Sitting of 1 May 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 2)*[145]; Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order*[144]; County Courts Act (1867) Amendment*[146]; Educational Endowments (Scotland) [147].
Second Reading—Military Manœuvres [134]; Public Health (Scotland) Act Amendment*[115].
Committee—Report—Militia Storehouses [116].
Considered as amended—Places of Worship Sites*[97].
Third Reading—Turnpike Roads (South Wales) [101], debate adjourned; Commonable Rights*[23], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT,1881—MR. HENRY O'MAHONY, AN AMERICAN CITIZEN DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Henry O'Mahony, an American citizen, has been prevented by the Governor of Monaghan Gaol from writing to the United States representatives and has been told that he cannot make complaints as to his treatment except through the Chief Secretary?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, there was no truth in the statement that Mr. O'Mahony had been prevented from writing to the Representative of the United States.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his Question. He had asked him whether Mr. O'Mahony had been prevented from making any complaints as to his treatment in prison, except through the Chief Secretary?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the hon. Member's Question related to communications with the United States. It was true that the Governor of the gaol informed Mr. O'Mahony that he could address the Chief Secretary if he had any complaint to make; but Mr. O'Mahony replied that he "would have nothing to do with the Chief Secretary." Had he complied

  1809
  with the regulations, his letters would have been duly forwarded.
  MR. HEALY: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he thought my Question referred only to American citizenship, why he obtained information as to the latter part of it?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I thought the first part of the Question was most important.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—SEARCH FOR ARMS.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he issued a warrant under the provisions of the Arms Act of last Session to search the residence of Mr. John Connolly, Town Hall, Dundalk, a pensioner of the 19th Regiment, who lost his arm at the Alma; and, if so, whether he issued the said warrant upon sworn informations, or on the mere "reasonable suspicion" of Mr. Supple, Sub-Inspector Royal Irish Constabulary, Dundalk?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the warrant had been issued upon credible and trustworthy sworn information.

  INTERNATIONAL FISHERY CONFERENCE—POLICE OF THE NORTH SEA.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Governments who were represented at the International Fishery Conference held at the Hague last autumn, have approved the recommendations made by their delegates with regard to regulating the police of the fisheries in the North Sea; and, whether it is probable that any Convention will be concluded on this subject between the Maritime Countries whose coasts abut on the North Sea?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: All the Governments who were represented at the International Fisheries Conference held at the Hague last autumn, with the exception of Sweden and Norway, from whom no final reply has yet been received, have approved generally of the draft Convention which was recommended by the delegates, and which was, in the main, based on the suggestions made by Her Majesty's Government before the Conference assembled. I have every reason to hope that
  1810
  an International Convention will be concluded in a few days; and Mr. Trevor and Mr. Kennedy, who conducted the negotiations on behalf of this country with great ability and complete success, have been appointed Her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries for signature of such a Convention, and will leave to-morrow for Holland. Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and the Netherlands will also be represented on this occasion. The Papers will be laid on the Table as soon as practicable; and I anticipate with confidence that the establishment by this Convention of efficient police regulations will be sufficient to check the disorders which have, unfortunately, been too frequent among the fishermen in the North Sea.

  MAIN ROADS (ENGLAND)—LEGISLATION.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he can state when he proposes to introduce the Bill, referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the expenses of main roads?
  MR. DODSON: In answer to the hon. Baronet, I have to say that I hope shortly to be able to make a statement as to the mode in which it is proposed to distribute this grant. I also hope that, as it is a financial arrangement, it will be found practicable to give effect to it without any special legislation.

  PUBLIC HEALTH—SHEFFIELD SMALL-POX HOSPITAL.
  MR. W. LOWTHERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is true that the resident surgeon, one of the nurses, and the cook, at a lately erected small-pox and fever hospital at Sheffield, were attacked by small-pox; and, whether he has any information that these officials were vaccinated before entering on their duties?
  MR. DODSON: It is true that the resident surgeon and the cook at this hospital have recently been attacked with small-pox; but none of the nurses have been attacked. The medical officer had been vaccinated and re-vaccinated; the cook had been vaccinated in infancy, but, having afterwards suffered from small-pox, was not re-vaccinated on entering the hospital. Besides the medi-

  1811
  cal officer and cook, one of the ward servants was attacked. She had been vaccinated when a child and re-vaccinated after coming to the hospital, but with only partial success. In all these three instances the attack was in a modified form, and, in the cases of the medical officer and the ward servant, scarcely any rash appeared. The infection seems to have been derived from a very severe case of confluent hemorrhagic small-pox, where the patient had never been vaccinated, and this is the only case which has terminated fatally in the hospital.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND)—OLDHAM BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. W. LOWTHERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether three members of the Board of Guardians at Oldham lately bought the carcase of a pig which the medical officer had ordered to be killed and burned; whether the carcase of the pig was sold to a butcher for twenty-five shillings by these three guardians; whether, on the facts becoming known, the money was handed over to the master of the workhouse; and, whether those three gentlemen continue to act as guardians?
  MR. DODSON: I have caused inquiry to be made into this matter; but it does not appear that the medical officer ordered the pig in question to be killed, although, assuming that it was suffering from the same malady as another one which had been taken ill, he suggested that the carcase should be burnt. It is right, however, to say that he does not appear to have seen the pig; and the Guardians afterwards called in a veterinary surgeon, who examined the carcase and distinctly stated that it was fit for human food. The pig was subsequently taken away and sold by three of the Guardians for a sovereign, and the amount paid by one of them to the master of the workhouse. The three Guardians who took away the pig still continue to act as Guardians.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF GUARDIANS FOR THE RATHDRUM UNION.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, as President of the Local Government Board, he is aware that Mr.
  1812
  Gaskin, of Newtownboswell, Ashford, county Wicklow, has memorialized the Board, complaining of the conduct of the clerk of Rathdrum Union, in his capacity of returning officer, at the late election of guardian for the electoral division of Killosky, in that Union, and asking for a scrutiny of the votes; whether Mr. Gaskin had a large majority of the votes of rated occupiers, but was defeated by proxy votes; whether the validity of many of such votes was questioned by Mr. Gaskin, but, no professional agent being present on behalf of the rated occupiers to press the objections, all the proxy votes were admitted; whether, at the election for the adjoining electoral division of Wicklow, where a professional agent was employed, a large number of proxy votes were presented, and were objected to; whether the returning officer asserted they were all right, and wanted to record them; but, the objector insisting on examining them, many were rejected, being irregular, and the other candidate was returned; whether the Local Government Board have, on the ex parte statement of the officer whose conduct is impugned, refused Mr. Gaskin the inquiry sought for; and, whether, in justice to the rated occupiers, he will cause a strict investigation to be made into the circumstances of the case?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, it was the case that Mr. Gaskin had memorialized the Local Government Board; and the latter, having made inquiry into the matter, were satisfied with the explanation of the Returning Officer. In the absence of evidence in support of Mr. Gaskin's statements, they did not think further inquiry necessary.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT,1881—MR. MICHAEL RYAN-WALL.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the case of Mr. Michael Ryan-Wall, at present detained under the Coercion Act in Naas Gaol, has been considered; and, whether he will order his release?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: This case has been reconsidered; and I regret to state that the Lord Lieutenant cannot, at present, recommend his release.

  WAYS AND MEANS—RESOLUTION 3—COFFEE.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, after the proposed Resolution has become Law, prohibiting the mixture with coffee of any other ingredient than chicory, a drawback will be allowed to manufacturers upon other vegetables hitherto used for mixing, and upon which the same Duty as the Duty upon Chicory has been paid?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The Government will be prepared to refund the duty in all cases in which such vegetable substances are still in charge, after the duty has been paid thereon. But where the duty has been paid, and the goods have been delivered for home consumption, Her Majesty's Government must adhere to their invariable practice of not making repayment.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—CO. MONAGHAN.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the town of Monaghan, it is a fact that of a force of over twenty men all are Roman Catholics but three, and that the head constable, the sub-inspector, and the county inspector are also Roman Catholics; whether this is in accordance with the usual practice in the distribution of the force; and, whether he will direct any change to be made?
  MR. CALLAN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I beg to ask him, Whether it is a fact that in Dundalk, where nine-tenths of the population are Catholics, the County Inspector, the Sub-Inspector, the Head Constable, and the majority of the constables are Protestants; and, whether this is in accordance with the usual practice in the distribution of the force?
  MR. SEXTONalso asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he was aware that in Cookstown the Constabulary Force was entirely composed of Protestants; and that in Armagh, Down-patrick, Enniskillen, and several other towns in Ulster all the police officers were Protestants?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he had no knowledge of the facts referred to in the Questions of the hon. Members for Louth and for the county
  1814
  of Sligo; but they enabled him to state, in reply to the first Question, how exceedingly inconvenient it would be if the police were distributed and located according to their religious persuasion. Any attempt thus to distribute them would, he believed, be most disadvantageous to the good government and the efficiency of the force. As regarded the facts mentioned, he was informed that the actual number of constables in Monaghan was 21, of whom five were Protestants, which was about the same proportion as existed between the two religious persuasions in the place. The Head Constable, the Sub-Inspector, and the County Inspector were Roman Catholics. The County Inspector and Head Constable had been several years in the town, and the Inspector General was not aware of any reason for their removal. To remove a police officer from one district to another solely on account of his religion would not be expedient.
  MR. MACFARLANEinquired, whether the Chief Secretary had received any complaint of misconduct on the part of the Sub-Inspector which would justify his removal?
  MR. HEALYasked further, whether it was not the practice to send police to the South from the North, and to the North from the South?
  [No answers were given to these Questions.]

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—PENSIONS.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in the late Government with reference to the claims of those members of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force who retired before August 1874 to the increased scale of pensions provided by the Act of 1874, the Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to consider and report upon such claims, and the justice or expediency of satisfying the same?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that this was a matter which had been very carefully considered by his Predecessor and himself, and the conclusion arrived at was that there was not a sufficient case for the appointment of a Select Committee.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1854—THE CHANNEL STEAMER "ALBERT EDWARD."
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the President of the Board of Trade, What number of passengers the "Albert Edward" is licensed to carry in her trips across the Channel, and what number of these could her boats accommodate in case of an accident; whether he is aware that in the United States of America a Law exists compelling all passenger ships to be provided with such numbers of boats, rafts, life-preservers,&c, as shall best secure the safety of all persons on board such vessel in case of disaster; and, whether it would be possible for the Board of Trade to issue an order by which the establishment of boats, rafts,&c. in passenger vessels should bear some relation to the number of passengers carried, instead of having reference solely to the size of the ship, as at present is the case?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The passenger certificate issued by the Board of Trade in the case of the Albert Edward authorized that vessel to carry 364 passengers. She was provided with boats in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854; and these boats would, in accordance with the American rule, be deemed sufficient for 83 persons. I am aware that the law of the United States requires life-jackets,&c. to be on board, sufficient, together with the boats, to float all the passengers; and it is not an uncommon thing for English steamers to be provided with life-jackets for all on board. The owners of the Albert Edward have complied with the letter of the law, and I have no power to compel them to do more than they have done in the matter of boats. But I am advised that there are many methods by which seats and deck fittings may be made buoyant and capable of keeping persons afloat; and I hope that the attention which this Question has called to the subject will lead the Companies whose steamers cross the Channel to adopt some such method.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—Sec. 10.
  MR. FITZ-PATRICKasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881" prevents the landlord and tenant of a
  1816
  future tenancy, created after 1st of January, 1883, from contracting freely for such lease as they please, or whether such a lease should conform to the requirements of a judicial lease, under the tenth section of the Act?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER),in reply, said, the Question referred to the construction of certain clauses of the Land Act. He did not think it desirable, or in accordance with precedent, that an official opinion should be pronounced in the House on an abstract question of law, which could not at present assume a practical form, and which afterwards might become the subject of legal proceedings.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1876—EMIGRANT SHIPS.
  Mr. A. MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the Reuter's telegram from New York, which states that—
  "The surgeon of the steamship—, which has arrived here from—, reports that the steerage passengers brought by her were, at the time they embarked, in a very weak state from want of food. Seven of them died on the passage;"
  whether it is really a fact that they were in an exhausted state at the time of their embarkation; and, if so, how they came to be passed by the medical officer at the port of clearance; and, if this statement be not correct, whether he will order a searching inquiry into their treatment on the voyage?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to the telegram referred to. I have made inquiries. A telegram has now been received from New York, which corroborates the statement that seven persons died on the voyage out; but these deaths do not seem to have been connected with the alleged want of food. One woman died in childbirth; one man died of consumption; three children died from diarrhœa (one of them a cabin passenger), and one from marasmus, and another from worms. Two of the children were under one year old, and two others under four years old. Of the remaining 903 passengers, all are reported as arriving in good health, and as having made no complaints. The Sanitary Inspector and the Emigration Officer report that they made a careful

  1817
  inspection of the emigrants before starting, and that the passengers were not in an exhausted condition. The passengers, the ship, and the food were inspected before the ship left. There were no cases of infectious disease found among the emigrants, the accommodation was found to be good, and in accordance with the statutory enactment bearing upon it, and the food, which was sufficient for 32 days', was found to be good. The passage lasted 12 days. If the hon. Member will give particulars of any special point on which he thinks inquiry ought to be made, I will consider it; but, as at present advised, I cannot see anything calling for further inquiry.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—LABOURERS' COTTAGES.
  MR. VILLIERS STUARTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Return of the number of cases in which the Commissioners under the Land Act have ordered the building or improvement of labourers cottages with the addition of garden allotments; in how many cases their orders have been carried out; and, whether he will inform the House what penalty the Commissioners are empowered to inflict in case of non-compliance with their orders?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the House had ordered a Return of the provision made for labourers on the 28th of January last, and that Return would give all the information which could be supplied up to that date. A further Return would be prepared. The Commissioners informed him that they had no means of knowing what provision for labourers had been made. The penalties for non-compliance with the orders of the Commissioners were of the ordinary kind—namely, attachment of the person or sequestration of goods.
  MR. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, If it is not a fact that there is no machinery provided by the Land Act to compel farmers to comply with the order of the Court regarding cottages and garden allotments?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERwas understood to assent to the statement.

  RUSSIA—PERSECUTION OF THE JEWS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
  1818
  Affairs, Whether, inasmuch as the course hitherto pursued by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the outrages on the Jews in Russia has failed to bring about a cessation of these outrages, Her Majesty's Government will now, following the humane example of the Government of the United States, consider the necessity of making a representation, either in conjunction with the other Great Powers in the form of a Collective Note, or otherwise, demanding that Russia shall discharge the common obligations of justice and humanity towards the Jews?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As to the addition which the hon. Member has just made to his Question, I have to say that though paragraphs have appeared in the newspapers to that effect, we know nothing with regard to the truth of the statement. I can only say, in answer to the Question as it appeared on the Paper, Her Majesty's Government had reason to believe that official representations would do more harm than good. The further Reports which have been received will be presented to Parliament.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MICHAEL WHITTAKER AND THOMAS DUNPHY.
  MR. LALORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, nearly five months ago, Michael Whittaker and Thomas Dunphy were arrested under the Coercion Act, on the same charge of "inciting others to an act of intimidation;" whether the parish of Aghaboe, in the Queen's County, where the Messrs. Whittaker and Dunphy reside, has been entirely free, both before and since their arrest, from crime and outrage of any kind; and, is it not a fact that Thomas Dunphy has been released from prison, while Michael Whittaker is still detained there; and, if so, why has Mr. Whittaker been treated differently?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the cases referred to by the hon. Member were under consideration.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—RICHMOND PARK.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has

  1819
  now obtained information as to the restrictions against hackney carriages entering Richmond Park, and what steps he has taken for their admission?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I stated a few nights ago that I believed that hackney carriages were permitted to enter Richmond Park; I find upon inquiry that a subtle distinction is drawn between hackney carriages, numbered by the police and standing for hire in the streets or at the station, and those standing at livery stables; and that the former are not permitted to enter the Park. I have communicated with His Royal Highness the Ranger on the subject, and he agrees with me that this distinction cannot be justified. Henceforth, therefore, hackney carriages of all kinds will be permitted in Richmond Park.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO MURDER.
  MR. CALLANasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report which appeared in the "Freeman's Journal" of Monday last, of the proceedings in the Dunleer Petty Sessions Court on Tuesday, April 20th, when a number of the most respectable tenant farmers of the County Louth were, on the information of a person named Rue, charged with conspiracy to murder Sub-Inspector O'Callaghan of Drogheda; whether upwards of twenty individuals resident in the district were named in the sworn depositions of Rue with being parties to the conspiracy; and, if so, why is it that five only, out of the twenty so named, were charged before the magistrates; whether it is true, as admitted by the informer, on cross-examination by Mr. Rogers, the attorney for the parties,
  "For four months I have been in the pay of the Government, getting information for the police. Gave in all the names of the parties present at the meeting to Mr. O'Callaghan, as well as the five defendants; they were nearly all Lord Bellew's principal tenants. Expects the Government reward if the defendants are convicted;"
  and, whether, in view of the fact that Captain Keogh, R.M. after the investigation, which was held in private, having remanded the case until 2nd May, allowed the defendants to stand out on the "nominal bail of£25 each," he will
  1820
  direct that the proceedings on Tuesday next shall be in open Court, and have an official shorthand writer in attendance, in order to facilitate a prosecution for perjury in the case, if the magistrates so direct?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON),in reply, said, in consequence of this Question he had looked into The Freeman's Journal; but having no other information on the subject, he might state, on the authority of that newspaper, that on the occasion referred to four persons were charged with conspiracy to murder before two magistrates in Dunleer. They decided to hear the cases in private, according to the statutable authority which magistrates possessed; and, therefore, there could be no report of the evidence taken before them. But, according to The Freeman's Journal, "from our own Correspondent," it appeared that the cases had been adjourned till the 2nd of May, which would be to-morrow. He had no power to direct that the inquiry should then be held in open Court; and if he ventured to so direct the magistrates would inquire under what authority he did so, to which he probably would not be able to give a satisfactory answer. The hon. Member knew very well he had no power to direct that an official shorthand writer be present. But there could be no miscarriage of justice, because the evidence of the witnesses must be reduced to the form of depositions, and be signed by the witnesses in presence of the accused. These depositions would come before himself for direction as to future proceedings, and if there were not sufficient grounds for proceeding he would not direct a prosecution.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had forgotten to answer the second paragraph, which alleged that 20 persons were named in Rue's depositions, but that only five were prosecuted.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The second paragraph of the Question I know nothing whatever about. The number of persons charged, according to the report, was five.
  MR. CALLANgave Notice that he would draw the attention of the House to this proceeding, and also to another proceeding last month, in which, not-

  1821
  withstanding the evidence of this information, no prosecution took place.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—RULES RELATING TO VISITS TO PERSONS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he would consent to modify the rules relating to visits to prisoners detained under the Coercion Act, so that visits of wives to their husbands might take place in an ordinary room instead of the cage, and be extended beyond fifteen minutes in every case where a promise has been given by the visitor not to bring out any letter, or otherwise infringe the regulations?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that, as he stated on a former occasion, the 15 minutes allowed for each visit would be extended in any case in which reasonable representations were made to the Governor of the prison.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with that part of the Question which related to visitors promising not to convey away letters.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Representations must be made in each case.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—REV. THOMAS FEEHAN.
  MR. MARUMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in reference to the case of the Rev. Thomas Feehan, C.C. now detained in Mary borough Gaol, in default of entering into bail for good behaviour, his attention has been called to the following circumstances:—That the High Court of Justice of the Queen's Bench in Ireland has, upon application for a certiorari, with the view to have the committal quashed, granted a conditional order, on the ground of the rejection of legal evidence in the Court below, that is to say: the refusal to hear the reverend defendant himself, as a witness on his own behalf, in order to show cause why he should not be put under a rule of bail; that one of the three presiding justices, viz. myself, dissented from such ruling, hut, upon asking counsel for the reverend defendant for some authority for the procedure, was informed that none existed upon the point, although the Statute of Edward III. under which the proceedings were laid,
  1822
  has been in operation for over five hundred years; that it is laid down in Coke's Institutes, 4, p. 181, that bail under the Statute shall be demanded for "the prevention of offences before they be done," and therefore the reverend defendant was a competent witness on his: own behalf, and should have been heard; that the reverend defendant has now been in custody for upwards of one month, and his curacy has lapsed in his regard, inasmuch as another clergyman has been appointed in his absence to the mission of Rathdrasay; and, whether, under all the circumstances of the case, he will consult the Law Officers of the Crown; and if, in their opinion, the committal and detention be not warranted in Law, he will forthwith take proper steps to have the Rev. Thomas Feehan at once released from prison, instead of being obliged to await the dilatory process incidental to a decision of the Court of Law?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, a Provisional Order had been granted by the Queen's Bench for a review of the question of the legality of this gentleman's detention. The matter had been decided by the Court as the proper tribunal, and it was impossible for the Irish Executive to interfere.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (SCOTLAND)—EVICTIONS IN THE ISLAND OF SKYE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will order that the Skye Crofters, now committed for trial, shall, instead of being tried summarily, have the privilege of being tried by a jury of their countrymen, and that the presiding judge shall be one disconnected with the exceptional proceedings attendant on their recent apprehension?
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked, Whether it is the case that instructions have been given that the five Crofters recently arrested in Skye, and now released on bail, be tried summarily; whether they have applied through their agent to be tried by jury; whether he intends to comply with their application; and, whether he will give directions that the trial shall take place at Portree instead of Inverness?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I see no reason for recalling the order for trial before the Sheriff

  1823
  summarily, which was made, after full consideration of the case, by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland and myself, when it was first reported during the Easter Recess. Knowing that the people of Skye are generally peaceable, honest, and law-abiding, and having reason to believe that they had been misled by evil counsel into resisting an officer of the law executing a legal warrant, we thought that the offence would not be repeated if it were made clear to them, as speedily as possible, that the law would be vindicated, though for the first offence the sentence and punishment might not be severe. A summary trial before the Sheriff is the proceeding appropriate to the least grave offences reported to the Crown Office. It can be held with the least delay, and imprisonment for 60 days is the maximum punishment which the Sheriff can award in such a trial; while it is, of course, within his competency to pronounce even a lighter sentence, if he thinks it will meet the justice of the case. As regards the last part of the Question, I have to say that it is intended that the trial shall proceed before Sheriff Blair at Inverness. He has not hitherto taken part in the measures which have, unfortunately, become necessary for vindicating the law in Skye. I may also add that this arrangement was made before the present Question was put. In answer to my hon. Friend's (Mr. Dick-Peddie's) Question, I have to say that I shall communicate on the subject, and ascertain whether the trial can take place at Portree.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, the Lord Advocate had not answered the last part of his Question.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The solicitor or agent for the accused did make such an application.

  ENGLAND AND FRANCE—THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is to be understood that Her Majesty's Government have determined not only to refuse permission to construct a Channel Tunnel without the consent of Parliament, but also to prohibit the mere boring of an experimental hole of limited dimensions under the sea, in order to ascertain the nature of the
  1824
  strata, at the risk and expense of the borers?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; the Government have come to the conclusion that it is desirable that what is called the experimental boring of the Channel Tunnel Company should be stopped, and that further expenses should, as far as possible, be saved until Parliament has come to a decision whether the Channel Tunnel is to be made or not.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. MOLLOY.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has received an application from Mr. Molloy, a prisoner under the Coercion Act in Dundalk Prison, for release on parole to attend to some necessary farming operations; whether the men arrested in the district of Wexford County, to which Mr. Molloy belongs, have not all been released; and, whether he will reconsider his case?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, the release of this prisoner had been ordered.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CAPTAIN PLUNKET, R.M.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the Report, in the "Daily News" of 28th April, of certain observations made by Captain Plunket, R.M. at the Petty Sessions Court of Castle-island, county Kerry; whether Captain Plunket stated, amongst other things, that the
  "people had lost all sense of honesty, decency, and religion,"
  and that
  "if any persons were found in his district attempting to establish a branch of the Ladies' Land League, he would issue a warrant for their arrest;"
  and, whether it is a fact that recently Captain Plunket issued orders to the police in his district, whenever they found more than two men assembled upon the road to disperse them, and, if necessary, to use their weapons in doing so?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, there was another Question on the

  1825
  same subject by the noble Lord (Lord Algernon Percy)—Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Dublin Daily Express" of the 28th of April:—
  "The Hon. Captain Plunkett, the special resident Magistrate of the South-Western District, delivered an address yesterday from the Bench at Castle island Petty Sessions Court, county Kerry, on the terrorism prevailing in the country, and the cowardice of the farmers, who will not combine against it. Captain Plunkett said there was no case on record in the history of the world where the people had become so demoralised in a short time;"
  and, whether he proposed to take any further steps to put a stop to the system of terrorism at present existing in Ireland? He should like to answer both Questions. He had received a telegram from Captain Plunkett, who informed him that he did say—
  "The people had lost all sense of honesty, decency, and religion;"
  and that—
  "If any persons were found in his district attempting to establish a branch of the Ladies' Land League, he would issue a warrant for their arrest;"
  but he did not give orders to the police to disperse parties of two or more assembled upon the road. He did say that the intimidation prevailing was appalling, and that—
  "There was no case on record in the history of the world where the people had become so demoralized "—[Mr. HEALY: Bosh!]—"in so short a space of time."
  He did not say that it was impossible for the Government to cope with the outrages; but he did say that people who did not assist in their own protection and in the repression of crime did not deserve any protection. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not know that he should exactly have recommended the use of these words, had he been consulted; but he thought that in the meaning of them, and in what they were understood to imply, they were very correct statements.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the County Kerry was the most rack-rented county in Ireland, and that the Land Courts reduced the rents in many cases in the proportion of£17 to£4?
  [No answer was given.]

