Sitting of 14 June 1880

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Resolutions [June 11] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Beading—Customs and Inland Revenue*[221].
First Reading—Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland)*[219]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballinasloe, &c.)*[220].
Second Reading—Spirits* [210]; Representation of the People (Scotland) Act (1868) Amendment*[208]; Wild Birds Protection Law Amendment [211].
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Commons Supplemental*[112].

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House, that he had received the following communications from the Judges selected, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the Trial of Election Petitions:—
A Letter from Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Grove relating to the Election for the City of Hereford.
A Certificate and Report from Mr. Baron Fitzgerald and Mr. Justice Barry relating to the Election for the Borough of Dungannon, and
Reports from Lord Chief Justice Morris relating to the Elections for the County of Londonderry, for the City of Londonderry, and for the Borough of Bandon Bridge.

CITY OF HEREFORD ELECTION.
Court of Common Pleas, Westminster,
12th June 1880.
Sir,
We have the honour to inform you that the Petition complaining of the Return for the City

1891
of Hereford has been withdrawn by leave of the Court. We have also to inform you that, in the opinion of the Court, such withdrawal was not the result of any corrupt arrangement or in consideration of the withdrawal of any other Petition.
We are, Sir,
Your obedient humble servants,
COLERIDGE, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.
W. R. GROVE, Judge of the Common Pleas.
To the Eight Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons.

DUNGANNON ELECTION.
The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879.
Election for the Borough of Dungannon, holden on the 2nd day of April 1880.
The matter of the Petition relating to the above-named Election, wherein Robert Newton and Armitage Lennox Nicholson are Petitioners, and Thomas Alexander Dickson is Respondent, was tried before us, Francis Alexander Fitzgerald, one of the Barons of the Exchequer Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, and Charles Robert Barry, one of the Justices of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in Ireland, being two of the Judges on the rota for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in Ireland at Armagh on the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th days of June in the year 1880, and We, at the conclusion of the trial on the last mentioned day, determined and do hereby certify to the Right Honorable The Speaker of the House of Commons that the said Election was void.
Further, we report that no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by Colonel the Honorable William Stuart Knox, one of the candidates at the said Election, or with his knowledge and consent, but that corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by the said Thomas Alexander Dickson, the other of the candidates at the said Election, through his Agent, but without his knowledge and consent, that is to say, the giving and paying of money for a voter in order to induce such voter to refrain from voting at the said Election.
Further, we report that Robert Donovan, Richardson McGuffen, and John Anderson, were proved at the said trial to have been respectively guilty of the said corrupt practice of bribery, but that each of the said persons having been examined before us as Witnesses on the said trial, we deemed them respectively to be entitled to certificates under the 33rd section of The Parliamentary Election Act, 1868.
Further, we report that we have no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the Election to which the Petition relates.
Dated this 11th day of June 1880.
J. D. FITZGERALD, Baron of the Exchequer Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland,
C. R. BARRY, Justice of the Queen's Bench Division of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice in Ireland,
Judges for the time being on the rota for the trial of Election Petitions in Ireland.

COUNTY OF LONDONDERRY ELECTION.
High Court of Justice in Ireland. Common Pleas Division.
Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
In the matter of the Election Petition for the County of Londonderry.
James Forrest and Thomas Walker, Petitioners.
Right Honble. Hugh Law and Sir Thomas McClure, Bart., Respondents.
The said Common Pleas Division, in pursuance of the provisions of the 36th section of the said Act, do hereby Report to the Right Honble, the Speaker of the House of Commons.
That the Petition in this matter, a Copy of which is hereunto annexed, was duly presented to this Division on the 5th day of May 1880. And that the Petitioners on the 11th day of June inst. applied to this Court by special application, pursuant to the said Statute, for leave to withdraw said Petition. And it appearing to the Court that the notice of the said application required by the said Act had been given in the said County, and no person having applied to be substituted as Petitioner instead of the said James Forrest and Thomas Walker.
The Court on the said 11th day of June inst. made an Order permitting the said Petition to be withdrawn, and the same has been withdrawn accordingly. And the Court do hereby Report, in their opinion, the withdrawal of the said Petition was not the result of any corrupt arrangement, or in consideration of the withdrawal of any other Petition.
Signed on behalf of the Court this 11th day of Jane 1880.
M. MORRIS,
Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.
To the Right Honorable The Speaker,
House of Commons.

CITY OF LONDONDERRY ELECTION.
High Court of Justice in Ireland, Common Pleas Division.
Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
In the matter of the Election Petition for the City of Londonderry.
John Boyle and William Conaghan, Petitioners. Charles Edward Lewis, Respondent.
The said Common Pleas Division, in pursuance of the provisions of the 36th sect, of said Act, do hereby report to the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons:—
That the Petition in this matter, a Copy of which is hereunto annexed, was duly presented to this Division on the 27th day of April 1880; and that the Petitioners on the 11th day of June inst. applied to the Court, by special application pursuant to the said Statute, for leave to with, draw said Petition.

1893
And it appearing to the Court that the notice of the said application required by said Act had been duly given in the said City, and no person having applied to be substituted as Petitioner instead of the said John Boyle and William Conaghan, the Court on the said 11th day of Juno inst. made an order permitting the said Petition to be withdrawn, and the same has been withdrawn accordingly.
And the Court do hereby report that in their opinion the withdrawal of the said Petition was not the result of any corrupt arrangement, or in consideration of the withdrawal of any other Petition.
Signed on behalf of the Court, this 11th day of June 1880.
M. MORRIS,
Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.
To the Right Honble. The Speaker of the House of Commons.

BANDON ELECTION.
High Court of Justice in Ireland, Common Pleas Division.
Parliamentary Elections Act, 1878.
In the matter of the Election Petition for the Borough of Bandon Bridge, John Corcoran, Petitioner; Percy B. Bernard, Respondent.
The said Common Pleas Division, in pursuance of the provisions of the 36th Section of the said Act, do hereby report to the Bight Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons:—
That the Petition in this matter, a Copy of which is hereunto annexed, was duly presented to this Division on the 22nd day of April 1880, and that the Petitioner, on the 11th day of June inst., applied to the Court, by special application pursuant to the said Statute, for leave to withdraw said Petition. And it appearing to the Court that the notice of the said application required by the said Act had been given in the said Borough, and no person having applied to be substituted as Petitioner instead of the said John Corcoran, the Court on the said 11th day of June inst. made an order permitting the said Petition to be withdrawn, and the same has been withdrawn accordingly. And the Court do hereby report in their opinion the withdrawal of the said Petition was not the result of any corrupt arrangement or in consideration of the withdrawal of any other Petition.
Signed on behalf of the Court this llth day of June 1880.
M. MORRIS,
Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas.
To the Right Honorable The Speaker,
House of Commons.
And the said Certificates and Reports were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

WITHDRAWAL OF RESOLUTION.

  SIR BARTLE FRERE.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNintimated that, in consequence of the an-
  1894
  nouncement of Her Majesty's Government that they did not intend to ask for any Vote beyond the sum of £500 for Sir Bartle Frere, which had been voted by Parliament for services already rendered, and not to be performed, he would not persevere with the Motion which stood in his name relating to the South African grant.

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—MEDICAL ATTENDANCE IN CAVAN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secre-tary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the Dispensary Doctor of Arva, county Cavan, refused to give medical attendance to William Will of Coronea, near Arva, county Cavan, although a billet signed by James M'Cann, esquire, P.L.G., was presented to said Doctor; and, if the above statement is correct, whether he will, seeing that Will is 76 years of age and lives on a holding valued at £3 5s. per annum, order, through the Local Government Board, that said Doctor shall give the attendance required?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I find on inquiry that Mr. M'Cann, not belonging to the Board of Guardians in whose Union Will resided, had no power to give him a ticket. The man seemed to be in a position to pay a small fee. I have no power to alter the action of a Board, either in giving or cancelling such an order.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND)—CHARGE OF EXTRA POLICE.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will state to the House under what statutes the Irish Government claim to have powers of quartering extra police in disturbed districts, and of charging the expenses of maintenance of those police on the inhabitants of the district; whether the Government have any powers under these statutes of circumscribing the district thus charged within the limits of the townland or borough which may happen to have been the scene of outrages; and, whether the Irish Government have any powers of exempting any of the inhabitants of the

  1895
  district from the charges levied for the maintenance of extra police?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): If the noble Lord will allow me, I shall answer the Question for my right hon. Friend. The statutes under which the Irish Government "have powers of quartering extra police" in such districts as may be found to require an additional force, and of charging half the cost of their maintenance on the inhabitants of those districts, are 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 13; 2 & 3 Vict. c. 75; and 9 & 10 Vict. c. 97. They have also power under the same statutes of limiting the district thus charged to a barony, or even a townland, as may be found desirable. They have not, however, any power of exempting any of the inhabitants of the district so charged from liability to the consequent assessment.

  PERSIAN CONSULAR COURT, CONSTANTINOPLE—CASE OF MR. ARSENIAN.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is now able to make a statement with regard to the right to protection of Mr. A. O. Arsenian, a naturalised British subject of Persian origin, whose property is said to have been arbitrarily confiscated by the Persian Ambassador at Constantinople, the said Ambassador defying the power of the British authorities there to interfere in the matter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The property claimed by Mr. A. O. Arsenian has been seized by order of the Persian Consul General at Constantinople in the course of civil proceedings instituted against Mr. A. O. Arsenian by certain members of his family before the Persian Consular Court. By a Treaty, dated 1875, between Persia and the Porte, all suits or proceedings, civil or criminal, between Persian subjects are to be heard and determined by the Consuls and Vice Consuls of Persia. By the law of Persia a Persian subject cannot change his nationality without the sanction of his Government, and such sanction has not been obtained by Mr. A. O. Arsenian to his British naturalization. In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government are advised that Mr. A. O. Arsenian is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Persian Consul
  1896
  General, and is not entitled to protection as a British subject against the exercise of such jurisdiction, notwithstanding his British naturalization. At the same time, Her Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to employ officially the best means in his power to assist Mr. A. 0. Arsenian.

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON—THE FISHERY ARTICLES.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can inform the House when it is likely the Fortune Bay Papers will be presented?
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When he will be able to lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence with respect to the Fishery Articles of the Treaty of Washington and the disputes which have arisen respecting them?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, the Correspondence referred to by the hon. Gentlemen was in course of preparation, and would, he hoped, be in the hands of hon. Members in the course of this week.

  MOROCCO—RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, having regard to existing treaty and customary rights, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any, and what, steps to ensure the safety of non-Mahomedans in Morocco, and their equality before the Law with the other subjects of the Sultan?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government have frequently instructed Her Majesty's Minister in Morocco to lose no opportunity of urging upon the Sultan's Government the necessity of extending equal privileges and full religious liberty to all classes of the population, and Sir John Drummond Hay reports that he has recently made personal representations in this sense during his visit to the Moorish Court. Her Majesty's Government are now considering the best means of making a joint remonstrance, in concert with other European Powers, in order to impress the Sultan with an adequate sense of the expediency of amending the administration of his Government, and of granting

  1897
  full civil and religious liberty to all subjects of the Empire.

  KINGDOM OF ITALY—THE COLLEGE OF THE PROPAGANDA.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he is aware or will ascertain how far the reports are true that the Italian Government is about to expropriate part of the property of the College of the Propaganda at Rome on terms almost equivalent to confiscation; whether, on international grounds, he will direct representations on this subject to be made either through our Minister at Rome, or, otherwise, to the Government of the King of Italy on behalf of Her Majesty's Catholic subjects, who are part owners of the property in question, and, in common with all Catholics, materially concerned in the welfare of this cosmopolitan college, and whose interests would be gravely affected by the alleged highhanded proceedings; and, whether he is aware that the Austrian, Spanish, and French Governments have already remonstrated in this sense with the Italian Government? He wished, further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in The Globe of this evening, stating that the Emperor of Austria was greatly irritated by the contemplated confiscation, and proposed to make representations to the Italian Government on the subject?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the Italian Government contemplate enforcing the conversion of the real property belonging to the Propaganda College; but they have no information with regard to the terms upon which the process is to be carried out. The Italian Government are acting upon a law passed in 1873, which applied generally to all religious corporations. In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government do not see their way to making representations on the subject. They understand that the remonstrances said to have been addressed by other Powers were only made unofficially.

  THE INDIA OFFICE—THE ARCHIVES AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether any inquiry has been made at the India
  1898
  Office in regard to the loss or abstraction from the Office of a Memorial, presented in 1868, to the then Secretary of State for India, by Mr. William Tayler, formerly Commissioner of Patna; and, if so, with what result; and, whether it is true that, in addition to the Memorial itself, five other letters referring to the Memorial, together with a printed pamphlet, forming an appendix to it, are missing from the India Office?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that the Memorial alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was missing from the India Office. He believed, however, that a copy of the Memorial had been printed with the Papers lately presented to the House. Four or five letters relating to the Memorial were also missing from the India Office; but a copy of the printed pamphlet forming an Appendix to the Memorial was at present in the Library of the House for the use of hon. Members who took an interest in this case.

  IRELAND—THE BOARD OF NATIONAL EDUCATION—CASE OF MRS. MARY J. CONWAY.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has made inquiry into the case of Mrs. Mary J. Conway, late of Cliffoney, county of Sligo, now a patient in the Sligo District Lunatic Asylum, and formerly for more than twenty years a teacher under the Board of Commissioners of National Education in Ireland; whether the Board of Commissioners were justified in refusing a retiring gratuity to Mrs. Conway, as appears by their Secretary's letters of 7th April and 4th June 1880; and, whether the Government will now cause a gratuity to be allowed for the benefit of Mrs. Conway's children?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have inquired into the case of Mrs. Conway, and I think the Commissioners were quite justified in refusing her the retiring gratuity. If the hon. Gentleman will call on me personally, I shall be happy to give him all the information I have on the subject.

  IRELAND—NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' RESIDENCES, &C.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the disadvantages under

  1899
  which the teachers of Workhouse National Schools at present labour in. being excluded from sharing in result fees, and to the importance of extending to them the benefits of the system of rewarding them for the results of their exertions; and, also, whether he will direct inquiry to be made into the working of "The National School Teachers' Residences (Ireland) Act, 1875," and endeavour to make its provisions more effective to carry out their objects?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: In consequence of the hon. Member's Notice I have applied for information in Ireland, and the Education officer has sent me two large memorandums on the subject of his Questions which are too long to read to the House. I have looked carefully into the Questions, but have been unable as yet to form an opinion on the subject.

  SPAIN—ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN CUBA.
  MR. T. FEY (for Mr. A. PEASE)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will lay upon the Table such Correspondence as may have taken place since January 1879, between Her Majesty's Government and that of Spain, in respect to the Treaty Eights of Great Britain, under which she is entitled to claim the complete emancipation of the enslaved Africans in Cuba?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: If the hon. Member will refer to the Papers presented last year he will find that they include the Correspondence on the subject of slavery in Cuba down to August last. Since that date Spain has passed a law providing for the abolition of slavery in Cuba. A copy of the law, together with some further Correspondence, will be laid on the Table very shortly.

  DISTRESS (IRELAND).
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, In which of the scheduled unions in Ireland distress is now most severe; how long it is likely to continue; what amount of the advances already granted has been apportioned to each of these districts, and what amount has been actually spent in each up to the present time; when the works passed at the various baronial sessions will be carried out; and, if the entire sum
  1900
  already, and about to be granted (£1,500,000), is likely to reach the classes for whom it was intended in time to save them from the effects of scarcity and starvation?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: With respect to the hon. Member's first Question, I cannot state in which of the Scheduled Unions the distress is most severe. It varies week by week from Union to Union; but I can state that the distress is most severe especially in Donegal and Mayo, and in parts of Roscommon, Sligo, and the West Riding of Galway, and also in parts of Cork, Kerry, and Clare. I trust it will not continue longer than the harvest, but hon. Members are as well able to form an opinion on that point as the Government. I am glad to say, however, we have good reports of the crops. I have, by a Return laid on the Table, shown the advances made in each barony, and I hope it will soon be in the hands of Members. I have endeavoured to ascertain the amount spent for each week, but it is impossible to obtain it exactly. As regards the time when the baronial sessions work will be carried out, it has always been our endeavour to get these works carried out before the harvest; but the Question is one to which I can only answer by stating what we are endeavouring to carry out. The question as to the application of the £1,500,000 about to be granted has been already debated in this House on the Belief Bill, and I suppose it will be debated again. I may say that I rely on no works to save the people from starvation. To some extent out-door relief must be given, though, doubtless, part of the landlords' money will be spent before the harvest.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (CHANCERY DIVISION)—THE LISTS OF MONEYS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he can inform the House when the Lists of Moneys paid into the Court of Chancery, the publication of which is provided for by statute, and which should have been published last February, will be published; and, whether he will, if necessary, afford the Chancery Paymaster extra assistance to expedite the publication?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I am informed that the delay in the publication of the list of moneys has been caused by the great pressure of work in the office of the Chancery Paymaster, and by the very large number of accounts which it is necessary to investigate before the list can be prepared. By affording the Chancery Paymaster some additional assistance which he has suggested, I hope lists will be published before very long.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—SOL. DIERS—10 & 11 VICT, c. 21, s. 3.
  MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is now any object in having soldiers confined to barracks during the day of nomination at Parliamentary Elections; and, whether, in the Bill for renewing the Ballot Act, he will propose the repeal of so much of the Act 10 and 11 Vic. c. 21, sec. 3, as provides that no soldier within two miles of the place of election shall be allowed to go out of barracks on the day of nomination?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he thought the point raised by the hon. and learned Member was well deserving of consideration. No doubt the Ballot had materially altered the whole character of the nomination day; and therefore he would give the matter his careful consideration.

  NAVY—GREENWICH HOSPITAL-LOCAL RATES.
  MR. GORSTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any sum is contributed by the Admiralty towards the local rates at Greenwich in consideration of the occupation of Greenwich Hospital as a Naval College; and, if so, what is the amount of such contribution and upon what annual value is it based?
  MR. T. BRASSEY: The Government contribute to the local rates of Greenwich for all Government property in the parish, upon a total rateable value of £9,220. Of this total the sum of £8,500 represents the rateable value of the Hospital and School. The Infirmary is valued separately, being leased to, and in the rateable occupation of, the Seamen's Hospital Society. Greenwich Hospital is not assessed separately from Greenwich Hospital School. The contribu-
  1902
  tion is paid by way of bounty out of the Vote for Bates on Government Property.

  METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT—THE DRAINAGE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that in many parts of the Metropolis the provisions of the Metropolis Local Management Act, 18 and 19 Vic, c. 120, sees. 73, 75, and 76, requiring that no house shall be built or occupied without drainage and sewerage arrangements, constructed under the supervision of the Vestry or District Board, and to their satisfaction, have been grievously neglected; and if, in order to secure the inhabitants from hidden perils, he will take measures to insure that the said Act shall be carried out in a thorough and effectual manner; or, if it is found insufficient, that it shall be supplemented by more stringent provisions?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that no information had reached the Home Office to the effect that the provisions of the Metropolis Local Management Act with respect to drainage and sewerage were grievously neglected. He was informed by the Metropolitan Board of Works that the drainage and sewerage of all houses, except those connected with the main sewers, were under the control of the Vestries and District Boards, who were alone responsible for them. If, however, information as to the non-observance of the Act in question reached the Home Office, it would be his duty to consider whether further legislation on the subject was desirable.

  M. CHALLEMEL LACOUR, THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR.
  MR. OTWAYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communication has been addressed to Her Majesty's Government relating to the appointment of a successor in this Country, to the distinguished Statesman now the President of the French Senate; whether he will be so good as to state the number of the Representatives of the French Government in England, who have been appointed, since the fall of the Empire in France; whether there has been any

  1903
  change of Representative in France of Her Majesty the Queen during the same period; and, whether, on occasions of a change of Ambassadors, credentials and letters of recall are presented personally to the Sovereign or Chief of the State?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir. A short time ago a communication in the usual terms was addressed to Her Majesty's Government, inquiring whether Her Majesty would receive M. Challemel Lacour as French Ambassador in this country, and Her Majesty has intimated her readiness to do so. The number of the Representatives of the French Government in this country who have been appointed since the fall of the Empire is eight. There has been no change in Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris during that period. It is usual on the occasion of a change of Ambassadors for the credentials or letters of recall to be presented personally to the Sovereign; but there have been exceptions to this rule, in which case an audience has been sought and granted at a later date.
  MR. OTWAY: The hon. Baronet means eight, not including M. Thiers and M. Tissot?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: M. Tissot was never Ambassador to this country. M. Thiers is not included in that number, as he is not considered to have been an Ambassador; he was only here as a very informal Representative.
  MR. O'DONNELLrose to put a Question on the same subject, when—
  MR. MONKsaid: I rise, Sir, to a point of Order. I wish to ask whether, in your opinion, an attack upon a gentleman who is, I believe, at this moment the actual Ambassador of France to this country, a personal and political attack such as that contained in the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, is in Order, even though that attack be made in the shape of a Question addressed to a responsible Minister of the Crown?
  MR. O'DONNELL: I wish, Sir, to speak to a point of Order. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dungarvan gave Notice of this Question altogether on his own responsibility. I am bound to say that, in my judgment, the hon. Member would have been better advised if, considering the gravity of the Question, he had consulted the Chair before he gave public Notice of it.
  1904
  At the same time, I am not prepared to say that the Question is irregular, and that circumstances might not arise that would render a Question of such a character in Order. I think it right also to add that, seeing the imputations which were cast upon the French Ambassador by the Notice given by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, I have thought it my duty to allow the Question to be put, because it seemed to me fair to the French Ambassador that equal publicity should be given to any refutation of the charges brought against him as to the charges themselves.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Mr. Speaker, with reference to your observations, whatever is due to a gentleman appointed as French Ambassador, I also considered, Sir, that at least as much was due to the honour and dignity of the Queen of these Realms. I beg, Sir, to ask—and I take the full responsibility of the Question, and shall pursue my inquiries to the utmost—I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the M. Challemel Lacour, spoken of as future French Ambassador to England, is the Citizen Challemel Lacour who, as one of the Prefects of the Provisional Government of September 4, 1870, ordered the massacre of Colonel Carayon Latour's battalion in the telegram "Fusillez moi ces genla," contained in the Report of the Commission of the National Assembly on the subject, and who has since been condemned by a court of justice in France to pay some three thousand pounds compensation for his share in the plunder of a convent during the same period; and, whether the same person was not suggested as French Ambassador at Berlin last year, but was promptly withdrawn in deference to the opinion of the German Government?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Mr. Speaker, before answering the Question of the hon. Member, I must be allowed to express my regret that it should have been thought necessary to put it upon the Paper. As, however, the Question has been asked, I will state such of the facts as have been communicated to us in regard to it. There never was any such massacre as that which is alluded to in the hon. Member's Question. M. Challemel Lacour denies having ever used any such phrase as that alluded to—"Faites moi fusiller ces gens-là."

