Sitting of 13 November 1882

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the City of New Sarum, v. William Henry Grenfell, esquire, one of the Grooms in Waiting on Her Majesty.
QUESTIONS.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND) ACT—AYLESBURY GAOL.
  MR. CARINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that Aylesbury Gaol is no longer to be used as a House of Correction?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that a recommendation to that effect had been made by the Prison Commissioners, and it would be complied with.

  EGYPT—DESPATCH OF ENGLISH OFFICERS TO THE SOUDAN.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that three British officers have been sent, or are to be sent, to report on the state of affairs in the Soudan; if so, whether Her Majesty's Government have made it a condition that they should be accompanied by a suitable escort?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: This Question was answered by the Secretary of State for War on Friday. I am informed by the War Office that the General Officer Commanding in Egypt does not think it expedient to send any escort with the officers whom he thinks it advisable to send to Khartoum.
  MR. ONSLOW: Is the advice approved of?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That Question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARMS' LICENCES.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, For what reason was the licence to carry arms by Mr. P. L. White revoked; is he aware that a gun taken from Mr. White was by Rigby, of Dublin, costing £31 10 s. 0d.; and, on what grounds has the amount (£15 15 s. 0d.) claimed by Mr. White as compensation not been paid by the Government?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I must decline to state the circumstances which called for the revocation of Patrick White's arms' licence. I am informed that the gun is one of Rigby's; but I do not know what it cost. The Sub-Inspector offered Mr. White£2 compensation—that being what he considered the gun was worth. White refused to accept this offer, and the gun has been sent to the county store to be re-valued.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—NEWRY WORK-HOUSE—TREATMENT OF CASUALS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  1289
  Is it a fact that Mayor Wyse, R. M., at present stationed at Newry, has sentenced everyone who uses the Casual Ward of the Newry Workhouse to one month's imprisonment as alleged vagrants; and, whether these cases are usually tried in private?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In reference to this Question, Major Wyse reports as follows:—
  "I deny, in the most distinct manner possible, that I ever sentenced everyone who uses the casual ward of the Newry Workhouse to one month's imprisonment as alleged vagrants, or have heard such cases in private."
  Since Major Wyse has been stationed in Newry 366 casuals have obtained relief in the workhouse, and of that number only 10 have been brought before him charged with offences. Under the Vagrancy Act these cases were properly heard out of Petty Sessions.

  POOR LAW (SCOTLAND)—CASE OF ALLEGED STARVATION AT TAIN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Lord Advocate, Whether an old woman named Ann Macdonald, residing in King Street, Tain, was found dead in a room there on or about the 3rd of October; whether she died from the effects of starvation; whether, a fortnight previous to her death, she applied for parochial relief and was refused, with the exception of 2s., which was appropriated by the deceased for payment of the rent of her room; whether the criminal authorities failed to hold a post mortem examination of the body; and, whether the Inspector of Poor for the parish of Tain acts in that capacity for four other parishes, and whether such a state of matters will be allowed to continue?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR),in reply, said, that a woman named Margaret Macdonald, about 50 years of age, was found dead in her room at Tain on the 2nd of October. She did not die of starvation. Provisions of various kinds were found in her room. She never applied for parochial relief, but aliment to a small extent was spontaneously given her by the Parochial Board between the 15th of August and the 23rd of September; and shortly before her death she received payment for out-door work she had done. The body was examined by a physician on the day of her death, under the Sheriff's warrant, in the ordinary form; but it was
  1290
  not found necessary to open it, her death being attributed to diarrhœa, from which she was known to have been suffering. There was no fault or neglect on the part of any of the officers concerned, and he (the Lord Advocate) did not propose to take any steps in the matter.

  THE MAGISTRACY (SCOTLAND)—SHERIFF-CLERKSHIP OF FORFARSHIRE.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is a fact that the office held by the late Sheriff Clerk of Forfarshire was a sinecure, the duties of which were performed by deputies in Forfar and Dundee; whether such an arrangement was not contrary to the enactment of 6 Geo. 4, cap. 23, sec. 6, that Sheriff Clerks shall discharge the duties of the office in person; what salary was attached to the post; and, whether he sees his way to effect a saving without sacrificing efficiency in any new appointment?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR),in reply, said, that the office of Sheriff Clerk in question did not appear to him to be on a satisfactory footing, and when the vacancy occurred he communicated with the Public Departments with a view to having the office placed on a better footing. In the new appointment care would be taken to ensure personal performance of the duties, and he expected that a substantial saving would be effected without any sacrifice of efficiency.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION —JUDICIAL RENTS, CO. CAVAN.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can tell why judicial rents have not been fixed for the tenants of Major George Arthur Crawford, Castlerahan, county Cavan, although they were entered in the Court on 22nd October 1881, and cases have since been tried in the same district which had not been entered for six months later?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The cases referred to in this Question were originally commenced in the Civil Bill Court, and were subsequently transferred to the Land Commission Court. A case thus transferred takes its place in the books of the Land Commission as of the date of transfer, not the date of the entry in

  1291
  the books of the Civil Bill Court. These cases will be listed for hearing at the next sitting of the Sub-Commission at Virginia, commencing on the 11th of December.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 —SEC. 8—INCIDENCE OF COST.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the expenses, salaries, &c. of working the Arrears Act will become a charge on the Estimates or be defrayed out of the Church surplus?
  MR. TREVELYAN: By the 8th section of the Arrears of Rent Act, any liabilities incurred by the Land Commission on account of payments to landlords in respect of arrears of rent are primarily a charge of the Irish Church Temporalities Fund; but the expenses of carrying out the Act must be voted by Parliament.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND)—CHELSEA WORKHOUSE—RIGHT OF A PAUPER TO WEAR THE "BLUE RIBBON BADGE."
  MR. S. MORLEYasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the reports in the "Times" and "Morning Post" of the 1st November, of the case of Charles Thompson, a crippled pauper in the Chelsea Workhouse, who, upon refusing to remove his blue ribbon badge from his coat when ordered to do so by the master, saying that he had a right "to stand by his colours," was put on the ground by the instructions of the master, and had his chest knelt upon, and the ribbon forcibly removed from his coat and destroyed; and, whether any, and, if any, what steps have been taken for the protection of paupers against proceedings such as those reported, and for the punishment of the officials concerned?
  MR. DODSON: My attention has been called to this case, and I have requested the observations of the Guardians on the subject. The Guardians have referred the matter to a Committee. Meanwhile, I have no hesitation in saying that I should regret any interference with the wearing of the Blue Ribbon badge by the inmates. As regards the conduct of the officials in the case of Thompson, they state that the man was not thrown
  1292
  or struck to the ground, and that no unnecessary violence was used. I am glad to be able to add that a gentleman connected with the Blue Ribbon movement offered to find Thompson employment, which he was physically able to perform, and that the man has now left the workhouse.

  ARMY PENSIONERS—STOPPAGE OF PENSION WHEN RESIDENT ABROAD.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will consider the advisability of revising the rules under which all Army Pensioners residing outside Her Majesty's dominions are deprived of their pensions?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: In the unavoidable absence of the Secretary of State for War, I beg to say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clare, that Army Pensioners under 50 years of age are liable by statute to be called out for service at homo in the event of a national emergency; and, consequently, these could not be permitted to receive their pension if residing abroad. To those who are over 50 years of age, and consequently not liable to serve, no such prohibition applies; and many do, in fact, receive their pensions in foreign countries.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—SEARCHING OF HOUSES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether instructions have now been given to the Irish Police not to demand admission to houses, whether at night or by day, without a warrant; and, if not, will he state that householders would be justified in refusing admission; whether it has been reported to him that, on a Sunday in last month, Constable Brophy, of Millstreet, with three police, entered and proceeded to search the house of Thomas M'Carthy without producing a warrant; if Brophy had a warrant with him; and, whether this was done under the Crimes Act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The owner of any house visited by the police may decline to admit them if he thinks fit to do so, and the police thereupon go away unless they are armed with a warrant. In the case of Thomas M'Carthy, referred to in the Question, the police had no warrant; but they were admitted by the

  1293
  inmates, who might, if they wished, have refused them admission. In visiting houses at night the police are acting in the discharge of their ordinary police duties—not under the Crimes Act.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED DANGER OF FAMINE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the following Resolution, unanimously adopted on the 3rd instant, by the Board of Poor-Law Guardians of Dromore West, county Sligo:—
  "The Guardians of the Dromore West Union view with considerable alarm the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, made in the House of Commons on Tuesday night last, when he stated on the authority of the Local Government Board that imminent danger of famine did not exist in the West of Ireland. It is the deliberate opinion of the Guardians that within the last thirty years no darker prospect presented itself before the people. The potatoe crop is found to be more deficient every other day. Very little of it is expected to be forthcoming on the approach of the new year. In most places half the corn has been lost by the recent storms. Hay has suffered in the same manner. Owing to scarcity of provisions the people are selling off their pigs at ruinously reduced prices at the local markets, and the quantity of horned cattle and sheep has been remarkably scanty amongst the small farmers for the last few years. We cannot lose sight of the pressure brought upon this class at present in qualifying themselves for the provisions of the Arrears Bill, and paying off enormous costs which civil bill and ejectment proceedings have entailed upon them.
  "Having all these things in view, and that no remunerative labour is employed in the district, we feel it our bounden duty as Guardians of the Poor to put our views before the Local Government Board, so as to apprise them of the necessity of adopting measures to meet a calamity before the prospect of which we naturally shrink with horror.
  "The Guardians at all times, considering the administration of outdoor relief as in many instances demoralising, would respectfully suggest to the Local Government Board, as means of meeting distress, advances from the Government to small farmers for the purpose of improving their holdings, as well as similar advances for the reclamation of waste lands which unhappily abound in this union;"
  and, whether he, considering the declaration that "within the last thirty years no darker prospect presented itself before the people," will consider the suggestions to make advances to small farmers for the improvement of their holdings and for reclamation of waste lands, and will take such steps in con-
  1294
  cert with the Board of Works and the Local Government Board, as may secure the population of the threatened districts from widespread distress through want of employment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the Resolution referred to by the hon. Member, and they have directed one of their Inspectors to proceed at once to Dromore West Union and to make inquiries and report as to the statements contained in the Resolution. Until I see that Report, which will not be for a few days, I cannot say whether any exceptional measures appear to be called for.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—FAIR RENTS, CO. MAYO.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many applications to have fair rents fixed have proceeded from the county of Mayo; and, how many of these applications' yet remain to be heard?
  MR. TREVELYAN: In the Land Commission Court in the county Mayo the number of applications to have fair rents fixed has been 9,349; 1,171 have been disposed of, and 8,177 remain to be heard. In the Civil Bill Courts the number of such applications has been 1,999, and of these 1,107 have been disposed of, and 892 remain to be heard. That proportion may fairly be taken to apply to the rest of Ireland.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION —COURT VALUERS.
  LORD ARTHUR HILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the county court judge of the county Leitrim, Mr. Waters, Q. C., recently appointed a Mr. Irwin Flaherty as the court valuer in cases under the Land Act of 1881, where applications had been made to fix a fair rent, and which were to be heard before him; whether this is the same person who is a yearly tenant in the same quarter sessions district where he was appointed valuer; whether his valuation is under £20 annual value for all the tenements or holdings of which he is the occupier, in county Leitrim, or elsewhere; and, whether he carries on a small business as an auctioneer in the

  1295
  village of Drumkeeran, county Leitrim, and keeps a car for hire and posting purposes, which he drives himself?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This Question appeared on the Paper some time ago, before I had arrived at the decision that I could not ask Mr. Waters to favour me with his observations on any more such Questions. He was good enough to furnish me with a report on the case referred to, from which I find that in February last he did make use of Mr. Irwin Flaherty's services in three cases in his Court. He had endeavoured unsuccessfully to get from the Land Commissioners the aid of a valuer. He then tried to get a disinterested person who would not be objected to by any of the parties, and Mr. Flaherty was the best man he could find. He visited the farms and gave evidence in Court, and Mr. Waters fixed judicial rents in the cases, which, he believes, have not been appealed against. With reference to the last Question of the noble Lord, I have received a long letter from Mr. Flaherty which, in justice to him, ought to be read to the House. In that letter Mr. Flaherty, gives the names of a considerable number of persons of very respectable and, indeed, high positions who have recommended him. He then goes on to say—
  "Lord Arthur Hill asked whether my valuation was under£20, to which I can reply with correctness that my annual value is £38 15 s. It is true that my late father kept during his lifetime seven horses for hire, which branch of industry I now keep on, as well as that of auctioneer. But the number of horses a man may or may not keep has nothing to do with his practical knowledge of the value of land. For instance, Charles Bianconi in his lifetime kept some thousands of horses, and I venture to say he was not able to put a fair letting value on a holding of land."
  That is Mr. Flaherty's account of himself, which I felt bound to read to the House. I must repeat that I do not feel myself bound to ask Mr. Waters to answer any more of these Questions.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— REMOVAL OF PLACARDS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of repeated instances of tearing down of public placards by the police, he has yet issued the promised instructions on the subject, and if he will communicate the terms of those in-
  1296
  structions to the House; whether, at Slane, in the county Meath, the local police tore a placard off a wall, took it into the police station, and, after a time, returned and posted it up again; and, what explanation is offered of this transaction?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The further instructions with regard to the placards of the Irish National League which I promised should be issued have been issued. They are dated the 6th of November, and are to the effect that the Constabulary shall not tear down the placards of the Irish National League so long as they continue of the same character as at present. The placard taken down by the sub-constable in Slane, county Meath, was improperly taken down by the sub-constable when on beat duty. He brought it to his head constable and was told to post it up again at once, which he did.

  IRELAND—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES EXHIBITION.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If any steps will be taken by Government to assist the Irish fishermen to derive advantage from the approaching International Fisheries Exhibition?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have asked the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries to exhibit maps of the principal Irish fishery grounds, accompanied by such information as will explain their operation, and to give every possible information on the subject to Irish fishermen attending the Exhibition.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE DONEGAL AND DERRY SUB-COMMISSIONS—JUDICIAL RENTS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the fact that, by the decisions of the Donegal Sub-Commission given at Buncrana, judicial rents were, in some cases, fixed at a higher figure than the estimate of the landlord's valuer, and, in some cases, were raised on the tenants without any application for a rise on the part of the landlord; whether he has seen that, on that occasion, the chairman, in delivering the decision of the Court, stated that, besides the evidence of the witnesses examined before the Court, they had—

  1297
  "The report of the Court Valuer, which report, coming as it does from an independent source, unconnected with either party, we consider most valuable;"
  if he will obtain the production of the report of the Court Valuer, together with a statement of the reasons for fixing the rent of the tenants at a higher figure than the estimate of the landlord's valuer; and, if he has not this power, if he will introduce Legislation to submit Court Valuers to open examination in Court?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I referred this Question to the Land Commissioners, who inform me that their attention had not been called to the matters referred to in it. With regard to the allegation that rents were raised without any application for an increase on the part of the landlord, the hon. Member must be aware that it is the duty of the Sub-Commission to fix a fair rent, and the absence of such an application does not affect the matter. Any person aggrieved by the decision of a Sub-Commission can have his case re-hoard by three Land Commissioners. A copy of the Court Valuer's Report in any case can be obtained after the hearing on application to the Registrar of the Land Commission, and upon payment of the proper fee, which, on the average, is 6d.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the fact that the tenantry whose cases were for hearing before the Derry Sub-Commission at Limavady declared to the Court through their Counsel that—
  "The official valuer attached to the Court was not competent to perform the duties of a land valuer; that his prejudices and feelings were altogether hostile to their interests; that they did not believe his appointment was legal; and, that, unless the valuer were at once withdrawn, the tenants, as a body, would withdraw from the Court;"
  whether he is aware that, in consequence of the action of the official valuer attached to the Donegal Sub-Commission, withdrawal from the Land Court is contemplated by the Donegal tenantry; whether it is true, as stated by Mr. Roper, the Land Commissioner for Derry, that the Chief Commissioners—
  "Will do nothing without consulting the Lord Lieutenant in the matter, and that, until the Government of the Lord Lieutenant care to alter it, the present mode of doing business must be continued;"
  1298
  and, whether the Government will propose an alteration, in conformity with the claims of the tenants?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Land Commissioners have had a correspondence with Mr. Todd, who appeared for a large number of the tenants whose cases to fix fair rents were listed for hearing before the Derry Sub-Commissioners at Limavady; and I find from that correspondence that these tenantry have threatened to withdraw from the Court on the grounds stated in the Question. The Land Commissioners wrote to Mr. Roper, asking if he made use of the words attributed to him; and I have just had a telegram from them stating that the report is substantially accurate. They add, in their telegram, that the tenants referred to in the Question have now decided not to withdraw their cases, but to proceed with them.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would introduce legislation for having Court Valuers submitted to open examination in Court?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he thought it would be better that the intentions of the Government in that matter should be indicated in debate, and not in answer to a Question.
  MR. LEWISasked what day the Government intended to give with the view of debating the working of the Land Act?
  MR. TREVELYANreplied that, speaking personally, he certainly courted debate on the subject in the course of the present Session; and he had no doubt the Prime Minister would readily answer any Question which the hon. Gentleman might address to him on the subject.