  LAW AND POLICE—THE SALVATION ARMY—RIOTS AT OLDHAM.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that on Wednesday last the roughs of Oldham made an organised attack on a meeting of peaceable citizens by throwing burning materials into the building where they were assembled, and then savagely driving back those who attempted to escape from the danger; whether any of those taking part in these proceedings have been arrested; and, whether, in view of these constantly occurring and recurring savage scenes, he contemplates introducing any measure for the repression of outrages in England and in Scotland?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am happy to inform my hon. Friend—and I am sure he will be glad to hear—that the Report of the Chief Constable states that the newspaper report on which his Question is founded is entirely untrue. The service was continued without interruption. Mr. Cooper Clay, a leading member of the Salvation Army, was present during the whole of the service, and states that when he saw the newspaper report on Thursday morning he immediately wrote to The Manchester Courier, contradicting the statement. That, however, has not prevented its being re-printed in many other newspapers. The whole foundation for this story is that some mischievous person inserted some burning cotton with Cayenne pepper into the orifice of the ventilator leading into the room, which caused some of the people to sneeze; a proceeding, no doubt, much to be reprobated. I would say to my hon. Friend and others, there appears to be an increasing demand for sensational paragraphs. When there is a sensational paragraph, there is a sensational article founded on it—[Mr. WARTON: And a sensational Question!]—and the people give credit to it that it does not deserve, and form an exaggerated notion of the state of the country and of dangers that do not exist.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. LUKE ARMSTRONG.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1827
  Whether it is true that the Governor of Enniskillen Prison is in the habit of detaining letters written by suspects on purely personal or business affairs, and declining to give any reason whatever for his conduct; whether he imposes a rule that no communication shall be made to the Chief Secretary except by way of petition, and that the terms of the petition shall be dictated by himself; whether this Governor, on the 18th ultimo, stopped and detained a letter from Mr. Luke Armstrong, of Tubber-curry, county Sligo (who has been detained under the Coercion Act in Enniskillen Prison for the past four months), demanding to be put on trial, before any tribunal the Chief Secretary may appoint, for the offence of which he is suspected; and, whether, as Mr. Armstrong's business is being ruined by his prolonged imprisonment, and as there is nobody except his sister, a very young girl, to look after his affairs, the Government will either bring him to trial or release him?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he was not aware that the Governor of Enniskillen Prison was in the habit of detaining letters written by "suspects" with regard to purely personal matters, nor did he impose any such rule as the Question alleged. It was a fact that on the 18th instant the Governor stopped a letter written by Mr. Luke Armstrong. He had been given the option of appealing to the Chief Secretary. Mr. Armstrong's case was re-considered on the 18th ultimo; but it was decided that at present he could not be released.

  UNIVERSITY REFORM (SCOTLAND).
  MR. DICK-PEDDIEasked the Lord Advocate, Whether any determination has yet been come to as to the appointment of an Executive Commission for dealing with University Reform in Scotland?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Yes, Sir; the appointment of an Executive Commission has been resolved on. A Bill on the subject has been prepared, and will be introduced at at the earliest possible opportunity.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—ERECTION OF HUTS FOR EVICTED LABOURERS AT RHODE, KING'S CO.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  1828
  If it be true that on Monday the 24th ultimo at Rhode, in the King's County, the erection of huts to shelter poor labourers evicted by David Kerr was prevented by force under the orders of the resident magistrate; if it be true that these evicted labourers were thus left without any shelter, and without any means of subsistence, and under what law or by what authority the resident magistrate acted; and if he will take all necessary steps to prevent all further opposition to the erection of these huts, and against a repetition of such action; whether on the above occasion a most respectable farmer named O'Brien was taken into custody by orders of the resident magistrate, and then and there sentenced to a fortnight's imprisonment with hard labour for questioning the right of the magistrate to prevent the erection of the above huts; and, if he will order his immediate release?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that in March the labourers at the place in question struck for an increase of wages, and a number of Scotch labourers were obtained to take the place of those who left. Protection to these men had been necessary, and a military guard was accordingly sent down. On the 25th of April materials for huts arrived at Rhode, and several people arrived to erect them. The Sub-Inspector and Head Constable swore informations that the huts were being erected to intimidate Mr. Kerr and his workmen. Mr. O'Brien, who was erecting them, was accordingly arrested, and called upon to enter into recognizances to be of good behaviour. That he refused to do, and was sent to gaol. The addition of "hard labour," he thought, could not be correct. If the Resident Magistrate acted without sufficient authority, the Superior Court would overrule his decision. He now wished to make a correction with regard to an answer given to a Question asked on the 4th of April. On that day, his hon. and learned Friend (the Solicitor General for Ireland), in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) relating to John Reynolds and Patrick Gannon, stated they were detained on suspicion of maiming cattle. John Reynolds had written to say he was arrested on suspicion of intimidating persons not to pay their rent. The mistake arose in consequence of

  1829
  there being two Gannons, one of whom was arrested on suspicion of maiming cattle; but as the one arrested with John Reynolds was not the one arrested for that act, it was only right that he should make this statement to the House.
  MR. HEALY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it makes any difference to the man what he was arrested for, so long as as he is kept in gaol?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Evidently this person—and very naturally—did think it made a difference whether he was arrested for maiming cattle or intimidation, as he had written complaining of the accidental mis-statement.
  MR. HEALY: Nobody would believe either charge.

  TURKEY—ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the statement, which has appeared in several newspapers, to the effect that the Sultan has recently taken steps to effect reforms both in his Asiatic and European Dominions; whether it is proposed in such reforms to introduce into European Turkey the institutions drawn up by the Commission, of which the noble Lord the Member for Calne was a member; and, whether any, Papers can be laid upon the Table on the subject?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Nothing very definite is known as to the intentions of His Majesty the Sultan with regard to the introduction of administrative reforms; and I cannot, therefore, say whether the reforms contemplated extend to the whole Empire, nor can I state their probable nature. His Majesty has, however, given Lord Dufferin repeated assurances of his determination to introduce reforms; but it would not be advisable to lay on the Table, at the present moment, any Papers upon the subject.

  THE REVENUE—THE WINE DUTIES.
  EARL PERCYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he contemplates the readjustment of the Duty on Spanish wine in the direction indicated in his Fianncial Statement on June 10th, 1880?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The question of the Wine Duties has been,
  1830
  and is still, under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  INLAND REVENUE—RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY—THE CHEAP TRAINS ACT, 1844.
  MR. BUXTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering that he has declared himself unable to repeal the Railway Passenger Duty, and that his predecessor has admitted that
  "The state of the Law on the subject is one which cannot he permanent, and ought not to be permanently maintained,"
  he is prepared to bring in a Bill for the better regulation of the Exemption from the Duty, which may be capable of enforcement?
  MR. BROADHURSTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering that ho is unable to repeal the Railway Passenger Duty, and that the Cheap Trains Act of 1844 has been practically abrogated by judicial decisions, which, though only partially put in force, have increased the duty on third class passengers from £70,322 in 1873, to £333,032 in 1880, he will at the earliest opportunity bring in a Bill to carry out the intention of the Cheap Trains Act, namely, to exempt from duty the fares of "the poorer class of travellers" when such fares do not exceed the rate of one penny per mile.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering that a Select Committee of this House reported in 1876 that the Board of Inland Revenue make arrangements with the Railway Companies respecting the exemption from Passenger Duty, based on three different plans, "which are all entirely outside the Cheap Trains Act," and that the same Committee recommended, inter alia, that until the finances of the State warrant the abolition of the Tax, it should be restricted to fares over a penny per mile, he will bring in a Bill which will carry out this recommendation, or, at any rate, will establish a harmony between the intentions of the Legislature and the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue?
  MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, since by 5 and 6 Vic. c. 79, s. 4, it is enacted that the Company of Proprietors of every Railway in Great Britain shall cause copies of the accounts of their

  1831
  respective Railways to be delivered to the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, verified by affidavit, and Duties to be paid thereon monthly, and since such Duties have been from time to time further settled and enacted, Whether it is competent for any Railway Company to charge such Duties on the passengers; whether any such Duty so charged on the passenger does not be-come part of the fare payable, and is itself liable to a Duty, provided that the fare and Duty together do not exceed the maximum toll authorised to be levied under any public or private Act; whether his attention has been called to the fact that the South-Eastern Railway Company charge their season ticket holders with the amount of Duty payable, in addition to the advertised, fare; and, whether he has collected or intends to collect from the South Eastern Railway Company (and any other Company whose practice is identical) the Duty on the fare collected under the name of Duty, and on all arrears thereof?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): In answer to the first Question, there is no doubt it will be necessary at some future time to modify the provisions of the Cheap Trains Act, in order to adapt them to the changes in the mode of conducting passsenger traffic. But I do not think I can hold out any expectation of being able to legislate on the matter at present. I am truly concerned at being compelled, from week to week, to make the state of Business in Parliament a reason why the legitimate demands of the country, quite apart from Party distinction, should be postponed; but my hon. Friends are judges of the circumstances along with myself, and I think they will understand my answer. In answer to the second Question, the Cheap Trains Act of 1844 has not been practically abrogated by judicial decisions, but rather confirmed; and those decisions have only led to an increased charge of duty in cases where the Act, in the view of the Board of Inland Revenue, had not been complied with according to its full meaning. The increase in the duty on third-class passengers from £70,322 in 1873 to £333,032 in 1880 was not entirely due to increase charge, but was largely due to the immense increase in the number of third-class passengers. The intention of the Cheap
  1832
  Trains Act, which exempted from duty the fares of the poorer class of passengers, is, in the opinion of the Revenue Department, fairly carried out at present, but, as they think, with possibly somewhat less strictness than the law warrants or even might require. As to the third Question, I have to say that the restriction on the Passenger Duty to fares above 1d. per mile would involve a loss to the Revenue, I am sorry to say, of £250,000 a-year. As to the fourth Question, it is quite within the competency of any Railway Company to charge duties on fares from passengers, provided they do not exceed the limit laid down in the Act; and there is no provision in law to prevent the Company from dividing the charge as between them and the passengers into two portions—one portion being for the fare and the other for the duty.

  IRELAND—ADDRESS OF THE DOMINION HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  MR. CALLANasked leave to postpone the following Questions, which stood in his name on the Notice Paper:—
  "To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the telegraphic Despatch in the "Times" of April 22nd, under date:—
  'Ottawa, April 20th.
  'In to-day's sitting of the Dominion of the House of Commons, Mr. Cortigan, a Conservative, moved that an Address should he presented to the Queen, praying that a form of Self-Government should be granted to Ireland similar to that enjoyed by Canada, and that clemency should be extended to the political prisoners in Ireland. Mr. Blake, the leader of the Opposition, made a powerful speech in favour of Home Rule for Ireland. Sir John Macdonald, the Premier, also supported the Resolution proposed by Mr. Cortigan, which was unanimously adopted. Sir John Macdonald stated that he would see that the necessary steps were taken to have the Address prepared, in order that it might be sent to the Senate for concurrence;'
  whether he will have any objection to direct that a Copy of the said Address he laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether he purposes taking any action in the matter?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think that when such a Question relating to a public body has been for some time on the Paper it is necessary that it should be answered as soon as possible, and I propose to answer, at any rate, so much of the Question as is before us.
  MR. CALLAN: I wish to make an addition to the Question, and to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that since my Notice was first given the Canadian Senate, or Upper House, has confirmed the Resolution?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I am not aware that the Senate had concurred in the proceedings of the Assembly. The Address has not been transmitted to us in the regular manner. We are cognizant of the Resolution having been passed and of its contents, but only by telegraphic report. We cannot present it to the House, because we are not in possession of the document. With regard to the substance of the Resolution, the hon. Gentleman has called upon me to enter upon a matter which is fitter for debate than a mere reply to a Question; but, of course, I may observe that although, no doubt, the Assembly of Canada desired to assist our deliberations, the question referred to in the Address appertains exclusively to the Imperial Parliament and the Imperial Government; and I may add that so much of the subject-matter as touches the discretion of the Executive Government—for this is part of the subject-matter—had our close and constant attention before the intimation of the wish expressed in the Address, either from that quarter or any other quarter, had reached us in the shape of any suggestion.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Sir John Macdonald, the Premier of Canada, is not a Member of the Privy Council; and whether, as such, he is not responsible for any advice he may tender to the Crown?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Perhaps that is a Question, Sir, on which, I think, before answering it, I ought to take the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown; but as my own impression is undoubtedly that although a gentleman becomes a Minister of Canada, and, as such, is responsible only to the Canadian Parliament, yet directly he becomes a Member of the British Privy Council, unquestionably he must come under every responsibility in exactly the same degree as any other Member of the Privy Council.

  THE LAND COMMISSION (IRELAND)—DECISION UNDER THE LAND ACT.
  MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been
  1834
  called to the cases of Dillon and Hanrahan versus Knight of Glin, reported in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 31st ultimo, in which the landlord appealed to the Land Commission from the judicial rent fixed by the Sub-Commission, and in which Mr. Justice O'Hagan stated that the Land Commission found themselves compelled to increase the judicial rents, as fixed by the Sub-Commission, by sums of £4 a year and £3 a year respectively, in consequence of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Adams versus Dunseath, deciding that, as regards tenants' improvements made prior to the Land Act of 1870, mere user of them by the tenant must be regarded as to some extent a compensation for them; whether he is aware that the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, then Attorney General, in refusing to consent to an amendment to the recent Land Act proposed by Mr. Parnell, which would have prevented this, declared it "absurd" to think that the Courts could come to such a decision; whether he himself expressed an equally strong opinion; whether, in spite of this, the tenants Dillon and Hanrahan will now be compelled to pay the increased judicial rent for fifteen years; whether he can give any assurance that, in the vast number of applications to fix a fair rent now pending, steps will be taken to prevent decisions contrary to what has been stated to have been the intentions of the Government when the Act was passed; whether any amending legislation which the Government may bring in to carry out these intentions will be retrospective, so as to give tenants like Messrs. Dillon and Hanrahan the benefit of it; and, whether it can be speedily introduced to prevent further cases of the same kind?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must avail myself of the aid of arithmetic to follow the paragraphs of the hon. Gentleman's Question. The first paragraph is, I believe, perfectly accurate. With regard to the second, I do not think it is quite accurate. I have communicated with the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and he does not recollect using the expression quoted in the Question; and as a reference to the reports of the debates shows—so far as they can be considered an authority, and, of course, in connection with the discussion of details, they cannot be taken as an absolute authority—it does

  1835
  not appear that he took part in the discussion referred to by the hon. Member. As a matter of fact, however, he had no apprehension that any such decision would, be arrived at. Thirdly, I believe my own expression was that I had no doubt that this was nothing short of impossible. Perhaps that was too strong a term to use about the interpretation of an Act of Parliament; but I did contend that the matter was perfectly plain, and did not admit of doubt. The answer to paragraph 4 is, "Yes." The answer to paragraph 5 is, that I am not able to give the desired assurance, inasmuch as fresh legislation would be required, and as in considering the expediency and policy of introducing amending legislation at this early date we must necessarily take into view the comparative importance of different subjects and the difficulty of adjusting them. With regard to paragraph 6, as far as I am advised by the best legal authorities, the case which the hon. Member has very naturally, and not unfairly, quoted, is very much in the nature of an isolated case, and is not likely to form a fair or probable representation of the ordinary working of the law.
  MR. HEALYremarked, that it was a mistake for him to have represented that the Lord Chancellor's statement was in reply to his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell). It was in reply to himself (Mr. Healy).

  STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS—THE IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government have, as promised before the Easter Recess, taken into their consideration the increase of agrarian crime and the general collapse of the administration of justice in Ireland; whether the Government are yet prepared to state to Parliament the measures they intend to propose for restoring peace and order in Ireland; and, whether he will indicate the time at which such statement on behalf of the Government will be made?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think, Sir, the hon. and learned Member has put this Question in ignorance—which is no wonder—[Laughter]—no wonder respecting either him or any other Member of this House, considering the voluminous nature of our proceedings—in ignorance that a similar Question was put to me by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr.
  1836
  J. Cowen) on Friday last. ["No!"] Well, perhaps not a precisely similar Question, but a Question with respect to which the answer falls under the same category. With regard to the Question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle, and still more with regard to this Question, which refers to a statement of our intentions, I can only say that I could not undertake to enter into that subject in reply to a Parliamentary Question. Though it would not require any very detailed explanations, considered as a matter of speech, it would certainly amount to the character of a speech, and for that a very convenient opportunity will, I think, offer itself tomorrow.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Might I ask, having regard to the fact that a discussion of very considerable importance must obviously arise in consequence of the Ministerial Statement which has been promised for to-morrow night, whether the right hon. Gentleman will re-consider the proposal for a Morning Sitting to-morrow, and thus allow the House to meet when an opportunity will be afforded for a full discussion of that important subject? At the same time, I would wish to address a Question to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay). It is whether, having regard to the facts to which I have just referred, he will feel justified in bringing forward so important a Motion as his is at a time when it could not be fully discussed? I cannot expect an answer to this Question now, for, no doubt, he would like to consult his political friends, and perhaps the Government, on this matter; but before the rising of the House I trust he will be in a position to answer.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question put to me is really whether I will ask the House to rescind a decision come to by a considerable majority after a long discussion? I am not prepared to ask the House to rescind that decision, more particularly as I do not think that the time has yet arrived when a full examination of the proposals which it may be the duty of the Government to make some little time hence, could be entered upon with any benefit to the Public Service.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he wanted an answer to the third paragraph of his

  1837
  Question. He asked at what time a general statement of Irish policy would be made by the Government? The noble Lord on the Front Ministerial Bench (the Marquess of Hartington) had said on Friday that no such general statement would be made on Tuesday night, and that the statement then made would be about the release of the "suspects." The Government ought to indicate to Parliament the time when they would be prepared to make a general statement.
  MR. HEALY: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether a general statement on the question as to the collapse of justice in Ireland is not a matter of argument, and whether such a question ought not to appear on the Votes of the House? I put this Question because, if Irish Members import into Questions anything of the nature of argument, it is immediately struck out.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I might myself take exception to one part of the Question. I am not disposed to admit the alleged promise which I am supposed to have given. What I stated was that the whole subject had been and would continue—not during the Recess in particular—under the consideration of the Government. My noble Friend was perfectly right in guarding the House against the idea that a general statement of policy would be made. A general statement of policy, as those terms are usually understood, would be held to mean a statement which would occupy a very considerable period, and would open up many branches of questions with regard to the general condition of Ireland. I am not sure that in that sense it will be our duty to-morrow to make a general statement; but I have no doubt we can conveniently indicate to the House that which, as at present advised, we are inclined to think will have to be proposed or not proposed. The proposals which we may entertain we shall desire to proceed with at as early a period as the necessary Business of the House will permit. It would be quite impossible to indicate them in detail at the present moment.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman might not be aware that Notices of Amendment to his Motion had been given Notice of by the hon. Members for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) and Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). He had not had the pleasure of being in the
  1838
  House when the subject of the Evening Sitting was discussed last week, and as far as he had been able to gather—["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that this matter cannot now become the subject of debate.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to renew his appeal to the Prime Minister, and in doing so he wished to reply to the Question which was put to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther). He felt it would be unfair to the House to allow him to suppose that, even if the Government did not make an alteration, he should abstain from going on at 9 o'clock. He (Sir John Hay) proposed going on at 9 o'clock, whatever might happen; but he thought it very inconvenient to commence the discussion of so important a Motion at an Evening Sitting, and that, perhaps, it would lead to an adjourned debate.

  STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS—THE LORD LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND —EARL COWPER.
  MR. ONSLOW: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether Earl Cowper has retired from the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on private or political grounds?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think it is my duty simply to say that Earl Cowper has resigned the Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. In reply to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire, I thought I had indicated the sufficiency of the occasion that we shall have to-morrow night for the Business which shall come before us; and, so far as I can judge, there will be no public advantage in an alteration of the arrangements of the House.

  THE LIBERAL ASSOCIATION OF IPSWICH AND IRISH LANDLORDS.
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been drawn to the account of a meeting recently held at Ipswich, at which the secretary of a Liberal Association is reported to have used the following language:—
  "I feel a sort of satisfaction in hearing the Irish people have taken to shooting landlords. If anybody ought to be shot in Ireland it is the landlords;"

  1839
  and, whether, since such opinions were expressed in the presence of the leading Liberals of the town, including the president and ex-president of the Liberal Association and three members of the council, without rebuke, and are of a character calculated to incite to a breach of the peace and encourage murder, some steps cannot be taken by the Government to prevent a repetition of similar language at public meetings at Ipswich or elsewhere?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman has put a Question to me, with respect to which I must say I hope I am not to be made a tribunal of appeal as to language, of which I may approve or disapprove, that may be used by any independent person in the country. A censorship of speech is a function which cannot be conveniently added to the duties I am called upon to discharge. I shall only, by way of information, inform the hon. Gentleman one thing. Of course, I am bound to say that if the words which the hon. Gentleman has cited were used as they stand without any qualifying connection to alter sense—[Laughter, cries of "Oh, oh!" from Mr. WARTON and other Members of the Opposition, and "Order!"]—I must beg the hon. Member for Bridport—[Mr. WARTON: I am not alone; and cries of "Order!"]—to permit me freedom of speech. [Mr. WARTON: With pleasure, Sir.] If the words cited by the hon. Member were used without any context which would essentially define and alter their apparent construction, they are words upon which too severe a censure could not be passed. I am, however, assured by a gentleman who is acquainted with Ipswich that they were not so used; that they were not understood by anyone who heard them in the sense that the hon. Member has not unnaturally attached to them; and, finally, that the hon. Member has not correctly described this gentleman, because, as I understand, he is not secretary of the Liberal Association, as has been stated in the Question.
  MR. BELLINGHAMstated that, in consequence of the answer of the Prime Minister, he should, on Tuesday or Thursday, put this Question to the Home Secretary.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I ought to have stated that if the Question of the hon. Member is, whether it is the opinion of
  1840
  the Government that a prosecution ought to be instituted, far be it from me to say that it is not a Question which he is not entirely entitled to put; but I did not conceive that that was his meaning.

  OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION—THE OXFORD STATUTES.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that the Statutes for the University of Oxford were not ordered to be printed until March 3rd, and not distributed to Members till March 27th, and the Act gives twelve weeks during which this House may address the Crown, he will afford this House an opportunity for criticising those statutes on which its judgment is invited by the Act in question?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, he was afraid he could not find time for the discussion of these statutes in the interval between the 27th of March and the 21st of May.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he expects to take the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill? I should also ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he can accelerate the distribution of the Paper usually published giving the Financial Statement?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will give an answer to-morrow at 2 o'clock.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: As to the Financial Statement, I will make inquiries.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED RIOT AT FRANKFORT, KING'S CO.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he had received any confirmatory telegrams with respect to a statement of an alarming character which appeared in the evening papers in reference to Ireland? The statement was to the effect that at a riot at Frankfort, King's County, on Saturday, a number of persons who were reported to have paid their rent were attacked and beaten in a fearful manner. The police succeeded in arresting 30 men, and, under the

  1841
  command of the resident magistrate, proceeded to clear the streets at the point of the bayonet. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman was aware whether order had been at present restored to the town, and what was the condition of the people who were said to have been beaten in a fearful manner?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he had not seen the evening papers, and as he had not been at the Irish Office he had not received any confirmatory telegram on the subject.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he would ask the Question to-morrow.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE SALVATION ARMY (HAMPSHIRE).
  MR. CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question of which he had given him private Notice, with reference to the imprisonment with hard labour for one month of a member of the Salvation Army in Hampshire for an alleged assault on the police, and the refusal of the magistrate to state a case for an appeal.
  No answer having been given, the hon. MEMBER said he would repeat the Question to-morrow.

  TUNIS—BOMBARDMENT OF SFAX—INDEMNITY TO BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  In reply to the Earl of BECTIVE,
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Commission of Inquiry into the losses arising out of the bombardment of Sfax did not lead to any particular result, and Her Majesty's Government have since been in communication with the French Government on the subject of the British claims. These claims have been prepared for presentation to the French Government through Lord Lyons, and are nearly ready for transmission. Pending the conclusion of negotiations Her Majesty's Government do not propose to lay the Papers before Parliament.

  PRISONS BOARD (IRELAND)—CAPTAIN BARLOW.
  MR. SEXTON: Mr. Speaker, with reference to a document issued this morning as a Parliamentary Paper—namely, a letter from Captain Barlow, Vice President of the Prisons Board—I have to repeat a Question which I asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-
  1842
  tenant of Ireland some time ago, and to which I did not then obtain a direct and satisfactory answer. I wish to ask whether, considering that a matter involving the character of the Irish Executive and their agents has now come into controversy between the Irish Executive and a Member of this House, the Government will grant an independent inquiry?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that if the hon. Member brought the Question before the House, it would form a proper subject of discussion; but until the House had come to a decision upon it, he should not recommend an inquiry.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that he should bring before the House the quibbles, prevarications, and falsehood contained in the letter of Captain Barlow.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED MURDERS.
  MR. LEWISasked, Whether the Government were in possession of information as to the truth or falsity of the report of murders which were committed in Ireland last night?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will put the Question in the usual way, and will say what murders.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (PUTTING THE QUESTION).

