Sitting of 9 November 1882

QUESTIONS.

  POOR LAW UNIONS (IRELAND)—TREATMENT OF LUNATICS IN WORKHOUSES.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take action with respect to the better treatment and disposal of lunatics in Workhouses, in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission appointed in 1878?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Poor Laws Union and Lunacy Inquiry Commission recommended that the administration of the whole pauper lunacy in Ireland should be placed under a Department of the Local Government Board. That Report was made to the late Government as far back as the beginning of 1879, and the questions with which it deals are so extensive that I am not prepared at present to pledge the Government to any course of procedure on the matter. I will, however, look into it further on my return to Ireland.

  EGYPT (EMPLOYMENT OF HER MAJESTY'S FORCES)—NUMBERS AND INCIDENCE OF COST.
  MR. SALTasked the Secretary of State for War, What number of British troops will remain in Egypt for the maintenance of order; and, whether the costs of such troops will be borne by the British or the Egyptian Revenues?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that at this moment the troops in Egypt consist of two regiments of Cavalry, six batteries of Artillery, three companies of Engineers, and 11½ battalions of Infantry, together with the necessary administrative services. Although I should be very glad to see the Force reduced, I cannot at this moment make any statement on the subject. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury answered the second Question on the 2nd of November. I have nothing to add to that answer at present; but it

  1095
  is a question of policy which concerns the First Minister rather than myself.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHER: May I ask whether the remainder of the Army Reserve who joined after the 1st of July will be retained in Egypt during this occupation, or be allowed to return?
  MR. CHILDERS: I cannot answer that Question more precisely than the Question as to the length of time the troops will remain. It must depend on circumstances.

  CHINA—THE CHEFOO CONVENTION— OPIUM DUTIES.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether instructions have been sent to Her Majesty's Representative in China authorising him to ratify that portion of the Chefoo Convention which relates to the Duties on Opium, in the form in which it appeared in the Convention Articles of 1876; or, whether any conditions have been attached to the ratification of that Article of the Treaty, as suggested in the Despatch of the Government of India, No. 312, of 1881?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir Thomas Wade has returned to this country in order to consult with Her Majesty's Government on the subject; but no decision has yet been arrived at.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to his statement in the discussion on the votes for the Board of Works (Ireland), that he would in the autumn inquire into that office, If he has been able to do so; and, if it is a fact that he has received from Colonel M'Kerlie, the chairman, and Mr. Hornsby, the secretary, an intimation of their desire to retire from the service, in accordance with the recommendation of Lord Crichton's Committee of 1878, and if the Treasury has offered them facilities for doing so, and with what results?
  MR. COURTNEY: The subject of the hon. Member's Question has not been overlooked; but I am not yet in a position to make any definite statements in respect to it. I have not received from Colonel M'Kerlie or Mr. Hornsby an intimation of a desire to retire. No facilities would be necessary, as both
  1096
  these officers are entitled to retire if they wish to do so.

  BOARD OF WORKS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)— LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST OFFICERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that legal proceedings are pending against an official of the Board of Works, and an auditor of the Local Government Board, being two directors of a bill discounting company, for certain transactions relating to the operations of that company; if he will satisfy himself as to the nature of these transactions; and, what steps he will take in regard to these two officials?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot answer for the Board of Works; but, so far as the Local Government Board is concerned, the only auditor of that Board to whom that Question could point is Mr. Robert H. Jephson, who is a Director of the National Discount Company of Ireland, and he reports as follows:—
  "There are no legal proceedings whatever pending against me in connection with the National Discount Company of Ireland, nor have there ever been in connection with that or any other Company or person."
  MR. COURTNEY: As regards the Board of Works, it appears that the officer alluded to had ceased for some time to be a Director of the Company, and there is no knowledge of the existence of any legal proceedings against him.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he considered it a proper position for the Auditor of the Local Government Board to occupy to be a Director of a Company of a speculative nature?
  MR. TREVELYANreplied, that that was a large question, about which there might be several opinions; but, as far as any Member of the Government could give an independent opinion, he did not think there could be any interference in the matter unless new regulations were laid down for the guidance of officers of the Civil Service.

  IRELAND—KINGSTOWN—THE GRESHAM GROUNDS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Board of Works has, since promise given last Session,

  1097
  restored the portion of the Gresham Grounds at Kingstown, which has been used as a kitchen garden, to its original use, namely, as a place of resort for the public?
  MR. COURTNEY: I must remind the hon. Member that this ground was never opened to the public. When it ceased to be useful for the harbour works, it was disposed of to the Royal Marine Hotel Company, on condition that it should be used as an ornamental garden attached to the hotel. This condition was infringed by its being in part used as a kitchen garden; and the attention of the Hotel Company has been twice called to the fact. They have now promised to turn it into a pleasure ground as soon as the present crop shall have been consumed.
  MR. HEALYwas understood to say that a similar undertaking had been given before and not carried out.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONTABULARY— ASSAULTS BY POLICEMEN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether four policemen from Kilkishen and Cullane, county Clare, visited Tulla on the 24th October, and, having got drunk on their way back, assaulted a man named John Howard and his mother, as well as a man named O'Dea; whether one of them struck Mrs. Howard with the stock of his rifle; whether O'Dea narrowly escaped a bayonet thrust; whether Howard went immediately to the police barrack at Tulla to report the outrage; whether he was told there he should make information of his assailants; whether he then called upon the deputy clerk of petty sessions to have informations made, and was informed by him that he would get no satisfaction, and that he had better go home and let the matter drop, or that he would receive annoyance from the police; and, what notice the Government have taken of the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have obtained a Report on this case; but I do not consider it a satisfactory Report, and I have directed further inquiry to be made.

  LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)— OMAGH DISTRICT ASYLUM—LIEUTENANT COLONEL BUCHANAN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  1098
  Whether it is the fact that His Excellency has appointed Lieutenant Colonel Buchanan (Clerk of Peace) to a seat on the Governing Board of Omagh Asylum; whether he was aware that Lieutenant Colonel Buchanan is County Cess Collector for part of Tyrone; that the asylum is mainly supported out of this cess; that Lieutenant Colonel Buchanan therefore will have the voting away of money which he collects, and out of which he is paid; if he will say on whose recommendation Lieutenant Colonel Buchanan was appointed by the Lord Lieutenant; and, whether, especially as this gentleman already has a brother on the board, His Excellency will make a new appointment, after local consultation on the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is the case that the Lord Lieutenant has appointed Lieutenant Colonel Buchanan to be a member of the Board of the Omagh District Lunatic Asylum. His Excellency informs me that he was not aware when he made the appointment that Lieutenant Colonel Buchanan was county cess collector for part of Tyrone; but the asylum is not mainly supported out of that cess. The County Fermanagh, as well as the County Tyrone, contributes to its support; and the contribution of Government is estimated at more than double the joint contributions of the two counties. I must decline to state on whose recommendation Lieutenant Colonel Buchanan was appointed; but it is the practice of the Lord Lieutenant to ascertain local views on such matters. I believe there is a brother of Lieutenant Colonel Buchanan on the Board of Governors; but His Excellency has no intention of making a new appointment, nor does he see that the appointment of barony cess collector is any bar to any person being appointed a Governor of the asylum for the same county.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—ATTEMPTED MURDER OF MR. CARTER IN MAYO CO.— COST OF ATTENDANCE OF SURGEON WHEELER.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the sole reason of the Irish Government for postponing the settlement of Dr. Wheeler's claim for attending Mr. Shean Carter is the hope that he may recover the same from. Mr. Carter out of the amount (if any) that

  1099
  may be awarded to him under the Act of last Session; when said application of Mr. Carter is expected to be disposed of; whether the Government have apprised Mr. Carter what they conceive to be his liability to Dr. Wheeler; and, is there any objection to produce the Correspondence between Dr. Wheeler and the Irish Government?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The consideration of Dr. Wheeler's claim to be paid out of the public funds for his attendance on Mr. Carter has been postponed, pending Mr. Carter's application for compensation under the 19th section of the Prevention of Crime Act, as Mr. Carter may, as the result of it, be in a position to pay Dr. Wheeler a reasonable sum for his attendence. Mr. Carter's application will, it is expected, be heard early in December. The Government have apprised Mr. Carter, through his solicitors, of what they consider to be their position towards Dr. Wheeler in the matter. [Mr. GIBSON: What is that?] It is a very pecnliar one. If the right hon. and learned Member wishes to move for the Correspondence, he can have it. As regards Dr. Wheeler's claim, the matter in question was arranged by the late Mr. Burke. I prefer to read the Minute which is on record—namely; that of Mr. Hamilton, who was empowered by Mr. Burke to communicate with Surgeon Wheeler. He says—
  "I did not find Surgeon Wheeler at home, but he called on the 18th of March at the Castle, and Mr. Burke authorised me to inform him that if Mr. Carter is unable to pay your fees for attendance on him in consequence of his having been fired at and dangerously wounded on the 13th instant, he shall submit your claim for such attendance to the Government, and it will receive every consideration."
  That is the only evidence on record of what passed. There is no Minute that governs this question; and all one can say is that Mr. Burke, who at that time was working 11 hours a-day every day in the week, was occasionally obliged, no doubt, to transact some important business without due official safeguards. The recollection of the gentleman in the office is exactly that of Mr. Hamilton, that the assistance from the public funds was entirely dependent on the fact that Mr. Carter was unable to pay. Nor was there any definite sum mentioned, nor anything to show that Mr. Burke in the least contemplated these very large charges.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his Question in detail or categorically, he was obliged to ask him if on each occasion Dr. Wheeler did not report to the Government that he visited Mr. Carter, and the result of his visit, and was it not the fact that the Government on no one single occasion took exception to Dr. Wheeler's continued attendance on Mr. Carter, and that Mr. Carter distinctly apprised the Government within the last week that Mr. Carter's whole income, derived from rent not very well paid, to maintain his wife and children and himself was only £200 a-year; and whether the postponement of the settlement of Dr. Wheeler's claim was owing to the hope that he might recover the same from Mr. Carter out of the amount that might be awarded to him under the Act of last Session.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, those were Questions of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman should give Notice. All he could say now was that the offer of Mr. Burke to assist Mr. Carter in paying Surgeon Wheeler's account depended entirely upon whether Mr. Carter was able to pay or not.
  MR. GIBSON: Is it a fact that the Government send down leading Dublin surgeons on their own responsibility, and refuse to pay them unless they first send in an application to the person attended?
  MR. TREVELYAN: That Question is, in fact, a statement. The only evidence we hare on the point is that Mr. Hamilton says Mr. Burke told him to inform Dr. Wheeler that if Mr. Carter was unable to pay him (Dr. Wheeler) for his attendance the Government would pay him. If Mr. Carter obtained compensation under the Act, that would enable him to pay Dr. Wheeler a reasonable sum. The Government conceive that Mr. Burke did not bind them to anything.
  MR. GIBSON: Then, am I to understand that the Government repudiate the engagement of Mr. Burke?
  MR. TREVELYAN: On the contrary, they intend to fulfil exactly the representation made by him.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CLERK OF PETTY SESSIONS (COUNTY LEITRIM).
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of

  1101
  Ireland, If he will state in what manner, and by whom, is the inquiry conducted, that is at present taking place, into the circumstances attending the election of Clerk of Petty Sessions for the districts of Dromod and Drumsna, county Leitrim, vacant since December 1881; and, when is such inquiry likely to terminate; and, if he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Correspondence and Report of the Inquiry?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The matter is still under consideration by the Irish Government, and cannot give a definite answer. I regret that I cannot answer the Question till next week; but I will let the hon. and gallant Member know as soon as the matter is settled.

  LAND IMPROVEMENT ACTS (IRELAND) —IRON-ROOFED HAY SHEDS.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that the Treasury refuse to advance money in Ireland for the construction of iron-roofed hay sheds save under special and high terms; and whether, if so, he will consider the propriety of encouraging such useful agricultural improvements?
  MR. COURTNEY: Loans for iron-roofed hay sheds are made under the same conditions as other loans under the Land Improvement Acts; but as the Government are advised that such roofs can scarcely ever last for so long as 35 years, it has been necessary to require repayment of loans for them in the shorter period of 22 years—the only alternative offered by the Acts.

  EGYPT—SURRENDER OF ARABI PASHA.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, To state to the House the circumstances under which Arabi Pacha surrendered his sword, and the statement made by him upon that occasion?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have learned from Colonel Stewart that he was in possession of letters from the Khedive to the Prefect of Police at Cairo. The Prefect of Police was directed to make a prisoner of Arabi Pasha. Colonel Stewart offered to accompany the Prefect of Police with 30 men; but the Prefect said that he could make Arabi prisoner without British assistance. When the Prefect returned
  1102
  with Arabi Pasha the latter handed his sword to General Drury-Lowe, and began to make a speech in Arabic. General Drury-Lowe informed him that it was not in his power to discuss political questions with him; but that his duty, as representing the Khedive, was to make a prisoner of him unconditionally. We have no official report of the words of the speech in Arabic which Arabi Pasha had begun to make.
  MR. BOURKE: Is it untrue, as The Times' Correspondent states, that Arabi Pasha declared that he surrendered to the clemency of the English?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I should not say it was untrue; but we cannot speak definitely as to the words, because the speech was made in Arabic, and there was no one there to report them.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND)—OVERCROWDING IN LUNATIC WARDS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the President of the Local Government Board, If his attention has been called to the evils arising from overcrowding in the lunatic wards of workhouses, especially at Saint Pancras and at the Dudley Union Workhouse; whether with reference to the latter he has noticed the following passage in the last Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, pp. 159, 160:—
  "Attention has been drawn by the Visiting Commissioners for several years past to the overcrowding of the lunatic wards, but it continues to be as great as ever, and nothing has been done, nor as far as I can learn is anything in immediate contemplation with a view to remove or abate the evil which in the male lunatic ward day room is indeed becoming worse every year;"
  whether he has noticed the following extraordinary statement of the Commissioners:—
  "In the dormitories of this ward also the beds are so close that they touch each other at the sides, and the patients have to climb into and out of their beds over the bottom,"
  with other observations of a painful character; and, whether he will take immediate steps to remedy the evils complained of?
  MR. DODSON: My attention has been called to the evils arising from overcrowding in the lunatic wards of the St. Pancras and Dudley Workhouses, and I have not failed to communicate with the Guardians on the subject. As

  1103
  to St. Pancras, the Guardians have, during the present Session, obtained a Bill to acquire land compulsorily for the extension of their workhouse; the plans for remodelling it are now under consideration, and when the alterations are completed I trust that all cause of complaint as to the overcrowding of lunatics will be removed. As regards Dudley, the statement of the Visiting Lunacy Commissioners appeared so serious that the Local Government Board at once directed one of their Inspectors to make a special Report on the workhouse. This Report confirmed that of the Commissioners, and the Board accordingly urged the Guardians to take steps to remedy the existing defects. Plans were submitted which we held to be inadequate. Amended plans have, consequently, been prepared, and these are now under consideration. With respect to workhouses generally, there is no reason to suppose that the lunatic wards are overcrowded; and the Commissioners expressly state that, as a rule, progress is noticeable in the manner in which lunatic inmates are cared for by the Guardians.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— PART V.—PURCHASE CLAUSES— ADVANCES TO IRISH TENANTS.
  MR. GIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Land Commissioners have refused several applications for advances to enable tenants to purchase their holdings under Part 5 of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881," when the holdings sold are jointly subject to a fee farm rent, or other head rent; and, whether the Commissioners decline, or allege they have not power to apportion such fee farm rent, or other head rent, and refuse to sanction the mode of indemnity in such cases adopted by the Landed Estates Court; and, if so, will the Government take steps to remove this serious restriction to the operation of the Purchase Clauses?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Irish Land Commissioners have refused to make advances in certain cases on holdings which it was proposed to sell subject to head rents bearing a large proportion of the annual value, on the ground that the security was insufficient. They have in other cases refused to grant loans of three-fourths of the purchase money of
  1104
  holdings subject to head rents, but have granted a smaller proportion of the purchase money, holding that, owing to the existence of the head rent, an advance of three-fourths would not be sufficiently secured. They have no power of apportioning rents, and they inform me that they have not refused to accept an indemnity where the indemnity was sufficient and satisfactory.
  MR. GIVAN: Will the Government bring in some measure enabling them to do so?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I cannot answer that Question at the present moment.