  VACCINATION—TRANSMISSION OF DISEASE THROUGH INOCULATION OF SOLDIERS IN THE FRENCH ARMY.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Vice President of the Local Government Board, in regard to the alleged inoculation of French soldiers with syphilis by vaccination, which occurred in December 1880, Whether he will think it right to lay upon the Table all the information he has obtained on the subject?
  MR. DODSON: The information which I have obtained is, as I told my hon. and learned Friend on a former occasion,

  1299
  so incomplete that it throws no further light upon the subject; and I see no advantage, therefore, in laying it upon the Table of the House. At the same time, I am as anxious as my hon. and learned Friend to obtain as much information as possible with respect to the extraordinary circumstances referred to; and I have now again requested the Foreign Office to endeavour to ascertain whether the French Government have made any further inquiry into the matter, with a view of obtaining any additional particulars in their possession.

  CRIMINAL LAW—INFLICTION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON ADULTS UNDER THE VAGRANT ACTS— SUBSTITUTION OF BIRCHING FOR FLOGGING.
  MR. HOPWOODasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is to be understood to be of opinion that, wherever "whipping" was mentioned in a penal Act, as for instance the 5 and 6 Vic. c. 51, for the Protection of Her Majesty, "scourging" or "strokes with a birch rod" could be lawfully substituted under that term; whether the "whipping" in the 5 Geo. 4, c. 83 and, previous Vagrant Acts, was inflicted by the vagrant being carried to
  "Some market town, there tied to the end of a cart, naked, and beaten with whips throughout such town or place till his body be bloody with such whipping:"
  and, whether any statute has been passed since to change that Law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I understand my hon. and learned Friend entertains the view that wherever whipping can be inflicted under a penal Statute the prisoner must always be flogged with a cat-o'-nine-tails or some such instrument, and cannot legally be punished with a birch-rod. I am aware that my hon. and learned Friend's view is that the more severe flogging would not be inflicted, and from humane motives he desires to get rid of the whipping altogether. I do not, however, agree with him; for, although formerly the flogging was of the most severe character, yet in modern times, in the interests of humanity, its severity has been modified, and I think such modification is within the discretion of the Court passing the sentence. I may add that in 26 Vict. c. 51, and the
  1300
  three Consolidation Acts of 1861, under which whipping can be inflicted, express provision is made that the instrument with which the punishment is inflicted shall be specified in the sentence.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—SURRENDER OF PRISONERS OF WAR TO THE AGENTS OF THE KHEDIVE.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table that portion of Sir Garnet Wolseley's confidential Despatch in which he asked whether he should hand over to the Khedive the chief rebels whom he might capture; whether the request of Sir Garnet Wolseley, referred to by Lord Granville in his note of the 28th of August to Sir E. Malet, did not apply exclusively to three officers who surrendered at Ismailia, saying they were loyal to the Khedive, and wished to go to Alexandria; and, whether these three officers are to be put upon their trial?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE (for Mr. CHILDERS): I learn from the War Office that there is no objection to lay upon the Table that portion of Sir Garnet Wolseley's confidential despatch to which my right hon. Friend alludes. It is as follows:—
  "Mahmoud Fehmi Pasha, Arabi's chief engineer and military adviser, is now prisoner in my camp. I intend sending him to Alexandria to be handed over to the Khedive. Shall do the same with the other chief rebels whom I may capture, unless I receive other orders from you."
  "You," of course, means the Secretary of State for War. The telegram from Sir Edward Malet of the 22nd of August, stating General Wolseley's intention with regard to three prisoners, required no reply, and remained unanswered. On the 28th the War Office received from Sir Garnet Wolseley the telegram giving the proposal which I have just read. Directions were given for a reply to this latter telegram to be sent to Sir Edward Malet. The text of the actual telegram contains no reference to the telegram of the 22nd; but in drafting the recorder (that is, the despatch concerning the telegram), in accordance with the usual routine, a reference was sought, and on its being found that the last telegram on a similar subject addressed to the Foreign Office was that of the 22nd, reference to that telegram was by mistake made. As far as I am aware, the

  1301
  three officers mentioned are not among those now put upon their trial.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the order for the surrender of Arabi Pasha to the Egyptian Government was given before the Code under which he was to be tried was arranged between the English and Egyptian Governments?
  SIR H. DRDMMOND WOLFF: I beg to ask the hon. Baronet a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, and which will enable him to explain a discrepancy between a statement which he made in this House and the despatch of Lord Granville. He stated, in answer to my right hon. Friend the other day, that Arabi Pasha was being tried under special conditions which were to be found in no Code whatever; and Lord Granville, referring to the despatch of Sir Edward Malet on the 10th of March, said—
  "The Egyptian Government had informed him (Sir Edward Malet) that, by the Code under which the court martial was constituted, prisoners were not allowed counsel."
  I should like to know under what Code the court martial is to be formed?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There is no contradiction. Sir Edward Malet said that under the Code by which Arabi is to be tried there was no provision for counsel for the prisoners, and we understand that they are now to be allowed to have counsel. Therefore, they are not to be tried under that Code to which reference was made. In answer to the Question of the noble Lord, I have to say that I stated to my right hon. Friend some time ago that there never was at any time any question of arranging the Code under which Arabi was to be tried between the English and Egyptian Governments—that is, as regards law. The only variations in the procedure usual in such cases, according to Egyptian practice, of which Her Majesty's Government are aware, are in favour of the accused—that is, allowing counsel and a public trial.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: What I want to know is, the time at which that alteration in the procedure was arranged—whether it preceded or followed the order for the surrender of the prisoners to the Egyptian Government?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I did not appreciate the point of the noble
  1302
  Lord. There are no facts beyond those which are already in possession of the House on this subject. The noble Lord will see the dates. The arrangement was concluded piecemeal, and not all at once; and, therefore, it is difficult to give an answer, whether affirmative or negative, to that Question.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: May I ask whether the order for the surrender of Arabi Pasha was given before any of the proposed alterations were submitted to the Egyptian Government?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not know the facts with regard to any orders that may have been given to Sir Garnet Wolseley by the War Office.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Then may I ask the Question of the Representative of the War Office?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I understand the noble Lord to refer to the actual transfer of the prisoner from the English to the Egyptian guard. That would be under the War Office orders. I think the noble Lord had better ask the same Question of the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to ask the hon. Baronet if there is any truth in the statement which appears in some of the morning papers, that the Egyptian Government have declined to confirm the arrangement with regard to procedure which was come to between the Government and prisoner's counsel?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The noble Lord (Lord John Manners) has given private Notice of a similar Question, and I will answer it now. We have no reason to suppose that the statement is true. We have stated that it was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the Egyptian Government have accepted the procedure agreed to between the advocate of the Egyptian Government and counsel for the defence. We have no reason to suppose that there has been any departure from that.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Is the House to understand that Arabi is to be tried under the Egyptian Military Code as varied by the conditions subsequently agreed to between the Egyptian Government and the counsel?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is our understanding.
  MR. BOURKE: I wish to ask the hon. Baronet whether one of the Rules proposed by Lord Granville, under which

  1303
  Arabi Pasha was to be tried, was not—
  "That no arguments or evidence as to political motives or reasons in justification of the offence charged should be admitted, but only such as wont to establish or disprove the truth of the charges made."
  I wish to ask whether the hon. Baronet considers that Rule in favour of the prisoner?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the context, he will Bee that the very language shows that what was in view was trial for ordinary crime; and, of course, that Rule does not apply, in our opinion, to political crimes.
  MR. BOURKE: Is it to be one of the Rules under which Arabi is to be tried?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I believe that such evidence is to be admitted as regards political crime.
  MR. BOURKE: Then this Rule is not to be one of the Rules.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No; we inserted this Rule when we had in view ordinary crime.
  MR. GORST: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether any information has been given to Sir Edward Malet or the Egyptian Government that these Rules have been withdrawn?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No; we understand that the course of procedure is admitted to be perfectly satisfactory.
  MR. ONSLOW: Is Arabi to be tried under an Egyptian Code of any sort or kind whatever, or under special conditions laid down?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is the Question of the noble Lord which is on the Paper, and which has been already answered.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MILITIA.
  LORD BURGHLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will allow those Regiments of Militia, whose recruiting is seriously affected by the new system of drilling men immediately upon enlistment, to return to the arrangement of calling all recruits up together for instruction before the annual training of their regiments?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER (for Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the noble Lord the Member for North Northamptonshire, I beg to say that the system of
  1304
  drilling Militia recruits immediately upon enlistment has only been one year in operation. Returns are being prepared of the total number of Militia recruits enlisted between the trainings of 1881 and 1882, as well as of those raised during the calendar year. The condition of the recruiting for all Militia battalions, both of those whose recruits train on enlistment and of those whose recruits do not, can then be compared. These points, together with all other matters connected with the Militia, will be submitted to the Secretary of State for War. But, at present, there seems no reason for altering the existing arrangements.
  LORD BURGHLEY: In the meantime one regiment will have entirely disappeared.

  ARMY (THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE) —THE REVIEW.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any, and, if so, what facilities will be given to Members of this House for witnessing the review by Her Majesty on the 18th instant, in St. James's Park, of the troops recently engaged in the Egyptian Campaign?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (for Mr. CHILDERS): An opportunity will be afforted to Members of both Houses of Parliament of seeing the review of the troops on the 18th by the Queen. A platform will be erected for that purpose in front of the Horse Guards. If hon. Members of this House will apply personally to the Speaker's Secretary they will receive a ticket for themselves and for a lady. I say they must apply personally, as, the space available being limited, it is not intended that Members who have left London should obtain tickets and give them to other persons.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked whether, considering the great interest taken by the public, especially the working classes, in the Army that had come from Egypt, it would not be possible to hold the review in Hyde Park?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTERasked that the noble Lord should repeat his Question on Tuesday, when the Secretary of State for War would be present.

  MADAGASCAR—REPORTED PROCEEDINGS OF FRANCE.
  Mr. SUMMERSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,

  1305
  Whether there is any foundation for the statement made by the Paris correspondent of the "Times" that—
  "The Madagascar envoys have teen apprised that Prance intends to take possession of the coast of Madagascar from Diego Suarez, on the north-east, to Majambo, on the north-west, a coast line of the same extent as the whole south of England?"
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It is not in my power to give information to the House with regard to the negotiations in Paris between the French and Hova Governments. The subject is receiving careful attention from Her Majesty's Government on account of the important interests of England and Madagascar.

  EGYPT—TRIAL OF ARABI PASHA.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the crimes charged against Arabi Pacha, and the punishments attached to those crimes, have been matters of arrangement between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government, or whether the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government related only to procedure; whether, when Arabi Pacha was delivered up by Her Majesty's Forces to the Egyptian Government, it was known to Her Majesty's Government that he was not to be tried under any known Code; and whether Her Majesty's Government, being now aware that Arabi Pacha cannot be tried under any known or specified Code of Law, Military or Civil, will direct the Egyptian Government to discontinue the present proceedings, and to order his immediate release? Might I ask the hon. Baronet to answer these Questions seriatim?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already repeatedly answered the first branch of this Question in the negative. Her Majesty's Government neither knew when Arabi Pacha was captured, nor now know that he was, or is to be, tried in any other manner than according to Egyptian law, whether codified or not. If he can show that the offences charged against him are not military offences against Egyptian law, triable by court martial, that defence will be open to him. As to the forms of procedure, the procedure, according to the existing practice, would have denied the prisoners the benefit of counsel and of the
  1306
  publicity of trial; and the only thing which has been done ex post facto, to quote a phrase that has been made use of in Questions put in this House, is to secure these benefits to the prisoners.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to call the attention of the hon. Baronet to the fact that he has, unintentionally, within the last few minutes, given two answers absolutely contradictory one of the other. In answer to one Question he states that there was no arrangement between the Egyptian and English Governments with respect to the crimes charged against Arabi Pasha or the punishments to be inflicted; and he stated, only two minutes before, to the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke), that Her Majesty's Government, by Lord Granville's despatch of the 20th of August, endeavoured to arrange that Arabi should be tried as a common criminal.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: What was in view at that time was his trial on certain charges. He is being tried on these charges and upon other charges; but there has been no arrangement on the subject, and the charges have simply been communicated to us.
  MR. BOURKE: Is Arabi not to be tried by court martial? I understood the hon. Baronet to say that if Arabi could show that certain charges against him could not be proved, then he is not in that case to be tried by court martial.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The words I used were that if he could show that the offences charged against him were not military offences, triable by court martial under the Egyptian law, that defence will be open to him.
  MR. GORST: The hon. Baronet says that Her Majesty's Government made no arrangement as to punishment. Am I to understand that the paragraph of Lord Granville's despatch on that point is withdrawn?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I must refer the hon. and learned Member to the Prime Minister's answer to Question 43, which turns upon this subject.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SUB-COMMISSIONERS AND COURT VALUERS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Resolution adopted by

  1307
  the Board of Guardians of the Granard Union, county Longford, complaining of
  "The want of sympathy with the tenant farmers evinced by the selection of the gentlemen appointed as Sub-Commissioners and Court Valuers"
  under the Land Law Act, affirming that
  "their close connection with landlords, many of whom are rack renters, prevent the Sub-Commissioners from dealing with the cases that come before them on the principle of 'live and thrive,'"
  and adding,
  "that we believe the judgments lately given in the cases heard at Longford and Granard will lead to a total withdrawal from the Sub-Commissioners' Court;"
  and, whether, in view of this expression of opinion and others of the same kind from Boards of Guardians in Ireland, the Government are prepared to take any steps?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have not seen a copy of the Resolution referred to in this Question; but I have ascertained that it was passed at a meeting of four Guardians of the Granard Union, where the Board consists of 50 Guardians. The Land Commissioners inform me that they have no applications for the withdrawal of cases from the Longford and Granard Sub-Commissioners' Court.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE MILITIA.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the equipment of nearly every battalion of Militia has been reported to be in a bad state; and, whether it is intended to give to Militia battalions the valise equipment, as well as the means of carrying ammunition?
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER (for Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I beg to say that the Militia equipments are of old pattern, and the knapsacks in many cases have been for a long time in wear. It is intended to commence gradually replacing them with the valise equipment, which provides means for carrying the ammunition?

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATIONS FROM THE PURVIEW OF THE COURT.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  1308
  of Ireland, Whether, taking into account the fact that a large number of applications to fix a fair rent have been withdrawn from the Land Courts, the Government will be able to make an early announcement of the course they intend to pursue as to the continuance of the official valuers at the termination of their temporary appointments?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Land Commissioners inform me that they are not aware of any withdrawals of applications to fix fair rents in consequence of valuations being made by official valuers, except those which took place some time ago at Balbriggan, in the county Dublin. Threats of withdrawal have been made in other cases; but, so far, have not been carried out. I can assure my hon. Friend that I look forward to expressing the views of the Government on the first occasion when it can be done fully and in detail.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND)—"GRUBB v CHESTERTON BOARD OF GUARDIANS."
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Grubb v. The Chesterton Board of Guardians, and the decision and comments of the Cambridge County Court Judge thereon; whether the Local Government Board will so modify their consolidated orders as to prevent in future the contingency of a district medical officer summoning his Board of Guardians to pay him his extra fees; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Correspondence between Dr. Martin O'Connor, of Chatteris, Cambridgeshire, the Local Government Board, and the North Witchford Board of Guardians, Cambridgeshire, relative to the refusal of the latter body to pay a fee claimed by Dr. Martin O'Connor?
  MR. DODSON: I have seen a newspaper report of the case of "Grubb v. the Chesterton Board of Guardians," in which a Poor Law medical officer obtained a judgment for an extra medical fee for attending a poor woman who had broken her leg. The County Court Judge appears to have stated that the Guardians had no sufficient reason for defending the action. As regards the proposed modification of the General Consolidated Order, it does not seem to me that the Local Government could

  1309
  properly so alter it as, on the one hand, to preclude a medical officer from taking legal proceedings against his Board of Guardians for extra medical fees which they had declined to pay, or, on the other hand, to require Guardians to pay such fees where they consider they are not legally due. If my hon. Friend thinks fit to move for the Correspondence in the matter concerning Dr. O'Connor, I shall have no objection to produce it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED DANGER OF FAMINE.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the possibility of severe distress during the coming months in certain districts in Ireland, he will consider the advisability of giving to the Local Government Board the same power of dealing with exceptional distress in individual unions by provisional orders with regard to outdoor relief, which is possessed by the Local Government Board in England?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It is not in the power of the Government to authorize the Local Government Board for Ireland to make orders with regard to outdoor relief, other than the orders specified in the 2nd section of the Act 10 Vict., c. 31, under which section the Local Government Board can only empower a Board of Guardians to administer outdoor relief to able-bodied men and their families when the workhouse is full or, by reason of fever or infectious disease, unfit for the reception of poor persons. That rule can only be altered by an Act of Parliament. The Local Government Board are making inquiries as to apprehended distress in certain districts to which special attention has been called, and the reports on the subject which they obtain shall have very careful and anxious consideration; but from the information received up to the present there do not appear to be any grounds for arriving at the conclusion that the relief which may be afforded under the existing Poor Law Acts will be found insufficient for the wants of the destitute poor during the coming winter. The Irish Government are in daily consultation with regard to the apprehended distress, which is never out of their minds; and I can assure
  1310
  the House that no calamity will occur from any obstinate adherence to theory on the part of the Executive Government.
  COLONEL COLTHURST: My object in asking the Question was that the Government should take power of legislating upon the subject.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Distress can be provided against, if necessary, by other means.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the question was whether it would be provided against by any means.