    RESOLUTION. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    [SIXTH NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [20th February],
    "That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, during any Debate, to be the evident sense of the House, or of the Committee, that the Question be now put, he may so inform the House or the Committee; and, if a Motion be made 'That the Question be now put,' Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such Question; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, the Question under discussion shall be put forthwith: Provided that the Question shall not be decided in the affirmative, if a Division be taken, unless it shall appear to have been supported by more than two hundred Members, or unless it shall appear to have been opposed by less than forty Members and supported by more than one hundred Members."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the Amendment he intended to move had reference to one particular feature of the 1st Rule. It was proposed that when it should appear to Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees, that it was the evident sense of the House that the debate should close, the Speaker or the Chairman should put a certain Question forthwith, and on the vote of the House the debate should be closed. His Amendment was, after the words "Mr. Speaker," to insert these words—"after an appeal to his judgment by a Minister of the Crown." He had originally intended to have moved the omission of the words "Mr. Speaker," and to substitute for them the words "a Minister of the Crown;" but he found that in consequence of a previous Amendment having been negatived, the words "Mr. Speaker" had been ordered to stand part of the Question. He was, therefore, obliged to fall back upon the next best alternative. The effect of his Amendment, if adopted, would be that, instead of the proceedings for closing the debate being put in motion by the Speaker, or at the Speaker's initiative, they must openly, unmistakably, and undeniably come from a Minister of the Crown. He desired that a Motion for silencing the Opposition and for precipitating the decision of the House should be made by an authority commensurate with the responsible and grave nature of the proposal. The Speaker was not a responsible person to the House in the sense in which a Minister of the Crown was responsible both to the House and to the country. The Speaker was, practically, irresponsible—that was to say, through the choice of the House and the authority reposed in him he was quite above ordinary responsibility. As was repeatedly stated in the debate upon the Rule now upon the Standing Orders with reference to the naming of a Member, although the vote of the House was called in to ratify the decision of the Speaker, yet, in reality, the decision of the Speaker ought to be considered quite above discussion. If the Speaker's conduct were to be called in question, it must be done by a special Motion, so as to leave his authority absolutely free from challenge. The Speaker was not responsible to the country, and, therefore, he ought not to take the initiative in closing a debate which might be of interest to the country. For
    1844
    the same reason he objected to an Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), who proposed to throw the responsibility upon the Member in charge of the subject under discussion. There were numbers of subjects introduced by hon. Members for which they themselves were in no sense responsible to the country. A strange confusion was to be traced in the mind of the Government, for the reasons could not be the same which influenced them in proposing that the initiative should be taken by the Chairman of Committees as well as by the Speaker. While the Speaker was chosen, not by a Party, but by the Whole House, the Chairman of Committees was the choice of the Ministerial Party for the time being. It was in order to remove all obscurity, and to enable the House and the country to know on whom the responsibility rested, that he proposed that the Speaker should not exercise the functions which the Rule would devolve upon him except upon an open and undisguised appeal to his judgment by a Minister of the Crown. In any case it would be a Ministerial appeal, and it ought not to be passed off upon the country as anything else. Under the present plan, under cover of the Speaker, the Government would, in reality, however innocent their intentions might be, be parties to an attempt to hoodwink the country as to the real significance of the Motion before the House. If the Government considered a debate had been sufficiently prolonged, what reason was there in common sense, in-Constitutional Law, or in the practice of Parliament, why they should not openly ask, on their own responsibility, that the Question should be forthwith put? If the Motion were a fair one, a necessary one, and demanded in the interest of Public Business, why should the Government of the day be ashamed to put it in force, or shrink from doing their duty? He proposed that the initiative should be openly taken by a Minister of the Crown, because that was the only means of preventing the Speakership from becoming an appanage of the Ministerial Bench. Of late currency had been given to erroneous ideas concerning the relationship of the Speaker to the House. For a considerable time successive Speakers had deserved the highest credit as impartial arbiters of debate between Party

    1845
    and Party; but they must not close their eyes to history. The dignified, impartial, trusted position of the Speaker in that House was a plant of modern growth, and of comparatively recent development. He doubted if the impartiality, dignity, the unquestioned authority of the Speaker could be traced back for more than a century—certainly not for more than a century and a-half Down to the time of the Revolution the Speakership was an appanage much more of Royalty than of the House of Commons; under the Tudors and the Stuarts the Speaker watched the proceedings of the House in the interests of Royalty rather than as an impartial arbiter or defender of its privileges. According to Mr. Reginald Palgrave, Charles I. had placed himself far beyond excuse or palliation when the Speaker (Lenthal), on the occasion of the King's attempt to seize the five Members, had the courage and the resolution to refuse to be a Royal minion, and determined to speak as the mouthpiece of the House alone. Hitherto the Speaker had been the servant of the King against the House, and the King must have proved himself most culpable when even the Speaker turned against him. The conversion of the House into a Committee of the Whole House, was an innovation designed, among other reasons, for the purpose of getting rid of the Speaker. The authority of the Speaker had assumed its present dignity and purity very slowly and gradually in a House of Commons, which last century was notoriously corrupt, and in which it was as well known that there was a market for Members to be bought by the Treasury as it was that there was a market for fat cattle at Smithfield. He agreed with all that had been said on both sides of the House with such grave emphasis and unctuous frequency to impress Irish Members with regard to the dignity and impartiality of the Speaker in recent times. It would be hard if just when, by the confession of both political Parties, the Speakership had reached its highest point and culmination, it was by the proposal of a Liberal Government to he thrust back into a position lower than that from which it had been lifted. The Speaker had long ago ceased to be the minion of the King. But if this Resolution passed as it was at present worded, the Speaker would become the
    1846
    minion of the Ministry of the day, and would be as absolutely the mouthpiece of the majority as the Presidents of Continental Legislative Chambers. Nor would it be in any way derogatory for future Speakers to hold such a position, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman's Successors in the Chair could not be judged by the canons of political morality of the present day. Partizans they would undoubtedly be, just as the Whips were partizans, and in closing a debate a Speaker of the future would be merely giving effect to the Whip's instructions as to a division. He proposed, therefore, that the initiative in this matter, which must necessarily belong to the Government in reality, should proceed from them openly and avowedly. In whatever way the Speaker was to gather the evident sense of the House—whether by a discreet whisper from the Treasury Bench, or by uproarious clamour of the House—it would equally come from the Government of the day; and the only result of putting the initiative in the hands of the Speaker would be to produce confusion in the public mind, and lead the people to imagine something had been done on the pure initiative of the Speaker, which had really been planned in the office of the Government Whip. Now, a doubt existed as to the object of the clÔture. According to some, it was intended to put down a small band of desperate conspirators against the Constitution; according to others, it was to stifle legitimate opposition. In either case the Government might have the courage of their convictions and take the initiative upon themselves, whether they desired to overwhelm a regular Opposition, or to silence a clique of malcontents. There was, in truth, not a single rational argument against his Amendment; and it would have the very great merit of fixing responsibility on the right persons, and of avoiding the scandals that would some day prevail of divisions unfairly snatched at critical moments, after which the Government of the day would throw the odium on the Speaker, while the Opposition denounced equally both Speaker and Government. If ever there was a country where burning questions were likely to arise and multiply, and temptations to Party passions and Party un-scrupulousness to abound, it was this

    1847
    country. Here they had an ancient Constitution approaching a great crisis, and certain to undergo great transformations. They would have the grave questions of religion, of authority, of the distribution of power before them in the near future; and, if in foreign countries these questions called forth such Party passions, how could it be expected that this country should escape them. They need not wonder at the high distinction and impartiality of the Speaker of the British House of Commons hitherto. One reason for it was that he never had the power of being partial. The Speaker was the lord and arbiter of order; but, above all things, the protector of minorities and of individuals. He was, in fact, the mouthpiece and the champion of minorities. They were entitled, therefore, by a sort of reverse reasoning, to conclude that, when the whole character and nature of the Speakership was altered by this unmanly Rule of ClÔture, the impartiality of the Chair would disappear. With the view of leaving the responsibility where it ought to rest—namely, with the Ministry of the day—he begged to move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 1, after the words "Mr. Speaker," to insert the words "after an appeal to his judgment by a Minister of the Crown."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper, the earlier part of which was identical with that of the hon. Member (Mr. O'Donnell), and he rose to move as an Amendment to that of the hon. Member the latter part of his Amendment. If the House were to accept this, with some other Amendments further down, the Resolution would run—
    "When it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, after an appeal to him by a Minister of the Crown, or by the Member in charge of the subject under discussion, or to the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, after a similar appeal, that the question under discussion has been fully debated, and that it is evidently the general sense of the House, or of the Committee, that the question be now put, he may, if he thinks fit, so inform the House or the Committee."
    He thought there was great force in many of the arguments of the hon. Mem-
    1848
    ber (Mr. O'Donnell); but he thought they ought to place other Members on an equality with the Ministers in this respect, and not establish a difference between Ministers of the Crown and other Members which did not at present exist. He before asked the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether it would be in Order to move to omit the words "Mr. Speaker." He desired to move the omission of these words, because he thought that if there was to be this power of silencing the minority it ought to be dissociated from the functions of the Chair; but, unfortunately, the last division not only negatived the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Marriott), but practically affirmed that the Speaker was to be associated with this Rule, though this was not what they had discussed, no was, therefore, driven to move this Amendment, which, in one sense, was inadequate; but if any hon. Member should propose anything stronger he would support it. He believed it was an established principle that if any alteration in the Rules or Standing Orders of the House was proposed and the Party in power allowed such alteration to be made without protest, they were to a certain extent responsible for it. What he wished to point out was how exceedingly mischievous must be the result if they chose deliberately to take the Speaker out of his proper sphere of action and to associate him with this Resolution. The Government informed the House that they could not be responsible for the further conduct of affairs unless they had the power of imposing restraint upon Members of the House other than themselves. That power had not been asked for by any preceding Ministry; and he would go a step further, and say that if the proposal had emanated from any Ministry other than the present Government, the Members of the present Government would have opposed it tooth-and-nail. When a Government admitted their inability to carry on the affairs of the country without coercive powers, the House was ever ready to grant those powers; but only upon one condition—that the Government should be made responsible. They were now asked to assent to a Resolution which was a standing Coercion Act. There was no Coercion Act passed during the present century which could have, or was in-

    1849
    tended to have, such a far-reaching and abiding effect. It was a Resolution which placed the minority at the mercy of the majority. [The Marquess of HARTINGTON dissented.] The noble Marquess seemed to deny that. Could the noble Marquess deny that the Prime Minister had stated that the 1st Resolution, when it was passed, would be used for the purpose of passing the other Resolutions?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I never said anything of the kind.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: It is difficult always to understand the Prime Minister. When he was asked if this was intended, he declined to reply.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Quite so.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: This Resolution, therefore, would be used to carry or amend certain other Standing Orders that were upon the Notice Paper; and, consequently, if it was competent for the majority to alter any Standing Order, it was equally competent to revise this one when it was passed. The minority of the House would be placed absolutely at the mercy of the majority; and the only control which the minority could exercise would be regulated by the forbearance of the majority. It was a tremendous power to give to the Government of the day. And yet the Government asked them to give them this power dissociated from those safeguards which they might reasonably expect. The Government were not to be made responsible; but the Speaker and his Successors were asked to assume the odious task of silencing the minority. The Government were, therefore, attempting to deprive the House of two safeguards—namely, the responsibility of the Government and the impartiality of the Chair. He feared it would not remain as impartial in the future as it had been in the past. If a Speaker was to be impelled to put in force coercion, having for its object the silencing of a minority, the exercise which he would make of that Resolution would benefit the Government and embarrass the Opposition. Again, the action which the Speaker might take must form part of the indictment of the Government at a General Election. The Secretary of State for India had admitted that, because he had said that this would give an effectual cry with which to go to the country. Well, if it
    1850
    did, it gave the Opposition a cry which would not be against the Government, who was not responsible, but against the Speaker, who was responsible. [Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: No, no; against the majority.] Therefore, it was quite clear, if anyone was to be made responsible out-of-doors, it was the Speaker of the House of Commons. But if the Speaker was to be publicly attacked, he must be publicly defended. He might consider it necessary to defend himself. In such a case they would have the Speaker stumping the country in defence of his action in that House. Whether the Speaker was absorbed into the ranks of the Ministry or not, he would generally be regarded by the public as a partizan. But let them take the other side of the question. He was prepared to find that the Speaker declined to defend himself on the ground that he was a Judge. But the Government could not allow him to remain without defence. He could see the Prime Minister of the day coming down, with a countenance arranged for the occasion, and denouncing the indecency of anyone calling in question the judicial functions of the Speaker. If the Speaker was to be subject to criticisms, he must degenerate into a partizan; but if, on the other hand, he was not subjected to criticisms, there was no safeguard whatever against his rulings. It would become a little more clear when they considered the position of the Speaker now. The present Speaker had informed them that he was the servant of the House. He thought by that language that the Speaker intended to convey that the Speaker had no inherent power except what he derived from the Standing Orders and past practice of the House. Therefore, it was quite clear that whatever power in future in excess of this was derived from these Rules must be derived from the Resolution under discussion. It was necessary to inquire carefully into the effect of this Resolution. If they took the first part of this Resolution and joined it on to the latter part they would find what it meant. It was that a majority of 1 in a full House could stop the discussion of a question by the minority. But if a majority hereafter took that view, in what position would the Speaker be? The majority would say they had a right to silence the minority; but the Speaker, by declining to take the

    1851
    initiative, was refusing to grant them that right. Therefore, it might be said the Speaker was making a partizan use of his power. He contended that it would be a great mistake to associate the power in the manner proposed with the Speaker. The Resolution as it stood was not clear; it was scarcely intelligible. The difficulty of working it would be enormous. It had been well shown in a letter from Mr. Baden Powell to the Prime Minister. Mr. Powell said—
    "My difficulty is that this Rule seems for a certainty to legalize such results as the following. If 201 Members vote for and 200 Members against the closing a debate the debate is closed; if 200 Members vote for and 41 against closing a debate the debate is not closed; if 100 Members vote for and 2 Members against closing a debate the debate is not closed, and there are, of course, the intermediate results in their due order. In other words—firstly, in all cases where more than 200 Members support the Motion, a bare majority of 1 suffices to stop discussion. Secondly, in all cases where some 101 to 206 Members support the Motion, discussion is not stopped, unless a majority of four-fifths is in favour of so doing. Thirdly, it is impossible to stop discussion unless more than 100 Members vote for so doing."
    He thought no Member would dispute that Mr. Baden Powell had accurately interpreted this Rule. He did not believe that it would be possible for the President of any Foreign Assembly to work that Resolution; and he ventured to say it was absolutely impossible for the Speaker or Chairman of Committees to work it without the assistance of the Government Whips. They sat longer in that House than any other Assembly; and, in the second place, the accommodation in the House was not sufficient for all the Members. How would the Speaker know how many Members were in the House? He held that it would be impossible to carry out the Resolution, except by the help of the Government Whips, with whom it was inexpedient that the Speaker or Chairman of Committees should come into contact, as the Whips must necessarily be partizans. The primary duty of the Speaker was to maintain order; but "the evident sense of the House" must be conveyed to him by noise and interruption, so that that high dignitary would, in a manner, be associated with the disorderly, who were exactly the people who ought not to lead the House. Rhadamanthus himself, if in the Chair, could not, under the proposed new con-
    1852
    ditions, conduct himself with propriety and dignity. The stronger an hon. Member's lungs the more efficient would be the aid which he would render his Party. It was all very well now, when they were talking calmly, to say that the clÔture would only be applied in exceptional cases, and with the consent of both sides of the House. But his experience was that it was just when men ought to be heard that the disposition to silence them was greatest. This struck him very much the other day, when there happened to be a painful incident. Mr. Bradlaugh had committed certain offences, and it was proposed to punish him by expulsion. Mr. Bradlaugh asked to be heard. His request was met by a stentorian "No" from both sides of the House; and if this Rule had been passed, the Speaker would have had no option but to say that this represented "the evident sense of the House." There was no doubt that at the French Revolution the Jacobins, who were numerically a small body, gained their ends by organized clamour, and Constitutional forms, &c, degenerated into the Reign of Terror. It was a curious notion to entertain that an official in a judicial position could be fitted to perform his duties more successfully by becoming a partizan. There was a singular parallel in the case of Charles Fox, who, after the death of Mr. Pitt, occupied a similar position to the present Prime Minister. Mr. Fox had assailed his opponents with an animosity nearly equal to that with which the Prime Minister, when in Opposition, assailed the late Government; and Mr. Fox had only been in Office for two months before the exigencies of his Government made him forget his previous professions, and he then suggested the monstrous proposal that the Lord Chief Justice of England should become a Member of his Cabinet. If such a proposal had been made by Mr. Pitt, it would have been denounced almost as loudly as the proposal of the clÔture, if it had emanated from Lord Beaconsfield, would have been assailed by Her Majesty's present Ministers. Mr. Fox's proposal was supported by the Liberal Party of that day, just as the clÔture was now supported by the present Liberal Party, because of the tremendous pressure brought to bear on them; but the result, as far as the reputation of that

    1853
    Government was concerned, was not a fortunate one. He asked anyone to consider whether it would be possible for the Speaker to have the confidence of the minority without incurring the animosity of the majority? His strong impression was that the course which was proposed would put the Speaker in an intolerable position, and that in the end he would, perhaps, forfeit the good opinion of both sides of the House. The Amendment which he proposed raised no Party question, nor did it affect the Resolution under discussion. He trusted, therefore, that an effort would be made to save out of the wreck of their Parliamentary traditions the position which the Speaker at present occupied.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment,
    To add, at the end thereof, the words "or by the Member in charge of the subject under discussion."—(Lord George Hamilton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid it will be my fate to speak in a much cooler tone than that which was adopted by the Mover of the Amendment or the Mover of the Amendment of the Amendment. There is, I know, an exaggeration of conjuring up fears which it is difficult to measure, and which magnifies every subject of the most moderate dimensions into a gigantic question, involving, commonly, the very life of the Constitution, or of our Parliamentary system. Now, in my opinion, this is a very limited matter, and the sentiments I shall deliver upon it will be entirely without heat. I must, however, regret that the noble Lord has not pursued, except in the last sentence of his speech, a similar course. On the hon. Member who moved the Amendment I make this observation, that though lie was undoubtedly copious in the performance of his work, yet he limited himself to the question of his Amendment, and he likewise observed a strict impartiality as between Parties. The noble Lord has not thought fit to abstain from introducing considerations of Party into what ought to have been a perfectly temperate and dispassionate discussion. The noble Lord undertakes to say that all of us who sit on these Benches would have opposed that proposal if made in any other quarter. I
    1854
    am not going to enter upon that subject. In my opinion, it is a strange thing for the noble Lord to make that accusation, considering that, as far as my recollection goes, when a demand was made by the late Government for some power in a penal direction, as far as I am concerned—and I believe I may say the same thing of my noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington)—I did nothing except in a few sentences to support the demand, and to commend the spirit in which it had been made. But why is it necessary to introduce these matters? Do they really assist us in the consideration of the question. Then the noble Lord goes on to speak of the immense results which, as he says, this Resolution is intended to produce. Is it wise, is it expedient, does it promote harmony or expedition in our proceedings to charge upon any Party in this House views diametrically opposed to those they had emphatically proclaimed? We had always said that none of those large results would be produced by the Resolution; and I submit, if good manners permit, that that kind of contradiction is certainly adverse to Parliamentary policy and expediency. Upon the speech of the noble Lord, I must observe that it is a speech partly against the entire Resolution, and partly against the introduction of the Speaker into the Resolution. The noble Lord entirely forgot, in the whole of his speech, the Amendment, which is the only subject of discussion. Now, I will give only one instance of how exaggerated fears distort powers of judgment naturally acute enough. The noble Lord said that the tendency of this Resolution is to encourage noise on the part of certain noisy Members in the House. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] Everybody knows who they are, and, as I understand the noble Lord, he implied that they are persons whose conduct is generally condemned and disapproved by the House. But then the noble Lord goes on to say these are the men whose conduct will guide the conduct of the Speaker. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] These noisy Members of the House—a handful of individuals, unknown and unnamed, but supposed to exist—will be mistaken by the Speaker, and interpreted by him as the arbiters of the "evident sense of the House." I do not think the remark is quite relevant to the present debate. I

    1855
    own I think it shows a state of mind much heated by unnecessary apprehension, when a speaker of ability thinks it necessary to hold that a certain limited number of Members of the House, whose conduct is known to be irrational, will be the people whom the Speaker in the Chair will take as representing the sense of the whole House, and accept them as his guide. Now, let us really endeavour to deal with the question before us, as between the Amendment of the noble Lord and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. There is, I think, a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment of the noble Lord, because the Amendment of the noble Lord proceeds upon this basis—that if there is to be an initiative apart from the Speaker, it ought not to be exclusively in the hands of the Government. As far as that proposal goes, I certainly am not disposed to take any exception to it. I think there is a good deal of difficulty in the Amendment of the noble Lord, as it stands; because, although I understand the responsibility of a Member in charge of a Bill, yet when we speak of a Member in charge of a subject; and recollect that that subject would, I apprehend, be held to involve every description of Amendment moved in any proceeding of the House in Committee of Supply, in Committee on a Bill, or anything else—perhaps a Motion for the adjournment of the House—I think it is a question whether they would not require some limitations. But I am not going to dwell upon minute distinctions between the two Amendments, because, upon the whole, though I do not take up the subject with any warmth, I recommend that the House will do better not to adopt them. But I do so by no means upon the ground that the question of the initiative is not a question for argument and for fair consideration. I quite understand that it is a serious question whether the responsibility of initiating the sense of the House, which alone can decide a closing of the debate, should rest with the Chair, or should rest with some Member or number of Members in the House. That is not the question before us; and, further, I will say that undoubtedly the form which now stands in the Resolutions was adopted in the full belief, which they continue to entertain, that there would be a fear of the abuse of the closing
    1856
    power, if it were left simply in the hands of the Government, or of a certain number of their supporters, to invoke exercise of it; but that by placing it in the hands of the Speaker they were affording the very best security in their power against its possible abuse. There are those two systems—the one system that of giving the power of initiative to the Government apart from the Chair, and leaving to the Chair no duty except that of putting the Question; and the other system is to take the Resolution as it stands, and say that upon the Speaker shall be the responsibility of making the appeal to the House. The noble Lord said we must not have the Speaker put under compulsion. Upon that we are entirely at one with the noble Lord. But to guard against that, in our view, there are two things. First of all, the Speaker must be convinced of a certain state of facts as to the sense of the House. Secondly, the Speaker must be of opinion that the apparent demand, or the evident sense of the House, is in conformity with justice. But what the Amendment proposes is neither the one nor the other. The Amendment proposed to us is to clap on a responsibility of the Minister of the Crown, or of some other Member of Parliament as well as the Minister of the Crown, upon the back of the responsibility of the Speaker, to make it necessary for them to invoke his aid, but still to leave upon him the responsibility which the Resolution at present places in his hands. Upon the whole, we are of opinion that this system is less safe than the system embodied in the Resolution as it stands. The hon. Member for Dungarvan argued on the assumption that by this Resolution the power is to be placed really in the hands of the Government, and the Speaker is to act really as the organ of the majority of the House. If that were true, I would not only accept at once the Amendment, but I would refuse to admit any Resolutions in which the Speaker appeared at all, because I agree entirely that those who are to exercise the power ought to bear the responsibility. But I differ respectfully from the hon. Gentleman, and affirm that no power whatever is given by the Resolution to the majority for influencing the Speaker of the House. The special duty of the Speaker of the House

    1857
    is to avoid giving scope to his mere sympathy, if he has a sympathy, to the majority of the House. But, then, says the hon. Member—"Do not let us have our Speaker discredited by being forced into relations with the Government." "Do not let us have him placed," says the noble Lord, "in connection with the Government "Whips." I entirely agree with the noble Lord. But I am sorry to say that it appears to me that the Amendment has a decided tendency in that direction. If we pass a Resolution which makes it the duty of the Speaker to determine in his own mind what is the sense of the House, and whether that sense is the just sense, then I can understand that the action of the Speaker may be a spontaneous action. But if we say the Speaker is to act upon the suggestion and demand of the Minister of the Crown, what is the immediate effect? That the Minister of the Crown must, and will have to, put himself in communication with the Speaker before he makes that suggestion to the Chair; and, therefore, undoubtedly, as I apprehend, it is the duty of the Minister of the Crown to be in communication with the Government Whips. This Amendment, I am afraid, instead of relieving the Speaker from any of his difficulties in that respect, would result in establishing a channel of communication between him and the Government Whips, and thereby of exposing the Speaker to the suspicion and reproach from which the noble Lord and others are justly most anxious to shield him. Now, I shall not meet reproach by reproach, nor insinuation by insinuation, nor will I go back into any pluperfects of the potential mood for the sake of entangling this, I think, very simple argument in considerations that may be connected with temper and with feeling. I do not at all disguise that there may be fair choice between the use of the Speaker and the use of private Members or of Ministers of the Crown as wielding the initiative in this case. I believe we have made the right choice as between these two, and the Amendment before us is neither one nor the other. It proposes to double the responsibility, and it would lead to those communications I have described, which would be eminently unsatisfactory to the House, and which, let me say to the hon. Member for Dungarvan,
    1858
    would exactly open up that danger that he is justly desirous to avert—namely, that we should be in a condition to attempt, at least, to exercise a pressure on the Speaker, and therefore to take some benefit, or supposed benefit, from the action of the Speaker, from which, as the Resolution now stands, he is entirely free. I believe it to be a small matter. Had there been a clear and general view of the House, an evident sense of the House in favour of a change of this kind, I do not see that we could have taken upon ourselves to refuse it; but I frankly own that, in our opinion, the Resolution is better as it stands.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYquite failed to see that the Prime Minister had made out his argument that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) would lead to communication between the Speaker and the Government Whips. For his own part, he preferred the Amendment as unamended, although there was much force in some of the remarks of the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton), especially when he said that the distinction between a Minister of the Crown and any other Member of the House was a novelty and an innovation. But they had already gone so far on the way of change that they need not stickle at one or two more innovations. The object of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan would be entirely marred by the manner in which the noble Lord proposed to amend that Amendment. If the initiative in closing the debate were taken by the Speaker, he would become the organ of the majority. The majority was, in its turn, governed by the inspiration of the Prime Minister and his Colleagues, and the Speaker would become the mouthpiece of the Prime Minister and the majority. For his own part, he would have preferred that the Prime Minister, and not the Speaker, should be the mouthpiece of the majority. The words "evident sense of the House," used in the Resolution, were misleading. It meant the sense of a majority which might be scattered in various parts of the House, and it might very often lead to enforcing a wrong conclusion. The "evident sense of the House" had been employed against many great statesmen and thinkers in the House. It had declared against many a policy which afterwards