  1905
  The hon. Member originally stated in his Question that the order was conveyed by telegram; but he has just now said it was a "written order." No such written order or telegram has ever been produced. The damages which, some years ago, M. Challemel Lacour was ordered to pay were the result of a civil action brought against him as head of the Department of the Rhone, and not in his individual capacity. I may state that that judgment is the subject of an appeal which is still pending, and there has lately been an order made by which the whole question has been sent before the Cour de Cassation, and it is now before that Court. The plunder which the hon. Member mentions was perpetrated by some volunteers quartered in the convent. So far from M. Challemel Lacour having taken any part in, or being in the least responsible for it, he was at that moment virtually a prisoner at Lyons. He was, therefore, powerless either to initiate or prevent any acts of the kind. When authority was restored in the Department, three weeks after, all disorder ceased, and M. Challemel Lacour took steps for the protection of the religious communities, which caused him to receive the written thanks of several of those bodies. The National Assembly, which at that time was not at all likely to be prejudiced in favour of M. Challemel Lacour, after hearing his defence, rejected a Motion censuring him, and passed to the Order of the Day pure and simple. M. Challemel Lacour was never appointed Ambassador at Berlin; but as the Question of the hon. Member implies that the German Government was privately sounded whether it would receive him or not, the German Government has informed the French Government, and the German Ambassador has informed my noble Friend Lord Granville, that there is no ground whatever for the suggestion. The German Government state that had a suggestion been made for the appointment of M. Challemel Lacour as the French Ambassador to Berlin, he would have been received with the greatest cordiality. M. Challemel Lacour was appointed Ambassador to Berne by Marshal MacMahon. No question was raised to that appointment, and he has remained at that post ever since.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Mr. Speaker, it is perfectly impossible that I can accept
  1906
  the explanation of the Government. I shall put myself in Order by concluding with a Motion. I am quite certain with regard to the statement I have made as to the suggestion that M. Challemel Lacour was nominated as Ambassador to Berlin I have been misinformed. With regard to the other statements, I am utterly unable to recede from the position which I have taken. Sir, I am afraid that, in giving these explanations, the French Government counted on a very easy spirit, and a lack of desire to inquire into the circumstances on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had laid stress upon some facts not referred to in my Question. He laid some stress upon others which he has presented in a light which cannot by any means allow this House to judge of the realities of the situation. In my Question I did not state that a massacre of the troops of the Mobiles of the Gironde had taken place. Therefore, the statement of the Under Secretary of State that no such massacre had occurred was purely gratuitous. What happened was this. M. Challemel Lacour ordered the massacre by Colonel Cara-yon Latour; but, fortunately, his instructions fell into the hands of an officer of the highest character—General Brisson—and he took care that the sanguinary mandate should not be executed. The Under Secretary of State again laid stress on the non-appearance of the original of this order. Sir, if we are to proceed on that ground, I am afraid we shall find that a very large number of French Government documents have disappeared from September 4th until the revival of authority in the National Assembly.
  MR. SPEAKER: I desire to point out the irregularity of the course the hon. Member is proposing to take. He has put a Question upon the Paper addressed to a Minister upon a matter of great importance, and he has to that Question received an answer. He now rises in his place and declares that he intends to conclude with a Motion. I must put it to the House whether the question as to the appointment of a foreign Ambassador at this Court can properly be debated on a Motion without Notice for the adjournment of the House? I apprehend that the proper course for the hon. Member to take upon

  1907
  a question of so much gravity as this is to give Notice that on an early day he will move an Address to the Crown upon this appointment of a foreign Ambassador. But it does appear to me to be a grave abuse of the privileges enjoyed by every Member of this House to bring charges of such gravity without Notice against a foreign Ambassador under cover of a Motion of adjournment.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I shall confine myself to the fewest possible remarks. [Cries of "No, no !"and "Notice ! "' I gave three days' Notice. ["Order !"] Sir—[Renewed cries of "Notice!"]—if the House—["Order!"]—
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to Order, Sir. I believe I am correct in saying that I am qualified to raise the Question of Order. In consequence of the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, it is my duty to give the House an opportunity of expressing its judgment on this subject by moving that Mr. O'Don-nell be not heard.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. O'Donnell be not now heard."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. PARNELL: I wish, Sir, first of all, to say that I have not the slightest sympathy with the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan. At the same time, the Rules of this House—I do not express an opinion or venture to argue whether it is right or wrong—permit Members of this House who are disatisfied with the answer to a Question they have received from Ministers to refer to the Question and express their dissatisfaction, and, in order to put themselves in Order, they may conclude with a Motion. The hon. Member for Dungarvan has adopted that course; and I submit to you, Sir, and to this House, that in adopting that course which may be, and undoubtedly is an inconvenient one, he was only doing that which a Select Committee of this House on Public Business, appointed to consider how the Public Business of this House might be best conducted, distinctly refused to interfere with, and you, Sir, in your evidence before that Committee refused to recommend an interference with it, I think that, under all those circumstances, the same privilege should be accorded to the hon. Member for Dungarvan as has always been accorded to Members of
  1908
  this House on every occasion—to the meanest Members of this House. I think it is the first time that a Minister of the Crown—the Prime Minister—the highest Minister of the Crown—has set the evil and dangerous example of endeavouring, by a Resolution given without Notice, in an attempt to ward off by a Party and ill-advised step what, no doubt, may seem to the Prime Minister to be a great evil—I say that it is the first time that a Minister of the Crown has attempted to silence a Member of this House in this way. Now, Sir, I have expressed my disagreement with the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. I deeply regret that he should have put it. I think it was an ill-advised and ill-judged Question. But you, Sir, when you were appealed to on the point of Order, stated that you could not interfere, and that you must leave the responsibility with the hon. Member for Dungarvan. Belonging, as I do, to a minority of Members in this House, who must always remain a minority—belonging to a minority which has not the ordinary advantages which other Members of this House have, of being able to appeal to the public opinion of the country in which this House conducts its deliberations—I see the enormous importance and the danger of the innovation which is now sought to be made; and, in behalf of freedom of speech, I would entreat this House not to take any hasty step or action in this matter, but to consent to the adjournment of the debate in order to see whether, on the one hand, reflection will not induce the hon. Member for Dungarvan to withdraw his Question from the Notice Paper; and, on the other hand, whether the Prime Minister may not consider that he is founding a dangerous precedent, and one which at some time or other may be fatal to freedom of speech in this House. I beg, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to second the Motion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. Like my hon. Friend, I most strongly condemn the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. I doubt very much the justice of the charges contained in it; and from all I know of M. Challemel Lacour, he has set an example of probity and fidelity to principle in France that might be well imitated in other countries. But

  1909
  this is a question of freedom of speech, and I feel it my duty to protest against the Motion of the Prime Minister, however much I might condemn the Question.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Parnell)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am very desirous that there should not be attempted a confusion of things that are essentially different, and that the House should not allow, under the name of freedom of speech, to be claimed a liberty of setting at naught the Rules of the House. The statement of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr.Parnell) is that, while he disapproves the manner in which the hon. Member for Dungarvan has used his liberty, he thinks that in the exercise of that liberty the hon. Member has acted within the Rules of the House. I cannot see how the hon. Member for Cork can entertain that opinion, unless he holds that it is within the Rules of the House for any person who has received from the Government an answer not satisfactory to him thereupon to rise and state his objections to that answer. I must join issue with the hon. Member for Cork upon that point. I affirm, subject to the correction of you, Sir, that, so far from being according to the Rules of the House, it is a breach of the Rules of the House that any Member, after receiving an answer to a Question, should rise and, except through the courtesy of the House and the belief that he is about to ask for further explanations, should proceed to discuss the subject-matter of the Question. I humbly venture to assert that, so far as I am aware, it is not within the Rules of the House, but is a breach of those Rules, to attempt in that way to raise a discussion on the subject-matter of the Question, and that with the intention of putting himself in Order to say he will conclude his statement with a Motion does not bring him within the Rules of the House. The attempt is, in itself, a breach of the Rules of the House. I do not accuse the hon. Member of knowingly seeking to infringe the Rules of debate; and, on the other hand, I hope I may not be accused of attempting to limit or interfere with the freedom of debate. After the most temperate injunction from the Chair, we might have hoped that your advice would have been
  1910
  followed; but as it was not, and it was my belief that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was unwittingly falling into a mistake, and committing a breach of the Rules of the House, I thought it right to raise the question whether he should now be heard. The hon. Member for Cork and I are not very far apart in our views as to the practical course to be pursued, because the hon. Member for Cork feels that this is not a question to be discussed without Notice, and he therefore moved that the debate be now adjourned. Of course, Sir, I am quite aware that you suggested to the hon. Member that he should take an opportunity of raising the question on Notice, and I do not deny his right to do so. All that I wish is to ask the House to enter its protest in a practical form against the prosecution of this subject, especially as the matter is of the highest importance, in a manner which is not permitted by the Rules of the House, and which constitutes no part of the liberty of speech accorded to the Members of this House.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: I could heartily wish, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the Rules of this House with regard to the practice of raising discussions on questions by means of the Motion for the adjournment of the House. That has been, as far as I am aware, a practice not confined to one side of the House; and I am not aware, Sir, that you have ever put a stop to it. I should, therefore, be glad to know whether it is to be taken as your ruling that a speech made under such circumstances as those to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred is contrary to the Rules of the House, and whether you are prepared summarily and peremptorily to carry it into effect? I should also like to know whether it is competent for any hon. Member, when another Member is in possession of the House, to intervene, and to move that that hon. Member be not heard? This, I think, is a case which has never occurred before.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I read the Notice of the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan with some surprise and regret; but, as that hon. Gentleman is not in the habit very often of consulting his Colleagues on matters of this kind, they concede to him the right of distinguish-

  1911
  ing himself at his own peril on many subjects in the House. I say that I regret that he put the Question. I will not discuss the charge made in it; but I do think there was a want of fair play in making a charge of this gravity.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to impute motives and suggest reasons for the conduct of another hon. Member, who has been interrupted in the making of his explanation?
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I say that a charge of this gravity ought not to be launched without more Notice, so as to allow the friends of the accused party time to prepare his defence. But I put all that aside; and I would speak now entirely to the point raised by the Prime Minister. I think that the position he has taken up is a position which is not only dangerous but untenable, according to the practice of the House. If the hon. Member for Dungarvan had violated Order, as the Prime Minister says he did, how could it be necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to make the Motion which he made? If the hon. Member was out of Order, the Prime Minister should have called the attention of the Speaker to the fact; and the Speaker would have called upon the hon. Member to cease. It was because the Prime Minister knew that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was not out of Order that he deemed it necessary to make so novel a proposition as that which he laid before the Chair. I have myself heard the present Prime Minister declare that to put himself in Order he would conclude with a Motion; and I also heard Lord Palmerston years ago make an elaborate speech, and then, to put himself in Order, conclude with a Motion. There is hardly a Minister, or an ex-Minister, on either side who has not, from time to time, made such a Motion; and I protest, for one, against the conduct of the present Prime Minister as being calculated to damage and to narrow considerably the privileges of debate.
  MR. J. COWEN: I entirely concur in the desirability of preserving intact a Rule which has been so often made the instrument of good in the hands of both Parties. It is extremely desirable not to break it in form, much less in substance. But this is a peculiar case, and these are special circumstances. Under
  1912
  the guise of a Question, a gross—if I use un-Parliarnentary language, I wish it to be remembered that I am speaking of a Gentleman of whom I have some knowledge, and therefore I feel strongly on the subject—libel is attempted to be perpetrated upon a distinguished man who is about to represent a great nation in this country. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has claimed the right of free discussion. I at all times claim the right of free discussion; but I also claim the right of justice from man to man. This is an unlooked for attack on a man who cannot himself give an answer, and whose friends have not had an opportunity of appearing in his defence. M. Challemel Lacour is a distinguished scholar and man of letters; he is a prominent politician; and a brilliant orator. He is now a Senator, and some years ago he was a Deputy. He has represented his country with acceptance in Switzerland; and it is a notorious fact that, if his health had permitted, he would have held one of the highest offices in the present Cabinet of France. I ask, whether it is fair for any hon. Member to come and, under cover of a Question, make unwarrantable insinuations and representations about such a man? I ask, is it not an unfair liberty to take, and an unjust exercise of the privileges of this House? I should like to know what right Members of Parliament have to criticize the action in such a matter of a free, a great, and a friendly nation, who is our nearest neighbour, our firmest ally, and our warmest friend? We should rejoice at the appointment which has been made. It has been the habit of the American Republic to send her most distinguished men of letters to represent her here; that good example has been followed by the Republic on the other side of the Channel; and instead of that being cause for reproach, it ought to be matter for congratulation and encouragement. I have wandered from the technical question before the House; but perhaps the House will excuse me for having said some few words—warm though they be—in defence of a man whose appointment will, I believe, shed lustre on the country which he will represent, and honour on the country to which he comes.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I am sure the House must feel that we are discussing a very difficult and delicate

  1913
  question. I regret exceedingly that the hon. Member for Dungarvan, considering the terms of the reply which he received from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, did not take a different course. The Question was put, and very fairly and fully answered; and if the hon. Gentleman had wished to dispute any of the points contained in it, his proper course was to give just as much Notice of his desire to submit new matter to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for investigation, as it was to give several days' Notice in the first instance.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to Order. When I was interrupted, I was about to direct the attention of Her Majesty's Government to points which I would ask them to answer in full on a future day.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: The hon. Member for Dungarvan, in rising to a point of Order, which is no point of Order at all, has volunteered an explanation which I am glad to hear. I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman, acting, I presume, on the advice which Mr. Speaker tendered to him, did not intend to proceed with the discussion of the subject. If he did intend to proceed, the explanation which he has just given is a very extraordinary one. Either he rose to debate the Question or he did not. If he rose merely for the purpose of notifying certain points on which he was desirous of eliciting further information, that is a totally different matter; but it is unfortunate that he did not seize the moment when you, Sir, sat down, to volunteer the explanation which he has now given to me. I cannot resume my seat without joining in the manly protest which has been uttered by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). Talk of the right which the Rules of the House may technically confer on any man to attack another who is not present himself, and who is not represented ! I say that I repudiate such a right. I care not by what technicality it is defended. If this accusation had been brought against some servant of our Government in Africa, India, or elsewhere, I would have expected the House to manifest the same feeling which it has now shown; but the situation in the present case is still more delicate. A foreign Ambassador to England is a stranger who comes here on the strength of our acknowledged hospitality; and
  1914
  what is due to one of our own fellow-citizens is surely doubly due to a person who comes to us from abroad in the capacity I have mentioned. I hope my hon. Friend will re-consider the unfortunate position he has assumed, and do that which will accord with the convenience of the House, and enable him to return fully armed to the discussion, when the House will be more disposed to listen to him. I am disposed to sympathize with my hon. Friend rather than with the First Lord of the Treasury, who will not, I think, be ill-advised if he withdraws the Motion he has made, and then the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork will fall to the ground.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am afraid the House is getting into rather an inconvenient position, and that there is danger of misconception upon matters of a very delicate character. With regard to the main question raised by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, I apprehend that there will be very little difference of opinion in the House; and I think we shall all feel regret that the Question should have been put upon the Paper, and still more that the matter should have been pursued after the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But since that question has been raised a point of Order, or rather two points of very considerable importance bearing upon the Order of the proceedings of this House have arisen, and we are in a position which renders it extremely important that we should have your ruling as to the real questions which have been raised in point of Order. There are, as I have said, two. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) stated them just now, and I understood my right hon. Friend to address to you, Sir, a Question which I think it would be desirable for the instruction of the House that we should have answered. The question is, whether it is an absolute rule that when a Minister has given an answer which is not satisfactory to the Member who puts the Question, it is in the power of that Member, or any other Member, to get up, express his dissatisfaction, and, with a view of putting himself in Order, to move the adjournment of the House? That is a very serious interruption to Business,

  1915
  and it is one to which I have more than once had occasion to object. But, at the same time, it is one upon which I have never been able to obtain any ruling such as is now asked for. I remember that so lately as the 5th of last March the hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Hibbert), put a Question to my right hon. Friend who was then the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the subject of capital punishment; and when my right hon. Friend had given the answer which he was able to give, no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) rose, and stated that he wished to make some observations on this subject, and, for the purpose of putting himself in Order, he said he would move the adjournment of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman accordingly proceeded to make a speech of some length; and after he had done so, and one or two observations had been made by other hon. Members, I took occasion to make some remark upon the inconvenience of raising debates upon questions in this way. But the present Prime Minister closed the debate by rather putting me down.
  MR. GLADSTONE: What is the date?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The 5th of March.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Last year?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: No, this year. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought I was providing against a danger which did not exist, and that he would not go as far as the right hon. Gentleman (myself) in deprecating the Motion for adjournment, and he went on to say—
  "I am sure my right hon. Friend (the present Chancellor of the Duchy) would be the last man to encourage Motions of this kind upon slight occasion; but it does appear to me that this is one of the exceptional cases on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that Motions may be made."—[3 Hansard, cell. 437.]
  Now, Sir, I have myself, when considering the question of the conduct of Business, more than once had occasion to consider whether it would be desirable to introduce any new Standing Order or to take any steps for the purpose of preventing Motions upon the question of adjournment when Questions are pro-
  1916
  ceeding. But I have never had any encouragement to proceed with the attempt. I wish now, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire, to put the Question whether we are to understand that it is a distinct Rule of the House that such a proceeding as that of raising a debate upon the Motion for adjournment, made in consequence of an answer to a Question, is to be considered irregular and is to justify a call to Order? [Mr. GLADSTONE: It is not a call to Order.] I said to justify a call to Order. Well, the second Question which my right hon. Friend put, and which I wish to repeat, is this—Is it in Order for any Member of this House, while another Member who is not out of Order is in possession of the House, to rise in the middle of that Member's speech and move that he be no longer heard? It may be, no doubt, often the impulse of hon. Members in this House when they hear remarks which they greatly dislike, to rise and interrupt the speaker by moving that he be no longer heard; and I can quite understand that Gentlemen who are in a minority in this House, and especially Gentlemen who may happen to hold opinions that are very unpopular in this House, may be exposed to interruptions while speaking on a question of this kind, and that a vote might be taken on the question whether a Member be or be not heard. But if such conduct is within the Rules of the House, the Rule certainly constitutes a very serious infringement of the rights of debate. I do not profess to be able to speak with authority on such a question; but I have never been able to find that there is any Rule of that kind, and I think it is very important that we should have a distinct ruling from the Chair upon the subject. I wish now to repeat the expression of my great regret that these important questions of procedure should be raised in relation to a matter which seems to affect our relations with a foreign Government. I wish to state distinctly that I have no sympathy with the Question which was the origin of this debate; but I think it would be impossible for us to pass by such delicate matters as those to which I have drawn attention, because were we now to leave them as they stand, and should circumstances similar to the present arise at a future time, we might be prevented from

  1917
  taking any action by the statement that nothing was done on this occasion.
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the two Questions put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say, firstly, with reference to the practice of the House in regard to Motions for the adjournment of the House when hon. Members are not satisfied with the answers which they have received to the Questions addressed by them, to the Ministers of the Crown, that it will be in the recollection of the House that that course has been taken upon many occasions, and I believe that scarcely upon any occasion, has that step been taken without my observing to the House upon the great inconvenience of such a course. It appears to me that I should not be doing my duty to the House if, considering all that has passed with reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Dun-garvan, I did not point out to the House the special impropriety of proceeding with a Motion for adjournment after an answer given by a Minister of the Crown, and, under cover of that Motion, to make charges against a foreign Ambassador. Upon my making observations of this character as regarded the conduct of the hon. Member for Dun-garvan, the right, hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown rose to a point of Order, and moved that Mr. O'Donnell be not now heard. Now, I am bound to say that a Motion of this kind has not been made in this House for 200 years; at the same time, it is very doubtful whether such a proceeding as that which took place before the Motion was made to-night has occurred within that time.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the Speaker's ruling upon the right of a Member to interrupt another Member, and to move that he be not heard?
  MR. SPEAKER: In my answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I stated that such a Motion had not been made for 200 years. There are instances of such a Motion having been made in the 17th century.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who has rendered such powerful and influential support to the Member for Dungarvan—[Cries of "Withdraw!"]—I have nothing to withdraw.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to move that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary be no longer heard.
  MR. GORST: I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask you whether the hon. and gallant Member for Devon-port, having risen in his place, and having moved that the right hon. and learned Gentleman be no longer heard, you will not put the Question from the Chair in the same way as the other Question concerning the hon. Member for Dungarvan?
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department is in possession of the House.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I would ask you, Sir, whether, in the former case also, the hon. Member for Dungarvan was not in possession of the House when he was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government?
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to Order, Sir. I was in possession of the House when I was interrupted by the First Lord of the Treasury moving that I be no longer heard.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I rise to Order, Sir. I submit that there is now really no Question before the House. The hon. Member for Dungarvan has had an opportunity—["No, no!"and "Order!"]—he said, interrupting the hon. Member for Mayo, that he had now said all that he had to say. ["No, no!"] In these circumstances, I think the House might pass to the Orders of the Day. ["No!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The Home Secretary is in possession of the House, and is in Order.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTagain rose, and was met, as before, with loud cries of "Withdraw!" I have nothing to withdraw. I understand that you, Sir, have ruled that I was in possession of the House. I have a question to ask of the Leader of the Opposition, and if you will not allow that question to be asked you are making discussion in this House impossible. Hon. Gentlemen will not accept the ruling of the Speaker. The Speaker has ruled that I have not said anything out of Order. Has anybody objected that I have said anything out of Order? If not, why am I not allowed to proceed? If they object that I have said anything out of Order, let the Speaker rule that I am gut of Order;

  1919
  but let not the House become a mere place of clamour. If I am in Order, why will not the Gentlemen sitting behind the Leader of the Opposition allow—
  MR. PULESTON: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was distinctly understood—at least, it was by myself and hon. Gentlemen behind me—that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary attributed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon motives which he distinctly and clearly disavowed.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman certainly to entirely misrepresent what I said.
  MR. SPEAKER: I listened attentively to what fell from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and I am bound to say that, so far as I could hear, nothing fell from him which called for my interference.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That being so, Sir, I hope I may be allowed to proceed. The question I rose to ask the Leader of the Opposition is this. There has arisen a matter of unquestionable gravity. Under cover of a Question, an attack has been made upon the accredited Ambassador of the Republic of France, who, in the language of the Question, is charged with premediated murder and assassination; and the Question before the House is, what is the manner in which it befits the dignity of this House to deal with such a matter? The Question was allowed to be put, and my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has given an answer which the great majority of the House thought satisfactory and conclusive. Thereupon the hon. Member rises not, as he has since informed the House, to give Notice of a further Question, but to justify the charge he had made.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman completely misrepresents my statement—["No, no !"]—no doubt, unintentionally. I rose to make an explanation, and I said, in the course of that explanation, that I intended—and I do intend—to direct the attention of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to portions of his answer which appeared to me to be unsatisfactory, and to ask
  1920
  him to give fuller information on those points on a future day. I intend to continue my explanation and to ask the question. ["Order."]
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is in the recollection of the House what is the course which the hon. Member for Dungarvan took. The hon. Member for Dungarvan proceeded to deal with the answer of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. [Mr. O'DONNELL: Hear, hear!] He proceeded to state additional facts—[Mr. O'DONNELL: Hear, hear !]—which led him to believe, and which he wished to induce the House to believe, that the charges against the French Ambassador of murder and assassination—["Massacre !"]—massacre is the word he used—did, in fact, exist, and were well-founded. He was then proceeding in this manner to make good his charge—[Mr. O'DONNELL: No, no!]—it was at that time that the Leader of this House interposed for the purpose of endeavouring to stop a proceeding which you, Sir, have described as within the Forms of the House, but which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) has characterized as a miserable technicality, and to take a certain course towards the French Ambassador, whom, by the comity of all nations, it is the duty of this country to protect. The question is, whether the only place in which the Ambassador of a foreign country has no protection is the floor of the House of Commons? That is the practical question we have to deal with. ["No, no!"] Very well; that may be answered in argument. You cannot put it down by clamour. I assert that a foreign Ambassador is entitled to protection; and I say he is just as much entitled to protection from libellous and calumnious charges on the floor of the House of Commons as in any other place. How do you propose to protect him? Do you propose that, under the technicality of a Motion for adjournment, he shall be attacked in this manner? Because if you are going to employ, and to justify the employment, of the Forms of this House for such a purpose, it seems to me the grossest abuse of those Forms which you can possibly have. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has proposed one method of dealing with this matter. The Leader of the Opposition, also, has some responsibility in this

  1921
  matter, and I think the House has a right to expect him to offer and to tender his advice as to how this matter should be dealt with. I want to know from the Leader of the Opposition what is his view of the matter? He has risen to ask you, Sir, two Questions, and you have answered those Questions. I want now to know what is the counsel of the Leader of the Opposition in reference to this matter? He put those Questions for the information of the House and, I suppose, his own information; and now I want to know whether he thinks that the hon. Member for Dungarvan ought to be allowed to proceed with his speech, and, on a Motion for the adjournment of the debate, to go on with an attack on the French Ambassador? I do not ask whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the hon.Member for Dungarvan, for I know that he does not; but I ask him whether his advice to this House is that Motions for adjournment should continue to be made for the purposes for which the hon. Member for Dungarvan was using them? My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government has advised the House that the Motion should not be used for such a purpose, and that, if it is used for such a purpose, it is a gross abuse. I want to know what is the counsel of the Leader of the Opposition? You cannot clamour that down."[Oh, oh!"] Depend upon it that is the question which the country will ask, for the proceedings of to-night will be criticized all over the country. [Opposition cheersj] Do I understand hon. Gentlemen opposite to approve of this use of the Forms of the House? ["No, no!"] What course, then, do they propose? There is a course which has been suggested, which would have the effect of preventing what I do not hesitate to call an outrage on the comity of nations. I ask what is the course that the responsible Leader of the Opposition suggests should be taken? They say they are opposed to this course. If they are opposed to this course, and it is not pursued, what course do they propose to take? I understand, Sir, that your ruling has been that, though on exceptional occasions the Motion for the adjournment of the House has been tolerated, it is one by no means to be approved of or encouraged. Is this, then, such an exception that the House considers to be fit for its toleration? It is true that this course has
  1922
  been very often taken by hon. Members and by the Leader of the Opposition, who have sometimes been allowed to make a statement to the House without any Motion at all; but it has been allowed for the convenience of the House, and because they thought the occasion was one on which it ought to be tolerated. The House is not such a slave to its Rules as not to be able to depart from them when it is for the public convenience that it should do so. But this is a different question. Is this occasion one of such exceptional interest that the House ought to tolerate the use of the Form for such a purpose? My right hon Friend has made a proposal to the House, the effect of which is practically to say that this discussion, which involves a personal attack of the grossest character on the French Ambassador, ought not to proceed. It is quite clear, from what has been said by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, that he intends to proceed, and if he in tends to proceed, then you are enabling him to do it. ["No, no!"] Most unquestionably you are. I am sorry the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was led into indulging in a tu quoque. The question is a great deal too serious. [Derisive Opposition cheers.] Well, that is a matter of opinion, and the right hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to his tu quoque. However, that is not the question. If he maintains that the hon. Member for Dungarvan is within his right to proceed, as he was proceeding, upon this Motion for adjournment, to repeat, to enlarge, and to add, to the charges he has made against the French Ambassador, why, then, I do say he is supporting that course, even though he may not agree with what is said; and he says it is a course which he would not take. I ask the right hon. Gentleman how he proposes to treat this proceeding against the Ambassador of France? It is a fair question, and one that ought to be answered.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I have no right to speak again; but, after the very pointed appeal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to me, perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks me what course I would recommend at the present moment; but I would just step back a little, and say we are not responsible for the position into which this matter has been allowed