  POST OFFICE APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. CAINEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will consider the desirability of placing all post office appointments throughout the Country under the control of the Postmaster General?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have no reason to believe that the present arrangement, by which Post Office appointments of a certain class are placed under the Treasury, works in any manner injurious to the public interest, and we have no intention to make any change.
  MR. CAINEsaid, that, as there would be plenty of opportunities next Session of discussing the question, he would call attention to the inconvenience of certain appointments in the Post Office being under the control of the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury.

  EGYPT (RE-ORGANIZATION).
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, inasmuch as no machinery exists for consulting the wishes of the people of Egypt as to their future government, Lord Dufferin will be instructed, in concert with the Government of the Khedive, to devise such a machinery before the final arrangements are concluded; whether Lord Dufferin has been instructed to make provision in any arrangements for the settlement of Egypt to which Her Majesty's Government will be a party for the establishment of institutions in which the Egyptian people shall be represented, and giving to their representatives control over the legislation, administration, and expenditure of their Country; and, whether it is intended, before any new arrangements are promulgated, to submit them to the

  1311
  sanction of the Sultan and the Concert of Europe?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The first branch of the Question speaks of something to be done before the final arrangements are concluded in Egypt. There are no final arrangements to be concluded by us. Our business is to endeavour to make, or to concur in making, such arrangements as may appear to be necessary and useful for the security and good order of the country; but there will be nothing to shut out amendment of such arrangements according to the light which time and experience may throw on Egyptian affairs. We cannot undertake to define machinery for consulting the wishes of the people of Egypt before such arrangements as I have just described have been concluded. With respect to the second branch of the Question—whether Lord Dufferin has been instructed to make provision in any arrangements for the settlement of Egypt to which Her Majesty's Government will be a party for the establishment of institutions in which the Egyptian people shall be represented?—that is a Question coming fully and fairly within the scope of the assurances we have previously given, and we are engaged in communication with Lord Dufferin upon the subject of it. With regard to the third branch—whether it is intended, before any new arrangements are promulgated, to submit them to the sanction of the Sultan and the Concert of Europe?—it would be quite premature, until we have made further progress, to enter upon the question.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—STANDING COMMITTEES.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, For what term he proposes that the Be-solutions respecting Standing Committees shall be in force, seeing that he does not propose to make them Standing Orders, and that if made as merely Sessional Orders they will never come into practical operation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question of the right hon. Gentleman is quite justified by the state of facts to which it refers. The Resolutions respecting Standing Committees were placed upon the Table at a period when a hope was cherished that they might be brought
  1312
  into operation during the present Session, and that the House might have some experience of them. The Session is too far advanced to allow that hope any longer to be entertained, and to pass them for the present Session would be to make them futile. There is no intention to depart from the substance of our proposal that these Committees should be of a temporary and experimental character; and I shall, therefore, make a proposal for the purpose of giving them effect through the next Session, or to some date in 1883. With regard to the precise form of the proposal, we will consider it carefully, and give the House Notice of it before it is submitted.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It would be convenient that Notice should be given in reasonable time.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Quite so.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARABI PASHA.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can name a day for discussing the Resolution, of which notice has been given by the Right honourable Member for King's Lynn,
  "That this House regrets that, after the unconditional surrender of Arabi Pasha to British authority, he was delivered over to be dealt with by Egyptian Tribunals?"
  MR. GLADSTONE: This is a subject which it has been the duty of Her Majesty's Government to consider with much care, not only with respect to the Government and the House, but much more especially with reference to the interests of the chief person arraigned in Egypt—namely, the interests of Arabi Pasha. Now, if this question were discussed in the House, it would be absolutely necessary for Her Majesty's Government, in order to explain the grounds of their conduct, to consider all the circumstances, whether actual or alleged, belonging to the conduct of Arabi, which led to his arrest. We should necessarily have to refer to alleged acts, amounting to crimes—of which he may or may not be guilty—and we feel certain that, however the case might be stated on the one side or the other, we should necessarily be anticipating the proceedings of the trial. It appears to us to be beyond all doubt, that if we were called upon to state even the possi-

  1313
  bility of his guilt in connection with the imputation of certain crimes of which he may be entirely innocent, we should be most seriously affecting his position in the coming trial. The expression of our views would give rise to statements which might unfairly prejudice him. There is a consideration more important still than the effect which speeches and arguments of Her Majesty's Government in explanation of their own conduct might produce, and that is, the effect that might be produced by a vote of the House; because I need hardly point out how much greater weight would follow a vote of the House, which, if it went in one direction, might be regarded as condemnatory of the conduct of Arabi Pasha. I am not prepared, therefore, while the judicial proceedings are pending, to name a day for the discussion of this Motion. Were the judicial proceedings in Egypt to be in any way brought to a close, this would be a matter as open to the House as any other portion of the Egyptian Question. What I have now said is in no way to be understood as a departure from what I have already said in regard to our general conduct of affairs in Egypt. Should there be any desire to pronounce a censure on that conduct, it will be our duty to find the earliest day in our power for the purpose of discussing that subject.
  MR. BOURKE: I should like to ask one Question arising out of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman—Whether all the difficulties he has just mentioned as standing in the way of finding a particular day for this discussion do not arise from the fact that Arabi Pasha was surrendered to the Egyptian Government, and that they would not have arisen if he had not been surrendered?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Of course, my answer is, that if the same difficulties had not arisen—which they might have done—other difficulties would have arisen of a much more serious nature.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER: May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will give the House an assurance that on the conclusion of the trial of Arabi Pasha, and before any step has been taken to carry out any sentence consequent upon the trial, he will give the House an opportunity of discussing the question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think the hon. and learned Member can hardly suppose that I will give an assurance that the House will be made so far party to the procedure—whatever sentence is pronounced, whether just or unjust, what ever facts are proved or not proved— before anything is done the House should be called upon to give its judgment on the subject. One of the great objects and purposes of the House is that a substantial Government shall exist in Egypt, with real authority and real dignity. It is impossible that that result can be attained if either the British Government or the British Parliament is to endeavour to exercise that authority, or take it out of the hands of the Egyptian Government. I say this without prejudice to the answer which I have presently to give.
  MR. GIBSON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he expects the trial will begin, and when he expects the trial will actually be brought to a close?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Considering the Profession to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman belongs, and the total impossibility of knowing in this country when any legal business will begin or conclude, I think it is sanguine on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to ask me that Question. All lean say is that, in the interests of all concerned, it will be very advantageous to all parties that those proceedings should be as expeditious as is consistent with the substantial ends of justice.
  MR. ONSLOWasked whether the date of the trial was to be fixed by Her Majesty's Government, or by the Egyptian Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The date of the trial will be fixed by the local authorities, and not by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, in the event of a verdict to that effect, can Arabi Pasha be executed without the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think it would be expedient that I should enter into the abstract question as to the power or authority of the Khedive's Government to execute Arabi; but I have no hesitation in saying that I entertain no doubt that Arabi will not be put to death without the assent of Her Majesty's Government.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (COUNTY COURT JUDGES)—APPOINTMENT OF MR. SELFE.
  MR. JONES-PARRYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it he a fact that Mr. W. L. Selfe, called to the Bar in A. D. 1870, has been appointed to the County Court Judgeship which includes the towns of Cardiff and Newport; if Mr. Selfe has had considerable or any practice at the Bar; and, if it is the fact that he held the office of Secretary to Lord Cairns.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The Lord Chancellor has made this appointment, not from any political or personal grounds, but solely because he regards Mr. Selfe as a gentleman who is fully qualified to fulfil the duties attaching to the office of a County Court Judgeship. Mr. Selfe has practised as a conveyancer and equity draftsman for 12 years; he has been engaged as assistant editor of the Revised Statutes, and in the office of the Parliamentary counsel, when engaged in preparing Bills, gave proof of great ability. The Lord Chancellor has also made inquiry from others as to Mr. Selfe's qualification, and I am permitted to read a letter from the Master of the Rolls, in which he says—
  "I knew Mr. Selfe years ago; he is a very clever man, and, in my opinion, qualified for a higher position than that of a County Court Judge."
  It is true that Mr. Selfe was for a short time Secretary to Lord Cairns, which afforded some proof that he was possessed, not only of ability, but also of discretion and tact—qualities to be sought for in a County Court—but while the Lord Chancellor did not make this any ground for the appointment, he did not look upon it as any disqualification.

  EGYPT—POLICY OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, Whether he intends to-morrow, as he intimated the other day, to make a statement with regard to our position in Egypt?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; a very brief statement; but containing what we consider to be the material facts in respect, not of the general position in
  1316
  Egypt, but of the particular Notice given by the right hon. Gentleman.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—ATTACK ON MR. JUSTICE LAWSON.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, can give us any information with regard to a statement that has been made in the newspapers as to the attack which had been made in Dublin upon a very distinguished Judge, Mr. Justice Lawson?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received several private letters from eminent persons in Ireland, which I have read very carefully; but I find it extremely difficult to make out from them anything which I think it would be right to make public. All the information I have got is contained in a report, dated yesterday, from the Superintendent of the Detective Division in Dublin. I am almost unwilling to take up the time of the House by reading it. [Cries of "Read, read!"] Very well; if the House wishes it, I will read it—
  "I have to report that at 5 o'clock yesterday evening the Right Hon. Mr. Justice Lawson left his house in Upper Fitzwilliam Street, accompanied by his son Henry, intending to walk to the King's Inns, in Henrietta Street, to dine with the Benchers. He was protected by Constables Lawlor and Brennan, of the B Division, and Pensioners M'Donnell and Driver."
  It has been discovered that the increased duties of the Dublin Police require the addition of some 25 trustworthy men, mostly military pensioners—
  "The two first-named walked immediately behind the Judge, and the two latter about 30 paces behind him, on the other side of the way. When they had got about midway between Merrion Square and Clare Street, M'Donnell's attention was called to a man who, in passing, touched M'Donnell on the elbow in a very significant way, saying, 'It is all right,' or words to that effect. M'Donnell at once concluded that there was something suspicions about the man, and kept his eye on him. When they reached Leinster Street Driver and M'Donnell walked along Trinity College wall, and the man who had attracted their attention also walked on that side, immediately before them. Judge Lawson and his son, and the two constables of the B Division, walked on the opposite side as the Judge approached Kildare Street Club."
  The description which follows is what the officer who gives this report has gathered from the evidence of other persons; but it bears out the extremely

  1317
  courageous conduct of M'Donnell, and I think it shows that it was a very desperate attack—
  "The revolver taken from him was loaded in six chambers, and was a good class weapon. Judge Lawson went into the Kildare Street Club, and subsequently went to the King's Inns and dined with the Benchers."
  I may say that the private letters I have got from persons who were in his company say his demeanour was, in the highest degree, quiet and gallant—
  "At the College Street Police Station the man was recognized as a person who was convicted of highway robbery on a previous occasion, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. Pie was discharged on licence on the 18th of December, 1874. He admitted his identity. He is a house carpenter, about 34 years of age, married, with four children. He was formerly in the employment of a respectable timber merchant in Thomas Street, and recently worked at the residence of Chief Baron Palles. On a previous occasion he made an attempt to shoot a policeman with a revolver. He was brought up this morning at the Southern Police Court, and remanded for a week on the evidence of M'Donnell and the constables."
  That is, practically, all the information I can give to the House; but it is satisfactory to know that the protection which has been provided for the Judge, who was liable to so much danger, has proved to be sufficient.

  EGYPT—SURRENDER OF ARABI PASHA TO THE AGENTS OF THE KHEDIVE.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwished to ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the answer which he had just given to the right hon. Member for North Devon, In what manner the surrender of Arabi Pasha by Her Majesty's Government to the Egyptian Government was connected with the trial of Arabi by the Egyptian Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: If the noble Lord wishes it I will repeat the whole answer I have given already; but I think that I gave it in as clear a manner as possible.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: As it appears to me that this is likely to be the very last night on which it may be in the power of any Member to bring matters even of the greatest urgency under the notice of the House on a Motion for the adjournment, I wish in a few simple sentences to show the importance of taking some immediate steps with respect to the trial of Arabi Pasha;
  1318
  and therefore, to put myself in Order, I beg to move the adjournment of the House. At the present moment Arabi is confined in an Egyptian gaol, under an Egyptian guard, and Her Majesty's Government cannot guarantee that his life is safe at the present moment. We know that prisoners in Egyptian gaols are treated with the greatest cruelty, especially in Provincial gaols; and I challenge any Member of Her Majesty's Government to get up and say that the life of Arabi Pasha is not in the greatest danger. Yet, knowing the danger in which he is at present, Her Majesty's Government refuse to give a day for the discussion of the question of his surrender. And why? Because they know very well that if the question is discussed in this House it would decide the fate of the Egyptian Government. ["Order, order!"] I repeat that, should the result of the discussion be to pass a Vote of Censure, the natural result of that Vote of Censure will be to force the Egyptian Government to release Arabi Pasha. And yet Her Majesty's Government, although they cannot guarantee this man's life for 24 hours, although they know he has in his possession documents which would compromise greatly not only the Sultan, but the Khedive and the Khedive's Ministers, and whose interests are to put Arabi out of the way, refuse to let the House of Commons express its opinion as to his fate. I venture to say that if this matter is allowed to be discussed a large number of Members will place upon record their opinion that the surrender of Arabi Pasha was one of the most disgraceful acts that had ever stained the British name.
  DR. CAMERON: I rise to a point of Order. On the 28th of June, 1881, I proposed to move the adjournment of the House in order to bring a matter which I considered of very pressing importance under the notice of the House, when attention was called by the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) to the fact that a Motion relating to the same question was on the Paper; and you, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt very properly, ruled me out of Order. Now, I beg to call your attention to the fact that amongst the Notices of Motion standing on the Paper is one in the name of the right hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke)

  1319
  relating to the surrender of Arabi Pasha, and asserting that the House condemns it. Now, any remarks of the noble Lord condemnatory of that act, I submit, would be out of Order; and as you ruled me out of Order on the ground that I was anticipating the discussion of a Motion on the Paper, I ask whether the noble Lord is in Order in anticipating, under the guise of a Motion for the adjournment of the House, discussion of a Motion which stands on the Paper?
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord cannot, under cover of a Motion for the adjournment of the House, anticipate the discussion of a Motion which is set down on the Paper, and stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn. The noble Lord cannot advert to any point covered by that Motion. He would be out of Order.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: It was not my intention to do more than allude in passing to that Motion. What I have a perfect right to refer to, and what is not covered by any Motion on the Paper, is the trial of Arabi, and the procedure at the trial.
  DR. CAMERON: I again rise to Order. A Motion stands in my name on the Paper as to the procedure on the trial of Arabi Pasha.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I think it will be found that the Motion of the hon. Member does not cover the remarks lam going to make. Look at the position in which the House is placed. ["Order!"] I must appeal to hon. Members opposite to exercise for the last time in their lives a little spark of fairness. Government have taken up all the time of Parliament. It is absolutely impossible for any Member—be he sitting on this side of the House or below the Gangway, or no matter what his position may be—to bring forward Motions on any subject without the consent of the Government; and this is literally the only opportunity on which the attention of the House can be drawn to the conduct of the Government. And what is that conduct? Why, the Government had absolutely refused to meet the House of Commons on their Egyptian policy. ["No, no!"] Well, what has taken place? On one of the few occasions on which I was able to attend the House before the adjournment, my hon. and learned
  1320
  Friend (Mr. Gorst) gave Notice of a Motion censuring the destruction of Alexandria, and we asked the Prime Minister whether he would give a day for the discussion of that Motion. He refused to give a day for the discussion of that atrocious act—it was absolutely refused.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to call your attention, Sir, to the fact that a Motion with regard to the destruction of Alexandria stands on the Paper.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The perseverance of the hon. Member is creditable to his race; but he does not give me a chance. He does not allow me to finish what I was going to say. I do not propose to discuss the Motion referred to. I only say that the Government refused to give it a day. And why? Because it was given Notice of by a private Member, and the Prime Minister said the Government could not think of giving it a day unless it was put forward by someone in the position of the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon. Well, the right hon. Baronet has since given Notice of a Motion which appeared to me to be a Vote of Censure. It said the House was not in possession of certain information which it was desirable the Government should give it. If, therefore, this was not a Motion of Want of Confidence, I do not know how such a Motion could be drawn. The Prime Minister, however, evaded it, and refused to give it a day. Then we come to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn—a Motion of a most important and pressing character—and the Prime Minister gets up—
  DR. CAMERON: I rise to Order.
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord must be perfectly well aware that he is not entitled to discuss the Motion of the right hon. Member for King's Lynn.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I do not mean to discuss it. I only want to point out—and I hope the public out-of-doors will take notice of the fact—that, in spite of all our efforts, in spite of those Notices of Motion—that of my hon. and learned Friend, that of the Leader of the Opposition, and that of the right hon. Member for King's Lynn—the Government have refused to give a day for a discussion. More than that it is not necessary to say; but it is abso-