    1859
    proved to be most wise and just. He supposed the "evident sense of the House" was against Burke in his great speeches against the Stamp Act, when he argued against those measures which contributed to bring about the severance of England and America. He supposed it declared against Fox in some of his wisest appeals for a policy of peace, and for a time against Cobden on the question of Free Trade. Indeed, the evident sense of the majority was more than once against the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself when, a short time ago, ho justly opposed the Foreign Policy of the late Government. Thus, with a strong majority in the House, the Speaker for the time being would, under the New Rules, become its mere instrument. Under such conditions, it was utterly impossible that a Speaker could retain his present position and high popularity, or be regarded as an impartial Officer of the House. A Speaker was impartial now because he had hardly any temptation to be otherwise. If they gave a Speaker the power of closing a debate at any time, it would be giving his impartiality a strain which no ordinary man could long endure. Before long it was certain that he would be accused in the country of partiality. It could not be satisfactory that any great Officer of the House, or any great public man, should have the power of frequently doing acts for which he could not be assailed, and for which he could not be defended. If he were not to be assailed, they were raising an official to a position of perilous immunity; and, on the other hand, if he were open to attack, they were reducing the Speaker to the level of an ordinary Minister exposed to friendly and unfriendly criticism, and who merely performed the duty of a partizan and a Party Leader. Under those circumstances, it would be impossible for the dignity of the Chair to remain as unassailed and as perfect as it now was, and the Speaker would become the mere mouthpiece of a temporary majority. The responsibility ought to rest with a Minister of the Crown. In his opinion, the proposed change was not of the unimportant nature the Prime Minister had described. It would introduce into the House an authority similar to that of the despotic President of a Continental Assembly. Such a power ought not to be placed in the hands of
    1860
    an official who, up to the present time, had been a person of strict impartiality; but who, if these Resolutions were passed, would be no longer regarded as impartial in the eyes of the public.
    MR. BRYCE,who had the following Amendment to the 1st Resolution on the Paper:—
    "Line 6, leave out all after 'may,' to 'put,' in line 6, and insert 'upon the request of a Minister of the Crown, or of the Member in charge, either of any original Motion then under discussion, or of any amendment thereto, give leave to such Minister or Member to move 'That the Question be now put,' and if such Member shall so move,"
    said, when it was arrived at it might possibly be ruled out of Order, on the ground of its being substantially the same as that now before the House, and he would therefore say now what he had to say upon the subject. If the two Amendments were nearly the same in principle, the terms of his Amendment were, probably—as being somewhat more precise, and more clearly throwing the initiative on the Member who desired that the discussion should close—to be preferred. He could not help feeling that it would have been much better if the Chair had not been brought into the matter at all. With regard to the argument of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), that the Resolution meant in substance that a majority of 1 was to constitute the "evident sense of the House," it went far to discredit the other arguments which accompanied it. The noble Lord had presented such an exaggerated view of the results of this Resolution as to make it much more difficult for Members on this side of the House to support his Amendment. He (Mr. Bryce) thought the present Resolution not strong enough, instead of too strong, and proposed to amend it only because he thought it better that the responsibility of ascertaining the "evident sense of the House" should be fixed upon the Government of the day, and that it should lie upon a Minister, rather than on the Speaker, to move primarily in the matter. If a Minister put the Speaker in motion, the responsibility was, to a certain extent, shared. No one who prized, as they all prized, the impartiality of the Chair, would like the Chair to incur censure. The Speaker might, if the responsibility rested with him alone, make a mistake as to what was the evident

    1861
    sense of the House, though, as the Resolution required the "evident" sense, this, perhaps, would not be very likely to happen; but, supposing such a mistake did happen, would not the blame rest upon the Speaker alone? And, if so, would he not, on a future occasion, be more slow to exercise his power? He thought, therefore, it would be better that the responsibility of the initiative should rest with the Minister or Member who sought to close the debate, go that the Speaker, if a mistake were made, might feel that the Minister shared the responsibility of it. He believed the effect of such an Amendment would be to strengthen the Resolution, and make it a somewhat more efficient engine against Obstruction; and it was for that reason, fearing that a clÔture which proceeded from the Speaker alone would be too rarely used, that he supported this proposal.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the Prime Minister had made some observations on the tone of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), and had said that such remarks were calculated to impede the course of the debate. But, at the same time, the Prime Minister himself indulged in language of exactly the same kind, and had characterized one of the arguments of the noble Lord as irrational. That argument was that the Speaker, in deciding what should be the "evident sense of the House," would be reduced to two sources of information, the one being the knowledge which he obtained from the Government Whips, and the other being the noises which were going on in the House at the time. But he contended that it was perfectly impossible for the Speaker in the latter case clearly to interpret the desire of the House; and in the former case the Speaker would necessarily be biassed by the information afforded to him by the Whips. On previous nights they had discussed the effect of the clÔture on a minority; but they had now introduced the question of the position of the Speaker if the Rules were passed. He would remind the House that the Speaker of the future could not possibly ever occupy the position which the Speaker of the past had occupied. He thought the Government were somewhat to blame in this matter. They had concluded that all future Speakers
    1862
    would be as impartial as the right hon. Gentleman then in the Chair. But the contention of those who sat on that side was that the Speaker of the future would be by no means so impartial. They said that the fact of putting these new powers in his hands would entirely alter his character. He felt sure that the effects of the Rule would be to make future Chairmen Government nominees. He thought that the Government honestly believed that by giving the Speaker the initiative in that matter they were protecting the right of minorities; but he wished to point out that the result of the operation of the Rule would probably be, not to protect minorities, but to give the Speaker authority whereby he might screen the action of the Government majority. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India said no Minister would ever think of abusing the power of the clÔture, because the responsibility would be brought home to him with crushing effect. The noble Lord seemed to argue instinctively that the Speaker of the future would act as a tool of the Government. It must be remembered that by the initiative of the Speaker the Ministers of the day were entirely screened from any responsibility in the matter. He himself was strongly of opinion that no such power as that proposed to be given ought to be placed in the hands of Mr. Speaker; and he thought that if they were able to exclude his name from that Rule they would have done the best they could to smooth the way for the Government to adopt the Amendment which proposed that the clÔture should only come into force when voted by a majority of two-thirds.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he thought that when the alarms which were now felt with regard to this subject had passed away, Members of that House would be more inclined to take an equitable view of the subject than they were now. He did not think that the proposition to give the initiative to the Government would in any way relieve the Speaker from his responsibility in the matter, for it would produce a divided responsibility, and a responsibility of a most objectionable character. Neither did he think the matter was mended by the proposition of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), that the Speaker should merely give permis-

    1863
    sion to take the initiative, for that would come to the same thing. The judicial decision as to what was or was not the "evident sense of the House" would have to be put from the Chair, and thus the responsibility would be divided with the Speaker. He felt, with many hon. Members who had already spoken in this and former debates, that it was most objectionable that a question of this kind should be left to the Chair, and he could not conceive how such a system could work. A Predecessor of the Speaker had said on a memorable historical occasion that he had neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak except what was suggested to him by the House, whose servant he was. He held that that principle applied with equal force at the present day. It was impossible for the Speaker to ascertain what was the sense of the House until that sense had been declared by a division. The Speaker ought not to listen to any noises that might come from the Back Benches, nor to any private suggestion that might be made by the Government or its supporters. He could only decide upon that sense as expressed in a division, and that occasion would be afforded by every debate. A Motion would be made to adjourn, the Government would oppose it, and there would be a majority. But how was the Speaker to act? If it was a bare majority, he presumed the Speaker would not accept that as the sense of the House; and if it was a large majority, there would, of course, be no difficulty. If it were a Ministerial majority, whether large or small, it would give rise to insinuations and complaints against the conduct of the Speaker, and would put the Speaker in a position which he never ought to occupy. He therefore strongly objected to the initiative resting with the Chair. He gave full credit to the Government for endeavouring to cover such a Resolution in every way, by means of protecting the Motion from any suggestion of Party Spirit whatever; but he thought when the question was further advanced the House would arrive at a better means of deciding what was the "evident sense of the House." When they had to consider the Motions of the hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) and of other hon. Members who proposed that the evident sense must be a preponderating sense, that was a question which the
    1864
    House ought not to shirk; they ought to express their opinion decidedly as to whether the "evident sense of the House" was to be a bare majority, or one something more than even a Ministerial majority. He would not anticipate that discussion; but he thought it was a point upon which the Government might make some concession, and in that way many of the difficulties which surrounded the question would pass away. He earnestly appealed to the Government to consider that question fairly and broadly, for he deeply regretted that it should have given rise to so much Party feeling. It was a question upon which a great body of the House felt strongly that something ought to be done to prevent such scandals as had recently occurred; and he believed that if it was fairly considered they would be prepared, even though some risk might attend the question of introducing the clÔture, to sacrifice some part of their liberties for the sake of the remainder. The House was in a difficult position. They had fairly responded to the demand outside the House; and he thought they would be cordially supported in the House in some attempt to bring the matter to an issue, and that some concession on this point would lead to a satisfactory decision.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHwas convinced of the necessity for taking some steps to prevent a recurrence of the scandals of last year, when they had Sittings on more than one occasion which lasted all night. These scandals reflected upon the dignity of the House, and ought certainly to be prevented from occurring again. If, however, the clÔture was to be introduced with that object, it should be made more akin to the old Forms of the House. It might have been done in some form of the Previous Question, thus keeping the initiative out of the hands of the Speaker. If, indeed, this Rule was frequently applied, a confusion would un-undoubtedly arise from its similarity to the Motion of the Previous Question. To the initiative being left with the Speaker there were grave objections. He should prefer to support the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. O'Donnell) that the initiative should rest with the Government. The Government possessed means of knowing what was the general sense of the House far beyond those which

    1865
    were in the power of the Speaker. It might be that a large number of Members were in the precincts of the House, and that they might take a different view of a subject under discussion than was held by a few Members in the House itself. Of this fact the Government would be aware, while it was utterly impossible for the Speaker to know it. With regard to the Amendment of his noble Friend (Lord George Hamilton) he felt in some difficulty, and he hoped that his noble Friend would not ask the House to divide upon the additional words which he had proposed. Those words were extremely ambiguous; and as they stood it seemed to him that the initiative might be taken by a Member who, by proposing a hostile Amendment, had taken the subject out of the hands of the Member who originally introduced it. He could not, even now, help expressing a hope that this Resolution might ultimately take a shape that would be less offensive than it was at present to a large number of Members of the House.
    MR. HUGH SHIELDsaid, he was surprised to find the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) and the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) proposing to engraft upon the Resolution an expression of Ministerial initiative. He objected to that Amendment, because it struck at the safeguards which were proposed in the Rule. ClÔture pure and simple would never be defended; but the safeguards with which it was surrounded precluded the possibility of any dangerous consequences. What was the action which the Resolution called upon the occupant of the Chair to take? When the occupant of the Chair had arrived at the conclusion that the evident sense of the House was in favour of closing the debate, he might put that Motion to the House. How was he to judge of the evident sense of the House? He would avail himself of every means; he would not be excluded from attending to the noisy cries raised on this side of the House or that, though he was not to be limited to them. Access to the Speaker's Chair would not then, any more than now, be denied to hon. Members; indeed, the Speaker would be put in possession of the feelings of the House by all the means now open to him. His own fear was that the Speaker
    1866
    would hesitate to apply the Rule, even on occasions when it could properly be applied. That defect, however, the noble Lord was determined to cure with a vengeance, by proposing that the initiative should be absolutely in the power of the Minister. They ought not to hear any more about the despotic Minister after that; and although he was himself in favour of the proposal, he did not think public opinion was prepared for such a step, and, therefore, he objected to it per se.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that when the Prime Minister introduced that Resolution for establishing the clÔture, he said that the Speaker was the pivot on which the whole business turned, and that on his initiative depended altogether the beneficial exercise of the Rules. Other Gentlemen had followed in the same strain, and had spoken of the impossibility of any Speaker becoming confederate with any Ministry or any Party, or taking interest in any Party manœuvres. They described him as a person who must always stand above the level of political factions and their controversies. Instead of indulging in grandiloquent language, it would have been well if hon. Gentlemen had studied the history of Parliament, which would have led them to a very different conclusion. Now, let him give the House a few historical facts. Take the first great Speaker after the Restoration, Sir Harbottle Grimston, an old Commonwealth man. No sooner had the King been brought back than Sir Harbottle Grimston went over to the other side, and on being presented to the King after his election to the Chair grovelled in the dust in such a way that Charles II.—a man not unaccustomed to flattery—said to him, "Stand up old rebel, and speak like a man." Speaker Charlton was supposed to have had a sum of money to give, up his Chair. Speaker Williams was fined and imprisoned by the Order of the House, and was succeeded by Speaker Trevor, who had a strange peculiarity in his vision—one eye looking one way, one another. He suffered the singular degradation of being obliged to put from the Chair the Question whether he had been guilty of taking bribes. That Question was instantly voted in the affirmative by the House of Commons, and Speaker Trevor was expelled from the House for corrup-

    1867
    tion. But he was expelled only to take his seat as Master of the Rolls; whereupon it was said "that justice was blind, but corruption only squinted." He was followed in the next Reign by the first Speaker Onslow—Sir Richard Onslow—who, according to contemporary descriptions, was a trifling, vain man, of ludicrous figure, and full of Party zeal. Speaker Sir Fletcher Norton, an organ of the Whigs, was a violent Party politician, and was at last dismissed from, his Office. He was shortly succeeded by Speaker Cornewall, who had an unfortunate habit of taking too much porter, which resulted in much inconvenience. In the next Reign two Speakers—Grenville and Addington—both left the Chair to mix in the very heat of Party politics; the one to be Prime Minister, and the other to be a Secretary of State. Almost in our own times Speaker Mitford was removed from the Chair by a new Government with an indecent haste, in no way creditable to the Whig Administration. Speaker Manners Sutton was removed from the Chair, because he had busied himself with the subversion of the previous Government, and had assisted with others in the formation of a new Ministry. The present Premier was in the House at the time (1835), and would remember these words used by Lord John Russell on that occasion—
    "There was this fact that the political bias of the right hon. Gentleman had not remained entirely inert, but it had got the better of him, and had induced him to concur in acts, which, as Speaker of the House of Commons, he had much better have avoided."
    The next Speaker was removed from the Chair after a very short time, owing to the evil circumstances in which he was elected. These were some of the precedents which it was well to recall, because if they wanted to know what the Speakers of the future would be, they should take some account of what the Speakers of the past had been. The Prime Minister, knowing a little more history than his followers, took care not to allude to antecedents. The Prime Minister had asked them to accept his Resolution, because they had the assurance of the present Speaker's own character, and there, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman stood on better and stronger grounds. But the right hon. Gentleman had insisted on introducing into the de-
    1868
    bate the painful incident of the 2nd of February, 1881, and had called on them, on account of the action taken on that day, to intrust a large and elastic power to the hands of the Speaker. He hardly liked to trust himself to say what he thought on that occasion. He preferred to quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman himself—namely,
    "You took into your hands the exercise of a power nut committed to you, either by the Orders of the House or the Usage of the House."
    In other words, the Speaker broke the law. He whose bounden duty it was to maintain inviolate the Usages and Orders of the House, violated them. [Murmurs.] He to whom the minority of the House, however small, looked for support, took a jurisdiction that was not given to him to suppress a minority. The Speaker had, in the Standing Orders of the House, Rules which were sufficient for the occasion; he had been appealed to in the debate to put in force those Rules and Orders which would have enabled him to suspend individuals; but he refused, and his Deputy in the Chair through that long debate likewise refused to do so. The Speaker was the master of every individual in the House; but he was the servant of the House. He had the right to check individuals; but he had no jurisdiction over the House that was not committed to him. ["Order!"]
    MR. W. M. TORRENS: I rise, Sir, to Order. I have really borne this as long as I could. I hardly know how to express the sense I entertain of the repugnance with which I, in common I presume with the rest of the House, have listened to this attack on the person we most honour in this Assembly; and, even although it may be a matter personal to yourself, I hope, Sir, you will call the hon. Member to Order.
    MR. SEXTON: On the point of Order, Sir, I only rise to say that, as the matter no doubt does relate to yourself personally, it may safely be left in your own hands.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say that, under the circumstances, I have not thought it right to interpose; but the hon. Member must be perfectly aware that the observations which he has ventured on lately are not relevant to the subject-matter now before the House. The Question is the Amendment of the

    1869
    noble Lord the Member for Middlesex.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, in the words of the Prime Minister, the Speaker thereby earned an additional measure of respect by the action he took on the occasion referred to, and that was now urged as a reason why still greater powers should be given to him. The Prime Minister used the words "an additional measure of respect and gratitude." These words were received with cheers; and he wished those who gave them had been a little discriminating, and that they had apportioned praise and blame to whom praise and blame were due. For he put this Question to the Government, and asked for an answer—Had the Speaker on that occasion any accessories? Had he any confederate on one side or the other of the House? ["Oh!"]
    Mr. DODSON and Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS rose with the SPEAKER, to whom they gave way.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must again remind the hon. Member that the Amendment before the House is the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex, and I must call upon him to adhere to it.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I ask you, Sir, whether—
    MR. DODSON: I rise to the point of Order. I was about to rise when you, Sir, rose to point out that the hon. Member was not discussing the Question before the House, and also at the same time to express the feeling which I will take the opportunity of expressing now—that it is my belief that hon. Members on both sides of the House have heard the remarks of the hon. Member with unfeigned regret. ["Order!"]
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: On the point of Order, I also rose as you yourself rose some time ago; but, of course, your rising rendered my rising unnecessary, and. the point of Order having been disposed of, I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) should have made those remarks.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he wished plainly and without offence, if he were in Order, to refer to the argument that had been used—that a certain action of the Speaker in the present Parliament was a reason why they should give to the Speaker large
    1870
    and elastic powers. It appeared to him that this must be relevant when the Prime Minister himself had alluded to this very incident. It appeared to him that an independent Member might also allude to and express an opinion about it without giving offence. The Prime Minister was supporting this very Resolution which he was now objecting to, and if the incident could be appealed to in support of the Resolution, he thought he might appeal to it in opposition to the Resolution. If, after this explanation, he was ruled out of Order, he would pass away from the subject. He wished to impress upon the House that he had been quoting the words of the Prime Minister, and he had followed the Prime Minister's argument almost sentence by sentence in referring to this incident. What he desired to impress upon the House was that they should not give the proposed power to the Speaker, because he might confederate with the Ministry of the day, with the majority of the day. He wished to show from this very incident that, so far as he could judge, the Speaker had confederated with the Ministry of the day, and that he had accessories in the House on that very occasion. He appealed to the Prime Minister to say whether he was not one of the accessories? An accessory was a man who knew that a breach of the law was about to take place, who did not disclose the fact, and who did not use his utmost endeavours to prevent it. He asked the Prime Minister whether he did not know beforehand that something was about to occur at 9 o'clock on that Wednesday morning? He hoped the Government would answer that question. It was a singular thing that all the Members of the Government were in their places at that unreasonable hour of the morning, when the coup d'etat took place.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to Order, Sir. It appears to me that the hon. Member is not obeying the injunction received from the Chair, to speak to the Amendment which is before us. ["Oh!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member, I understand, is calling in question the conduct of the Speaker upon the occasion to which he refers. In so doing I cannot say I think the hon. Member is out of Order. At the same time, he is wandering very much from the Question,

    1871
    and I would seriously advise him to speak more closely to the Question before the House.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that what he maintained was simply that, under this Rule, the Speakers of the future would be in the hands of the Ministry of the day; and he maintained that this would place the Speaker in a wholly false position. He drew attention to what happened on that occasion in order to show that, as far as he could judge, the Prime Minister was accessory to what was going to happen; for, as soon as the Speaker had stopped discussion, and had appealed to the House to give him greater powers, the Prime Minister pulled out of his pocket an elaborate Resolution of 20 lines, which exactly met the appeal of the Speaker. This was what made him think that the right hon. Gentleman knew what was going to happen. Yet the incident would have been of some advantage if it showed what surprises might be in store for us under the large and elastic discretion which this Resolution would give the Speaker. He feared that behind the Speakers of the future there would be a secret mentor and voice, invisible and inaudible to the House, telling them what they were to do. It must be remembered that the quality of the Speakers would depend upon the quality of the majority in the House which elected them; if that majority was violent, the Speakers would be violent, too. Under this Rule the Speaker would hold a somewhat judicial position. We were never able to get rid of judicial corruption until we abolished the power of the Crown to remove Judges at pleasure. Yet the Speaker would hold Office by the insecure tenure of the will of the majority; and, as we approached to democracy, did any one suppose that our political conscience, would be purer, our political methods less violent, our political partizanship less extreme? If we were to keep in the Chair Gentlemen whose characters were free from suspicion, we must dissociate their already arduous duties from the invidious exercising of a function upon which the fate of Parties and Ministries would in future depend.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had assumed his favourite attitude of a poli-
    1872
    tical Jeremiah, warning the House and the country of the terrible plots that were being devised against liberty by the Prime Minister. His noble Friend rather reminded him of the description given by one of our comic poets of certain persons who went about asking—
    "Who made the stocks to fall, and prices rise, And filled the butchers' shops with great blue flies?"
    And the answer of the noble Lord always was "The Prime Minister." It was, no doubt, encouraged by his example; but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had favoured the House with a quotation from Isaiah. For himself he should have been very glad to keep the ball rolling, and if only he could have found anything relevant in their works to have given the House a quotation or two from the minor prophets; but the fact was that any such attempt had been rendered wholly superfluous by the extraordinary histrionic performance of the hon. Member for Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) to whom the House had just listened. In one of Mr. Dickens's novels there was a description of the old Court of Chancery and of an unfortunate man who rose at 4 o'clock every day, and, waiving his arms wildly at the Chancellor, said, "My lord;" whereupon the ushers ordered him either to keep his seat or to leave the Court, and this person was known as "the Man from Shropshire." Now, it was his rooted belief that, owing to the reform of the Court of Chancery, the man from Shropshire had found the place too hot for him, and had taken up his abode in the House of Commons. As for the debate on this Amendment, anyone who had listened to it without having read the Order Book would have thought that it referred solely to the question whether the initiative should be left to the Speaker or to the Government, while, in point of fact, that was neither the only nor the principle matter to be decided. Both the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) proposed to retain the words relating to the Speaker.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he should have been out of Order if he had omitted them.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Those words remained part of the Reso-

