must be interested in preserving the ancient and historic grandeur, splendour, and reputation of this House. It is the one historic and ancient House which, through evil and through good repute, and under every opposition and difficulty, through popular agitation or popular indifference, has always managed to preserve that freedom of debate and that moderation of conduct which ought to characterize a great national Assembly. I venture to say that we may appeal to our ancient position, as showing that no Assembly in the whole history of the world has ever been formed, which combined full liberty with thorough efficiency, better than is

    243
    attained in this House of Commons; and I think we may congratulate ourselves that on the present occasion Mr. Speaker has been supported by a majority, showing that confidence in him which his conduct hitherto most unquestionably has deserved from everybody in the House. I trust that the Amendment will be rejected by a very overwhelming majority.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Sir, I do not want to bring any charge of flippancy against any Member on the Ministerial Bench. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of the speech which he made, put the matter before the House in a most straightforward and comprehensive manner. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that this has been a very disagreeable debate for all of us; it is certainly a painful pleasure to me to get up and speak upon a question of this kind, after listening to the long debate which we have had; still, this life is full of disagreeable things, and disagreeable things must be borne with. I found it very unpleasant to walk into the Lobby an hour or two before dinner with the minority; but I felt that no other course was open to me. I came down to the House perfectly uncertain as to the course I should adopt in this matter; but I listened to the debate, and, after hearing the arguments on both sides of the question, I formed the opinion that no answer had been given to the Motion of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) said that the question was, whether we had or had not confidence in you, Sir? But I think that was hardly a fair way of putting it, because I believe I speak the mind of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, when I say that there is no one of them who has not perfect confidence in you. The question in my view is, whether a certain practice which you sanctioned the other day is a practice which ought to be sanctioned by us or not? I will only say there is one thing I pay more regard to than to you, and that is the truth; and, therefore, I am bound to vote for what I believe to be the truth. I was astonished to hear an argument which has been brought forward to-day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, and by hon. Members on the other side of the House.
    244
    They insist that we shall not be guided by these old precedents of 200 years ago. But I believe the maintaining of these old-established and well-considered Rules of the House is one of the safeguards of the liberty of the country, and I am convinced that we shall do a very bad day's work indeed when we make any change in them. I say it is just as important to preserve the rights and liberties of any five Members who sit below the Gangway, who may annoy us by dividing over and over again, as it was to preserve the rights and liberties of Members 200 years ago. I thank the House for hearing the few remarks which I have made upon this unpleasant subject. The only honour I hope to enjoy is to be an independent Member of this House, and I am sure I could not be that, unless I took every opportunity of protesting against anything which endangers the liberty of the House.
    SIR GEORGE BOWYER: Sir, I think that the Division which has taken place to-day, of upwards of 400 against 29, ought to be final. We have been told that we are not to talk about ancient and musty precedents as protecting the rights of Members of this House. Now, although I have always relied upon ancient precedents, and would be the last person in the world to speak against them, I feel it is necessary to consider them with reference to the circumstances of the time when those precedents were established. But, Sir, we have had a number of precedents referred to which have nothing whatever to do with the question before the House. The most important of these was that on the occasion of King Charles I. coming into the House, and asking Mr. Speaker Lenthall where certain Members were when Mr. Speaker took that course which was, no doubt, incumbent upon him, and said—" I can see only with the eyes of the House, and I can speak only with the tongue of the House." In saying this, he was, no doubt, perfectly right; but is it meant that, because Mr. Speaker Lenthall refused to answer a question put to him by the King, that you, Sir, have no discretion whatever to give orders with regard to matters affecting the Business and usage of the House? This precedent has nothing to do with the present question. Let us look at the particular case before the House. A Com-

    245
    mittee of the House was appointed to consider the subject of the Business of the House, and Mr. Speaker was called upon to give evidence before that Committee; Mr. Speaker could not give the Committee that accurate and exhaustive information with regard to the proceedings of the House which it was desirable that he should give, and, therefore, he has considered it expedient and useful, in order to the discharge of the duties of his high Office, to obtain accurate reports of what is taking place in the House. Now, what could be more reasonable than that he should take measures to obtain an accurate, official, and responsible record of the proceedings of the House? It was perfectly right that he should do so. But how can anybody compare this case with the precedent of Mr. Speaker Lenthall, who refused to answer a question put to him by the King, as to where were those Members who had offended him? The case is perfectly irrelevant. I admit that the precedents of the time when the Privileges of the House of Commons were in question are of great importance; but I say that in using those precedents we are bound to consider the circumstances which surrounded them. There was, at the period in question, a contest between the Privileges of Parliament and the Prerogative of the Crown. Parliament then most jealously guarded its Privileges as against the Prerogative of the Crown for this reason—that Members of the House of Commons were sometimes called to account for expressions used by them in the House in the discharge of their duties. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary, at that time, for the liberty of Parliament, that its proceedings should not be published, and it became a Breach of Privilege to publish anything that took place within the House, for the obvious reason that Members could not speak their minds freely, unless they were sure that what they said in Parliament would not reach those authorities who would make them responsible for their utterances. But what is the case now? No one fears the Prerogative of the Crown; and although my hon. Friends opposite have spoken of terrorism, I ask whether terrorism is feared by any one of us, and whether there is a Member of this House who fears to speak his mind freely upon any subject which is brought before Parliament? A
    246
    Member of this House only fears the authority of the Chair; as long as he is in Order; no Member has any reason to fear, or does fear, to say anything which he considers it his duty to say; and, therefore, he possesses the greatest liberty of speech, without restraint or respect of person. I need not enter into the question of whether unnecessary delays are to occur, or whether remedies are to be used for the purpose of preventing them. It may be useful—no doubt, it is useful—that Mr. Speaker should have accurate statistical information with regard to the proceedings in this House; and I contend that it was in the discretion of Mr. Speaker to decide whether that information was, or was not, desirable and useful. This House is deeply interested in the discharge of the duties of Mr. Speaker, and the Business of the House could not proceed unless these were accurately discharged. Therefore, I maintain that what has been done is not in the interest either of Mr. Speaker or of the Government, but in the interest of the House of Commons. I say that to call it a breach of the Privileges of the House is a most absurd and monstrous proposition. We have gentlemen sitting above us who report the proceedings of the House; the existence of reporters has now become a Constitutional matter, and, contrary to the necessities of former times, we now wish our constituents to know what we are doing; we are responsible to them, and we are obliged to the organs of the Press for making known to them our opinions, our speeches, and our votes. That being so, an essential difference exists between our time and the times when it was necessary to conceal the proceedings of Parliament for the purposes of protecting Members from the power of the Prerogative of the Crown and the Star Chambers, which would have made them responsible for their speeches and votes. Again, it is most monstrous and absurd to say that Mr. Speaker wished to introduce into the House any system of espionage by employing an officer of the House to report what was going on in Committee on the Army Discipline and Regulation Bill. How can there be espionage with regard to what is spoken in the presence of the representatives of the Press and in the presence of strangers in the Gallery? The state-

    247
    ment is ridiculous. And, now, with regard to the position of hon. Members opposite, I must say that having such a futile and miserable case I recommend them, if they would consult their own dignity and the interest of Ireland, to abandon this topic, and withdraw from the position which they have assumed.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRY: Sir, I will not venture formally to ask you a question with respect to the books now circulating about the House, one of which, called The Speech Book, I have seen; but I wish for some information upon that subject which you may possibly be able to afford. The book which I have seen contains, under various headings and chapters, abstracts of the debates which have taken place in the House whilst you were in the Chair, and attached to these headings there are, in some cases, merely the names of Members who spoke. In other cases there are entries of the time as well as the names, which would afford you information as to the time occupied by particular speakers. It is very important that you should have every information as to the proceedings of the House which you may require; but I ask, why, if the system just now originated is more accurate than the former, it was never adopted before? If, however, the information now obtained is of precisely the same character as that which has been obtained formerly, I ask what is the meaning of the, to my mind, exceedingly objectionable phrase in the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "For the confidential information of the Speaker? "How long is this information to remain confidential, and is it to remain so until somebody asks a question concerning it, and Mr. Speaker chooses to make answer? I should feel much less difficulty if it was stated that this was a matter for the information of Mr. Speaker which that high officer would use in the House as he pleased. By adopting the word "confidential," we should actually prevent Mr. Speaker, if the Resolution were passed, from making public those reports, and that seems to me a thing which we ought not to sanction. I also desire to know where the records hitherto taken have been kept in former times; have they been kept by the Clerk at the Table, or by some other officer of the House, and are they exactly the same
    248
    as the records hitherto kept by the Clerk at the Table? Sir, I feel that without the information for which I ask I shall be unable to vote intelligibly upon this Motion.
    MR. GILES: Sir, in rising to say a few words on the question of precedent, I merely wish to remark that it has appeared to me, in the numerous debates in this House, that there is too great a straining after precedent. We have had to-night a precedent quoted of 240 years old. In railway engineering, one in 240 is considered the angle of repose, and I think the musty precedent of 240 years might very well repose in the musty volume from which it was extracted. If we were to be entirely guided by precedent, where would have been our railways, our steamboats, and our telegraphs? And, if we carry precedent to its natural conclusion we should never have anything new. If the hon. Gentlemen opposite insist upon having a precedent, let them take the unprecedented precedent of this evening's vote and accept that as a precedent for their future guidance.
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONsaid, it had been the custom, extending over 30 years, for the Clerk at the Table to take down the names of hon. Members who spoke, and the time during which they spoke. If, therefore, Mr. Speaker was not in the Chair, was there any reason why, for his information, the same course should not be pursued? But now they were taken back to the 17th century for precedents the other way; but that period was not one to which the House of Commons should, in his opinion, look for precedents. In that century there was a struggle between the House in support of its liberties and the Crown; and, naturally, one of the things about which the House was exceedingly careful was that the Crown should not know what was said by individual Members. Happily, all that had passed away. They had now a large number of newspapers reporting each day the speeches of hon. Members; and there was in the House a Gallery set apart for members of the Press. What need had they, then, to go back to the 17th century for guides and precedents? He believed that the country was amazed at the obstruction which had taken place; and he ventured to say that if such a charge were to be brought against the Government, that

    249
    they had obstructed the Public Business, it would only rebound against hon. Members who had really adopted that course. He also ventured to suggest to hon. Members for Ireland that they should re-consider the policy which they had so long pursued. There were before the House several Bills in which they were interested, among them the Irish Education Bill; and there were also a number of English Bills, such as the Valuation Bill and the County Boards Bill; and it was obvious that if hon. Members from Ireland would give cordial assistance in getting measures through the House, English Members would do all they could to assist them in carrying their own measures. He ventured to hope that hon. Members from Ireland would now make some change in their tactics, and they would find that their time had not been wasted.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 292; Noes 24: Majority 268.—(Div. List, No. 160.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    Resolved, That Notice having been taken while the House was in Committee, of the presence in one of the side Galleries of a gentleman engaged in taking notes of the proceedings of the Committee; and Mr. Speaker having informed the House that the gentleman was an officer of the House, and was so employed under his direction, and that the notes taken by him were for the confidential information of the Speaker, this House is of opinion that Mr. Speaker was justified in the directions given by him, and is entitled to the support and confidence of this House.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  IRELAND—TRAINING OF TEACHERS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