  1321
  lutely necessary to mark this firm refusal on the part of the Prime Minister to allow the subject to be brought before the House of Commons. The noble Lord concluded by moving the adjournment of the House.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I need be only brief in answering the noble Lord. He has shown his usual inaccuracy in his statement of fact. I have given as yet no answer whatever to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon with respect to his Question; and, consequently, as I have not given an answer. I cannot possibly have refused him any request which he may associate with it; but I have stated that to-morrow I will give information which, as I think, may throw light upon the subject sufficiently to assist him in determining what course he will pursue. So much for one of the "refusals." It does not exist at all. Let us look at the other. The first "refusal" was that a private Member—I do not remember who it was—proposed that we should arrest the course of Government Business and of the regular Sittings of the House in order to discuss the question of Egypt.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The burning of Alexandria.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Very well; part of the question of Egypt. I stated, in conformity with universal practice, that no Government ever could recognize any Motion of that kind as reasonable for setting aside the Business of the House and grant a special day unless the Motion was made on behalf of some great Party. That is the second case. With regard to the third, the House has heard the explanation I gave to-day, and my belief is that the House is satisfied. At all events, it is open to the right hon. Gentleman to question it at the proper time.
  MR. GORST: I think we have reason to complain that the Government will not condescend to give the House such information as they themselves possess, and that the answers given by one Minister should be inconsistent with those given by another, and the answers given by one Minister of the Crown on one day
  1322
  should not be consistent with the answers given by the same Minister on another day. What I understand to be the feeling of the House is not a desire to discuss the general Egyptian Question. Hon. Members are willing to wait until they hear the Statement which the Prime Minister has promised to make to-morrow. Nor are they desirous of discussing the guilt or innocence of Arabi Pasha. But what they think they ought to know is—what are the Government themselves doing? What part are they going to take, and how far do they recognize that they have any responsibility in the matter? A despatch from Lord Granville, dated October 23, 1882, has been laid upon the Table, and the remarkable feature about this despatch is the essential inconsistency between it and the language used in this House by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the various answers he has given. An example of this was furnished this afternoon in the answer that the Under Secretary gave to a Question, when he stated that Her Majesty's Government had entered into no engagement whatever with the Egyptian Government with reference to the punishment that would be inflicted on the political prisoners in Egypt in the event of their being found guilty. I innocently asked how that was reconcilable with the reservation in Lord Granville's despatch of the right to appeal to the Khedive in case of the sentence being unnecessarily severe? What was the answer I received? I was told that the Prime Minister had answered my Question in reply to another Question. No such answer to this Question could be given; and what we want to know is—do the Government recognize that they are responsible for the trial of Arabi and his friends, or do they not? Is their position this—that, having captured these prisoners by the force of British arms, and having handed them over to a Government which is maintained by a British force constituted only by British bayonets, and able to maintain its position only so long as it is supported by the military power of this country, do they put it before Parliament that they have exonerated themselves from all responsibility as to the fate of that unhappy man and his fellow-prisoners by handing them over to be tried by that Government, or are

  1323
  they prepared to take steps to insure them a fair trial? Now, there is a point in this dispatch—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member seems to me to be raising questions which are involved in the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn, and in so doing he is out of Order.
  MR. GORST: I understand the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn to be a censure on the Government for having delivered the prisoners over to the Egyptian authorities. I am not enforcing that point at all. I am pointing out that the Government, having so handed over the prisoners, are bound to make conditions to insure them a fair trial. I am not at all trenching on that part of the subject which is covered by the Resolution of my right hon. Friend. But what we want to point out is this—that in the despatch of Lord Granville a condition was laid down which has been made the subject of many Questions in this House.
  DR. CAMERON: On the point of Order, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman trench on my Resolution which calls on the Government to give full information as to the trial of Arabi?
  MR. SPEAKER: Both one Resolution and the other seem to me to shut out the observations of the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. GORST: The hon. Member's Motion is not on the Notice Paper.
  DR. CAMERON: The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken. It is on the Paper.
  Mr. GORST: It is surely a reason why the House should not proceed with its Business that it is debarred from all discussion of such an important matter. This is a Motion put down for the purpose of preventing discussion—very likely a Motion put down by the advice of the Government. Therefore, I do not think the House should proceed with Business when it is so fettered by Motions put down by Friends of the Government at the instigation of the Government. This is a Motion which cannot possibly be brought under discussion. ["Order!"] I am giving reasons why the House should adjourn. The hands of the House are tied by the action of Friends of the Government in
  1324
  putting down Motions which cannot be discussed, and which they know cannot be raised. If this is the way in which the great Liberal Party are going to treat foreigners, who, at all events, profess to represent national feeling in their own country—if they are going first of all to hand them over to the authorities, and then prevent this House, by an abuse of the Forms of the House, from expressing an opinion on this infamous transaction, I beg to protest against it.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I think we must all recognize that the House is placed in a position of considerable difficulty in connection with this great and important question. We recognize, of course, the great duty which lies upon us all of doing nothing that can be injurious to the national interests. On the other hand, we have a duty to perform to this House and to the country; and there are many questions on which we do feel it is our duty to express our dissatisfaction with the course taken by the Government, and on which we think it would be right that the House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion. The Question put by me in regard to the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn was put with no intention of embarrassing the Government, but with the intention of asking whether the Government would give us an opportunity of discussing a matter which we think of great importance, and which, in the interest of all parties, we think ought to be discussed. I feel, and we all feel, that the answer which was given by the Prime Minister to my Question was one which would not satisfy. We cannot enter into a discussion of the question. We are precluded from doing so by the fact that you have ruled—and very necessarily ruled—that the presence of these Motions on the Paper prevent us. But then it is necessary that, in the grave circumstances of the case, we should consider what course we ought to pursue. Tomorrow we may have an opportunity of reviewing a portion of the policy of the Government, and I desire to reserve myself until the Statement promised by the Prime Minister has been made. I hope the Motion for Adjournment will not be pressed to a division; but, at the same time, I think it is necessary that we

  1325
  should take this opportunity of saying that we are not satisfied, and that the course we ought to take must engage our serious attention.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he was sorry that a little joke of his should have so much disconcerted the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. It so happened that on the occasion to which he had referred when he was ruled out of Order, because a Motion on the same subject stood upon the Paper, he had incautiously said he should take off that Motion, and move the adjournment of the House on a subsequent day. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), however, with that great ingenuity and versatility of talent which distinguished him, took forcible possession of his Motion, and reinstated it on the Paper in his own name, and so precluded him from bringing forward by way of adjournment a subject, in order to call attention to which he had removed his Motion. In that way the noble Lord had thoroughly succeeded in impressing upon him what was the Rule of Procedure in regard to this tactic. Accordingly, the other day, when the noble Lord, not being satisfied with the answer of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, gave Notice to repeat his Question, and that in the event of not being satisfied with the answer he should move the adjournment of the House, he thought he could not do better than adopt the noble Lord's own manœuvre, used so successfully against himself, and apply it in his Lordship's case. He accordingly took the liberty of appropriating the noble Lord's Question and transposing it into a Resolution, sticking closely to its verbiage, even to the extent of a grammatical error and superfluous inverted commas, and that he had put down in his own name upon the Paper. Apparently the noble Lord was determined that on some excuse he would move the adjournment to-night. He got a satisfactory answer to his Question; but that was not sufficient to mollify him. This was the last available opportunity, in all probability, for raising an irregular discussion by moving the adjournment of the House; and as "any stick was good enough to beat a dog with," he had managed to obtain what would serve as an excuse. It was a pity the noble Lord did not inform his hon. and learned Friend the
  1326
  Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) of the state of matters. He had no doubt the noble Lord was acquainted with it, and that he noticed a familiar look in the Resolution, which had been evolved from his own Question. If he had informed his hon. and learned Friend, it would have led him to be more guarded in his denunciation of the horrible conspiracy between himself and the Ministry for the purpose of stifling discussion on a disagreeable question, and he would have been less ready to expose the whole thing to the country. He trusted the House would not think he had acted discourteously. It was a very fair case of a "Roland for an Oliver" between himself and the noble Lord. He quite agreed with the ruling of the Speaker on the former occasion. So far as he was concerned, he believed it was doubtless for the convenience of the House that he should not have been allowed to go forward with his Question under the guise of a Motion for Adjournment; and he had no doubt that the noble Lord, in preventing his going forward with it, conferred a service on the House in the shape of saving of time. He had also no doubt that when the noble Lord came to reflect on the matter he would see that imitation was the sincerest flattery, and would agree with him that it was probably, after all, just as well that he had not had the occasion of signalizing himself as the last Member in this degenerate Parliament who had raised an irregular discussion under the old Rules by moving the adjournment of the House at Question time.
  Question put, and negatived.

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—WRITERS.
  SIR JAMES LAWRENCEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Board of Customs have recently recommended to the Treasury that some of the writers in the Customs Service should be promoted to the position of Examining Officers; and, if the Treasury have approved of such recommendation?
  MR. COURTNEY: Such a recommendation was made on behalf of one case only by the Board of Customs in July last; but the Treasury did not approve of the proposal. There has been no other instance.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RCLES OF PROCEDURE—APPLICATION OF THE FTRST RULE (PUTTING THE QUESTION).
  MR. LEWISwished to ask a Question of which he had given private Notice. Would the Prime Minister state whether the Government would support the application of the 1st Procedure Rule to the Business of the House during the present Session?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have had no Notice of this Question. But I have no power whatever to give it an answer. It would he very wrong in me to make any statement in regard to it anterior to the occurrence of a state of things that may call for its operation.
  MR. LEWISsaid, his Question was, Whether the Government would support the application of the Rule in the event of any case arising?

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).

    COMMUNICATION TO THE HOUSE.
    Mr. SPEAKERacquainted the House that he had received the following Letter from Mr. Bradlaugh, one of the Members for Northampton:—
    To the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
    Sir,
    On the 21st February last I, as I then believed and still believe, in exact compliance with the Statute and Standing Orders of the House, took and subscribed the oath by law required, and took my seat as Member for Northampton. For this the House judged right to expel me, without permitting me to be heard in explanation, or in statement of the reasons which seemed to me under the law and custom of Parliament to justify my action. A new writ being issued, I was on the 2nd March re-elected, and since that re-election I have not yet presented myself at the table for the purpose of taking my seat according to law. From the Votes of the House I have learned that by an order of 6th March the House has resolved, without having heard me on my own behalf, that I shall not be permitted lo fulfil the statutory requirement to enable me to take my seat.
    In order to avoid the repetition of the appearance of personal conflict with the House, a friendly suit, exactly as the suit of Miller v. Salomons, was commenced against me by one of the electors of Northampton, to obtain a decision of the High
    1328
    Court of Justice as to my legal rights and duty. This suit the Court has yesterday formally refused lo hear.
    I have therefore, Sir, through you, to ask that the House will permit me, one of its Members, to be heard at the Bar, that I may state the grounds of law on which I claim to be entitled to fulfil the law and take my seat.
    I have the honor to be,
    Sir,
    Your most humble and obedt. Servant,
    Cha. Bradlaugh.
    20, Circus Road, St. John's Wood, N. W.
    11 November 1882.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: As I believe it is impossible, as a matter of Privilege, to move that Mr. Bradlaugh be heard at the Bar of the House, and as, in view of the Obstructive tactics of hon. Gentlemen opposite during the present Session, I do not wish to stand for a moment between the House and the passing of the Rules of Procedure for which we are called together, I merely rise to give Notice that the first time I can do so consistently with the Rules of the House I shall move that Mr. Bradlaugh be heard at the Bar.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: Mr. Speaker, in the letter you have read from Mr. Bradlaugh he refers to the case of Mr. Alderman
    Salomons—["Order!"]
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I would ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Gentleman is in Order in discussing the matter? I am ready to discuss it; but I believe I should not be in Order in doing so.
    MR. SPEAKER: In pursuance of my duty to the House I have read the letter of the hon. Member for Northampton, and upon that letter having been read Notice of a Motion has been given. The matter is so far at an end that no debate can arise upon it, because it is not a question of Privilege.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: I do not wish in any way to transgress your ruling, Sir. I have merely to state that it is within my knowledge—["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to debate the matter in any form he must give Notice of a Motion.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: Then, Sir, I will move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of saying it is within my knowledge that the statement in Mr. Bradlaugh's letter, that his case

    1329
    before the Court stood on the same ground as that of Mr. Alderman Salomons, is an absolute mis-statement. I will not say a misrepresentation, because I do not know that Mr. Bradlaugh could be aware of the difference of the circumstances between his case and that of Mr. Alderman Salomons—but I have special knowledge in the matter. And now, Sir, having, I hope, dispelled what might be a misunderstanding, or contributed towards doing so, I beg to withdraw my Motion.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—SECOND RULE (MOTIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT BEFORE PUBLIC BUSINESS)

    TWENTIETH NIGHT.
    Order read, for resuming Further Consideration of the New Rules of Procedure.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, it was his duty, as a matter of order and regularity, to move the 2nd Rule, as follows:—
    "That no Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall he made before the Orders of the Day, or Notices of Motions have been entered upon, except by leave of the House; the granting of such leave, if disputed, being determined upon Question put forthwith; but no Division shall be taken thereupon unless demanded by forty Members rising in their places, nor until after the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of."
    The Resolution had been recast and put in a less stringent form than when it was first presented to the House, in order to meet what might be called cases of Urgency, and to allow a competent number of Members to raise the question for the decision of the House, whether a Motion for Adjournment should be taken or not. The first condition laid down was that a Motion for Adjournment should not be made during Question time, as had often been done to the great inconvenience of the House and the prejudice of Public Business; and the second was that the number of Members desiring such a Motion to be made should be a competent number. The Government did not wish to make the number too high or too low; but they thought that the number which
    1330
    was competent to transact the Business of the House—namely, 40—would be a reasonable number. They were not absolutely wedded to that number, and, if there were any desire on the part of the House to reduce it, they would not object, even if it were reduced to the number of 20, for which there was a precedent in the number required to call for a Division in Urgency. That was all he would say on the subject, because this was a question entirely within the knowledge and experience of the House, even if it was not crowned by the experience of that evening.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That no Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall be made before the Orders of the Day, or Notices of Motions have been entered upon, except by leave of the House; the granting of such leave, if disputed, being determined upon Question put forthwith; but no Division shall be taken thereupon unless demanded by forty Members rising in their places, nor until after the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice—that the Rule should operate "on days when Government Orders have precedence." The alteration, he thought, should command the sympathy of the Government. The Government appeared, in submitting the Resolutions, to overlook the fact that one great cause of obstruction or delay was the enormous amount of Private Business which was brought forward by private Members, whose Bills and Motions were generally of a useless character, and seldom came to fruition. In the present Session there had been no fewer than 170 private Members' Bills against 70 Public Bills. The Amendment would do some good if it only prevented private Members bringing forward Bills on subjects which should be left to the Government. Further, he would be glad to see some Rule introduced to give really good Bills, brought in by private Members, ample time for discussion and amendment, and also to leave time to the Government to carry forward their Bills at leisure. It appeared to him, also, that the rights of private Members should be consulted rather in the matters of urgency than of these Bills. The object of Members being sent to the House was rather to remedy griev-