  INTOXICATING LIQUOR (LICENSING) ACT, 1872—SECS. 14 AND 15—BEER-HOUSES IN CHATHAM.
  MR. CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has seen the Return, No. 375, moved for by Mr. M'Laren,
  "Giving the number of Public Houses and Beerhouses respectively used as Brothels within the districts subjected to the Contagious Diseases Acts;"
  if his attention has been called to the Return for 1881, on page 32 of that Return, where it is shown that in the town of Chatham there are eight licensed public houses known by the police to have been used as brothels for periods of from 12 to 17 years; and, since it appears from the same Return that the authorities of Chatham have never proceeded against these licensed public houses during the long periods in which they have been known to the police as brothels, if he will take steps to cause the provisions of the 35 and 36 Vic. c. 94, ss. 14 and 15, to be carried out?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; I have seen the Return. The police have made representations to the local authorities, which I hope will put things upon a more satisfactory footing.

  INLAND NAVIGATION (IRELAND)— THE RIVER BARROW.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Mountmellick Board of Guardians on the 28th ult. to the effect that the state of the River Barrow is such as to make it impossible to keep the town of Portarlington in a proper

  1105
  sanitary condition; and, whether he will obtain and lay upon the Table of the House an official Report upon the injury done by the river to the town of Portarlington, and to the land on its banks in the barony of Portnahinch, in the Queen's County?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have seen a copy of the Resolution referred to by the hon. Member. It is dated the 28th ultimo, and was forwarded by the Board of Guardians to the Local Government Board. That Board have instructed one of the Medical Inspectors to report whether the sanitary condition of the town of Portarlington is injuriously affected by the state of the River Barrow. When I receive that Report I shall be able to judge whether or not it ought to be presented to Parliament.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—OVERHEAD TELEGRAPH WIRES IN THE METROPOLIS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Postmaster General, What progress has been made during the present year in reducing the numbers of Post Office overhead wires in the Metropolitan area, and to inform, the House of the numbers and lengths of such wires on the 1st January, 1st July, and 1st November 1882, as well as of the numbers and length, of wires laid under ground at the same periods within the same area?
  MR. FAWCETT: When the hon. Member asked me for information as to the extent of overground and underground wires in June of last year I stated that within a radius of four miles of the General Post Office there were belonging to the Department in March of that year 4,388 miles of underground wires and 500 of overground. At the present time the underground wires within the same radius have been increased to 4,953, and the overground to only 519, and this latter small increase is chiefly due to the doubling of existing wires, in consequence of private telegraph wires being converted into telephone wires. Within a radius of a mile of the Post Office, which of course includes the most crowded part of London, the proportion of underground to overground wires is still larger, the figures being 1,822 miles of the former to not quite 58 of the latter. I have detailed Returns, which show that by far the greater number of
  1106
  the overground wires belong, not to the Post Office, but to private telephone and other Companies. Thus, over one thoroughfare in the City there are 97 overground wires, and only three belong to the Post Office.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—COMPENSATION FOR MALICIOUS BURNING OF DWELLING-HOUSE.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at a recent special Sessions held in Athenry, county Galway, the sitting magistrates awarded Lord Dunsandle the sum of £30 as compensation for a house accidentally or maliciously burned; and, whether Mr. Martin O'Halloran offered in open court to rebuild the house for the sum of £8 15 s., at the same time tendering two solvent persons as bail in £100 each as security for the due and proper performance of the work?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that the facts are correctly stated in the Question, except that the house was certainly maliciously, not accidentally, burned, and that Martin O'Halloran's tender was for £7 15 s. I understand that the magistrates considered the tender altogether inadequate, and did not accept it, as they knew it could not be fulfilled. In any case the matter is not one in which the Government has any power to interfere.

  ARMY—RETURN OF THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE FROM EGYPT—THE 84TH REGIMENT.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the following statement, which appeared in the morning newspapers of November 7th, dated Aldershot,
  "That on the arrival of the 84th Regiment from Egypt this evening, amid a great downfall of rain, not a bed, or any food or fire, had been provided for them in any shape or form, and 1,000 men, wet and cold, marched into empty barracks, utterly destitute of the smallest comfort;"
  and whether the statement is well founded?
  MR. CHILDERS: This is a matter within the responsibility of the commanding officer of the battalion, under

  1107
  Section 15 of the Queen's Regulations. I have made inquiries, and I find that in this instance the barracks were ready for the reception of the men, and that tea and bread were issued to them on their arrival, and beer and cheese later. Four blankets per man were also provided. The Regulations appear to have been properly observed by all concerned, and are, no doubt, sufficient for ordinary cases of home reliefs; but I am not satisfied that they make sufficient provision for cases like the present, of a battalion being moved into barracks at once on landing from foreign service, without giving time for sending on an advance party to take over the barracks, and arrange for the reception of the battalion; and I have given orders to have these old Regulations reconsidered.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHER: May I ask whether there was firing, and wood and coal provided for them?
  MR. CHILDERS: I stated that I thought the Regulations on the subject of fire had been observed; but I do not think they are adequate Regulations, and I shall take care to have them revised on that point especially.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE IRISH MILITIA.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government to call out the Irish Militia for training in the year 1883?
  MR. CHILDERS: I am not in a position to answer the noble Lord's Question at present. The calling out of Militia regiments for training is never settled till the Estimates are framed.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE COUNTY COURT JUDGE OF LEITRIM—APPOINTMENT OF COURT VALUERS.
  MR. BRODRICKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the case that Mr. Waters, Q.C. County Court Judge of the county Leitrim, appointed a person named Bernard Kane as Court Valuer for the Ballinamore Quarter Sessions district in cases of fixing judicial rents to be heard by him; whether Mr. Kane is a tenant farmer residing in the same district; and, whether his annual valuation exceeds £15?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Question of the hon. Member is one of a series of similar Questions which have been put to me by hon. Members on that side of the House. I think I cannot deal with the matter otherwise than by reading an extract from a letter addressed to my Secretary by Mr. Waters, on the 30th of last month, in reference to one of the Questions put on the Paper by the noble Lord the Member for Down (Lord Arthur Hill). The extract is as follows:—
  "I would put it to the consideration of the Chief Secretary whether I should answer any more such Questions. If I do anything wrong in my official position let them move in the proper manner to have me dismissed."

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RESIDENT MAGISTRATES—COMPULSORY RETIREMENT.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that a number of the resident magistrates in Ireland have recently been informed by the Lord Lieutenant that he had no further occasion for their services, and were dismissed from their offices without reason or cause being assigned; if it is true that several of these gentlemen, being still in the prime of life, and under sixty years of age, protested against such proceeding as arbitrary, and requested to be informed on what grounds they were removed, but received no reply beyond being informed that the decision of the Lord Lieutenant was final; if it is also true that some of them requested to be granted an interview either with the Lord Lieutenant or the Under Secretary, and were refused; whether there is any precedent for the course which has been adopted; and, whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table the Correspondence which has taken place on the subject between the Under Secretary and Major Percy, Captain Wynne, and Mr. Denvehy?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Twelve Resident Magistrates have recently been required to retire. It was the same retirement as that which was announced to the House at the earlier part of the Session. Of these, seven were superannuated on the ground of age, it being stated in the letter sent to them that the Lord Lieutenant considered it essential that gentlemen of advanced age should

  1109
  no longer remain in active service as Resident Magistrates. Five others were required to retire, as it was considered desirable to replace them by more efficient men. Four of the five protested against retirement, and were informed that His Excellency found himself unable to alter his decision, which had been arrived at after careful consideration. Two of these gentlemen had interviews both with the Lord Lieutenant and the Under Secretary. In one case, the magistrate who applied for an interview was informed that His Excellency did not think any good result would follow from an interview. There are numerous precedents for the course which has been adopted, which is entirely within the spirit of the provisions of Clause 7 of the Superannuation Act of 1859. It is not usual to lay copies of such Correspondence on the Table, and I think I must decline to do so in this case, but merely on the ground that it would be establishing a precedent.
  MR. TOTTENHAMsaid, he would bring the subject before the House at the earliest opportunity.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1859—CONDITIONS AS TO SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there is any power given to the Treasury by "The Superannuation Act, 1859," to grant superannuation allowances to persons under sixty years of age, unless upon medical certificate of permanent infirmity; if no such power, if he will state under what Act of Parliament pensions will be granted to the resident magistrates under sixty years of age lately dismissed by the Lord Lieutenant, and the amount of the pensions in each case; and, if he will also state the reasons why no intimation has yet been given to them of the amount of their pensions, though their dismissal took place in July?
  MR. COURTNEY: Under the 7th section of "The Superannuation Act, 1859," the Treasury have power to grant to any person removed from the Public Service for the purpose of facilitating improvements in the organization of the Department to which he belongs a special compensation allowance, although such person may not have
  1110
  attained the age of 60. The Resident Magistrates in question will be dealt with under this power. The details of their cases have only recently reached the Treasury; but there will be no avoidable delay in dealing with them. I believe they remained on full pay until the 30th September.

  POST OFFICE—POSTING: LETTERS BY SUNDAY MAILS.
  MR. BRODRICKasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in view of the fact that a letter-box is attached to the Post Office carriage on mail trains, and is available at the station of departure as well as at all stations at which the trains stop on week days, and is not available at the station of departure on Sundays, although open at all other stations, he will endeavour to accommodate those of the Metropolitan public who are thus excluded, and who are willing to pay the extra fee?
  MR. FAWCETT: The possibility of affording to the Metropolitan public the same opportunity which now exists elsewhere of posting letters in mail trains on Sundays as well as on week days, to which the hon. Member refers, has been considered; and, as I believe it will be possible to give the accommodation without any appreciable increase of Sunday labour, I may state that on and after Sunday next letters can be posted at the London railway stations by the mail trains on the payment of a late fee, in the same way as on week days. I think it will be well that the plan shall, in the first instance, be worked experimentally; because, if it should lead to any inconvenient increase in the work which has to be done in the travelling post offices, the subject will have to be reconsidered.

  EGYPT—SIR GARNET WOLSELEY AND BAKER PASHA.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether telegrams were sent by Sir Garnet Wolseley to Baker Pacha, urging him to accept the appointment of Generalissimo of the Egyptian Army; whether these telegrams were of a pressing nature, and whether they had any influence in deciding Baker Pacha to quit the Turkish Army; and, whether Her Majesty's Government has been, or is likely to be, consulted by the

  1111
  Khedive in the re-organization of the Egyptian Army; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will inquire into the circumstances attending Baker Pacha's departure from Constantinople before consenting to his appointment as commanding officer of the Egyptian Army?
  MR. CHILDERS: I have already informed the hon. Member, in answer to Questions on the 2nd and 6th instant, that no official communications passed between Sir Garnet Wolseley and Baker Pasha, either before or after the latter was applied to by the Khedive. I decline to be guilty of the impertinence of asking Sir Garnet Wolseley what his private correspondence may have been with any person; and I should, therefore, have been unable to answer the hon. Member's first Question had I not received spontaneously from Sir Garnet Wolseley, when he read the Question in the papers, a note saying that he sent no telegram of any kind whatever to Baker Pasha, and did not urge him in any way to accept the appointment in question.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—OUTDOOR RELIEF—THE GUARDIANS OF TULLA UNION, CO. CLARE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any communications have been made to him, or to the Irish Local Government Board, with a view to causing a surcharge to be made against Guardians of the Poor in the Union of Tulla, County Clare, in respect of out-door relief granted by the Board of that Union early in the present year, at the rate of six shillings per head per week, to tenants evicted from their holdings on an estate at Kiltannon; whether it is a fact that the President of the English Local Government Board has lately issued instructions that the Circular of the Poor Law Auditor to the Metropolitan Guardians, fixing the rate of maintenance of pauper children in Catholic schools at four shillings per week per head should be forthwith cancelled, and the sum of six shillings substituted; the money to be payable to the Guardians from the Common Poor Fund; also whether the St. Pancras Guardians unanimously voted the six shilling rate at a recent meeting; and, whether the Irish Execu-
  1112
  tive will take steps to ensure that no charge shall be made against individual members of the Tulla Board of Guardians, in respect of the voting by their Board, to adults and others, evicted from their farms, and wholly deprived of their means of living, of a sum not larger than that allowed by the English Local Government Board for the maintenance of pauper children?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Local Government Board in Dublin have received complaints as to alleged excessive expenditure on out-door relief in the Tulla Union. They point out that if the ratepayers of the Union consider that there has been illegal or exorbitant expenditure in the cases referred to, it is open to them to bring the matter before the Auditor. The Local Government Board, however, have no power to cause a surcharge to be made. The 95th section of the Irish Poor Relief Act leaves the question of disallowance or deduction entirely in the hands of the Auditor; and the Board would have no power whatever to limit the charge which may be made by an Auditor against a Guardian or Guardians in respect of illegal or exorbitant relief granted by them. With regard to the proceedings of the English Local Government Board, I have ascertained from that Department that the Board did not issue any such instructions as those referred to. The Local Government Board have, under an Act passed this Session, sanctioned the sum of 6s. a-week as the payment which may be made in respect of any pauper child sent to a Metropolitan Catholic certified school by the Guardians; and in the case of the St. Pancras Guardians they have resolved to pay 6s. a-week in respect of each child so sent.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MEMORIAL OF RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Government have taken into consideration the memorial of the Irish resident magistrates presented on the 18th of November last; and, whether the Irish Government have arrived at any decision in reference to it?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Irish Government has considered the Memorial of the Resident Magistrates presented on

  1113
  the 18th of November last, and have no, present intention of asking for legislation to increase their salaries. As regards their allowances, the 15 s. a-night formerly allowed to them when absent on duty has been increased to a guinea, and in place of a commuted allowance for travelling the actual expenses are now repaid.

  OFFICIAL MEDICAL ASSISTANCE (IRELAND)—CASE OF MR. CARTER, CO. MAYO.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the custom to send experienced surgeons from the Castle to persons wounded in Ireland, whether by the police or from agrarian causes; if not, on what principle one was sent to attend to Mr. Shaen Carter, and out of what fund their fees are paid, supposing poverty on the patient's part?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In several cases during the last two or three years experienced surgeons have been employed by the Irish Government to attend upon persons in indigent circumstances injured by the police or from agrarian causes, and their fees have been paid out of the Vote for Law Charges. I am told they were all for moderate amounts.

  EGYPT—TRIAL OF ARABI PASHA.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Arabi Pacha is to be tried under special conditions agreed to by the prisoner's counsel, after certain special modifications have been introduced to meet their views; what is the sanction and authority giving these conditions and modifications the effect of Law; can these conditions modify the Articles of the Egyptian Code; and, have these modifications been introduced expressly for the purpose of Arabi Pacha's trial?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already given all the information we possess with regard to the conditions of procedure agreed to for the trial of Arabi. I must decline to enter into questions of Egyptian law. The trial is by a court martial; and if privileges not usually allowed by the procedure under Egyptian law have been conceded to the prisoners in this case, it is, and at the instance of Her Majesty's Government, for the sole purpose of securing
  1114
  the prisoners a fair trial; and Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the prisoners or their counsel are dissatisfied with the conditions laid down.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will inform the House what Article of the Egyptian Code refers to the first charge against Arabi Pacha of having abused the Flag of Truce by withdrawing troops and by pillaging and burning Alexandria while it was flying; and, what Article refers to the third charge against Arabi Pacha of having continued the War after Peace was concluded?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The charges mentioned are under the Ottoman Military Code; but I must decline to answer further Questions as to the charges against Arabi Pasha pending the trial, which is being conducted by an Egyptian court martial, and not by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. BOURKE: Will the hon. Baronet give us the means of ascertaining where these Articles are to be found? I understood the hon. Gentleman to refer me the other day to the work of Aris-tarchi Bey; but I find there was no copy of the Egyptian Code in the library?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: If the right hon. Member desires the information, I shall be glad to see if we can get a translation from Egypt of the Articles of the Ottoman Military Code. I have seen copies, both of the Ottoman Military Code and the Ottoman Penal Code, and I believe they are to be found in the Public Libraries of this country.
  MR. BOURKE: I beg to give Notice that on an early day I will move—
  "That this House regrets that, after the unconditional surrender of Arabi Pacha to British authority, he was delivered over to be dealt with by Egyptian Tribunals?"
  MR. O'DONNELL: Can the hon. Baronet inform the House whether the Egyptian court martial possesses any authority, or is it backed up by any force in Egypt other than the authority and force of the British Government?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already declined, on several occasions, to answer Questions of that description.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I beg to give Notice that I shall ask the Question again on Monday.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What was the date of the telegram in which Lord Granville laid down the rule that in the trial of Arabi Pacha
  "No arguments or evidence as to political motives or reasons in justification of the offences charged should be admitted, but only such as go to establish or disprove the truth of the charges made;"
  and, was he then aware that the second' Article of charge against Arabi was "for having incited the Egyptians against the Khedive's Government," and that part of the fourth Article was "for inciting the people to Civil War"—both said Articles involving necessarily the consideration of political motives and reasons?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The date of the telegram was October 16. The charges were received on the 22nd of that month.
  MR. GIBSON: On the receipt of the charges did Lord Granville think it necessary to make any modification in the rules laid down?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give Notice of the Question?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: If the trial of Arabi is taking place under the Ottoman Military Code, will it be in the power of the Sultan to pardon him?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I did not say it was taking place under the Ottoman Military Code.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Well, the Egyptian Code?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; the trial is not taking place under that Code either. The trial is taking place under court martial. I stated that certain of the Articles of the Ottoman Military Code were quoted and referred to; but the trial is not taking place under that Code.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I should like to ask whether, in the event of a capital sentence being passed upon Arabi Pasha, Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to prevent the sentence being carried out?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Baronet knows I have made it a rule not to answer Questions on this delicate subject without Notice, even though the answer might appear perfectly simple. This is, moreover, a Question that has already been put.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Will the hon. Baronet answer the very simple Question—under what Code is Arabi being tried?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: My hon. Friend cannot have been in the House a few minutes ago when I stated the fact clearly. Arabi Pasha is being tried under special conditions, which are to be found in no Code whatever. Those conditions have been agreed upon between the Egyptian Government and the prisoner's counsel.
  MR. GORST: Have these special conditions been framed since Arabi Pasha was taken prisoner, and have they received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The answer to the first part of the Question is sufficiently obvious; the second part of the Question has already been answered.
  MR. DAWSON: Have the Government convoyed to the Court about to try Arabi Pasha that already a verdict has been pronounced in this House that ho was the leader of a military rebellion?
  [No reply was given.]