    RESOLUTION.
    THE O'CONOR DON,in rising to call attention to the training of the Teachers in Elementary Schools in Ireland, and to move—
    "That, considering the very large proportion of untrained Teachers in charge of Elementary Schools in Ireland, and the recommendations of
    250
    the Royal Commission on Primary Education which reported in 1868, it is desirable that steps should be immediately taken by Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the Resolution in regard to Grants to Training Schools adopted by the Board of National Education in. Ireland in December 1874; "
    said, the question to which he wished to ask the attention of the House, although not of the burning character of the educational topics lately submitted, was still one of very considerable importance. They had lately been considering the condition of higher education in Ireland. He desired now to call attention to the other end of the educational course, and the matters connected with the interests and well-being of the schools frequented by the children of the large mass of the population. He felt sure it would be admitted that no point in connection with these schools was of more importance than the character and fitness of the teachers who presided in them, and he thought it would also be very generally granted that teaching itself was an art, that it required to be learned, that training and instruction should precede practice, and that it was not every young lad or girl who passed through a school that was capable of undertaking its management. It would scarcely be denied, he thought, that to have successful teaching there should be competent teachers, and in order to secure these there must be established some system of preliminary training. No truth was more fully recognized by the founders of the National system of education in Ireland than this one. For the purpose of carrying out this training an institution was established in Marl-borough Street, Dublin, shortly after the National system of education was founded. It was first opened for males, and subsequently for females, and it had been in working operation for nearly 40 years. Subsequently, at various times, district and minor model schools were founded, all under the control and management of the Board of Education, and upon these schools £50,000 a-year was now spent. As already stated, according to the Report of the Royal Commission, a residence of two years was contemplated, and he would now like to ask attention to the actual facts regarding the duration of the training. In England and Scotland two years was the duration of the training; but in Ireland, as a matter of fact, the ordinary training

    251
    lasted only five months, and, in many instances, only four months. Beyond that, short as it was, it was most miserably defective. Mr. Marshall, one of the English Inspectors, referred to the teachers who had spent four or five months in the Dublin training school as "virtually untrained." Mr. Connor, another Inspector, referred to them in the same sense; and Mr. O'Hara stated that very little difference could be found between trained and untrained teachers. But not only was the length of training wretched, but the numbers who took advantage of this wretched training were very small. In considering this part of the subject he would have to go back a little on the history of the question. In June, 1866, more than 13 years ago, Lord Carlingford, then Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Chief Secretary for Ireland, wrote as follows to the Commissioners on National Education:—
    "I am desired "by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, to inform you that Her Majesty's Government have had under their consideration several important questions connected with the operation of the National system of education in Ireland. The first question which they request the Board to consider is that of the training of the teachers of the model schools. It was originally laid down by Lord Derby, as a condition of the employment of teachers, that they should receive previous instruction in the normal school which was established in Dublin in 1833; but the Commissioners of Education, having this one normal school only, and having a large and increasing number of teachers to train, were forced to adopt a very limited course of instruction, a course which at first was spread over three months only, and which has never exceeded five months, and notwithstanding this effort to extend, however imperfectly, the influences of training as widely as possible, it appears that there are still in the National Schools 4,369 untrained teachers out of a total of 7,472. It is, of course, known to the Government that the district model schools assist in supplying competent teachers; but the number they are able to send out does not, it appears, exceed 90, while in 34 out of 60 school districts no model school has been established. It is accordingly ascertained that between the training school in Dublin and the district model schools in the country the number of persons prepared for the office of teacher is only about 400, whereas the number of new teachers annually required is 900. The Government view this state of things with much concern, and are anxious to apply a remedy for the incompleteness and inadequacy of the present training."
    Here they had the position of affairs at that time very clearly laid down by the responsible Minister of the Crown. The training, he stated, was inadequate both as to duration and extent. It
    252
    lasted only five months, and was not participated in by the majority of the teachers; and that, he stated, was regarded with much concern by the Government. The result of that letter of Mr. Chichester Fortescue's was a recommendation of an alteration in the system by the Board of Education, and the preparation of an Estimate for carrying it out. But a change of Government took place, the Conservative Party came into power, and the new Chief Secretary, Lord Mayo, declined to do anything in the matter without first having a preliminary inquiry. In the following year, 1867, he announced the intention of the Government to appoint a Royal Commission, which was accordingly appointed in 1868. That Commission sat for three years, and in the end issued a most exhaustive Report in 1871, in which the subject of training of teachers was most elaborately treated. The Commissioners found the facts to be exactly as Mr. Chichester Fortescue had stated—that the training of teachers was miserably defective, both as to the length of time and the number who took advantage of it; in fact, they found there was no effective system of training at all in Ireland, and they went into consideration of the causes which led to this, and the remedies which ought to be applied. The cause of all this, both as stated by Mr. Chichester Fortescue, and admitted by the Board of Education, and proved before the Royal Commission, was the old cause which had marred all educational efforts in Ireland. It was the old attempt to force on an unwilling people a system of mixed and secular education; and here, as every-where else, it had broken down. The ordinary primary National schools had not failed, simply because, though in name they were mixed and secular, they were in practice, to all intents and purposes, separate and denominational schools; but the training schools, just like the Queen's Colleges, were the purest types of the mixed system; and, accordingly, as in every other branch of education where that was the case, the failure was conspicuous. As already stated, a central training school was established in Dublin, and other model schools subsequently in different parts of the country. Those were essentially mixed and secular schools, and in the central training school the teacher

    253
    under a course of training was obliged to reside as well as to attend for instruction. The distinction between these institutions and the ordinary day schools was, therefore, a very marked one. The training schools, just as the Queen's Colleges, were real types of thoroughly secular institutions. The evils of this system could not be expressed in more eloquent words than in the Report of Messrs. Cowen and Stokes, two of Lord Mayo's Royal Commissioners. They say—
    "No system, however carefully devised, which ignores the power to he derived in forming the character from unity of religious convictions, can he effectual. In Marlborough Street, at every turn, religious differences are kept before the pupils. It is no happy family which is divided into these sects, continually separating from each other for religious duties, who cannot say even 'Our Father' in common. Those young people are no longer children, fresh and light-hearted. They have learned to feel already the bitterness and difficulty which religious differences create."
    And they recommend that the training of teachers should be denominational, even if no other part of the system be altered. Sir Alexander Macdonald, so long the able head of the Board of Education, himself a strong supporter of mixed education, admitted the same thing, and stated—
    "If we call out 300 or 400 persons from every part of Ireland, from their own homes and their own pastures, every year for half a-year, to he educated in Dublin, it is a very monstrous thing that we should not provide for their spiritual as well as their secular education;"
    and he went on to say that the system of united training of teachers in Ireland had failed. In 1866, when Mr. Chichester Fortescue brought the subject under the notice of the Board, he not only pointed out the existence and the extent of the evil, but suggested a remedy. He suggested, on behalf of the Government, first, the establishment of model and training schools under local management corresponding, to a certain extent, with the ordinary non-vested primary schools; and, secondly, the granting of permission to students trained in Dublin in the State model schools to board out. In this recommendation the Royal Commission and the Board of Education concurred. Messrs. Cowen and Stokes again report—
    254
    "The importance which we attach to the employment of trained teachers generally in schools, the repugnance displayed towards the system of united training, the difficulty of overcoming the reasons on which this repugnance is founded, and the advantages which may accompany increased facilities for establishing and conducting training schools, convince us that the claims for denominational training should be conceded."
    And the Commission itself reported—
    "That the aid of the Board should be given to training schools under the management of committees, voluntary societies, or religions bodies, under certain conditions."
    This recommendation of the Commission, made in 1871, has ever since remained a dead letter. In the following year the attention of Parliament was occupied with more pressing questions, and in the year after the Government of Mr. Gladstone went out of Office and the present Government came into power. It was not long in power when attention was again directed to the subject, and in 1874 the right hon. Baronet the present Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), then Chief Secretary for Ireland, wrote to the Board of Education, on behalf of the Lord Lieutenant, to the following effect:—
    "His Grace invites the special attention of the Board to the important subject embraced in Question No. 6 [referring to the training schools]. His Grace understands that in England there are 39 training schools, with 2,894 students, with a grant of £90,000 a-year; in Scotland 5 training schools, with 704 students, and a grant of £21,500; while in Ireland there is only 1 normal training school, with 218 students, and a grant of £7,646, although this deficiency is to some extent supplemented by a system of district model schools. It is further to be borne in mind that whereas two years is generally considered the minimum period of residence in a training school, the Irish teachers, with the exception of those that undergo a special term of training, remain only about five months in the Marlborough Street school. The existing insufficiency of teachers, trained even to this extent, cannot but injuriously affect the present standard of education; and His Grace observes that in their last Report the Commissioners show that they have 6,284 untrained teachers in the service. His Grace is anxious to bring the recommendations of Mr. Chichester Fortescue and the Royal Commissioners under the notice of the Board, while, at the same time, guarding himself against expressing any opinion upon their respective merits."
    This letter was written in November, 1874, and in reply to it, in the following month, the Board of Education met to consider the recommendations made by Mr. Chichester Fortescue arid the Royal

    255
    Commission, when they came to certain resolutions which it was the object of the Motion now before the House to enforce. They decided to approve of certain alterations in the system of training in Marlborough Street, and of allowing grants to non-vested or denominational training Colleges or schools upon certain conditions. The conditions were mainly these—that a training College should include a College for instructing candidates for the office of teacher of the National School, and of a practising National School. No grant to be made unless the secular teaching was open to pupils of all denominations, and that the site of the school should be approved of by the Board; that a certain number of hours should be devoted to secular instruction; that the practising school should be a National School carried on on the same system as any ordinary National School; that grants should be made to the credit of the training College of £100 for every master and £70 for every mistress with a first-class certificate, and £80 and £50 for masters and mistresses with second-class certificates who had been trained continually for two years; and if trained for only one year, half the grant to be given—the grant in no case to exceed 75 per cent of the total expenditure of the college, and the examination of students and programme of examination for admission to be settled by the Board. Those recommendations were made in 1874, at the instance of the late Chief Secretary, and nothing had since been done to carry them into effect. On the other hand, since those recommendations were made, things had been going from bad to worse. When Lord Carlingford wrote the first letter, about 40 per cent of the teachers were trained; when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach wrote in 1874, about 38 percent; but, according to the last Report of the Commissioners on National Education, there were now in Ireland 10,674 teachers, and of these only 3,394 were trained—that was to say, only about 32 per cent of all the teachers in Ireland were trained. So that, instead of getting better, matters were getting much worse; and if the thing was urgent in 1866 it was still more so now. That, then, was the state of affairs in Ireland; and before saying more upon it he wished to call attention for a few moments to what was done in
    256
    England and Scotland. In England and Scotland no such system as that forced upon Ireland was in existence. In England district training colleges attached to the different religious denominations were recognized and endowed. Up to the passing of the Education Act of 1871, not only were denominational schools and training colleges recognized, but actually religious teaching itself was inspected and reported upon. Since 1871 this had ceased. The State no longer recognized religious teaching; but it did not place it under a ban. It did not say that where religious teaching was given no grant should be made for secular teaching, and it did not make the teaching of religious truths a disability. Yet that was what was attempted to be done in Ireland. In England there were over 40 training Colleges aided by the State in connection with almost every considerable religious Body over the country—with the Church of England, the Wesleyans, Congregationalists, Roman Catholics, and even the Secularists—for the latter he ventured to call as much a separate and distinct sect as any other. All these Colleges were assisted by the State, and what was the result? It appeared from the last Report of the Committee of the Privy Council that of teachers employed in schools in England and Wales only 25 per cent were untrained, 75 being trained; and that training did not consist in a miserable stay of three or four months in a training school, as 61 percent of the teachers employed in English schools had undergone two years' training, 10 per cent for more than one year, and only 3 per cent less than a year. Further than that, the proportion of untrained teachers in the schools was yearly diminishing. The training schools in England and Wales had now about 3,000 students in training for the two years' course, and supplied annually 1,500, which was nearly or just about the full number required to supply vacancies; whereas in Ireland, with an annual want of about 700 teachers, the total number trained in 1878, according to the last Report of the Board, was 166. Then, as to Scotland. There, as in England, separate denominational training schools were recognized. In Scotland, of the masters employed in teaching, 53 per cent had been trained for two years, 13 per cent for one year, and 5 per cent for less than a