  1923
  to drift. I will say what course I think the Government ought to have taken in this matter. Assuming that the doctrines laid down by the Home Secretary are the true ones, and that the alleged conduct of a foreign Ambassador ought not to be made a matter of imputation and challenge in this House, I think the Government should have interfered before the Question was put. If they considered it was wiser and better not to interfere, and to allow the Question to be put; if they thought it desirable that, the Question having been put on the Paper, an answer should be given; and if they admitted, therefore, that it was a case for considering the conduct of that distinguished person—whom I very much wish we never had had brought under our notice—if they thought it was better and more consonant with their feelings and their view of international comity, that this Question should be put and an answer given—then, I think it obviously follows that of any Question proper Notice should be given, and that then further answers should be made. I regret very much that the Notice was ever put on the Paper; I regret still more that the hon. Member for Dungarvan, after the answer had been given, went on to make any further statement on the subject. If the hon. Member had any Question on which he wished to give further Notice, he might have done, I think, the same as he did on a former occasion, and put it on the Paper; and I, for one, very much regret that he took a different course. What I rose to speak on a little while ago was a matter which I thought it absolutely necessary to have a clear understanding upon; and I was particularly anxious that we should not, on account of the peculiar character of this Question, allow our Rules to be altogether confused and rendered uncertain. It is perfectly obvious that, unless we have a clear understanding on the subject, very great abuse might arise, and very great misconception with regard to those Rules. Sir, I wish—and the course I would suggest at the present moment is—that the matter should be allowed to drop. I really do not know any better way out of the difficulty. But if I am asked my opinion, I say we are not responsible for the matter having got into the position in which it is, and that I would have advised a different course for the Govern-
  1924
  ment to take in the first instance. I think we should only be doing harm in carrying on the discussion, and that the matter might now be allowed to drop.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER; I do not think that the right, hon Gentleman the Member for North Devon has in any way answered the Question of my right hon. and learned Friend. What is the state of matters? A Question was put, and a speech was being made which was contrary to the decencies of Society.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I call upon the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his most unfounded statement. Sir, on the point of Order, I would beg to say that if language of that kind is allowed to be used from one side of the House, similar language is very likely to be retorted.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman made use of an expression which appears to me to have been unguarded.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I shall be most happy to withdraw. At all events, a speech was being made which contained charges against an absent man, who could not speak for himself, and, since no Notice had been given, without the possibility of anyone speaking for him. The question is a most important one, and it really is this, whether we will allow such a subject as that to be raised and such charges to be brought forward in the House of Commons? It is a question which concerns the power and the dignity of the House, for it is a question whether we are to give up the right which belongs to every Assembly in the world that I have ever heard of, of not allowing itself to be made use of for purposes for which it ought not to be made use of, and of not allowing our freedom of debate to be turned into licence. It is an important question for the House to consider whether it will give up the power of stopping in the most extreme cases a discussion which it thinks it ought to stop. I grant that it should be a most extreme case. You, Sir, have stated that such a Motion has not been made for 200 years; and you added that you believed the occasion for such a Motion had not occurred for 200 years. I say that the occasion did occur to-day. The Representative of our old ally and nearest neighbour has had his character challenged, and aspersions were cast upon

  1925
  him to which he was unable to reply; and, under such circumstances, it would be difficult for this House to maintain its position as the first Assembly in the world if it allows its Forms of debate to be used for the purpose of raising such charges and insinuations as that The question, therefore, comes to this—are we to admit that there is no case whatever in which we will allow a debate to be stopped? The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) has said that such a course ought to have been taken before. The Question was put on the Paper with Notice, and with power to furnish a reply. A most effective reply was given. If the Leader of the House had got up and endeavoured to stop that Question before it was answered by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what would he have done? He would have done that which you, Sir, have said ought not to be done—he would have allowed a Question such as this to stand on the Order Book without an answer being given. It was not for my right hon. Friend to do that; and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would have remembered that the Speaker had given his reasons why that course should not be adopted. I would ask again, Sir, how are we to secure order and decency in our debates—I hope I have not made any mistake about the word this time—if we lay it down as a principle that a Member is never to be interrupted, whatever he may say, or however much it may injure the character of this Assembly, or the interests of the country? It might be said that we leave all this to you, Sir. My reply is, that this is an exceptional case, which has not occurred for centuries, and it is a case in which the House might very fairly be called on to give its opinion—irrespective of Rules with regard to Motions for adjournment, or the Previous Question, or any technicalities of that kind—whether it will or will not give up the power of stopping a discussion which is contrary to the interests of the country. The first person to ask the House that question is the acknowledged Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer does not say what course he would adopt. If my right hon. Friend's Motion be not carried, the hon. Member
  1926
  for Dungarvan will have a right to go on with his imputations. Does the late Chancellor of the Exchequer think he ought to go on? He thinks the Question ought not to have been asked; but does he think it ought to be continued? I can only see one other way out of the dilemma; but I see no prospect of the hon. Member for Dungarvan taking it. He might get up and say that what we heard from him gave a different impression to us from what it did to himself, and that he did not intend to make imputations, but only to ask for information. [Mr. O'DONNELL: Hear, hear!] Well, I am afraid he did not give that impression generally to the House in the few remarks he made. They consisted of one charge closely following after another. But, of course, if the hon. Member for Dungarvan was to simply state that he wished now to give Notice of further Questions, he is within his right to do so; but, otherwise, if it be a question whether his speech should be continued, with its imputations, then I say that this is an extreme case, in which the House ought to come to a decision whether he should be heard or not
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to speak on the Motion that this debate be now adjourned, and I have to reply to the statements which have been showered on me from the Ministerial side of the House. I will not refer to the misapprehensions of my hon. Friends and Colleagues from Ireland. For my part, I believe I have rather the reputation of sticking to my comrades, whether right or wrong. However, I have no doubt whatever that, on reflection, the opinion of my Colleagues on this question will be the opinion of the Irish people, and I have no doubt whatever of what the opinion of the Irish people will be. I was interrupted in making an explanation containing, or intended to contain, suggestions for further information to be laid before the House on a future day. The time will come to take up the thread of my interrupted explanations, and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will see how sorely they misapprehended me. I observe with great pleasure the energetic intervention of the Home Secretary in this debate. I believe no one in this House regretted more than I did his temporary eclipse after the Oxford event; and I believe

  1927
  we cannot be too much obliged—at least I cannot—for the mutual arrangement of the respected couple which brings him back to this Chamber. This question of the interruption of a Member addressing the Chair was raised in the last Parliament when the question was discussed whether the cat-o'-nine-tails in use in the various Departments of the Public Service should not be produced in a convenient place for the inspection of hon. Members. I spoke in support of that proposition, and, perhaps, hurried away by impulse, I used language which the right hon. Baronet, the then Leader of the House, understood to contain a threat towards the House. The language I used was to the effect that some 500,000 Londoners would probably assemble in Hyde Park to protest if the cat-o'-nine-tails were not produced. I was interrupted, and what occurred then under a Conservative Administration I find, from what has taken place this evening, may occur under a Liberal Government. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must request the hon. Member to keep to the Question before the House, which is a Motion for adjournment. The hon. Gentleman is travelling very wide of the Question.
  MR. O'DONNELL: My remarks are applicable to the present situation, and doubly suitable, because they apply to the present Home Secretary, who was one of the foremost Members of the Front Opposition Bench that came to the assistance of the hon. Member for Dun-garvan. The right hon. and learned Gentleman then protested against the hon. Member for Dungarvan being interrupted before he had full time to complete his thought. That occurred on the 3rd of July last. The Chief Secretary for Ireland has laid some stress on the alleged Liberal necessity of stopping discussions disagreable to the majority, and has pointed to them, and asked who could be a better judge of discussions injurious to the country than the Gentleman who for the time being is Leader of the Majority? In the last debate in this House they again and again made imputations most dishonouring and unjust to the Irish character and to Irish interests. I do not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury—[Cries of "Question !"] If some of the young Liberal lions would consult their seniors, they might themselves acquire
  1928
  a healthier knowledge of the Rules of the House. I am not aware that it ever occurred to the First Lord of the Treasury to move the suppression of a speaker who was engaged in outraging the feelings of the Irish people. A great deal of stress has been laid on the fact that the French Ambassador Designate is an absent man. Are the deliberations of this House confined to the consideration of the actions of men who are present; or what is the reason for putting forward this base, miserable, ad captan-dum argument? Absent men before now have been attacked from the Benches of the Liberal Party. Sovereigns in friendly alliance with this country have been attacked by the most distinguished Members of the Liberal Party. I am not aware that the present First Lord of the Treasury has ever felt any qualms of conscience for his attacks on the Neapolitan Dynasty. I am not aware that, in the course of a long agitation during the last two or three years, any Member of the Liberal Party has refrained from any insinuation against our old ally of Crimean fame—the Turkish Government—and against the Turkish officials. If I were to take up a more serious and solemn subject, I might ask how often have denunciations of the policy and government of the Popes of Rome re-echoed from the Benches of the Liberal Party, even though those accusations were often monstrously false, and though every one of them went home to the hearts of the Irish people. This theory of the absent man will not hold water on this occasion; and, furthermore, it is a total misapprehension of the primary purpose of my Questions to assume that they are, in the first place, directed against that foreign nominee, to whose nomination I will object. When hon. Members speak of want of Notice, and plead that they ought to have had time to look into the antecedents of M. Challemel Lacour, do they not admit the whole brunt of any charge which may be brought against the Foreign Office in this case? Was it not the duty of the Foreign Office and of Her Majesty's Ministers to make a careful investigation as to the antecedents of a foreigner whom they were to present to the revered Sovereign of these Realms? ["Order!"] If the Sublime Porte—if the Sultan of Turkey—were to nominate Chefket Pasha to represent

  1929
  the Turkish interests in London, have we any doubt that Her Majesty's Government would consider it most becoming to protest against such a nomination? I have the right, as a Member of this Parliament, to ask Questions in order to learn whether the Foreign Office and the Government has or has not, discharged its duty to the Crown and the Constitution. Have Britons become cowardly? Cannot they face fair discussion? If I commit any unpardonable offence, there is the Bar of the House—if I am proved by an iota to err from my duty to Parliament or the Queen, then I challenge all the thunders of the Ministerial majority. I maintain that Her Majesty's Government are bound to see and to know thoroughly what is the character of the foreign Ambassador who has been nominated; and in concluding my explanation—when I am allowed to do so—I shall give Her Majesty's Government clear and full information of the Questions on which I desire further information. When those Questions are answered, it will fully justify my intervention on behalf of the Sovereign of this United Kingdom, the Royal lady whom we revere in Ireland as our Irish Queen. I have spoken as one of her Irish subjects; and I trust her British subjects will be equally careful of the interpretation which 10,000 tongues in all the Courts of Europe are placing on the condescension of Her Majesty's Government towards the dominant faction in France.
  MR. SHAW: I rise to suggest that we may escape from the unpleasant position in which we are placed by the withdrawal of the Motion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and that of the Prime Minister, and by allowing the hon. Member for Dun-garvan to complete his statement. Hon. Members who would prevent him from doing so are rendering no service to the French Ambassador. He has come to no harm from the Questions asked to-night; and if he is the man he is described by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) to be, he will be less harmed, by the further Questions the hon. Member for Dungarvan seeks to put. If a division is taken on the Prime Minister's Motion, I shall decidedly vote against it. As far as the questions of Order and Privilege are concerned, we are in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and you, we all
  1930
  feel sure, will do what is right, fair, and generous to every Member of the House. But that the Prime Minister, who is at the head of a majority, sometimes possibly an unreasoning majority, should be allowed to take a course for which there is no precedent for the last 200 years, is not to be thought of for a moment.
  MR. NEWDEGATE,as an old Member who had served on several Committees which had examined the Forms and Procedure of the House, begged the House to consider the position in which it was now placed. He did not mean to say that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was the first who had been guilty of this irregularity—moving the adjournment during the period allotted to Questions—but, in the Select Committee of 1861, of which the late Sir James Graham was the Chairman, who particularly considered this subject, the understanding was that when an hon. Member had given Notice of a Question, and asked it in the House, he must abide the reply without attempting a rejoinder. If the Motion for adjournment was allowed to be made during the period for Questions; if the Member who asked the Question and received an answer might then rise and submit a Motion for adjournment, and, upon that Motion, proceed to address the House on the subject-matter of his Question, the Notice which he had given, as Notice of a Question, would practically become equivalent to a Notice of Motion, with precedence over ordinary Notices of Motion. Irregular debates were thus originated. He asked the House, then, to consider the perfect state of confusion into which its proceedings must lapse, if such a practice were allowed to become prevalent as that of moving the adjournment whenever an hon. Member received an answer, during the period assigned to Questions, which he might deem unsatisfactory. He regretted that the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be made the subject of a Motion of Censure, which required reflection before being adopted. The Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was not that the debate should now be closed, as some seemed to imagine, but that the hon. Member should not be further heard; and there were precedents, though they might be ancient, for the course pursued by the

  1931
  right hon. Gentleman. It had been found necessary in bygone years, for the protection of the House, that the House should be able to restrain expressions used by any of its Members if unbecoming or dangerous; and he must confess that he thought, without entering into the subject-matter of the hon. Member for Dungarvan's Question, the present was an occasion when that Motion might be well revived. He begged the House, then, for the sake of its order and of its dignity and character, to put a stop to this abuse of converting Notices of Question into Notices of Motion by Motions for adjournment. Unless the House did that, he did not see how, from day to day, or even hour to hour, they were to anticipate and prepare for the consideration and discussion of the Business the House must transact.
  MR. WILLIShoped that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government would not think of withdrawing a Motion that had been made, not at his own instance, but for the purpose of supporting the authority of the Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition seemed to forget that the precedent to which he referred had no bearing upon the present proceedings. When the discussion took place in March last to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the Speaker had not stated that the Forms of the House were being a bused by the hon. Member who was then addressing it, and, consequently, the proceedings then had no application to the present case. The Speaker had on the present occasion expressed his opinion that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was grossly abusing the Privileges of the House; and if the Motion of the Prime Minister was not carried, the power and authority of the Speaker to control the proceedings of the House would be greatly impaired and weakened.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I am quite as anxious as Members on the other side, or in any part of the House, that the House should come without much further delay to a decision. But I think it is desirable, before we come to a decision on this question, that we should clearly understand what is the nature of the vote we are about to give. We have had the advice of several very high authorities in this
  1932
  House. We have had the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) and of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). They both appear to me to amount to very much the same thing. The hon. Member for Cork suggests that the Motion for the adjournment of the debate should be withdrawn; that the Motion of my right hon. Friend should be withdrawn; and that the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be permitted to complete his explanation. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has recommended that, in the circumstances in which we are now placed, we should let the matter drop; that is to say, I suppose, that he would be inclined to adopt the same course as that which I have described as being recommended by the hon. Member for Cork. But since we heard the right hon. Gentleman opposite we have heard the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and I think it is clear from his speech that he does not intend to allow the matter to drop. Therefore, if this Motion, and that of my right hon. Friend is withdrawn, and if the hon. Member for Dungarvan is permitted to continue his explanation, we can form a pretty good opinion, from the observations the hon. Member has made in the course of this discussion, what will be the line of argument which he intends further to pursue. The question, then, which the House will have to decide when we go to a division is, whether the hon. Member for Dungarvan is to be permitted, if he thinks fit, to continue that line of attack upon the French Ambassador Designate which he was proceeding to make, but in which he was interrupted by my right hon. Friend? Let the House quite clearly understand that. The right hon. Gentleman and his Friends seem to me very much afraid that by this procedure there is some attack intended on the liberty of debate in this House. I do not understand that my right hon. Friend desires in the slightest degree to create any precedent which shall be binding on the House, or which should tend in the slightest degree to limit the freedom of debate. The question is, whether it is not necessary, on an emergency of a certain character, for the House to take action, under the advice of its Leader, to prevent its Forms being abused for purposes which are prejudicial to the public

  1933
  welfare? I have seen, in the course of the last Parliament, irregular conduct adopted by the House on the advice of its Leader, with the universal assent of the House; but, in my opinion, under circumstances much less grave than the present. I remember, before the alteration of our Rules had been made, that in the course of some interesting, but still not very important, debate, a Member availed himself of a privilege of Members of this House, and observing that he espied Strangers in the Gallery, interrupted the debate, and caused the Gallery to be cleared. That hon. Member was in the legitimate exercise of his right; but, in the opinion of this House, the exercise of that right was on that occasion frivolous and unnecessary. What happened? Mr. Disraeli, then the Leader of the House, irregularly—for he was not in possession of the House—irregularly, for he did it without Notice, got up and moved that Strangers be re-admitted. That was an irregular Motion which was made; but it was carried unanimously by the House. I say, then, it is the duty of the Leader of the House, when he sees that its Forms are being abused, having a due sense of the honour and dignity of the House, to take whatever action may be necessary to prevent the degradation of its Rules and Forms.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: That is Despotism—that is Caesarism.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I wish to know whether hon. Members opposite would wish to maintain that under no circumstances is a Member to be interrupted in any course of argument which he may adopt unless the Speaker thinks it necessary to intervene? I can conceive many lines of argument as objectionable as the present one which might be adopted by hon. Members without rendering themselves obnoxious to the call of Order from the Speaker. Supposing that the hon. Member, instead of attacking the Representative of a foreign Power, had thought it his duty to commence an attack, without Notice, on our own Sovereign, will hon. Members opposite say that unless that hon. Member was called to Order by the Speaker—
  MR. A. MOORE: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, Whether it is competent for a Member of this House to introduce the name of
  1934
  the Sovereign for the purpose of argument and debate?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is in Order for the noble Lord to do so in illustration of a point in his address.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: If such a procedure were adopted, especially without Notice, I ask whether hon. Gentlemen are prepared to vote that the hon. Member should be allowed to continue his speech without interruption? I also ask whether such a procedure would be tolerated when it took the form of an attack upon the Representative of a foreign Sovereign—[Cries of "No Sovereign, a Republic."]—a foreign Power, then, if any Member thinks it makes a serious difference. Well, then, the question which the House has to consider is, whether my right hon. Friend had not sufficient, and more than sufficient, grounds for the interruption which he made and the Motion which he submitted to the House? It appears to me that there was every reason to justify such an interruption. The charges which were being brought against M. Challemel Lacour were of the most grave and outrageous description, and those charges were being brought against him without any Notice whatever. [Mr. O'DONNELL: No.] The Speaker had interrupted the hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Gentleman had refused to bow to the reccommendation of the Chair. If my right hon Friend had not taken the course he did, the general sense of the House would have been set at naught, the ruling of the Speaker would have been set at naught—["No ruling !"]—and the House would have lost all control for the future over its own proceedings. It seems to me that there are from time to time occasions on which it is necessary for the House to take that action which it thinks meet for the preservation of its own Privileges, and this was evidently one of them. At all events, a course has been suggested to the House by the Government. No other course has been suggested by any other Member; and it would be well that the House, when it comes to a decision, should remember what it is they are about to vote for, and that, in opposing the Motion of my right hon. Friend, they will vote for the prolongation of the remarks and the attack of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he heartily wished he could take the state-

  1935
  ment of the noble Lord as an accurate description of the direct issue. It was impossible to do that. The noble Lord had overlooked the Motion before the House. The noble Lord told them that the House had to decide between the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House and the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. But the real question before the House was, should that debate be adjourned? He confessed he had listened with great pain to many of the speeches which had been made, but to none with greater pain than to the speech delivered by the Home Secretary. He never heard a speech less calculated to bring the House to an unanimous decision, less likely to raise the dignity of the House, less likely in the future to induce those who had the honour to manage the affairs of the minority of the House to look with anything like hopefulness for united action with Her Majesty's Government. Having listened with great pain to many of the speeches which had been delivered, he confessed he did not see, either in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman who led the House or the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork, the best mode for extricating themselves from the undoubted dilemma in which they were placed. The noble Lord stated that when his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, in answer to the appeal of the Home Secretary, ventured to suggest that this unfortunate business should be allowed to drop, his right hon. Friend concurred in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Cork. But the advice of his right hon. Friend tended in the opposite direction. His right hon. Friend advised that the hon. Member for Dungarvan should no longer be heard; but he did so in a manner consonant with the traditions and usages of the House, and which would not set up a precedent such as the Speaker told them had not for 200 years been found to proceed from the Treasury Bench. He could not sit down without expressing the deep regret which he, in common with every other Member of the House, felt at the course taken by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, with which he need not say he had no sympathy. But when it was a question whether, by the hasty proceeding of the Leader of the House, they should set an evil pre-
  1936
  cedent, then he would appeal to the good sense of the House, and say—"Let us wait a few hours; let us see whether a little deliberation may not produce a change even in the mind of the hon. Member for Dungarvan; and let us not, by a hasty vote, place on the Journals of the House a precedent which the speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire has shown will not be without many imitators." He did not suppose Her Majesty's Government would adopt such a thing; but there were many who would be willing to press this precedent in a manner which would fetter free discussion.
  MR. MELDONregretted exceedingly that the House should have to vote upon any Motion which would have the effect of restraining freedom of debate. He hoped the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork would be adopted, and that the debate would be adjourned.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: This is the most perplexing question that I recollect having come before the House in 28 years. I shall feel it my duty to support the Leader of the House. I was in hopes that the hon. Member for Dungarvan would have come forward with an explanation which would have allowed the question to drop—that he would have answered the appeal of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and give Notice of a Motion. But he did not do so. On the contrary, he defied the House, by saying—"In any explanation I may have hereafter to give I shall say so-and-so."
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to Order. The right hon. Baronet totally misrepresents me in saying—
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Baronet is in possession of the House. When he has finished, the hon. Member for Dungarvan may explain if he desires to do so.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: I should be sorry to misrepresent the hon. Member; but I had hoped he would have come forward in deference to the feeling of the House, and have given Notice of a Motion for a future day. From the first moment the right hon. Gentleman made his Motion I thought he was a little precipitate, and that he should have appealed to the Speaker as to whether the hon. Member was out of Order; and if he had received an answer in the affirmative, he might have moved, in

  1937
  accordance with the new Rule of last Session, that the hon. Member be not heard. There has been no such Motion as this for 200 years; but, looking at it as a Motion upon which I can vote—looking at it as, although exceptional, justified by the conduct of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, seeing that he did not, when appealed to, give a Notice which would have put him in Order—I feel bound to say that I cannot vote for adjourning the debate. I think the House ought to come to a decision upon it without further delay.
  MR. COURTNEThoped the House would agree to the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), that the debate be adjourned. If not, they would land themselves in a terrible difficulty. They would have to decide on the spot whether the action of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was of such a character as would compel them to resuscitate a precedent of the most awful potency. He thought they attributed too much importance to the individuality of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. They were now not considering whether his conduct was such an enormity that they must suppress him, but whether a Member was to be suppressed when the Leader of the House invoked that power. He thought the only way out of the difficulty was to vote for the adjournment.
  MR. HERMONthought the Home Secretary had, in his speech, drawn conclusions that were not justified; but he was entirely with the Government on the point now before the House. He believed it would be detrimental to the interests of the country to allow such discussions as that raised by the hon. Member for Dungarvan without Notice. [Mr. O'DONNELL: Yes.] The hon. Member gave Notice of a Question, not of a debate. He (Mr. Hermon) would vote with the Government, not for the purpose of making a precedent, for he believed this to be a most unprecedented occasion.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, it had been stated that there was no way out of the lamentable difficulty except in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government; but there was the proposition that the hon. Member for Cork should withdraw his Motion for adjournment, that then the Chancellor of the Exchequer should
  1938
  withdraw his Motion, and that then the hon Member for Dungarvan should be allowed to stand up—not to make a speech, but to point out his views briefly, and in a manner consistent with the traditions and customs of the House—which they were not going to give up without a severe struggle—and put forward the Question which he required to be answered. If this course were adopted, and the hon. Member extended his remarks against the decision of the House, it would be the duty of the Speaker to rule him out of Order, and it would be the further duty of the House to uphold such ruling. The precedent of the right hon. Gentleman was derived from the infamous reign of Charles II. It was a bad law which left everything to the arbitrament of the Leader of the House. He had no sympathy with the hon. Member for Dungarvan, because he had, without Notice, made a deliberate attack upon the character of the French Ambassador; his sympathy was with the Privileges of the House, which the right hon. Gentleman sought to destroy.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, it would be painful for him to vote against the Front Government Bench; but he would be compelled to do so if he were asked to vote upon a precedent which had not been acted upon for 200 years. The proper course to follow was evidently a simple one, and that was to give the House time to deliberate on the subject by adjourning the debate.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I desire to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Dungarvan. [Laughter.] I cannot see why any hon. Member should laugh under such circumstances, or conclude that it is useless to appeal to the hon. Member for Dungarvan. I suppose the House has never been placed in a more difficult position; and I ask the hon. Member whether he does not feel that the object which he had in view has been accomplished? I take it that his object in all instances is to sustain the principle of liberty as applicable to the rights of a minority; and I ask him whether, in the whole of this debate, he has not seen on both sides of the House the utmost determination to preserve the rights of minorities? We may go to a division on the Motion of the Prime Minister, and we may find that the division will represent a great deal of cross-