  THE ARMY MEDICAL SERVICE.
  SIR HENRY FLETCHERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will consider the advisability of reverting to the old system of appointing Regimental Surgeons and Assistant Surgeons to every Regiment in Her Majesty's Forces?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Baronet, I have to remind him that the present arrangement of the Medical Service, commonly called the General, as opposed to the Regimental, system, was finally decided upon by the late Government when Lord Cranbrook was Secretary of State, so recently as in 1878. Lord Cranbrook's words were:—"The Regimental system has gone, and it would be impossible to recall it." If that system should appear to me faulty, I shall not hesitate to reform it; but at this moment I have no intention to revert to arrangements so recently condemned.

  SPAIN—INTERNATIONAL LAW—SURRENDER OF CUBAN REFUGEES.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for

  1117
  Foreign Affairs, If he will state to the House the date of the first representation made by the English Government to the Government of Spain, with respect to the kidnapping of the Cuban Refugees, and if he will state the general purport of that representation?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The date of the telegram to Sir R. Morier giving the substance of an answer in the House was October 30. It was received the same evening late, and communicated privately to the Spanish Government early the next day. On November 4 Sir R. Morier was further instructed on the subject; but until we receive the Report of the inquiry at Gibraltar, it is difficult for him to approach the Spanish Government.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Are we to understand that the Government took no notice of this matter until a Question was put on the subject in the House of Commons?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In one sense the English Government feels itself unable even now to take any notice of the matter, not having received any reply. They cannot take official notice of it until they do.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PEOSECUTIONS—RULES AS TO ACTION.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to a prosecution by Charlotte Blackman, a supernumerary at a theatre, against a loan office keeper named Taylor, and a solicitor named Boyne, for conspiring together to defraud her of £50; to the committal of these two persons, at the Bow Street Police Court, for trial; and to the Grand Jury at the Central Criminal Court having, on returning a true Bill against them, made a special presentment that the Director of Public Prosecutions had been wanting in his duty in not having taken up the case; and, whether, as the prosecutress is penniless, he will state what course he intends to adopt in the interests of justice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, his attention had been directed to the case. The Director of Public Prosecutions came to the conclusion that this case could not be taken up under the existing Rules; and he
  1118
  rather thought the decision of the Director was a correct one. He would take care the attention of the Treasury was called to the case, so that no failure of justice might ensue. He did not think the Grand Jury were made aware of the Rules by which the Director of Public Prosecutions was bound. He was now considering whether those Rules, which were framed by the late Sir John Holker, could be improved.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Could those Rules be laid on the Table of the House?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, there was no objection to laying them on the Table, if they had not already been presented.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)— COUNTY COURT JUDGES—MR. WATERS, COUNTY COURT JUDGE OF LEITRIM.
  MR. LEWISasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether Mr. Waters, Chairman of the County Leitrim, did, at the October Quarter Sessions at Manorhamilton, on the application of defendants, stay execution on a large number of decrees for rent granted by him at the previous April and June Sessions which were already in the hands of the sheriff, and some of which were partially executed; if he will state to the House under what statute a County Court Judge can stay decrees granted by him at previous sessions, after such decrees have passed into the hands of the sheriff for execution; and, whether, by such action, Mr. Waters has exceeded the powers conferred upon him by statute?
  MR. HEALY: Before this Question is answered, I would ask whether it is not a fact that Mr. Waters was only following the excellent example set him by Judge O'Brien?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I have submitted this question to the learned Judge. If he will favour me with an answer I shall communicate it to the House; but I must observe that County Court Judges in Ireland are purely independent functionaries, in no way responsible to the Attorney General or under his control, and I have no means of requiring them to furnish the information required. If the learned

  1119
  Judge's decision is wrong it may be remedied on appeal; and if, in his judicial office, he misconducts himself, he may be removed by a Petition to Parliament. Under these circumstances, I would put it to the House whether it is fair to put these Questions every day?
  MR. LEWIS: In consequence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's answer, I shall put the Question again on Monday.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— ASSAULTS BY POLICEMEN.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the assault and arrest of Mr. Thomas Cunningham and Mr. John Sweeny by the Police, at Loughrea, on last Thursday; whether two sub-constables, one partly and the other wholly under the influence of drink, on that night rushed up to three farmers and a woman, as they were getting on a car to go home, and declare that they constituted an illegal meeting; whether Messrs. Cunningham and Sweeny were Bet upon by the two sub-constables because they remonstrated with this abuse of power; and, whether, in the interest of the peace of Loughrea and its neighbourhood, he will order the punishment or removal of these two policemen?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that the matter referred to was to be investigated by the magistrates at Loughrea to-day, and he had not yet learnt the result of the proceedings.

  EGYPT—MISSION OF THE EARL OF DUFFERIN.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he could, without inconvenience, state generally to the House the object of Lord Dufferin's visit to Egypt; whether, in the instructions to Lord Dufferin, any provision has been made for consulting the wishes of the Egyptian people in respect of the institutions under which Egypt is henceforward to be governed; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will be able to make a statement, before the prorogation of Parliament, as to the arrangements proposed to be made for the settlement of Egypt, and the length of time during which that Country is to be occupied by Her Majesty's Forces?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In regard to the first part of this Question, I may state that the object of Lord Dufferin's mission to Egypt is to conduct, with the assistance of Sir Edward Malet, the necessary communications with the Egyptian Government in respect to the future arrangements for the security of Egypt. I am not aware of any machinery by which such a process as consulting the wishes of the people could be conducted, and we are not at all convinced that it would lead to any substantive result. If any portion of these arrangements separate from the rest should be completed before the Prorogation, and no objection in the public interests should exist to its being separately stated, we should be most ready to state it as far as we could. Much must depend on what is likely to be the period of the Prorogation; and with respect to that period I am not in a position to give any information. Probably the hon. Gentleman can give more than I can.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Are we to understand that the arrangements for the future government of Egypt are to be imposed on the people of that country without consulting their wishes, and by means simply of communications between Lord Dufferin and the Khedive?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It does not follow that there would be no reference to the wishes of the people because there is no formal machinery for consulting them. There is a legal Government in Egypt, and the Ruler of that country has been distinguished since his accession to the Throne, under the auspices of the late Administration, by his faithful adherence to the engagements under which he took the Throne, and his study to promote the well-being of the people; and we have not the slightest apprehension of conflict between the arrangements that may be made and the wishes of the Egyptian people.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether one of the instances of the Khedive's faithful adherence to his obligations was his condemnation of Arabi Pasha for not making a more successful defence of Alexandria?
  MR. MACFARLANE: Are we to understand that the wishes of the people were consulted previous to the establishment of the Dual Control?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Does there not exist in Egypt a Chamber of Notables, through which the wishes of the people may be ascertained?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I am not aware of any Chamber authorized to enter into an arrangement with reference to the security of the Egyptians.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask whether it is true, as stated in a telegram this evening, that the Dual Control has been abolished?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We are not responsible for that telegram. I cannot say that it is authentic, or connected with us in any way. Whenever the arrangements with respect to the Dual Control are in a state to be communicated to Parliament, my hon. Friend may rely upon it we shall be glad to make it known.

  PUBLIC OFFICES—CIVIL SERVANTS OF THE CROWN IN CONNECTION WITH FINANCIAL UNDERTAKINGS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Where the rules regulating the connection of the Civil Servants of the State with financial and commercial undertakings, and their acceptance of paid offices under private bodies, are to be found; and, if these rules are not already accessible to Members of the House, whether he will cause them to be laid upon the Table?
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked, Whether officials in the Public Service are at liberty to engage as promoters, trustees, or directors in financial, commercial, or industrial adventures, a failure in which might involve them in pecuniary embarrassment, or in personal discredit, entailing a reproach upon the Public Service, and possibly endangering our relations with other States; whether the Public Servants of this Country are adequately remunerated for the services to which the State has an exclusive claim; or whether there exists any excuse or sanction for men already in the service of the State supplementing their official salaries by private engagements; and, whether, in the event of there being no excuse or sanction for the practice, the right hon. Gentleman will take effectual means to announce and enforce his disapproval?
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that, as both these Questions had arisen out
  1122
  of a Question put by him on Monday, he desired to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any information from Sir Rivers Wilson that he had resigned, or intended to resign, his position as Trustee of the Eagle Pass and Air Line Railway?
  MR. GLADSTONE: On Tuesday night, after the first Question on the subject was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold), Sir Rivers Wilson wrote a note to me which reached me in this House on that day, but too late for me to make use of it within the regular time. In that note, without at all retracting what he had previously stated as to the soundness of this undertaking and the compatibility of the functions he should have to discharge with his official duties, he used these words—
  "I cannot for a moment think of retaining it"—the office of trust in question—"after learning that the propriety of my doing so has been openly called in question in the House of Parliament."
  I think the House will appreciate this feeling on the part of Sir Rivers Wilson. He does not wish that any action of his which might appear inconsistent with the efficient discharge of his public duty should be persisted in. With regard to the general Questions of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hubbard), whether the public servants of this country are adequately remunerated for the service to which the State has an exclusive claim, perhaps he will excuse my answering it; but there is no doubt that the claim of the State is exclusive. With respect to the various points in his Question, and that of my hon. Friend (Sir George Campbell), I have to state that this is a subject which, from time to time, has in my experience been regarded as one of considerable difficulty; and undoubtedly the great multiplication and extension of joint-stock enterprises has rendered it a subject of greater difficulty than it was in former times. There is a rule of the Treasury—and it is construed as an absolute rule, though I do not know that the terms absolutely amount to that—that no person in the Treasury, as I believe and am informed, takes any office or employment whatever of this kind outside the range of his official duties. But my right hon. Friend seems to be under the impression that it is in

  1123
  my power to issue an order obligatory on the entire Civil Service. That is not so. The power of the Treasury is strictly limited to certain special Departments, and it is in respect of these that we enforce the rule. During the long time I held the Office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, the question never came before me until the last day or two. But the rule does not prevail throughout the Civil Service. I do not know that there are many cases at variance with the rule; but I cannot say that the observance of it is uniform. What I propose to do is to lay on the Table the Treasury rule, together with a Paper which refers to the investigations of an official Committee. Sir Ralph Lingen, Permanent Under Secretary of the Treasury, who is known, as he deserves to be, as a most able and experienced officer, happens to have paid great attention to this subject. I believe a few days ago he commenced his short vacation, and has left the country for a few weeks. But upon his return I propose to confer further with him on the subject.

  EGYPT (RE-ORGANIZATION)—THE INTERNATIONAL COURTS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the early expiry of the obligation of the Egyptian Government to accept the jurisdiction of the International Courts, Her Majesty's Government will at present refrain from again giving to Courts, practically Foreign, jurisdiction over the Government and revenues of Egypt, and power to seize and sell the lands of the Egyptians, free from the control of any Egyptian Legislature, and will reserve these questions till the position of the Egyptian Government and Legislature is settled?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The period of the duration of the international tribunals in Egypt was prolonged by agreement to the 1st February, 1883. The International Commission appointed to consider what amendments might advantageously be introduced in their constitution, and procedure, and in the laws which they administer, has not concluded its labours, and a further prolongation will probably be agreed to. Her Majesty's Government are only one
  1124
  Power out of 14 having a voice in this matter.

  THE LIEUTENANCY—PRIVILEGES OF LONDON AND DUBLIN.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has seen the announcement that Her Majesty has accorded to the Lord Mayor of London the privilege of nominating several gentlemen to fill the office of Lieutenants for the City of London; and, whether, in pursuance of the policy of equal treatment of the two Countries, it is his intention to advise Her Majesty to accord a like privilege to the Lord Mayor of Dublin?
  MR. GLADSTONE,in reply, said, The Government had no supervision over the municipal privileges of the City of London, and had no direct and distinct information of these privileges in particular. Nor was he aware whether its extension would, under any circumstances, be advantageous. He had not been able to learn, so far as the Department of the Irish Government was concerned, that there was in Dublin any institution or mode of action more than there was in Edinburgh which would enable them to extend to the other Sister Kingdom a privilege analogous to that in the City of London; He believed that if there was such a privilege there would be little jealousy with respect to it.
  MR. DAWSONasked if there was not an analogous privilege connected with the Lord Provostship of Edinburgh?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of it.
  MR. HEALYasked, were they to understand that the Queen conferred this privilege on the Lord Mayor of London without the advice or concurrence of Her Majesty's Ministers?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not wish to enter into the law of the case; but he was not aware that Her Majesty conferred the privilege on the Lord Mayor.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for War, whether it was not a fact that these appointments were submitted to the Treasury or the Secretary of State for approval?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid he should have had Notice of the Question; but he might state that, to the best of his be-

  1125
  lief, the appointment of gentlemen to the Lieutenancy of the City of London was recommended by the Lord Mayor, and approved by the Secretary of State for submission to Her Majesty.
  MR. DAWSONgave Notice that he would ask the Prime Minister, whether, in pursuance of the rights of the City of Dublin, he would instruct himself in the law of the case, and, having done so, advise Her Majesty accordingly?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, whether, under existing law, the Lord Mayor of Dublin had not the power of appointing Lords Lieutenant when a Lieutenancy became vacant?
  [No reply was given.]
  MR. DAWSON: Perhaps I can answer the Question. Not only has the Lord Mayor not the right—["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman can put any Question he thinks proper; but he cannot enter into a debate.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I beg to put the Question to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson).
  MR. DAWSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to answer that Question. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman cannot put a Question to the right hon. Member for Carlow, because it does not relate to any subject or Motion before the House.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he therefore begged to give Notice to the Prime Minister of a Question on the subject.