    257
    year, and 29 per cent were untrained; and of mistresses 69 per cent were trained for two years, 9 per cent for one year, 1 per cent for less than a year, and only 21 per cent untrained. There were 1,000 students in training for the two years' course, an annual supply of 500 teachers, or more than the full number supplied for the annual vacancies. The training schools in Scotland were essentially denominational, and religious instruction was given in them. The fact was reported even in the Report of the Government Inspector, and examinations in religious knowledge were held at the end of the course; and on this point of religious teaching the teachers or committees having charge of the College had the most ample powers to teach what they wished, and how they wished. To these denominational Colleges annual grants were made of £100 for every master trained two years, and £70 for every mistress. And further than that, an arrangement had been made with the Scotch. Universities, by which a special course of study and examination at those Unversities was provided for a certain number of those students, and the attendance at that course of study, and the passing of those University examinations, entitled the students to have their certificates, and the Colleges from which they came to the payments on their behalf1, so that they had there in Scotland purely denominational Colleges receiving direct grants of £50 a-year for each student who passed a certain University examination corresponding as they were told in the Report with that of the degree of B.A. Yet, in the face of that, his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) felt justified in getting up in the House and declaring, in a speech which he had thought worth while to have printed in pamphlet form, that the grant of £20 a-year to denominational Colleges for the results of teaching proficiently in secular subjects in Ireland was "absolutely monstrous." In Ireland no grants were made for training schools beyond those made to the Government institutions, and the result was that 68 per cent of the teachers were untrained, and of those called trained only a very small proportion received more than four months' training. In England and Scotland large grants were made to denominational training schools, with the result
    258
    that in England only 25 per cent of the masters were untrained, and in Scotland only 29 per cent. The system adopted in Ireland had been condemned by successive Governments, it had been condemned by the Board of Education, it had been condemned by a Royal Commission; yet nothing was done to alter it, and it remained unchanged, side by side with a totally different system in England and Scotland. It was impossible in these circumstances for Irishmen, and especially for Irish Catholics, not to feel that in this, as in every other branch of the Education question, they were treated exceptionally, wholly on account of their religion. If they were not Irishmen and Catholics it would be impossible for this state of things to continue. Even from the most anti-religious point of view it was monstrously absurd. If, by it young men could be induced to enter into the mixed State training schools, and that Catholic candidates for the office of teacher were to be found there in large numbers, there would be some excuse for the proceeding on the ground of common sense; but when that was not the case, and when the only result was having the education of the country carried on by untrained teachers, the proceeding was absolutely senseless. But it might be said that the granting of the demands in respect of this training of teachers would be contrary to the whole spirit and principle of education in Ireland. He denied that altogether. The system of primary education in Ireland might be called anything that people liked; but it was, practically, a denominational system, and the moment the State approved of the non-vested primary schools and gave grants to those schools, that moment the whole principle of mixed education was given up, and after the reality was given up it was idle to fight about the shadow. What he wished to press upon the House by the adoption of his Motion was that the principle of the non-vested system should be extended to the training schools, and that non-vested, and, he would admit, practically denominational schools, just as non-invested primary schools, should be put on the same footing of recognition as similar schools in England and Scotland. This demand was a just one. It was a simple one. It was supported by the highest authorities, by the Government of 1866, by the Board of

    259
    Education, by the Royal Commission appointed by the Party now in power; and he could not believe that the present Government, who had at such an early period shown an interest in the matter, would refuse to grant it. The money for carrying it out was at hand, or, at least, a portion of it. Nearly £50,000 a-year was at present spent in Ireland on the central training schools of the district model schools, and, in a great part, uselessly spent. Some of those funds, at least, might be usefully diverted in the manner he proposed; and in the confident hope that the Government would do that little act of justice he begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    MR. ERRINGTON,in seconding the Motion, quoted statistics to show the defective nature of the arrangements that had been made for the training of teachers, as referred to in the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Eos-common (the O'Conor Don). Estimating the minimum number of the teachers who should be trained for Ireland at 500, he calculated that the cost per annum would amount to £25,000. His hon. Friend asked for an increase in the present Vote of £25,000, and the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) also asked for an increase. Both of those hon. Members wished to improve the condition of the teachers, the one intellectually, and the other physically. Considerable retrenchment might, he thought, be effected in other directions. One branch of those Estimates required very careful consideration. The model schools were, professedly, a portion of that training system; and the reports of the Inspectors pointed out how completely they had failed in that respect. Taking those schools simply on economical grounds, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could fairly effect a considerable reduction upon them. The objects sought by those schools were to give a model of mixed education, to afford examples for the National Schools, and also to give a preparatory training to young teachers. But they had absolutely failed as training schools, and very few of them were really models of mixed education. The Royal Commissioners showed that a very great proportion of the children educated in those schools, with money voted for the benefit of the
    260
    poorer classes, were the children of the respectable and richer classes. In 1874, a Department Commission of the Treasury was appointed to inquire into those schools, as there was a proposal to increase the salaries of the masters. The Commissioners said that not more than one-third of the children in those schools were drawn from the working classes. No less a sum than £40,000 a-year was thrown away upon those schools, which had failed in every object for which they were intended. In point of fact, the model schools were intermediate schools. For a long time past the managers of schools in Ireland had been alive to the serious nature of the want of training; and, accordingly, in 1875, the Catholic Bishops started a training College of their own. In 1878–79 there were 45 teachers in that institution. The hon. Member concluded by expressing a hope that the House would accept the proposals of his hon. Friend.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "considering the very large proportion of untrained Teachers in charge of Elementary Schools in Ireland, and the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Primary Education which reported in 1868, it is desirable that steps should be immediately taken by Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the Resolution in regard to Grants to Training Schools adopted by the Board of National Education in Ireland in December 1874,"—(The O'Conor Don,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. COGANsaid, that his hon. Friend who had already addressed the House (the O'Conor Don) had entered at such length into this subject that, at that late hour, he should not be justified in taking up much of the time of the House. He should not have intruded into the debate at all, if he had not wished to bear his testimony to the deep interest felt in Ireland with regard to this subject. The House had heard, with feelings of regret, the sad history that had been given to it of the state in which so vast a number of teachers in the National Schools in Ireland now were. It was a melancholy thing for them to have to state now that a system which had been in force for so many years in Ireland should only possess 31 per cent of trained

    261
    teachers, 'when the total number of teachers was about 6,000. He believed that in any effort which they might initiate, and which they were prepared to make, the state of the National School teachers in Ireland was the most important matter to be considered, and more particularly their training for the avocations which they had to pursue. Though he was always ready to advocate any scheme for improving their physical well-being, and to increase their salaries, yet the most important matter of all was that this House should see that the persons to whom it had intrusted teaching in Ireland should be qualified for the position in which they were placed. It had been shown to the House that for a long series of years the state of the training for National School teachers in Ireland had been complained of, and that a Royal Commission had sat upon the subject, and that successive Chief Secretaries for Ireland had felt it so important a matter that they had brought it under the notice of the Board. It had also been shown that, so long ago as 1874, the right hon. Gentleman who now filled the Office of Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) wrote to the Board of National Education in Ireland, putting before them, two proposals with regard to the training schools. One was the proposal of Mr. Forbes' Committee in 1860, and the other was the proposal of the Royal Commission, headed by Lord Powis, in 1868. The right hon. Gentleman now the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in 1874, brought these proposals before them, with the purpose then pointed out by him, and with the desire that the assistance of the Commissioners of National Education should be given to devise some practical and reasonable scheme to remove the state of things which was an obstacle to giving a high standard of education to the Irish people. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman to whom he alluded then in his place, and he trusted that they would have his assistance in carrying out the objects which they had in view. The right hon. Gentleman declared then that it was necessary for carrying out the education of the Irish people that an alteration should be made with regard to the training of the teachers, and he submitted these two proposals, which were, to a great extent, identical in principle, and
    262
    which would carry out the object of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don). He trusted that this subject had been so long considered that they would have an assurance from the Government that night that the hopes of the Irish people would not be left uncared for. This matter was of very serious importance, for it should be recollected that every year which passed saw a number of the youth of the country pass away from these schools, and the whole of their future lives would be influenced for good or for ill by the education which they had there received. He did not think that anything could be more disastrous to the future well-being of the Irish people than that a system of training, which had been admitted on all hands to be defective, should be continued. They desired that that House should unanimously come to the conclusion that nothing could be more injurious than the existence of these schools which were not fit for their work; and he trusted that they would have an assurance from the Government that they would be ready to carry out the suggestions addressed to the National Board by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. The National Board, in response to his application, put before him a scheme which had been detailed at length by other hon. Members; and he trusted that they would have some assurance from the Government that they would consider this question, and that they were prepared to deal with it. If they did so, he was sure that they would confer a lasting benefit upon the Irish people.
    MR. BRUENobserved, that the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had stated what he considered to be the evils in this system as it now existed, and what he proposed to do to remedy them. It was a very serious thing if any large number of teachers were not competent; but he (Mr. Bruen) did not think he could quite coincide with his hon. Friend in the remedy he proposed. He proposed, in fact, that the training of teachers should be taken from under the control of the National Board of Education, and should be committed to the care of independent voluntary bodies of persons. At present, the training of teachers was conducted under the control of the National Board, and not under the con-

    263
    trol of other bodies; and he must say that he gave his preference to the training institutions remaining under the control of the National Board. He did not, however, think that even if the training institutions for teachers were placed under the control, or in the hands of persons other than the National Board, the evils which his hon. Friend had pointed out would be remedied, for he thought the evils which he had noticed proceeded from an entirely different source from that which had been stated. He believed that the cause of there being so few competent teachers in Ireland was that the remuneration was so very small. The remuneration at present given to teachers in Ireland was perfectly inadequate to induce men to spend a certain portion of their lives in preparing to enter the service of the National Board, and afterwards continuing in it. The present training institutions trained a very considerable number of men; but it must not be supposed that the whole number trained ever became teachers. It had been noticed that out of those trained a very large proportion, for instance, of those educated at the training establishment in Marlborough Street never became teachers in National Schools at all; or, even if they did, they left the service very shortly, and got into other occupations. That fact showed where the evil laid, and that it was not in the institutions, or in their management, but in the want of inducement to teachers to remain in the service. Had he been in Order, he should have been inclined to move an Amendment, to the effect that it was expedient that additional inducements should be given to teachers to continue in the service of the Board, and that they should have increased remuneration. He believed if increased remuneration were paid to teachers, they would very soon have a sufficient supply of perfectly competent teachers. No doubt, this question was one of expense, and, of course, it was very difficult to come down to that House and ask for a larger supply of money for educational purposes in Ireland. He did not think that they would be driven to that necessity. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) had told the House of the class of children that were educated in some of the model schools. He thought it would be a reasonable thing
    264
    if some school fees were imposed upon those persons able to pay them, who sent their children to these schools. By that means, they would obtain sufficient money to increase the salaries of the teachers in Ireland without additional taxation. He did not wish to see these fees imposed upon the poorer classes, who were unable to pay for sending their children to school. There should be some provision that, whenever a person was not, in the opinion of the Board of Guardians, able to pay the school fees, then the school fees, or a portion of them, should be remitted. By that means, they would get such a sum of money as would be sufficient to offer a very material inducement to competent teachers.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that there had been three attacks made upon the system of education in Ireland. One attack was directed against the University system; the second against the education represented by the National Schools; and the third, which was most likely to follow, was for the purpose of doing away with the present system of National Education, and introducing an entirely denominational education. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had brought before the House a Paper containing the recommendations made to the Government in 1874, through the right hon. Gentleman who was now Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). He (Mr. Macartney) was not surprised that the Government of the period did not act upon the recommendations made by a small majority of the National Board of Education in Dublin. Anyone who went through the Papers would see that opinions were very much divided upon that Board, and that three or four different plans were proposed. Ultimately, by a narrow majority, the recommendations were made which had now been brought to the attention of the House. For five years the hon. Member for Roscommon had thought it right not to take any step in the matter; but he had at length brought it forward. In the first place, it was proposed to establish training Colleges which should be entirely denominational, and that 75 per cent of the yearly expense of these Colleges should be paid by the State. The amount to be paid for these Colleges