  1939
  voting. The hon. Member for Dungarvan will find that, although we shall be compelled to vote with the hon. Member for Cork in favour of an adjournment of the debate he will, by persisting in his present course, have lost all claim to our respect as a guardian of the rights of minorities?
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to a point of Order. I attach no personal importance to the remarks which have just been made. But, as a question of Order, I wish to ask whether it is within the power of any hon. Member to threaten another hon. Member with the loss of his personal respect?
  MR. SPEAKER: The expression was certainly un-Parliamentary, and ought to be withdrawn.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I withdraw it at once. I mean that I could not in future respect the opinion of the hon. Gentleman as an exponent of the principles of liberty of speech in the House. He has thought it right to put this Question on the Paper, founded on what he believes to be correct information. He has received an answer from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the part of the Government; and the hon. Member knows perfectly well that the hon. Baronet who gave him that answer is one who has sided with the Irish Members on every occasion, and whose straightforwardness we all admit and admire. The hon. Baronet could not have given that reply if he had not been fully persuaded as to the truth of it. If that is the case, and if the hon. Member for Dungarvan believes that the answer is erroneous, surely, on the principles of common justice, he ought to give to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs an opportunity of obtaining more authentic information.
  MR. O'DONNELL: That is what I am trying to do.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRY: If that is the case, the hon. Member for Dungarvan ought to have said that the answer was not satisfactory, and that he would put another Question upon the Paper on the subject. If what he has just now indicated is his sole object, surely that would have been the proper course for him to have pursued. Would he have us believe rather that his object is to fasten opprobrium upon an absent person who comes to us as the Representative of a friendly nation? I ask
  1940
  the hon. Member whether, after having vindicated the rights of a minority, and having been sustained by the House of Commons in his action, he would not best consult the interests of the Irish Members by expressing his willingness to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and by putting his Question on another occasion?
  Mr. PAGETalso appealed to the hon. Member for Dungarvan to relieve the House from the unfortunate position in which it now found itself. He deprecated the action which the hon. Gentleman had taken in this matter; but he did not suppose the House would be inclined to anything in the way of revenge upon him for what he had done. He believed hon. Members would wish to give the hon. Member an opportunity of giving Notice of his Question for another day. He hoped the hon. Member would state it to be his intention to follow that course. If the hon. Member declined to do so, he should have no alternative but to support the Government. The House had an inherent right in itself to deal fully with a question of this kind when it arose, and when there were grounds for a special proceeding.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN: M. Challemel Lacour had been called an absent man more than once in that debate; but he could scarcely be said to suffer from his absence when he had such friends as the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) and others who had spoken of him in the course of the debate. He thought too much consideration had been given to M. Challemel Lacour's character, and too much to what was called the "comity of nations." At the commencement of every new Parliament it was the practice for Mr. Speaker to solicit from the Throne freedom of speech for the Members of that House; a right which their present proceedings seemed to him to endanger. That right of free discussion they should preserve, irrespective of M. Challemel Lacour, Ambassador of France as he was, or of any other or more distinguished Ambassador; and, therefore, although totally disapproving of the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan both in its policy and its taste, he should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork. Let him remind the Front Bench that it was within the memory of many Members of the House that when, on a former occasion, in 1857,

  1941
  they allowed foreign influence to come in, in the case of M. Bernard, a majority of 110 in the twinkling of an eye one evening was converted into a minority of 14; and if he did not mistake the character of the British people, the thing which they least liked was any tampering with their ancient institutions in that House, even though it might be in obedience to the opinion of gentlemen across the Channel.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he had only a few remarks to make on the subject. He wished to repudiate any sympathy with the Question which the hon. Member for Dungarvan had asked; but he wished to fasten on the Government the onus of having made the exceptional circumstances of the case. As one who had served in the Army of the Republic of France, it gave him much pleasure to testify to the estimation in which M. Challemel Lacour was held; but he thought the question which they were asked to decide was not one of the truthfulness or absurdity of a Question put by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, but the question of principle laid down by the hon. Baronet who had just sat down—namely, that of freedom of speech in the House. Therefore, as a Member of a very active minority, he should do all that he possibly could to protest against the attempt at despotism on the part of a Liberal Government.
  SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, hon. Members should not desire that the matter should be stopped by any act of despotism, however much they might disapprove—as he did also—of the course taken by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would relieve the House from its present difficult position; but if, on the contrary, he persisted in the course he had adopted, he hoped, in justice to the French Ambassador Elect, that he would be met, not by a "burking" of the question, but by dealing with any matters which he might raise in a perfectly straightforward manner.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 139; Noes 245: Majority 106.—(Div. List, No. 20.)
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. O'Donnell be not now heard."
  MAJOR NOLAN,in rising to move the adjournment of the House, said, the
  1942
  question they had been discussing was of the utmost interest to every Irish Member. If the hon. Member for Dungarvan was silenced that night, who would be silenced next week? Perhaps the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell); and when the Government were tired of silencing Irish Members on the one side of the House, they might then proceed to silence the Irish Members who sat on their own side. They were asked to set a most dangerous precedent. It would be well, he thought, before they revived a precedent 200 years old, that the House should adjourn, and that the country should have time to consider the proposition of the Government, and, if so, it was probable that the strong—the violent—proposition made by the Prime Minister would be withdrawn. He did not at all associate himself with the original Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. He had no reason to believe that the accusations made against M. Challemel Lacour were true; but, even if they were partially true, he, for one, would never insult any Minister from a country like France. Ireland owed much to France in the past. When Irishmen 'were prohibited from acquiring any knowledge of arms, France opened a way for them to embrace the profession of arms. He did not in any way sympathize with the Question of the hon. Member; but there was another question as to which some amount of ignorance seemed to prevail among hon. Members. A great many hon. Members appeared to think that the conduct of the Prime Minister was tolerably regular; while that of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, in moving the adjournment of the House, was highly irregular. The very contrary was the fact. In the last Parliament the adjournment of the House was moved at Question time, not once, but six, eight, or ten times by the present Postmaster General, who took that course for the purpose of giving explanations and eliciting information. The Speaker had, in the last Parliament, laid it down that such Motions were not irregular, but were highly inconvenient; but the Prime Minister should look back and see how often that inconvenient course was adopted by his Postmaster General, who certainly offered no factious opposition to the late Government. If the hon. Member for Dungarvan were now to be silenced for doing what had been done by the

  1943
  Postmaster General without objection, what would come next? The first step towards crushing a minority had now been taken; and unless the Prime Minister offered some compromise which would prevent the establishment of the proposed precedent, he should persist in the Motion for the adjournment of the House, in order to afford the Government and hon. Members time for reflection as to the course which should be adopted with a view to avoid the setting of a most dangerous precedent. He begged to move the adjournment of the House. MR. A. MOORE, in seconding the Motion, said, he regretted that so many accusations had been levelled at the hon. Member for Dungarvan, who had reasonable cause for dissatisfaction with the answer given to him by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He had listened attentively to the answer, and was not satisfied that it was not evasive. The right hon. Baronet had been asked whether a particular massacre had been ordered, and the reply was that a massacre had not taken place. The hon. Member rose to make an explanation, and he was met by a Motion to put him to silence, and to cut away one of the principal liberties of Members of that House. It was a most dangerous course. He did not say that the hon. Member was prudent in asking the Question; but it was now sought to make a scapegoat of him. The First Lord of the Treasury—he would remember his own words—had refurbished a rusty weapon 200 years old, and brought it forth to use against freedom of speech; but he, for one, would not place his liberty in the hands of the clever but inconstant Prime Minister.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—{Major Nolan.')
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am sorry, Sir, that my hon. and gallant Friend who made this Motion has felt it necessary to do it with so much warmth. The subject is one of very great importance and gravity. I feel that as much as my hon. and gallant Friend does, and am as unwilling to interfere with the liberty of debate as any man can be. I rise, Sir, for the purpose, in the first place, of pointing out to the hon. Member for Dungarvan—I am afraid he is not now in his place, and I trust that what I say
  1944
  will be reported to him—that it really lies with the hon. Member to relieve the House from its present position. It has been said on the highest authority that the course I have taken has not been resorted to for 200 years. Well, Sir, that may be so. But I am under the painful necessity of reminding the House and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that, with what was thought to be sufficient reason, they were compelled during the last Parliament to occupy much of the time of the House, not in falling back upon precedents in use 200 years ago, but in creating precedents and rules that had never been in use before, in introducting novelties into the practice of the House, and that with nearly, if not quite, universal assent, such was the gravity of the necessity which arose. I am not desirous of falling back upon precedents of 200 years ago; but when I hear them mentioned and described, there comes back to my memory the fact that in the year 1860 the gravest Constitutional question I have known raised was conducted and settled entirely on precedents 200 years old—I mean the Constitutional question with respect to the relative right of the two Houses of Parliament in dealing with Money Bills. That question was settled, and it was upon such a precedent we took our stand. I have often to blame myself for detaining the House at too great length; but, to-day, I have to blame myself for not having sufficiently explained the main reasons which prompted me to make the Motion. I hope some hon. Gentleman will send for the hon. Member for Dungarvan, whom I still miss from his place. I am extremely anxious that he should be present. The main reason that prompted me was that I thought I saw a combination of features which were so remarkable that they pointed to a plain duty. A person occupying the position I have the honour to hold is occasionally under a disadvantage in this respect, that he is obliged to arrive at conclusions of the utmost delicacy and importance at a moment's notice, without the possibility of defending the position in which those conclusions have to be taken, and, of course, with very limited means of consultation or consideration. First, let us consider how this case arises—and I am going to refer only to what is matter of undisputed fact. We have to-night, for the first time, as you, Sir, have sug-

  1945
  gested, possibly in two centuries, and as I can speak within the last half-century—a determined endeavour to bring in debate in this House, not the character of foreign Governments or foreign proceedings in the form of gross and silly old woman's abuse, as in the case of the MarquisdeBoissy, butthepersonalrepute and the personal character of an individual, a foreign Ambassador, who comes here as the Representative of the Sovereignty of the country to which he belongs, whose Embassy while he is in this country has an immunity secured to it by the law of a character altogether exceptional and peculiar and derogating from the rule and principle that your own laws ought to prevail with equal force everywhere in the land. This is the person whose conduct is brought under review by a Question which conveys, in the worst of all forms, in the form of insinuation, the blackest of charges that can be brought against a man—the charge of attempted murder, and the charge of accomplished plunder. Those are the charges that are insinuated through the medium of a Question; and those charges it is proposed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan to discuss without the smallest Notice. On going into Committee of Supply, and on other opportunities afforded by the Forms of the House, discussions may be raised inconveniently without Notice. I must protest against the highly-garbled account given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer of the speech of mine to which he thought proper to refer. In that speech, I justified—or rather, I did not go so far as to justify, though I excused—the course taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, upon the express ground that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had made a speech in answering a Question; and when a Minister has made a speech in answering a Question, it is not drawing too largely on the indulgence of the House to expect that a speech shall be made in reply. Those were the words under the eyes of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time he made the citation. Some hon. Member has said that I myself have moved the adjournment of the House at Question time. Well, it is very hard for a man who has sat in Parliament as long as I have to say what he has not done. But the practice is undoubtedly
  1946
  one which produces the highest inconvenience to the House, which is extremly repugnant to the feelings of the House, which passes by, if it does not contravene, the Rules of the House, and which, it appears to me, a Gentleman is enabled to resort to only by conveying to the House that he rises to put an explanatory Question or to give a Notice, and then availing himself of that position to say that he will conclude with a Motion. This aggregate of circumstances is not all that marked the conduct of the hon. Member, whose prolonged absence I deeply regret. They appeared to present in their combination such a gravity that the Speaker had spoken from the Chair more than once, and finally, interrupting the hon. Member, protested against his proceeding, and gave an opinion as strong, I believe, as it was within the prerogative of his Office to give, against the hon. Member continuing his remarks. It has been said that if my proposition is carried, other hon. Members will be silenced next week; but let hon. Members calmly ask themselves whether this was not such a combination of extraordinary features as has ever been presented, and whether the House has not some right to expect from its principal Members, in whatever part of the House they sit, that kind of support to its Order and dignity which has been given tonight by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John Mowbray), the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Paget), and particularly by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate)? Well, Sir, I wish to place upon record the grounds, altogether peculiar and exceptional, which led me to make a Motion that is exceptional and peculiar; so that, if ever an attempt be made by myself or anyone else to draw such a Motion into a precedent, reference may be made to the circumstances of this case, and especially to the final intervention from the Chair. We have arrived at this point—that we are intercepted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House. Now, so far as these Motions are concerned, they will finally disappear, and those who make them will finally have to face the question—What is to be done upon the main issue which those Motions are endeavouring to avoid? Would it not be well to give a word of moderating counsel to the hon. Member for Dun-

  1947
  garvan? He has declined to say a single mitigating or conciliatory word. Let him for once conform to the Rules, the Orders, the feelings, and the convenience of the House. Let him only say on this occasion, when there is no Notice, that he will confine himself to the giving of a Notice for a future day, and so allow the matter to come to an end. If he will do this, there is no one who will be more glad to ask permission to withdraw the Motion than the person who has made it. I could not agree, to what I have no doubt was a well-meant suggestion, that the Motion should be withdrawn, and that the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be allowed to proceed, and that Mr. Speaker should call him to Order if he deviated from the Rules of the House. The Speaker is not the guardian of propriety in this House; he is the guardian of Order. It would overturn all the legitimate influence which the Chair possesses, and which has even been augmented by your occupancy of that Chair, Sir, if the Speaker were to become the guardian of propriety of conduct in this House. When I rose first, I did not say that I thought the hon. Member for Dungarvan was out of Order. I said I rose to Order, because I thought I was justified in point of Order in rising; but I never said the hon. Member was out of Order. There must be in every Assembly an ultimate power, to be exercised only in extreme cases, over its own Members, for limiting the course of discussion, and limiting it in a way that the mere guardian of its Rules cannot have the power to do. If the hon. Member will confine himself to giving a Notice, the matter, so far as I am concerned, is at an end, and I shall be the first to ask to be allowed to withdraw the Motion.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dungarvan is in his place or not; but I desire to add my appeal to that which has fallen from the Prime Minister. I voted just now for the adjournment of the debate, because it seemed to me on the whole the best way of getting out of a very difficult position. I regret the sense of the House was against adjournment, because I believe if it had been carried we should have heard no more upon the subject, but the hon. Member for Dungarvan would on a fu-
  1948
  ture day give Notice of a further Question. It is absolutely impossible for us to adjourn the House and to obstruct Business; and we ought really to endeavour to come to the best arrangement we can in the very disagreeable and difficult circumstances. We are quite as sensible of the extreme inconvenience of raising a Question of the character of that which has been asked by the hon. Member for Dungarvan as Her Majesty's Government can be. We regret that such a Question should have been raised, and we also regret that what I consider an objectionable practice should have been resorted to in raising this Question. These are points upon which hon. Members will take their own views. I do not see how we can put a stop to them. Nor do I mean to suggest what it is best to do on these occasions. But on this occasion a question has been introduced which is a new practice, and 100 years hence I do not know how far this case and this precedent will be referred to. I feel much objection may be raised on the score of the possible consequences of this precedent. I do not really see how, if these proceedings are to be followed, we can carry on the Business of the House. I can say for myself that in course of the last Parliament we more than once listened to speeches which were very objectionable and even detrimental to the public interest. On more than one occasion I should have been very glad to take the sense of the House whether a speech should have been allowed any longer to proceed. I am convinced that if we are to admit this precedent without some safeguard, we shall find ourselves in difficulties. There are several courses which I think might be taken, by far the best and easiest of which is that suggested by the Prime Minister, which, I venture to hope, the hon. Member for Dungarvan will adopt. The hon. Member for Dunvargan has it in his power to state in his place that he has no intention of making a speech, but that he will give the Government Notice of the Question on some future day. In that case, I apprehend the whole matter would drop. If he declines to do that, and we are brought to the question of the adjournment of the debate, I should certainly vote against the adjournment. I am thus brought again to the consideration of the proposal which has

  1949
  been made by the Prime Minister. Much as I object to the course taken by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, which I think entails great inconvenience on the House, I could not bring myself to adopt the Motion of the Prime Minister in the form in which it now stands without some explanatory qualification. There are two courses open; either you may move for a Committee to search for precedents, or the Prime Minister may himself suggest the introduction of words into his Motion which shall indicate the exceptional character of this case, and provide a justification in the circumstances of the present time. Either of these courses is, in my opinion, better than the passing of my right hon. Friend's Motion as it stands. It is inconvenient, no doubt, that a question of Privilege should have arisen upon such a ground as this. Undoubtedly, the proceedings of the hon. Member for Dungarvan might have been resisted on the ground of extreme inconvenience. In this case, whatever we may think of the expediency or even of the propriety of the Question, we must bear in mind that the Government did not protest against that Question when it was put. The hon. Member was called to Order; and you, Sir, upon being appealed to, said that he was in Order. Having received the answer, it was hardly to be wondered at, though greatly to be regretted, that he should say I will give Notice of a Question, and attempt to make a speech most injurious, most irregular, and most inconvenient. I trust he will relieve the House of its difficulty in the best possible way, and give the assurance, which I hope will terminate the proceedings, that he will be satisfied with giving his Notice of a further Question upon some future day.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Sir, I have taken all the circumstances of the case into consideration. I, for one, do not really complain of the heat and misconception to which I have been subjected. I acknowledge that much is due from every Member of this House in the observance of its Rules. And to the illustrious Statesman who leads the majority in the House I pay all deference, and, as far as my position will allow, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury may rely upon my giving way as far as I can to his wishes. I maintain now, as I maintained before,
  1950
  that the course I have taken, though objectionable to many hon. Members, was strictly regular. I complain now, as I did at the time, that I was interrupted by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. I was entirely within my rights. I freely acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has most serious responsibilities resting upon him, and I confess that the consciousness of these responsibilities must be taken into account whenever an opinion is formed of his actions. But I think I was perfectly justified in proceeding to indicate, partly by Question and partly by statement, an outline of the inquiry which I intended to pursue with regard to the proceedings of M. Challemel Lacour, and the action of Her Majesty's Government in accepting such a person for acceptation to my gracious Sovereign. I utter these words deliberately, because I speak from a quarter of the House where a Party sits who have been accused of harbouring projects of veiled rebellion. Though I hope that the day will come when the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland will be recognized Queen of Ireland, according to our Constitutional theory, yet I feel a personal loyalty and respect for Her Majesty as great as that entertained by any man in this House. Under these circumstances, I feel that the presentation to Her Majesty of a person who, I think, ought not to be so received, is something for which the Government of the day is seriously responsible. I claim my right to take all legitimate methods of bringing the real nature of the transaction before the people of the country. The people and Government of England are not prompt to slight the opinions of the European Powers. But I venture to think that the most powerful of European Powers ought to consider the duties, the conventionalities even, which are due to our Government. I want to know if I can give in general outline the pith of the Questions which I wished to ask, for I intend to push this matter as far as the Constitution of this House will allow. I am convinced of the accuracy of what I intend to state. I have taken much pains in the investigation of the acts of iniquity which I have suggested, and I ask nothing but the opportunity of having the facts fully inquired into and stated. If a certain

  1951
  Ambassador of a Foreign Power, say Turkey, is not a fit and proper person to be presented to the Queen of this country, then I have a right to every possible facility for proving such a state of affairs; and, on reflection, I believe Her Majesty's Government and the Liberal Party will feel that it is their duty to afford such opportunities. In the most general terms, then, I ash, May I be allowed to give Notice of my desire to have certain depositions concerning a foreign functionary appointed as Ambassador, and affecting his character and conduct, laid before the House of Commons? May I be permitted to ask for a Return of the judgment of a Court of full jurisdiction in a foreign country, upon the conduct of a person proposed as Ambassador to this Government? May I be permitted to ask for a Return of the judgment of a Court of superior instance, to which an appeal from the first Court was made for the purpose of learning their decision, confirming the decision of the lower Court, with regard to the action and conduct of a foreign person to be introduced as Ambassador into this country? I ask no more than this. This information might be exceedingly inconvenient to the foreign individual concerned, and to the foreign Government also; but I venture to say that the whole nation over which that foreign Government rules will recognize that this ancient and proud Realm has as full a right to have its dignity respected as any other nation in the world. In my criticisms, I never for an instant ventured or wished to cast any slight or insinuation upon a Gentleman whom I respect so highly as the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; but I may say, in reply to what has been urged, that if it is unusual to raise such a question as this in England, it is quite as unusual for a foreign Power to suggest such an Ambassador for England. If the course I have suggested is allowed to be entirely within my right and duty, I shall be happy to place myself at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman; and if he withdraws his Motion—which is altogether within his own discretion, and in no way in the nature of a bargain between him and so humble an individual as myself, but simply out of regard to the liberties of this House of Commons—then I am perfectly prepared to give in general
  1952
  terms a Notice which will contain no more detail than is necessary to point out sources of information.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped he understood the hon. Gentleman aright, and that he would be content to give Notice of the information which he wished to obtain. That would be quite within the hon. Gentleman's right; but, of course, it would be equally open to any hon. Member to object to the Motion when it was brought forward. What had been objected to was that the hon. Gentleman had, when giving Notice, entered into argument, and that, under the circumstances, the Government did not think he was justified in doing.
  MR. O'DONNELLmaintained he had not been out of Order, and he thought it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to raise that question again.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had not said the hon. Gentleman was out of Order. The Government objected to his going into an argument on giving Notice of a Motion. He thought the discussion might now come to an end.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was glad to hear that the hon. Member was at last about to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he held exactly the same position which he occupied hours ago, and he should not yield one jot of the common rights of the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsuggested the Government, to guard against the repetition of such scenes, should pass a Rule that no Motions for adjournment should be taken until the close of the Questions.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the House had seen the danger of proposing an extreme course on the spur of the moment, when the Minister who made it was in a state of excitement. It was quite clear the Prime Minister had adopted an unconstitutional course. He (Mr. Biggar) altogether objected to the disposition displayed by the Prime Minister to take Questions of Order out of the hands of the Speaker, and, at his arbitrary will, to silence a Member who might have an inconvenient matter on hand. This was the cause of all the mischief. It was to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would confess he had done wrong, and ask permission to withdraw the Motion.
  SIR WILLIAM HAECOUETsaid, the House must clearly understand the course which the hon. Member for Dun-garvan intended to take—if he intended to confine himself strictly to giving Notice for certain Returns. If that were his intention, it would be quite in harmony with the proposal of the Leader of the House. That House, and every other Assembly which was fit to exist, must have an inherent power, apart from any Rules, written or unwritten, to defend its own character and dignity.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary seemed to be desirous of re-opening that question. He must inform the right hon. Gentleman that to suggest that any action of his (Mr. O'Donnell) involved considerations of the character and dignity of the House was not the way to elicit any favourable response whatever, either from him or from other independent Members.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANurged that, whatever course the hon. Member for Dungarvan took in that matter, it behoved the House to take care of its own rights and liberties. He had seen in the illustrated papers representations of the First Lord of the Treasury wielding an axe for a useful purpose. In that attitude and occupation he looked well; but he thought that right hon. Gentleman would look very ill when delineated in the act of wielding the rusty old obsolete implement which he was about to re-introduce for the purpose of politically cutting off the heads of Members of that Assembly. The question before them was not to be debated and decided with reference to what might be the will and pleasure of the hon. Member for Dungarvan individually, but with due regard to the preservation of the rights and Privileges of the House. The peril in which the hon. Member for Dungarvan stood that night might become the peril of any one of them next week.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYfelt that there would be something extremely unsatisfactory in their getting out of that discussion by a kind of private bargain between the Government and the hon. Member for Dungarvan. He did not, for his part, see how any concession which the hon. Member for Dungarvan might be disposed to make of any right
  1954
  that he believed he possessed would in the least degree tend to settle the question which had been forced upon the House. Personally, he did not approve of the Question which had been put by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and he had no sympathy with the object of the discussion which he sought to raise. But he was, nevertheless, not disposed to admit that there might not be an occasion when the character of a foreign Ambassador might be rightly brought under the consideration of the House. He failed, therefore, to see how they were to draw a sharp line, and to say that they should be allowed by the Government to discuss the character of one foreign Minister, but not that of another. Was the Minister of the day to adopt the practice of moving at any moment that a Member who was addressing the House be not further heard lest he might say something hurtful to the feelings of some foreign nation? That was hardly a free doctrine or a robust principle for the House of Commons to sanction. The great security for the Privileges of the House of Commons lay in its holding firmly by its own Rules and its own Order. He saw not the least occasion for any other intervention that evening except the intervention of Mr. Speaker, who, if the hon. Member for Dungarvan had gone beyond the bounds of Order, would, it was to be presumed, have required him to confine himself within those bounds. But the House had heard an entirely new theory broached that evening for the conduct of their proceedings. They had heard of something which was neither the written nor the unwritten law of Order, but which was a kind of vague transcendental law of propriety—a something floating as it were in the air, undefined, incapable of definition, imperious, arbitrary, and wholly unfit to afford any sound or safe guidance for the government of their debates. What Rule, he asked, invested the Prime Minister alone with the power of silencing a Member by moving that he be not further heard? If, on the other hand, that power extended to other Members, what an effective instrument of obstruction it might become. Again, how futile was the idea of interfering with an hon. Member by a practice like that. Was it not clear that immediately on a Motion being made that a particular Member be not