    1873
    lution, and yet, as he was pointing out, everyone would have imagined from the debate that that question was still unsettled, and that it was in the power of the House to strike them out. The real point at issue was more limited—whether the responsibility of the Speaker was to be sole or divided. Now, he demurred altogether to the description given by the noble Lord of the Office of Speaker. The noble Lord, following the views expressed by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) in the last Parliament, had attempted to argue that the Speaker's duty was practically confined to expressing the sense of the House.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that was the view taken of his functions by the Speaker.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: He did not think so; but, in any case, that was the position combated at the time by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, who pointed out that the Speaker, as guardian of the rights of the House, of minorities, and of individual Members, had many other equally important duties to perform. He had no doubt that the Government, in proposing to invest the Speaker with new and important duties, were conscious of the fact that they were observing the Constitutional traditions of his high Office. The Speaker was always regarded as the natural protector of oppressed minorities and individual Members, and he believed that none of the right hon. Gentleman's Successors in the Chair would be likely to abuse that trust. A long catalogue had been given of the high crimes and misdemeanours of former Speakers; and men who had been supposed during the debate of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) to have possessed all the virtues, were now declared to have been the corrupt creatures of the Crown. The hon. Member for Dungarvan contended that the clôture ought not to be put into operation except at the suggestion of a Minister of the Crown. As a private Member he protested against that most unconstitutional doctrine. It was one of the most important rights and privileges of Members of Parliament that, as Members, all were equal, with the exception that Ministers alone were privileged to propose money Votes on their own re-
    1874
    sponsibilities as Ministers of the Crown. The Crown, however, had nothing whatever to do with the Question before the House. The privileges of Members that were now being debated had often been asserted against the Crown, and there could not, therefore, be any more unconstitutional proceeding than to enlarge the Parliamentary powers of Ministers by the adoption of the Amendment. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex made, indeed, a proposition to which the objection he had just made could not apply. But, then, the speech of the noble Lord, like that of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, was almost entirely confined to what should be the rights or duties of Ministers of the Crown in this matter; and, apparently, he brought in the private Member as a sort of bogey in the background, in order to meet the objection which he foresaw might be made, while it enabled him to make that great diatribe against the Prime Minister with which he favoured the House. He hoped, however, the Government would not make a greater concession to the noble Lord than to the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The private Member was not the man the noble Lord had in his eye; his object was that the Speaker should act in conjunction with a Minister of the Crown. But he would thereby incur the very risks to prevent which the noble Lord and his Friends pretended they were making this proposition. He would ask anyone acquainted with the ways of the House, whether the Speaker would be in a more independent position if he was to be looking to the right or to the left and asking either a Minister of the Crown or some hon. Member—perhaps the noble Lord himself and his Friends—whether the moment had come when he was to consult the opinion of the House, or if he was to act on his own undivided responsibility? This proposition, if carried, would make the Speaker almost necessarily the slave of faction, and he could not understand how it could have been brought forward from any wish to preserve the integrity of the Speaker's high Office and those traditions which were its glory. For these reasons he would most unhesitatingly vote against this proposition, and upon the most Conservative grounds, though he sat on the Liberal side of the House.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, that not many days ago the noble Lord who had just sat down performed with considerable effect the office of Jeremiah to his own Party; but when a political opponent ventured to make a few criticisms on the policy of the Prime Minister, the noble Lord was extremely indignant. The noble Lord found fault with his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex for having discussed the matter as if the words "Mr. Speaker" had not been already introduced into the Resolution. But the line taken by his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex was that the words "Mr. Speaker" had been unfortunately introduced, and, as it was not possible for him to strike them out, he desired to minimize the evil, and, as far as possible, take from the Speaker the initiative in this odious procedure. With regard to the two Amendments now before the House, his own opinion was rather in favour of that of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, because, while regretting that this machinery for the silencing of Members should be put in motion, he thought if it was to be done it should be done in the most solemn manner by those who would not only feel the responsibility, but who could be made responsible to the House. But, said the noble Lord who had just sat down, "who ever heard of introducing in such a case a Minister of the Crown?" Had the noble Lord ever heard of the Rules of Urgency, which were only to be applied on the initiative of a Minister? He did not find that the noble Lord had all those misgivings of unconstitutional action to which he had just given utterance when those Rules were passed.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that they were only passed as a temporary measure.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, the whole of the argument amounted to this, thrash it backwards and forwards how they would, whether under the circumstances in which the words "Mr. Speaker" were introduced into the Resolution, the conditions upon which the Speaker was directed by the subsequent part of it to act would not oblige him to have regard to the sense of a bare majority of the House at any time. If that were not so, of course the initiative of the Speaker would be a great protection, and he would be the last person in the world to
    1876
    fear the oppression of an impatient majority. On the other hand, if it could be shown, as he thought it could, that the inevitable effect of the Resolution as it stood would be to tie the hands of the Speaker so that he would be obliged to consider the sense of a bare majority of the House, the case was different. That was the point upon which they were to make up their minds, and upon that point the noble Lord the Member for Calne did not meet the arguments of his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex. There was another consideration which had been glanced at by other Members. While the introduction of the Speaker's initiative was really no protection to one of the great Parties against whom the clôture might be applied, and while its necessary tendency was swiftly and effectually to degrade the Speakers of the House, it went far to deprive those who were aggrieved of that very ally which some found in public opinion out-of-doors. A great deal had been said of public opinion out-of-doors as a security against any abuse of the clôture in the House of Commons. For his own part, so far as Members had been recommended to betake themselves to the Press and to the platform when they were dissatisfied with the decisions of the House through the agency of the clôture, he must decline to accept that recommendation. As regarded the Press, it must be remembered that probably every nine people out of ten who read the newspapers only heard one side of the question; and it was only in the reports of the debates in Parliament that the whole subject was carefully presented to them. With all respect to the Press, therefore, ho could not consent to rely upon that as a protection against abuse of the clôture. Neither could he accept the protection of the platform. It was in the House itself that the protection must rest. It would be no satisfaction to a great political Party to be told, when a question was carried over their heads through the exercise of the clôture, that they might appeal to public opinion out-of-doors after the thing had become an accomplished fact. If the clôture now recommended for adoption were used in an unfair manner against a political Party in the House, they might appeal to public opinion out-of-doors, and if they did not obtain satisfaction, they might, at all events, have retaliation. The

    1877
    intervention and initiative of the Speaker as proposed in the Resolution practically would deprive them of the protection of public opinion out-of-doors, because when they charged the opposite Party with having acted unfairly, the answer would be that it was done by the Speaker in the discharge of his duty. It was therefore desirable, as far as possible, to withdraw the Speaker from all initiative in the position in which the Resolution now stood, because it was inevitable that the force of the language used in the latter part of it would compel the Speaker to adopt the sense of a majority of the House, and not of the whole House, as that "evident sense" on which he was to act. The words of the Resolution made this at least clear. His contention was that in the earlier part of this Resolution the Speaker was left entirely free to put what construction he pleased upon the "evident sense" of the House. He wanted to know what House? It was left open to the Speaker to take any point of the relative points of balance of opinion of the House—whether the nine-tenths, or a mere majority of 1. Whatever construction he placed on the latter words of the Resolution, Mr. Speaker was left entirely to his own discretion in the earlier part. Suppose—and it was not a violent supposition—that within two or three years another Radical Government were in power who thought it of great national importance to carry without delay some sweeping measure, the Minister of the day might consider that a Speaker of his own views would be worth a ton of argument. The minority would be placed at a great disadvantage, and Revolutionary measuress might be carried, and carried by a comparatively small and reluctant majority. It had been said more than once that the Speakers of the House of Commons held a position of impartiality which could not be found in the corresponding Officers in any other Assembly in the world. That was so. He remembered very well the incident which happened about eight years ago, when the present Speaker was elected to the chair by political opponents. He would remind the House that in 1874, when the Conservative Party came into power with a great and unexpected majority, it was in the power of the Prime Minister to name as Speaker whom he would, for any person whom Mr. Disraeli might
    1878
    have named would have certainly been elected; and there were men in the Party who might have justly aspired to that honour. But Mr. Disraeli had sat long in that House—and, whatever might be said against him, no one could deny that he was devoted to the interests and the honour of the House of Commons. He looked upon the position of Speaker as too high a one to be used for purposes of Party advantage. He regarded that position rather as a trust on behalf of all Parties in the House; and in the present Speaker he selected one whom all agreed was the best qualified to fulfil the duties of the chair. The Speaker had himself been a stout partizan of the Liberals; but his election was proposed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), an equally stout partizan of the other side. The present Prime Minister, on that occasion, spoke eloquently of the Speaker of that Assembly as one whose position it was difficult for foreigners to realize. The right hon. Gentleman might have added that the scene which was enacted that day in the English House of Commons could not have been presented in any other Legislative Assembly in the world. He (Mr. Plunket) feared it might never be witnessed in that House again. On that occasion the Speaker had used memorable words to the effect that, knowing the House, faithful to its traditions, would sustain the occupant of the Chair in vindicating their rights and privileges, and in securing freedom of debate according to established usage, he would humbly place such services as he possessed at the disposal of the House. Throughout all the calamities that had fallen on the House in recent years, the Speaker's position had shone with undiminished lustre. It was because he feared that those who succeeded to that place would be elected on different principles, that he should resist the introduction of the Speaker's authority in the Resolution, as to some extent it had been introduced—that he should support the Amendment, in order to prevent those evils from arising which he foresaw in the future.
    MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken should have referred to the possible abuse, for Party purposes, of the Speaker's authority. He wished to resume the thread of the

    1879
    discussion as it fell on the 30th of March. It had wandered very far from the point. He desired to confine his attention to the Question before the House. On the 30th of March the House decided, not on any plan of clôture or rigid system of Rules for the future, but simply that the House was prepared to consider the recommendations of the Prime Minister as to whether any system of clôture could be adopted consistently with the ancient traditions of the House. Nothing more was decided—unless in the putting of the Question two or three words were added which were not essential to the Question. He put it confidently that the man who, of all men, had the responsibility on his shoulders—the Prime Minister—would readily and cheerfully, especially after his candid speech that evening, modify the Resolution before them if he could be convinced that it would be for the benefit of the House to do so, and it were in consonance with the feelings of the majority on the subject. It would be wholly unworthy of the great career of the right hon. Gentleman to do otherwise. He could not conceive that those who claimed to be a majority in the House would be easily induced to shut up nearly half the Members who sat there. He would not believe that the illustrious man, the last Predecessor but one of the present occupant of the Chair, whose name had been so often quoted as an authority for the Resolution—he would not believe that Lord Eversley would ever have advised a majority in that manner to shut up a minority, or that he would have desired the invidious duty of deciding, silently and without expressed reason, the sense of the House. It was not in human nature that a man should desire to exercise such a power. But what he desired was that the Prime Minister would not lay upon the Speaker such a burden as none of the Predecessors of the present Speaker ever assumed or were ever desirous to assume. All the Speakers of that House, from the Long Parliament downwards, whether good or bad, had considered themselves to be the spokesmen of the House and nothing else. The greatest poet of our language had said that the truest equality was not where all men were equal, but where all had equal liberty; and he would not consent that the House should place itself entirely in the discretion of even the present
    1880
    Speaker. There were some who would winnow the corn and retain the chaff. He was not one of those. He would be neither accuser, nor accessory, nor accomplice, nor adviser; but he simply claimed the right to have his future liberty protected against even the honest desire of the Minister of the day to get on with the Public Business and put down Obstruction. He was not indifferent to Order, and in the last painful Session there was no occasion on which he had not supported the authority of the Chair. He did not see what was to prevent the Whips crowding the Benches with the supporters of the Government, who might, by their conduct, overpower the judgment of the Speaker, and so influence him to call for the clôture when in reality it was not required. On the other hand, if they put upon the Speaker the odious duty of watching the House and of seizing a safe opportunity for the Government to choke an Opposition, he would never be able to disengage his mind from that day forward of the idea that it was a moral obligation on his part, a religious duty, to exercise that power. That would render him an object of fear and suspicion, and all confidence in his impartiality would disappear. At present he had no such power, and, therefore, they had no such fear of him. On the contrary, the humblest Member of the House had a free access to the Chair, and had as much right as the most influential among them to ask the Speaker for his advice and assistance. If they took that right away, and once allowed this humble man to think that he was looked upon with disfavour by the Chair, how could it be possible that he could any longer have confidence in him? The present Speaker had discharged his duty so impartially and satisfactorily as to disarm all suspicion, and to render hon. Members less wary than they ought to be with respect to what might take place in the future; but when, perhaps, one less worthy than he occupied the same position, who would venture to ask for his advice or to follow it? He therefore implored the Government not to impose upon him a weight too heavy for him to bear, and under which it was impossible he could stand upright. These proposals were not English—they were things of foreign growth, and he could not see how such exotics could grow and flourish in the

    1881
    fair atmosphere of England. Anyone who had been in the House an hour ago would understand from what then took place how hopeless it was to challenge the decision of the Chair. He would take a case. It was quite possible a small minority might become intolerable to the Ministers of the day. They, very naturally, looked to the passing of their Bills. The Speaker saw—he would be made to see without telegraphic messages or whispers, without nods or winks—that he would do a great service to the public if he would do what was called "shutting out the Opposition," and let the Business of the Government go on. The next time the minority might be larger, and they would be in a similar case. The Whips filled the Back Benches with steady followers; the Benches opposite were half empty, and thus they would be shut out. The next experiment might be the shuting out of a great political Party; and if ever they came to a day when they put the closure upon a Party with a doubtful resemblance in numbers to the present majority, then they might have a House of Caucus, but they would have no longer a House of Commons. He would go further. Unless they believed in the infallibility of the Chair, they must contemplate the possibility of the Speaker making a mistake. Did they believe that if the Speaker attempted to shut down the House, and failed, any man would have the same confidence in him as before? If there was a precious jewel which the House ought to preserve, it was the untainted and undoubted impartiality of the Chair. If they lost that, they were on the highway to lose the independence of the House, because they were on the highway to lose the personal individuality of the House. There was one other subject which he should not like to sit down without referring to. For months he had thought about it, and he felt that it was impossible to leave it unsaid. At an hour like the present, when there was such a strain upon the Empire, and danger was confessedly so near—when distraction was so deep, and allienation had become so widespread and so bitter, he could not shut his eyes to what seemed to him an impending danger—that when they passed the clôture, they would inflict the first great blow to the Union between England and Ireland. Let it not be sup-
    1882
    posed that he said this in exaggeration or in lightness. Members from Ireland were invited to enter that House in the proportion of 100 to 500. In spite of the protest of Mr. Fox, Irishmen were invited—he must say forced—into the Union in the proportion of one to five. One danger was indicated by Grattan in the memorable protest he made in favour of the national life of his stricken country. He said—
    "You can have no security for equal freedom. There may be every disposition to treat you well; I believe in the honour of British statesmen; hut you can have no security in such proportion as you form in the House for equal freedom."
    To that Mr. Pitt replied that they might trust inviolably the honour and the generosity and the national self-respect of England. She asked Ireland to join her for better or for worse, and she would never put down or trample upon her because she was weaker, but would always listen and attend to her complaints. Mr. Grattan's answer to that should be remembered. He said—
    "When I am asked on behalf of a weaker to trust irrevocably its fortunes and its liberties to the honour of the greater, the greater may have much honour, but the weaker can have no security."
    That day had, undoubtedly, now come within sight. For 80 years hon. Members from Ireland, however divided among themselves, however antagonistic in creed and in opinions, had found themselves at home in that great Assembly, and had never found themselves unable to obtain a hearing on account of their numerical inferiority. This he would say, that in 1801, with the bloodshed of 1798 still recent, and even with the unexampled bribery notoriously exercised at that day, if anyone had ventured to tell the Stricken, weakened, and emaciated Parliament of Ireland that they would be choked, and choked when they could not retaliate, no power on earth would have forced them to the Union. For the sake of the honour and the liberties of the House, for the sake of the legislation of the future, for the sake of their institutions, and for the honour of the Union, he implored the House to consider well before it rashly adopted a system of unqualified clôture.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he must congratulate the House upon having had from the hon. Member for Finsbury

    1883
    (Mr. W. M. Torrens) a speech which was worthy of the Whig-Radicals who had in former years been his contemporaries as Members of the House—men of the stamp of the late Mr. Wakley and the late Mr. Duncombe. They had heard how Whig-Radicals were wont to speak; and he hoped the younger Members of the House connected with the Liberal Party would understand that their Predecessors, who had studied the elements of freedom, were not satisfied with mere platform oratory based upon fallacies and not upon proofs. The hon. Member for Finsbury had clearly pointed out that this, which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had called a "trifling question" at the beginning of the evening, really involved the freedom of debate. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no.] If he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he certainly spoke of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), and the Amendment upon that of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), as involving a "small point." These, he believed, were the right hon. Gentleman's words, and he thought the hon. Member for Finsbury had shown that it was not by any means a "small point." He must say, also, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan threw into plainer light the real meaning of leaving in the hands of the Speaker a discretionary power that was altogether unprecedented. When, on the 4th of February, 1881, the Speaker, in acknowledging the confidence which the House had placed in him by trusting him to draw up the Rules of Urgency, the right hon. Gentleman used these words—
    "The House has intrusted to me great and unprecedented powers, and I accept them with a grave sense of the responsibility imposed upon me. I shall endeavour to carry them out in such a manner as to maintain freedom of debate, which is one of the most cherished traditions of this House, and at the same time to restrain any abuses of that freedom."—[3 Hansard, cclviii. 162.]
    The House adopted, at a period of emergency, what the right hon. Gentleman himself termed an unprecendented course; and on the 4th of February, 1881, when the right hon. Gentleman also presented the Rules of Urgency, he used the expression that no Speaker ought to use those powers unauthorized again. What the House was now asked
    1884
    to do was this—to make the measures, which the right hon. Gentleman stated to be unprecedented, the ordinary Rules hereafter in this House. On the 2nd of February, 1881, the Speaker, in acknowledging the confidence of the House in sanctioning the unprecedented power he had used in an emergency, said—
    "Future measures for insuring orderly debate I must leave to the judgment of the House. But I may add that it will be necessary, either for the House itself to assume more effectual control over its debates, or to intrust greater authority to the Chair."—[Ibid.]
    The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had chosen the latter alternative without even attempting the former. He had preferred the clôture to every attempt to regulate debate, and they had before them the probability of the ctôlure in its most dangerous form. If the cloture could be made more dangerous by any manner in which it was introduced, it was by placing it first in order, and first for their consideration; so that every measure for regulating debate was postponed to the adoption of the clôture. It was evident that the Speaker considered that the House ought to have first discovered and to have adopted Rules for the regulation of debate, perhaps analogous in some degree with the Rules of Urgency, and not first to adopt the clôture, which was liable to the reasonable interpretation that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan conveyed. The hon. Member had, in that Amendment, put in plain light the course that would be pursued, if the Resolution before the House were to be adopted as it stood. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister did not like to have this glaring light thrown upon his scheme. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex had a glimmering of the vice of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. It would limit the clôture to the initiative of the Minister of the Crown, and the noble Lord proposed that the origination of the clôture might be exercised by any Member in charge of the subject under discussion. The effect of this Amendment was that, although in the right direction, it did not go far enough. Why limit this power to a Member who probably was in love with his own hobby? He (Mr. Newdegate) objected to both Amendments, but most to the first. Why should the House

    1885
    now, for the first time, increase the functions of the Minister of the Crown in that House? He saw that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister assented to that. It was a violation of the first principle of the constitution of the House, which was equality in the conditions upon which hon. Gentleman sat in the House. The Amendment proposed almost as great a violation of this fundamental principle as would be made by intrusting to the Speaker the imposition of the clôture upon the House. If any such power was intrusted to any Speaker, upon the solicitation of a Minister of the Crown, that would be fatal to the equality that had always prevailed among the Members of the House when once at the commencement of a Parliament the Speaker had been chosen, and on his demand the Crown had granted its time-honoured privileges to the House. The House then became Republic within itself. The proposal now before the House was in violation of the Republican principle of the constitution of the House; and it was for this reason that he, as an old Constitutionalist, assumed the position which was filled in former days by Mr. Duncombe or Mr. Wakley, and rejoiced to say was now ably taken by the hon. Member for Finsbury. These truths must be spoken, and it had fallen to his lot to utter them. All Members had equal privileges in that House, except that the Ministers of the Crown were intrusted solely with the right of proposing taxation. That was their sole rightful privilege. But now the hon. Member for Dungarvan had shown that Her Majesty's Ministers would arrogate to themselves another enormous privilege in addition to that which they had of right, as directly responsible; while the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex would make them share the enormous power only with the proposer of a Motion before the House—not always the most competent judge of the sense of the House with regard to concluding a discussion of his own favourite topic. He trusted, then, that the House would not invest the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair and his Successors with a power which must destroy confidence in their impartiality; for the wide discretion which it was proposed that they should continually exercise must generate at least suspicion.
    1886
    It was the clear duty of the Leader of the House to make the proposal regularly by Motion if the clôture was to be enforced in this House. They had known that right hon. Gentleman to abandon his functions on two or three occasions in the Bradlaugh case. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he should leave the House in a helpless condition. But, fortunately, there was a Leader of the Opposition, who efficiently took his place. If the clôture, which he abominated, was to be enforced, by courtesy of the House, no doubt, either the Leader of the House or the Leader of the Opposition would undertake the ungrateful task of setting it in operation. It must be supposed that it was because this must be an ungrateful task that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister proposed to saddle it upon the Speaker. It was of vital interest to the House that the Speaker should not be compelled to perform invidious duties—duties that would render him or his Successors open to suspicion. It was of vital interest to the House that the Leader of the House should behave himself in a manner worthy of his position, and if he failed, that the Leader of the Opposition should take his place on every occasion when that might be necessary. He regretted to have to say it; but he ventured to do so, in the presence of both of the right hon. Gentlemen, that he had never known men in their position fail so entirely in guiding the House, in proposing such regulation of the debates as might obviate the necessity, the painful necessity, which was pretended for the ciôture. He (Mr. Newdegate) had ventured to give Notice of his intention to propose a method, which he, as an old Party organizer in the House, believed would preserve Order, and would preserve, by regulating, the freedom of debate. He had no right, however, at present to allude to that. But the House was in this position. Instead of following the order which Mr. Speaker pointed out in February, 1881, and endeavouring, first, to regulate the debates and the proceedings of the House, the Government had precipitated the proposal of the clôture. In fact, they had done and were doing nothing effectual whatever towards regulating the proceedings of the House. He supposed that they had not read that which was to be found in

    1887
    Mr. Hatsell's well-known and authoritative book on the precedents and proceedings in the House of Commons, or they had adopted a view exactly opposite to that of the author. As they all knew, Mr. Hatsell was a great authority on the subject of the proceedings of the House, and he wrote in his learned work to this effect, that the Ministers of the Crown always gained increased power when confusion prevailed in the House of Commons. He invited the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to this statement of the learned authority to whom he referred, who had warned the House that the Ministers of the Crown always gained power by promoting confusion in the House. He (Mr. Newdegate), therefore, as an old Member of the House, did not take it kindly that the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had allowed the House to remain so long in disorder that it was losing the respect and confidence of the country. It rested with those right hon. Gentlemen, not with the Speaker, to renovate the means of preserving Order—it rested, in fact, with the House itself. The House had been brought to this lamentable strait by the attempt of these two right hon. Gentlemen to relieve themselves of responsibility. They were seeking, for the same purpose, to invest the Speaker with a power that was at once unprecedented and inconsistent with his Office. He (Mr. Newdegate) held that those who were the most responsible for the confusion that had reigned in the House were the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition, through not fulfilling the duties which, by the courtesy of the House, devolved upon them.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHT: It is not my intention to occupy the time of the House more than for a very few minutes, for, after all, the question before us may be discussed, I think, and disposed of in a few words, notwithstanding the somewhat lengthy debate that has taken place. Such Members of the House as were present when I last addressed it on this subject will recollect that I began my speech by referring to the exaggerated fears which Members opposite had somehow or other—I do not know how—become possessed of during their consideration of the question. I proceeded
    1888
    to show that those Members of the House—some on that side, and a few, it was said, on this—who preferred a certain other proposition—a two-thirds vote—to the proposal of the Government seemed to me entirely mistaken; that whilst they were objecting to the severity and strength of what the majority does, they themselves were in favour of what was much more severe. I think I proved that to demonstration by giving figures showing how the one course would affect a small minority, and how much more severely treated a small minority would be by the other course. Well, now we come to another point, and I have to express my astonishment at the view which hon. Members opposite have taken of the particular question submitted by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The opponents of the Resolution are—I do not know why—actuated with a strange fear of what may happen to the House and to minorities, and. more especially, Sir, to you, the Speaker of the House, if the Resolution as proposed by the Government should be accepted. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), in a very interesting speech, directed, I think, hardly at all to the Amendment, has pointed out, towards the conclusion of his speech, the tremendous pressure and injustice that may be practised upon small minorities at the end of the Session. Well, our plan, at any rate with regard to the clôture, as against the two-thirds proposition, is clearly more in favour of small minorities. But I should like to ask the House whether they think the proposition that is made in the Amendment is more favourable to small minorities than the one in the Resolution, as it is proposed by the Government? I think nothing could be more conclusive than that the Resolution, as it stands will be infinitely more favourable to small minorities than the Resolution would be if amended by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury, so far as I heard it—and I am sorry I did not hear the whole of it—was largely a warning against trusting the Speakers with the power of injuring the House, and damaging the authority and the honourable independence of the Gentleman who may occupy that Chair. That seemed to be the great object of his speech. Now, what