    265
    for the training of masters and mistresses was not to exceed 75 per cent of the total expenditure. The Motion did not say the total expenditure for teaching, but the total expenditure for the establishment of the Colleges. Thus, the State was to be at the expense of maintaining institutions of an entirely denominational nature, and was to pay three-fourths of their maintenance. The hon. Member maintained that in England and Scotland a large sum of money was contributed to denominational education; but he did not tell the House how much of the total expenses of the denominational education so afforded came from private sources, and how much from public revenues. If he had done so, he would have told the House that if 75 per cent was to be given in Ireland a very much smaller proportion was now given in England and Scotland. Another of the proposals made was that the candidates should be recommended for examination by the managers of the Colleges, or else by the patron or manager of the school. Hon. Members were not, perhaps, aware how the patrons and managers of National Schools in Ireland were appointed. In England, generally, the patron of the school was a person who had built it, or endowed it, or who paid a very large proportion of the sum required for its maintenance. In Ireland, the schools generally were of a very modest character, and had cost very little, and most frequently the patron did not contribute a single shilling towards the expenses of the school, and the school manager and patron were not in the same position as in England. The great majority of patrons—not the managers were persons who paid nothing towards the maintenance of the school; but, notwithstanding that fact, it was proposed that those persons should give the recommendations for the training Colleges. The patrons were generally clergymen, either Roman Catholic, or, perhaps, of the Church of Ireland, or Presbyterian, and were very unlike the patrons in England, who had expended money, or contributed towards the maintenance of the school. The great complaint of the hon. Member for Roscommon was that the persons sent to be trained at the training school in Dublin were not enabled to remain there long enough. It seemed to him that it would be better
    266
    to propose that they should be kept in Dublin for a much longer period, being maintained there by the same Body that now maintained them. If they compared the schools in Ireland under the control of private persons with the schools under the control of the Commissioners, it would be found that the latter would compare very favourably with them. He believed that anyone investigating the state of the schools in Ireland would find that the schools of which the sole direction was under the Commissioners were infinitely better conducted than those under private management. Experience taught that a transfer of the schools now under the control of the Commissioners to private persons would result in the infliction of a great injury upon education. He wished to refer to one question which his hon. Friend had made a main feature of his proposal. At one time during his hon. Friend's speech, he (Mr. Macartney) had thought he was about to suggest that the money required should be taken from some source such as was proposed in his University scheme—namely, the surplus revenues of the Church of Ireland. He (Mr. Macartney) thought that as he had proposed that source for University Education, he would propose that the money for the National Schools in Ireland should be derived from the same source. But he had not made that proposal, and had suggested instead that the expenditure on the National Model Schools of Ireland should be reduced. In his (Mr. Macartney's) opinion, these schools were of the greatest benefit to Ireland, and were the best feature of Irish education below the University. The Returns showed the efficiency of these schools in a very remarkable degree. They were largely attended; and he might mention that among a total of 29 schools about 500 pupils were educated in each school. The average attendance at the schools showed that they were by no means inefficient. He was confident that no better schools where classics were not taught existed. These schools were excepted from the operation of the Intermediate Education scheme, why he did not know. He was one that wanted them admitted; but they were not admitted to the benefits of the Act. The schools might be at a disadvantage as compared with others for one reason, and that was, they were not approved

    267
    by the highest ecclesiastical authorities in Ireland. The ecclesiastics objected to the attendance at the schools of all who professed the Roman Catholic faith; but, notwithstanding the objection to them, the attendance at the schools was very good. What the hon. Member's proposition amounted to was, therefore, that, with a view to improving the education of Ireland, all the best schools should be swept away, and schools should be substituted which would be under the control and administration of the clergy. All other countries in Europe had, at the present moment, come to the conclusion that education should not be under the control of the clergy, and it was asked that Great Britain and Ireland should go upon a different principle to that which was now adopted in all countries which professed the Roman Catholic religion. He hoped and believed that this country would not be behind the French, German, and other nations, and that they would not, at this the closing part of the 19th century, take such a retrogade step as to establish denominational schools under the exclusive control of the Church of Rome.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. J. LOWTHERthought that the speech of the hon. Member who had introduced this Motion (the O'Conor Don), had been delivered to a House which was somewhat fatigued by the more animated discussion which had occupied the earlier part of the evening. Of course, it was more than could be expected from human nature to be proof against the serious attack which had been made upon their time during the last few nights. He was not surprised, therefore, at the Benches being empty, even when that interesting subject which the hon. Member brought forward was being discussed, and Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies, who they knew took great interest in this subject, were unfortunately prevented, from the causes to which he had referred, from being present in any number. He had been led to make these remarks from seeing that scarcely half-a-dozen Irish Members collectively were present at any time during the speech of the hon. Member for Roscommon, and those who followed
    268
    in the discussion did not succeed in obtaining a better audience. The subject which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Roscommon had failed on that occasion to arouse any very great interest on the part of Representatives from Ireland; but it was, undoubtedly, a subject of very great importance. Perhaps its importance was insignificant compare with the question of Order or disorder, or with attempts to alter or vary the Forms of Procedure of the House; but, although a subject of less moment, it was one which, undoubtedly, commanded considerable attention. It was a remarkable fact that there were a vast number of untrained teachers employed in the schools of Ireland. That was a deficiency that called for very serious attention. The hon. Member, in enunciating that proposition, was upon very safe ground; it was not likely that he would find anyone to rise in his place and confute that statement. It was true, he proceeded to suggest the remedy for this state of affairs. There had been two remedies suggested with the view of meeting the difficulty, and yet of avoiding the alternative of an increased school grant. The hon. Member for Roscommon and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Longford (Mr. Errington) appeared to go into the matter very fairly upon the question of expense, and it might very properly be considered that that was an important element in dealing with the subject. The hon. Member for Longford suggested, as he thought he was bound to do, some item for retrenchment which would justify the House, in what were popularly called bad times, in incurring any additional expense. The subject which the hon. Member had suggested for retrenchment was that of model schools. If the House had been in a more complete state than it was when the remarks were addressed to it, some other hon. Members might have competed in making suggestions with the hon. Member. He thought the hon. Member would have found also that many hon. Gentlemen would have risen in their places and expressed themselves strongly in favour of the model schools. He did not feel called upon to discuss to what extent model schools really carried out the specific work for which they were intended, nor how far many persons had taken advantage of public funds for obtaining an education

    269
    to which they ought to contribute. It was not necessary for him to say more upon those subjects, but only to point out that the model schools were doing their work well, and that the subject should be well considered before they were abolished. With respect to National School teachers, their position had for some time engaged the attention of the Government; and he hoped, before many days were over, to be in a position to submit to the House a scheme, which he hoped would meet with its approval, for improving their position in life. That, of course, could not be done without some addition to public burdens, and without financial arrangements into which it was not then proper for him to enter. As they were aware, Parliament had then arrived at a very late period of the Session, when the time of the House was counted by moments, and it was impossible at that time to deal with any fresh subject. They must be all aware, from sources of information open to everyone, that there was a measure then engaging the attention of Parliament in "another place," which they might hope soon to have brought before them. He said this to show that the time of Parliament during the remainder of the Session would be fully occupied, and more than usually occupied, with the subject of education in Ireland. Therefore, he thought the House could scarcely be unprepared for his statement on the present occasion, which was that the Government was not prepared at the present time to enter upon this very important and by no means small field which the hon. Gentleman had opened out that night. He might, however, state that it was a subject which had been engaging the attention of the Government for some time; and if he could see his way at once, without raising any difference of opinion on the other side, to settle this question, he could assure the House that he should be glad to do so. Anyone must, however, see that if there were any proposal made it would be met with difference of opinion on one side; and where it was likely that a subject would meet with opposition from one Party or another at that period of the Session, the Government would not be justified in taking up the time of the House by bringing it on. At the same time, he could assure the House that the subject
    270
    was one which would not be lost sight of by the Government; it would involve considerable financial arrangements when they came to approach it. The hon. Gentleman, by the discussion he had raised that night, had done good service; he had stated his views with great ability and clearness. He had succeeded also, in the interests of the public service, in illustrating the fact that this subject was not to be approached without great consideration, and that it would occupy more time than the Government felt at that moment was at their disposal.
    MAJOR NOLANremarked, that hon. Members must be very glad to hear that the Government were going to do something for the National School teachers of Ireland. That was the only bright spot in the otherwise gloomy speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. If the Government were going to introduce a scheme for the benefit of National School teachers, a great advance would be achieved in primary education; and he did not think that so long as they were going to do something the Government was open to very much censure. The points brought forward by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) were very important. In telling the House only that the Government were going to do something for the National School teachers, and in not going into any of these matters, he thought the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been playing with the House. The Chief Secretary had said nothing of any sort or kind about the Motion, except that something was to be done for the school teachers, and that the subject would be considered. Amongst the very vague promises offered them, there was, as he had remarked, the only bright spot, that something was to be done for the teachers. The present Government had been in Office six years, and he thought it time they did something for Ireland, as it was now said they were going to do. He would remind them that this was the last Session that they could be put off with mere promises, and that the time had come when these matters must receive attention.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTwished to say one word with respect to the cost of training school teachers. Every pupil trained in the school college at Dublin cost £50 a-year. The English system

    271
    gave a great deal more freedom, and cost £60 a-year per teacher. But there was this difference with regard to the result of the English system—no one was paid in England until two years' training had been completed, and, more than that, until two years had been passed in teaching, and the teacher had been reported upon favorably. At the College in Marlborough Street, a teacher received £50 a-year during the first two years of his career, whether he afterwards became a teacher or not. The cost of the English system, which had so many advantages was, therefore, only one-fifth more than the cost of the Irish system. Some remarks had been made with regard to the managers and patrons of National Schools in Ireland having expended very little money, and, therefore, not being deserving of much consideration; but hon. Gentlemen forgot that the reason for this was, when the National system was introduced into Ireland the landowners set their faces against it, and not only would not contribute, but would not dispose of their land for the schools. In consequence of that, the Catholic clergy were obliged to collect money from their poor parishioners in order to provide schools; and in too many cases these schools were, from the nature of things, miserable edifices. That was one of the reasons why National Schools in Ireland were in so unsatisfactory a state.
    THE O'CONOR DONbelieved he had no right to reply; but just wished to say, in consequence of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that as he did not perceive, in the answer he had made, any sort of promise that his desire would be carried out, he could not but express his feelings in a Division. He thought the measure should be pressed, especially as it had been before Parliament ever since the year 1874.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 64, Noes 48: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 161.)
    Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL—Report—Thames River (Prevention of Floods) *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Civil Procedure Acts Repeal * (132).
Committee—University Education (Ireland) (134).
Committee—Report—Wormwood Scrubs Regulation* (128).