  1955
  heard that same Member might rise in his place and speak on that very Motion? There was nothing to hinder a Member from claiming to be heard on the question whether he be heard or not. Surely the House would be careful how it accepted a theory evolved on the spur of the moment from the moral consciousness of any single mind, however distinguished, and which might be backed at any time by a domineering majority. That question could, in his opinion, be settled only in one way—namely, by the withdrawal of this Motion.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY,believing that the Speaker's ordinary powers were sufficient to deal with that question, and that the House would readily support him in the exercise of those powers, held that it was a piece of wanton tyranny to interpose such an arbitrary Motion as that now before the House. The Leader of the House had no more Privileges than any other hon. Member; and his position should have prevented him from proposing a high-handed proceeding of that kind. He was astonished to hear the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, whose usual moderation they all admired, asserting that the Leader of the House was entitled to such an extraordinary privilege as that. If the Speaker's hands required strengthening, and the raising of debates at Question time ought to be discouraged, let them lay down definite rules with that object, instead of reviving the evil practice of Charles II.'s reign, and giving to one man the right to interrupt a speaker.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 224: Majority 166.—(Div. List, No. 21.)
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. O'Donnell be not now heard."
  LORD ELCHO: I rise to move the adjournment of this debate. [Ironical cheers.] So far as those cheers are made ironically, and come from the other side, they leave me wholly unperturbed. I can assure the Treasury Bench and hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is not in the least with the view of obstructing—["Oh!"]—it is not with the view of obstructing—["Oh !"]—Public Business, but of protecting the rights of the minority, that I venture to make this Motion. I have been here for some-
  1956
  thing like 39 years, and I have never yet heard—indeed, we know that nearly 200 years have passed since anything like the Motion we have heard from the Prime Minister has been made within the walls of this House. A Motion such as that from a Minister with a powerful majority at his back is capable of such gross abuse—["Withdraw!"]—is capable of such gross abuse—["Withdraw!"] Withdraw what?
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord must address himself to the Chair.
  LORD ELCHO: I repeat what I said, for I have nothing to withdraw. I said a Motion such as this, made without Notice, without a moment's warning, by a Minister with a great majority at his back, is capable—that is what I said—of such gross abuse that if no other Member would rise and resist it with all the powers of resistance the Rules as yet give to a minority, I, at least, would do so. I do not know whether hon. Members who hear me happened to be in the House a few moments ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) spoke one of the clearest and best speeches I have over heard in this House on the impromptu of the moment. I wish the Prime Minister had been present when he spoke, for if he had been I cannot but think that the arguments which were used by the hon. Gentleman—one of the great merits of whose history is that no one from reading it can know on which side of the House he sits—would have compelled the Prime Minister to come to the conclusion that it would be well if he withdrew his Motion. It was well pointed out by the hon. Member for Longford that this case is not one for bargaining between the hon. Member for Dungarvan and the Government. For my own part, I think that in the interests of free debate, and with the object of maintaining the character of this House, it is the duty of hon. Members to take advantage of the Forms of the House to bring about one of two issues—either that the Prime Minister should withdraw the Motion he has made in such a sudden and unprecedented a way—at least we have to go back 100 years for a precedent—or that the Government should accept the adjournment, in order that time may be given for consideration of the matter. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  COLONEL BARNEseconded the Motion. The Prime Minister, in his opinion, was inclined to stretch the Rules of the House too far. This was not the first time that the Prime Minister had interfered, or attempted to interfere, with the liberties of the minority in the House. The other day the right hon. Gentleman had suggested that the Committees ought to represent more fully the opinion of the House. ["Question !"] Hon. Members opposite had never heard such remarks as that in the last Parliament. He held, that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was perfectly in Order, and he therefore called upon the House to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Lord Elcho.)
  MR. OTWAYremarked, that the course taken by the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) savoured very much of obstruction; but it was not on this ground that he objected to the adjournment of the debate. He doubted whether the proceedings of this evening would bring them any credit. They called themselves the first Legislative Assembly in the world; but they were almost rivalling the worst scenes of the French Chamber. The adjournment of this debate would be liable to great misapprehension abroad, and it was the duty of the House of Commons to put a stop to this discussion as soon as it could. If we desired to cultivate good relations with France the present discussion would have a most unfortunate effect, especially if it were to be adjourned to a future occasion. He regretted that the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan had been permitted to be put to the House. A Sovereign and his Ambassador were entitled to protection. At the same time he thought the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in answering the Question had given provocation to the hon. Member for Dungarvan by answering matters which were not in the Question. ["No, no!"] If hon. Members would look at the Notice Paper they would find that the Question was whether it had been suggested that M. Challemel Lacour should be appointed to Berlin. The Under Secretary of State stated that he had never been appointed Ambassador at Berlin. ["No, no!"] He
  1958
  again begged hon. Members to look at the Question. But, at the same time, nothing justified the hon. Member for Dungarvan in the course he had taken.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he should not have spoken during the debate had it not been for the last remark of his hon. Friend. He did not think his hon. Friend had quite caught the substance of his reply. What he had said with regard to that portion of the Question which dealt with the suggested appointment of M. Challemel Lacour as German Ambassador was that the German Government communicated to the Government of France, and also to Her Majesty's Government, that if there had been a question of appointing M. Challemel Lacour as Ambassador to Berlin, he would have been cordially received by the German Government. That was the statement officially made as late as that day, and it was made to the French Government on Friday or Saturday last. In order to show that that was not the cause of what occurred since, he would point out that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), in beginning his future remarks, accepted the assurance he had made, and said he had evidently been misinformed, and withdrew what he had said on that point. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had observed that the Government ought to have protested against the Question being put. The Speaker had, in fact, said a word or two on the subject; and he himself, on behalf of the Government, had begun his answer by expressing his deep regret at such a Question being put.
  MR. OTWAYpointed out that as the Ambassador had not been appointed to the Court of Berlin there was no necessity for saying he would have been received there.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that what he had stated was that the Government was to blame for having allowed the Question of the Member for Dungarvan to be put. He admitted that it was extremely difficult to choose between the two courses; but they must either have objected in some form or other to the Question being put, in the first place, on the ground that it was inconvenient to the foreign relations of the country, or they should have given the Question a distinct denial and put an end to any doubt on the subject, and

  1959
  then any further question on the subject would have been prevented. It had been said that an impression would be created abroad that there existed in England a serious difficulty in connection with the appointment of the new Ambassador from France; and if such an impression should arise, it would be due, in great measure, to the course which had been taken by Her Majesty's Government in this matter. If they had objected to the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan being put, that would have been one thing; or if they had allowed the hon. Member to say what he had to say, that would have put an end to the matter. The effect, however, of what they did, was to import into the Question matter which had nothing whatever to do with it—namely, the appointment of the French Ambassador; and by doing so they had raised an important question affecting the Privileges of the House. He regretted that the discussion had been carried on, in the interest of Public Business; but he doubly and trebly regretted that it should be possible that an adjournment of the debate could be held to have any reference whatever to the appointment of the French Ambassador. It would have been better, he thought, if the debate had been at first adjourned; but, in the circumstances, he would not be a party to anything in the nature of obstruction. Something, however, should be done, he thought, to prevent the Motion being drawn into a mischievous precedent. He desired to point out the extremely unfair position in which the Question would place the Speaker. A Gentleman rose in the House to make a speech. It was admitted that he was in Order; but it was considered that the speech was inconvenient, and one of a character that ought to be interrupted. The Leader of the House interrupted the Speech, and moved that the hon. Member be not heard. Well, was it to be understood that in such circumstances Mr. Speaker should put the Question, or exercise a discretion as to whether the speech was of such a character that it should or should not be interrupted? According to all rulings so far the matter appeared to be left to the discretion of the Speaker; but there was no absolute rule laid down on the subject. If it was settled by rule that
  1960
  when an hon. Member was reflecting upon foreign Powers in friendly relations with this country, or upon the character of an absent individual, or raising any of that class of questions which were open to objection, the Speaker should interfere, well and good; but now they were asked to act on a precedent 200 years old, which, so far, he had been unable to find, and of the circumstances of which they knew nothing. He still hoped the hon. Member for Dungarvan would withdraw from his position and give Notice of a Motion for Papers. If, however, he did not, he would suggest that for the blank Motion of the Prime Minister there should be substituted a Resolution of rather a more explanatory character, giving the grounds on which the House thought it desirable that the hon. Member for Dungarvan should not be heard, so that the present incident might not be drawn into a dangerous precedent.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated that the Government ought to have stopped the Question being put; but the Government had no power whatever to stop it. They were absolutely powerless in the matter, except it had been a Question which the authority of the Speaker prohibited. The Speaker did not prohibit it; and, in that case, the authority of the Government was absolutely null. No doubt his hon. Friend might have refused to answer the Question; but would that have been a wise course to follow? Everyone would see the inference which would have been drawn from the declination. He turned, therefore, to the suggestion that the form of the Motion should be altered; and he could only say that if they could attach reasons for the proposing of it, he would make no objection to that course being taken. He had made the Motion originally in the only form in which such a Motion was ever moved; but he was as anxious as any man to avoid the setting of such a precedent as that proposed if it could be done, and would, therefore, willingly consider any suggestion made with a view to narrow the proposal and direct it to the specific case. Nothing now could be done in that direction until the the Motion for the adjournment of the debate had been disposed of.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he did not desire to obstruct the Business of the House; but

  1961
  he and others intended to use every form they could to prevent the passing of the Motion of the Prime Minister, which would establish a precedent of restriction in regard to individual Members of Parliament. He had no sympathy with the hon. Member for Dungarvan; he did not belong to his Party; and he had nothing to do with the French Ambassador. If the hon. Gentleman considered that there were charges which he could prove by evidence, he was quite right to bring the matter before the House; if he could not do so, he was wrong. But that was not the question. The question they had to consider was whether any Member of the House, whether Prime Minister or not, had a right, when any other Member was saying anything he did not like, to get up and move that he be not heard. When the hon. Member for Dungarvan was interrupted by the Prime Minister he was perfectly in Order. Had he not been, it would have been the duty of the Speaker to have called him to Order. The Prime Minister, on the pretext that he rose to Order—["No!" and "Yes!"] Which did the right hon. Gentleman say? [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] Did he understand the Prime Minister to deny that he rose in his place, and said—"Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order"?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I deny that I called the hon. Member for Dungarvan to Order.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he was right in stating that the Prime Minister, when he rose, said—"Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order." He understood that a Member rising to Order called attention to a breach of Order. Having risen on the pretext of calling a Member to Order, the right hon. Gentleman made a Motion that the hon. Member be not heard. It was said there was no precedent for such a Motion within 2C0 years; but were there any precedents at all, because they had not been produced. He had made a hurried search, and he ventured to say there was no precedent for anything of the kind. In such precedents as there were, the Speaker or some Member had interrupted a Member for being out of Order or making impertinent observations. If impertinent observations were now to be stopped, he feared some right hon. Gentlemen would have their speeches cut very short. If all the precedents related to interference with
  1962
  a Member who was out of Order, how could they apply to the rase of a Member who was in Order? The Government really required time to examine the precedents for themselves. Two hours ago the Prime Minister offered to withdraw the Motion if a concession were made by the hon. Member for Dungarvan; he understood the hon. Member to make it ["No, no!"]; and he believed the incident would have terminated if it had not been for the interference of the Home Secretary, who, with that happy gift he possessed of putting everybody wrong, exasperated the hon. Member into retracting to some extent the concession he had offered to make. He wished the Government to examine the precedents, and to take care that they did not make one that would be a disadvantage to the House. He would always support freedom of discussion, and would do all he could to prevent the tyrannical exercise of power such as had been attempted. Instead of its resting with the Speaker to tell hon. Members they were out of Order, the Prime Minister wanted to exercise over them powers such as no authority in that House had ever previously arrogated to himself.
  MR. W. FOWLERthought that far too much time had been already wasted over this question, and they should come to an immediate decision on the First Minister's Motion without any further debate or argument. The hon. Member for Dungarvan was making a speech which, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, was marked by such grave impropriety that it should be stopped; and he appealed to the House to decide whether it should or should not be continued. It rested with the House to decide the question; they were bound to do it; and he should vote with the greatest pleasure for the Motion. It had been said that this was a dangerous precedent, because, some other Prime Minister might exercise the authority in a case where ought not to do so. But when a Prime Minister did that, the House would know how to deal with it. The House was not at the mercy of any Prime Minister. It had its own dignity in its own keeping. The Question itself was an improper Question, and he regretted that the Speaker had not felt that it was within his power to prevent it appearing upon the Paper; but the House could decide whether it would

  1963
  allow a speech to be made involving grave accusations against the Ambassador of a foreign Power to this country. He thanked the Prime Minister for having the courage on the spur of the moment, without consulting old and musty precedents, to do that which common sense dictated. The time had come when the House should take more care than the last Parliament took to maintain its own dignity. The last Parliament did not show backbone enough in dealing with these questions. He was glad that the present Leader of the House had shown a little backbone by insisting that the dignity of the House should be maintained.
  MR. BARRYsaid, he did not sympathize with the hon. Member for Dun-garvan in respect to the Question which had brought about this discussion; but the hon. Member for Dungarvan and the French Ambassador sank out of sight in the issue raised by the Prime Minister, and it behoved every independent Member of the House to use every Constitutional means to defeat the despotic action of the Prime Minister. As a Member of the Party which would suffer most from it, he should support the Motion for adjournment. He had noted the noisy enthusiasm with which certain Radical Members supported this despotic action. He had been comparing their former utterances out of Parliament with their action within its walls, and it would be some time before his political education in this respect would be anything like completed.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDcontended that the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan had everything to do with the Motion. He understood the Speaker to rule as an abstract question that the hon. Member was in Order in moving the adjournment of the House after a Question put to him and an answer given by a Minister; he also understood the Speaker to express an opinion that the subject-matter brought before the House was one that required previous Notice. That being so, the Prime Minister was perfectly in Order in calling the attention of the House to the opinion that the hon. Member had disregarded; and it was for the House to determine whether or not the hon. Member was in Order in disregarding that opinion. He believed that if all the precedents were searched none
  1964
  would be found of more disorderly proceedings than those of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. He went on utterly disregarding the authority of the Chair. He had been ashamed, when sitting on the other side of the House in the last Parliament, at the want of courage in the then Leader of the House in not putting a stop to Obstruction. The right hon. Baronet had, by his want of decision and firmness, allowed the House to become a laughing-stock to the whole country. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen had made capital of obstruction during the late election, and now they had themselves joined the Obstructionists. The question now was, whether the authority of the Speaker was to be supported by the House; and he, for one, was ready, if necessary, to sit up all night rather than allow this new obstruction to succeed.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he admired the heroic promise of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down; and he hoped it would duly recommend him to the gratitude of the Government. He yielded to no one in respect for the authority of the Chair. They had no higher authority in that House than the Speaker; but he was now to be superseded, dominated by the man with battalions at his back. The question then before them was one involving the dearest Privileges of the House of Commons and the right of liberty of speech; and he hoped that they would not be led to abdicate either on a precedent drawn from the days of a Sovereign whom no one held in honour. He repeated that he yielded to no one in respect for the personal and official character of the Speaker; but his opinions would never coerce him. When taunts of Obstruction were thrown out by Members of the Liberal Party he would read them a passage from the volume of Sir Erskine May. In that book he found that—
  "On the 12th of March, 1771, the minority divided the House 23 times in resisting the punishment of the printers of the debates, and posterity will bless the pertinacity of that day."
  He was not afraid of posterity, but he believed they would earn the praise and blessing of posterity by the pertinacity of this night. The Prime Minister had not succeeded in silencing debate. The Government would have acted wisely had the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  1965
  Affairs come to the Table and said on the part of the Government he hoped he should be excused if he declined to answer such a Question in reference to an Ambassador-designate of a friendly foreign Power. But they had an argumentative reply to the Question. He remembered an occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had vindicated a Motion for the adjournment of the House when an argumentative reply had been given from the Treasury Bench by a Member of the late Government, whom he regretted not to see in that House—he meant Mr. J. Lowther. When the Prime Minister made a statement on a question of fact he always accepted that statement whatever impressions he might himself have formed. But he did not understand the processes of reasoning in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. He rose to Order during a speech of the hon. Member for Dinigarvan; but yet, strange to say, he did not rise to call the hon. Member to Order. What did the call to Order mean? Whom did he call to Order? The right hon. Gentleman must have some faculty which ordinary Members of the House did not possess. This was one of those beautifully subtle distinctions for which the right hon. Gentleman, whether in article or speech, was so remarkable. In no other flash of genius did he so excel as in detecting these subtle distinctions. What was the breach of Order? It originated from the hon. Member for Dungarvan, whom the Prime Minister did not rise to call to Order. But they were told that every Motion for the adjournment of the House was out of Order. But usage contradicted that position, and it had been abandoned by the Hotspur of the Treasury Bench, the Home Secretary, who had indulged in one of those rash, chivalrous, Quixotic sallies which confused opponents if they did not convince friends. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had said that occasions might arise when the Speaker would not call a Member to Order when it was the duty of the Leader of the House to do so. He protested against that do3-trine, which would create a dictator in the House. The House should not be at the mercy of the Prime Minister, who in some flash of temper might bring forward such a Motion as the House had before it. He thought the right hon.
  1966
  Gentleman's course that night was in absolute contradiction to the noble utterances which had proceeded from him on behalf of liberty on other occasions. He desired to shield, where he could not shield, the Minister of France, and in doing so he had drawn the sword upon liberty in the House. The Party opposite would say it might be a despotism; but their Leader was never despotic without just cause. They were assured that his despotism would be a benevolent despotism. There was no greater danger to the State; no temptation more seductive. It might be said that the circumstances were exceptional. They always were exceptional when it was sought to make a bad precedent. He exhorted hon. Members opposite not to be false to their own principles. Our liberties had been established 200 years, and they were about to strike this blow at them. It would be borne in mind that there was no obstruction that night. [Ironical cheers.] He said that to elicit those cheers, because the subject of discussion was not the Business of the House. The Business was on the Notice Paper. Hon. Members came there to transact it; but they had been prevented from doing so by the importation which the Prime Minister had introduced. He believed that on the morrow even official propriety in some of those on the Treason' Bench, even the transcendent genius of the right hon. Gentleman, might on reflection take a different view of the state of things from that they now entertained. Repudiating the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan as he did, he still must protest against the course which was about to be taken; and he hoped the majority of the House would join him in defending the liberties of the House in a way which would be treasured up by future generations.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down has addressed somewhat hard language to right hon. Gentlemen on this Bench; but he has done it in such a kind way that none of us take the slightest offence. When, however, the hon. and learned Member comes to say that the critical issue is whether we are to have a new dictator and a reign of despotism, I entirely deny that this is the issue. The critical issue before us is this—Is this the only Assembly in the world which has not within itself the inherent

  1967
  power to say that there maybe a speech made in it which ought to be stopped? I know not what the precedent quoted was, but what I do know is that it is impossible for any Assembly to meet together in order to conduct important business which will not keep within itself that right. Are we to be at the mercy of any Member to listen to whatever is said, however contrary it may be to the interests of the country? There ought to be the strongest possible reasons, I admit, before bringing forward such a Motion as that of my light hon. Friend; but, on the other hand, for this House to forfeit the right to stop any speech whatever would put this Assembly as a representative institution, and would put the reputation of England among the nations of the world at the mercy of any man. The Motion of my right hon. Friend was justified on two grounds. One ground was the matter of the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan; the other was that the Speaker had given a very strong opinion that that speech ought not to be proceeded with. That was the view of almost every Member of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Sullivan) had said that he looks on the Speaker with respect, but thinks nothing of his opinion.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I did not say that. I said I would not be coerced.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: You said you did not think enough of the opinion. ["No, no !"] I think he went as far as that. Well, we have the opinion of the Speaker of the House, and we have the opinion expressed by the vote of a very large majority, that it was a speech likely to lower the dignity of Parliament, and to injure the interests of the country; and, what was more, it was touching us on a very tender point. [Mr. O'DONNELL: Hear, hear!] Yes, "Hear, hear," making use of the liberty of debate in this House to do what each one of us would scorn to do in private.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to Order.
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House.
  MR. O'DONNELL: May I claim the right to answer him, Sir? [Cries of "No!"]
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: To do what each one of us would scorn to do in private—to bring a charge against another man when we knew that it could not be
  1968
  answered, not only because the man was absent, but because the charge was brought without Notice, and therefore without the possibility of its being answered. These were the reasons for the strong and exceptional Motion of my right hon. Friend; and when the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Sullivan) talks of the big battalions behind my right hon. Friend, it is not the big battalions of a Party majority, but the feelings of the large majority of this House that, quite independent of Party, they determine that the dignity of Parliament shall be maintained, and an enormous majority of our constituents will share the feeling that the House of Commons is not to be disgraced by being made the medium of speeches such as that.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of this House being disgraced by such a speech as that delivered by myself. That speech was not out of Order, and was, nevertheless, interrupted. Is it in conformity with the Rules of the House, with the courtesy of debate, and with the dignity of Parliament, for a right hon. Gentleman to use language which, I venture to say, even the hon. Member for Dungarvan would hesitate to use?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have not felt it to be my duty to interpose.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Perhaps I may satisfy the hon. Member for Dungarvan by saying that the speech, so far as it went, discredited the House, and there was every reason to believe, if it had continued, it would have disgraced the House. It was to stop that disgrace my right hon. Friend adopted the course he did. It is not likely to become a precedent for interfering with the freedom of speech. We know very well that this House is composed of gentlemen, and that it will be rare indeed that any Motion or any speech will be brought forward at one and the same time, straining our Rules to the utmost point, defying the opinion of the Speaker, insulting the representative of a friendly country, and accusing him, by imputation, of the greatest possible crimes, and so accusing him without giving an opportunity of reply. ["No!"] The hon. Member says "No." Well, he gave Notice of the charges on the Paper, and those charges have been replied to; but he did not give Notice of the charges he afterwards brought for-

  1969
  ward; and, therefore, it was impossible that they should be replied to. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has taken the same course as the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and says my right hon. Friend might have prevented the charges being made. But, in the first place, it was not my right hon. Friend's business; secondly, it was not in his power; and, thirdly, when once put on the Paper it was necessary that they should be answered. The discussion would be stopped instantly if only the hon. Gentleman would do what each hon. Member would do in private life—give Notice of the charges which he intends to make.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he had used expressions in his speech which were discreditable to that Assembly, and that if he were allowed to continue it was likely he would use expressions which would be disgraceful to it. The only terms which he used in the speech, which was interrupted, were that there was information sworn by a general of the French Army that he had received from M. Challemel Lacour orders to shoot the Mobiles of the Gironde. That might be an unpleasant communication; but he wanted to know how was it discreditable to the House if that statement was true? He had there in his pocket a copy of the sworn deposition to which he had referred. Was it a discredit to that House that he should state that fact in the House? He was about to ask whether the Government would lay on the Table of the House a copy of the depositions of the witnesses before the Committee of the National Assembly with regard to the action of M. Challemel Lacour in that matter. How would that be a discredit to the House, though it might involve a discredit to the personage referred to, and though, if proved true, it might lead to the conclusion that the French Government had not acted the part of the Government of a friendly nation towards the British Government? ["Question!"] That was the question. There was fair play still left in the House, though the Liberals were in a majority. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had expressed his conviction that, if allowed to continue his observations, he (Mr. O'Donnell) would have used language
  1970
  which would be a disgrace to Parliament. He was about to further ask whether the Government would lay on the Table the Reports of the judgment of the Court of Dijon confirming the judgment of the Court of Lyons condemning M. Lacour in heavy damages?
  SIR. WILLIAM HARCOURT: I rise to Order. The hon. Member for Dun-garvan is now proceeding to do exactly what he did at half-past 4, to demonstrate against the Ambassador of France the charge which has been answered by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member is in Order in pursuing the course in which he is proceeding when the Motion was made that he should not be heard?
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANalso rose to Order. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had used expressions which were discreditable to the House, and, if permitted to continue, would probably use expressions which would be disgraceful to it. He submitted that they ought at least to hear the speech in order to decide whether it was disgraceful or not.
  MR. SPEAKER: I myself pointed out to the hon. Member for Dungarvan that I considered the course which he proposed to take with regard to his Question relating to the French Ambassador to be highly improper. He has not attended to my remonstrance, and it does seem to me that he is taking a course which is almost an offence to the Chair in proceeding on the same line. I must caution him against the course he is now taking.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he obeyed the ruling of the Chair; but what was to be said of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, knowing that the Speaker would close his mouth—["Order"and "Chair!"]—knowing that the will of the House, as expressed by its highest exponent, would prevent him from refuting the assertions of the right hon. Gentleman? What could be said of the British manliness of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who did not shrink from rousing the fears of his majority by opinions as to the character of his (Mr. O'Donnell's) speech, when he knew and counted on the knowledge that he could not reply to the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I absolutely deny the last statements of the hon. Member. What I said—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dungarvan is in possession of the House, and is entitled to proceed with his address to the end of it.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he was glad to find that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had been lecturing them on the Rules of the House, had so clearly shown the necessity of his receiving a lesson in his turn. He must contend, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that that House had a right to examine into the character of the representatives of foreign Governments accredited to this country. It was part of the comity of International Law that a person so accredited should be a persona grata—a fit and proper person—and if he were not a man of that character there existed a perfect right on the part of the Government to which he was accredited to object to his nomination. If a foreign functionary was introduced to the Sovereign who was an unworthy person, the conduct of the Government in admitting of such a proceeding was, he maintained, fairly open to criticism. It did not, he might add, lie in the mouth of any Member of the Government to say that he had not given sufficient Notice in the matter. When he was interrupted by the Prime Minister he was about, he might add, to give further Notice. How triumphant, he would ask, would not their position have been if they had been enabled to give a crushing reply to the inquiries of the hon. Member for Dun-garvan. But they dreaded the Notice, although he was at a loss to understand what interests they could suppose to be endangered. Was the fate of the "Gladstone Claret" imperilled? Must certain functionaries be received because their masters might assume otherwise a different attitude in the East? He spoke on the subject not only as a Member of that House, but as a Representative of a Roman Catholic constituency who was desirous of ascertaining whether the gentleman to whose appointment he objected had or had not been truly or falsely associated with the gravest outrages on his co-religionists; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he had never had a tougher
  1972
  piece of work than when he tried to drive the hon. Member for Dungarvan from the performance of his duty. He was prepared to go to every constituency in Ireland and denounce the Liberal Party—to contrast the Liberal Party denouncing the pretended atrocities of Papal rule—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is going very wide of the Question before the House.
  MR. O'DONNELL: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has not hitherto been a success in the domestic legislation of Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call the hon. Member to Order.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he would merely add that he was prepared to meet the attacks of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would, for the sake of his high reputation, make any further criticisms which he might have to offer in a way which would enable him to reply to those criticisms without infringing the Rules of the House.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAMhad no doubt that the House had a right to decide that a Member should not speak on a subject which was inimical to the public interest, or that it should hear one Member in preference to another. The Prime Minister, however, when he made the Motion that the hon. Member for Dungarvan be not heard, had not rested his argument on that point, but on the fact that the hon. Member was out of Order in moving the adjournment of the House. ["No, no !"] If they were to go to a division on the understanding that the hon. Member for Dungarvau's mouth was closed because the hon. Gentleman had improperly raised this question, he should certainly vote for the Government. On the other hand, if they were supposed by so voting to imperil the right of private Members to move the adjournment of the House, he should record his vote, as he did on the late division, against Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the Prime Minister's Motion had been directed against the right to discuss a question on a sudden Motion for the adjournment of the House. ["No!"] He was forced to the conviction that the Prime Minister's chief objection to the Motion of the hon.