    1331
    ances than to assist in debates on abstruse matters which often required no legislation at all. He agreed with the Government that restriction should be, perhaps, placed on constant Motions for Adjournment; but he did not think that that restriction should be imposed on nights devoted to private Members. Very often the subjects brought forward urgently on Motions for Adjournment were of far greater consequence to the public than the Bills or Resolutions with which they interfered. They were often of a nature so urgent and transitory that the opportunity for discussion must be taken off-hand; for if Members had to wait for the opportunity of discussion it might not come until too late, and thus a grievance might pass without redress. He hoped the Government would show some indulgence in this matter. They had carried their 1st Resolution by a very large majority; and he believed that, by showing a certain desire to compromise and come to an understanding, they would probably carry the remainder of the Resolutions much faster than if they drew a hard-and-fast line and said they would listen to nothing which came from the Opposition side of the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the word "That," to insert the words "on days when Government Orders have precedence."'—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman would admit that the Government were not at present chargeable with any unconciliatory disposition with respect to this Resolution. The Government had already, without waiting for any prompting, greatly mitigated and altered the form of their original proposal, and had intimated their willingness to make a concession in the matter of numbers should there be such a desire on the part of the House. Hon. Members would see that this was not a case in which he had to stand up for the interests of the Government. It would be convenient for the Government that Motions for Adjournment should be excluded on Government nights. It was assumed that no other Party was interested in excluding them; but that was a fundamental mistake. Independent Members had just as much interest in the passing of this Rule, and
    1332
    in the Amendment they had an exclusive interest. That Amendment would leave private Members entirely undefended, because a Motion for the adjournment of the House at Question time on Tuesday night, when made without any restriction, might occupy the whole evening, and preclude a private Member from bringing on a Motion for which he had previously obtained precedence by ballot. Down to the present moment the Motion for Adjournment had never had any sanction at all. He would not say it had been censured by the Chair; but it had been spoken of from the Chair as an unauthorized and inconvenient practice, and it had been, to a considerable extent, discountenanced by the general sense of the House. Now, however, they were going to legislate about it, and to devise a plan which would give Motions for Adjournment an entirely different character from unauthorized and inconvenient Motions as heretofore. They would be as legitimate as the original Motions of private Members, provided they were made in the terms of the Resolution; and, that being so, it would be impossible for the Government and most unfair to private Members to surrender to the mercy of uncontrolled action the right of setting aside on Tuesdays and on Wednesdays the regular Business of the House. Private Members often had measures in hand which were not interesting to the great majority of the House, but keenly interesting to some section of the House; but if this Amendment were agreed to, attempts to bring on such subjects would be regularly met by Motions for Adjournment.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that the Prime Minister had taken a view of the Amendment which he had hardly anticipated. As he understood his hon. Friend (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), his object was to reserve some kind of right on particular occasions to bring subjects of great urgency before the House; and he had been willing to make a concession on this point to the Government that on the days when Government Orders had precedence such. Motions should not be made. It was clear that Government Business was Business of the greatest importance to the country—Business in which the country at large was interested—but private Members' Business, in 19 cases

    1333
    out of 20, was Business in which the private Member alone was interested. His hon. Friend, therefore, had suggested a very great concession to the Government, and was preventing hon. Members from interfering with the Government Business in an unauthorized manner. Hon. Members balloted for the priority of their Motions; but it often happened, as the Prime Minister would agree, that a very unimportant Motion might, on a Tuesday, block the way of a Motion of the greatest importance, and prevent it from coming on. That was constantly happening, with the result that the House was counted out on the unimportant Motion, and the important Motion had no chance of coming on at all. He had an Amendment on the subject on which he should produce some startling figures to the House. He would, however, suggest, if the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, that he might consider whether a more satisfactory arrangement of Business could not be made for Tuesdays and Fridays, and the House allowed to select for itself out of the Motions put down the Motion which it deemed of the greatest importance. "Counts out" being almost the rule on Tuesdays, he thought it reasonable that the Government should allow this power of moving the adjournment of the House to be reserved for private Members' days. It did not follow, because the power was reserved, that it would be constantly used, and it would not do the least harm. In proof that the proposal which he made was reasonable, he pointed to the fact that in the arrangement of the Paper for Government nights the most important Business was always put first.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the noble Lord had called attention to a difficulty which would not be met by the Amendment. Even if, as indicated, uninteresting Motions sometimes had precedence of interesting Motions on Tuesdays, it was obvious that the power to move the adjournment of the House would not help the discussion of the interesting Motions. N either would the preservation of the power of moving the adjournment help the noble Lord in cases of "counts out." The question, too, of whether the House should have the power of departing from the ballot which
    1334
    now regulated the order of private Members' Motions was quite independent of the Resolution, although it might be one well worthy of consideration. Under the circumstances, he suggested that the hon. Member should move an Amendment in some other form.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) that some reconsideration of the order of Business was desirable, for he believed that great inconveniences often arose from the system of balloting. He was, however, afraid that the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would rather tend to increase the present difficulty, and lead to some unfairness to private Members. He hoped his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to divide the House. The Amendment of his noble Friend was in an opposite sense to that of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and he thought it met the case better.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he had hoped, when the Prime Minister introduced the Resolution, that there would have been some discussion, in order that the House might express an opinion on its principle, because until they knew what the Resolution meant they could not discuss any Amendment which might be made upon it. The Prime Minister said that he would make a concession by changing the number 40 into 20; but, in his (Lord George Hamilton's) opinion, the Resolution as it stood meant that, no matter what answer was given to any Question, no Member could move the adjournment of the House, however great might be the number of Members who held his views, if there was a single person in the House who objected to that course. That was the argument—[Mr. GLADSTONE: The first part.] He (Lord George Hamilton) presumed that it meant by leave of the House. But he wanted to know what was meant by "leave of the House?" The "evident sense of the House" had been interpreted to mean the evident sense of the majority of the House. As, therefore, there was much confusion as to the way in which this word "House" was used in the different Resolutions, he thought, if this Resolu-

    1335
    tion was to be passed, that they ought to clearly indicate whether what was meant was the unanimous consent of every Member in the House. If one person could stop the Motion for Adjournment being employed, what concession was the Prime Minister going to make? The great mass of the House, he thought, was strongly against an improper use being made of this power; but, on the other hand, there were times when it facilitated Public Business by the discussion of matters of paramount importance. With regard to Questions, the present Government had a great advantage over their Predecessors. In the late Parliament the House insisted upon every Member reading his Question; whereas in the present Parliament the House would not allow any Member to read his Question, but required him simply to name the number of it, and the Government could give almost any answer they chose. But, surely, there ought to be some remedy against answers which were either improper or evasive. He asked the House to consider whether they would assent to this principle, or that there should be some limitation in it. It seemed to him that if a certain portion of the House was in favour of a Motion for Adjournment, that Motion, under certain conditions, should be possible; and he initiated this discussion in order that there should be a clear opinion as to what must be the wish of the House, so that when they got further down the Resolution they should not be told that they could not raise the principle.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that the privilege of asking Questions of Ministers was one of the most valuable possessed by Members of that House, and the power of moving the adjournment of the House was a great means of compelling the Government to give full and satisfactory answers. If, however, that power were taken away, the House might expect a large number of answers from the Treasury Bench practically refusing the information asked, for. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was very fair in giving answers to Questions addressed to him; but he had Colleagues who would not scruple to evade Questions put to them if the power of moving the adjournment were taken away. What they wanted was a day on which they could put Questions
    1336
    with the certainty of being able to force an answer from the Treasury Bench. If that power were allowed them on Tuesday, it would practically re-act on the other days of the week. Tuesday was selected for the purpose, because Tuesday's Sittings were almost in variably wasted in their Parliamentary Business. By the ballot a string of Notices were placed on the Paper which Members did not care about, and therefore they sanctioned the rising of the House at an early hour. By giving the right of moving the adjournment of the House on Tuesday, in the event of an evasive reply being given, they would insure that, throughout the week, Ministers would reply to the Questions put to them. He hoped that the House would not part with this valuable power altogether.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought that the House hardly appreciated the very grave and great importance of the 2nd Rule. There could be no doubt that the Rule must be of great importance hereafter, particularly after the 1st Resolution had been passed. They had to consider the Rules in regard to the Resolutions. He admitted that great abuses had taken place with regard to Motions for Adjournment; but they should not in consequence consent to give up the power entirely. He might state that he had attended a long time in the House, and he had never once moved a Motion for Adjournment; but on one occasion he had seconded one on a Question with regard to the Afghan War, when the answer was of a most unsatisfactory character, given to one whom ho regretted was no longer alive (Sir William Palliser). He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) seconded the adjournment simply in order that his hon. Friend might receive a fair and proper answer from the Government on a very important question. What he wished to put before them was this—Would not the Government allow an Amendment to be introduced to the effect that a Motion for Adjournment might be made in case of a certain number of hon. Members rising in their places in favour of it. He said that a certain number of Members, and not the majority, should determine the question when it arose. If otherwise, the Government would always be able to prevent an adjournment. In his opinion, the House would I be most unwise to part absolutely with

    1337
    such, a right. Unless some such concession as that he had indicated were made, he feared the Resolution would be debated at great length.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he thought the House should consider that the power under discussion, much as it had been abused, was the only safety-valve existing in all their proceedings, and therefore ought not to be abolished under colour of the comprehensive reformation with which they were confronted. This was a power which secured everything moving evenly and seriously, because the Government knew that if the Questions put were not properly answered the remedy would be resorted to. They knew that emergencies arose in the life of Parliaments as of nations, and, knowing that, they must not sit down on the safety-valve of their Parliamentary system. That which the Government was no w proposing proved they hardly understood the nature of the proceeding. What they proposed was that those who were on their trial should be called upon to decide whether or not they would hear and disprove the charges brought against them. The persons accused were those who were to say whether they would shut the mouths of their accusers and so acquit themselves untried. For any one Member to be able to jump up and move the adjournment when he was a little mortified was, he admitted, excessive; but, at the same time, he did not think the Parliament of England should be altogether deprived of that old freedom. If, however, that were done, something would happen one day that would make them regret the levity with which it had parted with its undoubted privilege.
    MR. LABOUCHEREthought that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was an exceedingly practical one. On both sides of the House there was a feeling that the Resolution as it stood was somewhat strigent, and a little too much to the advantage of Ministers. He did not say that Ministers absolutely tried to evade answering Questions, but the House knew that sometimes a Minister did not answer a Question very clearly; and if, when he did that, there was no appeal except to a majority of the House, it was, practically, an appeal from Pontius Pilate to Caiaphas—that was to say,
    1338
    from the Government to the Government's mechanical majority. Of the numerous Amendments to the Resolution, that of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) was about the worst, because the practical outcome of his proposal was that Tuesdays should be devoted to Motions for the Adjournment of the House. The most practical Amendment was that which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler); but he could not, and would not, enter upon a discussion of the merits of it. The effect of it was that if 40 Members wished that the Motion should be proceeded with, it should be allowed without there being any subsequent appeal to the House. He would not stand upon 40 Members; but that number seemed to him to be a reasonable compromise, which many hon. Members were inclined to support. It would much simplify matters if the Prime Minister would say that such an Amendment would be accepted.
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he thought the Prime Minister, in bringing forward these Resolutions, might have done what was usual on the Motion for reading Bills a second time. He might have given a general sketch of the Amendments which the Government were prepared to accept, in a modified form or not, and also of those to which they would give a determined opposition. In his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman was himself mainly responsible for the desultory character of the discussion that had arisen. It was his (Mr. J. R. Yorke's) intention to support the Amendment. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had said, that the condition of private Members had long been getting worse and worse. The term, "private" Members was altogether a misnomer. It would be much more exact to speak of them as "unofficial Members." When he first came into the House those Members had their fair share of the public time, and it was always held private Members could advantageously bring forward the manifold grievances which arose from time to time. Now, however, all that was changed, and the Government almost monopolized the time of the House. As it stood, this Resolution was a second edition of the clôture. He should sup-

    1339
    port the Amendment for the reasons urged by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst)—namely, that if the power of adjournment were taken away, as proposed, great temptation would be given to Members of the Government to give evasive and discourteous replies to Questions. The Amendment would put a considerable screw on the Treasury Bench, and that would have a very good effect. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had also expressed a very true opinion when he said that the Rule was altogether too stringent. He (Mr. J. E. Yorke) thought that if the Government would intimate their consent to the acceptance of the principle that 40 Members rising in their places could demand that a Motion for the Adjournment should be moved, it would do much to simplify the passage of the Resolution.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the complaints of the hon. Member as to the course taken by the Government were most unreasonable. It was impossible for the Prime Minister to have made a statement with reference to all the Amendments upon the Paper in introducing the Resolution. Such a course would be most irregular and most inconvenient. When an Amendment was reached which raised the point referred to by the hon. Member, then the Government would state the reason why the Amendment could not be accepted. At present the Prime Minister had stated what modification he was disposed to accept—namely, a change in the numbers. That was the only change which the Government upon reflection was disposed to accept on the Resolution. If it were not irregular to raise the discussion on the present Amendment, he could inform the House why the proposal for allowing 40 Members to move the adjournment would defeat the object of the Resolution altogether. There would be no room for anybody to bring forward those grievances of which the hon. Member (Mr. J. E. Yorke) spoke; but there would always be some eloquent patriot who would come down and move the adjournment of the House. What they had now to consider was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, which had not been as yet supported by any Member of the Opposition. Indeed, the hon. Member who
    1340
    had just sat down spoke against it. What would be the effect of it? The private Member who had, he would say, the greatest amount of assurance would move the adjournment, and then it would become impossible for any hon. Member to put a Question of which he had given Notice until that Motion was disposed of. It was quite plain that if they recognized the right of moving the adjournment at the beginning of Business, they would disorganize the whole conduct of Business in the House. They could have no arrangements which would not be broken up by Motions for Adjournment, whether on private Members' nights or on Government nights. It was said there might be an emergency when there ought to be an opportunity of making such a Motion; but hon. Members appeared to forget that they had such an opportunity every day at the close of the Sitting. [Murmurs.] He knew that some hon. Gentlemen would prefer the hours between 5 and 8 o'clock in the evening for those Motions for Adjournment, which would disarrange Business; but if there was some great national emergency when the Government must be asked for an explanation and some statement should be made, it would involve too great a sacrifice for hon. Gentlemen to come down in white neckties at 11 o'clock at night. He trusted that the House would not assent to the proposal that on Tuesdays and Wednesdays any Member should be at liberty to occupy as much of the time of the House as he pleased by a Motion for Adjournment.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had promised to confine himself to the question immediately before the House; but he had given the House clearly to understand not only that the Government did not agree to the very wise and prudent suggestion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), but that they would yield to no proposal, and would insist on carrying the whole scope and spirit of the Resolution intact. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had sought to justify that determination on the part of the Government by an argument which hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House must, he thought, feel to be unworthy of his position. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told

    1341
    them that the privilege, which, he admitted, in great emergencies might be usefully employed, of moving the adjournment, might always be had recourse to at the end of the Sitting—that was to say, at 2 or 3 in the morning, on a great national or international emergency, some hon. Member, when the representatives of the Press had retired and Mr. Speaker and everybody else were exhausted, might rise and exercise that privilege. Yet that was the deliberate advice which the right hon. Gentleman, speaking on the part of the Government, gave to independent Members on both sides of the House. He protested against the view the right hon. Gentleman had taken of the whole of that Resolution, and also against the suggestion he had made with reference to it. He was not disposed to deny either that during recent years the number of Questions put at the commencement of Business had greatly increased, or that the exercise of the privilege of moving the adjournment had also, to some extent, but to no very great extent, increased. But why had that increase taken place? Simply, he maintained, because the time at the disposal of private Members had been so restricted by the action of the Government that matters which formerly formed the subject of distinct Motions had been put down in the form of Questions, very much, he thought, to the saving of the time of the House, and much, also, to the convenience of the Government. But if the present Resolution passed as it was introduced, what, he asked, would be the value of those Questions? Under the present system an hon. Member who received an unsatisfactory reply to a Question addressed to a Member of the Government was able to make himself disagreeable to the Government by moving the adjournment, and so obtaining the information that he desired; but if an essential modification was not made in this Rule there would be absolutely no guarantee that a question, perhaps of the greatest interest and importance, would receive an adequate answer from the Ministers of the day. The House and the country would thereby be deprived of that information which they had a right to demand, and they would be left at the mercy of a powerful Minister with a mechanical majority at his back. He deeply regretted that the
    1342
    Government should have devised that scheme for rendering the Questions, when put, less useful than they were now, and also that they had not assented to the reasonable and moderate proposal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton for amending it.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had never himself moved the adjournment of the House, and he believed that the privilege of doing it had been often grossly abused; but he complained that the Government now sought to take advantage of that fact to inflict on the House a grievous wrong, and to deprive them of a resource which was frequently of much importance. He wished that, on the contrary, they would lend their ear to the request of the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), and condescend to enlighten the House as to their ideas with respect to the proposed Rule; but instead of that they maintained a studied reticence, all except the Home Secretary, who was as flippant as his Colleagues were silent. That was not the way they should deal with a question of this vital importance. He wished to hear—and the Conservative Party, who were never flippant or reticent, wished to hear—from them what was intended by the phrase "the leave of the House." Was that to be ascertained by a division, or by a certain number of Members getting up in their places and declaring their opinion that an hon. Member should be allowed to move, the adjournment of the House? In his opinion, the only merit of the Amendment was that it limited the operation of the Resolution. The Resolution itself seemed almost unnecessary after the clôture Resolution which had been passed. In presenting this and the following Resolutions to the House, the Government must bear in mind that, as they had taken their stand upon the clôture Resolution, hon. Members on this side of the House were far less disposed to consider the remaining Resolutions, which he, for one, was prepared stoutly to oppose.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he attached very high importance to the Resolution before the House, and hoped that the Government would take an early opportunity to make some reasonable concessions to wishes which were not confined to one side of the House. The Prime Minister, in moving the Resolu-