  EGYPT—TRIAL OF ARABI PASHA.
  MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Egyptian Government have in the trial of Arabi and the other political prisoners adopted the rule laid down by Lord Granville in his Despatch to Sir Edward Malet of 23rd October 1882, that
  "No arguments or evidence as to political motives or reasons in justification of the offences charged shall be admitted;"
  whether this condition will, in accordance with another rule laid down in the same Despatch be "rigidly enforced" against Arabi's counsel; and, whether the Correspondence between Arabi and persons of influence in Egypt and Con-
  1126
  stantinople will be thereby excluded from the consideration of the Court?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In answer to this Question, I must refer the hon. Member to what has already been said by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, because it seems to me that the Question appears to be prompted by the idea that the general rules of proceeding in the Court are fixed by us, which is not the case. Her Majesty's Government have declined to take any part in the conduct of the trial, though they will watch the proceedings on the principles upon which they have already acted. The Court must determine all questions with respect to the relevance of any arguments or evidence that may be offered with reference to the charges against the prisoners. Her Majesty's Government do not propose to dictate to the Court in any way as to the manner in which they shall deal with such questions, and they have laid down no rule, although they have stated their views of the principles on which they think the powers of the Court ought to be exercised, and made general suggestions which are already known to the House.
  MR. GORST: Is the House to understand that the rules laid down by Lord Granville in the despatch to Sir Edward Malet, of the 23rd of October, 1882, have been absolutely and unreservedly withdrawn?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware that they have.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—THE PROPOSED STANDING COMMITTEES.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he intends to submit to the House any regulations as to the quorum of the proposed Standing Committees?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It will be a matter for consideration when we come to those Rules whether we should ask the House to insert in the Rules any specification of a quorum. As is well known, the quorum is usually fixed at the time of the appointment of a Committee. I do not say there should be no deviation from that course; but I am not aware of any fundamental objection to it. It is quite plain the quorum ought

  1127
  to be much more considerable than with an ordinary Select Committee. I should suppose the time of the appointments would be a convenient and suitable one to consider it.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: Will the Government put down a proposition to that effect on the Paper?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would consider the matter.

  EGYPT (ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION).
  MR. O'KELLYasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government has been, or is likely to be, consulted by the Khedive on the re-organisation of the Egyptian Army?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already informed the House that Her Majesty's Government expect to be consulted on the subject.

  ISLAND OF CYPRUS—HARBOUR AT FAMAGUSTA.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked, If the Government intend to act on the recommendation of the Governor of Cyprus, and to construct a harbour at Famagusta, in accordance with one of the plans submitted by Mr. Brown, the Government Engineer, in the Blue Book presented to Parliament; and, if so, which plan will be proceeded with?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Government have no present intention to construct a harbour at Famagusta. Their views cannot be more shortly stated than by a passage from the Secretary of State's despatch to the Governor on the 22nd of February (page 74 of Blue Book), after the receipt of the plans in question—
  "I do not propose now to discuss these plans in detail, as Cyprus has not the funds for carrying into effect even the most limited of Mr. Brown's proposals; and I do not consider that the circumstances would justify an application to Parliament to supply funds for the construction of a commercial harbour in addition to the heavy annual charge which, in the present financial position of the Island, must he borne by the Imperial Treasury in aid of the local revenue."

  COAL MINES—THE RECENT EXPLOSION AT CLAYCROSS—NUMBER OF CASUALTIES.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he
  1128
  could give any information with regard to the explosion at Claycross Colliery, and whether he could state the exact number of lives lost; also, whether Borne legal gentleman would be sent to the inquest to represent the Home Office?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir. I have to say I have received the following telegram from Mr. Evans, the Inspector of Mines in the Claycross district:—
  "Claycross, 3 o'clock.
  "Twenty-five bodies brought out of the mine. Explorers are hard at work, and we hope to get all the bodies out of the colliery to-night. So far as can be at present ascertained, it is thought the deaths are about 40. Further inspection with view of ascertaining the cause cannot be made for some days. Coroner opened inquiry this day and adjourned it. I will send a written report as soon as possible."
  With reference to the last part of the Question, I may say I have already ordered the Home Office to be represented at the inquiry.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—POOR LAW GUARDIAN QUALIFICATION.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state what is the present qualification for the post of guardian in the Clifden Union, and if the Local Government Board will consider the propriety of reducing the money qualification required in that union?
  MR TREVELYAN: The qualification for the post of Guardian in the Clifden Union is £30. The Local Government Board inform me that one of the Guardians gave notice of bringing forward the question, and showing reasons why the qualification should be reduced. On receiving a report of the proceedings, the Board will carefully consider the matter.

  CRIMINAL LAW—INFLICTION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON ADULTS UNDER THE VAGRANT ACTS— SUBSTITUTION OF BIRCHING FOR FLOGGING.
  MR. HOPWOODasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is lawful to substitute, as is done at the Surrey Sessions, beating with the birch rod for the whipping of adults under the statute 5 Geo. 4, c. 83, s. 10; and, whether the whipping mentioned in that Act was not a public flogging with the lash?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, he was asked whether the person who received the punishment described underwent a whipping? Speaking from general impression, he was inclined to answer in the affirmative.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, the Question was, whether the whipping was a public flogging with the lash?

  SIR GARNET WOLSELEY AND THE IRISH REVOLT.
  MR. M'COANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the following statements appearing in the "Freman's Journal" of to-day, which have been telegraphed to the London papers, containing two allegations with regard to Sir Garnet Wolseley? The "Freeman's Journal" said—
  "We do not speak without knowledge when we say that it is a matter of common gossip that last year during the debates on the Coercion Bill. Sir Garnet Wolseley expressed the hope that if Irismen revolted he might be sent to quell the disturbance, in order to teach them what war really meant. We do not speak without knowledge when we assert that Sir Garnet Wolseley declared when going to Egypt that he only felt one alloy to the pleasure of that military promenade, and that was, that the Irish might take advantage of his asbence to rise, and he not there to suppress them."
  MR. CHILDERS: The hon. Member takes a most extraordinary course in asking me to answer without Notice a Question in reference to something in a newspaper which I have not seen; but I followed as well as I could what he quoted, and out of courtesy to him I will answer him to the best of my power. The extract from the newspaper refers to something which, it is said, has been stated in common gossip. Now, I believe that common gossip commonly lies. I, therefore, do not credit for a moment statements founded on such a basis; but I will go further, and say that during the long time I have known Sir Garnet Wolseley—and certainly since I have known him whilst holding the Office of Secretary of State—he has never said anything which could, by the remotest construction, be construed to afford such a meaning as that which has been suggested.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—FIRST RULE (PUTTING THE QUESTION).

    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [EIGHTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [20th February], as amended,
    "That when it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, or to the Chairman of Ways and Means in a Committee of the whole House, during any Debate, that the subject has been adequately discussed, and that it is 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, 'That the Question be now put,' 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.)
    Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, that illness in his family, as well as personal illness, had prevented him for a long time from taking any active part in the general Business of the House; and he had not, therefore, been able to express any opinion on the question of the clôture, which was now under discussion. This was far more than a Party question. It was a question of the highest public moment, and he would endeavour to look at it solely from the public point of view. If, indeed, he were to regard it from a Party point of view he should not be sorry to see the Resolution passed, as it was proposed by the Government, because he was confident that when the next appeal was made to the country the Conservatives would be benefited by the circumstance that their opponents had made this experiment. Moreover, if he had any hostility to hon. Gentlemen opposite—which was not the case—he might also wish the Resolution to be passed, because he was confident that when hon. Members opposite had to give

    1131
    their account to their constituencies the Liberal Associations in the various boroughs would regard with suspicion those who had voted for this great sacrifice of freedom of speech, and who would be found to be such tainted candidates that they would have little chance of being again returned. This was, however, only a prediction which might or might not be justified by the event. But, putting aside the Party advantages which might accrue from the passing of the Resolution, he could not help feeling real and genuine alarm at the probable result of the change proposed by the Government. There was very great confusion in the House and the country as to the real position of the Conservative Party in regard to this great question. Hon. Members opposite had asked them what plan the Conservatives had to suggest for dealing with acknowledged Obstruction. Well, the real position of the Conservative Party with regard to Obstruction was simply this. In any National emergency, when the lives of their fellow-citizens were in possible danger, and the Government of the day declared that they could not be responsible for the public safety and peace, or if any question affecting the security of the Realm from outside was involved, the Conservative Party would always be willing to vote Urgency. As regards the personal misconduct of Members, they were willing that a Member who used offensive expressions and who insisted in making irrelevant remarks or indulging in needless repetitions for the purpose of Obstruction should be silenced. Again, they were prepared to strengthen the Resolution originally passed by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon that any Member who wilfully disregarded the authority of the Chair, or was, in the opinion of the Chair, guilty of Obstruction, should be suspended for a considerable period. On these points, therefore, the policy of the Conservative Party was clear, sharp, and defined. Over and over again the Leader of the Conservatives had announced that they were ready to consider favourably all the subsequent Rules of Procedure proposed by the Leader of the House. It was, therefore, most incorrect to state that the Conservatives were not prepared to deal effectively with Obstruction. They had never yet had an explanation why
    1132
    the Government, knowing that these were their inclinations, had not consulted frankly and fully with the Leader of the Opposition. If the Prime Minister had taken that step, he would have had the apportunity of carrying, not only the Opposition, but the whole House with him; while, without that general assent, he believed no Minister, however powerful, would, in the long run, be able to carry his measures. Then there would have been no need of an Autnmn Session nor of any interruption of Public Business. Every proposed modification had been refused, and they were now brought to the last discussion on the principle of doing away with freedom of speech in that House. The Members of the Government had taken very diverse lines on this question. Some had jested with the fears of the Conservatives, some had treated them with contempt, some had solemnly adjured them to give way; but one thing was indisputable, that the Government considered the matter one of the gravest importance, and not slight and trifling. What could be the meaning of the Prime Minister's extraordinary declaration yesterday afternoon? What could be the meaning of his reversing all the habits of former debates, and coming down on Wednesday, in the middle of a long debate, and delivering his speech there and not at the end of the discussion? What was the kernel of that speech? It was one which should be pondered well, and which showed strikingly the importance which he attached to this Resolution. Speaking in answer to an hon. Member from Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "There are two currents of feeling in the Party which is called Home Rulers. Their object is to establish, in some way or other, what they sometimes call a National, sometimes an Independent, … it may be a separate, Legislative Assembly. There is a portion of that Party who wish to make the transaction of Business in this House impossible. There are unquestionably others who, believing it to be vital to the existence of their country that they should attain legislative independence, still turn to the machinery which exists to attain their purpose."
    Again, the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I have my own opinions upon the interests of Ireland. I have had to do for many years with Irish affairs; I believe a complete and effective system for the Business of the House is essential for meeting the wants of Ireland. If there is no time for English and Scotch legislation, there will be no time for Irish legis-

    1133
    lation. …. Well, Sir, I tell the hon. Gentleman there is not a subject which I could name on which I personally feel a more profound anxiety than on the establishment of local self-government in Ireland, and local self-government upon a liberal and effective basis."
    Could anyone in his senses believe that this allusion, vague as it was, to local self-government in Ireland—coming as it did after a definition of the Home Rulers—was not meant to hold out hopes to that Party of the gravest and most serious kind? It was almost surprising that some hon. Gentleman did not get up and move the adjournment of the House with a request to the Prime Minister to explain the grand new scheme with which he was about to convulse Ireland, or to calm the anxiety of the Home Rulers. That was the most important declaration that had been heard in that House for the last two or three years, and showed the intense gravity and importance which the Prime Minister attached to the Resolution which was now hanging in the balance. But there were other Parties who seemed to attach importance to it. A Circular had been issued by the National Liberal Federation early in the present year. What was the occasion? The hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott) was bringing forward a Motion, not on the Resolutions generally, but against the clôture by a majority. The Federation remarked upon the threats of opposition from another quarter than the Conservative Party, and said that the Government must receive the united support of the Liberal Party. Liberal organizations had expressed their determination to put forward the whole strength of the Liberal Party on behalf, not of the Resolutions generally, but of the clôture in especial. That enormous importance attributed to the Resolution justified all the discussion and all the alarm of the Conservative Party. It was thus agreed on all sides that the change was an enormous one, and it was almost preposterous for the Government to blame them for the want of confidence shown in refusing to pass that Rule. They were asked to put confidence in the safeguards by which the Resolution was surrounded. What were the safeguards? First there was to be adequate discussion; adequate discussion was to be the watchword of the Liberal Party. But how was it to be interpreted? From
    1134
    the nature of the case the authorities of the House would be disposed to look upon a very short discussion as adequate. The Minister of the day whose policy was impugned, or who had charge of an important Bill over which many hours of labour and many Cabinet Councils had been held, or who was accused of extravagance, would be disposed to regard very cursory debate as quite sufficient. The first authority to whom the Prime Minister would look to get through the Bill was the Whip, and would he not be inclined to suggest to that official that a limited interpretation should be given to the word "adequate?" Was it not also only human nature that the authorities who sat at the Table, wearied with a long discussion, should help to increase the official feeling that there had been an adequate discussion. To go to a still higher authority, it was not unlikely that future Speakers, failing to imitate the strict impartiality of the present occupant of the Chair, would feel disposed to shorten debates. Even in a Speaker weary human nature might succumb to influences which ought to be resisted. Then there was the highest authority, because it was the most energetic—namely, the majority, which would certainly be in favour of curtailing discussion. The fate of the Prime Minister might be in the balance; the promises given at the hustings were to be fulfilled; and it was only human that this greatest authority should be in favour of curtailing discussion. Then he came to the "evident sense of the House." To his mind, it would have been much more straightforward if the Prime Minister had used the words "evident sense of the majority," instead of those which appeared in the Resolution. That was really the meaning of the whole thing. He rejoiced at the Speaker's famous ruling, which would certainly become historical hereafter, that the evident sense of the House meant the evident sense of the House at large. The Speaker had thus declared himself in favour of freedom of speech, as the occasions would be rare on which both Parties would unite to put down freedom of debate. But the Government had refused to insert words into the Resolution which would embody the Speaker's interpretation of the Rule, although they might have done so had they wished.

    1135
    We had, therefore, a right to say that the Government did not agree with that interpretation. Then they were told that they ought to trust the Government, and believe that they would do nothing in an arbitrary spirit, and that they would be tender to minorities. On what grounds? They might be asked to display such confidence in a Government which had adhered steadily to its principles. But was the present Government stable in its principles, and had it adhered to the professions under which it took Office? They professed principles of retrenchment and great economy; but they had been proved to be the most extravagant Government on the face of the earth. The Government said repeatedly our responsibilities in the Colonies were too vast and great, that they must contract instead of expand them, but they annexed North Borneo; they said that the whole principle of the Liberal Party was never to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, but they asked the House to pass a Vote of Thanks to a victorious Army for putting down a rebellion in Egypt of the subjects of the Khedive. If there was one thing in which the Conservative Party most trusted the Liberals it was as regards political morality. But they had seen, almost within a year, the Duke of Argyll leave the Cabinet, on account of its defections from the principles of political economy; and another, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), because it had tampered with the principles of political morality? The right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), too, had deserted his Colleagues on account of their desertion of the ideas of international justice. How, then, in the face of such facts, could the Government ask the Conservative Party to feel confidence in the principles of the Government, when these principles resembled quicksands rather than rooks? He would not even trust his own Party with such arbitrary powers. With respect to the Speaker, there could be no doubt that hereafter the Speaker would be chosen on strict Party principles, and would be a partizan, and would naturally be disposed to assist in the curtailing of a debate. Then they were told that the system worked so well in foreign countries. As regarded that point, he could not help alluding to a remark of the hon. and
    1136
    learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Mellor), who quoted the case of M. Guizot in the French Chamber. M. Guizot had said that he rejoiced in the clôture—in fact, he did not see how French Business was to be managed without it. But what happened in that Chamber? That which exactly exemplified what would happen here. Other times came under the Reign of Napoleon III., and, the clôture being still in force, the whole of the Orleanists were constantly subjected to it, the effect being that the free voice of some of the best men in France was entirely closed. That was what was got by the clôture in France, which was introduced by the well-meaning, but not far-seeing, M. Guizot. As regarded America, there were two famous instances of the application of the clôture in recent years. In the one case, the Civil Eights Bill was passed by the President's veto, independent Members begging to be allowed to discuss it, but permission being refused; and in the other case, a lawyer of the Southern States—which were, of course, in the minority—was precluded by a Bill from carrying on his profession. In this case, the Democratic Party begged to be allowed to discuss the Bill; but the Member who introduced it, relying on his Party, only granted them 10 minutes. He hoped the Liberal Party would take these matters much to heart. His own view was that whether Liberals or Conservatives were in power, their only safety lay in keeping in their own possession the key of freedom of debate. But he should like to ask, whom did they expect the Rule would affect? Who had spoken most in the last few years? He found, on reference to the pages of Hansard, that in 1880 the Conservatives had spoken 2,080 columns, the Home Rulers 1,540, and the Liberals 4,170; and that in 1881 the Conservatives had spoken 3,280, the Home Rulers 4,400, and the Liberals 6,300 columns. The Rule was not to affect the Home Rule Party for what he might call obvious reasons; and the Prime Minister had stated that it was not to affect the Liberal Party. So recently as on the 1st of November the Prime Minister was reported in The Times as follows:—
    "The chief business is to get rid of tedious speaking. Those who are opposed (in politics) to the gentleman who thus offends express more or less inarticulately that the debate should