  1973
  Member for Dungarvan was that the hon. Gentleman had raised a debate without giving notice to the person whose conduct was impugned. The right hon. Gentleman said that the love of fair play should have prevented the hon. Member for Dungarvan from attacking an absent man without Notice, and, at the same time, the Prime Minister expressed his willingness to discuss the very delicate question with regard to this Ambassador if the hon. Member for Dungarvan would bring it forward in the usual way by giving a Notice of Motion.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No; I said we would withdraw the Motion if Notice of Motion were given by the hon. Member.
  MR. PARNELL: The Chief Secretary for Ireland said they were anxious to debate the question, if Notice were given of it. How then could it be said that the action of the Government to-night was taken in order to prevent a grave public disadvantage? It was taken for the same reasons which prompted the action of the late Government when the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) was bringing forward a Motion relating to the distress in Ireland. The Speaker then expressed disapproval of the course which was being adopted in almost the identical terms in which he had to-night disapproved of the course pursued by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer rose in his place, but did not move the Motion which the Prime Minister had made this evening; indeed, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer rather bungled the matter. The right hon. Gentleman raised a point of Order, and it was subsequently found that the only Member who was not out of Order was the hon. Member for Mayo. If the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had moved the Resolution which the Prime Minister submitted that night, the House of Commons would have endorsed it by a far larger majority than would vote against the Motion now under consideration. This must show hon. Members the necessity of carefully guarding their proceedings against the imputation of undue haste. If they placed the proprieties of the House absolutely in the hands of the Prime Minister they would be giving him, whatever might be his temper and character, a power that might be turned to very undesirable account. He himself disliked the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan; but he did
  1974
  not think the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary should have sought to enlist the passions of the House against the hon. Gentleman. He could not agree to the doctrine laid before them by the Home Seeretary that there were questions of which the House of Commons could forbid the discussion, because he failed to see the principles which supported this conclusion. Undoubtedly the present Prime Minister could be trusted with a great deal of power; but even he should not be intrusted with more power than could be taken away from him. In the circumstances he would ask the Prime Minister whether much might not be gained by adjourning this discussion to a time when they would all be in good humour? When a minority of the House was driven to put its back against the wall, it did not usually happen that the House of Commons emerged from the trial with added laurels; and he would ask the Prime Minister whether it would not be better, without prejudging the question, to agree to an adjournment of the House?
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, that it was not accurate to say that the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was exceptional. Only a few days ago the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) put a Question which reflected on a Liverpool magistrate and on the President of a friendly Republic. That question contained an ex parte statement about a Liverpool magistrate and about the Republic of Peru; yet he (Mr. Mac Iver) did not rise to move the adjournment of the House. The conduct of the Liberal Party in a recent municipal contest at Liverpool—
  MR. H. SAMUELSONrose to Order, and asked what on earth the conduct of the Liberal Party at Liverpool had to do with the subject under discussion.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Birkenhead is not keeping to the Question before the House. The Question before the House is that the hon. Member for Dungarvan be not heard.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid he was about to point out—[Cries of" Divide!" "Question !" "Order!"]—that the Question which the hon. Member for Glasgow—[Renewed cries of "Question!"]—
  MR. FINIGANrose to Order. He wished to ask whether the hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House were in Order in interrupting the hon.

  1975
  Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) by monosyllabic utterances.
  MR. MAC IVERwas proceeding to comment on the Question put last week by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), which he described as an abuse of the Forms of the House, and an unfair attack upon Mr. Robert Galloway, made solely for electioneering purposes, when—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he failed to see any connection between the election at Liverpool and the present question.
  MR. MAC IVERbegged to acknowledge the ruling of the Speaker. He would only add that he had much sympathy for the Motion for adjournment, believing, as he did, that it was a great mistake to endeavour in the slightest degree to interfere with the freedom of debate.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 97; Noes 298: Majority 201.—(Div. List, No. 22.)
  Question again proposed, "That Mr. O'Donnell be not now heard."
  MR. GORSTsaid, he did not rise, as some hon. Members might suppose, for the purpose of moving the adjournment of the House, but with the object of making a proposition which he hoped would be the means of escape from the unhappy predicament in which the House was placed. His proposal was to amend the Motion of the Prime Minister, by moving—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to search the Journals of the House for precedents, and to report the circumstances under which a Motion that a Member of the House be not heard,"
  had been made. In making that proposal, he was following the precedent wisely set by the Prime Minister himself about a fortnight ago. When his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) took a course with reference to the question of the swearing in of a Member, that was without any immediate precedent. The Prime Minister on that occasion proposed that a Select Committee should be appointed for the purpose of guiding the House in its decision of that question. He (Mr. Gorst) would, therefore, suggest that in the present similar matter a Select Committee should be appointed to guide the House in its decision. He trusted that
  1976
  he was not making an unreasonable proposal; because, when they were asked to follow a precedent which was more than 200 years old, and which had not been stated even to the House in the course of the debate, he thought it was consistent with the wisdom and dignity of the House that it should pause before it adopted so old a precedent, and appoint a Select Committee to examine into the question before it. It appeared to him that the Prime Minister himself was not quite convinced as to the propriety of the course which he had recommended, because he had been properly anxious to induce the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) to follow a course which would have prevented the inconvenience of the House affirming his Motion. He (Mr. Gorst) regretted that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had not concurred with the extremely courteous and reasonable proposition of the Prime Minister; but were the liberties of private Member to be sacrificed because the hon. Member was unreasonable? He had no influence with the hon. Member; but many of his hon. Friends near him had done their utmost to induce him to comply with the proposal made. But, he again asked, were their rights as Members of that House to be trampled upon because the hon. Member for Dungarvan had not done so? It was quite clear that they required some guidance in the matter. What had happened in the early part of the evening? At that time, perhaps, many hon. Members now present were not in the House. But the Secretary of State for the Home Department rose and made a speech which was as distasteful to the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford North cote), and which reflected as strongly upon his conduct as the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan had reflected on the conduct of the French Ambassador. He held that the terms in which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department spoke of the right hon. Baronet were as unbecoming as any which had been used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. What happened then? The hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) rose in his place, following the example of the Prime Minister, and moved that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department be not heard. But Mr.

  1977
  Speaker, doubtless in the exercise of a proper discretion, had not put that Motion from the Chair. But why had that Motion not been put? He admitted that there was some difference between the two cases; that could not be for one moment denied; because, had there not been some difference, he was sure that Mr. Speaker would have put the second Motion from the Chair as well the first. But what that difference was he had not been able to make out, nor had any other Member of the House been able to do so as far as he had heard. He thought, therefore, they should have a Committee to consider the important question which had been raised, so that the House might know on what occasions a Member might make a Motion that some other Member be not heard. They had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was once a learned Member, but who appeared to be a learned Member no longer; but there were learned Members on the Treasury Bench who had been present during the whole of the debate and who had not been heard. It was desirable that one of the Law Officers of the Crown should advise the House on such an occasion; but their reticence during the debate had been most remarkable. He would like to know whether one of those hon. and learned Gentlemen would quote the precedents and describe them to the House. Would one of those hon. and learned Gentlemen venture to commit himself to the opinion that those precedents were precedents in point? He would not be surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) say so; but he should be astonished if the hon. and learned Attorney General were to rise and commit himself to the opinion that the precedents relied on were in point. If there was so much uncertainty; if they were asked to apply a precedent more than 200 years old, which had never been cited to the House, and if the Prime Minister himself felt so uncertain of his ground, he could not see that there was anything unreasonable in asking the House to follow its universal custom, when its Privileges were at stake, by appointing a Committee to search the Journals, examine precedents, and see that this matter proceeded in accordance with the ancient usage of the
  1978
  House; and he therefore begged to move that the Motion of the Prime Minister be amended as follows:—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to search the Journals, and to report the circumstances under which Motions that Members be not heard have been made."
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to search the Journals of the House and report the circumstances under which a Motion that a Member of the House be not heard has been made,"—(Mr. Gorst,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he thought the House had been during the whole debate in what he regarded as somewhat of a muddle. The Motion which had been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was also, in his opinion, calculated to increase that muddle. They had had a Motion from the Prime Minister that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) be not heard; that was upon the Motion of the hon. Member for the adjournment of the House; but as matters proceeded the hon. Member, who was not permitted to address the House upon the question, was allowed a full opportunity of saying all that he desired to say upon the subsequent Motion for the adjournment of the debate. It appeared to him (Sir Patrick O'Brien) somewhat strange that they should have a discussion proceeding for some six hours to prevent the hon. Member (Mr. O'Donnell) speaking upon the adjournment of the House, and then that he should have subsequent permission to say all that he would have said on that occasion had not the Prime Minister intervened. In all that had occurred, and in all that had been said by hon. Members whom he had had the honour of hearing, no imputation had been made in that House upon the character of the French Ambassador, except what had been conveyed in the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) had heard many people say that the French were a vain nation; but he could not conceive that

  1979
  any nation in Europe, or any assembly of intellectual men, would consider that in a large assembly like the House of Commons, numbering some 600 Members, the expression of the views of a single Member was to be taken as the expression of English, Irish, or Scotch opinion. That being so, he asked the House whether it was worth while, even for the sake of Party triumph, to continue a debate which could end in nothing but, as he had before described it, a muddle? He ventured to suggest that the best course to be pursued was that those who sat upon the front Bench, and who, he was obliged to say, contributed to the existing difficulty, should move that the House be now adjourned. By doing that they would at once get rid of the discussion upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and the many divisions that he feared might arise, in which he, for one, had no desire to take part.
  MR. WALTERsaid, he thought everyone in the House would agree with him that it was desirable, if possible, to extract some little good out of the long, irregular, and unpleasant discussion which had taken place. It was, he thought, more the fault of the House itself than of any Member of it that they had been placed in the situation in which they found themselves. The House was the proper authority for framing its own Rules; and his opinion was that if the House had paid due attention to the Rules necessary for the conduct of the Business of the House, it would long ago have prevented the opportunity for such a discussion as had occupied their attention that evening. He ventured to suggest for their guidance in the prevention of similar difficulties in time to come, that it would be well if the Government, in fact, if both sides of the House, would take into consideration a proposal which he believed had been discussed on former occasions, and which he had reason to believe had the entire support of some of the highest authorities in the House, including one of the distinguished Predecessors of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. Everyone who had had the honour to sit in that House, as he had done for many years, knew that of late years the privilege, accorded by courtesy to hon. Members of moving the adjournment of the House in order to continue a discussion upon a
  1980
  Question to which they had received an answer, had of late years been greatly abused. Without any desire to put hindrance in the way of fair and free discussion in that House, he thought it was worth while to consider whether some such Rule as the following might not be adopted—namely, that when a Member moved the adjournment of the House with the view of continuing the discussion and raising debate upon a Question which had received an answer, it should be competent for any hon. Member at once to put the question whether the House desired to have the discussion continued; that a division should betaken without debate, and that it should be left to the House to say whether or not such discussion should be continued. He believed that the House would be at all times willing to give a liberal and generous consideration to any matter which hon. Members might think it their duty to bring forward. He thought that the proposal he had made, if put into proper form and sanctioned by the House, would do more to prevent the time of the House being wasted, and to facilitate the con-duet of Public Business, than that of the Prime Minister, who had sought to revive a form of Motion for which there had been no precedent for the last 200 years.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, there was, no doubt, a good deal to be said in favour of the proposition which had just been submitted to them by the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Walter); but he (Mr. Chaplin) ventured to think that what they required at that moment was a specific for their immediate and not for their future guidance. Therefore, he ventured to add his appeal to the Prime Minister, either to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) or to consent to the adjournment of the debate. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could not fail to perceive that there was an invincible repugnance on the part of a great many Members who had no sympathy with the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and on the part of many hon. Members who, he might say, regarded that speech with as much dislike as the right hon. Gentleman himself, to allow the Motion of the Prime Minister to be established as a precedent amongst them. It was felt that if

  1981
  they allowed it to be established as a precedent the rights and Privilege, the liberty of speech, and the freedom of debate of every minority would be at the mercy of the Leader of the House who commanded the majority for the time being. He had not the slightest wish to offer obstruction to Public Business. Such a course had never been pursued by him since he had had a seat in that Assembly. But he stood there as many other hon. Member's did, to vindicate the rights and privileges of Members on both sides of the House on whichever side they sat. Much as he should regret to take a course hostile to the right hon. Gentleman, or which might appear for a moment to favour the views of the hon. Member for Dungarvan upon the subject before the House, he must protest against the course taken by the Prime Minister, and would do everything in his power to prevent the Motion which he had made that evening being established as a precedent.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he would certainly not again have ventured to address any further observations to the House that evening upon the unpleasant subject before it if he had any idea that his interference in the debate would be calculated to prolong it. But, he confessed that he had been looking to the Prime Minister for some deliverance from the predicament in which the House had been placed some six hours ago, and in which they were still involved. His name had been mentioned more than once in the course of the evening by his hon. Friends, and some unpleasant recollections of that last Parliament had been recalled for the purpose of illustrating the case with which they had then to deal. He had not discovered any parallel whatever in the case which, during the last Parliament, he had played a prominent part, and the case which had arisen from the action of the hon. Member for Dungarvan that evening, But it appeared to him that such allusions and references were entirely outside the question. There could be no question that when the Prime Minister called upon the House suddenly to suspend the right of any hon. Member to address the House, he was asking them to take a step which was of so grave and novel a character that they failed to find any precedent in
  1982
  the action of any living Member of the House; while, at the same time, they were unable to refer to any of their own past experience to say what they ought to do. They had the authority of the Prime Minister for saying that they must go back for a period of 200 years to find even one precedent for the course which he had proposed. Now, if that were so, and if were true, as it undoubtedly was, that the minority in the House had resisted the proposal of the Government for the last six or seven hours, he thought he could appeal to the Prime Minister as a practical man of business to calculate how long it would take him to wear down the exponents of the will of that minority. The temper which he had seen exhibited by some six or eight Members in keeping the House sitting for 26 consecutive hours was exactly the same temper as that which had been displayed since the First Lord of the Treasury placed his Motion in the hands of Mr. Speaker. It was an arithmetical calculation to reckon the number of days which might be expended—he might say the number of weeks—in attempting, on the part of the minority on the one hand, to pass a Motion for the adjournment of the House, and the attempt of the Government to carry their Motion for the suspension of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had moved for the appointment of a Select Committee; but it seemed to him (Mr. O'Connor Power) that the case was not at all one to be referred to a Committee, because the proposal of the Prime Minister was intended to deal with what he regarded as and believed to be a Parliamentary offence. But the gravity of that offence could only be measured by those who had due regard to the circumstances connected with it. He did not believe that any good would result from the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into this matter. The Select Committee on what was popularly known as the great "Brad-laugh" question had not been able to settle it, nor would this present question be settled in his opinion if it were sent upstairs. He would say that the Prime Minister would best consult his own dignity and the dignity of the House of Commons if he would do what Prime Ministers quite as powerful as he had had to do before—namely, that when

  1983
  they found a large minority of the House persistently refusing to accept a proposal made by the Government, and persistently moving the adjournment of the debate, they should come forward and say, out of deference to the resistance which had been offered to their proposal, and in view of the fact that no good could come from their attempt to push it any further, that they were willing to consent to the adjournment. He had seen that course adopted when the case of the Government against the minority was far stronger than the case against the minority that evening; and if that course had been adopted on former occasions, without any sacrifice of official dignity, he failed to see why a similar course should not be taken on the present occasion. He therefore appealed very earnestly to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider the whole circumstances of the case, and the difficult position in which the House was placed, in the hope that the result of that reconsideration would be to determine his mind in favour of proposing a Motion on the part of the Government for the adjournment of the debate. He had no doubt whatever that if the House were called upon at a future stage to consider the question, it would be approached in a different spirit. He might remark that it seemed, to him that the demand made upon the hon. Member for Dun-garvan (Mr. O'Donnell) by the Chief Secretary for Ireland at an earlier hour had been practically complied with, for that hon. Member had formally interrupted him for the purpose of intimating that his only desire was to state a series of Questions upon which he would seek for further information. Why was not the hon. Member for Dungarvan held to his word? Why was he not given an opportunity of proving the sincerity of the declaration? He was bound to say that the Chief Secretary for Ireland made a proposal of the kind; but he heard that the counsels of peace were dashed aside by the excited speech delivered by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) did not know whether that statement was founded in fact, because he had not been present in the House when that speech was delivered; but if it were so, he very much regretted the circumstance; but perhaps the Government might be la-
  1984
  bouring under the difficulty of having too much power and energy, as well as too much eloquence, wit, and humour in the Cabinet. They might be, perhaps, able to restrain their over-powerful Home Secretary for a little while until smaller men than he had time to adjust the difficulty. It appeared to him, by the statement of the hon. Member for Dungarvan made some hours ago, and by the statement in reply to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that he had already bound himself over conscientiously to accept the suggestion of the Prime Minister. If that were so, he could see no cause for quarrel between the persistent minority, on the one hand, and the majority on the other; but if the Motion of the Prime Minister were pressed, it would only be continuing a policy which must end in the establishment of despotism.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that if the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) to appoint a Committee to search over the Journals of the House were adopted, it would result in nothing, because the Committee might search without finding any precedents; the nearest approach to examples were the cases of silencing Thorpe in 1839, and of Sir Walter Wood in 1594; but those cases were by no means similar to the present, and merely went to show that the Speaker and the Clerk had exercised control over Members of the House in debate. He agreed with the assertion that discipline had been exercised over hon. Members, but did not think that it would be found on the Records to any greater extent than he mentioned. He had risen for the purpose of stating that, in his opinion, it would be perfectly idle to appoint a Committee, for a Committee could only report upon that of which the House was already aware. It must be borne in mind that, so late as the publication of Hatsell, it was stated that if there was a persistent determination, either by conversation or humming, not to hear any hon. Member, then, on the wish of the House being so expressed, he withdrew. In his opinion, the practice had now ceased to be operative. During the short time he had been a Member of that House he had heard an animated conversation going on while hon. Members had been addressing the House; but they had not

  1985
  been deterred from proceeding with their observations.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that he could not be suspected of any inclination in favour of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell); but he must say that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister seemed to him to go much farther than anything put forward by the last Parliament. The hon. Member had not been declared out of Order, nor had he been declared guilty of persistently obstructing the Business of the House; and he did not think, therefore, that, under these circumstances, it was right to move that he should be put to silence. The hon. Baronet the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien) had said, with perfect truth, that the object of the proposal of the Prime Minister was that the hon. Member for Dungarvan should not be heard; but he had been heard not only once, but several times, and therefore there was no longer any object in carrying the Resolution. If the proposal were persisted in, they would certainly be kept for a long time if there was a great number of Members who entertained the opinion that the Privileges of that House were of more importance even than the political relations of this country with Prance.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that he would not detain the House long. He did not think that any precedents had been shown in support of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman would point out in what manner the withdrawal of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was not sufficient, then perhaps the hon. Member would make it so. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) might be dropped, if the explanation of the hon. Member for Dungarvan were accepted. They had now passed a great many hours discussing this matter, and he thought it was time that some conclusion should be arrived at.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he begged to repeat that he had been criticizing what he considered the deficiency in the reply of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. That was the situation when he was interrupted, for he was proceeding to give
  1986
  Notice of a number of Questions. It was his intention, at the proper time, to continue to give Notice of the Questions which he required the hon. Baronet to answer.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he must again rise to make a friendly appeal to the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The Motion he had made was one which he believed he was justified in making, for it seemed to him that the power of preventing a Member being heard was absolutely and essentially inherent in every debating Assembly. It was obvious that they could not set up an authority of any Member of an Assembly for the Assembly itself. He would now make the appeal to the hon. Member which he first made three or four hours ago. When the hon. Gentleman first rose to answer that appeal he raised his hopes very high; but as he continued his observations, he made it obvious that no course could be pursued but the present Motion. The appeal to the hon. Member for Dungarvan had now been renewed by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drum-mond Wolff), and he thought with somewhat better success. If he understood the hon. Member for Dungarvan—and it was necessary that he should be clearly understood—he had said that his intention, if permitted, was to proceed to give Notice of the Questions he intended to ask, or the charges he intended to make. Of course, it was perfectly well understood what was meant by giving Notice. If he rightly understood the hon. Member, he did not wish to do anything more than give Notice in the ordinary sense in which the word was used in the House. If the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham were withdrawn, he should be ready to fulfil the pledge that he gave and to withdraw the Motion that he made. The prolongation of the discussion could not result in any good, and he thought it would be well to close it at the earliest moment.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House if he had not sought by this compromise to throw any doubt on the right to move the adjournment of the House upon that Question? If that were the object of the right hon. Gentleman, he could not allow the right hon. Gentleman or the

  1987
  hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), by any personal compromise, to narrow this weighty and grave question; but he now understood from the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown that the point was narrowed to this—that if the hon. Member for Dungarvan would confine himself to give Notice of Questions, then that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the situation. Then their contention that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was within his right in moving the adjournment of the House would remain statu quo. If it were the intention of the right hon. Member to continue the right to move the adjournment of the House, then they had been wasting their time by talking of a compromise. He had no intention of allowing the hon. Member for Dungarvan to take any course which would cast a doubt upon that right. If the hon. Member was understood to have been out of Order in the course he was taking, then he should feel it his duty to oppose the compromise. But if it was admitted that the hon. Member was in Order in moving the adjournment of the House, then he had no objection to a compromise. It had been said that there was no precedent for a case like the present. He thought there was no precedent which was honourable. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, had given an instance where the House ought properly to interfere to stop a speech—a case of some insulting remarks on crowned heads, or on the head of some Royal Family. Under these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman contended that the House was within its right in stopping the speech. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in 1871 or 1872 there was a speech made, or admitted to be made, and during that speech nine-tenths of the Members of that House kept up a continual din and noise with the object of preventing its being heard. That speech was upon the question of the Royal dowry. On that occasion one Member so distinguished himself as to obtain the name of the "early village cock." On that occasion the Prime Minister of the day did not rise to protect the Princess Royal of England, although it was the same Prime Minister who now rose to protect M. Challemel Lacour. He would venture
  1988
  to suggest that this was not a question for personal compromise. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had offered a compromise hours ago, and had said that he only wished to explain to the House the Questions of which he wished to give Notice. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had risen upon that, and withdrew his Motion, then no more could have been said. But after what had occurred, and the questions which had been raised, he did suggest. that it was not a question for personal compromise.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he might state, in answer to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), that the proposal he had made had no reference whatever to the question of moving an adjournment. That question would remain precisely where it was before.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he hoped that they might arrive at the conclusion of this debate. He thought that they had arrived very nearly at a settlement; and, in his opinion, it would be better that they should not attempt to carry this discussion on further. It was now clear that the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) only intended to give Notice of Questions he intended to put on a future day; and, under these circumstances, it seemed to him that the most dignified and most convenient course for the House to pursue would be to allow the Motions to be withdrawn and the hon. Member to give Notice of his Questions.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he begged to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he was quite satisfied with what had been said. He understood that his right to move the adjournment of the House in order to criticize the statements of a Minister was not contested. He believed that was the impression the whole House derived from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. He had already stated that his intention in moving the adjournment of the House was only for the purpose of expressing fully the Questions on which he wished to give Notice to the Government. He intended to give Notice of those Questions, and he hoped to receive an answer upon an early day. He was glad, by mutual explanation, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was satisfied that it never was his intention to do anything

  1989
  which would, in the slightest degree, trespass upon the Rules of the House.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was perfectly ready to withdraw his Motion, as he under stood from the hon. Member (Mr. O'Donnell) that his intention in moving the adjournment of the House was only for the purpose of concluding with words giving Notice of the Questions he intended to put. With regard to the question whether or not there was a right to move the adjournment of the House in the manner in which it had been done, he could only say that he had never pronounced any opinion upon that point, and he had no intention of doing so.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had taken upon himself to interrupt the hon. Member for Dungar-van (Mr. O'Donnell), and to stop him in the progress of his speech by moving that the hon. Member be put to silence. In moving that Motion, in his (Mr. Biggar's) opinion, the right hon. Gentleman had not acted either by the written law of the House or by precedent, and was entirely out of Order. They had it very clearly laid down in the Rules of the House the course which ought to have been pursued. On the 28th of February last certain Orders were passed by the House by which it was provided that after any Member had been named by the Speaker, or by the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, as disregarding the authority of the Chair, then said Member was put to silence. He held that that was the proper course for the right hon. Gentleman to have taken. He ought to have appealed to Mr. Speaker as an impartial judge, and to have abided by his decision. He (Mr. Biggar) held that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman was not respectful to Mr. Speaker, and he gave the Member accused no chance of being heard in his own defence. The hon. Member for Dungarvan intended to give Notice of certain Questions, and these Questions were thoroughly in Order. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister ought to apologize to Mr. Speaker for breaking through the ancient Rules of the House. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had very fairly suggested that a Committee should be appointed to in-
  1990
  quire into the question of these ancient usages. And that seemed to him the course which might very well have been adopted. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was entirely out of Order from first to last; and, under these circumstances, he would suggest that the House do now adjourn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he would give the House the substance of the Questions which he should ask the Government to answer. He begged to say that he was most willing to consult the convenience of the Government, and to give the utmost time for the necessary inquiry to be made into the matter. He begged to give Notice—and would fix Thursday as the day for bringing it forward, but was quite ready to change the day to suit the convenience of the Foreign Office—that he would ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he would lay on the Table of the House that portion of the evi-dence of General Brisson before the Commission of the National Assembly which related to certain instructions alleged by him to have been given by M. Challemel Lacour, with regard to the Mobiles of the Girondes in the Garrison at Lyons; also, that he would ask the same hon. Gentleman, on the same day, whether he would lay upon the Table of the House copies of the Judgment of the Court of Lyons in the case of the Christian Brothers of the Convent of Car-rayel against M. Challemel Lacour and others; also, whether he would lay upon the Table of the House copies of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal at Dijon, confirming the Judgment of the Court of Lyons in the before-mentioned case? He also begged to give Notice that, on Thursday, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General, Whether he would take steps to prevent the wholesale circulation in this country of French newspapers, containing the gravest charges against the French Ambassador-designate of this country?