THE CATHEDRALS COMMISSION—CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether there is any objection to amend the Royal Commission on Cathedrals, so as to include in the number of the Commissioners the Visitor of each Cathedral in turn as well as the Dean and one of the Canons, when the statutes of the Cathedral are under consideration?
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDsaid, he had considered the proposal of the most rev. Prelate. It appeared to him that the Royal Commission would be perfectly competent to deal with all the circumstances involved in the subject of their inquiry. In fact, to deal with those circumstances was the principal reason why the Royal Commission had been recommended. He might say, generally, that it appeared to him that the Ecclesiastical and Cathedral interests were sufficiently represented; and, therefore, though with regret, he must decline to recommend any modification of the Royal Commission.

ELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR SCOTLAND—THE EARLDOM OF MAR.

  QUESTIONS. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY (Lord MELDRUM:): My Lords, I rise to call attention to the recent election of Representative Peers for Scotland at Holy-rood, and to ask Questions relative to the Earldom of Mar Peerage. At the outset, I must say that the recent election at Holyrood was contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Report of the Committee of the House of Lords which has been before your Lordships. The Earldom of Mar, as your Lordships are aware, is involved in great mystery. I am not going back to the Dark Ages, which, some historians say the title springs from, but will only refer to the present generation, and I hope I shall be able to make myself perfectly clear. Before describing the election proceedings, I will shortly call to mind how the question is raised, and how it has stood since the Report of the Committee of 1877. The late Earl of Mar, who was also the Earl of Kellie, died in 1866, and Mr. Goodeve Erskine, who had al-
  134
  ways been recognized as the heir through the female line, became Earl of Mar; whilst Colonel Erskine succeeded to the Kellie title through the male line—and it was in this manner that the two titles became separated. Lord Mar voted repeatedly at Holyrood, and this was protested against on one or two occasions. A very curious thing occurred in the General Election of 1868, when there was a double return. The noble Lord's father and Lord Rollo were elected, and neither of them could take their seats in this House, because, if this had been done, there would have been 17 instead of 16 Representative Peers. In 1869, the late Lord Kellie petitioned the House to amend Lord Mar's vote; but instead of proceeding with the Petition he withdrew it. After Lord Kellie's death, the present noble Lord presented a Petition to Parliament claiming the title of Mar. The present Lord Mar opposed the claim. The matter came before your Lordships' House; and, after a considerable time, the Committee of Privileges decided, on the 25th February, 1875, that Lord Kellie had made out his claim to an Earldom of Mar dated 1565. On the following day there was an Order transmitted to the Lord Clerk Register, which had an important bearing on the case; and at the next election of Representative Peers there was considerable disturbance, there being two Earls of Mar present, and so unseemly were the proceedings that they ended in a great deal of rather undignified conversation. The Lord Clerk Register would not hear the Earl of Mar; but no one protested against him. After a few months had elapsed, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Buccleuch) brought forward a Resolution on the subject, to the effect that at the meeting of the Peers of Scotland, assembled by Royal Proclamation for the election of Peers, the Lord Clerk Register or the Clerk of Session should call the title of Mar on the roll of Peers according to the Resolution of the Committee of Privileges on the 26th February, 1875. The noble Duke moved that; and I moved the Previous Question, maintaining that it was impossible to alter the Union Roll, where the date of a Peerage had been fixed by the Act of Union and the Decreet of Ranking. The question was referred to a Committee, and I think it was the opinion of

  135
  the majority of the Members—and I can safely assert that it is the almost unanimous opinion of the majority of Scotchmen—that you cannot have tampering and tinkering with the deed Roll of Peers. The Committee declared that the ancient Earldom was on the Union Roll, and that Lord Kellie had not got it, but a Peerage dated 1565, which was not on the Roll, and which was given him by the Committee of Privileges. They did not recommend any Order on Lord Kellie's Petition, but left the Statute of 10 & 11 Vict. c. 52, to provide for any future claim. I have now given a brief resumé of the history of these two Peerages. And now I will come to what occurred the other day at Holyrood. The Roll of Peers of Scotland was called, and the moment the Earldom of Mar was called, the Earl of Kellie answered to the title which was called out as it stands on the Roll. His vote was protested against by two noble Lords present this evening, and by about nine or ten Peers by proxy; but his vote was, as far as I can learn, received and accounted for. What, under the circumstances, has the Clerk Register done? Has a certified copy of the whole proceedings been submitted to the Clerk of the Parliaments? Under the 3rd section of this Statute it was enacted that if at a meeting for the election of Representative Peers a protest against a vote be made by two or more Peers present, the Lord Clerk Register shall forthwith transmit to the Clerk of the Parliaments a certified copy of the whole proceedings; and I want to know whether such a certified copy was made, and what it is the intention of the Government to do in the matter? If the proceedings have been submitted to the Clerk of the Parliaments, this House may order the claimant to come forward and establish his claim. On this question we are in a painful and peculiar dilemma. In the first place, the Committee of Privileges have decided that Lord Kellie does not hold the Peerage which stands on the Roll, but has got a Peerage dated 1565; he tenders his vote, and it is recorded. So the Lord Clerk Register is in this predicament he has either accepted a vote from a Peer holding a Peerage which is not on the Union Roll, or he has allowed a Peer to vote for a Peerage under protest of two Peers present, without trans-
  136
  mitting a Report of the proceedings to this House, and in defiance of the decision of the Committee of Privileges affirming that the Peer in question has not made good his claim to that Peerage. That is an awkward predicament, and it is an important question for the Peers assembled at Holyrood to know whether a vote should be recorded or whether the Union Roll should be altered or not. But the Lord Clerk Register has done even worse than this. He has actually received the vote of a Peer who is under attaint at the present time. I must go back again slightly to prove this to your Lordships. When Mr. John Francis Erskine, in 1824, appealed to the Crown to be restored to the titles of honour of his grandfather, who died in 1715, that Petition was referred to Sir John Copley. The Law Officers of the Crown inquired into the matter, and reported upon it. Mr. Erskine was the grandson of Lord Mar, who used the title in 1716. His mother, Lady Frances Erskine, was the only child of the attainted Earl who had issue, and she married her cousin, who afterwards became heir male of the family. But this is the most important point in the whole discussion. When it was referred to Lord Lindsay to decide whether Mr. Erskine had proved his right to the title of Earl of Mar, he distinctly reported in favour of Mr. Erskine, ignored Mr. Erskine's father, and as for the male heirship, only mentioned him as the legal husband of Lady Frances Erskine. The Law Officers of the Crown also reported that the grandson of the attainted Earl had made out his title and proved his pedigree solely through his mother. Therefore, he was restored, and placed on the Union Roll above the Earl of Rothes. It was clear that any other Earldom of Mar, except the one restored through the female succession, could not have been excluded from the attaint. The Peer holding that title, dated 1565, is still under the "ban;" but he votes as the old Earl of Mar on the Roll, and holds a Peerage by a Resolution of the Committee of Privileges, which was not included in the dignities restored by the Crown under the Report of the Law Officers in 1824. What I want to know is this. Can the Lord Clerk Register call the new Earldom of Mar, dated 1565, in any place on the Roll, when the Report of our Committee says that order of precedence on the Roll

  137
  has never been altered? We distinctly proved before the Committee that there was no precedent for any alteration. You can put a Peerage up; but there is no precedent for bringing a Peerage down. Ought not Lord Kellie to be prevented from voting for a Peerage which the Committee of Privileges have decided against him; and from tendering his vote for a Peerage not on the Union Roll, and which is under attaint, if it exists at all? I bring the subject forward without any wish to open up sores which I hoped long ere this had been healed. A General Election may, I believe, take place soon; and what will be the result then? There will be strong protests against the Roll being received. I appeal to the Lord Chancellor to get us out of this muddle. I have no desire to disturb the harmony usually existing at the election of Scottish Peers; but there is clearly a flagrant violation here which should be put right, and I shall continue my protests against any Peerage which does not exist being on the Roll.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord communicated to me two Questions which he proposed to put to me, and I will answer them to the best of my ability. I have no intention whatever of following the noble Lord in the range of discussion upon which he has entered. I cannot imagine what possible object the discussion can have in this House, after the decision at which the House has arrived. I will state the two Questions which the noble Lord put to me, in order to make the matter intelligible. The first Question, as I understand it, was, Whether the Lord Clerk Register was right and justified at the recent election at Edinburgh, when the Mar Peerage was called in the course of calling over the Roll—was he justified in receiving the answer to this Peerage from the noble Lord the Earl of Mar and Kellie? All that I have to say upon that subject is this—that the Peerage on the Roll which is called the Mar Peerage is not the Peerage which has been attached in this House to the Earl of Mar and Kellie; and, therefore, the Earl of Mar and Kellie should not be allowed to answer in this call. Now, as to the Resolutions of your Lordships' House, I have no right to interpret them; but I will state what I understand they mean. In 1875, the Committee of Privileges made a Report to the House
  138
  on the Peerage to the effect that the petitioner, Walter Henry Earl of Mar in the Peerage of Scotland, had made out his claim to the Earldom of Mar created in 1565, and ordered that at future meetings of the Peers of Scotland assembled under Royal Proclamation for the election of a Peer the Lord Clerk Register do call out the Earl of Mar according to his place on the Roll, and that the Peer called at such election should receive for the county the vote of the Earl of Mar claiming the vote, and permit him to take part in the proceedings of such election. Now, the Roll of the Peers of Scotland is a public document, and in that Roll there is only one entry of the Earl of Mar. It may be in its right or wrong place—I cannot say anything about that—it is there, and it is to that that this Resolution must have necessarily referred, and there is nothing else for the Lord Clerk Register except to call, and when he is called, he is told he is to receive the county vote. I do not see how any question can arise as to the duty of the Lord Clerk Register. The Order of your Lordships pre-supposes that he is to call the title of the Earl of Mar. The second Question is this. Protests were entered, as I understand, at a recent election against what was done, against Lord Kellie being allowed to answer to the call of this Peerage; and the noble Lord asks, Whether the Lord Clerk Register ought not to have referred the whole proceeding to the House of Lords, in pursuance of the Statute 10 & 11 of the Queen? This is rendered plain by the words of the Statute. The Statute says—
  "That if at a meeting for the election of a Representative Peer any person shall appear and vote, or claim to vote, in respect of any title or peerage on the Roll, and if any protest if made by two Peers present, the Lord Clerk Register is to transmit to the Clerk of the Parliaments a certified copy of the whole proceedings, and the House of Lords may order the person, whose vote or claim has been protested against, to establish the same before the House; but if he does not appear, or fails to establish his claim, the House will order that his vote shall not be received or counted at any future election."
  The Earl of Mar should have been called upon to establish his title here; but he has never done so. If there is to be a protest entered against any person who has not established his title, that protest in to be set forth, and the House of Lords may call upon that person to establish his title. These are the answers which