    1137
    close; but the party friendly to him remains silent, and, if a division is taken, they cannot afford to vote against him."
    Therefore, it was clear that it was not to affect the Liberals, at any rate while they occupied those Benches. Whom was it, then, to affect? There was only one Party left whom it could affect. Was it possible that an arrangement such as that could work? Another question he should like to ask was—Was the rule to be applied frequently or not, and to what sort of Business was it to be applied? A great part of the Business of the House consisted of small matters. Was it proposed to apply the clôture in money matters, or on Members' Motions, or upon crotchets brought forward through associations out-of-doors? Was it to be brought into requisition in Committees on Bills or upon Privilege questions? He ventured to assert, should this power be used frequently, that the state of the House would be one of such intense irritation that no Minister would be able to advance one foot or the other. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) told them the clôture would create a sort of terrorism in the House, though the Prime Minister, on the other hand, said it would be so gentle that no hon. Member would know it was operating at all. Would it silence the bores, or the bold, fearless, ambitious men who were climbing the ladder, and who were determined to make themselves a name? It was perfectly absurd to suppose it would. The class of men who would be silenced would be those men who had given a lifetime to commercial affairs, and, therefore, the most valuable Members in the House. As for the young men, what probability would there be of a modest young Member coming to the front under pressure of the Government Whip, and the frowns of the Minister of the day, backed by the clôture? Would the clôture be confined to great occasions? If so, what had we to expect? We had had a good deal of drastic legislation of late years which there was reason to hope we should not have in the future when we should consider such matters as the Bankruptcy and Patent Laws. The President of the Board of Trade, however, the other day, after lightly dismissing the question of improvements in our commercial law by remarking
    1138
    that he had 20 commercial measures ready for introduction, proceeded to observe that we were on the eve of great political changes. When the Ministry got the clôture, then, said the right hon. Gentleman, they should be able to proceed with these 20 measures. There was reason, he (Viscount Sandon) believed, to fear that the discussion of these questions, when they came, would be conducted only by adequate discussion, and not that free and fair discussion which had hitherto distinguished the debates of this House. When a Minister of the Cabinet went to his constituents and made these statements, he (Viscount Sandon) thought it was only just and proper that they should ask the country to consider whether the people would like to have these great political changes discussed with only that discussion which might be doled out to the House under this Rule, or that free, fair, and unfettered discussion which had made this House so prominent an example to the world. But he would go further than the President of the Board of Trade in that congenial atmosphere of which he announced himself as being a Member, and cite the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). What did he say? He said that he "represented not only the Radical ranks but the new Democracy," and that when the House had ousted the Moderate Members of the Treasury Bench they had a hundred and more measures they were about to propose. Now, was this a time of day, when we had these prospects of political change in view, affecting, as they would, doubtless, affect, our political institutions, to dispense with full, free, and fair discussion? He thought that even in the ranks of the supporters of the Treasury there was beginning to be a little dread and fear of over-legislation, for the Postmaster General himself had warned the people against trusting too much to legislation instead of helping themselves. The whole proposal of the Government appeared to him to be based upon erroneous appreciation of the situation. From beginning to the end in the course of the Premiers' speeches he thought it would be admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had greatly exaggerated the position. As a Conservative, he even ventured to say that it was the grossest exaggeration in the world to have de-

    1139
    signated the last Session a barren one. It was far from being so. Many and important measures had been passed last Session. In the first place, rightly or wrongly, they had passed two great and grave Irish measures, and, further, they had passed the Conveyancing, the Settled Land, the Scotch Entail, the Scotch Educational Endowment, the Bills of Exchange, the Bill of Sale, the Electric Lighting, the Corn Returns, the Artizans' Dwellings, the Boiler Explosions, the Beer Dealers, the Retail Licences, the Parcels Post, the Government Annuities and Assurance, the Married Women's Property, and the Public Offices Site Bills. Surely it was an exaggeration of no ordinary kind to describe the last Session in those circumstances as being a barren one. Had it not been for the time consumed in passing the Irish measures, several other English measures of importance might have been passed without the necessity for this vast change in their procedure being felt. In his opinion, it was undesirable that legislation should be applauded for its quantity. He would just ask the House for a moment to listen to the words of the Prime Minister himself—words of singular wisdom, and well worthy of attention—made in a speech with regard to the Divorce Bill, in which the right hon. Gentleman exhibited a great and keen interest. Speaking in 1857, the right hon. Gentleman, pleading for delay in the case of that Bill, said—
    "My noble Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), who seemed to know a great deal more about our motives than we know ourselves, told us most ingenuously that his reason for not wishing to delay the Bill was, we might be able to show that we had done something, that we should not be compelled to present a blank roll of legislation to the country. …. But we have no right, I maintain, to make a character and reputation for the House by passing a most important measure without the full consideration and importance it demands, simply because it is pressed upon us by the Government."—[3 Hansard, cxlvii. 828.]
    And the right hon. Gentleman went on to observe—
    "We are not to hurry on an important subject lest it should be said out-of-doors that we are idle, and lest in the estimation of the public we should lose caste. Are we likely to recover or preserve our estimation in the country by such an attempt to keep up appearances? No! Believe me, our estimation in the country depends, not on the quantity and rapidity, but
    1140
    on the quality and wisdom and stability of our legislation."—[Ibid.]
    They should consider, moreover, what the effect of this attempt to tether freedom of speech would be out-of-doors. The procedure of that House was usually looked upon as an example to be followed by Boards of Guardians, Vestries, local Boards, and Municipal Councils; and the result of this change would be to create a new feeling of bitterness in discussion in all those assemblies by inciting the majorities to use their brute force of numbers rather than to rely upon arguments and free discussion. What effect would this example have upon the Colonial Legislatures? Would not such a measure be likely to inflict a great wound upon the cause of freedom of debate, and create, as in England, an inclination to subject the minority to the intolerance of the majority, and thus crush a healthy, full, and free discussion? What would be the effect in Egypt of the adoption of the Rule? The Prime Minister had said that there was no such thing as a Chamber of Notables now. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The noble Lord is mistaken.] Then it appeared that there still existed a Chamber of Notables. Well, what would be the effect of the Rule upon that Chamber? The following was one of the Rules of that Assembly:—
    "The Chamber must respect the opinion of the minority and hear their observations. In Committee Members may speak as often as they may wish."
    When the Rule should have been passed, one of the first things the Government would have to do would be to instruct Lord Dufferin to induce the Chamber to alter the Rules under which they now acted, in order that they might no longer respect the opinion of the minority, and no longer listen to their observations. Despotism, he admitted, had its advantages. It was probably a better ædile than freedom, and it was often a better general. Long since, however, our fathers had decided that liberty of speech possessed paramount advantages, which, in their opinion, could not be again said. Let them remember that liberty had always raised its voice for full and free discussion, while despotism had ever murmured, "Let discussion be adequate only." He could not but hope, and almost believed, that when the Liberal Party pondered and thought over this

    1141
    very great issue, they would hesitate before they put their names for ever to an Act which would destroy freedom of speech; and that, as on former occasions, the instinct of a great Party had acted in supreme and critical moments to save the Government from making great mistakes, so now it would prevail in preventing the Government from taking a fatal step, which would not only damage their Party, but be prejudicial to the country to which they belonged.
    MR. GEORGE RUSSELLsaid, in reply to some observations that had fallen from the noble Lord, that, in his opinion, Members who had special knowledge of certain subjects would be in a better position than at present when the New Rules should have been passed. Now they were often silenced by the operation of an informal but very severe clôture, and there was great difficulty in making constituencies understand the state of the case. Under the proposed Rule, if anyone were prevented by its operation from giving his opinion, he would be able to explain the reason of his silence, and thus remove from the minds of his constituents the idea that he was himself responsible for his reticence and deficiency in pluck and enterprize. The noble Lord had drawn a terrible picture of the Speaker of the future. The noble Lord might, however, derive some comfort from the thought that a person such as he had imagined, endowed with such an abnormally nervous organization would not be able for a single month to endure the anxieties and labours of the Speaker's Office. The Speaker of the future must possess common sense, tact, and discretion, so as to be able to collect from all sides of the House its evident sense, and he would be chosen for his possession of those qualities. Much had been said in the course of the debate about that time-worn theme the Caucus, and he had himself been alluded to in connection with it. He might therefore be pardoned for saying that he represented a constituency which acted in the wholesome belief that every constituency ought to be able to manage its own affairs, and which resented any dictation from a distance. He believed the House of Commons was doomed to a decrepid and inglorious old age if for one moment it lost touch with the democracy or constituencies or people of
    1142
    the United Kingdom. In order that the House might do its work as in the past, it seemed to him that the democracy should be in full sympathy and harmony with its Representatives in the House. In the first place the constituences should be able to believe in the dignity of the House; and, secondly, in its efficiency. He thought the dignity of the House bad been guarded with equal fidelity by both the great Parties of the State, and the debates had formerly been conducted in a manner such as might have been expected from an assembly of gentlemen; but of late years they had witnessed an unwonted departure. They had become accustomed to unseemly struggles and trials of strength, and the object of these New Rules was to make those scenes no longer possible and so restore, at any rate, the dignity of the House of Commons. As to the efficiency of the House, that had always been the special care of the Liberal Party ever since 100 years ago, when Mr. Pitt brought forward his Motion for Parliamentary Reform. He was one of those who deeply regretted that that efficiency had in recent years become grievously impaired. The country had displayed great patience during the three years that had been occupied with Irish measures; but that stock of patience was rapidly running out, and the confidence of the constituences in this House would be rudely shaken if any further delay took place in passing those measures which their Members were sent here to discuss. In order to have these measnres passed, it was necessary that the House of Commons should have more command over its own time. The Rules now introduced with that object had been recommended by the Prime Minister and all those who were associated with him in the work of Government, and he could not believe that with a consensus of opinion like that the deliberations would be fruitless. He supported this Resolution, because he believed it would conduce to the desirable end of restoring the dignity and efficiency of their debates; that it would enable them, by crushing disorder and terminating indecency, to walk worthily of the illustrious traditions they had received, and by giving them fuller command over their own time, and more scope for legislative activity,

    1143
    it would enable them to use their time for the greater advantage of those who sent them to that House.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he must congratulate the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. George Russell) on having approached the subject from a National, and not a Party, point of view; but he differed from him on one point. The hon. Member seemed to think there would be nothing so advantageous to hon. Members than that they should at all times and all seasons be called upon to go and consult their constituents, and explain to them the course they would have adopted had they succeeded in obtaining the ear of the House. The hon. Member had, however, afterwards supplied the negative to his own argument, because he said the country was ignorant of the Bills which were introduced into Parliament, and, therefore, it had acquiesced in the shelving of certain Bills of the advantages of which they were ignorant, and had preferred Bills not, perhaps, so desirable. He (Mr. Brodrick) did not, therefore, perceive the advantage of explaining to constituencies their views on the clauses of a Bill which was perhaps not understood or read by their constituents. With regard to this Resolution, he did not believe it would have the effect anticipated. The only result would, in his opinion, be that some hon. Members whom the House did not care to hear would occupy the time of the House with speeches of inordinate length to the exclusion of other hon. Members whose views the House would be glad to hear. He was sorry to see that the matter had been placed in so many different points of view by the Government, and the speech of the Prime Minister on the previous night had been a direct attempt to neutralize the importance of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had been anxious to show that the Opposition had been instrumental in bringing the gag to bear on the Irish Members last Session, and had argued that, because the Conservative Party had been instrumental in placing a severer gag on the Irish Members last Session which had been efficacious, they might, therefore, be invited to co-operate with him in putting a less generally efficient check upon the whole of the House. If the Prime Minister's argument were true, there was no question that it was pro-
    1144
    posed they should adopt a practice which was not efficient. If debate was to be shortened, he thought it would be necessary to adopt more stringent Rules as regarded individual Members. That was the form of clôture to which he would confess he entertained very much less objection than the one contained in the Resolution, which, in his opinion, would not meet the real evil—that of Obstruction. He did not believe that the country would acquiesce in an Autumn Session merely for the purpose of enabling Rules to be passed to stop discussion. The strong feeling of the country was, in fact, directed not so much against the prevalence of discussion as against persistent Obstruction. There were many ways in which the Government might use the Resolution, without any persistent Obstruction being displayed. They might make the debate a one-sided affair as they were doing now, by taking no part in it, and so induce the Speaker to suppose that the debate could be legitimately closed. The President of the Board of Trade was one of those who had used the Forms of the House for the purpose of forcing his way into the notice of the House, and upon the principle, he supposed, of a poacher making the best keeper, the Liberal Party considered him the best man to introduce these Resolutions. Throughout the whole debate the matter had been strictly regarded in the light of how it would affect the Party. There was absolutely no independent testimony on the matter; indeed, he had heard the clôture described as an ingenious machine for keeping the Radicals in power. The key of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was—"If you desire to put down Obstruction, you must vote for the 1st Resolution." That was to say, if you desire the end you desire the means; but it was possible to desire the end and yet dislike the means proposed to be employed. Hon. Members opposite did not see that they were putting a log round their necks which would most seriously hamper them if anyone holding such opinions as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) came into power. They would then wish they had considered the future a little more, and had not for a Party advantage surrendered their consciences to the dictates of the Caucus.
    MR. SLAGGsaid, that the hon. Member had alluded to the silence of the Radical Members; but though they were silent, he could assure him they had not accepted the Resolution without much consideration. The fact was, the arguments against the Resolution had been so often answered that to go on repeating the same line of thought was simply a waste of time. The reason why they had accepted the Resolution was because they were wholly dissatisfied with the present position of the Business of the House, and. because they felt that they were at present sent there for very little purpose and without fulfilling the duties which the constituencies desired them to perform. He was therefore perfectly convinced that any step which the Government might take, and he believed the one they were now taking was sufficient, would commend itself alike to Members and constituencies who wished to see the present unsatisfactory condition of things removed. Very few speakers on the other side of the House had refrained from asserting that there was no evidence as to large constituencies being in favour of the clôture. He should like to know what hon. Members considered to be evidence. In his own constituency political action and political thought were exceedingly lively, and whenever any step was taken by the Government with which they were not in accord they had a very plain way of making their objections known. Their dissent was expressed by personal interviews and deputations to their Members, and at public meetings; but no such dissent had been expressed in regard to this Resolution. On the contrary, all the expressions he had heard had been entirely and heartily in favour of the step which the Government were now taking; and, further than that, there was no real or substantial evidence of dislike to these Resolutions on the part of the large body of Conservative electors. A desperate attempt had been made during the recent holiday to whip up some indication of that sort; but it had been a signal failure, and he thought they might conclude without the slightest misgiving that the whole body politic of this country was in favour of the application of some remedy for the present state of things. The constituencies at large did not understand the intricate Rules by which
    1146
    Business was conducted in that House, nor the arithmetical puzzles which had been imported into these debates—probably very few Members of the House understood them—but they did understand that measures in which they were concerned were brought forward without result, and that other measures in which they would be interested were not brought forward because it was utterly hopeless to gain for them any adequate attention. With regard to the argument that under the clôture the private Member would become little better than a nonentity, he contended that the private Member was little more than a nonentity at present, his position being most disagreeable and almost of a useless character. He was not a little surprised to hear, and he should certainly bear the admission in mind, that a prominent Member of the Front Opposition Bench was satisfied with the work done by the Government during the last Session. He would, however, ask the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) to remember not only the measures that had been passed, but the number of measures that had been withdrawn and slaughtered. He (Mr. Slagg) had a lively consciousness of the measures which he and his Friends connected with commercial constituencies would be only too glad to bring forward if they had the opportunity of doing so. The hon. Member for Mayo, (Mr. O'Connor Power), in the course of this debate, assured them that there was no attempt, so far as his experience went, of an organized kind to stop the Business of the House. It occurred to him (Mr. Slagg), when he heard that declaration, that the hon. Member had a very short memory indeed. He did not refer at that moment to the pressure put upon the House in various ways at various times by the Irish Party. He considered that their action, directed mainly as it was to an opposition againt coercive policy, was insignificant, nay, even praiseworthy, compared with the conspiracy to defeat the Business of the House by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and his Friends. He (Mr. Slagg) had occupied a rather active position in the politics of large constituencies for a great number of years, and he could honestly declare that he knew nothing whatever about Caucuses. The Caucus had not influenced