  IRELAND—THE COAST GUARD.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the attention of the Lords Commis-

  1991
  sioners has been at any time called to the hardships which many of the Coast Guard stationed in Ireland are frequently subjected, on the voyage in the cutter, owing to the insufficient accommodation, from distant parts of the coast to the training ship, in consequence of which some are said to have suffered from illnesses that contributed to their permanent disablement from active service; and to inquire whether all necessary purposes would not be as well served by giving the men travelling expenses, and allowing them to proceed to their destination, as far as practicable, overland?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE,in reply, said, that he could assure the hon. Member that no complaints of the kind alluded to in his Question had been received at the Admiralty. The cutter was only used for voyages to parts of the coast of Ireland where the coast was not easily accessible; the men were invariably sent by land. A Report had been ordered as to the position of affairs alluded to by the hon. Member, and he could assure him that a careful inquiry would be made into the matter.

  SCIENCE AND ART—THE BRITISH MUSEUM—THE ASHBURNHAM MSS.
  MR. THEODORE FRYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it be true that the valuable Collection of MSS., the property of the Earl of Ashburnham, was offered in whole or in part to the "Trustees of the British Museum," and declined by them solely for want of the needful funds, and that they were about to be sold to the Royal Library in Berlin for £120,000; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of obtaining for this nation this unique literary treasure?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fry), who had put the Question, was, he believed, under several material misapprehensions with regard to the Ashburnham Manuscripts. No application had been made to the Government on the subject of that collection of manuscripts; but, in consequence of the Question of his hon. Friend, he had made inquiry of the Trustees of the British Museum, and he had found the following to be the state of the case. Those manuscripts might be considered
  1992
  as falling into two branches; one of them, he believed, being of great interest to France, and the other to England. The negotiations were still in progress between the Trustees of the British Museum and the present Lord Ashburnham with reference to the latter portion that belonged to England. But he was told that those Trustees, who might be regarded in the light of authorities upon the matter, were widely at issue with the noble Lord as to the value of the manuscripts, and were not inclined to go any way near the price he had demanded. There could be no doubt that the collection was a valuable one; but, with reference to that value, it would be presumptuous on his part to give any opinion; but, at any rate, the Trustees were not willing to make an advance on the price they had offered. He had heard nothing whatever of any offer on the part of the German Government to purchase the manuscripts at £120,000; but he had been told that the French Government were likewise at issue with the noble Lord as to the value of the portion belonging to France.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION LAW AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 211.]
  (Mr. Dillwyn, Sir John Lubbock Mr. James Howard.)
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION LAW AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 211.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. DILLWYN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the prior Acts had dealt only with certain classes of birds; and he now proposed by that Bill to extend protection to all during the breeding season. He wished to have the former Act repealed, inasmuch as it was found to be inoperative; many birds being excepted from its protection, and those that were protected were by no means sufficiently protected during the breeding seasons. The farmers complained that some birds were very injurious to their crops; but he (Mr. Dillwyn) begged to observe that many of the hard-billed birds, which in the autumn and winter were seed-eaters, were insectivorous in the breeding season, and then of great use to the agriculturist. The law, as it

    1993
    stood, would not allow certain birds to be killed or caught in the breeding season; but it did not practically much interfere with those persons who caught the birds for sale with nets or other traps. He proposed to remove all restrictions from occupiers or owners with reference to killing or taking those kinds which were, by them, considered to be injurious to the crops; and he by no means wished to see the law bear hardly on farmers or gardeners. His Bill only proposed to put a stop to capture or destruction of birds for sale during the breeding season. The Bill would, certainly affect some persons, especially the bird catchers; but it would not injure the farmer. The penalties attached to the Bill were very moderate. For the first offence, there was only a warning and a small fine. He had been careful to select the most moderate scale of penalties possible. He trusted that the House would see fit to accept the second reading. If allowed to be read, he should be happy to entertain any suggestions for amendment when the Bill was considered in Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, it was with great reluctance that he rose to make any observations in the form of objections to the Bill; but, inasmuch as he had been a Member of the Committee that had inquired into the matter when the last Bill was passed, he felt bound to make a few remarks at least. He was sure that it would be satisfactory that that Bill should repeal the former one. All the evidence that had been taken went to convince him that no measure for the protection of the birds mentioned in its Schedule was necessary. Protection was already afforded to those kinds of birds that were hunted and killed as game—as, for instance, waders and birds of that sort. The Bill then before them was for the preservation of the smaller sorts. He thought it would be found that its only tendency would be to create a new offence. It would affect those people who kept wild birds in cages for the pleasure they derived from their singing; and as those persons mostly lived in large towns it seemed hardly fair to deprive them of that pleasure. There
    1994
    could be no doubt that a certain amount of cruelty might be said to exist in the case of caged wild birds; but, at the same time, he should not like to see the persons that kept them, and could not otherwise hear their singing, robbed of that pleasure. There were also a large number of birds that supplied the markets; and if that Bill came into force he thought it would seriously affect the trade in quails, and a great number of other birds of that kind. On the whole, considering the number of objections that there must really be to the Bill, he felt rather inclined to suggest that it be read that day three months.
    MR. M. BROOKSsaid, he thought the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) did not go far enough. Some protection ought to be extended to plovers whose eggs were exposed for sale to a large extent in the shops. He had hoped when the Bill came on for second reading its provisions would be extended to the protection of sea birds.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time. The hon. Baronet (Sir David Wedderburn) had said that he knew of no birds that had been lessened in this country; but he (Mr. Onslow) could inform him that the number of goldfinches and greenfinches had very much decreased in Surrey, Essex, and elsewhere. He thought, however, that quails which came from Africa and the Mediterranean ports should be made an exception to the provisions of the Bill.
    MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, he thought the Schedule at the end of the Bill ought to have specified more clearly the birds to be protected.
    MR. PELLsaid, that a number of mischievous birds, including the sparrow and the lark, would be protected by the Bill, to the inconvenience of gardeners and the people generally. If the Bill passed and went to a Select Committee, he hoped the question as to all wild birds would be as carefully considered as it was some years ago by the former Committee.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, the House had rather misapprehended the object of the Bill. His hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Fell) could kill as many sparrows or other birds as he wished; but his object was simply to prevent their being destroyed or captured for the purpose of

    1995
    sale. He quite agreed with, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) as to the decrease in the number of certain small birds. The birdcatchers themselves had given evidence in favour of a Bill of the kind not introduced to the House, and had admitted that the little birds in the neighbourhood of large towns had got so scarce that they were obliged to go further afield to capture them.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

    CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
    Resolutions [June 11] reported, and agreed to.
    Instruction to the Gentlemen appointed to prepare and bring in a Bill upon the Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means on the 11th day of June, and agreed to, That they do make provision therein pursuant to the Resolutions now reported and agreed to.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 221.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
TOOK THE OATH—Several Lords. Sat First in Parliament—The Earl of Yarborough, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister*(85).
Second Reading—Glebe Loan Acts (Ireland) Amendment* (84).
Withdrawn—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (Rosstrevor)*(71).
Royal Assent—Public Works Loans [43 Vict. c. 1].

EARLDOM OF MAR.

  RESOLUTIONS.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY,in rising to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee appointed "to consider the matter of the petition of the Earl of Mar and Kellie, presented on the 5th of June l877"(the prayer in which petition was that the title of Earl of Mar should be brought down to the date of 1565 from its existing place on the Union Roll), "and the precedents applicable thereto;" and to move the following Resolutions—namely,
  "That the Select Committee thus appointed having reported to the House on the 27th June 1877 'that they had not been able to discover any precedents of orders made by the House for altering the order of precedence of the Peers of Scotland on the Union Roll;' and further, 'that they were not disposed to recommend that any order should be made on the petition of the Earl of Mar and Kellie;'
  "That in order to give due effect to the recommendation contained in this Report it is incumbent upon this House to rescind their order of 26th February 1875, which ran as follows, viz: 'That at the future meetings of the Peers of Scotland, assembled under any Royal Proclamation for the election of a Peer or Peers to represent the Peerage of Scotland in Parliament, the Lord Clerk Register, or the Clerks of Session officiating thereat in his name, do call the title of Earl of Mar according to its place on the Roll of Peers of Scotland called at such election, and do receive and count the vote of the Earl of Mar claiming to vote in right of the said earldom, and do permit him to take part in the proceedings of such election;'
  "That in accordance with the Resolution of 25th July 1862, whereby Scotch Peers are not required to obtain from this House recognition of their titles before enjoying their rights and privileges, and voting at the election of Scotch Representative Peers, John Francis Erskine, being the nephew and undisputed next-of-kin of the late John Francis Miller, Earl of Mar (who died in 1866), and having observed the forms usually complied with by Scotch Peers on succession, is entitled in accordance with the protests made by many Peers at Holyrood to remain in enjoyment of the privileges he inherited as tenant, de jure and de facto, of the earldom of Mar standing on the Union Roll of Scotland, no other person laying claim to that same earldom, and the said earldom having been in no way-affected by the Resolution of this House on 26th February 1875, which conceded to the Earl of Kellie an earldom of Mar of the date of 1565,"
  said, he was obliged to make an apology to their Lordships for bringing forward a Scotch subject; for ever since he had been in Parliament he had found that Scotch subjects were considered rather uninteresting in their character. He had, in fact, heard it said—"Why can-
  1866
  not these Scotch fellows manage their own business?" He must say, for his own part, that if this particular matter had been left to be decided in Scotland it would have been decided speedily, finally, and without ambiguity; and, further, it would have been decided to the satisfaction of the bulk of the Scotch people. He desired to state plainly, and as concisely as he could, the objects of these Resolutions. First of all, he wished that House to extricate itself from what he might term an embarrassing state of ambiguity, which he would explain by-and-by; secondly, he was anxious that the House should uphold Acts of Parliament which were passed in Scotland before the Union, or in the British Parliament since the Union. By an Article in the Treaty of Union it was specially reserved that no judgment of the Court of Session before the Union should be reversed after the Union by a British Tribunal. On the same point he wished to maintain the Resolutions of that House that had been adopted by their Lordships as Standing Orders. Thirdly, he wished to try and remove an imputation under which one whom he must regard as a co-Peer had been lying for some years—namely, that he had assumed a title which was not his by just inheritance. He hoped to be able to show their Lordships that that imputation should be removed; and, further, he was anxious, by these Resolutions, to get their Lordships to show their determination to maintain the integrity of the Scottish Peerage as it appeared on the Union Roll, and as it at present stood as shown by the Reports of the Lords of Session at the command of their Lordships' House at various times—first, in 1708; secondly, in 1739–40; thirdly, in 1760, as well as at subsequent dates. To make his Resolutions intelligible, however, he should be obliged to ask their Lordships to bear with him while he related one or two historical facts which were undisputed, in order that they might really appreciate the case he had to put before them. In the year 1715, when George I. was on the Throne, the Earl of Mar, with many Scotch Peers, was attainted of high treason. In the year 1824, an Act of Parliament called the Restoration Act removed that attainder; but before that Act was passed, it was remitted to the Law Officers of the Crown-—one of whom was the Attorney General, Sir

  1867
  John Copley, afterwards Lord Lyndhurst, and another the Lord Advocate of Scotland—to investigate whether John Erskine of Mar was able to make himself out heir of line to the attainted Earl. This was answered in the affirmative by the Law Officers of the Crown. It was stated that he had satisfactorily made out his pedigree. In his favour, therefore, it was that this reversal of attainder was given. Incredible as it might seem, it was to the grandson of this attainted Earl that this act of grace was given, although 109 years had elapsed since the attainder. But, it might be asked, how was the Report in favour of the grandson? He (the Earl of Galloway) said, it came to the grandson through his mother—and he begged their Lordships to take note of this. Now, the whole of this question lay in whether the remainder was to heirs-general or to heirs-male, and in this case he was declared in the Act to be grandson, and the lineal descendant of the attainted Earl, through his mother, Lady Frances. Their Lordships might imagine that this circumstance should be conclusive; but he believed it was said that this was only a description of the grantee, this John Erskine of Mar, who had his title restored, and it was said that it was in consequence of his mother happening to marry a collateral heir-male of the family that he was really awarded this restoration title. He thought the best proof he could give of that was this—that this restored Earl had in his father's lifetime, and after his mother's death, succeeded to the estates in virtue of which he held the title; so actually he had been in possession of the estates during his father's lifetime, in consequence of having succeeded to his mother as heir of line. He hoped he should not be trespassing on their Lordships' indulgence in giving them a still stronger proof, which he found in the short debate that took place when this restoration was being made. Sir Robert Peel, who was then Mr. Secretary Peel, introduced this Bill for the reversal of the attainder in the other House. He said:—
  "He moved the first reading of five Bills for the reversal of attainders—first, in the case of Lord Stafford, as a reparation for an act of injustice. The restoration of the other titles, however, stood upon a different footing, for they
  1868
  were all acts of grace and favour. In addition to Stafford's Bill, he proposed the second reading of Bills for reversing the attainder of the Earl of Mar, Viscounts Ker and Strathallan, and Baron Nairn."
  The point he (the Earl of Galloway) wished particularly to draw their Lordships' attention to was this—that in the debate which took place, after various complimentary remarks had been made by Mr. Abercrombie and Sir James Mackintosh, Captain Bruce on that occasion said that—
  "With the warmest approbation of the principle of these Bills, he could not praise that selection which took the taint from the blood of the lineal descendants of the parties who had first suffered, while the collateral branches of others whose descent was pure in their own line were still thought fit to be excluded from His Majesty's grace. Such was his own case. When His Majesty was in Scotland he had felt it his duty to present a petition for the reversal of this family attainder, and he had never heard since why this partial restoration of honours was selected. His (Captain Bruce's) blood collaterally descended from Lord Burleigh, who died without issue, whose descent was pure and untainted, and yet he was excluded from Royal grace."
  This went to show that if he had not been heir of line the reversal of attainder would not have taken place. Lord Binning concurred, especially as by the old Scotch law the claims of a collateral branch were not escheated by forfeiture. He added some words expressive of the unaffected pleasure it gave him to see the illustrious house of Mar restored to its honours. Mr. Secretary Peel, in replying, said he was much satisfied with the approval evinced, and said—
  "There remained two modes of proceeding, either an indiscriminate reversal of all attainders, or a selection. To the first mode were found objections almost insurmountable, and, indeed, some persons lineally descended had not, on considerations of property, wished for an extension of the bounty to them. Restoration of blood was not, in the language of the law, a matter of grace and favour. As accidentally the Bill for the reversal of the attainder of the Earl of Mar was the last brought in, he begged just to remark that that Earldom was one of the most ancient in the kingdom, and, according to Lord Hailes, existed before any records of Parliament."'—[2 Hansard.]
  He had quoted these remarks to show that he was not now dealing with the modern title of 1565, and to show that the title on the Union Poll was still in force, and had not been taken away. He did not know that it could be taken away by Act of Parliament—certainly not with them in Scotland—and he wished their Lordships to grant a mea-

  1869
  sure of indulgence, while he showed, why it was that this grandson of the attainted Earl, lineally descended through his mother, was re-instated, and why it was, being re-instated, that he was declared restored to his old family honours, so ancient and illustrious. He would do this by pointing to the circumstances that induced those who made up the Union Roll of Peers in 1605–6—the only time when the old nobles of Scotland were ranked according to their precedence—to put the Earl of Mar where he was on the Union Roll, and where he had stood since that time. When this ranting took place, as their Lordships might be aware, every Scotch noble was directed to produce every document that would show his proper place in respect to precedence. There were then no dates ostensibly attached to Scotch Peerages. An erroneous idea had got abroad that because they are 1457 was put against the Earl of Mar, therefore he could not have shown any document for precedence previous to that year; but that impression was entirely fallacious. What the Earl of Mar produced in 1605–6 to show that he was entitled to the precedence awarded to him was, first of all, a Charter of Isabel. Countess of Mar in her own right, dated 9th December, 1404. He did not refer to the one dated August of that year, which was afterwards declared null and void by the Scotch Parliament, but the later one. In the second place, there was King Robert's Charter affirming the same, and tracing the Peerage through Isabel to Robert Earl of Mar, in 1438, and also the Act of Parliament of 1587, along with other documents. When the Earldom was restored in 1824, it was restored by an Act passed by virtue of his direct succession from Isabel Countess of Mar. But he (the Earl of Galloway) would not trouble their Lordships with the other Acts. He would rather content himself with asking them to mark the quotation from the Act of 1824, for the reason that there were some who held that although it was perfectly true that the restored Earl, in 1824, was restored as the lineal descendant and grandson through his mother, yet that there was nothing in that Act which led to the conclusion that it was to go in remainder to future descendants as heirs general. The quotation read that—
  1870
  "Whereas, by an Act passed, John Francis Erskine, Earl of Mar, is the grandson and lineal descendant of the said John, Earl of Mar, that the said John Francis Erskine, and all the persons who would he entitled, after the said John Francis Erskine, to succeed to the honours, &c. …ֵas fully and honourably as if the said Acts of Attainder had not been made."
  It was intended that the Act of Attainder should be reversed, and that the family of Mar should be restored to the same position as they occupied before the year 1715. He should be surprised if their Lordships did not agree to that proposition, as he thought it was too plain and manifest that that was the intention. In 1824, the grandson was restored, and the following year, 1825, he was succeeded by his son, who in 1828 also died, and was succeeded by his son. Up to that time, he would mention, the succession went as Earl of Mar. There was no doubt that he was entitled to the title of Kellie, which became vacant a year after he succeeded to the Earldom, of Mar. But the Earldom of Kellie being a title somewhat lower down, it was thought by the ninth Earl of Kellie, who died some time previous, that the Earl of Mar might not care to acquire the lower title also. The late Earl of Mar, however, did claim the title of Kellie, and it was adjudged to him in 1835. Thenceforth he bore the title of the Earl of Mar and Kellie, and he was the only Peer of that title that had yet existed. The Earl having died in the year 1866, brought matters down to the time of the present unfortunate discussion. In the year 1866 the Earl was succeeded by his sister's son, John Francis Erskine Good-eve Erskine. During the late Earl of Mar's lifetime his nephew had always been looked upon as his heir, and in proof of the Peerage having descended to him through the female line four centuries and more back, he himself protested that he was premier Earl. He further enjoined upon his nephew that when he succeeded the same protest was to be made—namely, that he was premier Earl. He would there point out to their Lordships that John Francis Erskine was exactly the same relation to the son of the restored Earl as the restored Earl was to the attainted Earl—namely, grandson and lineal descendant, through his mother bearing the same name, Lady Frances. Thus he was heir general to his uncle, according to the Scotch law, the same way as his relative,

  1871
  Colonel Erskine, succeeded as heir male to the title of Kellie. Then he was presented to Court as Earl of Mar, and his vote was taken over and over again as Earl of Mar at Holyrood. Moreover, his cousin, Earl of Kellie, continually addressed him as Earl of Mar, wrote to him as such, and received him at his house as Earl of Mar. Indeed, there was no question about the matter of any sort or kind, and it was more than a year afterwards when a change came over the spirit of his (Earl of Kellie's) dream. On one occasion, when the Earl of Mar's vote was recorded, and accepted, as usual, at Holyrood, it was protested against in their Lordships' House as void by the Earl of Kellie. The question, therefore, came before the House whether the Earl of Kellie's protest was thought admissible. This was decided against the Earl of Kellie, and the Earl of Mar's vote was accepted as valid, and nothing had occurred since that time in the least way to challenge the validity of the vote. In the following year, 1867, the late Earl of Kellie began to lodge cases in their Lordships' House, claiming to be Earl of Mar. He was never ready, however, to proceed with those cases, and the House was constantly prevented from proceeding with them, on account of being constantly asked to wait for more and more evidence. The Earl of Mar immediately presented a Petition as Earl of Mar, asserting his right to the title, and protesting against the claim of the Earl of Kellie. It was in the year 1871 that the Earl of Kellie's counsel announced in their Lordships' House that he was prepared, or that he would be prepared in the following Session of 1872, to go on with this case. In January 1872, however, the Earl of Kellie died, and of course that ended the case for that Session. But then, he was sorry to say that the late Earl's son and successor, the following year, 1873, produced another case. If he (the Earl of Galloway) remembered right as to the position of the matter, at that time the son was not himself prepared or ready to proceed. The case was, therefore, held over or dropped, and in the year 1874 a second case was lodged, and he would mention that the Petition of the Earl of Mar had been lying in their Lordships' House during those years waiting to be heard against the cases that had been lodged. He wished further to explain
  1872
  that the Earl of Mar had never been a claimant. It had been said that he had been a claimant; but he was in a position to entirely deny that assertion. He simply acted in a Constitutional manner in coming to their Lordships' House and taking the action he did. He succeeded as heir to his uncle, and the only possible way in which he could be put out of his position was by some other claimant coming in, and claiming, not a title which was not upon the Union Poll, but his title which was upon the Union Roll. The case in question was tried; but before it was tried in the year 1873–74, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was requested as to the right of claim put in by the Earl of Kellie to the Earldom of Mar. He would ask their Lordships' indulgence while he read the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the matter. But first he would remark that there was a change of Government at the be-ginning of the year 1874, which their Lordships would remember, and so, by a chapter of accidents, in 1873 the matter was relegated to the Law Officers of the Crown under Mr. Gladstone's Government, and the case not coming on, it was further relegated to the Law Officers of the Crown under Mr. Disraeli's Government of 1874. It was a fact, however, that the Law Officers of the Crown of 1874 held the same opinion upon the subject as the Law Officers of the previous Government. Therefore, the Law Officers, both Scotch and English, in 1874 endorsed the opinions of those of 1873. It was insisted in their Report, over and over again, that the succession to the Earldom of Mar should continue through the female line, and allusion was made to a Charter of Queen Mary, in which the words were used "restored to heirs general in 1565 continuing." The Law Officers of the Crown then continued—
  "It was immaterial, however, to consider whether there was a re-creation or a restoration to the dignity of Earl of Mar in 1565, inasmuch as if it was a re-creation, the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to indicate the intention that the dignity should descend to heirs general and not he limited to heirs male. On the other hand, if it was a restoration of the previous dignity,"[as they upheld]"there is sufficient evidence to show that it is in like manner descendible to heirs general, and hence that the heir male, Lord Kellie, has not made out his claim to the dignity of Earl of Mar, in the Peerage of Scotland."