  139
  I should respectfully offer, and I do not desire to take any further part in the discussion.
  LORD BLANTYRE: My Lords, on the death of Alexander Earl of Mar, in 1435, Sir Robert Erskine claimed the Earldom through his wife, and assumed the title. His successor, Thomas, first Lord Erskine and second. Earl of Mar, was dispossessed of the Earldom in 1457 by the Assize of Error. The succeeding Lords Erskine never ceased to claim the Earldom: but it was retained and enjoyed by members of the Royal Family of Scotland. In 1565, John, fifth Lord Erskine, and properly sixth Earl of Mar, obtained a re-hearing of the case, when he clearly proved his rights and was reponed by Queen Mary in the Earldom, restituit per modeam justitiœ. The common sense view of these facts is, that the Queen restored to the Erskine family—who had possessed the Earldom for 22 years, 1435–57, were then deprived of it, but on a new trial in 1565 established their right to it by female succession—that which they claimed, and did not create instead a new Earldom confined to heirs male only. On these grounds, I hold that the decision of the House in favour of there having been a new Earldom created in 1565 was erroneous; that there had been all along one Earldom, which should have been awarded, not to the Earl of Kellie, but to Mr. Goodeve Erskine, the heir by female descent.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): It appears to me an extraordinary thing to attempt to resist the decision of this House upon a point which no other body but the House can decide. By the Union with Scotland the Peers of Scotland are placed in precisely the same position as the Peers of England, and there is nothing which the Peers of this country can hold more dear to them or more important than that this House shall be the sole judge as to whether they are entitled to their honours or not. The question of this Peerage was gone into in the fullest possible manner, and none but those who have gone into the whole case and investigated all the evidence brought forward are really competent to pronounce an opinion upon it. To pick up small matters from other authorities than those which were brought before the House is not a fair way of discussing the question. The place of the Earldom
  140
  of Mar on the Union Roll is that given to it by the Decreet of Banking which took place in the time of James VI., in the year 1606. That Decreet of Banking is by no means perfect. On the contrary, it has been open to dispute from the first down to the present time. At the time of the Union what happened in this matter? On the production of the Roll the Earl of Sutherland took notice in the House that there was pending between him and the Earl of Crawford some dispute about precedency, and that there were others of a like nature; and, in 1707, the list of Peers was laid upon the Table, and the same was ordered to be entered on the Roll of Peers with this salvo—that whereas there were several Protests entered on the Records of the Parliament of Scotland in relation to the precedency of Peers, such Protests should have the same force as if they had been entered on the Roll of Peers, or in the Journal of the House—thereby recognizing its authority over these disputes with regard to precedency; but the House has never altered any of the places on the Roll, although, by the clearest evidence, proved to be wrong. Very soon after the Union in 1707, the Duke of Ormonde claimed the Peerage of Dingwall, which was not on the Roll. He claimed to be placed on the Roll immediately after Lord Madderley, and the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges, and the Committee of Privileges reported that he ought to be taken next before Lord Cranstoun. The difference was that that gave to Lord Dingwall higher right than he claimed. Therefore, the House obviously has the power of determining where the Peers should be placed on the Union Roll, when not already upon it. With regard to the question of what is called the ancient Earldom of Mar, the precedence which was given by the Decreet of Banking was not that of the ancient Earldom of Mar; and no one can say that the ancient Earldom of Mar is the one placed on the Union Roll by the Decreet of Banking. From 1377 down to the present day no one has been received as representing the ancient Earldom of Mar, either in the Parliament of Scotland or in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The date given to the Earl of Mar by the Decreet of Banking was that of 1457, and he was placed between Lord Rothes, created 1558, and the Earl of Errol, who was created in 1452. But,

  141
  in the Decreet of Ranking, no dates were given; the Peers were merely placed in their several places without giving specific dates. But it is most important to note that the place he was put in was 1457. The decision of the Decreet of Ranking turns on the documents laid before the Commissioners by the Peers themselves; and of these, the most important documents were the surrender of the territorial comitatus of Mar in 1404 by Isabella, who was the neice of the last heir male, and who was, no doubt, his heir general; and re-tours showing that the Earl of Mar was her heir general. The Commissioners for the Decreet of Ranking refused to admit that the comitatus surrendered by Isabella had a peerage Earldom attached to it, and they did not, therefore, give a precedence of 1404, thereby declaring that that surrender and re-grant did not contain the Earldom. It was a surrender of the territorial comitatus only, and they would not give him that precedence. And I would remark on this that in the elaborate protest made by Lord Crawford at the last election, he declared that the precedence that was allowed by the Decreet of Ranking was a precedence of 1404. Now, my Lords, the precedence was not given of 1404, but of 1457. I would also remark that Lord Mar did not bring before the Commissioners for the Deereet of Ranking the Charter by which the territorial comitatus was restored by Queen Mary to his father; but he gave these other documents, evidently desiring that by their allowing him precedence on the date of that surrender and re-grant to Isabella they would acknowledge his right to the Peerage, which he, of course, might then contend she inherited. Now, the question is, why was the precedence of 1457 given to him by the Commissioners? I hold it to be a distinct proof that they were determined that by no act of theirs would they recognize the existence of the old Earldom of Mar. Nobody would pretend that that was the date of the ancient Earldom of Mar, the last heir male of which died in 1377. James II. created one of his younger sons Earl of Mar. Therefore, there was an Earl of Mar in 1457, and if anybody claims under the finding of the Decreet of Ranking, that is the Earldom of Mar which would make their title good, because that is the only one which is at all connected with the one that appears on
  142
  the Union Roll. The report of those who gave judgment in the late ease was that the Earldom of Mar had been a new creation from the time of Queen Mary, and that no other Earldom of Mar was then existing. That was proved, I say, by the extinction of that Earldom for 500 years, during which time no person has been acknowledged in Parliament as holding the ancient Earldom. Therefore, that the entry of the Earldom of Mar in 1457 was an erroneous entry everybody will admit, whichever way their opinion may be. There is no doubt that the Earl of Mar in James the VI.'s time desired to make good his claim to the ancient Earldom, and he put in those documents, and kept tack other documents that might have induced the Commissioners, if they had had them then before them, to give the real date—namely, the date of the year in which he was created. My Lords, if every Peer is to determine whether the judgment of this House is right or not, and to act upon his own idea in a decision of this kind, confusion of the most unfortunate character must necessarily arise. The decision of this House is that the vote of the Earl of Mar is to be received when that Earldom is called on the Union Roll; the House never having as yet altered the placing on the Roll, although found to be incorrect; and if Peers individually are allowed to come forward and say—" We do not approve of the decision of the House in this matter," there will be very objectionable proceedings from henceforth in the election of the Peers for Scotland. My Lords, I think there was great reason in the Motion made by the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch), who proposed that there should be an alteration in the placing of that Earldom; at the same time, there is no doubt, if you once begin altering the Union Roll, there are so many errors in it, that claims would be made for the alteration of precedence, and they would be such as to give the greatest possible trouble and inconvenience to the House; and, therefore, it may be desirable to allow the Peers to be called in the wrong place rather than take the trouble of altering their place. Now, my Lords, I would just mention what occurred in regard to a Peerage that was restored some time ago—that of my noble Friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. That is a Peerage which, I think, it has

  143
  been proved to the House was created in 1607; and the findings of the House with regard to the placing of Lord Dingwall were that he was created in 1609; they also found that Lord Cranstoun had been created in 1609—a little later—and they put Lord Dingwall before Lord Cranstoun; and in putting him before Lord Cranstoun they put him before Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who stood between Lord Cranstoun and Lord Madderley. Therefore, I say, the confusion you would get into if you once began altering the Union Roll would be very great. The Decreet of Ranking was all done with regard to the whole Scotch Peerage in a very short space of time—in about a year—and it was done entirely upon whatever documents the Peers themselves might think fit to produce; while the evidence before the Committee of Privileges in the Mar case was of a very different and much larger character. My Lords, having taken part in that judgment, and taken great pains with it, I say that all the Lords who took part in it declared it to be their opinion that when Lord Erskine was created Earl of Mar there was no Earldom of Mar in existence to which he could have been restored by Queen Mary; and if anyone has complaint to make that Lord Mar is not entitled to the place given to him upon the Union Roll, the only Peerage he can claim on the date given by the Decreet of Banking must be that Peerage which was granted by James II. to one of his younger sons, who died without issue in 1479.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: I must say, my Lords, that I was not prepared to hear the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees speak in such contemptuous tones of the Decreet of Ranking. He informed us that it was, in fact, a simple declaration made on the production of the best documents which the Peers at that time could produce. No doubt they had to produce what documents they had; but I think I can tell you something about the Decreet of Banking. The Peers of Scotland in 1606 were for the first time ranked by order of the King under the Great Seal, and the rank there established indicated the place on the Roll in which the particular Peer's name was entitled to be, and, of course, his precedence; but there was a provision in it by which a Peer could obtain a higher rank by the production of more ancient documents—and
  144
  I may say that the Earl of Mar produced documents showing a descent from a maternal ancestor 100 years before Queen Mary's time. I am not going into the question as to which documents are most reliable; but I ask the House to listen to me while I show your Lordships that this House, in fact, is not a competent tribunal to determine the rights of Scotch Peers—for, by the Treaty of Union of 1707, it was expressly provided that the judgment of the Court of Session in Scotland with respect to disputed peerages would be final. My Lords, the judgment of the Court of Session was obtained in the year 1626; and, therefore, I say that in any case such as this tried by the Court of Session before the Act of Union it is not competent to your Lordships to reverse its sentence. But, moreover, my Lords, it has been stated on the highest authority that the Report of the Committee of Privileges is not a judicial proceeding—it is a mere expression of opinion—and I do not think even my noble Friend at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale) will controvert it, seeing that it was so stated by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and also by Lord Chelmsford in 1876, who distinctly enunciated the principle that the opinion of the Committee of Privileges was simply a Report to your Lordships' House, and not a judgment given by your Lordships' House as a judicial Court. I understand, indeed, that Resolutions found upon the Report may be submitted to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty, as the fountain of all honour, may adopt it, and thus give a final decision. But in this particular case what was done was done—for some unexplained reason, the moment the Report was made and the Resolution passed it was sent off to Edinburgh, without there being any opportunity to show it to the Sovereign, and the Lord Clerk Register was directed to place the name of the Earl of Mar on the Roll of Peers in the position in which it stands—thus reversing the decision already given previous to the Union; and that, my Lords, I say it is not competent to your Lordships' House to do. Then, my Lords, I think it is plainly proved that the ancient Earldom is still in existence, and traceable in family succession through the female line. It is true that the Earldom was for some time attainted; but it was restored in 1645 by Queen Mary. But that, my Lords, was a new creation; and, therefore, Lord Kellie has

  145
  no right to be placed so high on the Roll as he is. It was attainted by Act of Parliament and restored, and by a judgment of the Court of Session in 1656, it was formally declared that the ancient Earldom of Mar was still in existence, descendable through the female succession to heirs-general, that the heirs had been temporarily deprived through illegal seizure and usurpation in 1457, but that these wrongs were redressed in 1645 by Queen Mary, whose charter restored to the heirs of the said Countess Isabel and their heirs-general hereditary the ancient Earldom, and which charter included the dignity, patents of honour independently of lands being unknown till many years afterwards. There really was no dispute in Scotland as to the right of the Earl of Mar whose name was in the Decreet of 1606, and who was placed upon the Union Roll. But by the decision of the House of Lords on the 26th February, 1865, they declared that Lord Kellie had made out his claim to the Earldom of Mar, created in 1565. But in doing that the House of Lords carefully abstained from making any reference at all to the more ancient Earldom of Mar held by Elizabeth, Countess of Mar, in her own right in 1404. Therefore, I contend that there is no adjudication whatever against the more ancient title. I hope, my Lords, your Lordships, who have been very generous indeed to the Earl of Mar, will not forget the maxim—Be just before you are generous. I do not ask you to be generous to Mr. Erskine, but simply to be just.
  LORD SELBORNE: As I understand the law, claims to Peerages are to be investigated in a certain prescribed manner, and not argued and debated by the whole House. Therefore, whatever may have been the position of this Peerage in former times, or whatever may be the interest felt on the subject in Scotland, it is impossible that any advantage can arise from a discussion like the present in this House. I should say the same thing if it were a question concerning an English or an Irish Peerage; but the case is still stronger as to a Scotch Peerage; the manner of proceeding in that class of cases being regulated, not only by custom, but by statute. Tour Lordships appointed a Select Committee last year, upon a Petition presented by the noble Earl opposite; and that Committee reported that nothing could be done
  146
  in this matter, unless some claim to the ancient Earldom of Mar should be made and protested against at an election of Representative Peers, in which case the mode of proceeding, prescribed by the Act of Parliament, must be followed. I altogether fail to perceive the reason for which the noble Earl at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale), instead of being content to rely upon the decision of this House in 1875, has chosen to argue the whole case upon the merits. If I were to hold myself at liberty to follow him into that argument, there are some things which he has said, with which I, certainly, should not agree; but, so far as the title of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Mar and Kellie) is concerned, the House has already given its decision, and that decision has the force of law. It has decided that a Peerage of Mar was created by Queen Mary, and that the Peerage so created belongs to the noble Earl opposite; but it has pronounced no judgment, either affirmative or negative, with respect to the ancient Earldom of Mar. Whatever may have been said by any learned Lord in the Committee of Privileges is a matter wholly different from the Resolution of the House affirming the right of the noble Earl to the Peerage of Queen Mary, but without asserting that the old Earldom was extinct. Consequently, anyone who at the election of Representative Peers claimed the old Earldom of Mar would be entitled to produce any evidence he could in support of that claim; and it would be for a new Committee of Privileges to determine whether anything was added by that evidence to the materials, on which the former decision proceeded; and, if not, what degree of weight ought to be attributed, as against the new claim, to all or any of the reasons which were assigned for that decision by any of the Lords who concurred in it. In the present case, as in another to which their attention has been recently called, the House ought not to review and debate a legal determination.