    1343
    tion, had adopted a conciliatory tone; but what he undertook to do practically came to nothing. It had, no doubt, often happened that Motions had been made of a wholly immaterial character, prompted sometimes by temper and sometimes by vanity; but, nevertheless, occasions might arise of some important crisis in home or foreign affairs, when the Opposition, who differed strongly, resolutely, and conscientiously from the Government, would have a right to present their views to the House and the nation by moving the adjournment. It was no answer to say that hon. Members could ballot or might wait until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. It was no answer to say the Opposition could, if they pleased, by framing a Motion of Want of Confidence, practically compel the Government to grant them a day, for it might be that the question was one upon which the House ought to have immediate information. Within the four corners of the Resolution now before the House, even with the very moderate suggestion to substitute 20 for 40, no power was given to any Member of the Opposition, or to any section of the Opposition, however respectable or powerful, or to the Leader of the Opposition, even if supported by a section of the Ministerial side, to rise to move the adjournment without the leave of, perhaps, the very Minister whose conduct was at stake. This was little short of a gross scandal. In short, whether leave was to be granted or not depended upon the will of the Minister of the day; but it was not to be expected that hon. Members could rely upon the consideration of Ministers as a sheet-anchor. He, therefore, urged the Government to reconsider their attitude, and to make a modification of the Rule which might be acceptable to the House generally. He did not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) with pleasure, because he had no desire to interfere with the already limited time of private Members. But there was no alternative. If the Government refused to give them public time, they must ask for a portion of the time of private Members. Should a reasonable concession be made, he did not see why the discussion on this Resolution should occupy a considerable time, as, no doubt, in various instances the right of moving
    1344
    the adjournment of the House at Question time had been abused, and some remedy was necessary.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he considered that they had now before them a most important question dealing with a practical evil; and he thought the Government were responding to the sense of the House when they afforded a means of relief against a tyranny under which they had been groaning for several years past. The evil was one which they felt so much that they would go almost any length in order to bring their proceedings into something like order, and make the transaction of their Business fairly efficient. It was perfectly intolerable that when the House had arranged the Orders of the Day in a certain way any one Member might get up and propose a Motion on some grievance, and so lead to a discussion that might last for three or more hours, and prevent the Orders coming on. Still, he felt some difficulty in going the whole length of this Resolution; and he should be glad if the Government could see their way to some middle course. They might put a check on the objectionable practice, without absolutely forbidding a Motion for Adjournment on an occasion of extremity and urgency. For his own part, he was much inclined to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), which would subsequently come on for consideration. Whatever was done at present must be experimental and tentative; and they ought, therefore, to be careful, lest they went to such an extreme that a reaction would result.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that, as the Rule stood, no hon. Member could move the adjournment of the House for any purpose, or however urgent and important, without the consent of the Government. If such a Rule were adopted, hon. Members knew what they had to expect. He, however, ventured to appeal to Her Majesty's Government not to make this Resolution a Party question, as the first had been; and he was certain that any concession which the Government might make in reference to it would be hailed with general applause by the House. As one who was anxious that the House should be enabled to prevent the scandals which had been occurring of late years, he was ready to make any

    1345
    reasonable change in their Procedure; but the present proposal was too drastic, and was far beyond the necessities of the case. He hoped the Government would not alter their Procedure in such a way as would do violence to the feelings of moderate men—a course which would result in an agitation that would necessitate the withdrawal of the obnoxious Rule.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would not accept as the law of the Medes and Persians the dictum of the Home Secretary, who had chosen to express his opinion prematurely upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), an Amendment which was not before the House. He (Mr. Dillwyn) also ventured to hope that the House would not be detained much longer on the Amendment now under discussion.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the tone of the Home Secretary showed them what they bad to expect. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told the House in so many words that the Government would not accept any Amendment which would seriously modify the provisions of the Resolution, and had set down his foot in advance upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. But unless that were accepted the House would have no safeguard at all. The fact was, that in this as in many other of the Resolutions Her Majesty's Government had been too prodigal of their words. To carry out their intention the Resolution should have run—"No Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall be made at any time without the consent of the Government of the day." If this Resolution were agreed to in its present form, hereafter it would be in the discretion of the Prime Minister of the day whether any pressure should be put upon him or not in respect of any particular subject.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, there were two points on which the House was agreed—first, that the power of moving the adjournment at Question time was a very valuable privilege; and, second, that it had sometimes been abused. Members were willing to assist the Government in regulating the exercise of that power, but they were not willing to aid them in abolishing it. The Rule as it stood, however, would abolish it.
    1346
    If it passed, it would place the House absolutely at the mercy of the Ministry for the time being. It might be convenient and agreeable for the present Ministers to be freed from the annoyance of impromptu debates on Egypt or Ireland. Doubtless, some of these discussions were disturbing and a source of trouble; but they had better submit to them than part with a power that they themselves would find, when once again in Opposition, the value of. If the Government would consent to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), the discussion might close there. It was not all that Members wanted, but it was an improvement on the Ministerial proposal, and as a compromise the House would be willing to agree to it. But as the Government did not seem disposed to accept it, he would offer another suggestion. His proposal was even less than that of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and it was simply this. If a Member asked a Question, and did not get a satisfactory answer, he might have the power of explaining his Question. It might be said that if he had such power he would abuse it. He might take a lengthened time—half-an-hour, an hour, or two hours—to make his explanation. That certainly would be an abuse of the privilege; but, to provide against that, the time at which he was at liberty could be restricted. He was very much opposed to the practice of restricting speakers, as it was highly objectionable; but they had introduced the system of measuring out speeches, and this would only be a development of the same idea. If they allowed the Member who wished to move the adjournment to make a statement, and they allowed a Minister to make another in reply, the matter in many instances would end there. The House would be satisfied, the aggrieved Member would be satisfied, and no further discussion could take place. If any discussion did take place, then it would only be with the sanction of the House. But by this plan, the power of explaining a Question and getting a detailed reply would be retained. He might add that the plan was in operation in France and America, and he believed worked satisfactorily in both countries.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURadmitted that the suggestion of the hon. Member for

    1347
    Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) would be an improvement on the proposal of the Government, but it would be a very small improvement. He thought that too much emphasis had been laid on the necessity of moving the adjournment in order to compel the Government to give a civil answer. He had a higher reason, which was that the right might be required to enable the House at some grave crisis to discuss some important question relating to affairs at home or abroad. If they took away the power to move the adjournment, except with the assent of the Government—[Mr. GLADSTONE: The assent of the House.] He assumed that the Government might have a mechanical majority in the future as they had in the past, and therefore he substituted the word "Government" for "House." If some important question were suddenly to arise, the Government would be able to put pressure upon their followers to prevent the Motion for Adjournment from being accepted. That was the reason why the House should be in possession of some provision by which large minorities might be enabled to force a discussion when absolutely necessary upon the Government. He could not make out what the Government meant to do on this question, for the Home Secretary certainly did say that no Amendment that would put it into the power of the minority, however large, to interfere with the Government Business would be accepted—["No, no!"]—but he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) believed that if the Government would accept some such Amendment as that of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), the discussion on this Resolution would be greatly facilitated.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the words of the Home Secretary had been very much misunderstood. His right hon. and learned Friend did not say that the Government absolutely refused all Amendments to this Rule, but that on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) it would be irregular to bring forward arguments with regard to other Amendments. And his right hon. and learned Friend added that when they came to the Amendments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler),
    1348
    the Government would be prepared to state why they had made their original proposal and their objections to those Amendments. Nothing had fallen from any Member of the Government to show that there was an inflexible determination on the part of the Government to force their views on the House. It might have been convenient if his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) had made a statement when moving the Resolution with regard to the Amendments on the Paper; but when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth was once moved, it was impossible for the Government to make a statement with regard to the other Amendments.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, there were Amendments on the Paper before the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton which might take days to discuss, and, in his opinion, nothing would facilitate the discussion more than a statement of the views of the Government with regard to that and the other Amendments. The position taken up by independent Members on one side and the other was that it would be immensely to the public danger that any Government should have it in their power to say to their majority—"Refuse to listen to the Motion, which is one that impugns our dignity and which demands information which it is of vital consequence to us not to give." He put aside Party considerations when he said that it would be dangerous that any Government, Liberal or Tory, should be able to say, "You shall not raise this question," though it might be of the highest importance in relation to matters at home or abroad. He believed it would be disastrous to deprive the House of this power, which had often been exercised to the advantage of the State, and he therefore hoped the Government would be disposed to come to a compromise on the subject. He was convinced that if some such proposal as that which had been shadowed forth by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton were adopted by the Government it would meet with general acceptance. He confessed that he should hesitate before voting for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, because that Amendment contemplated the abolition of the power of moving the adjournment of the House at Question time on Government days; and it was to be remembered that to-

    1349
    wards the end of the Session the Government took precedence on almost every day of the week. In the public interests, therefore, no matter what Government was in power, it was desirable there should be the power of asking the attention of Parliament and the country to matters of grave interest and pressing emergency, and that it should not be in the power of the majority behind the Government to refuse them that liberty.
    MR. GLADSTONEasked permission to say that the Government wished to meet the Opposition in an equitable spirit, and he would therefore observe this much, that although the Government could not accept the terms of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), yet, if the sense of the House was generally in its favour, they would be prepared to entertain the principle of it in preference to that which they themselves preferred—namely, the reference to the vote of the majority.
    SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, he was in favour of retaining the present power of calling attention to urgent affairs on any day.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINSappealed to the hon. Member for Portsmouth to withdraw his Amendment after the statement of the Prime Minister.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLmoved to insert, after "that," in the first line of the Resolution, the words "while the Committee of Supply is open." The principle of the Amendment was that while Committee of Supply was open, Members had proper opportunities of bringing questions before the House and ventilating grievances; but they had not such opportunities when Supply was not before the House, which was in the opening and closing weeks of the Session, and his Amendment was designed to meet that case. The importance of the Amendment was relative to others to come after, about which he hoped the Leader of the Opposition would express as favourable an opinion as he had about this. If the Government were resolved to carry the Rules in the exact words in which they had submitted them, the Rules would not have much validity, because they would be carried in the teeth of the Opposition, who would be
    1350
    tempted to change them when they could; but it would be otherwise if the Government accepted Amendments without caring from which quarter of the House they came.
    Amendment proposed, after the word "That," to insert the words "while the Committee of Supply is open."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he confessed that he sympathized with the Government in their objections to making the Motion for Adjournment during the time set apart for Questions. He had himself been obliged to move the adjournment in the early part of that evening, because the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) attempted to prevent him from completing the remarks he desired to make; but he (Mr. Newdegate) had sufficient respect for the House to withdraw the Motion immediately after he had an opportunity of setting himself right. He must, however, say that this habit of putting a mass of insignificant Questions in the House ought to be curtailed. The hon. Member for Northampton had spoken of the House as having degenerated in recent years, and he (Mr. Newdegate) ascribed this apparent degeneration more to the habit of putting Questions to the Government than to anything else; because, although those Questions were put in the presence of the House, the House itself had no power whatever of expressing an opinion either upon the matter of Questions or upon the matter of the answers. In fact, hon. Members sat there as so many lay figures during this questioning and very questionable process, and the only escape they had was by moving the adjournment of the House, which often led to excessive debate, and, at the same time, precluded the House from expressing an opinion by means of a division upon any of the subjects thus anomalously brought before it. He thought, then, that the Government would do the House a service in endeavouring to put a check upon this horrible mass of Questions, which, so far as their importance was concerned, were not worthy of the attention of the Local Government Board, or, in very many cases, even of a parish vestry. He had heard hon.

    1351
    Members say that the time of the House had been so monopolized by the Government that it was impossible for them to bring forward subjects which interested their own constituents, and might interest the country, otherwise than by putting Questions. He admitted that the extravagant action of a certain section of the Irish Members during the last four or five years, and the kind of monopoly which they had been allowed to establish for Irish Questions and for their own views, was a course of proceeding unjustified by the importance of the country they represented, and apparently attributable to nothing but their own view of their own self-interest.
    MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that the Question then before the House was the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought that the Amendment, no matter by whom moved, had reference to the Resolution before the House; but he would beg pardon if he had transgressed. He had thought that he was entitled to speak to the Resolution as a whole; but if he was limited to the Amendment—which was a mere modification of one of the proposed Rules, intended to limit the time during which the Rule was to operate—in that case he could only say that he did not wish for a limitation of the Rule at all; and he assigned as his reason that, while he knew that he differed from many hon. Gentleman on his side of the House, he was in favour of the principle of the Rule as proposed by the Government. He had no wish to trespass on the time of the House; and if he had infringed the Rules of the House in speaking upon the Resolution generally he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (the Speaker) and the House would forgive him, because his only desire was to express the strong opinion he entertained against the present system of questioning the Government with the view of eliciting from the Government absolute opinions on subjects upon which, according to its present Forms, the House had no opportunity of expressing its opinions. The great body of the House were thus treated as a set of mere lay figures. This practice seemed to him (Mr. New-
    1352
    degate) unjustifiable. He knew that it did not tend to promote the dignity of the House, and he believed that it did not advance the interests of the country.
    MR. DODSONwas disposed to agree with much that had been said by the Mover of that Amendment. He would, however, remind the House that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had promised to accept the principle of the important Amendment which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton intended to move. That being the case, he thought it would be better if the present Amendment were withdrawn, and the Government would consider how best to deal with the question at a subsequent stage.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was glad to hear the views of the Prime Minister confirmed by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken; but he did not know how these speeches were to be reconciled with that delivered by the Home Secretary a quarter of an hour ago. He was glad to hear that there was some prospect of concessions being made; but he thought the time had come when the Government might go further, and tell them at once how far these concessions were to go. Were they going to accept his own or the hon. Member for Wolverhampton's Amendments? Though he admitted that the Amendment was being met in a conciliatory spirit, it would be pressed to a division unless some more definite statement were made by Her Majesty's Government.
    SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, he concurred in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that a discussion was being raised on Amendments yet to come. The Prime Minister had said that the Government would be disposed to consider Amendments when they came to them, with a view of seeing what concessions could be made. But it was absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to ask them what concessions they were going to make on Amendments which had not been discussed. If hon. Members thought the Amendment a right one, and that they could not trust the Government to deal fairly in the matter, let them vote for the Amendment. After Supply was closed on the Appropriation

    1353
    Bill, Members had many opportunities for bringing questions forward. Supply, too, was always set up early in the Session. There was really no reason for giving exceptionally large powers of moving the adjournment at such a time. The House met to transact Business, and it was a large power for Members to move that no Business be done and the House adjourn. The privilege was an abnormal one, and ought only to be used on grave occasions.
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, this was all very true of ordinary Sessions; but he reminded the Solicitor General that at present the House was sitting after the Appropriation Bill had been passed; and though they had before them a matter of the importance of the Egyptian Question, they had no opportunity of discussing it except through the courtesy of the Government. This being the case, he thought that hon. Members would, in view of the increased restrictions, hesitate before allowing that Bill to pass out of their hands again in the same way, with the opportunities it afforded for the discussion of grievances.
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, that a great deal too much had been said about the abuse of the custom of putting Questions to Ministers. That abuse was, in a great measure, due to the fact that the Government had been appropriating more and more of the time of private Members. If the Government would give some clear indication of the course they proposed to take, they would very much facilitate the attainment of the object in view; but he believed they had not made up their minds, and were fishing for a policy, anxious to regulate their concessions by the amount of support they were likely to receive.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had not produced any reason why the noble Lord should not persevere with his Amendment, or why, in view of the New Rules, private Members should not be chary about parting with the limited opportunities for the discussion of grievances which they now possessed. The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman cut both ways, for, if this power was only made use of on rare occasions, it might be all the more necessary to retain it. He quite agreed with what had fall a from his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire
    1354
    (Mr. E. Stanhope(. It would be quite possible for a future Government to get rid of Supply earlier than they did in past years, and thus to shut out from hon. Members one of the legitimate opportunities of bringing grievances forward.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the two Front Benches appeared to be engaged in an anti-Irish plot. By requiring 40 Members to support a Motion for Adjournment, the majority of the Representatives of the Irish people would be shut out from making such a Motion. For another reason he thought the proposal a bad one. If an hon. Member had the opportunity of explaining the cause of his moving the adjournment, he might get 100 or 200 Members to support him; but the proposal was that 20 or 40 Members should rise to support the Motion before they had heard the hon. Member's reasons for making it. With the grand measure of reform which the Government had just obtained, they had now no excuse for preventing the exercise of the privilege of Members in cases of grave necessity, for they possessed the power to shut up the debate by using the clôture. This Rule, if passed in its unamended form, far from checking the abuse of interrogatories, would add to it, for hon. Members and their Friends would multiply Questions in order to obtain, in a tort u ous way, information which might easily be brought out in a three minutes' speech. The only time when the Rule ought to apply was on an occasion when Public Business was declared urgent. He renewed his protest against the little anti-Irish conspiracy between the two Front Benches and their expressed readiness to accept the 40-Member provision, both well knowing that until the Irish franchise had been extended the people would continue to be misrepresented by a majority of the Irish Members. He should support the Amendment of the noble Lord; but, in his opinion, it ought to go much further.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that unless the Amendment were carried, when Committee of Supply was closed Members of the House would be actually muzzled. The Government would be absolute masters of the situation. They could stifle every complaint and every murmur, and reduce the country to a condition of discontented silence. The