  1873
  He need not remind the House of the terms of the Act of 1824; but he desired to advert to what was technically called the judgment of the Committee of Privileges. He wished to say one or two words about that matter, because it had been wrongly held that the Committee of Privileges was identical with the final Court of Appeal. He was quite certain that he only had to appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to corroborate him when he said that the Committee of Privileges stood in the light of a Court of advice to their Lordships' House. When Petitions were presented to their Lordships by the Crown for their advice, they were generally referred to the Committee of Privileges, who advised the House as to what course should be taken thereupon. And what was the judgment, so called, upon the matter in question, which the Committee of Privileges put forth? It was as follows:—
  "Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee that the Claimant, Walter Henry, Earl of Kellie, Viscount Fenton, Lord Erskine, and Lord Dirleton, in the Peerage of Scotland, hath made out his claim, &c., to the honour and dignity of Earl of Mar, in the Peerage of Scotland, created in 1565;" and "that report thereof be made to the House."
  He wished the House to observe that it was an opinion of the Committee that it was the creation of July or August 1565, because in the elaborate speeches made by the learned Lords on the occasion, it was specially stated that no weight was to be put upon the Charter of Queen Mary of the 23rd of June, 1565. That Charter they implied had nothing whatever to do with the case. They avowed that "There was not a little of evidence to guide them in forming an opinion;" and they said it was evident that a Charter must have been created between the 28th July and the 1st of August. Therefore, putting on one side and up-setting the validity of the Charter of Queen Mary as they did, it was not for him to call into question the Resolution of the Committee of Privileges, and he did not intend to say whether they were right or wrong. He would reserve that to himself. The opinion of the Committee of Privileges, technically called a judgment, was not in his opinion—and he wished to enforce the point upon the consideration of the House—of any actual judicial importance. It was specially stated that it was not a judgment, but only an
  1874
  opinion, and that should be made clear, because the Resolution of the Committee being taken as a judgment stood in the way of the vote of so many in their Lordships' House. The opinion was recorded on the 25th of February, 1875, and was reported to the House and sent to the Lord Clerk Register on the 26th of the same month. He was surprised that the matter was carried out in such an informal and hurried manner. After this, the Earl of Mar, the heir general and nephew to the late Earl, who died in 1866, attended at an Election of Representative Peers at Holy-rood, and offered his vote as a Scottish Peer on the Union Roll. He was shocked to say this was refused by the Lord Clerk Register. This refusal was, he thought, an illegal act on the part of the late Sir William Gibson-Craig. The Earl had as good a right as any other Peer in Scotland to record his vote on that occasion, notwithstanding this very remarkable order sent down to the Lord Clerk Register. If the order was not intended for the Earl of Kellie in respect of his comparatively novel Peerage of 1565, it was ambiguously worded; but if that order was intended to relate to this Earl of Kellie who had just been given his new creation of Earl of Mar, it was, he had no hesitation in saying, ultra vires of their Lordships' functions. It was a legislative act which could only be performed by the whole of the Estates of the Realm. A right to vote was possessed by one Earl; but to give an order in consequence to the Lord Clerk Register to accept his vote as a Peer upon the Union Roll of another date than that of his Peerage was a legislative function which, with all due respect to their Lordships, he said was not within their Lordships' prerogative. It was, therefore, an informal order without precedent, and also an illegal order. In addition, there were eight Peers aggrieved by this order. If the Earl of Kellie, who had just been given this new title, was empowered to vote in respect of the Earldom of Mar on the Union Roll of Scotland which had not been awarded to him, those seven or eight Peers were aggrieved whose Peerages came in precedence between the old Earldom of Mar on the Union Roll and that accorded to the Earl of Kellie, and accordingly more than half of these immediately protested against what had

  1875
  been done. These protests had been going on since, and had been increased. Each year they would increase until some notice was taken of their protests and right was done them. He would have wished, had there been time for it, to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee appointed in 1877, to show that there were no precedents for altering, as they had done, the precedence of the Union Roll. The Lord Clerk Register of Scotland had been ordered again and again to send a return of the Roll of Scotch Peers, and it had always come back in the same way. In the year 1739–40 the House of Lords ordered the Lords of Session to make up a Roll and send it to the House. The Lord Chancellor in 1740 acquainted the House of Lords that the Roll had been received. Their Lordships had ordered also a Report as to the limitations of Peerage, and the Lords of Session replied that they had great difficulty in answering that part of the order relating to the particular limitation of Peerages, and were only able instead to make the following remarks, to which he called the special attention of the Chairman of Committees:—
  "First, they take the liberty to remark that they cannot discover the records of any patent of honour created at a period earlier than the reign of King James VI.,"
  who followed Queen Mary.
  "Before that time titles of honour and dignity were created by erecting lands into earldoms and lordships."
  He must be permitted, as regarded this creation, to quote what was written in Hansard as having been said by his noble and learned Friend who was on the Woolsack last year, and also one remark of the noble and learned Lord now on the Woolsack. The late Lord Chancellor (Earl Cairns) remarked last year—
  "All I have to say 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."—[3 Hansard, ccxlviii. 137.]
  The present Lord Chancellor said, on the same occasion—
  "The House has decided that a Peerage of Mar was created by Queen Mary, and that the Peerage so created belongs to the Earl of Kellie; but it has pronounced no judgment, either affir-
  1876
  mative or negative, with respect to the ancient Earldom of Mar."—[I bid. 146.]
  This order was, therefore, as he had shown, utterly at variance with the recorded opinion of the Committee of Privileges as to the awarded claim of the Earl of Kellie; and he maintained that the Earl of Mar, who succeeded his uncle, would be defying the Resolution and Standing Order of this House if he came and made his claim at the Bar of the House. This heir to the old Earldom of Mar was exactly in the same position as every one of the Scotch. Peers; and until some one made a protest against his being the rightful heir to the title as he was, being indisputably the heir of his uncle, it was their duty to acknowledge him as Earl of Mar. What he wanted to place before them was this: supposing the Earl of Mar were, in defiance of the Standing Orders of this House, to come and claim at the Bar the concession of his right, he could not imagine there would be much doubt as to the result. It was undoubted that he could show the Charters, Acts of Parliament, and other deeds, which must convince the Law Officers of the Crown that he was the rightful heir to the old title. It was impossible to think that that House would be likely to reverse the old Acts of the Scottish Parliament and the judgments of the Court of Session, and to override the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown and the Act of the Imperial Parliament of 1824. It was inconceivable that if the Earl of Mar came and made that claim the noble and learned Lords in that House would adopt such an extraordinary course. They would have to concede his right; but the fact of their doing so would not interfere with the rightful position of the Earl of Kellie. He would still be in the same position as he now was with respect to the Peerage of 1565. He had intended to bring some additional details before their Lordships; but he really thought it was unnecessary. He must, however, remark that he was suffering very great disadvantage from the fact that many noble Lords who took a great interest in this question were, unfortunately, obliged to be absent. There was Lord Crawford, the Marquess of Bute, and the Earl of Stair, besides Lord Napier of Ettrick, who had protested over and over again against what

  1877
  had been done at Holyrood. These noble Lords were all absent, and the Duke of Marlborough—who was interested in a Scotch title his ancestors held before they ever had an English one, but which, not being descendible to heirs female, he no longer possessed—had not been able to be present. There was a great deal of delicacy of feeling amongst the Peers in this House about this question, as it seemed like making a sort of attack upon the judgment of the House of Lords. This he disputed, and having looked into this question very carefully, which, as it happened, he had done at the request of his noble Friend the Earl of Kellie, who was interested so deeply in it, he had come to the determination that, whatever obloquy he should receive, he would be true to the traditions of his order, true to his co-Peers in Scotland, and true to this House of Parliament, and put before their Lordships what he thought was the right view of the case. He thought he had conclusively proved his case to their Lordships; and he would ask them to uphold the laws of the country, to uphold the Standing Orders of this House, and to acknowledge one of their co-Peers who had indisputable rights which they were bound to recognize. He earnestly asked them to put aside the idea that they were acting against the law in any way, or against precedent, in giving effect to his Resolutions in sweeping away the order to the Lord Clerk Register. He found that his claim to their Lordships' support, in behalf of his 2nd Resolution, rested on the Standing Order of the House, which had become a Standing Order, at the instance of the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch), who, in 1862, induced the House to rescind Lord Rosebery's Resolution of 1822. With respect to this 2nd Resolution, it had no effect one way or another except that it announced the Standing Order of the House with respect to Scotch Peers, for the Earl of Mar had no more business to come to the Bar of that House to make claim to his title than had any other Scotch Peer. That was done by another ceremonial altogether in Scotland. He prayed that his noble and learned Friends the late and the present Lord Chancellors would look fully at the question, and he would venture to say they would find the difficulties could only be aggravated by not getting rid of this order of the House to the Lord
  1878
  Clerk Register, which was the subject of his 1st Resolution; and, by accepting the 2nd Resolution, the noble and learned Lords would be only accepting a Resolution which embodied what was at this moment a Standing Order of that House. The noble Earl concluded by moving the Resolutions of which he had given Notice.
  Moved to resolve, That whereas the Select Committee appointed "to consider the matter of the petition of the Earl of Mar and Kellie, presented on the 5th of June 1877" (the prayer in which petition was that the title of Earl of Mar should he brought down to the date of 1565 from its existing place on the Union Roll), "and the precedents applicable thereto," reported to the House on the 27th July 1877 "that they had not been able to discover any precedents of orders made by the House for altering the order of precedence of the Peers of Scotland on the Union Roll," and further "that they were not disposed to recommend that any order should be made on the petition of the Earl of Man and Kellie"; in order to give due effect to the recommendation contained in this Report it is incumbent upon this House to rescind their order of 26th February 1875, which ran as follows, viz.: "That at the future meetings of the Peers of Scotland assembled under any Royal Proclamation for the election of a Peer or Peers to represent the Peerage of Scotland in Parliament, the Lord Clerk Register, or the Clerks of Session officiating thereat in his name, do call the title of Earl of Mar according to its place on the Roll of Peers of Scotland called at such election, and do receive and count the vote of the Earl of Mar claiming to vote in right of the said Earldom, and do permit him to take part in the proceedings of such election."—(The Earl of Galloway.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the noble Earl who had just addressed their Lordships had no occasion to apologize for bringing this question before the House merely because it was a Scotch question. The attention of the House had shown that it was an interesting question to many of their Lordships. He entirely sympathized with the historical interest which attached to it in the minds of many of the Scotch Members of their Lordships' House, and also with the personal feelings which his noble Friend had expressed towards the gentleman whose claim he had so ably advocated. The only thing which he could not help regretting when he heard his noble Friend was, that he was not addressing the rather more limited assembly of their Lordships' House, which met at an earlier hour of the day, and that he was not clothed in habiliments similar

  1879
  to those in which he (the Lord Chancellor) was obliged to address them. The speech would have done credit to an advocate at their Lordships' Bar. What the noble Earl had done was to invite their Lordships to deal judicially with a question which had not come before them in a judicial manner, and to supersede entirely the established usage and practice of their Lordships' House in respect to the proper manner of dealing with judicial questions. He had not the least doubt of the sincerity of his noble Friend when he said that his object was to uphold the laws of the country, and to maintain the authority of the Orders of their Lordships' House. He hoped the noble Earl would think him equally sincere when he said that if they were to take the advice which the noble Earl had given them, the result would be to subvert the laws of the country, and the order and usages of their Lordships' House. The noble Earl had dealt with two distinct subjects; and he would say, before he made the few observations he thought it his duty to make upon these subjects, that he would rigidly abstain from entering into the merits of the legal questions with which the noble Earl had dealt. The Motion dealt with two subjects—one, the right to a certain Peerage, and the other the right to a certain precedence upon the Union Roll. The more important of these subjects was the title to the Peerage, and that, he supposed, was the main object which the noble Earl had in view. The noble Earl asked their Lordships to adopt a Resolution by which they would declare that—
  "John Francis Erskine, being the nephew and undisputed next of kin of the late John Francis Miller Earl of Mar (who died in 1S66), and having observed the forms usually complied with by Scotch Peers on succession, is entitled in accordance with the protest made by many Peers at Holyrood to remain in enjoyment of the privileges he inherited as tenant, de jure and de facto, of the Earldom of Mar, standing on the Union Roll of Scotland, no other person laying claim to that same earldom, and the said earldom having been in no way affected by the Resolution of this House on 26th February, 1875, which conceded to the Earl of Kellie an Earldom of Mar of the date of 1565."
  This was to declare that, this House, sitting in its legislative capacity, without any reference from the Grown, and without any opinion by a Committee of Privileges, could properly assert that the
  1880
  noble person named—for, undoubtedly, he was noble by birth, and he was quite willing in courtesy to call him so—the Earl of Mar, though not yet recognized by their Lordships' House, and was entitled to all the rights appertaining to that Earldom, including those of a vote, and a certain precedence at the election of Representative Peers in Scotland. He (the Lord Chancellor) ventured to say that such a Motion was absolutely unprecedented in any case of either an English, Scotch, or Irish Peerage. He need not remind their Lordships of the course which was invariably taken when a claimant, finding his right to be a subject of controversy, took means to establish that right.; He petitioned the Crown to declare his right. The Crown referred that Petition to their Lordships' House, and the House sent it to the Committee of Privileges according to their invariable usage and practice, because the matter required to be dealt with in a judicial manner, and upon judicial principles. That Committee comprehended all the legal ability in their Lordships' House; but it was not confined to lawyers. It comprehended those who were accustomed to attend to the Business of the House, and any noble Lord who was desirous of attending was as much at liberty to do so as any other. That was the Constitutional way of dealing with a question of this kind; and he must confess he was a little surprised when he heard the noble Earl, who had evidently taken great pains to inform himself on this subject, say it was an unconstitutional thing, and a defiance of some supposed Standing Order of their Lordships' House, for a Scotch Peer who claimed a title which was the subject of controversy to seek to establish his right to the title by a Petition to the Crown, which could be referred to the Committee of Privileges. The noble Earl had given no reason for that extraordinary opinion. The thing was constantly done. When a person claimed a Scotch Peerage by remote collateral succession, or when any other circumstances raised a doubt or controversy, he petitioned the Crown; and the Crown, as a matter of course, referred the Petition to the House, and the House, equally as a matter of course, sent it to the Committee on Privileges. And if the noble person whose cause the noble Earl had advocated desired this course to be

  1881
  adopted, it was perfectly competent for him to do what he had described. He would not by so doing be contravening any Order of their Lordships' House, and he thought it would be the natural, and the prudent and proper, course to adopt. The only ground for that singular opinion of the noble Earl was an Order made some years ago by the House, on the Motion of a noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleuch) to the effect that in certain circumstances, where a person succeeded to a Peerage by collateral and not direct descent, he should come to that House and establish his right before his vote was admitted at Holyrood. About ten years after this Order, for reasons which the noble Duke would, no doubt, himself state to the House, it was thought right that it should be rescinded; and the consequence was, that at the present time there was no Order of their Lordships' House which prevented any claimant to a Peerage in Scotland from assuming the title and claiming to vote at the election of-Representative Peers. But it was quite a non sequitur, his noble Friend would allow him to say, to suppose that because no such claimant was obliged to come and so establish his right, that his right was to be taken as capable of being otherwise established when the claim was matter of controversy. In point of fact, they all knew that many such claims had been made, and many such had been admitted, as far as voting at Holyrood was concerned, which were wholly and absolutely unfounded, and in which the position of the claimants was extremely different from that of the noble person here concerned. But to say that in every case of the assumption of a title which was in controversy, and where there was a serious legal doubt, therefore their Lordships' House should declare off-hand who had the right to it, was a proceeding quite inadmissible. There was another course which might be pursued, and that had been pointed out in the Report of the Select Committee of their Lordships' House which sat in 1874. He could not imagine why that course had not been taken. It was there pointed out, that in an Act of Parliament, passed in 1847, there was a provision settling the mode of proceeding when any question of this kind arose. The solution so prescribed by the Statute Law of the Realm was, that if a right
  1882
  to vote was claimed at Holyrood in an election of Representative Peers, and any two Peers should protest against that vote, the matter must be reported to the House of Lords, and the House must deal with it. It would call the person who claimed to vote to substantiate his right; and if he did not come forward and do so, or if he failed to do so when he did come forward, he was, by the Statute Law of the Realm, to be for ever excluded. The Committee of their Lordships' House decided that that was the natural way of bringing any such claim to the test. Why had this not been done? The noble person who claimed to be the ancient Earl of Mar had not, as far as he (the Lord Chancellor) was informed, since that Resolution was passed, tendered his vote at the election of Representative Peers. An election was held at Holyrood only the other day. If he had done so, he thought it highly probable that two Peers would have been found to enter a protest against receiving that vote, if only for the sake of having all ambiguity on this question cleared up. He could not think that the friends of that gentleman who, having that mode of establishing his right, had, for whatever reason, not thought fit to take a step which would have made it possible to establish it, were now entitled to come to their Lordships' House and summarily declare that, without hearing evidence, or the arguments of counsel, or going judicially at all into the matter, their Lordships should assume his right to the title, and act as if it had been proved before them. In regard to the Report of the Committee on Precedence, although the Committee did not think it necessary or expedient to say that their Lordships could not, under any circumstances, deal with the question of the Union Roll of the Peers in Scotland, they had pointed out that there was no example of any such thing having been done. On that Union Roll and on the earlier Decreet of Ranking of the Commissioners of King James VI. from which it was made up, there had been placed, and there had remained since 1606 in the order in which it now stood, the Earldom, and only one Earldom of Mar. Whether it was rightly placed there or not might be a matter of controversy. He thought it would not be easy to reconcile its exact place on that Roll, either with the date of

  1883
  the first creation of the ancient Peerage, or with that of the Peerage which the House found to have been created by Queen Mary in 1565. But what he wished to point out was this—that whether that precedence was or was not capable of being reviewed and altered by some competent authority—if their Lordships were that authority—they could only exercise such a power after a Petition was presented to the Crown, and referred by the Crown to their Lordships' House, and they could only exercise it judicially, as they would deal with every other question as to dignities or honours so referred to them by the Crown. If the matter were to go before their Committee of Privileges, all the materials relating to it would be brought before the Committee, and, no doubt, it would be duly and properly considered. He rested his objections to the course now proposed on this fact—that there was on the Union Poll only one Earl of Mar; there had never been more than one; and it must be determined judicially that there existed another Earldom of Mar before their Lordships could rescind the Order and adopt the Motion, which proceeded essentially upon the assumption that there was another. For these reasons, and feeling that their Lordships could not properly enter further into the merits of the case, he should resist the Motion before the House.
  THE EARL OF MANSFIELDsaid, the difficulty was this—that their Lordships' House had given an Order which there was great difficulty in following out. First of all, they had decided there was a Peerage which nobody ever heard of before the Earldom of Mar of 1565. They could not dispute the validity of that proceeding, though the majority of persons in Scotland believed no such Peerage existed. On the former occasion on which this subject had been discussed, he had thrown out a challenge to any noble Lord to show one single tittle of evidence in any document drawn from history that such a Peerage existed, and the challenge had not been met. How did the matter stand at present? At the election of Peers in Holyrood the Earl of Mar was called. A noble Lord got up and claimed to vote in respect to that title, which was founded in 1457; but his title was admittedly the later one, said to be created in 1565. How could they possibly reconcile this claim?
  1884
  When a protest was made against his vote being received in respect of the old Earldom of Mar, the Lord Clerk Register said—"I have received an Orderfrom the House of Lords, and I must obey it." Now, their Lord ships ought to rescind that Order. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said there was no precedent for rescinding that Order; but he forgot that the Order of the House was rescinded in 1864. Many noble Lords who spoke on this subject on the last occasion were perfectly ignorant not only as to the theory and the law, but as to the practice of the law of Scotland; and he wished that such cases were referred to the Court of Session, where they were acquainted with the Scotch law. He intended to support the Resolutions of his noble Friend.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, that, though this might be a very dull matter to English Peers, it was a question which Scotch Peers thought very strongly about, and which affected the position of every Scotch Peer at that moment. He had not intended to take part in that debate, having made some observations upon the case on a former occasion; but, as a Scotch Peer, he objected to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he said that the Earl of Mar should have tendered his vote at Holyrood, that two Peers should have protested against his vote being received, and that then the Earl of Mar should come and claim his rights in that House. A large minority of Scotch Peers had already protested against the Earl of Kellie's vote being received as Earl of Mar, and that noble Earl should be called upon to come and prove his right to such vote. All that these Resolutions would do was to rescind the Order which had been made; and if they were agreed to he would have to come to prove such right. He protested against the Earl of Kellie giving a vote in the Peerage of Scotland which had not been adjudged to him. There was a question whether it was necessary for Scotch Peers to come to that House to prove their right or their claim to vote. Many Scotch Peers had not been required to do so. He would suggest that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the two Resolutions were not quite

  1885
  consistent. There were many persons who might find themselves able to vote for one when they could not vote for the other. That was the position in which he found himself placed. He could not vote in that House that Mr. John Francis Erskine was entitled to the Earldom of Mar, because the House would obviously in that case be acting without any evidence before it and in a judicial manner. He would, therefore, suggest that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Galloway) should withdraw his 2nd Resolution. With regard, however, to the other Resolution, as to the question of precedence, he thought there was a good deal to be said in favour of the case put before their Lordships by the noble Earl opposite. He asked the House to rescind an Order of the House; and if the House could send down an Order it could rescind it. What had been the effect of the Order? It was virtually a direction to the Lord Clerk Register to accept the vote of the Earl of Kellie as Earl of Mar. At the present moment the Earl of Kellie, whenever there was an election of Representative Peers of Scotland, voted as Earl of Mar, and in virtue of a Peerage of 1450 to which he had never ventured to lay claim, and which was the Peerage which Mr. Erskine did claim, and which he was entitled to according to the findings of the Scotch Courts, whatever those findings might be worth. If Mr. Erskine wished to prove his title conclusively he must come to that House. But that was no reason why the House should not rescind the Order which gave the Earl of Kellie the privilege of voting in virtue of a Peerage to which he laid no claim. If the noble Earl opposite would withdraw his 2nd Resolution he should have much pleasure in voting with him.
  LORD INCHIQUINsaid, that even if the course recommended by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Camper-down) were followed, their Lordships, by agreeing to the 1st Resolution, would virtually declare that Mr. Erskine was entitled to the Earldom of Mar without having heard the evidence on which his claim was founded. He thought that was a most irregular course, and one which the House could not adopt.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, that as he had been referred to during the debate, he might say that he obtained in 1862 the abrogation of the Order passed at the instance of the late Earl of Rosebery in 1822 because it did not work well. The question was, who was Earl of Mar? The Earldom claimed by the Earl of Kellie was the Earl of Mar on the Union Roll. Now, very few of the Peers on the Roll were placed in their proper position. As he understood, the Union Roll was so named because it was the Roll of Peers called for by that House after the Act of Union, between England and Scotland was passed. It was the Roll of Peers who were called to the Scottish Parliament. He thought Scotch Peers should be called upon to go through every form which an English or an Irish Peer went through when he succeeded his father or a collateral inheritor. They ought to prove their right on petition to the Crown, when it would be referred to that House, and then to the Lord Chancellor; and if everything were found by him to be in order he would report to the House; but if not it would be referred to the Committee of Privileges for the matter to be judicially considered.
  LORD HOUGHTONquestioned the fitness of the Committee of Privileges to determine the points relating to the disputed Earldom, and argued that they could only be decided after a serious historical inquiry.
  LORD BLANTYREsaid, surely if John Francis Goodeve Erskine ought to prove his succession to the old title of Earl of Mar, the Earl of Kellie was equally bound to do so. It was undisputed that the old Earldom of Mar, which owed the high place it did on the Union Roll from the date 1457 being attached to it, passed to heirs general (female as well as male), and that John Francis Good-eve Erskine (not the Earl of Kellie), was heir general and next of kin to the late Earl, who died in 1866. Lord Kellie had not claimed any title of earlier date than 1565, because there was a nearer heir than himself to the old Earldom of 1457 on the Union Roll.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY,in reply, said, as far as he could follow the arguments, they only gave reasons why the Resolution standing on the Paper

  1887
  should be accepted. He asked their Lordships to rescind the Order of February 26, 1875, in order to clear the atmosphere. He must take exception to what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had said when he referred to the Earldom of Mar, said to have been created in 1665, and said Mr. Goodeve Erskine was a "claimant." He never was a claimant, and no one in the House could show a reason why the Earl of Mar should be put in a different position from any other Scotch Peer in the House. He wished again to say that he did not put any stress on the 2nd Resolution, as it would not help the question one way or the other; but he could not follow what his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack said, nor see any reason why their Lordships should not accept the 1st Resolution. He would withdraw the other, after the general support he had been accorded on both sides of the House. If the 1st Resolution were not accepted he would certainly go to a division upon it.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 49; Not-Contents 41: Majority 8.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Blantyre, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Portland, D.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Abercorn, M. (D.Abercorn.)

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Bristol, M.

  Dorchester, L.

  Dunsany, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Devon, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Grey de Radcliffe, L. (V. Grey de Wilton.)

  Haddington, E. [Teller.]

  Houghton, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Lilford, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Morton, E.

  Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

  Sandwich, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Northwick, L.

  Zetland, E.

  Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)

  Halifax, V.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Hood, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Powerscourt, V.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Strathallan, V.

  Templetown, V.

  [Teller.]

  Trevor, L.

  Abinger, L.

  Ventry, L.

  Bateman, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Beaumont, L.

  Windsor, L.

  1888

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.]

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Devonshire, D.

  Clinton, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Forbes, L.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Foxford, L. (E. Limerick.)

  Hammond, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Airlie, E.

  Inchiquin, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Granville, E.

  Monson, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Lathom, E.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Redesdale, E. [Teller.]

  Poltimore, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Sandhurst, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Sefton, L. (E. Sefton.)

  Sherborne, L.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

  Melville, V.

  Tredegar, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Winmarleigh, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.

STREET ACCIDENTS (METROPOLIS).

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD FORBESasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether their attention has been called to the number of accidents caused by vehicles in the streets of the Metropolis, as given in a Return for the month of May from the Metropolitan hospitals? He did not bring this matter forward for the purpose of blaming the police, because he thought they discharged their difficult duties admirably, and took every possible care of unwary foot passengers, but because he thought the attention of the Government ought to be directed to the large number of street accidents. It appeared from the Return in question that in May 1879, 17 people had been killed in the Metropolis by street accidents, while a large number of others had been more or less injured. During the last year, 1879, 236 persons had been killed and 3,399 injured. It did not appear to him that many accidents were caused by hansom cabs going slowly; but they were attributable, as their chief cause, to light carts and vans. He believed that our Returns contrasted unfavourably with

  1889
  those of the Continental cities, such as Paris and Berlin. He recommended that lamps should be required to be carried by all vehicles travelling in the streets of the Metropolis after dark, and that an additional number of refuges should be erected for the protection of the public at the several main crossings.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLETOWNexpressed his gratification that since the question was last before their Lordships' House the number of street accidents had considerably diminished; but, at the same time, he recommended the establishment of more protected crossings, and still greater vigilance on the part of the police, whose numbers might be increased for the purpose. He trusted that the Government would endeavour through the Home Office to influence the Vestries in regard to the necessary measures, so that street accidents by passing vehicles might be avoided as far as possible.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEsupported the views advanced by his noble Friends, and hoped that the Government would take the matter into consideration.
  THE EARL OF FIFE,on behalf of the Government, said, there were no Returns from the hospitals of the number of accidents in the streets. It would hardly be possible, indeed, for them to make such Returns, as many of the persons injured were not taken to the hospitals at all. Nor were there any Returns at Somerset House. He had, however, received a Return from the police authorities, and from that Return he found on inquiry that the number of deaths from street accidents in the past month was 22 in the Metropolitan and City areas, and the gross number of accidents was 321. This gave an average number of 5· deaths and 80 cases of injury, which was a slight increase over the number in the corresponding month of last year. While it was scarcely fair to take the month of May, when London was more full than, perhaps, any other month of the year, as a sample, he was compelled to do so because the figures in reference to May were the only ones available. Their Lordships would agree that the police arrangements at the crossings in London were far better than they were in Continental cities. Great credit was due to the police authorities for the excellent arrangements they made, and to the parish authorities for erecting places
  1890
  where passengers could take refuge. Nothing could really be done by the central authority to protect those who, with a little care and caution, might readily protect themselves and prevent accidents from occurring to them in the streets.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to legalise Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister—Was presented by The Lord HOUGHTON; read la. (No. 85.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.