    1147
    any section of constituencies, and had not influenced him in the slightest degree. He begged the House to accept that declaration, and he believed he was in the same position with regard to Caucuses as other hon. Members whose constituencies were near his own. His own sense of duty was cordially to support the Resolution, believing that there would always be ample and sufficient opportunity for fully expressing opinions in that House, and that it would help to place their affairs on a better and more business-like footing, and add not only to the dignity of the House, but in a very large measure to the advantage of the country.
    MR. T. C. BRUCEsaid, he objected to the Resolution as going far beyond the necessities of the case. It was not merely a restraint upon licence, but an attack upon freedom of speech, which was important, not only because it enabled subjects to be threshed out, but because it gave all parties perfect confidence in the decisions of that House. He believed that the introduction of the clôture would do a greater injury to the country than would be caused by any delay in the conduct of Business. What had been the result of the clôture in France? It was this—that no minority ever thought of appealing to the Chamber, but invariably had recourse to other means, so that the whole apparatus of Constitutional Forms had no force whatever. He was certain that if this Rule were applied, the decision of the Speaker would be called in question all through the country, and his person, which ought to be held in respect, entirely independent of all Parties, would be exposed to attack, which would be almost intolerable. They had been told by Liberal Members that there was no danger of the Rule being harshly applied; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) on one or two occasions assured the House of his belief of the extreme moderation of the Liberal Party. Everyone who knew the right hon. Gentleman knew his amiable disposition. But it was strange that a right hon. Gentleman who had filled so many public positions and spent a year at Constantinople, should have taken so rosy a view. The right hon. Gentleman must in his studies have been impressed with the political importance of the part played by mutes in the Turkish Empire.
    1148
    They had been employed to carry out the most drastic form of clôture. They did not silence opposition; they strangled it. And it was strange that the vacillation of the Turkish Government should have coincided with the relaxation of that wholesome institution. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, actuated by a mandate which, apparently, nobody had received, but which everybody obeyed, maintained a solemn silence during the greater part of these discussions. He was not doing Liberal Gentlemen a great injustice in assuming that they would rather hear their own voices than those of others. But if the power which they obeyed was great enough to prevent them from speaking, it would be great enough to make them prevent their opponents also from speaking. He had been struck with the difference of opinion expressed by Gentlemen who represented the Liberal Party of the past or present as compared with those who represented the Liberal Party of the future. They had been told by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) without any hesitation what was the use he and his Friends would make of this measure, and in a very interesting and able speech the hon. Gentleman described what the Parliament of the future was to be. It was to be like a huge sausage-machine, whose business it was to turn out a certain quantity of indigestible food out of any materials at hand for the moment. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broad-hurst) made the statement that this measure was not imposed by the Prime Minister upon his Party, but was urged by his Party upon the Prime Minister. That was very likely, because the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his great career, had accustomed the country to many surprises, some of which appeared to bear the impress of a less experienced mind. He had observed that the Home Secretary, whose wide sympathies laid him open to every impression, went further than the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He regretted that the Prime Minister, who, during the 50 years he spent in the House, had taken a large part in all the great measures that had been passed, and, perhaps, in the most active period in the history of the House, had amply availed himself of the right of full discussion, should have thought it necessary to bring forward a measure

    1149
    which was fraught with the greatest danger to the Assembly he had so long adorned.
    MR. WODEHOUSErose to say why this Resolution had been spontaneously and warmly supported throughout by one at least who did not regard it as a stepping-stone to the Radical Millennium which was contemplated with so much delight by that sanguine and guileless enthusiast the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere.) Even the calm vision of the hon. Member who had last spoken was haunted by the spectres with which that debate had made them so familiar—the spectres of a partizan Speaker, an overbearing Minister, and intolerant majorities voting in bondage to the wire-pullers of a Caucus; and after all that had been said on these topics, it was vain ;o hope that any argument which he (Mr. Wodehouse) could use could remove those apprehensions from the minds of hon. Members opposite. But he would remind them that this was not the first time the procedure of the House of Commons had been altered, nor was it the first attempt that had been made to reduce redundant discussion. When the right of making speeches on presenting Petitions was taken away, Mr. Brougham declared that with that innovation freedom of debate in the House of Commons had ceased to exist. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon) had commenced the discussion that evening with an eloquent speech; but its first and its latter parts were inconsistent with, and contradictory to, one another. The noble Lord began by saying that from a more Party point of view he desired nothing better than that this Resolution should be passed, because it would be fatal to the political existence of every Member who voted for it. But the noble Lord devoted the latter portion of his speech to demonstrating that if the principle of the clôture were once introduced into the House of Commons, Municipal Councils, School Boards, and all other similar public bodies throughout the country would soon be infected by this hateful principle. Was not the one part of the noble Lord's speech answered by the other? If the clôture was as hateful to the English people as the noble Lord represented it to be, they would not adopt it in all their assemblies, but they would return a House
    1150
    of Commons pledged to rescind the Resolutions at once, and banish the clôture for ever. He (Mr. Wodehouse) was not more enamoured of plébiscites and imperative mandates than hon. Members opposite. He agreed with them that the House of Commons was the Grand Inquest of the nation, and that its floor was the proper area for the settlement of great political controversies. But it would be folly to close their eyes to what went on outside their doors. As an arena of political discussion Parliament no longer stood alone; its once conclusive ascendency was now shared by the Press and the local council or public meeting. If it was to retain an undisputed pre-eminence it could only do so by the quality, and not by the quantity, of its debates, and by the unquestioned superiority of its discussions to all discussions elsewhere. Now, what was it that worked like a slow but sure poison on the excellence of their debates and sapped away their prestige—what made the most repulsive burden of Parliamentary life—what threatened to drive from the House in weariness and disgust men of high station, and wealth, and culture, and practical capacity—what was it but tedious, insufferably tedious, repetition? On great occasions the debates of the other House were admirable models of discussion; but would not their quality deteriorate, and their effect on the country diminish, if they were doubled or quadrupled in length? There could be licence in the quantity of debate as well as licence in the quality, and it was licence in respect of quantity with which they were then concerned. The 5th of the proposed Rules would strike at tedious repetition by the conscious Obstructive who repeated the same arguments and assertions over and over again for the palpable purpose of wasting time; but it would not reach those more innocent or more artful and scientific Obstructives who persisted in sustaining a stale discussion long after the subject had been completely thrashed out, to the entire exclusion from discussion of other topics which were fully ripe for Parliamentary deliberation. Against these Obstructives nothing would avail except a power of closing debate. No individual clôture could be made an adequate remedy except by stretching the principle of constructive and cumulative Obstruction

    1151
    to the widest possible limits; but such an individual clôture would generate more exasperation than a general clôture. Hon. Members opposite had said that legislation would be less stable in the future; but if it were so, it would be owing to other causes than the clôture—the change would come because instability of legislation was a common infirmity of democratic communities, and whether their destinies were to be shaped by a great Tory or a great Radical democracy, more and more democratic they would undoubtedly become. It was said that the clôture would inflame political passions, and increase the friction of Parties, and injuriously weaken the sense of responsibility felt by the Opposition; but they might depend upon it that means and opportunities for mutual exasperation would never be wanting when political Parties were disposed to use them. The temper of Parties was determined by other conditions than Rules of Procedure; and while the British people retained their temper of political moderation, and their spirit of political compromise, those qualities would never disappear from their own Representative Assembly. Then, what did the responsibilities of the Opposition for the conduct of Business amount to? He would answer that question by a reference to the events of last year. The Opposition had then cooperated with the Government as regards coercion for Ireland; but would they ever have granted Urgency for the Irish Land Bill? He did not believe they would ever have done so. Anyhow, the Opposition refused Urgency for Supply. It was true that the Supply was obtained without Urgency, and the Opposition were able to taunt the Government with having made unnecessary and unreasonable demands. But the Supply was obtained without Urgency, only because there came a lull and respite in the dilatory tactics of the Irish Members. If there had been no such lull, and the Supply had not been obtained within the requisite time, would the Opposition who refused Urgency have had the candour to take upon themselves any blame for that failure in the conduct of Business? Not they; they would only have made it a fresh charge against the Government. He was far from denying that the Opposition acted under a certain sense of responsi-
    1152
    bility; but what was its source? Was it not the consciousness that they acted in the presence of a public opinion which called both majorities and minorities to account; and that if they surrendered themselves to passion or resentment they would alienate public opinion, and remain in a minority at the next General Election. From that restraint the clôture would not liberate them. They would remain bound by the inherent pressure of their own interests, hopes, and aspirations to court the favourable judgments of public opinion. They must never forget that the House of Commons was not a mere debating society whose sole function was futile talk. It was more than a place for the discussion of grievances; by the absorbtion of vast powers it had become the most vital part of the Imperial Government; and if, through the unchecked flow of superfluous speeches, the House were smitten with a creeping paralysis, there was not a corner of the Empire, however remote or secluded, in which their fellow-subjects would not learn to curse its impotent existence. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), who said, in 1880, that of all the fates which could await such an Assembly as the House of Commons the worst would be to sink into contempt, and of all the deaths which it could die the worst would be to die because it had come to be despised by the people of this country. He (Mr. Wodehouse) believed that the proposals of the Government were well devised to avert that calamity, and, therefore, they should have his hearty support from the 1st to the last Resolution.
    MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKsaid, if he now ventured to trespass for a short time on the indulgence of the House, it was with a view chiefly to protest against the assumption that those who would vote against the 1st Resolution were to be held to be opposed to any measure which might have for its object the facilitating of the progress of Public Business. He admitted at once the gravity, the nature, and the extent of the evils from which Parliament was at present suffering. But he should vote against this Resolution for three reasons. In the first place, he should vote against it because he had not yet been satisfied that the proposal would be entirely effectual against that particular form of Ob-

    1153
    struction which had for its ultimate object the entire paralysis of Public Business; in the second place, because, while he believed it would be ineffectual to attain that object, it would have possibly, and even probably, an injurious effect in limiting discussion on subjects of great public interest; and in the third place, because if it was necessary at all, he believed it should be, not the first remedy, but the last resort. To obtain an accurate idea of what this delay in the proceedings of Parliament resulted from, the causes must be considered, and they were chiefly three. These three causes he believed to be distinct in their origin, their object, and their character, and, therefore, required different treatment. In the first place, they had wilful Obstruction, which presented this novel and very grave feature, that it was aimed, not at one Party, not at one policy, not at one class of measures, but had for its sole object the paralysis of all Public Business whatever. But while that was, no doubt, a very important cause in the delay of Public Business, they must not shut their eyes to the fact that there were two other causes of very great importance which also tended to produce the same result. There was a delay in legislation which was the natural and legitimate result of the existence of Party in the country and in the House. This fact of Obstruction or delay in Public Business, arising from the existence of Party, was not a new thing. It was one of the disadvantages—or inconveniences, perhaps he should say—attending the existence of free Representative Institutions. It would be found in every part of the world, and in every age where there had been even an approach to Representative Institutions. They would find it in the Senate of Rome, and they would find it in the records of the House of Commons frequently occurring. More than 100 years ago, in 1771, a notable instance of it occurred, when the then unprecedented number of 23 and 24 divisions were taken in one night on the question of printing reports of discussions in the House—an event which caused no less an authority on political matters than Burke to say, in his place in this House, that posterity would bless the pertinacity of that hour. While Party in the House had certain inconveniences, it would be wrong and improper to deny that it had
    1154
    certain very great practical advantages, and he was not sure that this same delay in legislation, was not itself rather an advantage than a disadvantage. During the 50 years that had elapsed since the passing of the Reform Bill, the country had undergone the great changes that had occurred with perfect safety, while changes not so fundamental in France had brought about the collapse of the French Monarchy, merely because these changes had been introduced in France suddenly, before the country was prepared for them. There was another important result from the action of Party. Measures assumed to a certain extent the nature of a compromise, and the result of it was that when measures became law they were assented to by the whole country. That arose from the fact that when in this House these measures received not only adequate, but full and fair discussion. There was a third cause which he thought went to make up a diagnosis of the political disease under which they were suffering. There was no doubt that now there were a greater number of hon. Members who desired to take part in the debates of the House. Those who looked back to a period of 25, or 30, or 50 years ago would find that most of the Business of the House was transacted by 30, 40, or 50 Members; but now, from causes which he did not require to particularize, because they were perfectly well known, a larger number of Members desired to speak, and a larger number of constituencies wished their Representatives to take active part in the Business of the House. If any measure passed by this House had a tendency to check that legitimate and proper and laudable desire, it would be, to a certain extent, a political misfortune. These were the three principal causes which, in his opinion, went to form a diagnosis of the political disease under which this Assembly was suffering, and to deal with them they had the proposition of the Prime Minister that in certain circumstances, and under certain conditions, a majority, and not only a majority, but even a bare majority, and possibly only a mere Party majority, might have the power of stopping a discussion altogether. That proposition had come upon the country and upon the House to a certain extent as a surprise. While it aimed

    1155
    at dealing with the first symptom of wilful Obstruction to which he had referred, it appeared to be to some extent uncertain in its operation; because those who had been in the House, and had seen the ingenuity and perseverance displayed by the hon. Members who usually sat below the Gangway on that side of the House, could hardly doubt that even though this measure were in operation they would be able still to seriously impede the necessary Business of the country. But his objection to the measure went further. Not only did he believe it would be ineffectual, but he believed it would seriously interfere with that amount of delay in legislation which proceeded from legitimate causes; and one reason why they should pause before accepting as efficacious the remedy suggested by the Prime Minister was to be found in the reasons adduced in support of it. The reasons which had been given in support of the proposal of the Prime Minister divided themselves into two classes. The Prime Minister had derived part of his argument from political reasons, and part of it from practical experience. That part of the argument derived from political experience was mainly founded upon this—that it was a sound principle of this House that the majority should prevail. Now, he (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) thought it would be admitted that if this principle was in itself valid, it went very far to strengthen the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. On the other hand, if this fundamental reason were found wanting in any part, then it went very much to weaken the position of the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to this proposition, that the majority should prevail, he ventured to Bay it was not a proposition of universal application. There was a large and well-known class of subjects with regard to which this proposition was not only unsafe, but perfectly unsound. But it might be said it was sound in legislation at all events, and in active politics, and so it was; but it was not sound there merely by reason of the majority, but by reason of an implied compact, or understanding, consciously or unconsciously, that after the minority had been fully and fairly heard the matter should be decided by the action of the majority. He was the more surprised that this argument should have fallen from the Prime Minister,
    1156
    because it was not a new argument in the history of politics. It was an argument which had frequently been heard, and which had often been exposed. Even The Westminster Review, which was an advanced Liberal organ, had pronounced against that argument. It had, in a recent number, said that it was one thing for the opinion of the majority on a particular question to prevail over that of the minority, but it was quite another for that majority to decide that the minority had sufficiently expressed their views, in spite of their assertion to the contrary. With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, two questions arise. In the first place, was it the only means of meeting this evil; and, in the second place, was it the best means? He ventured to say that no one who had listened to the debates on this subject would be prepared to assert that this was the only means that could be suggested to meet this evil. Wilful Obstruction had been analyzed, and it had been shown that it could be summed up in three forms—speaking against time, raising frivolous points of Order, and continued Motions for adjourning the House. All these three principal forms were dealt with by the other Resolutions which were to be proposed, and therefore he might say that the 1st Resolution was not necessarily the only means. But even if it were not the only means, perhaps it might be said to be the best means. That raised the question, what was the criterion or standard by which, in matters of this sort, they were to judge better or worse; and he thought it would not be denied on any side of the House that the only criterion they could admit in dealing with the privileges of an ancient Assembly of this sort was that they should endeavour to achieve the maximum of efficiency with the minimum of disturbance. Judged by this standard, the proposition of the Prime Minister did too little, and it did too much. It did too little, because it failed to touch the principal object it was meant to attain; and it did too much, because it would inevitably or, at least, probably have effects which were not contemplated, and were not desirable. It was perfectly open to anyone to say that it was the desire of the country. He admitted at once the force of the argument; but he doubted whether the argument really existed. What would