    1355
    Government was really in the hands of the permanent officials, who were all men of far greater experience than the Members of the Government with the exception of the Prime Minister. Take the Home Secretary. The permanent officials in his Department were all men of far greater experience than he was, and their opinion was intrinsically worth far more than his on all matters relating to the Home Department. But the reason -why the Home Secretary had really more weight than they had was because he had to defend the action of the Government in the House. Instead of having the Home Secretary sitting on the Bench, they might as well have phonographs at the Table to grind out the answers which had been inspired by the permanent officials of the Home Office. But the reason why the people of this country submitted to all kinds of petty tyranny in every Public Department was because every act of every Department could be called into question in this House by means of the Motion for Adjournment, and that kept the people contented with the bureaucracy under which they were governed. For that reason he intreated independent Members to join the noble Lord in forcing from, the Government such a concession as would enable any grievance which existed to find expression in the place where it ought to find expression—on the floor of the House.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he should not discuss the principle of the Resolution; if any material change were desirable in it, the question could be raised by an Amendment. At present, he would confine himself to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), which, he maintained, ought not to be adopted, for it was intended to allow Motions for the adjournment when the Committee of Supply was not open. The speech they had just heard was wholly foreign, with the exception of the last few words, to that Amendment, which would primarily apply to the remainder of the Session; and if it were adopted, Motions for the adjournment of the House might be made without limit. This might lead to a great prolongation of their Sittings, and a large amount of time would be expended at a great inconvenience to the House. That important operation of the Amendment was
    1356
    one which, in their view, constituted a strong practical objection to its acceptance. Let him observe that there was not the slightest likelihood in the future, any more than in the past, but that Committee of Supply would not be closed till shortly before the Appropriation Bill was brought in, towards the end of the Session. To close it before was so rare and inconvenient, that it was on all sides admitted to be a process that ought only to be resorted to under extraordinary and pressing circumstances; and he would put aside the question of its being prematurely closed. They would, therefore, only have to consider the question when Committee of Supply was set up and closed at the usual times. The Committee of Supply was set up immediately after the Report in Answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, and was not closed till shortly before the passing of the Appropriation Bill; consequently, there was practically no time during which this Amendment could have any operation. But, in ordinary times, there might be a few days when the Committee wasclosed—namely, the days when the Appropriation Bill was in progress. Those were the days when there was no occasion or opportunity for preliminary Motions for the adjournment of the House, because, on those days, the Business of the House did not last more than two three hours, as the Appropriation Bill was almost the only Business on the Paper, and Motions for Adjournment could be made at the close of the Notices without any inconvenience. He submitted that the Amendment of the noble Lord was not applicable to ordinary times, whereas, at other times, it would inflict cruel inconvenience on many hon. Members of the House. He, therefore, regarded it as unnecessary.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that the natural and only inference which could be drawn from the Prime Minister's speech was that he had considerable dread of the result of the Motions for Adjournment; and it was naturally to be concluded also, that there were subjects which the Government did not wish to be discussed during the present Session. They knew that private Members had no ordinary means of bringing forward Motions; and it must be taken for granted, then, that the right hon. Gentleman looked with

    1357
    dread upon any unusual opportunity being afforded to any Member to bring forward a Motion, the discussion of which might prove to be disagreeable. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that in ordinary Sessions there would be no opportunity for moving the adjournment, even if the Amendment were adopted, and that he did not imagine that in future Autumn Sessions would be the rule of the House. If that was so, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) failed to understand his great reluctance to accept the Amendment. If the Amendment were carried, it would have very little effect during the course of an ordinary Session. But there was no security that there would be no Autumn Session, and during an extraordinary Session like the present the Amendment would have an important and powerful operation. The argument urged against the proposal by the Prime Minister appeared to him to be the strongest argument in its favour. He thought every Government should be made to understand that it could not call Parliament together with impunity, in order to carry through exclusively Government Business, without giving it power to discuss, while in Session, such matters as it might think proper. The right of moving adjournments before Supplies were asked for, and after they had been granted in ordinary Sessions could have, as the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had pointed out, only a limited operation; but it would come into powerful operation if the Government called Parliament together for an Autumn Session, not for the purpose of general legislation, but for the sole purpose of carrying some Government measure which they were unable to carry during the ordinary Session. Consequently, the noble Lord's Amendment would act as a check upon the practice of the abuse of Parliamentary Procedure which the Government bad initiated, and which future Governments, following their pernicious example, might perpetuate, and would make it impossible for the Government to call Parliament together in order to pass Government measures, and, at the same time, gag the mouth of Parliament so that it could do nothing else. That argument alone was sufficient to induce him to vote for the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 87: Majority 37.—(Div. List, No. 364.)
    SIR HENRY TYLERmoved, as an Amendment, the insertion, after the opening word of the Resolution "That," of the words "unless, as it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, in conformity with the evident sense of the House." The hon. Member said, that the words which he sought to introduce would govern the whole of the remainder of the Resolution, and that whatever words might hereafter be adopted, in the spirit of conciliation indicated by the Government, would not be affected by their insertion. Moreover, the words were those for which the Government themselves had warmly contended in the 1st Resolution.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the word "That," to insert the words "unless, as it shall appear to Mr. Speaker, in conformity with the evident sense of the House."—(Sir Henry Tyler.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, be objected to the Amendment, on the ground that it introduced the discretion of the Speaker, and thereby placed a serious burden on that right hon. Gentleman in this matter, where there was no necessity for it whatever. They were all agreed, he thought, that a restraint ought to be put on the present licence in moving the adjournment, and that it ought to be put on, either by referring the matter to the judgment of the House, or of a certain portion of the House. It was, he thought, equally agreed, that they ought not to make a gratuitous addition to the burdens of the Chair, which had been always serious, which were at present great, and which were not likely to be lighter in future. Under the 1st Resolution a burden was laid on the Speaker, because the matter was one of considerable difficulty and delicacy, and the Government did not see any other mode of proceeding that would not import the element of Party feeling.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he would admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, while rejecting the Amendment, had at least done so in a conciliatory spirit. He (Lord George

    1359
    Hamilton), therefore, was emboldened to point out to him that, as there was generally a fuller attendance of Members at Question time than during the rest of the evening, it would be easier for the Speaker to ascertain what was the "evident sense of the House" then than at any other time. The Government, however, had intimated that they were prepared to consider some Amendment which would, to some extent, mitigate the objections almost universally felt to the Resolution as it stood; and he would urge, in compliance with a feeling which he thought was prevalent throughout the House, that no words should be left in the Resolution which were capable of a double construction. There was no question, whatever, but that the words "by leave of the House" should be interpreted in the sense that the leave given should be universal; and to make it certain, he now gave Notice that he would by-and-bye move an Amendment requiring that the "leave of the House" should be that "of the majority of the House."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he agreed very much with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, that it would not do to put that duty on the Speaker; and he was glad also to acknowledge the fair and conciliatory tone in which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken. That was not a Party question, and it ought not to be dealt with in the spirit of Party. They all agreed that only on matters of great importance should that privilege be exercised; but nobody would deny that cases arose now and then in which it was absolutely necessary for the public interest that a question of great importance should be brought forward in the House, and that Ministers should give an answer or an explanation. The question might be a very inconvenient one, and one which the Government of the day desired to stifle, and was the reason why in the public interest, the minority of the House should be able to have the question discussed, when they showed that there was a real desire for its discussion. He was inclined to ask his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Tyler) not to press his Amendment.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought it would be useful, in connection with the Amendment, if they could have an authoritative declaration
    1360
    from the Chair of what was meant by "the leave of the House." Did it mean an unanimous leave, or the leave of a majority? Sometimes it happened that when a Bill was considered as amended, the Member in charge of the Bill proposed to read it a third time immediately. That could be done by the leave of the House, and it had been done once or twice in that Parliament. He had, in the case of some minor Bills, objected to its being done, and had been informed that the leave of a majority was sufficient. But he understood that, in regard to leave, there was a difference between a Bill being read a third time and the case under the present Resolution, and it would be highly desirable to have an authoritative statement from the Chair as to what "leave of the House" meant.
    MR. SPEAKER: I may say, in answer to the noble Lord's Question, that the understanding with reference to the leave of the House is that it involves unanimity on the part of the House. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Unanimity.] Whenever the Question is put from the Chair, "Is it your pleasure that so and so be done?" if there is a single dissentient voice, the leave of the House is not given.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to ask the further Question, Whether the reading of a Bill the third time, immediately after its consideration as amended, was by the leave of the House? He asked the Question because of the fact that on a recent occasion, when he had objected to the third reading of a Bill immediately after consideration of the Bill as amended being taken at one Sitting, he had been told by the Speaker that the leave of the House, meant the leave of the majority.
    MR. SPEAKER: The case mentioned by the noble Lord is not a case of question as to the leave of the House being obtained. Occasionally two stages of a Bill are taken at one and the same Sitting, and more especially is that the case when the end of the Session is near, and when urgency is pleaded, and that is done not by leave of the House, but by vote of the House.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SHEIL,who had an Amendment upon the Paper, to insert, after

    1361
    the word "made," in line 1, the words—
    "Unless such Motion is made in consequence of a reply to a Question, when, on the demand of fifteen Members, it may be debated,"
    said, that for the convenience of discussion, he would postpone it.
    MR. O'DONNELL,in moving an Amendment for the purpose of preserving the right of moving the adjournment of the debate when Urgency had not been voted, said, he could, under those circumstances, understand that there might be a reason for interfering; but he could not see the object of curtailing the valuable Privileges of the House when the state of Business was not urgent. He did not suppose the Government would accept his Amendment; but, considering the number of times the Motion had been resorted to with benefit to the country, he thought the right of making it ought to be preserved.
    MR. SHEILseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, after the word "That," to insert the words "when Public Business has been declared urgent."—(Mr. O'Dnnnell.)
    Question proposed, "That those words b here inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he felt bound to compliment the hon. Member opposite (Mr. O'Donnell) on his sagacity in discerning that the Government would not accept the Amendment; at the same time, he must be allowed to consider that far less than the hon. Member's sagacity would have sufficed to convince him of its hopelessness. It introduced a fundamental innovation, and invited the House, without Notice, to take upon themselves to legislate upon the subject which at other times was based upon the decisions of the Speaker. Why the Speaker was to legislate upon it in general, while they were to take that particular point into their hands, did not appear. The Amendment would involve the most inconvenient consequences, and, under the name of preserving the liberties of private Members, would throw the whole Business of the House into chaos and confusion. It was totally unsuited to the period of Urgency, and there was already a Rule for Urgency of a far more stringent kind. The Amendment was simply a
    1362
    negative; in short, he did not think it would be possible to concentrate it to many points of objection, and he therefore opposed it.
    Question put, and negatived.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL,in rising to move, as an Amendment, in line 1, to leave out all the words after "made," and insert—
    "Until all the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of; and, if such Motion be decided in the negative, no other such Motion shall be made until the Orders of the Day have been entered upon,"
    said, he believed that it was one of the most important Amendments proposed to the Resolution, as it went against its whole principle, and it would also give the Government an opportunity of explaining the reason why they introduced the Resolution. There might be an overwhelming reason for it; but, at present, the Government had not taken the trouble to state any at all. There was an opinion widely spread that the power belonging to individual Members of making Motions for the adjournment of the debate had been abused; but it was entirely an erroneous impression. It was a wonderful thing sometimes to watch how a belief of that kind was passed on from one person to another; but he had taken the trouble to look over the Records of the whole of the last Parliament, and his astonishment had been rather at the small number of times it had been, compared with the large number in which it might have been, used. The whole basis of the Ministerial argument was that it was a monstrous thing to place this power in the hands of Members, because they would be apt to use it frequently. But before the House parted with a power which was almost as old as the House itself, and which was the only hold which an Opposition had upon the Government, they should see whether it had been abused. Let them take the present Parliament, and see whether they had had many Motions for Adjournment. How many times did the Prime Minister suppose it was moved during the first Session of the present Parliament, from the commencement in May to the end on the 7th of September? Only six. In fact, the first instance in which it was employed was when the hon. Member for Swansea

    1363
    (Mr. Dillwyn) moved the adjournment, he must confess with a very trivial and ridiculous object, in order to call attention to Lord Byron's Indemnity Bill. It was only once employed by the Irish Members, and that was when the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) had made a violent attack on the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), in consequence of a speech he made at Kildare, and the hon. Member for Tipperary was obliged to employ this method of vindicating himself. With regard to the second Session of that year and the first of this Parliament, he must say that hon. Members were placed in a peculiar position, for the Prime Minister came down one day in June, and requested the House to give him the remainder of its time; and from June till the 7th of September every single day was devoted to the measures of the Government.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I should like to have your dates; the question is one of fact only.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No doubt it is, and the Prime Minister is as good a judge of fact as I am.
    Mr. GLADSTONE: I think so.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that the Government had monopolized every day of the Session from the 7th of June to the end of the Session.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Do you mean to say that we appropriated every day?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he did not mean to include Sundays. His allegation was that, to all intents and purposes, from the 7th of June to the end of the Session, the Government monopolized the whole time of the House, and that, therefore, Motions for Adjournment, in such circumstances, were not only permissible, but were actually forced upon hon. Members. What happened in the second Session of this Parliament? Undoubtedly there was an increase in the number of Motions for Adjournment in that Session, for they amounted to 19. It must be remembered, however, that the House met in January, and did not separate until the 27th of August. During the whole of that period, this frightful abuse of the Forms of the House, so scandalous and so unconstitutional, as described by Her Majesty's
    1364
    Government, was exercised only 19 times in eight months. How many times did the Irish Members move the adjournment? [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: How about the Fourth Party?] Well, as a matter of fact, the Fourth Party moved the adjournment exactly four times during the Session. The Irish Party moved the adjournment 11 times out of the 19 times the Motion was made. But what was the state of Ireland at that time? Her Majesty's Government were then engaged in alternately fomenting disaffection in Ireland when it suited their own purposes, and in suppressing it when it did not. Every day there were arrests being made, evictions were being carried out, Members of Parliament were being sent to gaol, and murders were being committed. In such a lamentable state of things, the only wonder was they had so seldom exercised their privilege; and he was astonished that, instead of 11 Motions for Adjournment being made by the Irish Members during a long Session, such Motions were not made every day. Moreover, of those 11 Motions, more than two-thirds were brought about by the unsatisfactory and evasive character of the answers which were given to the Questions put by Irish Members by the then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Had that right hon. Gentleman recollected the maxim, that "a soft answer turneth away wrath," he might have prevented most of those Motions for Adjournment. The right hon. Gentleman, however, must have forgotten it, for he, time after time, deliberately went out of his way to provoke the wrath of the Irish Members. And, again, in that Session the time of the House was monopolized by the Government. The Prime Minister had devised his beautiful Rules of Urgency, which remained in force up to the end of April, during the discussions on the Arms Act, and from that date to the end of the Session, the Government appropriated the whole time of the House, the result being that no private Member had an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to any subject whatever. Was it a matter of surprise, then, that the power of moving the adjournment was resorted to in exceptional circumstances, considering the provocation that Irish Members were daily receiving? He hoped these facts would dispel the assumption