    1889
    is proposed by the Amendment—I do not know that the hon. Member for Fins-bury supported the Amendment? [Mr. W. M. TORRENS: Yes, Sir; I did.] Well, I did not gather it from what I heard of the speech; and I do not think anybody else gathered it. I know it was somewhat cheered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, perhaps in that sense; but then they are always very ready to cheer anything from this side of the House that attacks Her Majesty's Government. Now, what is it that the Amendment proposes?—because that is the real point we are to discuss. It proposes this—that, in calling into action the Resolution that is to be passed, an opinion should be expressed by some Minister of the Crown—I suppose the First Minister of the Crown necessarily, if he be present in the House—and the Ministerial majority, for he is the Representative of the Ministerial majority, and will not act contrary to the opinion of the majority by whom he is supported; and, therefore, the majority of the House, speaking through the Minister, is to call into action the opinion and the declaration of the Speaker as to when the clôture is to be brought into play. The idea that we are to keep this question free from Party seems to be entirely given up by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, because, first of all, the most distinguished Member of the Party in the House is the Prime Minister. The most important portion of the House, as a Party in numbers, is the majority by which the Prime Minister is supported; and that majority, and that Minister, before anything can be done, has to intimate by standing up at this Table, I suppose, and calling upon the Speaker, and making an observation that he thinks the debate ought to close, declaring that the sense of the House is in favour of its being closed, and thereupon the Speaker proceeds to take his part in the transaction. Now, the hon. Member for Finsbury spoke about former Speakers being connected with great political Leaders, being on terms of friendship with them—some of them, indeed, I think he said, even taking part in debate, as is done by the President of the House of Lords. Well, we must be sensible, all of us, that if this matter is to be transacted by alliance between the Minister and the Speaker, then it is very
    1890
    likely, during the course of debate, that the Minister, by means known to all of us, can intimate to the Speaker that the time is approaching when he shall make a proposition that the debate shall close, and the Speaker, in all probability, if the Minister is judicious, if he has not pressed his authority too far, will take the hint; and if the Minister makes a proposition, the Speaker, in all probability, will support it, and do what the Resolution requires him to do. But by this you are introducing into a very critical matter—because we all admit, I as freely as anyone, that it is critical, and not at all, if it could be avoided, a pleasant matter—thatthere should be any limitation of the power of debate, or the prolongation of discussion in the House. But if it is to be done in any way, it seems to me of all ways the worst that the Minister of the Crown, the trusted guide of the majority, should take action, and call upon the Speaker to act. The Minister is not—I will not say an independent, but he is not an impartial person. The Minister has his majority, and he has his policy; he has his Bills and his Supplies; and all the great work of the Session, and some of it, as we know, difficult and crowded towards the end of the Session; he has every reason, for the purpose of furthering his own policy and that of his Party, to call into action this Resolution, probably far sooner, and probably far more often, than would be done if it was left entirely in the impartial hands of the Speaker. I agree entirely with the charming account which the hon. Member for Finsbury drew of the confidence which all Members of the House have in the Speaker. It has been so for the very long time I have been in the House. I have always felt there was no question in which I could not go up to the Speaker and take his advice, and I believe he would give me his advice in as friendly and free a manner as he would to any Minister of the Crown sitting on this Bench. But if a Minister whom we do not always like very well—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—the hon. and learned Member cheers that sentiment—where, I say, we do not like him very well, sitting in Opposition, we are not very much in favour of some portion of his policy—we object to it—I should not like, certainly, if I were on that side of the House, and the late Government

    1891
    sitting here, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) should be able to get up, any time during the debates, especially towards the end of the Session, and that he should then call upon the Speaker to put in action the Resolution and to stop the debate. I believe the motives which would press upon the Minister would be ten times stronger, and come to him ten times more often, to stir him to action than would be the case if the whole power were left in the hands of the Speaker. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) surprises me very much. He says that the clôture is an abominable thing, or used some other disagreeable word. He has been the advocate for many years past of some measure of this kind, or for this object. I do not know why he objects to the proposition of the Government. At any rate, I can understand why he objects to the proposition of the Amendment. He sees, as I see, that the Amendment is the very thing that an unscrupulous Minister sitting on this Bench would ask the House to agree to, because it gives greater power to the Minister, it lessens immensely the power of the minority, it takes out of the hands of the most impartial man within these walls the decision of a very important question in which we are all, and in which minorities especially, are particularly concerned, and therefore I must say I am astonished that Members opposite should take the course they do. They took a wrong course, I think, upon the other question to which I have already referred, and I think now they are proposing what is much less moderate than that which the Government has proposed. I am not allowed to speak, of course, of the opinion of the Speaker in the Chair; but I judge and believe that any Speaker—the present one in the Chair or his successors—would prefer that he should be left to his own impartial judgment on all matters of this Kind rather than he should be subjected to the hints, the proffered alliance, the urging and stimulating of a Minister of the Crown, who might ask him, under certain circumstances, to help him out of a difficulty that might have arisen. If I were a Member of a small minority, or of any minority, I should like to take the course of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). I
    1892
    would shut out the Minister from any extra power on this matter over that of any other Member of the House.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: What I said was, that I thought by courtesy the duty ought to devolve on the Leader of the House or the Leader of the Opposition.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHT: That is exactly what I understood the hon. Gentleman to say. The hon. Gentleman complains, and condemns the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and my right hon. Friend, because they have not done all he thinks they ought in a particular case; but surely if he leaves it entirely to the Minister of the day, and shuts out the Speaker altogether, then the question becomes a pure question of Party. Nothing, in my opinion, could be more unfair, and more unreasonable to a minority, and especially to small minorities, which, towards the end of the Session, are often the most troublesome in preventing the transaction of Business. Now, I put it to hon. Members, if this matter is to be done at all, if there is to be any mode of bringing a debate to a close by the general sense of the House, when that debate has been protracted to an unconscionable length, is it not better to adopt the proposition which the Government has offered to the House, a proposition, I say, conspicuous in its moderation, rather than, so far as we have gone, the Amendments offered—the Amendment of two-thirds, or that of handing over to the initiative of a Minister, or of shutting out the only absolute impartial authority in the House? I do not claim to be impartial at all. I am a Member of a Party anxious to do certain things, and am always very glad when we have a majority on a division. I do not complain of any man acting honestly and honourably with and for his Party; but with the feelings that we have against our opponents, and in favour of our own policy, I think the less this matter is intrusted to any Member on either side of the House, or to any handful or number of Members, the better, and that all that has been said by the hon. Member for Finsbury and others as to the character of the Speaker, and the manner in which all men in the House wish that that character should be permanently and for ever sustained, I think, wishing that done, it is our secure interest that to the Speaker

    1893
    should be committed this delicate power, and that all men in the House and every minority would feel that when the House has been called to decide the question whether a debate should be prolonged or not by the Speaker, and the decision was against the prolongation of the debate, I think he would feel he had been better treated, and more consistently with the character and practice of the House, than if the Leader of the majority of the House should get up and by his fiat should put a stop to the debate. Therefore, on the ground that those fears with regard to the minority, and those fears with regard to the effect of this proposition on the character of the Speaker are exaggerated, and without any sensible foundation, I think that the proposition made by Her Majesty's Government is one of as great moderation as it is possible to offer on a case of this kind; and, therefore, I hope that the Resolution as it is offered to the House will be sustained by the House.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he found himself in a somewhat difficult position, for while he disliked the hon. Member for Dungarvan's Amendment, he did not care very much for the Amendment to it moved by his noble Friend the Member for Middlesex. Yet, on the whole, he liked the original Resolution less than either of the Amendments. He had always held that it was unfair to place on the Speaker the very unenviable responsibility of taking the initiative in this matter. He thought the initiative ought to rest in the hands of the House, and that they alone ought to be responsible for whatever decision was taken. Inasmuch as the Amendment, to a certain degree, mitigated the evils of which he complained, he preferred it to the original Resolution. His objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan was that it raised an inequality that did not exist at present between Ministers of the Crown and other Members of the House. That, to his mind, was fatal to it. It was modified by the Amendment of the noble Lord; but he should not be satisfied with any Amendment, except one which would place the initiative in any Member of the House.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he should vote for the Amendment, because he was in favour of the clôture, and was anxious
    1894
    that it should be strengthened; but he could not understand how hon. Gentlemen opposite could support it. He was of opinion that you could not obtain the clôture by a majority unless some Amendment of this kind was added to the Resolution. The Speaker, when he informed the House that a debate had lasted long enough, would have to consider whether it was reasonably certain that the clôture would pass or not, because, if it did not pass, the Speaker would be in an entirely false position. He apprehended that the Speaker never would say that it was the general sense of the House that a debate should close unless he was pretty certain that there was a large majority in favour of it; and that was why he said this Amendment would render it far more probable that it would be clôture by a simple majority than was ever likely to be the case so long as the matter was left entirely in the hands of the Speaker. The effect of such an Amendment as the present would be to shift the responsibility from the Speaker to its proper place—namely, to the Ministers of the Crown. It had been said that the Speaker was the natural protector of minorities; but why, if so, did they not vote with him for the Amendment? What was the alternative proposed? The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had enunciated the very Republican doctrine that they were all equal.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: I referred to Members in the House, not all mankind.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he held that even in that House Ministers of the Crown were superior to ordinary Members, and they had special reasons and rights to interfere to bring a debate to a close, on account of the responsibility that lay on them alone in regard to the conduct of the Business of the House. Although he was anxious that the clôture should pass in a strong form, he would not vote for the Amendment as he proposed to do if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had stated that by that issue the Government would stand or fall, because, knowing, as he did, that the right hon. Gentleman had more experience in Parliamentary matters than anyone then present, he should be bound, under such circumstances, to support him. They had had two speeches from the Treasury Bench, one

    1895
    from the Prime Minister, and the other from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and he must say he never heard two worse speeches from those right hon. Gentlemen in his life. The reason of that, no doubt, was because in their hearts they were not opposed to the Amendment. He felt, therefore, that he should only be supporting the policy they were in favour of by voting against them on this particular occasion.
    MR. GRANTHAMsaid, that the Resolution proposed that the responsibility should mainly devolve on the Speaker; but when they came to the latter part, and interpreted that by the speech of the Prime Minister, it was quite evident that the responsibility was to be taken away, and it was to devolve on the majority. The basis of the Prime Minister's speech was that the House had always been governed by a majority. The obvious conclusion was that this question was to be determined by the House independently of the Speaker. That being so, he agreed with the principle of the Amendment, that if the majority of the House was to determine the matter, it ought to be done on the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown. He objected to the Amendment as it stood, because if the initiative were left to a Minister that would make it a Party question. He wished to avoid that, and for that reason he would prefer that it should be left in the hands of the Speaker with some limitation. It was not desirable that it should always be a Party question. He believed in the independence of Speakers in the future, and he preferred to trust the Speaker rather than a majority or a Minister. The Resolution was inconsistent with itself; it was drawn on the principle that the Speaker was to be responsible; but towards the close it was provided that the question was not to be decided in the affirmative without the support of so many Members; and for that reason he said the power of the Speaker was taken away. If a majority was to have the power, it was far better that a Minister of the Crown should be responsible. For these reasons, he should vote for the Amendment, although he disliked it.
    MR. HICKSsaid, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had asked what the Amendment proposed. He ventured to ask the Government another question,
    1896
    what did the Resolution propose? Up to this time there seemed no agreement as to what it did mean. Did it mean that the initiative was to rest with the Speaker, or did it mean that it was to rest with the power behind the Prime Minister? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had spoken of the Speaker receiving a hint from someone; if he had been earlier in the House he would have heard his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire say that the Speaker should receive hints from both sides. If that were so, how was he to be independent? The great thing was to have the Resolution made clear and simple, for, tyrannical as the Motion was, it was better that it should be passed than that they should pass something which no one could understand.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I do not propose to detain the House for any length of time; but I am anxious to say one word, especially in consequence of the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). It is perfectly true, I must say, that there is some difficulty in deciding upon the vote that we ought to give upon such a question as this, and for this reason—that we are entering into the discussion and settlement of a Resolution with the whole scope and object of which a great many of us entirely disagree. It is extremely difficult, therefore, when you come to judge the different points in the Resolution, to consider how far we ought to take one course or another with reference to the particular question raised. I confess I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) in the general view he expressed on the subject. I am not very much charmed with the Amendment proposed; but I think it a less evil than the Resolution as it stands, and I will explain in a moment why I think so. The difficulty that I feel in regard to the whole proposal is, that it is a proposal, assuming that it is to be a Resolution which is to give the power of closing a debate to a bare majority, which is essentially of a Party character. We cannot disguise that fact from ourselves. If you are prepared to say you would only give that power to a large majority, such as two-thirds, you would be obviously placing the matter on a wholly different footing, and giving the great bulk of the House, irrespective of Party, the

    1897
    option of saying that, at a certain time, they had enough of the discussion. But when that had been suggested, the objection was taken that you could not agree to that, because, if you did, you would be making the minority parties to a question which ought to be decided by the majority. The majority ought to rule, and that is why we insist on a simple majority deciding in this matter. But the majority means the Party of the Government of the day, unless you mean a snap majority—an accidental majority that happened to be in the House at a particular time. You can hardly mean that you are thinking of an accidental majority, but of the permanent majority of the House. If that is to be the case, and if the object in passing this Resolution is not to save time in irrelevant debates, but that you may enable the Ministry to go on and carry measures to which they attach importance, we have to consider what is the object of calling on the Speaker to originate a Motion for the closing of the debate. If the question were one which was to be decided according to the feeling of the great majority of the House—of the majority and the minority—then I could understand the Speaker, without imparting the least Party character to his action, might say—"I think the House is now desirous of closing this debate." But if that is not to be so, and the Speaker is to be called upon to ask the House whether they wish to close a debate when he perceives the evident sense of the House to be so and so, what is meant by the evident sense of the House? You have defined that by saying it is a bare majority. If it is, therefore, in the mind of the Speaker that there is a bare majority in favour of closing the debate, it may be fairly argued and defended that the Speaker is bound to put the Question. Let us take a case which may frequently occur. There is a debate of great importance, which lasts, perhaps, two days, and the question arises whether the debate should be adjourned again. The Government, or the majority, oppose it, and a large minority vote for it. The practice now would be that the majority, if they insist on continuing the debate, divided two or three times, would be sure to carry the Motion; but if the Speaker perceives that the minority were not in favour of adjourning the
    1898
    debate, he would feel himself bound to put the Question. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) shakes his head. I do not say that a strong Speaker, like the Gentleman who at present occupies the Chair, might not stand against such action; but it would be very difficult for an ordinary Speaker, subject to the pressure which would be put on him both in the House and out of the House, to refuse, in the circumstances, to put the Question. You, therefore, put the Speaker into an unfair position by throwing upon him the initiative; and I do not scruple to say that of the two proposals before the House, the less objectionable is that the clôture Motion should come from those who occupy a responsible position. I am, therefore, inclined to vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. Not that I do not feel the disadvantage of putting the initiative in the hands of the Minister of the day. I can perceive cases in which the Minister would abuse the power of bringing about the close of a debate; but, of the two evils, I believe the lesser is that we should be entirely above board in what we are doing, and put the responsibility on the proper shoulders—these being the shoulders of the Minister of the Crown.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, that when he first saw the Amendment on the Paper he felt inclined to oppose it; but, considering it in connection with the original Resolution, he had reluctantly arrived at the conclusion that it was better, in the interests of the House, to vote for it—and this for two reasons. In the first place, he thought it would be a more honest way of dealing with the question. The object of the Rule, as he understood it from the description given by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington), was to enable the Government to carry out the program me which they laid before the country at the General Election in 1880. If that were so, then it was more honest that the closing of a debate should be at the instance of the Government, and it was not desirable that they should be able to shield themselves behind the Speaker. If they were allowed to do so, and the Speaker's decisions were in their favour, of course those decisions would be perfectly satisfactory to them; but if the Government made mistakes, and the

    1899
    decisions were against them, they could disown all participation in the matter, and say it was the Speaker's fault, and not theirs, that the sense of the House had been taken. The other reason why he objected to the original proposition, and preferred the Amendment, was because, if it were carried as it stood, it would revolutionize the Office of Speaker. Hitherto, the Speaker had only acted when called on—he had only submitted a Resolution to the House when it had been duly put and seconded. Let them take an extreme case. When there was almost an empty House—when there were only two or three Members in it—the Speaker did not, of his own motion, declare there was not a quorum; but he waited until someone had called attention to the fact. Therefore, in the future, if the sense of the House was to be taken as proposed by the Resolution, it should not be taken on the responsibility of a private individual, but on the Motion of the Leader of the House. For these reasons, he should vote—though most reluctantly—for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, that, after the discussion which had taken place, certain practical objections having been made to his Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, he would not put the House to the trouble of a division.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 220: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 74.)
    Main Question again proposed.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is certainly early to adjourn (12.5 A. M.); but, under the circumstances, I will accede to the proposal, and I will take this opportunity of stating in regard to the Notice given to-night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Raikes), which proposes to recognize the Chairman of Ways and Means—being an Officer of the House—but to wholly ex-elude from the operation of the Resolu-
    1900
    tion casual Chairmen—Chairmen pro hac vice—that it is an Amendment that I think perfectly reasonable, and that we are prepared to accede to.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  MILITARY MANOEUVRES BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Childers, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)

  [BILL 134.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Childers.)
  SIR WALTER R. BARTTELOTsaid, he did not for a moment wish to oppose the second reading of this Bill, which, he believed, was uniform with other measures which had been introduced on the same subject; but they had a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to make a statement to the House with regard to it, so that the country might know what troops were likely to be employed in the manœuvres. They had a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Army Corps that was to be kept in a state of preparedness for embarkation at a moment's notice was to be employed; and they had a right to know whether proper Generals—Generals who would command this Army Corps in case of any emergency—would be appointed to command. They had a right, also, to ask whether the Commissariat, Transport, and an organized Medical Department would be included in the manœuvres, in fact, whether they would have an Army Corps complete in every arm, and with all the appliances of war, so that, in case of necessity, they might know they were able to embark an Army Corps, thoroughly equipped, at a moment's notice? He laid special emphasis on "proper Generals," because he imagined that the men who ought to be employed were officers who had had every opportunity of manœuvring troops as they would have on an emergency. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what were the troops who were to be employed in the Autumn Manœuvres, and whether the First Army Corps was to be included in the number?
  MR. CHILDERS: I am glad the hon. and gallant Baronet has asked me the question, because, to a great extent, I am able to answer him at this moment. I say "to a great extent," because, of course, at the beginning of May it is impossible for me to say who will be the officers employed in the month of August to carry out the details of the operations. But I am able to say that it will be our endeavour to collect for the purposes of these manœuvres, not the whole of the First Army Corps, because a part of it is at the Curragh and elsewhere, but a sufficient force of the Regular troops, and also of the Militia and Volunteers, to show the country the progress that had been made, and the readiness with which a large body of men could take the field. The men will be under the command of officers such as would be called upon to lead in the event of actual war. The object of the War Office in restoring, after a lapse of some years, I will not say the annual practice, but what is known as the Autumn Manœuvres, is not merely for the purpose of show, but for utility, and to prepare both the Army and Auxiliary Forces for what they might be called upon to undergo in warfare. I thoroughly appreciate the object of the hon. and gallant Baronet, and cordially thank him for putting the question.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  TURNPIKE ROADS (SOUTH WALES) BILL.— [Bill 101.]
  (Mr. Dodson, Mr. Hibbert.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Dodson.)
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "now read the third time," and add the word "re-committed," instead thereof.—(Mr. Hussey Vivian.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. PUGHsaid, he had a Notice on the Paper of a Resolution on the third reading of the Bill. He trusted the House would take into consideration the
  1902
  manner in which the measure passed its last stage. It was slipped through Committee at 5 minutes to 7 on the occasion of a Morning Sitting, although there were, at least, two Notices of hostile Motions placed opposite to it on the Paper by Members representing South Wales county constituencies. He should not have thought that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would have proceeded with the measure, at such a time, under such circumstances. He did not know whether he would be now in order in moving his Resolution; but if he was not he should seek a more favourable opportunity. The terms of his Motion were—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, considering the constitution of the County Roads Boards of South Wales, the purposes for which they were originally formed, and the comparatively small number of roads under their control, it is not expedient, in view of the contemplated change in the whole system of County Government, to pass any measure which, whilst neglecting to provide for the better and more economical management of highways as well as turnpike roads, unnecessarily provides for the making of any additional appointments by the boards, and throws the additional expense upon persons who are not represented thereon."
  He wished to point out that at the time of the Rebecca Riots in South Wales it became necessary to pass a measure dealing with the turnpike roads, and providing for the money due by the trusts being paid off. Part of the scheme consisted in the appointment of a General Superintendent of the turnpike roads in South Wales. The Act had been put into operation by the Government, and had answered its purpose well. The roads had been well kept, and the debt had now been paid off. He (Mr. Pugh) had put down a Motion, a little more than 12 months ago, asking the Government to assent to an inquiry into the operation of this Act, and also of the South Wales Highways Act; but the Motion had been opposed by the President of the Local Government Board, and consequently came to nothing. It was understood at that time that the Local Government Board knew what was necessary, and that they would do what was requisite; but he found at the expiration of the 12 months that they had no proposition to make, except to throw the cost of the Superintendent upon the counties. If such an officer were still necessary to see that the roads were kept in order, his services were re-

  1903
  quired as much for the highways, which received very inadequate supervision, as for the turnpike roads, and the unnecessary expense of two separate systems ought to be saved. Finally, he wished to point out that, since the turnpike roads were taken over, many other roads which were now of great importance in the various districts—main roads, to all intents and purposes—were in a very bad state; and those, he said, ought certainly to be looked after just as much as the turnpike roads. On the whole, his contention was that, as the Government were now laying an additional burden upon the taxpayers in South Wales, who were already highly taxed, those taxpayers had a right to ask that the general question of the roads in that part of the country should be considered, and that the Government should bring forward a scheme that would provide not only better roads, but more economical management in the future. He did not think that the Local Government Board were doing their duty in this matter in a way that the country had a right to expect. If, therefore, it would be in Order, he desired to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice; and, in any case, he should resist further progress with this Bill, which would only throw greater expense upon South Wales, and was opposed by nearly all the Members for that portion of the country.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out, in answer to the hon. Member, that an Amendment has been moved for the re-committal of the Bill; and, therefore, the Amendment of the hon. Member cannot be taken until that question is disposed of.
  VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, that one of the grounds on which this Bill was brought forward was to exonerate the Government from appointing a Superintendent of Roads, and the other was to exonerate the English taxpayers from paying for the maintenance of main roads in South Wales. Was it the intention of the Government to give the same assistance towards the maintenance of main roads in South Wales as was to be given in the case of the English main roads? The House was informed by the President of the Local Government Board that he was not sure there would be any legislation at all upon this subject. But he maintained that, if it were
  1904
  unjust to the English taxpayer to contribute towards the maintenance of roads in South Wales, it was equally unjust for the people of South Wales to pay the additional tax upon carriages, or any other tax which might be levied on them for the maintenance of roads in England. It was important to ascertain what were the intentions of the Government in this matter; and, therefore, before the Bill went any further, he should like an answer to be given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to the question he had asked.
  MR. DODSONsaid, although he was prepared to assent to the Motion of his hon. Friend for the re-committal of the Bill, and to the clause of which Notice had been given by the noble Lord, and to the Amendments of two other hon. Members, he was unable to agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh). He considered himself pledged to bring in a Bill, on behalf of the Local Government Board, to deal with the question in a manner that would meet the wishes of those interested as far as possible. The Superintendent of Roads in South Wales had been for many years paid out of the Exchequer. He was appointed for the purpose of seeing that the roads were maintained in an efficient state and watching over their finance in order to secure the repayment of the money advanced by the Government. But, the debt having been extinguished, it had been for several years a matter of complaint in that House that the Superintendent continued to be paid out of the general taxes of the country, seeing that the reason for his appointment no longer existed; and the Government, in consequence, determined this year that the appointment should cease. The Department had put themselves in communication with the several County Roads Boards in South Wales in order to ascertain their views; and the result of those communications was to find that the Roads Boards in question desired that the appointment of a Superintendent or Superintendents should be left at their option. Accordingly, a Bill had been brought in, which gave power to the County Roads Boards to appoint, if they thought fit, a Superintendent or Superintendents, jointly or separately, in addition to the officers they already had power to appoint, for the

  1905
  performance of the duties connected with the roads. Power was also given to provide for the remuneration of the Superintendents, as was already the case in regard to other expenses, out of the county rates, if the tolls proved insufficient; but, as he had pointed out, it was entirely optional with the County Roads Boards to appoint or not additional officers, or to provide them or not with any additional pay. Now, the noble Lord opposite had asked what were the intentions of the Government with regard to a grant in aid of main roads.
  VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, he had asked whether the Government was going to extend to the main roads in South Wales the assistance which was to be given to the main roads in England?
  MR. DODSONsaid, in answer to the noble Lord, he must decline to enter into fragmentary explanations of a general scheme. If he were to explain part of the proposal in answer to the noble Lord, he might be called upon, and with justice, by hon. Members to explain other parts of it in which they were more particularly interested. He should, of course, enter into the desired explanations at the proper time; but. on the present occasion, he must abstain from making any further observations.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYsaid, that the roads in South Wales were under a different Act of Parliament from the English roads. They had enjoyed, up to the present time, a special advantage, inasmuch as the Government had appointed a Superintendent for the purpose of overlooking them. They were now to lose that advantage, and, moreover, at a time when further taxation was about to be placed on that part of the country in respect of the additional tax upon carriages. Therefore, the question of the noble Lord as to whether South Wales was to share in the advantage which was to be given to the ratepayers on account of the English roads was a very reasonable one, and one which he thought the Government, in common courtesy, should answer.
  MR. C. JAMESsaid, he hoped the House would agree with him that the Bill was unnecessary, and that it would be dropped. The history of this matter was not very long. Some time ago the people of Wales had a difficulty not altogether unlike that which troubled
  1906
  the Irish people at the present day. The Welsh difficulty, however, related to turnpike roads, and a Society was formed for the purpose of protecting the farmers in the matter of tolls, which were raised in such a manner as to constitute a great tyranny upon that class. It was eventually arranged that the Government should pay off the Bonds originally issued on the making of the roads, which Bonds, at that time, had no great value. A gentleman was sent down, a value was placed upon them, and the Government paid the money. Under those circumstances, it was reasonable enough that the Government should appoint some person to receive the money from the counties in South Wales, who were pledged to make up the deficiency which arose by reason of the tolls not being paid. There could be no doubt that the Government had a perfect right in justice to see that this was paid. Accordingly, they exercised their power of appointing an Inspector with a salary of some hundreds a-year—a fair salary, no doubt; but he had forgotten the exact amount—for the simple purpose of seeing that the roads were kept in order, and that the money was received. But the money had all been paid, the business of the receiver was over; and he was therefore bound to ask what further necessity there was for any intervention on the part of the Government? He contended that the salary of the Inspector ought to have been stopped as soon as the Government had received their money. Governments were always very slow to discontinue the salaries of officers when they were once appointed. Still, it appeared that the salary of the officer in question had been stopped since the month of March last; and he could, therefore, only regard this Bill as an invitation to the people of South Wales to put forward somebody else to receive the salary. It had been suggested that there was something to be done, in connection with the roads in South Wales, which the people of that part of the country could not carry out unless this appointment was continued. But there was not the slightest foundation for that suggestion. The County Roads Boards in South Wales were possessed of ample powers to do everything necessary for the purpose of keeping their roads in perfect order, and he held that nothing more was required to be done in that respect.