    1157
    be an indication of the feeling of the country would be if the Prime Minister could show that any Municipal Corporation, or other representative body whatever, who, hitherto having accepted the Rules of the House as a model for conducting their deliberations, had now resolved that, when this measure came into law, they would be prepared to carry it out in their own deliberations. There was one other consideration to which he would allude before he sat down. No one who had wielded the destinies of England could afford altogether to ignore the ultimate judgment of posterity. No Party in the House, and, above all, that great Party opposite, to whom the country owed so much, who had done so much for freedom and for humanity, could afford to ignore altogether the verdict of history. But history dealt with causes; it dealt with results; it looked at and brought into prominence great effects; it took little heed of arguments, and it ignored altogether specious excuses. History would record, when the annals of this time had been written, that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had achieved a certain success. History would record that he had succeeded in doing that which cost Charles his Crown, and Cromwell his character—the attempt, namely, to abridge the Privileges of the Parliament of this country. History would record that the first blow which had been made at the liberties of that House came, not from the tyrant or the usurper, but from the greatest Minister of modern times—every word and every act of whose long career would be the most lasting and the most effectual protest against the measure which he was now forcing upon an unwilling House and an unfortunate country.
    MR. STANTONthought the time had come when it was absolutely necessary to do something towards facilitating the passage of legislation through the House, and to remove from the House the stigma which had fallen upon it. He should support the Resolution, not merely on account of Obstruction and the monotonous prolixity of talk from one quarter of the House, but because the disease had become general, affecting in a most painful degree the Liberal Benches, as well as those which had been the object of special animadversion,
    1158
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. STANTONproceeded to observe that the adoption of these Rules was the only way to put a stop to the scenes that had disgraced that House last year. While admitting that hitherto the Party opposite had not resorted to actual Obstruction for the purpose of delaying measures which they disliked, he pointed out that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) had in his letter, which appeared in the newspapers a day or two ago, suggested that in the future sections of the House other than the Irish Party might resort to it. Another noble Lord opposite (Viscount Sandon) had that night praised the work of the Liberal party last Session; but he did not think that the country was satisfied with it. A further argument in favour of these Rules was the action which the Speaker deemed it expedient to take against the Irish Members during the Session. Although the House approved of that action under the circumstances, it was necessary that it should protect itself against its recurrence. He would only add, in conclusion, that a change in the Procedure of the House was rendered necessary in order to enable the Ministers, who were responsible for the government of the country, to pass those measures which were demanded by the constituencies.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he did not wish to occupy more than a few minutes, while he referred to one or two objections which he held to the Resolutions before the House. Before doing so, however, be would like to refer to some remarks made by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Slagg), who, speaking on the part of a large constituency, stated that he found a large portion was in favour of this Resolution. He (Mr. Jackson) did not know what might be the feeling in Manchester; but he was quite sure, so far as he was able to gauge the opinions of the people of Leeds, whom he represented, that there was not a large majority in favour of the Resolution as it stood. The hon. Member had gone on to say that he believed the Conservative Party in Manchester were in favour of the proposal; but if he had said that the Party were in favour of assisting the Government in making such alterations of the Rules of the House as

    1159
    would enable it to get on with, the Business in a more efficient manner, he believed that the hon. Member for Manchester would have represented the feelings not only of the Conservative Party of Manchester, but of the Conservative Party of a great many other towns. Speaking on behalf of Leeds he might say that a meeting, not actually called for the purpose, but attended by nearly 4,000 persons, had unanimously adopted a resolution, approving the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the other Members of that House who were strenuously opposing the introduction of the clôture by a bare majority. An hon. Member, who spoke a short time previously, referred to the action of the Conservative Party in that House last year, when they assisted the Government in a time of very great difficulty to pass the Rule3 of Urgency. It was not the first time that allusion had been made to the matter, and he (Mr. Jackson) would like to take that opportunity of saying that he considered the action of the Conservative Party on that occasion had been rather ungraciously referred to. He thought the Prime Minister had been rather ungrateful to the Conservative Party for the action which they had taken on that occasion; because he (Mr. Jackson) was not overstating the case, if he said that the condition of Ireland was such that, unless the Conservative Party had come forward and aided the Government, they would have been unable to have carried out those measures which they deemed necessary for the restoration of peace and order in Ireland. He, therefore, thought it a little ungracious that the Conservatives should be taunted with that action, which was as distasteful to them as it could have been to any Party in the House. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had gone pretty well over the whole question, and bad pointed out the great delay which had taken place in the Business of the House. He (Mr. Jackson) entirely agreed with the hon. Member that a remedy for that state of things was wanted, and he was prepared to support the hon. Member and the Party opposite in so altering the Rules as to prevent further waste of time. The hon. Member also referred to a point which to him (Mr. Jackson) was a matter of very great difficulty,
    1160
    and that was the question as to how the "evident sense of the House" was to be taken, or, to put it in another way, how the Rule as at present constructed was to be, and would be, interpreted in the future, and how it was intended to be interpreted by the Government themselves. With regard to the question immediately under discussion, they had been chided for what had been called their unnecessary alarms as to the operation of the clôture; and he quite believed that hon. Members opposite were sincere in their belief that those alarms were groundless. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had, in fact, taken great pains to allay their fears, by assuring them that if passed in its present form the Rule would very seldom be put into operation; but they could not help feeling alarm when they remembered the refusal of the Prime Minister to accept the Speaker's own interpretation of the phrase, "the evident sense of the House." It had been one of the great influences held out to them to induce them to approve of the Rule as it stood, and their position resembled that of a patient. Fears were not shared by the dentist; but when the wrong tooth was pulled out, it became difficult to remedy the mischief which had been done. The question before the House was really whether the clôture should be passed by a bare majority; and they were told, on the authority of the Prime Minister himself, that if a proposal had been put before the House, asking it to consent to this Resolution without some safeguards, it might have been considered an unfair Resolution, and likely to work injustice; but his difficulty with, regard to these so-called safeguards was this—that the other night, fortunately for the House, his hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) asked the Speaker how be would interpret the Rule as it was at present constructed, and the Speaker favoured the House with his opinion, for which hon. Members on that side of the House would for ever feel grateful. He (Mr. Jackson) thought he was not alone in thinking that that question was far from being clearly and definitely settled; at any rate, they were far from any positive or satisfactory knowledge of what was the intention of Her Majesty's Government in the matter. The Leader of the Opposition desired to

    1161
    obtain some recognition of the Speaker's interpretation of the Rule; but the Prime Minister distinctly refused to accept that interpretation of the Chair as being in accord with the views of the Government. He (Mr. Jackson) considered they were entitled to have an interpretation of the Rule from the Government; and he thought it would have relieved the anxiety that existed in many people's minds if the Prime Minister had given them the assurance that "the evident sense of the House at large" would be the interpretation of the future; and he was confident that, by his refusal, the Government had lost many votes which they would otherwise have gained. The Prime Minister desired them to rely on another safeguard—upon the traditions of the House—but he (Mr. Jackson) could not help thinking that the Resolution itself was a distinct declaration that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the traditions of the House must no longer govern the action of Members, except the Member who occupied the Speaker's Chair and the Chairman of Committees. They had heard that this Rule was, in the first place, designed to put down Obstruction; but he was one of those who believed that the subsequent Rules would tend much more to facilitate the conduct of Business than this Rule. He believed it was on record that the Prime Minister, speaking on this question, said he was not aware that he could put his finger on any case to which the word Obstruction could apply. Besides, it had to be borne in mind that the Business of the past two Sessions had been of a very exceptional character, and that the measures introduced had been likewise exceptional; but now, as far as he was able to judge, the measures which were of pressing importance were measures which would come under the category of non-Party questions—measures for the relief of restrictions upon trade, and measures relating to our social and commercial relations. For such measures no clôture was necessary. He believed that, without the clôture, but with certain Amendments in its Procedure, the House was quite competent to carry out the Business of the country, especially as regarded measures about which it was in earnest, and that was another reason why be felt bound to oppose the Resolution. He would remind the House
    1162
    of an old saying in Yorkshire, that "Bad workmen always found fault with their tools;" and he was afraid that the Prime Minister, in asking for an axe to cut away the obstructions in his path, would use it to clear away trees that interrupted his view. Reference bad been made to America in the course of the debate; and though he (Mr. Jackson) did not want to trouble the House on any opinion of his own, yet, having just returned from a brief visit to that country, and having had an opportunity of conversing with some of the most prominent men in connection with the political Parties there, as well as of seeing the working of what was formerly termed the "Caucus," but which was now termed the "machinery of Parliament," he wished to express his belief that the people of this country, if they bad had the same opportunities of judging, would hesitate before, in any sense, copying the system which was in operation there. He could not vote for the Resolution, because he maintained that it would not facilitate the Business about which the country was in earnest; because, if granted, the power might be abused; because no safeguards were afforded which were reliable; because the Prime Minister had refused to sanction the interpretation which had been put upon the Rule by the Speaker; and because he believed it was an encroachment upon the rights and liberties of minorities in the House which was calculated to work great mischief in the future, and bring ruin upon and reduce the House from that proud position it had hitherto occupied as a Legislative Assembly which had been without an equal in the world.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that as the problem of the Irish difficulty was to remove the causes of discontent in that country, and as their removal was to be obtained by full and fair discussion in the House, any proposal affecting the freedom of debate had a special interest to an Irish Member. The first thing to be remarked in the proposed Resolution was, that it was aimed, not against the Irish minority or any small minority, although the Conservatives had tried to turn it into one of that nature, but against each of the great Parties in turn, when they were in a minority. The clôture which the Opposition wanted was a far more invidious, more offensive, and more dangerous

    1163
    affair than the general clôture proposed by the Government. Both sides were in favour of a clôture. The Conservative Party, through the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), demanded a clôture by two-thirds' majority, avowedly for the purpose of affecting an Irish minority. ["No, no!"] Then, he repeated, they were in favour of a far more invidious and dangerous thing—individual clôture directed against small minorities. When that had been rejected by the Liberal Party and the Irish Representatives, the Conservative Party objected to the proposed general clôture altogether, and, without any concealment, said that a system under which the mouths of individuals could be closed would be sufficient as a clôture against the Irish minority, and that nothing more was wanted. He (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) believed such a system, directed against the individuals forming a small minority, was the most facile and dangerous form of clôture. It might be said that the Government Resolutions included these proposals against individuals. But they would operate very differently, according as they were with or without general clôture. If unaccompanied by general clôture, they would be used as clôture. If, as the Resolution proposed, accompanied by general clôture, there would be no necessity for using them for purposes of restriction, but only for the purpose of keeping hon. Members within the Rules of Debate and Procedure. On the whole, as between the Conservative clôture, aimed avowedly and exclusively against the Irish Representatives, and the general clôture, available against the great Parties, he preferred the larger measure, because he believed it would be less frequently put in force than the smaller one, owing to the fear which each of the great Parties would have in Office that if they enforced the clôture against the other Party it might be put in operation against themselves when they in turn were in Opposition. As to the practical effect of the proposal, it would be absolutely impossible to pass the reforms required by Ireland, as well as by England and Scotland, which could not always be neglected for the sake of Ireland, with the present Procedure. The House had to choose between admitting its inability to do necessary work, or reforming its
    1164
    Procedure so as to make legislation possible. It was said that clôture would weaken the defence against unjust Coercion Acts. But the Coercion Bill of 1881, which the Irish people were assured would never be allowed to pass, was passed, although no Rule for clôture existed. The presence or absence of clôture could not affect the certainty of any Bill, just or unjust, supported by the vast majority of an Assembly, passing. Prolonged discussion might delay for a day or a week, but could not stop it. The clôture, therefore, could not add to the certainty of such Bills passing, if introduced. But, on the other hand, the clôture, by rendering reforms possible, would remove the discontent which led to the circumstances that caused coercion, and make coercion a thing of the past. The Bill of 1881 recalled to mind the grave precedent created at that time by the Speaker and confirmed by the House. It amounted to this—that the Speaker, of his own motion, without consulting the House, stopped a debate when he considered it had passed fair limits. That precedent was now a law of the House, and was the clôture in its most absolute form. For other times, under other circumstances, it was a precedent of the most perilous kind. It was impossible to annihilate it. In the absence of a more regular form of clôture, the House would refuse to condemn it, would uphold it, and would thus empower future Speakers to use it. The only way to save Parliament in the future from its dangers was to substitute for it a clôture under the control of the House, which would take its place, and render it unnecessary and impossible. On the whole, Irish Members had to choose between clôture directed against the Irish minority, which the Conservatives would enforce if in power tomorrow, and the general clôture applicable to the two great Parties. He preferred the latter. Some restrictive proposal was necessary, if necessary legislation for any part of the Empire was to be obtained. The present plan would not make coercion a degree more practicable than at present; but it would make it much more unlikely by securing reforms that would remove the discontent which led to coercion. For these reasons, he was prepared to support the proposal of the Government. He felt it would hardly be respectful to some of his

    1165
    Colleagues representing Irish constituencies, whose ability and common sense he respected, and of whose services to their common country he had a due appreciation, to record his vote without giving his reasons. If there was to be clôture at all, he would prefer that it should be the clôture of a majority imposed on a minority, because it would be exercised on rare occasions and with a sense of responsibility.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKE: Sir, upon some of the topics entered upon by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) I have no desire to enter; but the main argument of his speech, like that of other hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, is certainly based upon a thorough and complete misapprehension as regards the present proposal. He declared the Conservative Party to be in favour of clôture, and only desiring a two-thirds' majority to bring it into operation. I deny that statement entirely. The Conservatives, as has been said over and over again by them, are opposed to the clôture altogether; but it would have been obviously foolish to wait until the Resolution was put in its complete form before the House before endeavouring to obtain some modification of, and some relief from, so severe a measure. Again, it is said that the Tory Party are in favour of individual clôture. But it is idle to talk about an individual clôture. Clôture means closing a debate, and the term cannot be applied to disciplinary Rules, such as the 5th and 9th, which are intended for the purpose of silencing an individual Member who has abused the privileges of debate which have been given to him. We have no objection to them. I do not wonder that the Government are not at all anxious to hear speeches from their own side of the House, because nearly all their speeches have two characteristics. They begin by insisting on the difficulty in which the House is placed with regard to legislation, and with charging the Opposition with sympathizing with that difficulty, or, at all events, with not being sufficiently eager for its removal. I cannot, of course, speak for the whole of the Conservative Party; but I believe fully and sincerely that there are many men on this side as anxious and desirous that the Business of the House shall be properly conducted as any who
    1166
    sit on the Treasury Bench. Last Session cannot be called a satisfactory Session. I quite agree that some good Bills were passed; but they were smuggled through in the early hours of the morning, when they could not be discussed, or, if they should happen to have been discussed, were not able to be reported in the newspapers. That, I think, is a scandal to Parliament. It ought to be equally as necessary to discuss them as to insure their passing. My objection to the Rule is, that it does not really touch the root of the difficulty, and that it is likely to create mischiefs worse than those it remedies. The speeches, which begin as I have described, always go off to the point that the great difficulty we have to deal with is wilful Obstruction. I know that the Resolution has two objects—first, to prevent wilful Obstruction; and, secondly, to prevent the prolongation of useless discussions. I question whether it will be effective; and in regard to the Prime Minister's remark, that it is a contest of likelihoods, I have to say that, on our side, we have indications to guide us, which justify, I will not say our fears—because I have no great fears as to the results, even if it is adopted—but our remonstrances. The indications of its working which justify the protest hon. Members on this side of the House have thought it their duty to make are to be found—first, in the form of the Resolution itself; and, secondly, in the unbending attitude in which the Government have met proposals for its alteration, and also by the spirit in which Liberal Members below the Gangway show it is their intention to apply the Rule. It is said the Resolution was recommended by all the authority of the House; but that is far from being the fact, the proposal of the Speaker has been departed from in several important respects. When last year the Speaker drew a Rule for the guidance of our proceedings, he used the words, the "general sense of the House," and the Resolution could only be carried by a three-fourths' majority. In the Government proposal the word "general" is altered to "evident," and the three-fourths to a bare majority. Those alterations clearly show that the intention of the Government is not to put down a small obstructive minority, but to enable the majority at its command to clamour successfully for a dis-