INDIA—THE BRAHMIN KISHEN DUTT.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I would commence by stating that I believe the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India (Viscount

  147
  Cranbrook) was ignorant of the act of illegality which I am about to relate to your Lordships, until he saw the Notice which I have put down. There has been an infraction of the liberty of British subjects, for a Brahmin is as much a British subject as any man born in this country; and when Paul of Tarsus claimed the rights of Roman citizenship, neither Festus nor Agrippa sought to diminish those rights by casting in his teeth that he was a Jew. Great complaints are now made by many writers of what they call Imperialism—that is, of arbitrary acts—and Imperialism of this kind is not so much after the model of that of Julius or Augustus Cæsar, as that of Domitian or Caligula, and acts such as this will go far to do away with the effects of the recent speech at Sheffield of the noble Viscount. This has been an act of tyranny so purposeless that it cannot be explained; but I have found a clue in a recondite maxim of antiquity which was placed before your Lordships a few nights ago by a noble Lord opposite—Quid leges sine moribus. Of what avail are the British Constitution, Magna Charta, or Habeas Corpus, against the morality of officials? The Brahmin, Kishen Dutt, had an estate in the district of Gorruk-pore. A nephew of his defrauded him of it; he first attempted to effect a substitution of names in the register, through the native Tehsildar, who repelled his proposals; but he afterwards succeeded in the English Local Court and the High Court of Allahabad. Confident in the justice of his cause, Kishen Dutt determined to seek redress from the Privy Council, and to carry out his design he pledged his wife's jewels. At Bombay, lie went to the office of Nichol and Co., for his passage to England; he had not sufficient money, but a benevolent old man looked at his papers, and said that it was very plucky of him to go to England, and he should go, and he gave him what was wanting of the passage money and 20 rupees besides. The captain of the steamer was a humane man, who knew some Hindustani, and he was very kind to Kishen Dutt, who was only a deck passenger, and sheltered him in bad weather; he directed him to the Strangers' Home, in Limehouse, where he arrived on the 7th February, 1878. When there, all he could say was that he wanted to go to the Privy
  148
  Council; accordingly, he was put it into an omnibus, and, unfortunately, was directed to the India Office. Thither he went fruitlessly, many days, with his papers; one day a Parsee lawyer offered to take up his case for £50; but he had spent all his money, and had been deprived of his estate. Another day. Sir William Muir spoke to him, and took his papers, and said he would examine them. Some little time after that, in the forenoon of April 4, 1878, he was told by the steward or policeman at the Stranger's Home that the Queen had sent for him, and that- he must make haste. He wanted to put on his best clothes, but the people began collecting his things, and he began to suspect; "the Queen," he said, "does not want to see my old rags." However, he was told he must go; he refused, and clung to the bedstead, and had to be led out by a policeman. He said—"I cannot go without my papers." His papers were then given back to him by the policeman; he was put into a cab, and taken on board the Queen Anne steamer. Here, again, he bewailed his hard fate of being put on board without provisions; for when he left India he had laid in a supply of parched corn and dates, and he would lose his caste. This captain, also, was a humane man, and he allowed him to go ashore again, under the care of one of his men, to get some dried fruit. The steward of the Strangers' Home remained by till the ship sailed to see him off. He was thus kidnapped, and forcibly deported from England to Calcutta. Undismayed, however, he begged his way back, and got first to Aden, and from there to London to the Strangers' Home, on the 3rd September, 1878, and renewed his search after the Privy Council. At length, he found a friend who assisted him to draw up petitions to the Privy Council, and to get them presented. The time in which an appeal could be made had expired whilst he was being deported; when he returned to the threshold of the Privy Council he had been 19 months' travelling, yet the Judges of the Privy Council stretched a point in his favour, and he got leave from Sir James Colville, Sir Barnes Peacock, and Sir Robert Collier, to be heard on Saturday, June 14th; but, as both the First Court and the High Court had been agreed as to a matter of fact, the Privy Council could

  149
  give him no relief. At this time he was refused any more food at the Strangers' Home, and he would have starved, had not his friend, Mr. Meakin, supplied him with dates and French plums; but after two periods of five and six days—11 days in all—of this diet, and getting no cooked food, he became so ill that Mr. Meakin would have removed him to his own house, but he was too ill to be moved. Thereupon, Mr. Meakin told the officials of the Strangers' Home that he would hold them responsible if the man died, and they relaxed their severity, and gave him food to cook; but he did not recover his strength till the 28th or 29th of June. Now, when this story was first told me, I was incredulous that such a thing could happen in England, and I should not expect your Lordships to give it credence had I not heard it myself corroborated by the officials of the Strangers' Home. I went there with Mr. Meakin on Monday, June 30th, and heard it corroborated that it was by orders from the India Office that Kishen Dutt had been shipped to Calcutta in the Queen Anne; and, worse still, that it was by their orders that Kishen Dutt's rations had been stopped, in order to drive him away. I also learned that orders had been given to shut up Kishen Dutt, and prevent his going about; but this order had not been carried out. Now, under what law or statute does the India Office carry away suitors from, the doors of the Privy Council when they are open to them? By what law does it give these illegal orders to a charitable institution, and prevent its feeding the homeless? The last annual Report of the Strangers' Home bears on its covers the words, "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers;" and the accounts show that £879 16 s. 3d. were given to it by charitable subscribers last year; but the back of the cover of the Report has the words, "No one can be admitted into the Home without payment." Well, the publicans would do as much. I do not mean the licensed victuallers; but, in the original sense of the word, men who are not expected to make any profession of religion. If any stranger has a claim on the charity of this country, surely it is one who, relying on the justice of this country, has come so far, and at the cost of so much hardship, to seek the reversal of an iniquitous decision. I
  150
  will now read to your Lordships a note from the Strangers' Home, showing that the India Office paid £15 for Kishen Dutt's passage by the Queen Anne, as follows:—
  "June 18, 1879.
  "From Strangers' Home for Asiatics,
  "Limehouse,
  "To E. E. Meakin, Esq.,
  "22, Feuchurch Street.
  "Sir,—I waited to hear the result of Kishen Dutt's appeal to the Privy Council before replying to yours of the 11th instant. Having now heard that the Privy Council have rejected his case, I write to inform you that the India Office paid the £15 for his passage to Calcutta, but nothing for his board and lodging at the Home, and will do nothing further for him. This man has been nearly a whole year on the funds of the Home, which is out of all proportion to our experience in other cases, and the Board cannot spend more of the funds upon him, and especially as he is not one of the class whom we can provide employment for on board ship. Nothing short of a passage paid for him would meet his case, and the Home was not intended to do this; and, besides, we do not know that he would accept a passage, and, indeed, he had one provided for him in vain. We see no termination to this case; and in the present depressed condition of the shipping trade we have many men of the class the Home was specially intended for thrown upon it, destitute for various periods; but all these we can, sooner or later, dispose of properly, by obtaining employment for them at wages to return to the East. The case of Kishen Dutt is one we cannot aid or dispose of in any way, and too much has already been spent upon him, and all in vain. This Home is not intended for the permanently destitute Natives of the East, but to aid those who are temporarily so, and are willing and able to accept employment when it is provided for them. This is what Colonel Hughes, honorary secretary, wished me to say to you by way of information in the case of Kishen Dutt.
  "Yours faithfully,
  "J. FREEMAN, Superintendent."
  And now I have to ask, What was the object of this persecution of an old Brahmin, 70 years of age, by the India Office? Were those officials unaware that, since the Proclamation of the Queen as Empress, every suppliant for justice in India, from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin, has a right to come to the doors of the India Office with his Petition?
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, the Strangers' Home to which the noble Lord had referred was, he believed, one of the best institutions in London. A great number of Asiatics came over to this country, some of whom, on their arrival, were unfortunately neglected by

  151
  those who brought them here, and the authorities at the Strangers' Home did what they could in the circumstances to assist them. It constantly happened that the India Office was asked to assist these poor people to get back to India. The Brahmin, Kishen Dutt, was said to be an old man, 65 years of age. He came over to this country with some purpose connected with an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and had been received into the Home. He (Viscount Cranbrook) had a letter from Colonel Hughes, dated the 10th of March last, in which he stated that the Brahmin in question had come to the Home, and that on being informed by those whom he consulted that he had no case to lay before the Privy Council, he expressed a wish to return to India, but that he had not the means of paying for his passage. The application was submitted to the Finance Committee of the Council of India, who recommended a grant of £20 out of the Compassionate Fund. That recommendation was approved by the Council, and the money was forwarded to Colonel Hughes for the purpose of taking this man back to India. That was all the India Office knew of the matter. It was not an uncommon thing for Asiatics to come to this country in the belief that grievances of which they complained, and which could alone be determined by the Courts of Law, would be redressed on the presentation of a Petition to Her Majesty in person. It was most important that these persons should be kept from any such delusion as that. Some of them had had to be watched by the police to prevent them from forcing themselves into the presence of Her Majesty.

UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 134.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
UNIVERSITY EDUCATION (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 134.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNErose to move, as an Amendment, that the House do resolve itself into Committee that day three months. As their
  152
  Lordships all knew, on Tuesday, a Bill endowing the Roman Catholics with money derived from the Surplus Fund of the Disestablished Church of Ireland might have been carried by acclamation, so unanimous seemed to be the opinion of the House. That was a marvellous change of opinion since a few short years, when, but for the dexterous guidance of the noble and learned Earl (the Lord Chancellor), a large majority of their Lordships would have thrown out the Bill for the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. He supposed the change arose from the enlightened progress of modern thought. To his narrow vision it seemed like the blind and dangerous progress of a runaway horse. The past history and the present action of the Roman Catholic Church throughout Europe, equally with its present action in Ireland, were ignored or forgotten. Their Lordships cast aside experience and trusted to theory. The Protestant principles, on which the Constitution was founded, and which so long guided this nation in the path of glory and honour, were now mocked at as vulgar; and this was all the more strange when it was remembered that the question of taking education out of the hands of the Roman Catholics was one which occupied the attention of almost every nation in Europe. In Roman Catholic France, Belgium, Italy, Austria; in Germany, Russia, Holland, with their mixed populations; in Canada, in the United States, in Roman Catholic Brazil, the struggle to keep education out of, or take it from, the hands of the Roman Catholic Church was being fought; and why? Not for any purpose of religious persecution; not with any desire to interfere with the religious faith of that Church; but because the Roman Catholic Church taught that her authority was supreme, independent of and above the State. But all history showed that unless the supremacy of the State was asserted, liberty, order, and good government must become subservient to religious tyranny; for an Infallible Church must consistently teach and practice intolerance, she must and did teach every one to be an obedient Catholic first, and, subject to this condition, a good citizen after. To keep the youth of the country from thus being brought up in antagonism to the civil power, in antagonism to their fellow-countrymen, that question was now the

  153
  standard round which all Liberals, save a few English aristocrats in Europe and America, rallied. Therefore, he could not but think it one which well-deserved the attention of their Lordships. The action of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland at the present time was matter of notoriety. They claimed and exercised an influence in the appointment to every law office in the country, from the Lord Chancellor to the lowest turnkey. They dictated to the constituency what Members they were to return to Parliament—the Galway election showed how they enforced their commands. In Canada, at the last election, the Roman Catholic Bishop issued public directions to his clergy not to give the sacraments of the Church to recalcitrant voters. In Ireland this was not done by such public manifestoes; but altar denunciations against all who displeased the clergy were the constant practice, and were frequently a source of danger to the persons denounced. They claimed that where the majority were Roman Catholics, without regard to merit, all public officers should be Roman Catholics. Why was it, he would ask, that this general feeling through Europe existed against placing education in the hands of the Roman Catholic clergy? It was not attributable to any wish to persecute Roman Catholics or to interfere with their faith, but because they taught that the Roman Catholic Church was supreme above the law. While such a doctrine was preached—a doctrine so dangerous to civil order—the influence of the law must be maintained by not leaving education in their hands. With reference to the eloquent appeal which had been made the other night by a noble and learned Lord (Lord O'Hagan) as to conceding to the conscientious views of Roman Catholics in Ireland the means of separate education, he (Lord Oran-more and Browne) contended that this was beside the question—it was a mere stepping-stone to power—the claim was only a new development of the claims of the Roman Catholic clergy, for they felt that if the youth of Ireland were educated out of a particular groove they would lose their power over them. Their Lordships were not to think that any measure was really necessary to satisfy the consciences of Roman Catholics. If they accepted that principle, where were they to stop? The present Pope refused to have any
  154
  relations with the Italian Government because they tolerated other religion! They had gone very far and very fast since the Church Bill had passed through the House. Let the House look back a little. At the time of the Emancipation, Dr. Doyle and Daniel O'Connell gave evidence strongly in favour of mixed education. Within a few years, and for a considerable time, Archbishop Murray aided in carrying out mixed education as an active member of the National Board. Their consciences were not disturbed, nor were they worse Catholics than the hierarchy or laity of the present day. Was not this claim, then, no part of religious teaching, but an Ultramontane development for the distinct purpose of gaining greater power? It was making religion a stepping-stone to power. Was not the passing of any measure aiding separate education a wrong not only to the Queen's Colleges and Trinity College, but to Liberal Roman Catholics, who preferred education at these Colleges, or to choose the places and persons by whom their sons should be educated? This Bill would, by the power it would give the Roman Catholic clergy, bring all liberal Roman Catholics in subjection to their iron sway. Then as to National Education having become denominational, he entirely denied that that statement was borne out by the annual Returns. Those Returns showed that where the population was mixed there the schools were mixed. It was certain that grants had been made to schools which were conventual if not monastic; and he did not think that any sensible Protestant would like to send his children to such establishments, whatever might be the conscience clause put on the chimney piece. Doubtless, in so far, grants had been made to Roman Catholic teaching which were refused to Protestant schools. He would also ask their Lordships to remember that large grants which had been made before the National system existed to Protestant schools had since been withdrawn, and that Maynooth had been for many years supported out of the funds of the Protestant Church. It was urged in support of the Bill that the Roman Catholics laboured under a grievance; but the grievance referred to was one of their own making. All the advantages which

  155
  were open to other denominations in the country were open to them. At Trinity College, and all the English Universities, all tests had been removed, and for the very purpose of putting the Roman Catholics upon an equality with the others. The Queen's Colleges were open to, and accepted by, every other denomination, and every other denomination had a minister paid for religious instruction; so, also, could the Roman Catholic University appoint a chaplain. He believed, indeed, that a very large proportion of those who did require University Education had accepted the teaching of both Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges. Therefore, he contended that there was no requirement for this additional University. Where Roman Catholics had not already accepted the teaching of Trinity College and the English Universities, now that the endowments were open to them, he felt sure they would do so. If that House passed a Bill granting separate teaching through a hierarchy the result would be to put a penalty on all liberal-minded Roman Catholics. They would be doing an injury not to those Colleges only, but to every man who was inclined to take advantage of the facilities they offered. In fact, they would be putting the Roman Catholics altogether under the sway of the ultra-Romish party. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had said that the reason Trinity College was not available for the Roman Catholics was that the examinations were in the hands of those in whom the Roman Catholics had no confidence. The noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) had said the same. It was, therefore, evidently intended by the Charter, by the constitution of the Senate, to transfer the examinations to parties in whom they did have confidence, the University would be made entirely Roman Catholic, and would not be in accordance with the principle which had been adopted for a great many years. He doubted also whether the public, or, indeed, some of their Lordships, understood the Bill. He brought forward his Motion because he thought there was no need for giving further University Education in Ireland, and because the Bill would injure the existing Universities and assist Roman Catholic Universities in oppressing the liberal Roman Catholics.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day three months").—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: I cannot support the Motion of the noble Lord. I stated, on the second reading, my reasons. I agree with all the non-official Peers who have debated this subject that the Bill is perfectly inadequate. But as the Government adopted the novel plan of announcing in the House of Commons that they would make a clear and distinct explanation of their views on the Irish University question by means of a Bill introduced into the House of Lords, I think it is desirable that the House of Commons, where the majority of the Irish people interested in this question is so much more largely represented than here, should have an opportunity of fully considering the plan. But as to this plan I desire to make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) is reported to have made a speech the night before last, in which great heat and eloquence, courage and much imagination, a supreme contempt for his political opponents, and unlimited admiration for the best of all possible Governments in the best of all possible cities, seemed to combine all the elements necessary for a successful electioneering after-dinner speech. The noble Marquess is reported to have described the Government policy with regard to legislation as one which, as far as efficiency would allow, made the smallest possible change. I am bound to say that, omitting the proviso, this Bill is an admirable type of such legislation. But as for efficiency, can anyone pretend that it is so after the debate on the second reading, when not only Liberal Peers and Roman Catholic Peers, but the Protestant Irish supporters of the Government, unanimously gave their opinion that the Bill was inadequate—when the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that the Irish Roman Catholics considered it a grievance that they alone were without pecuniary assistance in higher education—and when the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack at last held out vague hopes that next Session, or the Session after the next, the Government would consider the question of supplementing the present Bill by

  157
  grants which he did not define? With regard to the claim of some pecuniary assistance, there is no doubt that the lay Irish Catholics are united with their clergy. But there is one reason for their claim which is probably not so much felt by the clergy as by the laity. Some of the latter complain that without pecuniary assistance they are condemned to a Collegiate Education exclusively conducted by priests; that learned lay Irish Professors, just as much as their unlearned fellow-countrymen, desire to marry, and generally, like them, have enormous families; that they must be paid for their services, and that cheap University instruction can only be obtained from the clergy, who, from their vows of celibacy and from the character of their profession, are satisfied with very small allowances. With regard to this question of pecuniary assistance, it has been stated in the House of Commons and in this House—hitherto without any contradiction—that the Irish Government did communicate last winter to the. Irish Bishops for their approval a scheme resembling in its general outline the Bill introduced some weeks ago by the O'Conor Don. The Government have been much pressed here to explain in what way the principles of the Intermediate School Act of last year, proposed by them and cheerfully assented to by us, are not applicable to Collegiate Education in Ireland. The Lord Chancellor gave us the reasons—and when he gives reasons they are likely to be the best that can be found—no one is very likely to find better. His reasons were these—first, that the children in the schools are younger than the students in Colleges; secondly, that there is no Conscience Clause applicable to Colleges; thirdly, that the Colleges cannot, like the primary schools, be inspected. As to the first reason—namely, as to the age of the children—this may or may not be a question of convenience; but, as a question of principle, it has no bearing whatever on the matter. I believe there are several Irish schools of a denominational character which have received, or, at all events, will receive, grants under the Government Act of last year out of the surplus provided by the Irish Church Act. Then, as to the Conscience Clause, the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, speaking with great authority, said there would be no objection raised
  158
  to it; and my noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) reminded the Government of what they must know, that the Irish Bishops had agreed to a Memorandum to that effect. It is not likely that the Catholic laity would object to having a Conscience Clause when the Bishops are ready to agree to it. Then about inspection. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon) asked the pertinent question, whether Her Majesty's Government had not omitted to take any power of inspection over the intermediate schools? To this there is only one possible answer—in the negative. I am entitled to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give any more satisfactory explanation of the distinction between the principles they so successfully adopted last summer, and those which more or less they seem to repudiate this year? The noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack most properly stated on the second reading his determination only to argue his case in the manner most likely to promote the settlement of the question. I trust that I am doing nothing inconsistent with the most sincere desire that this important question should be settled if I make an appeal to the Government on this occasion. It is perfectly clear that this Bill will not settle the question. It is not reasonable to expect that it will be accepted, after the Government have themselves owned that it requires to be supplemented, and yet only hold out hopes of the necessary supplement being considered by the Government at some future and undefined period. Her Majesty's Government promised the House of Commons to give in this place a clear and distinct statement of their pledge. I venture to appeal to them to fulfil that pledge, and spontaneously to add to this short Bill those provisions which they think necessary for its complement, or, at all events, to make a statement which will enable us, and especially the people of Ireland, to judge whether such provisions are sufficient or not.
  On Question that (" now ") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  House in Committee accordingly; Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Monday next.

OFFICERS ON HALF PAY—THE CIRCULAR LETTER, MAY, 1866.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRUROasked the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the Circular Letter of May, 1866, did not guarantee to officers promoted on half-pay the same advantages in all respects as officers placed upon half-pay by reduction, and whether such guarantee has been adhered to in every case, particularly with reference to payment of over-regulation money? The noble Lord said, the Question might appear a very simple one to answer; but the matter it related to seriously affected certain officers of the Army. The effect of the Circular Letter to which his question referred was to place officers who were on half-pay by promotion upon precisely the same footing as officers who were upon half-pay by reduction. It was because in some instances the assurance contained in the Circular Letter had not been completely carried out that he put the Question which stood in his name upon the Paper. In anticipation of what the answer of the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War might be, he wished to state that there were cases of officers who had not received, prior to the abolition of Purchase, their over-regulation money from their regiments. The solemn, pledges given in the House of Commons by Mr. Gladstone, Lord Cardwell, and Captain Vivian, of the same nature as the guarantee which, in his opinion, the Circular Letter of 1866 contained, should, he thought, be redeemed.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, Her Majesty's Government fully intended to do every justice to the officers in this matter. The Circular Letter of May, 1866, did guarantee to officers promoted on half-pay the same advantages as officers placed upon half-pay by reduction, and everything promised in that Letter would be granted. It, however, did not contain, and could not have contained, any reference to over-regulation money, which was abolished in 1871, and which, in 1876, was illegal and not recognized by the authorities.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.