  1907
  On the contrary, he repeated his belief that the Bill amounted to a mere invitation to the County Boards to put forward another person to receive the salary; and he had no doubt that some good gentleman—the best man in the world for the purpose—would turn up and receive the appointment. But the people of South Wales stood in no need of such assistance. They did not want it at all; and, therefore, he hoped that the House, looking at the question as he had placed it before them, would not allow the Bill to pass, and would say that the matter should be left in the hands of the South Wales people, who knew perfectly well how to deal with it.
  MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, he could not agree with the whole of the remarks of the hon. Member who had just spoken; nevertheless, he had a great objection to the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He was of opinion that a Superintendent of Roads was very much wanted at the present time. The roads in South Wales were in most excellent order, as his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh) had pointed out; and he believed that that was in a great measure to be ascribed to the Government superintendence and inspection which they had received up to the present time. But his objection to the Bill was that it constituted a passing off of the responsibility which the Government undertook many years ago, and under which they had acted from that time to the present. He held in his hand an extract from the Report of the Special Commission, made at the time when the office of this Superintendent was created, and on which Report the Act creating it was founded, which showed that it was never intended that the appointment of the Superintendent should only be coincident with the existence of the Government debt, because their representation was based upon the general advantage of having a Superintendent of Roads in the district. The Report of the Commissioners was to the effect that they thought it highly expedient that a Superintendent Engineer should be appointed for the six counties of South Wales, to be charged with the duties specified; and it went on to say that as an annual sum was saved to the Government in the cost of transport of letters, by the exemption of mail carts from
  1908
  tolls, it might not unreasonably be expected by the inhabitants of South Wales that the salary of that officer should be charged to the Ordnance Department. It was perfectly clear, from this, that it was never intended that the appointment should be temporary merely. The arrangement had so far succeeded that the roads in South Wales were in good order, and, by the exemption of the mails from toll, a considerable saving had been effected to the State. He was bound to say that the saving of the paltry sum of £350, the amount of the Inspector's salary, came at a singularly inappropriate time—namely, when, as they were told, £250,000 was about to be devoted to the relief of the general ratepayers of the country in this very particular—namely, to lighten the burden attaching to them from the cost of repairing main roads. For these reasons, he trusted that the Government would continue to pay the Superintendent, as before, the small salary of £350 a-year, and so secure to the inhabitants of South Wales the maintenance in good order of their 800 miles of turnpike roads.
  MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that, as far as he could glean from the opinions which had been freely expressed on both sides of the House, the Welsh Members did not want the Bill at all. Under those circumstances, he thought the House was entitled to some further explanation from the Government with regard to it, because it might be said that if the Bill did nothing else it gave a new lease of life, so to speak, to the system of turnpike roads which existed in the Southern portion of Wales, and not in the Northern portion, and which was rapidly disappearing from England. He would like to know if this was to be an instance of the kind of local self-government which had been promised? He thought the noble Lord who had addressed a question to the President of the Local Government Board had a right to complain of not having received an answer, for he did not consider it a sufficient answer to say that it would be but a fragmentary exposition of the proposals of the Government to state how they intended to dispose of that £250,000 of which so much had been heard. If he might venture to do so, he would like, on this, occasion, to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell him in what way that money

  1909
  was to be disposed of with regard to English roads; but Mr. Speaker would rightly rule him out of Order, as that was a matter which could not rightly come within a discussion on the re-committal of a Bill dealing solely with turnpike roads in Wales. Still, he would like to have a full exposition from the right hon. Gentleman on that subject, and he did not think it would be long before he would have a right to ask for that. Now, however, he would advise the noble Lord (Viscount Emlyn) not to ask for that; but simply to ask whether, in alloting the sum derived from the new tax, the Government did or did not mean that Wales should have its full share? That was a matter of importance, and one which might be answered by a simple "Aye" or "No," without entering into any of the details which the President of the Local Government Board did not seem to wish to disclose. He hoped, however, that if the right hon. Gentleman was precluded from giving an answer to that question, some other Member of the Government would answer a question which was a very fair one and easily answered.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, the cost had been, for the last eight years, £844 a-year; but for 30 years previously it was upwards of £1,200 a-year. As a taxpayer, he had felt justified in bringing this matter before the House in the first week of his occupying a seat in the House, and he was only too glad that the Government were dealing with the subject. It was a great grievance that the people of England should have to contribute to the maintenance of the roads in South Wales, while they had also to maintain their own roads, and, when they went into Wales, to pay tolls on the South Wales roads. The noble Lord opposite, and the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Sir Joseph Bailey), had put a pointed question to the Government with respect to the proposed subvention or tax which was to be imposed on carriages as some relief to the ratepayers of England, in consequence of the roads having to be maintained by them. But, surely, those gentlemen who enjoyed the privilege of turnpike gates could not rightly ask for a contribution for the repair of roads towards the maintenance of which English ratepayers contributed. The cases were not parallel; and he hoped the Government would not accede to the
  1910
  suggestion which had been so pressed upon them, and that the benefit shadowed forth by the Prime Minister when he produced his Budget would be given to those who had to maintain those roads from the rates, and not to those who had the advantage of the turnpike gates.
  MR. H. G. ALLENsaid, that in the House of Lords Committee in 1880 Lord Aberdare asked—"Why has the Superintendent been continued since the debt was paid off?" And Sir John Lambert replied—
  "There was a general desire expressed that he should he continued in order to have the advantage of his superintendence. I may say that the late Superintendent received a salary of £600 a-year; but the salary, upon the appointment of Mr. Codrington, the present Superintendent, was reduced to £350."
  There were, no doubt, incidental expenses—for clerk and travelling—which would explain the difference between his figures and those of the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham); but he was speaking of the Superintendent's salary only.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not wish to intervene between the Welsh Members and the Government; but he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill could not give the noble Lord an answer. The right hon. Gentleman had argued that he could not say whether any part of the new tax would be devoted to Wales, because he could not disclose one part of the scheme alone; but the Prime Minister, when he was asked a Question about Scotland the other day, was not restrained by the scruples of the right hon. Gentleman, but at once assured the Scotch Members that they would share in the benefits. If the right hon. Gentleman could not give an answer, perhaps the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury could.
  MR. W. DAVIESpointed out that the Bill was to apply to six counties in South Wales, and its main object was to enable them to appoint a General Superintendent. It was true that the County Roads Board had a power of appointment; but the Government had agreed to his Amendment that no such appointment should be valid unless confirmed by the Quarter Sessions. What he submitted was that, as a measure for County Government was in contemplation, there was no necessity at all for

  1911
  this Bill; and he believed he could state that the county of Pembroke was very much opposed to the Bill in any shape. They did not want a General Superintendent in that county. They had two or three Surveyors and 12 or 15 other officials for the administration of the fund; and the farmers regarded with terror anything that was likely to increase the heavy burdens they had to bear. He should, therefore, oppose the Bill entirely; and he would strongly urge the Government to abandon it, and wait till they introduced their County Government Bill, which could provide properly for the superintendence of county roads.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that no two Welsh Members seemed to have the same opinion upon this matter; but the noble Lord opposite had strongly pressed the President of the Local Government Board to deal with the question, and had reproached him for not having legislated on the matter, so that appointments might be made by the county authorities.
  VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, that what he had found fault with was the removal of the General Superintendent without some legislation being first adopted by which someone could be appointed in his place.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, his right hon. Friend had taken action with a view to appointing some one in the place of the General Superintendent. This Bill did not propose in any way to compel the Local Boards to appoint any officer, but only gave them power to do what they had asked to be able to do. Several hon. Members from Wales objected to the Bill as unnecessary, while the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) was anxious to pass it; but his right hon. Friend was not so enamoured of the Bill that he cared to press it to-night, and was willing to adjourn the debate in order to give Welsh Members further time to consider the Bill. With respect to the point raised by the hon. Member for Herefordshire, as to what would be done in regard to any subvention for roads in South Wales, his right hon. Friend was not able to give any information upon that matter tonight, though, no doubt, hon. Members, not only from South Wales, but from other parts of Wales, would be glad to have some information. He therefore
  1912
  begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Hibbert.)
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, it was hardly for him to oppose the adjournment, for he thought that was a wise course. The Government had withdrawn this payment, but he believed they had no power to dismiss the Superintendent; but they now hoped that the counties would re-appoint the Superintendent and pay him from their own resources. He had always held the opinion that the counties would not agree to any thing of the kind, though, he believed, the counties had largely benefited by the uniform manner in which their roads had been dealt with. He appointed Mr. Codrington, and reduced the salary, although ho believed that the salary of his predecessor was nearly double the amount mentioned by the hon. Member opposite. He thought it would be unwise to disturb South Wales until a proper system had been adopted in England. The House had learnt something from the Government to-night as to the mode in which they intended to assist the highway rates in England. It was not to be done by Act of Parliament; but he was afraid there would be a subvention. The late Government would not have dreamt of any subvention except from the surplus of the year; but the present Government proposed a new tax.
  MR. DODSONsaid, it was true the right hon. Gentleman had appointed Mr. Codrington; but he gave him notice that the appointment was terminable, and was likely to be terminated.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: By fresh legislation.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, the County Boards of South Wales were unanimously of opinion that it was absolutely necessary that this Bill should pass. The existing Turnpike Act turned on the existence of a General Superintendent; no payments could be legally made without such an officer. It was absolutely necessary they should have some Act analogous to this. He thought the Government had done wisely and justly in ceasing to appoint and pay this officer, for he knew of no ground why the taxpayers of England

  1913
  should be called upon to pay for the superintendence of the South Wales turnpike roads. He did not believe the Bill would entail any serious burden upon the county rates of South Wales. His hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. C. James) had hinted that the County Roads Board was likely to make a job of the appointment; but he (Mr. Hussey Vivian) altogether scouted such an idea. The County Roads Board was conducted with the greatest possible economy. He had served on the Board for the last 30 years, and he could safely say that every effort was made to reduce, as far as possible, the working expenses. He did trust his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would press the present measure, and that they might receive the benefits of its provisions as soon as possible. He believed that every payment they were now making was illegal. He knew that very considerable doubt existed in the mind of his noble Friend (Viscount Emlyn) as to what happened from the day the Superintendent ceased to have any power; and, therefore, the House had a right to ask the Government to press forward this measure, in order to place the County Roads Board in a legal position. He was convinced that no serious charge would be entailed upon the counties of South Wales in respect to the measure.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he did not wish to follow the hon. Member (Mr. Hussey Vivian) in the discussion of the Bill; but desired to offer to the hon. Member, and the other hon. Members from Wales who were in favour of the passing of the Bill, his sincere sympathy with them at the disappointment of seeing the hope, which they must have entertained, frustrated by the obstructive Motion of an hon. Gentleman sitting below the Government Gangway. It was not often that the Government had succeeded in this Session of Parliament in getting a Bill in before half-past 12 o'clock, and it did seem hard that the fate of this measure now seemed imperilled. The Government themselves had pressed the third reading, and everything went on smoothly until the noble Lord the Member for Carmarthenshire (Viscount Emlyn) asked a question. First of all, the Government by that system of dogged silence which they had used on certain occasions tried to evade answering ques-
  1914
  tions; and when they were obliged, by the observation of another hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. H. Paget) to answer the question, they immediately obstructed the Bill.
  SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, that, although not a Member for Wales, he was the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of Carmarthenshire; and he was therefore in a position to say that this was a matter of serious interest to the ratepayers of that county. He believed the action which had been taken by Her Majesty's Government through the President of the Local Government Board was entirely illegal; and why he was desirous of saying one word on the adjournment was this—that he hoped that before the Bill again came on for discussion, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson) would take the opportunity of consulting the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject. The appointment of this officer was made under circumstances with which, as a matter of history, they were most of them familiar. It arose out of the R1ebecca Riots; and Sir James Graham, in introducing the Bill, pointed out that an officer should be appointed and paid by the Government, and that it should be his duty to take care that the state of confusion in which South Wales had got, by reason of non-attendance to the repair of the roads, should in future be rendered impossible. In Sir James Graham's speech there was not a hint that the functions of that officer should cease with the cessation of the Government subvention. The Statute said that the officer might be dismissed, and another, or two, if necessary, be appointed in his room by the proper authority—it was then the Secretary of State, it was now the President of the Local Government Board. But in the Statute there was not the smallest hint of the right of the President of the Local Government Board to discontinue the office. The sting of the Bill was in its tail, and he confessed that it seemed to him that the sole object of the measure was to shift upon the ratepayers that responsibility which, in 1845, Sir James Graham said was to rest on the Government—namely, the payment of the officer in question. He hoped that when the Bill was again brought on for consideration, the President of the Local Government Board would be fortified with the opinions of

  1915
  the Law Officers of the Crown as to the Government action, which he (Sir Hardinge Giffard) considered illegal.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, that £844 was the amount of money paid from the National Exchequer. On reference to the Estimates for the past and the present year, hon. Gentlemen would find that £350 was set down as the salary of the Superintendent; that another amount was allowed for the Superintendent's Clerk; another amount for Offices; and a further amount for travelling expenses, the total sum being what he had stated.
  VISCOUNT EMLYNsaid, that, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was unable to give them any information as to whether they would get any assistance towards the maintenance of main roads in general, he should, on Thursday, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was his intention to extend to South Wales the same assistance towards the maintenance of main roads as he had announced he intended to extend to the Scotch main roads?
  MR. WARTONsaid, if the noble Lord did put such a question to the Premier, the right hon. Gentleman would, no doubt, refer it to the President of the Local Government Board.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Monday 15th May.

  MILITIA STOREHOUSES BILL.
  (Mr. Hastings, Sir Matthew Ridley.)

  [BILL 116.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked if the Government intended to take and pay for the remainder of the Militia Storehouses? There were many not yet taken over, and great inconvenience was resulting to the different counties.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Secretary of State for War would be the best person to answer such a question.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

MOTIONS
  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to ask leave to introduce a Bill, which has been twice before the House, dealing with the re-organization of the Educational Endowments of Scotland. I shall not, at this late hour, detain the House more than two or three minutes in explaining the change which has taken place in the Bill, The necessity for the measure has been admitted on all hands, and it has not made progress solely on account of the pressure of Business during the last two Sessions; but within that period we have had the advantage of ascertaining the views of Members of this House, especially of Members from Scotland, and of the Public Bodies in Scotland, and we have so altered the measure, both in form and substance, that we hope to meet the circumstances of Scotland and the general wishes of the people of Scotland. The present state of the endowments in Scotland, in many respects, strikingly resembles that which existed in England in 1869. When the Commission reported in 1875, it was shown that there were endowments to the extent of £175,000 a-year which required dealing with. It is believed that they have since increased to £250,000 a-year, and in the City of Glasgow alone the dormant endowments amount to something like £500,000 sterling. Well, Sir, in their present state, many of these endowments are inoperative, many of them are useless, on account of being applied to obsolete purposes; some are too close and too restricted both as to aims and objects; and in the case of others the Governing Bodies are inconvenient. What we propose is not to change the class of beneficiaries, but to make the benefits more suitable and more adapted to the present day, to provide for a rise from elementary schools to technical schools and to Universities, to help the School Board to secure attendance by assisting the class above the pauper class in obtaining education, and, lastly, to help to complete the educational system of Scotland by maintaining that high standard of education which is required under Sec-

    1917
    tion 67 of the Scotch Act of 1872. The Bill is altered, as I have said, both in form and substance; and it is hoped that it will be more clear and better adapted for its purpose, and make the procedure more direct; and we have somewhat enlarged the scope of the Bill. We have attempted—and I hope we have succeeded in obtaining—a fair solution of the most disputed question—namely, that of the Governing Body. The Bill provides for maintaining popular representation, and gives that representation a preponderance where it already exists, admitting, at the same time, the elective element as in school boards. The Bill contains 45 clauses, and we can hardly hope to pass, during the present Session, a Bill of such dimensions unless we have the general help of Scotch Members. I trust that, in the shape in which we have placed the Bill before the House, it will commend itself to Scotch Members; that any Amendments which may be necessary will not be Amendments as to principle, but as to form and practice, and to which I hope we shall be in a position to give effect. I beg to ask leave to introduce the Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill to re-organise the Educational Endowments of Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, The LORD ADVOCATE, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 147.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the City and Borough of Bath, the Local Government District of Brierley Hill, the Borough of Burton-upon-Trent, the Rural Sanitary District of the Keighley Union, the Boroughs of Margate, Newbury, and Preston, the Town of Ramsgate, the Borough of Saint Helens, and the Rural Sanitary District of the Settle Union, ordered to he brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
    Bill.presented, and read the first time. [Bill 145.]

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (GAS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Gas and Water Works Facilities Act, 1870," and "The
    1918
    Public Health Act, 1875," relating to the Local Government District of Upper Sedgley, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. Dodson.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 144.]

    COUNTY COURTS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, Bill to amend "The County Courts Act, 1867," ordered to be brought in by Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER, Mr. MONK, and Mr. REID.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill l46.]

    CIVIL IMPRISONMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Ordered, That the Report of the Select Committee on "The Fraudulent Debtors (Scotland) Bill, 1880," with the Evidence, be referred to the Select Committee on the Civil Imprisonment (Scotland) Bill.
    House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Claims of Peerage,&c, The Lord Monck added.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Pluralities Acts Amendment*(74).

STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS—THE IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—THE LORD LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have waited some minutes in the full expectation that the Leader of the House would have vouchsafed some explanation as to the prodigies which have appeared in the political sky; but, as the noble Earl is silent, I am compelled, according to what I believe is the usage, to ask whether any explanation will be given of the resignation, if it is true, by a Member of your Lordships' House whom we all highly respect, of the highly responsible Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; whether it is true that the Office is to be held in commendam as a subordinate Office of the Lord Presidency of the Council by the noble Lord who now occupies that post; whether such a junction, if it be
1788
a fact, is to be held to indicate that the arrangement is provisional, or that the existence of the Lord Lieutenancy is provisional, or that the existence of the Lord Presidency is provisional; also, whether we are to infer from this change that any change is also about to take place in the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland; and whether they have any new measure or new proposals to announce with respect to the appalling condition into which Ireland has lapsed? But, first of all, and most of all, for what reason it is, if a reason can be given, that the Lord Lieutenant has resigned?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have been some time longer than the noble Marquess in this House, and I am not aware of the precedent on which he rests for asking nine Questions without the slightest Notice, either public or private. If the noble Marquess will repeat his nine Questions on Thursday, I will endeavour to give an answer.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wish to give Notice that I will ask the noble Earl, in order to give him time to ascertain the facts, which, no doubt, he has not had an opportunity of ascertaining, whether Lord Cowper has resigned; whether Lord Spencer is to hold the place, in commendam; and whether Her Majesty's Government have any new policy in regard to Ireland; and what are the reasons for Lord Cowper's resignation? I can perfectly understand that the noble Earl is ignorant on these subjects.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, as the noble Marquess has reduced the number of his Questions from nine to four it will make it easier for me to answer them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will ask the Questions to-morrow.

OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION—THE STATUTES—RELIGIOUS TEACHING AND WORSHIP.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONrose to call attention to the provision made for religious teaching and worship in the Statutes laid on the Table of the House by the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Commissioners. The noble Earl said, that they were within two days of the time when it would be necessary for their Lordships to express assent to, or

1789
dissent from, the Statutes which lay on the Table of the House; and, therefore, now or never, the House should express its opinion on the subject. Those Statutes, taken in combination with the Acts constituting the powers of the Commissioners, effected a material change in the studies, discipline, worship, and religious instruction of the Universities; but in his observations he should confine himself entirely to the religious question and the University of Oxford. In former years the system of religious instruction and worship in Chapel was a clearly defined system, though different Acts of Parliament had been passed, and had greatly modified that system. First, there was the great University Reform of 1854. Since that time various provisions had been made by the Legislature, the most important of which was the Act of 1871, by which tests were abolished in the Universities. Finally, there was the Act of 1877, upon which the present Commission was appointed. In all those Acts there were very distinct provisions for promoting the designs of the Founders and benefactors of Colleges in our Universities; and the Acts required that the Universities should be mainly what they were in former days—places of religion and learning. In the Preamble of the original Act, to which he had referred, it was laid down that the object in view was to promote the main designs of Founders and donors. The Act of 1871, in its Preamble, defined the Universities as places of learning and religion. In the enacting part it was said that nothing was to interfere with the system of worship and discipline, according to the Established Church. Lastly, provision was made for the performance of religious service in the College Chapels. The Act of 1877 re-affirmed all those principles even more strongly. Clause 14 referred to the designs of Founders and donors; Clause 15 declared that the Commissioners should have regard to the interests of religion; Clause 59 reaffirmed the clause in the original Act of 1871, to which he had called attention. In addition to that, distinct assurances had repeatedly been given to quiet all alarm on the subject. He called attention to these facts, because, partly by direct legislation, partly in consequence of the powers given to the Governing Bodies, all those promises had practically
1790
come to nought; and no such safeguards now existed for religious teaching and discipline as had been promised. He next came to the Statutes themselves, as framed by the University Commission. There was a good deal of difference in the Statutes as regarded the different Colleges. Those Statutes contained provisions—first, regarding Clerical Headships; secondly, regarding Clerical Fellowships; and, thirdly, regarding College Chapels. The question of Clerical Headships he regarded as an important one, and now more important than ever, though he should not discuss it. It had, on former occasions, been much debated, and his opinion remained unaltered. But the case of Clerical Fellowships was even more important, because in the Fellows rested the whole teaching and influencing power in the Universities. He would take the case of Christ Church. In the old days there were 101 students, of whom 97 were in Orders, and four faculty or lay students. Now there were to be only three in Orders, and all the rest would probably be laymen. He mentioned this to show how great was the revolution proposed. Brasenose had formerly six Fellows in Orders; now the number was limited to one. Lastly, as he had said, there were the College Chapels. In old days the Chapels might be described as the Parish Churches of the undergraduates. They had now ceased to have any such character, and attendance at Chapel was now optional. He would observe, also, that, under the old system, all the authorities of Colleges that directed and controlled the Chapel belonged to the Church of England. What were now the Governing Bodies of the Colleges? They were composed partly of resident and partly of non-resident members of the Universities, and these latter had little or no knowledge of the actual state of the Colleges; nor was there any reason whatever why the members of those Governing Bodies should profess any religion at all. Yet those Bodies appointed College Chaplains and dismissed them at pleasure. Further, they had full power to regulate the Services in any fashion they pleased; they could provide how and when the Communion was to be administered, and arrange any detail of the Services. Whatever religious discipline there might be lay with that Body to enforce or not. They had even the very

1791
remarkable power of altering, varying, or abridging Services as they pleased. The result was that the power of regulating the whole religious teaching and discipline of the University had been placed in the hands of men not necessarily professing any religious belief whatever, even in the existence of a Supreme Being. There was thus nothing left of the original purposes of the Founders. In many of the Colleges there had been a complete revolution in religious feeling. The old learning and religion had been absolutely divorced, and the old relations between culture and Christianity had been severed. He should not overstate matters when he said that numbers of young men in recent years had returned from the University with their belief in religion gone, and their faith sapped, in consequence of their connection with their Colleges. It might be said that this had arisen from many other causes, and especially from that atmosphere of doubt which pervaded every department of inquiry in the present day. It was, doubtless, true in part; but the change mainly arose from the legislation which had been pressed on for Party purposes, and in a Party spirit, the results of which had been repeatedly predicted, and were now all but verified. None had been more active, unfortunately, than the Dissenters, and they were already beginning to learn that on them the blow must fall first and heaviest. It might be said that under the old system there was often little real religion, and that the Chapel Service was, in fact, but a mere roll-call. In certain cases he believed that was true; but there was this great difference between the two cases. In former days they had all the machinery for religious life, though often unused; now it was the intention to sweep that machinery entirely away, and to leave all the surrounding influences adverse to religion. The leading objections that he had to the Statutes were, first, that the responsibility on the part of the authorities of the College in religious teaching would cease to exist; secondly, that the machinery of religious influence and teaching had been swept away; thirdly, that the teaching would be taken out of the hands of the Governing Bodies; and, fourthly, that it would be placed where no Clerical Fellow could be got to undertake the instruction, in
1792
the hands of a Clergyman to be appointed for that purpose. This clergyman, who was to be the sole representative of religion in these matters, was in many cases a man receiving an utterly inadequate stipend, and his position would be a feeble one against the great forces arrayed against him. The position of such a clergyman would be very similar to that of a chaplain in the houses of the rich in the 17th century, as described by the great Whig historian of England. He would be a tame Levite, whose first duty it would be to make himself agreeable to the common rooms of the future, and whose religious attributes might easily be limited to his black coat and white necktie. It was not his intention to move to omit these objectionable clauses from the Statutes, as he believed that the Universities needed rest after the long period of Parliamentary agitation through which they had passed; and he would not, therefore, be a party to throwing them back into that state of agitation. He accepted those Statutes simply because he bowed to superior force; but he protested against them, and he distinctly wished it to be understood that he was no consenting party to legislation which he believed to be both dangerous and wrong.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that their Lordships would, no doubt, allow him to say a few words on that subject, especially when they knew that he rose to give Notice, on behalf of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lincoln), that he would, on Friday of next week, move the rejection of the Statutes which had been framed by the Commissioners for Lincoln College. He thanked the noble Earl for the speech which he had just delivered. He did not think, however, that the effect of the Statutes would be to sweep away religious teaching so entirely as the noble Earl seemed to fear, because, inadequate as the arrangements were, they still furnished some means by which, under a happier state of things, the religious life of the University could be maintained. As regarded Lincoln College, however, he thought that there was nothing to be done but to reject the Statutes, in the hope that a better scheme might be prepared and adopted. There was one point to which he would venture to call attention, which was connected with the legal aspect of the whole matter. But he would