    1167
    continuance of the debate; and the adoption of the principle of the absolute majority lends force to that view. It is not enough that the Government should be able to silence one Party among its opponents; it must be able to silence all its opponents put together. Then, in the Rule framed by the Speaker, the Motion was left to the responsibility of a Minister of the Crown; whereas, under the present proposal, the Speaker is left to discover the "evident sense of the House." Again, when the Government were asked that certain safeguards should be inserted in the Rule, the Prime Minister answered that the minority would want no safeguard, as it might appeal to the public or the Press. But what can be more reasonable than that a defeated minority should have the right of recording on the Journals of the House a protest, drawn up by their Leaders with the greatest care, in order that the case may be put fully and fairly before the country? There is one other important incident in the debate; it was when the Speaker declared that, in construing this Resolution, he should hold the "evident sense of the House" to be the "evident sense," not of a Party, but "of the House at large." What is that but declaring that the Speaker, as long as he is in power, will put the Resolution in force as if the word "general" still remained part of it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the other night, offered rather a curious prospect of the administration of the Rule, when he said that no one would think of stopping a debate if the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) wanted to address the House. So far as the administration of the Rule is concerned, I think, judging from that, it seems highly probable that, in the future, both sides of the House will have to hand up to the Speaker a list of those Members who wish to speak, and leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to make his selection, and say at what name he will draw the line, and declare that the "evident sense of the House" is that the debate shall proceed no further; but how the Speaker shall decide who is to be heard, I would like to hear some Member of Her Majesty's Government explain. I have no doubt that men of the position and stamp of the hon. Mem-
    1168
    ber for Mid Lincolnshire will always obtain a hearing; but there are many hon. Members without his authority and position in the House, and without his power of speech, who will not be allowed an opportunity of doing so. Indeed, Members of Her Majesty's Government make no secret of their intention to make use of the Rule in order to sweep all such men aside, for the purpose of promoting legislation of a Party character. Only a day or two ago the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) gave a list of the measures to be passed next Session—household suffrage for the counties, improved government for the Metropolis, some legislation dealing with the City Companies; and, with the true instincts of a Radical, he smacked his lips over the mention of the £20,000,000 which belonged to those Companies. The hon. Baronet also spoke of the decayed Corporations throughout the country which had to be dealt with; how county government was to be transferred from the Justices to County Boards; how the Patent Law was to be reformed, a Corrupt Practices Bill to be passed, electoral reforms, and a new Ballot Act to be carried through. Having dealt with that rather comprehensive list of measures for a single Session, he added—"With these, and a few other important subjects, there will be ample work for the next Session." In that case we shall get a little further than the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) or the ideal Millennium comprising that complaisant Parliament which the hon. Member had shadowed forth would propose to go, because he and it would be content to carry measures which have been discussed by the constituencies, while the hon. Baronet would push forward measures which have not been discussed either in the constituencies or elsewhere. But the hon. Baronet has been forgetful of the fact that were it not for the discussion of the two Bills with respect to Ireland, and the time wasted by the Government itself on a frivolous Motion of Censure upon the House of Lords, the Corrupt Practices Bill and a Patents Bill might now have been a part of the law of the land. The hon. Baronet mentioned a Bankruptcy Bill as a measure which had been delayed by Obstruction. No doubt, there was Obstruction; but it

    1169
    was Obstruction by that practised Obstructionist the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain). A Bankruptcy Bill, which had been discussed year after year by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, was brought in, having upon the back of it the names of three Members of the Liberal Party as well as mine. Early in the Session that Bill passed a second reading in opposition to the President of the Board of Trade. Directly after its second reading, the President of the Board of Trade blocked it, and only took off the block on condition that the Bill should not be pressed forward until he had brought in his Bill. I do not say that the Bill in question was perfect; but, at all events, there were two clauses in it which would have been of some value to a commercial community, and would have made a greater improvement in the Bankruptcy Law, and given greater satisfaction to the country, than any that has been effected since 1869. The sole person responsible for the circumstance that that improvement was not made this Session was the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that the prolongation of this debate is a substantial service to the country and to the authority of Parliament, as it shows that there is no justification for this violent Resolution in the fantastic and cumbrous form in which it has been laid before the House. The argument as to justification from the practice of foreign countries and the Colonies has broken down, because no one has ventured to quote instances of the satisfactory application of the clôture in foreign countries, while hon. Member after hon. Member has pointed out the mischiefs which have resulted from it in France and the United States. The Prime Minister has said that foreign countries which have adopted the clôture have not given it up. The reason that foreign countries have not given up the clôture is, that it is an instrument in the hands of the majority; and the majority for the time being is always in the enjoyment of it. A parallel case is to be found in the administrative patronage of the United States, which still remains in the hands of the Government of the day, in spite of all the talk there has been about Civil Service reforms for the last quarter of a century. How narrow is the majority in support of the Resolution was seen
    1170
    by the division of the 30th of March, on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marriott)—the largest since the memorable division of 1873, when the Prime Minister found himself in a minority on the question of Irish University Education. On the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton, when 612 Members voted, the Government had a majority of 39; and that was obtained by the Government pleading that support of the Amendment meant opposition to their Resolution altogether. But of those who formed that majority of 39, 13 voted against the Government on the question of a two-thirds' majority, and that represents 26 votes on a division, which would leave the Government a majority of only 13; and how was the Government majority obtained? I am not much troubled about Caucuses; for, so far as they are good, the Conservatives have something like them; but we keep clear of the mischievous importations from America, which, by alienating independent thought from the Liberal Party, will do it as much harm as the organization will do it good. In the debate there have been three curious repudiations of outside influence. It is not to be expected that the people of Ripon would dictate to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen), who does them the honour to represent them. Nor will the Liberals of Durham try it on with the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Pease), who provides so much of their political machinery. As for the electors of Stoke, they could not dream that there is any chance of inducing one of their Members (Mr. Broadhurst) to abandon his obedience to the Government. But the most remarkable repudiation of all came yesterday from my own Colleague in the representation of Plymouth (Mr. Stewart Macliver). Fortunately, in that hon. Gentleman's case, we are able to see what has been the nature of the influence brought to bear upon him. In The Times of the 11th of February, there appeared a leading article which contained this remark—
    "If the clôture by a bare majority is proposed in any form, we shall give it our uncompromising opposition. As it now stands in the 1st Rule, it is not only objectionable, but ridiculous."
    On that, the hon. Member for Plymouth wrote a letter to The Times, which was a

    1171
    good résumé of the arguments now being used by Opposition speakers. That letter was as follows:—
    "Your timely and forcible article on this subject should make the Government pause ere it proceeds further in a course which, if continued, will certainly issue in discomfiture and defeat.
    "By the 1st Resolution the Government, with the aid of the Speaker, could stop any debate by a bare majority, if the minority consisted of less than 40; and they could also stop a debate in which the minority consisted of any number, provided they—the Government—had a single vote more, and had 200 in all. I believe the Liberals would have fought to the last against the establishment of such a Rule had it been brought forward by Conservatives in a House in which there was a Tory majority. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Tories should oppose it.
    "The whole object of these Rules is, or should be, to resist Obstruction and prevent wilful waste of time. They are not directed against the ordinary Opposition, and the Opposition will not believe that they ought to be included in penalties which should fall on the offending Obstructionists only.
    "There are several reasons why it is desirable to give the Opposition greater power than is contemplated in the 1st Resolution.
    "1. It is true Liberalism to require the fullest and freest debate on important questions, whatever may be the objections raised by either the Speaker or the Government of the day. This would be admitted by every liberal if a Tory Government were in power.
    "2. It is desirable that the Rules should have a permanent character. The House cannot be always tinkering its Procedure. Therefore, the Rules must command the approval of both sides.
    "3. There is not the slightest reason why the question should be made a Party one. To give the question this aspect is to risk a defeat that a skilful captain would avoid.
    "4. What injury would be done if it were enacted that a debate could not be stopped unless, after the initiative had been taken by the Speaker, there was a majority of 2 to 1 in a House of not less than 300, or where the Motion was opposed by less than 40? It may be said that this would enable the Opposition to continue a debate in spite of the majority; but nobody has hinted that these Rules are to check the Opposition—they are to check Obstruction. The Opposition, whether Tory or Liberal, ought not to be denied the right of fullest criticism.
    "5. The Speaker would be much more likely to put the Rule in force if he knew it had the support of both sides. It is the interest of the House, and of the country, that he should on no occasion appear in the aspect of a partizan.
    "The upshot of all this is this—that the 1st Rule is a proper subject for a conference between the Leaders of the two sides. This would be of especial advantage to the Liberals, as it would avoid the risk of a defeat. I do not
    1172
    believe the Government can carry the 1st Resolution in its present form. Their position would be not only awkward but ridiculous if they should be defeated on their chief Resolution."
    From that it would appear as if, on the 11th of February, the hon. Member was not under the painful consciousness of his own weakness and the strength of the influence which might be brought to bear upon him. It was, however, only a short time after the appearance of that letter that a communication was sent to the hon. Member from his Association at Plymouth, requesting him to support the Government; and he then wrote a very humble letter to Plymouth in reply, in which he declared that it was his intention to follow the Prime Minister. That is an admirable and instructive illustration. Here you have the true Liberal "before and after" the application of the screw; before the screw he uses the arguments of the Opposition in favour of free speech; after the screw he is the obedient servant and follower of the Government. The case of the hon. Member is a conspicuous instance in which the reluctant support of a follower of the Government has been brought to their side; and it is an explanation of the fact that, with all the pressure they have been able to exert in this way, they can only, in a House of 612 Members, get a practical majority of 13. Condemned by experience and by the sense of the House, condemned by the Speaker's example in framing his Rules, and condemned by the reluctant support of their supporters, the Government may achieve a triumph in the coming division; but they have failed to show that their proposal deserves the support of the House, or the approbation and the sympathy of the country.
    MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he could assure the House that he had heard nothing on the subject of the Resolution from his constituents except a hope, proceeding not from a Caucus, but from independent voters, that it would receive his support. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth who spoke last (Mr. Edward Clarke) had referred to the causes of legislative inaction in the House, and especially to the question of bankruptcy, during the last Session. But the measure introduced by the hon. and learned Member himself was an incomplete one; and, there-

    1173
    fore, he (Mr. W. Fowler) thought his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was perfectly right in not allowing it to pass. There was no doubt, however, and he would freely admit it, that an abundant crop of legislation was expected when the present Government came into power; but the fulfilment of that expectation had never occurred. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had often twitted them with not having carried more measures, and it was quite true that some Bills had been "rushed through" the House, simply because there was no possibility of adequately discussing them. A vast amount of Business came before the House apart from legislation; and, as had been admitted by both sides of the House, that fact made it necessary that their Rules should be readjusted in order to meet a state of things which did not exist when they were framed. A good deal had been said with regard to this being a one sided debate; but he thought there had been a good deal of unfairness of another kind. The Prime Minister had been accused of advocating Home Rule in his speech yesterday; but the right hon. Gentleman had not said a single syllable about Home Rule in that speech. He had spoken about local government for Ireland, which was never intended to mean anything of the kind suggested. He (Mr. W. Fowler) was inclined to think that Conservative Members were far more afraid of this Rule than they had need to be, that their fears were extravagant and baseless, and that they were exceedingly alarmed at phantoms of their own creating, of which they could not rid themselves. For his own part, although he supported the Resolution, he would admit that he did not like clôture, and would rather have seen it done without, if it were possible. Indeed, if he thought freedom of speech were in danger, he would do everything in his power to defeat the Resolution. He did not believe that the anticipation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) would be realized, that Party feeling in the House would become more violent, and that there would be strong irritation on the part of silenced Members. There were in the present House a large number of silenced Members who never found an opportunity of speaking. Nor did he agree with, the noble Lord the
    1174
    Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) that a Speaker would not venture to go against the majority. There were, moreover, so many opportunities of debate that there was no danger of any real interference with freedom of discussion. His only fear was that the Rule would be put in force very seldom, and that it would not effect so great a saving of time as was hoped and expected from it.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, there were many reasons which prevented him from supporting the Motion for the adoption of the Resolution, although he did not believe that freedom of debate would be destroyed by it. The succeeding Resolutions were really aimed at that end more than the 1st, and would do more harm. The 1st Resolution, if carried, would, however, make the Government the sole arbiters of legislation, and would break down all the barriers of Opposition; that was why he disapproved the proposal. A change was involved subversive of the Constitution of the House and the country. The position of the Government was that the minority ought not to have a veto on legislation. But during the last 600 years the minority had always had the power of veto, and because that power had been a safeguard. It made the minority responsible for legislation as well as the majority. The effect of this Rule would be not to remove individual Obstruction, but to maintain the absolutism of an individual—not to secure the dignity of Parliament, but its sub-serviency. The privileges and powers of the House were not the property of the temporary Assembly of Gentlemen who formed the present Parliament. They were the property of the whole country. The House, it was argued, was represented by the majority, the majority by the Ministers, the Ministers by the Premier. He, and he alone, would, in future, represent the will of the British people. What ought he to be called? Certainly, "Optimus Maximus" must be among his titles. He had already made himself familiar—rather too familiar—with the constituencies at the last General Election; and it was well known that no gentleman could appear before the electors in the Liberal interest unless the mark of the right hon. Gentleman was upon his forehead. The way in which the majority were

    1175
    treated reminded him of the story of the visit paid by the late Dr. Cumming to the Pope. Dr. Cumming asked—"May I argue?" His Holiness replied—"No, you mustn't argue; but you may kiss ray toe." It was by resistance that Magna Charta was obtained, that the Bill of Eights was obtained, that the Hanoverian Succession was established, and that every one of their rights had been gained and retained. It was clearly the duty of the Opposition, if they supposed that hon. Members opposite were being coerced, or were acting from ignorance or stupidity, to resist the passing of these Rules of Procedure with all their power. That Resolution would be a death-blow to the moderation of the moderates among the Liberal Party, and to the responsibility of the Opposition. There would be an end of compromise, and they might as well eliminate charity from religion as eliminate compromise from the government of freemen.
    MR. A. M'ARTHURsaid, he could assure the House that he, for one, had not been coerced to support the Government in opposition to his conscientious convictions. The Liberals were charged with voting for the clôture contrary to their wishes, and contrary to their convictions; and he had to frankly confess that, though he should vote for the clôture, he should do so with a certain amount of unwillingness, for he very much disliked the innovation. It went much against his wish, and against the wishes of the whole Liberal Party; but he felt there was no hope for it, if they wished to bring back the House of Commons to its original character as a Legislative Assembly. The change was absolutely necessary, for the House must have more control in the future over its own Business than it had at present. That was the chief reason which induced him to give his support to the 1st Resolution; for while he believed that its adoption would not have the slightest effect in preventing the fullest and fairest discussion, it would enable the House to perform its Business more effectively and rapidly. It was an honour to have a seat in that House; but the honour was dearly paid for by the pain of listening hour after hour, and day after day, to long and interminable speeches, which hindered the performance of work. It was impossible for anything to be more dreary, or even
    1176
    dispiriting, for many hon. Members spoke merely because they felt it necessary to say something. Among other things that had been referred to, mention had been made of the fact that the Colonial Legislatures in general had not adopted the clôture; but that was because they had never experienced anything like the persistent Obstruction that had been witnessed in that House during the last few Sessions. He believed that the proposed measure would prove very effectual in facilitating the conduct of Business in the House, and that was why he supported it.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that believing that the Resolution under discussion, and, indeed, all the Resolutions, were calculated to give the majority an unfair advantage over the minority, he wished to enter his protest against them. A minority had a right to delay, and to defeat by delay, any measure to which they objected. It was because that Resolution would interfere with the right of the minority to use the Forms of the House, which had been handed down to them by tradition, in order to delay a measure, that he would vote against it. He voted for the Rules of Urgency last Session, because they were temporarily required to meet an exceptional difficulty; but that was no reason why he should now support a more stringent Rule, which had the great disadvantage of being permanent. It was nothing short of hypocrisy for the Members of the Treasury Bench—he did not see any Member of the Government upon it at present—to talk about putting down Obstruction. Whenever there was any charge of Obstruction against the Members of the Treasury Bench, there was always one, and that was the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who got up and said that he never obstructed; but the President of the Board of Trade was the first and chief Obstructionist in that House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman meant, when he said it was not Obstruction, that it was only a Brummagem kind of article. The present introduction of the clôture was compared to the Speaker's action in putting an end to the debate; but there was no real similarity between the cases. One was a temporary expedient, and the other intended to be permanent. The Prime Minister had been guilty of many inconsistencies in relation to these Resolutions.

    1177
    He had begun by saying that the "evident sense of the House" was to be the "general sense of the House;" and at last he had narrowed the expression down to the barest Party majority, so that the Resolution might be said to rest on false pretences. It was the irresponsible will of the Prime Minister that was forcing this measure through a reluctant House. Every argument had been answered, every fallacy exposed; but the imperious will of the Prime Minister they could not change. It was his (Mr. Warton's) candid opinion that the right hon. Gentleman would content himself with nothing short of being the Dictator of the country.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. O'Shea,)—put and agreed to.
    Debate further adjourned till Tomorrow.
    House adjourned at five minutes before Twelve o'clock.