1793
pronounce no opinion, because, of course, he was not in a position to decide so difficult and technical a question. Representations had been made to him to the effect that the Commissioners, in making these Statutes, had exceeded the powers which had been conferred upon them by Parliament. That contention, whether right or wrong—and on that he expressed no opinion—involved this further proposition—that no power to remove disabilities or tests was conferred by the Act of 1877, and that in such matters the Commissioners were referred back to the Test Act of 1871. It was further contended that in the Act of 1877 there was a distinct clause that the Test Act of 1871 should be binding upon the Commissioners appointed in 1877. When the Test Act of 1871 was referred back to, certain provisions were found in it, which appeared to apply, in the first instance, merely to a single clause; but, on examination, that clause turned out to be the really governing clause of the whole Act, and was the only one which conferred upon the Commissioners the power of doing away with those tests. That clause was as follows:—
"Nothing in this section "—i.e., the governing section of the Act—"shall render a layman or a person not a member of the Church of England eligible to any office or capable of exercising any right in any of the said Colleges, which office or right under the authority of any Act of Parliament, or of any Statute or Ordinance of such College in force at the time of the passing of this Act, is restricted to persons in Holy Orders, or shall remove any obligation to enter into Holy Orders, which is by such authority attached to any such office."
Rightly or wrongly, it was contended that there was nothing in the subsequent Act repealing that restriction, and that, therefore, the Commissioners, by this wholesale abolition of union of Clerical offices with the Fellowships, had gone beyond the provisions of the Act; and special attention was drawn to the repeated admonitions which were contained in both Acts that regard should be paid to the maintenance of religious instruction and of Chapel Services in the Colleges. For his own part, he should be very glad if this matter were cleared up, because it had left a very unpleasant impression on the minds of those who took an interest in it. He could not himself see in the Act of 1877 any distinct power given for superseding the Act of 1871; on the contrary, it ap-
1794
peared to him that the Act of 1871 was re-enacted and strengthened by certain clauses of the subsequent Act. But, however that might be, there still remained the objection to some of these Statutes, especially when it was remembered that the Commissioners were called upon to use their best endeavours to maintain religious instruction and religious services in the Colleges. What was contended was that the peculiarly unfortunate mode which, in the case of Lincoln College, the Commissioners had selected for securing the continuance of those Services, and of giving that instruction, would lead to utter and entire failure, and that the hiring of two persons at a salary of£100 a-year between them, persons who were to be removable at pleasure, and who would not have the power of speaking with authority to the undergraduates, would end in making the whole religious service and instruction ridiculous and impracticable.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the noble Earl who introduced this subject had uttered a very gloomy prophecy with regard to the Universities, and more especially the University of Oxford. He hoped that the prophecy would not be realized. It was rather unfortunate that the noble Earl did not enter a little more into detail, and point out how the various Colleges had failed so entirely, as he had represented, to fulfil the letter and the spirit of the Act of 1871. Being himself an Oxford man, he (the Earl of Camperdown) had paid more attention to the Statutes of that University. He had taken 10 Colleges, in order to see how the Act was carried out. Those included Brasenose, Balliol, Christ Church, Exeter,&c.; and, in every case he had examined into, the result was that it was necessary to appoint a Fellow in Holy Orders to perform the duties of Divine Service. In every single Statute for every College in the University of Oxford it was expressly stated that Services should be performed, and, he thought, in almost every instance, in the morning and in the evening in the College Chapel. The noble Earl had seemed to propose that the Colleges should revert to the old, exploded practice of appointing to Fellowships only those persons who were in Holy Orders; but such a retrograde step was impracticable in these days, and would hardly commend itself to any-

1795
one. The noble Earl had complained that no provision had been made that the chaplains should be members of the Colleges; but there the noble Earl was again in error, in as much as in the Statutes of a large number of the Colleges it was provided that one or more of the Fellows must be in Holy Orders, and in others that the chaplain should be a Fellow if possible. The abridgment of the Service of which complaint had been made was to be done by the Governing Bodies, with the assent of the Visitor in almost every case. Such was, at all events, the case at Cambridge.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he particularly limited his observations to Oxford.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: And, after all, who, he would ask, was more fit to undertake the government of the Colleges than the Governing Bodies? No other mode of government was possible, unless they chose to accept some unknown form of government from outside. For his own part, he did not think it so absolutely essential that the chaplain should be a Fellow of his College. Undergraduates appreciated clearly the distinction between those Fellows who attained to their position by open competition and those who came in by some other door; and it was a mistake to suppose that a Clerical Fellow obtained by virtue of his position any additional influence in the College. He thought it would be undesirable, on the evidence before them, to assume that the Colleges had failed to comply with the Statutes of 1871.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, as he had at one time been a Commissioner for the University of Oxford, it might, perhaps, be expected that he should say something upon the subjects which the noble Earl had introduced. In the first place, he must shortly Bay that there was no ground for the doubt, which the most rev. Prelate had stated to be felt by some persons, as to the power of the Commissioners to abolish Clerical restrictions on Headships and Fellowships. The 17th section of the Act of 1877 expressly authorized the Commissioners to make provision for altering and regulating the conditions of eligibility to any endowment or office held in, or connected with, a College, and the conditions of tenure thereof. Headships were not within this power,
1796
when the Bill was first introduced by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury); but it was made to include them in consequence of great pressure, with, the very object of removing Clerical restrictions, both within the Universities and in the House of Commons. With respect to the provision for religious instruction and Chapel Services, which it was the duty of the Commissioners, under the 59th section of the Act (repeating the enactments for that purpose of the Tests Abolition Act) to make, the Commissioners had, in all Colleges where there were Fellows under the obligation of taking Holy Orders, retained one or more Clerical Fellowships, for those purposes. But there were several Colleges in which no Fellowships were so restricted; and, as to these, the same section prohibited the Commissioners from making, either directly or indirectly, the entering into Holy Orders, or the taking of any test, a condition of the holding of any office or emolument not so restricted at the time of the passing of the Act. In those Colleges, the Commissioners were, therefore, prevented by law from requiring that there should always be one or more Fellows in Holy Orders charged with the duty of religious instruction. At New College, for instance, there were for a long time a certain number of Clerical Fellows; but there being also in the Statutes the power of making alterations, the College, before 1877, obtained the consent of its Visitor to do away with the requirement as to Clerical Fellowships altogether; and, although there always had been, and probably always would be, Clerical Fellows in that noble Foundation fit to undertake the duties of religious instruction and Divine Service, the Commissioners could not require that this should be a condition of election to any Fellowship there. Passing to the observations of the noble Earl with respect to the abolition of Clerical Headships, which the noble Earl stated to have been effected in every College except Christ Church, he pointed out that at Pembroke, at least, this was not the case, a Canonry in Gloucester Cathedral being attached to the Headship of that College. There might be differences of opinion as to whether it was desirable to remove those restrictions; but there could be no question that it was done in accordance with an almost unanimous opinion in the Uni-

1797
versity itself. In every, or nearly every, case, the two Commissioners who were appointed from each College to assist in the consideration of the new Statutes reported the prevailing opinion of their own Society to be against retaining the Clerical qualification, as necessary, for the Headship. Under those circumstances, it could not be a matter of surprise to their Lordships that the Commissioners yielded to such a general desire of the Colleges themselves, and acceded to their request. With regard to the other points, it was invariably provided, for the purpose of religious instruction and for the maintenance of the Chapel Services in those Colleges in which the Commissioners had power so to provide, that there should be at least one Clerical Fellow. At Christ Church there were three, and at Magdalen two such Clerical Fellows. He was himself very strongly impressed with the importance of intrusting these duties to a member of the Governing Body of the College, and not to a stranger to that Body, whenever it could be done; and he knew that the same opinion was entertained, before he became a Commissioner, by one who thoroughly understood the wants of the University, and was a most liberal-minded man, the present Dean of Westminster. The noble Lord was in error in supposing that any of the Statutes gave the Governing Body powers to abridge the Chapel Services. That power was conferred by the Acts of 1871 and 1874, which enabled the Governing Bodies to abridge the morning and evening prayer on any day except Sunday, with the consent of the Visitor. Upon the general question, as to the abolition of Clerical restrictions, except when they were retained for Fellowships having Clerical duties annexed to them, he would only say, that it was not so clear, even from a Churchman's point of view, as to some it might perhaps appear. It might well be doubted whether the maintenance of those Clerical restrictions had in past times tended to increase the influence of religious principles in the Universities. Under the old system gentlemen who had obtained Clerical Fellowships either went away from the Universities to country curacies, or remained long in the University, often without taking part in the work of education, and ultimately accepted College livings. Since that state
1798
of affairs had been changed, appointments to College livings had been made on more satisfactory principles. At the same time, he would point out that there was nothing in the new Statutes, of any College, to prevent the College from electing as many Clerical Fellows as they pleased, or to prevent gentlemen elected to Fellowships from taking Holy Orders if they pleased. He did not think in any case that the new Statutes would prevent the majority of young men in College from remaining subject to very much the same influences as they had always been. They were told that the present state of things as regarded religious instruction and worship was deplorable. He could not but feel that, as to some individual cases of persons now holding College emoluments, there might possibly be some ground for that statement; but he was unwilling to believe that the picture drawn by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) represented the general state of things at the Universities, especially among the undergraduates. But, if it were true that there was, at the present time, that general deleterious influence which his noble Friend who introduced the subject had supposed, he would like those who objected to the new Statutes to consider, whether that state of things had come to pass under the new Statutes, which put an end to many of the Clerical restrictions which were previously maintained, or did it come to pass under the system of Clerical restrictions? It came to pass under the system of Clerical restrictions. If influences were now abroad which tended to unsettle men's minds, would it not be a greater evil that such consequences should take place among those who had taken Holy Orders to qualify themselves to hold particular endowments? and was it not better that there should be freedom for those who, unfortunately, were not in a state of mind which would induce them to take Holy Orders from choice? He could not but help thinking that if such influences existed, they had arisen, not out of the removal of Clerical restrictions, but from other causes, which, he hoped, would pass away.
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, that there was a great difference, in regard to the religious instruction of a College, between having that instruction provided for by the Governing Body, and only having it provided for by a

1799
chaplain appointed from without. At Cambridge they had had a certain number of such chaplains in some of the Colleges, and he could say from his own experience that those chaplains exercised no sort or kind of influence over the young men of the College; whereas the Clerical Fellows and Clerical Heads of the Colleges often exercised a very great influence. He entirely agreed with the noble Earl who had spoken first that it would not be desirable to try to oppose the passing of those Statutes, because if those Statutes were thrown out it was possible, considering how rapidly opinion in regard to theology was running in the present direction, they might be left in even a worse position than they were now. It should, however, be remembered that many of the Colleges were founded in old times for the special purpose of giving religious instruction. Out of the five Colleges at Oxford of which he was Visitor, all were founded for that special purpose, and three of them by eminent predecessors of his own. He did not say that religious instruction would not be given after the passing of those Statutes; but the only provision for it was that there was to be one Fellow who might be a clergyman, or there might be a College chaplain appointed from without. Although he was inclined to acquiesce in the recommendations of the Commissioners, with the exception of the case of Lincoln College, he could not but fear that their tendency must be to impair the influence of religious teaching. It was said that the Fellows of Colleges took Holy Orders often merely to obtain Fellowships. That might be so in some instances, but, he said, that a body of Clerical Fellows was almost without exception a body of well-conducted men; and he feared that they would not have the same restraining influences in a body of Lay Fellows.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not desire now to express any opinion with respect to the matter under discussion, because it seemed to him they would have a more convenient opportunity of discussing the question more fully when the Motion, of which Notice had been given by the most rev. Prelate, was before the House. With respect to the general operations of those Statutes, he had only to express his general concurrence and sympathy with his
1800
noble Friend behind him, who introduced the subject. There was, however, one point which he could not pass over, and it was for that reason that he ventured to trouble their Lordships with a very few words. He could not help thinking that the provision by which, in the case of most of the Colleges, a Clerical Fellow was to be appointed, in order to provide for religious instruction, was not a valueless or an unimportant provision. On the contrary, he regarded it as one of the very highest importance. He earnestly regretted that the Commissioners did not see their way to give them more in the same direction. But still the fact that they were, for whatever reason, unable to come to that decision, ought not to blind their Lordships as to the great importance of having among the Governing Body of the College a man whose duty it was to superintend the religious instruction, which it was the duty of the College to give; and such a man, selected, as he would doubtless be, with a due sense of the responsibility of the selection, must exercise a valuable influence over those committed to his charge. It was the importance he attached to that provision which had induced him, for one, to abstain from bringing any of those Statutes under the consideration of their Lordships. If their Lordships had been asked to vote against the Statutes in which that provision existed, and if they had acceded to that suggestion, the result would have been that those Statutes would simply have been swept away; and the old Statutes, in a more or less mutilated condition, would have revived to take their place. The consequence of that would have been to throw the whole legislation of the Universities into the crucible again. As far as he was able to ascertain the opinion of men of all the parties connected with the University, that would not be regarded as a desirable, or even a tolerable possibility. He was bound to look to the probabilities which there were of the substitution of improved provisions for those which, under the hypothesis he had suggested, were to have been repealed. With regard to the appointment of Clerical Fellowships, he was compelled to express his opinion that whatever any of their Lordships might individually think, there had been for many years past, and he was certain

1801
there was now, a very strong and growing feeling against the arrangement which had existed up to the present time—namely, the arrangement that had been reported on by the Commissioners in 1854. He believed that opinion was strong; and that it was so was evidenced by one circumstance that he would mention. In the original draft of the Act of 1877 a power of dealing with Clerical Headships was not included; but when the matter came to be discussed in the House of Commons, which was certainly not then an exceptionally Radical or Liberal House, it was found that the pressure of feeling was so strong that it became necessary to consent to a modification of the Bill. If the House of Commons of 1877 was not fully prepared to accept the system of Clerical Fellowships, it would be a matter of very great doubt, if they now repealed all the Statutes and framed new Statutes, whether the present House of Commons would consent to more favourable terms than the present. He would not discuss the peculiar provisions that had been inserted into the Statutes; but speaking of the Statutes generally, though he sympathized with his noble Friend behind him, he thought it very doubtful whether any interference would result in the Statutes being rendered more advantageous to religious teaching and worship than they were at present.

TUNIS—BOMBARDMENT OF SFAX—INDEMNITY TO BRITISH SUBJECTS.

  QUESTION. ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  EARL DE LA WARR,rose to present a petition from British subjects residing and carrying on business at Sfax in the Regency of Tunis; and to ask if Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to procure relief or indemnity for the losses which have been sustained in consequence of the bombardment of that city by the French; also to move an Address for papers and correspondence relating to the International Commission held at Sfax in August 1881 to inquire into the pillaging and destruction of property after the entry of the French troops; also for the Reports of M. Galea and M. Leonardi on the same subject; and for Papers and Correspondence relative to the affairs of Tunis since the last papers were presented. He wished to add that the
  1802
  Petition, which was numerously signed by British subjects, merchants, and others engaged in business at Sfax, stated that in the months of June and July last the city of Sfax was bombarded, and afterwards occupied by the French Forces; that the Petitioners had all suffered great damage and loss by the injury or destruction of their habitations, as well as by the pillage of the city; that the allegations of the Petitioners were fully substantiated before an International Commission held at Sfax during the months of August, September, and October, 1881; that, although several months had passed since then, the Petitioners (many of whom were completely ruined) had received no indemnity or relief, although the Natives of Sfax had been compelled to pay a large war contribution; and the Petitioners prayed that their Lordships' House might be pleased to take their case into consideration, and direct such representation to be made to the Government of the French Republic, and to that of His Highness the Bey of Tunis, as might result in their receiving the indemnity due to them for the loss they had sustained. He thought the Petitioners had a strong claim upon their Lordships' attention, and that of the country generally, under the very trying and peculiar circumstances in which they were placed. The British trade in Tunis had been hitherto carried on upon most favourable terms. It had been protected by Treaties; and British subjects, especially from Malta, had been induced to invest their capital in trade and other ways. The most friendly feelings had existed, of which he could speak from personal knowledge, between the Government of the Bey and the Government of this country. There had also been a kindly feeling between the Native population and the English. It had been enough for an Englishman to declare his nationality to insure a hospitable reception. The climate was one of the finest in the world, and a large field had been at all times open to British industry. This applied especially to Sfax, the most important city in the Regency of Tunis, as regards commerce, and where the trade was chiefly in the hands of British merchants. But what had happened? The country had been unexpectedly invaded by a friendly Power in alliance with Tunis and England;

  1803
  and British subjects found themselves, without any declaration of war, bombarded by a French fleet, their property destroyed, and their houses afterwards pillaged by French troops in consequence of the patriotic resistance which was offered to the invaders by the Native Arab tribes, as related by an eye-witness as follows:—
  "In the narrow streets of the Native town, house after house was only occupied after a desperate hand-to-hand conflict."
  The effect of this upon the trading and commercial part of the city could readily be imagined; and although the European and Jewish quarter was separated from the Arab, both seem to have suffered alike. Another narrator, speaking of what took place, for whose accuracy he could vouch, said—
  "There can be no doubt that the French soldiers who drove the Arabs out of Sfax on the 16th of July, 1881, followed up their triumph by an indiscriminate pillage of both the European and Arab quarters of the town. What was done happened in the face of day, and can neither be gainsaid nor denied."
  The same witness said—
  "We next entered the European faubourg. Most of the houses were much damaged and knocked about by the shells; but on the pretext that some Arabs had fired from the dwelling of M. Gili, a Maltese merchant, an order had been given to break open the doors of every habitation in the quarter; and as soon as this was done a general pillage ensued. I was an unwilling witness of all that happened. The soldiers (i.e., the French) took or spoiled everything they could carry away, and broke or defaced what they were unable to move. None of the officers seemed disposed to interfere, and the whole business was a sad contrast to the measures taken by the insurgents (i.e., the Native population) to preserve our property."
  This witness of what took place further added—
  "July 19.—This morning I went to visit the Grand Mosque. Its minaret is disabled, and it is turned into a barrack. I saw the soldiers cooking in various parts of it. Throughout the Moorish town the traces of the sack were painful to witness.…… Valuable Arabic manuscripts were torn up and their pages distributed as souvenirs of the siege."
  After many other particulars, he went on to say—
  "In short, the Maltese Colonists of Sfax have been the chief sufferers by the pillage of the town committed in the manner I have described. Some of them have, indeed, lost their all; hardly one has escaped unscathed. As an eye-witness, I have recorded what really happened in broad daylight and in the sight of hundreds of people. The only hope of the half-ruined British com-
  1804
  munity is in the support which they feel sure their claims must inevitably have from the British Government."
  He could give many further details; but he thought he had said enough to justify the words of the Petition as regarded the losses which had been sustained by British subjects at Sfax in consequence of the bombardment of that city by the French and the pillage which ensued. The Petition concluded by stating that the allegations were fully substantiated before an International Commission, which was appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the case; but that, notwithstanding several months had elapsed, no relief or indemnity of any kind had been afforded them, although the Natives of Sfax had been compelled to pay a large war contribution. The Commission here referred to was appointed, he believed, in September, 1881, and was composed of Count Marquessac, captain of the French ship La Reine Blanche, who acted as President; Caid Jelluli, the Governor of the city; Captain Tryon, of Her Majesty's ship Monarch; and Captain Conti, of the Italian frigate Maria Pia. After sitting several weeks, the Commission was abruptly dissolved. Sir Charles W. Dilke stated in "another place," in March last—
  "That the proceedings of the Sfax Commission were brought to a close by the French Chairman, on the ground that the British Commissioner had recalled a witness who had been already examined, and whose second deposition differed from that previously given,"
  This was a somewhat unusual way of terminating an important Commission where considerable interests were at stake—by the ipse dixit of the French Chairman. He asked that the proceedings of the Sfax Commission, together with the Report of M. Galea and M. Leonardi, might be laid upon the Table of the House. He further asked for Papers and Correspondence relative to the general affairs of Tunis since the last Papers were presented, including Correspondence upon the still unsolved question of the Enfida Estate. With reference generally to these questions as affecting British interests, it was impossible to pass unnoticed the recent Decree of the President of the French Republic, dated the 22nd of April, which amounted to the virtual annexation to France of the Regency of Tunis. By

  1805
  this Decree the various branches of Government in Tunis, as far as they related to France, were placed under the corresponding Ministerial Departments in Paris. There remained, therefore, but one step more—namely, to include other nationalities—and the annexation was complete. The Kroumir phantom had disappeared, and, in the words of M. de Freycinet, upon whose Report this Decree was founded—
  "Le moment semble venu d'adopter une organisation plus en harmonie avec la nature des choses."
  He asked the attention of the House, and especially of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to these words—for, if they meant anything, it must surely be that the protectorate of Tunis which France had assumed would shortly pass into annexation similar to that of Algeria. They had heard much lately of the danger to this country of the proposed Channel Tunnel; but this question seemed to him to sink into insignificance when compared with that of the annexation of Tunis to France, which would give her possession of what might become two of the finest harbours in the Mediterranean, Bizerta and Porto Farina, and would thus virtually give a naval preponderance to France from Gibraltar to Malta, which, in the event of war, might prove most disastrous to this country. In conclusion, the noble Earl moved that the Petition be laid upon the Table.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for papers and correspondence relating to the International Commission held at Sfax in August 1881 to inquire into the pillaging and destruction of property after the entry of the French troops; also for the reports of M. Galea and M. Leonardi on the same subject; and for papers and correspondence relative to the affairs of Tunis since the last papers were presented.—(The Sari De La Warr.)
  EARL GRANYILLEsaid: My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl's Question, of which he gave Notice, but which he has put with some development, I have to say that I regret that the Commission of Inquiry at Sfax led to no practical result. Her Majesty' s Government at once put themselves in communication with the French Government on the subject of the British claims. Those claims are now nearly prepared, and will be diplomatically communicated to the French Government through our Ambassador at Paris. As to the Motion of the noble Earl, I cannot agree to it. The Papers
  1806
  will be prepared and presented when the communications which are now going on have come to an end.
  EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble Earl will present the Papers at the earliest possible time, I shall be happy to withdraw my Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLE: They will be presented when the communications are concluded.
  EARL DE LA WARR: There are other Papers—i.e., Reports of what occurred.
  EARL GRANVILLE: They will bo presented.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS (METROPOLIS)—PRECAUTIONS IN CASE OF FIRE,—ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNrose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies of the Report made to the Home Office by Captain Shaw, chief officer of the London Fire Brigade, with regard to the dangers to which the public are exposed from fire in the Metropolitan theatres, and as to the means of exit provided for them. The noble Earl said it could not be denied that these dangers actually existed to a serious extent. Nothing could be more fallacious than to imagine themselves safe merely because they chose to shut their eyes to the perils around them. It had been stated that Captain Shaw's Report on the subject was of a very alarming character or description; but that was no reason for concealing its purpose. The dangers that existed were, to some extent, shown by the fires and panics which had recently occurred in different parts of the world; and if it had not been for the characteristic courage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, on a recent occasion in London, when a bag of gas burst in connection with the limelight in a theatre, there might have been a great loss of life. The lessees of the theatres were bound to take reasonable care for the protection of the public in this matter; and if they failed or neglected to do so, he submitted that their licences should be refused and their theatres closed. The noble Earl concluded by moving his Motion.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies of the Report made to the Home Office by Captain Shaw, chief

1807
officer of the London Fire Brigade, with regard to the dangers to which the public are exposed from fire in the Metropolitan theatres, and as to the means of exit provided for them.—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, the noble Earl was not rightly informed that the Report of this Committee was addressed to the Home Office. It was addressed to the Metropolitan Board of Works, in whose cognizance that Report was at the present moment.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: It is in the Home Office, I understand?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, no, it was not in the Home Office; it was in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He would state what had occurred. In December last, the Home Secretary urged upon the Metropolitan Board of Works the necessity of some inquiry into the state of the London theatres. The Board of Works desired Captain Shaw to make a Report. That Report was issued last March. Since that time the Board of Works had taken the matter into their consideration, and forwarded copies of the Report to all persons interested, including the lessees of theatres reported upon. Since that time the Home Secretary had again urged the question upon the Board of Works. By 41&42 Vict., c. 32, the Board of Works had ample power to deal with the question. If the Metropolitan Board of Works could not see their way to take efficient action in the matter, it would be necessary for the Secretary of State to take such steps in regard to it as he might think desirable and the importance of it demanded. At the same time, he could not agree that it was conducive to the public interest to produce the Report at the present moment; because, until the result of the action of the Board of Works was known, there was no good reason for producing a Report, which, as the noble Earl had surmised, was not wholly of a satisfactory nature.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PLURALITIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Acts relating to the holding of Benefices in Plurality—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of EXETER; read 1a. (No. 74.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.