    1365
    that the power of moving the adjournment had been abused. In the first part of the present Session the Motion for Adjournment had been made 13 times, and again Government monopolized the time of the House from the middle of April to the end of August. From the time when the Government introduced their Prevention of Crime Bill to the end of the Session, the rights of private Members had been entirely set aside, and no private Member could bring any matter before the House except by leave of Her Majesty's Government. Of the 13 Motions, only seven were made by the Irish Members, who were held up to reprobation as the cause of all that trouble; and yet during two Sessions, notwithstanding the very great provocation they received, they exercised the privilege only 18 times. One of the most important occasions on which the Motion for the Adjournment was made was that in order to elicit some light on the transactions arising out of the "Kilmainham Treaty." Supposing this Rule were in force, and they had parted with that right, would it have been possible to have brought to light that most disgraceful transaction—a transaction so obnoxious that its precise terms had never been made know down to this day? On another occasion, the Leader of the Opposition moved the adjournment in reference to the resignation of the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Member for Bradford. Everybody knew that that most extraordinary occurrence was looked upon as an indication of the complete break-up of the Liberal Party. ["Oh, oh!" and laughter.] Hon. Members appeared to have lost either their minds or their recollections. Why, the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had got up, and had denounced the circumstances that had led to the resignation of the right hon. Member for Bradford. What subject could have been more important to the country than that? But, under this Rule, the Leader of the Opposition could not have brought that matter under the Notice of the House without the leave of the Prime Minister. On the whole, in this Parliament, which had sat more days and hours so far than any other Parliament, there had been only 38 Motions for Adjournment, and for the majority of those the greatest excuses could be
    1366
    alleged, for several of them might have been avoided if Government had been more courteous in their replies. He ventured to say that, if another Government, more happy and more fortunate in public affairs, came into power, even the very small abuse of this power of moving the adjournment which could be pointed to would disappear. But what had been the conduct of hon. and right hon. Members opposite when they were out of Office? Going back to the last Parliament—that elected in 1874—he found that these Motions were nearly as common as they had been during the present Parliament; but not a word was then said by the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench, who were then in Opposition, as to this frightful abuse of the Forms of the House, which they declared required instant and extraordinary remedy. In the first Session of the Parliament of 1874, the Motion was made four times; and on one occasion, most extraordinary to say, it was made by the present Prime Minister, and why—because Mr. Disraeli made a statement on Public Business. On the 21st of July, 1874—a time when the Liberal Party were very active—the hon. Baronet the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) moved the adjournment, because of a statement made on behalf of the then Government in relation to the Fiji Islands. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) did think that was an abuse of the Forms of the House. In the second Session of that Parliament, the Motion was made eight times, nearly always by Liberals. In the first place, it was made by Mr. Lowe, who brought forward the case of Dr. Kenealy. On the 19th of July, 1875, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) made the Motion, in order to bring before the House the state and progress of Public Business; and on another occasion it was moved by an Irish Member, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry)—the only time Irish Members made it during the Session. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) had said just now that Motions for the Adjournment were made only by "pushing patriots," and, assuming all the airs of a burly

    1367
    Democrat, something like Mr. Wilkes, he added, "who possessed a suit of evening clothes." Was the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India a pushing patriot who possessed a suit of evening clothes? Was the Prime Minister? In the third Session of that Parliament the adjournment was moved only nine times—on one occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, and on two occasions by the present Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett). In the fourth Session it was only moved seven times; and here he found the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford asserting themselves of their privilege. And it should be remembered that in these Sessions of the late Parliament there was no monopolizing of time by the Government, who plodded along as best they could. And the late Government had carefully cultivated the art of polite answers to Questions, and did not produce the scenes with which the House had for some time past been familiar. In the fifth Session the adjournment was moved nine times, once by the Postmaster General, and another time by that pushing patriot, the noble Marquess. In the sixth Session it was moved altogether 14 times, once by the Postmaster General, and on two other occasions, once by the Prime Minister, and once by another pushing patriot, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), who, as they knew, originated those unfortunate scenes of Obstruction which had led to these Resolutions. In that Session, on the 5th of March and on the 11th of March, the adjournment was moved by two right hon. Liberal Members, one of whom was the ex-Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), and the other the Vice-President of the Committee of Council for Education (Mr. Mundella). So that in less than a week, these two pushing patriots moved the adjournment of the House on very futile and frivolous subjects. The result of all these figures went to show that the Government had not made out a case for this Resolution; and, so far from the assumption on which they based their case, that there had been an abuse of this privilege, being true, he maintained
    1368
    that there had been no abuse. It was quite true that, on more than one occasion, hon. Members moved the adjournment when the general "sense of the House" was against them; but there was no such case of abuse as would warrant the House in passing this Resolution. The House had parted with its power of initiating a debate on presenting Petitions, and of continuing debates at great length; and now they were asked to part with this one power which, far beyond every other, kept a check, not only upon the Government generally, but upon individual Ministers, and prevented them from trampling upon private Members who really had cases to bring before the House. In the Parliament of 1859—Lord Palmerston's last Parliament—the privilege was comparatively frequently exercised. In the first Session the adjournment was moved three times—on one occasion by that eminent Member of the House, Sir George Grey; in the second twice, one of which was by Mr. Kinglake when he brought forward the question of the cession of Savoy and Nice; in the third, only once; and in the fourth, only twice. In the fifth Session it was moved nine times, once by one of the most respected Members of the House—the senior Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North)—and another time by Mr. Ayrton. It was moved three times in the sixth Session; on one occasion by Mr. Hennessy, when it led to the resignation of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), in consequence of his relations with Mazzini. In the seventh Session it was moved three times, and during the whole of that Parliament 23 times. That was no such great disproportion, considering what Parliament was then, before the late Reform Bill, and what it was now. But there was one conclusive argument against giving Government the power which this Resolution would confer, and that was that they had carried the 1st Resolution. He could not conceive a more legitimate use of the clôture—if there were any legitimate use of it—than for the Speaker to put it in force when a Member moved the adjournment against the wish of the whole House, when he had concluded his speech and the Minister had replied. But by adopting the clôture, the Government had put themselves out of Court.

    1369
    His Amendment did not meet the Government's proposal with a direct negative, though it had very high authority in its favour. He wished it was in his power to mention that authority; but he might say it was one to which the House was accustomed to pay very great attention. The effect of the Amendment was that no adjournment could be moved until all the Questions on the Paper had been put and answered. The object of that was very clear. Hon. Gentlemen often moved the adjournment in a moment of bad temper or excitement, resulting from what they might consider to be the unsatisfactory nature of the replies they might have received; and if they had time to reflect on those answers, and to consult their friends, they might feel disposed not to persevere with their original intention. He also proposed that, should the adjournment be negatived, it should not be competent for anyone to move the adjournment again until the Orders of the Day had been entered on. He doubted whether it was in the power of any Member of the House to overvalue that privilege, and he hoped the Opposition would not part with it, without putting on record one of the most obstinate stands that could be made against the tyranny of a Ministry. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    After the word "made," to insert the words "until all the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of; and, if such Motion be decided in the negative, no other such Motion shall be made until the Orders of the Day have been entered upon."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that they were sometimes told from the other side of the House, that Party considerations and Party topics ought not to be introduced into these discussions. He did not remember to have recently heard anyone on that (the Ministerial) side introduce Party topics; and he was further bound to say that the great majority of hon. Members on the side opposite had abstained from doing so. But the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) had, with the most perverse ingenuity, and without the smallest necessity or pretext, introduced, only on hearsay, into his speech two of the most offensive
    1370
    and personal charges he (Mr. Gladstone) had ever known made in the House of Commons. In the first place, the noble Lord, who was not in the House in May last, spoke of what he chose to call the "Kilmainham Treaty" as a most disgraceful transaction. There was no Kilmainham Treaty. [Mr. J. R. YORKE: Oh, oh!] He challenged the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire, who scoffed at him for that assertion, which he (Mr. Gladstone) seriously made, to move for a Committee of Inquiry into the matter.
    MR. J. R. YORKE: If the right hon. Gentleman will grant me a day, I will do so.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will agree to that inquiry without granting any day. As I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question, he has evaded answering mine. ["No, no!"] Most certainly I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he will move for an inquiry, if I grant him a day. I say, I will agree to the inquiry without granting any day. The hon. Gentleman flinches from answering me.
    MR. J. R. YORKE: I will move for it as an unopposed Return. I will move for a Committee of this House.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would not oppose it. Let the hon. Member make a Motion, and pledge himself by that Motion to prove the existence of that Treaty. He would repeat there was no such Treaty; and he said further, that those who made these allegations without proof, instead of fastening disgraceful transactions upon their opponents, brought the disgrace upon themselves. He was sorry to have been obliged to deviate from the path of legitimate discussion, for the purpose of noticing an imputation to which he would attach no epithets, though it deserved them—except to say that it was one which the noble Lord himself would feel that it was absolutely impossible to pass by without a word. Then the noble Lord went on to attack his (Mr. Gladstone's) right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), and said that he had, time after time, deliberately gone out of his way to provoke the Irish Members by his answers.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!
    MR. BIGGAR: It is perfectly true.
    MR. GLADSTONE: That was not an unnatural thing for the hon. Member

    1371
    for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to say, and he did not find fault with it; but he must say that, to bring a personal charge of that kind against his right hon. Friend, without Notice and in his absence, was a course totally unworthy of any Member of that House.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I have brought it often before now.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that as he knew something of the answers given by his right hon. Friend, he would at once say that he was of opinion, though his right hon. Friend had the misfortune to differ on many and most serious points, which could not be mitigated, from the Irish Members, or what the noble Lord chose to call the bonâ fide Irish Members, he was careful, in a degree beyond almost any Minister he (Mr. Gladstone) had ever known, to supply full and detailed information in his answers. In fact, the spirit and character of his right hon. Friend formed a sufficient answer to the imputations of the noble Lord as to the purpose his right hon. Friend had in view. He would now pass from that very offensive part of the noble Lord's speech and come to the arguments of the noble Lord, as to which he (Mr. Gladstone) must say the noble Lord, upon that occasion, had had his usual infelicity in many statements of fact that he had made. The noble Lord had obligingly referred to an occasion on which he (Mr. Gladstone) had been guilty of moving the adjournment of the House, but had not the good taste or courtesy to refer to the reason for which it was made. He said it was after a statement regarding the Business of the House. Yes; but he omitted to state that that was a most important occasion, when it was necessary to make a declaration of a most important change of policy of the Government of the day in regard to a Bill which had been long and hotly contested, and which absolutely required Notice from the House.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Like Arabi's trial.
    MR. GLADSTONE: It was a subject which required Notice, and in regard to which he did not hesitate to say that, if there had been a Rule in operation requiring it, not 20 or 40 Members, but 100, had it been requisite, would have risen in their places to sanction the Motion. The noble Lord ought to have had the common candour to have made that
    1372
    explanation, and to have noticed that it was the occasion, and the only occasion, on which he (Mr. Gladstone) had moved the adjournment before Business had begun. But if that was the noble Lord's way of conducting Business, some day he would probably be sorry for the example he had set; but he would pass on from that, only remarking further that 18 Members showed the importance they attached to the occasion by taking part in the debate which ensued. Then the noble Lord made a complaint that in 1880, practically and to all intents and purposes, every day from the end of June or beginning of July, was monopolized by the Government. Now, he found that what happened in 1880 was this—on Fridays Motions by private Members were brought forward on Supply on every day when it was put down up to the 20th of August. So much for the noble Lord's allegation about the end of June or the beginning of July; but in that year it was not until the 14th of July that priority was taken on Wednesdays; on the 20th of July that priority was taken on Tuesdays; and yet, with those limits of the 14th of July, the 20th of July, and the subsequent 20th of August, the noble Lord said that the Government took, practically, every day from the end of June or the beginning of July. So much for the accuracy of the noble Lord when he ventured to instruct them on matters of fact, a proceeding on which he (Mr. Gladstone) had before tendered him some friendly admonitions. Perhaps it would be rash of him to suppose that the noble Lord's other figures were right; but, supposing they were, they seemed in a great measure to prove their case. This practice of moving the adjournment of the House before the commencement of Public Business was one which, 20 or 25 years ago, was absolutely unknown to the House; and he thought he was quite correct in saying that, until about 10 years ago, it had not become a serious fact for the contemplation of the House. He was himself responsible for the conduct of the Business of the House between 1868 and 1874, and he certainly could not recollect that, in any period during the existence of that Parliament, that matter of preliminary Motions for the Adjournment became a burning serious question for consideration. He did not recollect

    1373
    any occasion on which it was made use of. The noble Lord gave four times in 1874, and then he proceeded to give eight, seven, and nine times.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said in 1874 the number was the top one.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he would point out, as a fact, that last Parliament, unless he was very much mistaken, was the first in which it had become a serious evil; and it was quite evident that in the present Parliament it had become a very serious evil indeed. The adjournment was moved 19 times in 1881, and 13 times in 1882. He said nothing about Irish Members in the matter—he looked at it apart from either England, Ireland, or Scotland—but one of these Motions represented a serious invasion of the time of the House. Moreover, he believed it would be found that, out of those Motions, at the very least five-sixths, and probably more, were on evenings of Government Business; and their consequence was to take away from one-third to one-half, and sometimes even the entire evening. The noble Lord said that though it had been slightly abused it was a valuable privilege. His answer to that was that the occasions were very rare on which it was a valuable privilege; and he confidently said that not I in 10, and he thought not 1 in 20, of the occasions on which those adjournments had been moved were occasions on which the "general sense of the House" would ratify the arrangement. But they were not going to propose the extinction of the privilege, but only its stringent and effective limitation. The noble Lord proposed that they should only be moved once; but the phraseology which he used was rather singular. He proposed that if the Motion should be decided in the negative it should not be competent to make the Motion again; but he (Mr. Gladstone) need hardly point out that if it was decided in the affirmative it was totally unnecessary to make any provision, because the House itself would have disappeared. The noble Lord further proposed that no second Motion of Adjournment should be made until the Orders of the Day had been entered upon. It was not under double Motions of Adjournment the same evening that the House had suffered. They had been exceedingly rare.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Take to-day.
    MR. GLADSTONE: He knew it. He had not forgotten it. The occasion was entitled to commemoration in the annals of the country. The noble Lord's Amendment cut off a secondary inconvenience, and the possibility of what he might call the extravagances of the abuse. The noble Lord proposed to continue the body of the abuse. He thought it good; whereas the contention of the Government was that, in the main, the power was not good. No doubt, he did not admit it to be an abuse; but the Government regarded it as the one thing which, with the smallest justification, had cruelly invaded the Business of the House, curtailed its time, disturbed its Order, and dissapointed Members as to the Business which was to come on; and it was, in fact, an abuse that loudly called for correction. The noble Lord thought the general practice good, and the rare exception bad. The Government, on the other hand, thought the general practice bad, and the rare exception good. They were prepared to give space for the rare exception, and to ask the House to cut up the general principle by the roots. That was the general principle on which they were quite willing that provision should be made for rare exceptions in which the practice might be necessary. He hoped the House would reject the Amendment.
    MR. GIBSON: Sir, there is one thing very apparent in the speech just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and that is, that the Government had not, until they had the statistics given by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), themselves examined the figures bearing on this question. Certainly, it is very surprising to find a very grave and serious change, that may be a necessary one, proposed without a single figure, or a vestige of a statement relating to figures, being submitted to the House by the Government. The House had a right to expect—I do not say from the Prime Minister, as he has so many important political matters to which to give his attention, but certainly from one of the subordinate Members of the Government, who has more leisure than the Prime Minister to look into details—some statement showing

    1375
    on how many occasions the adjournment has been moved. It has been given by the noble Lord; but, then, we should have had more full and complete details. The figures should have been produced to show how many of these adjournments have developed into debate; how often they have lasted for hours; and how often for only two minutes and a-half, the time that the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) lasted to-night. The Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire lasted only two minutes and a-half, and the Motion of my noble Friend lasted well under the hour; and if we went into details we should find that the figures that have been given are susceptible of great reduction. The Prime Minister used the term "invasion of the time of the House;" but we have no figures to indicate how often on these occasions there has been a real invasion on the time of the House. Then, again, on how many occasions was the Business of the Government interfered with; and how often was the adjournment moved on Government nights, as distinguished from those nights when the business of private Members was before the House. The Prime Minister seemed not to have clearly present to his mind the fact that he had himself moved the adjournment of the House. He said, however, that he had only done so once. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Circumstances required it.] Quite so; and that fact was important. Of course, the Prime Minister, who is a man of great Parliamentary position, would not have taken that step and appealed to the majority of the House unless he did think it was necessary. That goes, of course, without saying; but the proof that the Prime Minister gives that his judgment was sound was shown by the fact that 17 speakers in different parts of the House followed him. But there is no provision, under the Rule, that if 40 Members wished to follow the Leader of the Opposition, he should be excluded from it. The Prime Minister, at the close of his speech, said that the Government were anxions for the extinction of this—I do not call it right or privilege—but existing power. The right hon. Gentleman, however, thought a rare exception sometimes to be attended with good. I do not discuss the point in detail; but I re-
    1376
    peat that, in the Rule as it stands, the rare exception, as well as the wide abuse, is absolutely shut out from the smallest chance. He says he will not accept the Amendment of my noble Friend the Member for Woodstock; but I would suggest that, consistent with his entire argument, and consistent with the drafting of the Rule, it must fall in with the views of the Government to take out all the words down to "and" in the 2ndline, so as to put at the end, instead of at the beginning, what ought to be the general condition, instead of its being dragged in as an after-thought. It may be a matter of some importance, particularly as I hope there may be something to say on the part of the Government. It will be found, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at it, and those, also, who have considered the construction of the Rule will look at it, it will be found that to put first the general condition, that no such Motion shall be made until all the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of, will simplify the matter enormously when it comes to accepting what are really Amendments, though the Government may describe them as modifying somewhat their primary ideas.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I fall in with the view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, that he would furnish the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) with some of the information for which he asked. Out of 14 times in which the Motion for Adjournment was made in the Session of 1882, only three times was the Motion made on private Members' nights. All the other Motions interfered so far with Government Business. One occupied six or eight pages of Hansard, another four, and another 28. So far as he had examined Hansard, there had been 40 of these Motions in the last three Sessions—22 by Irish Members and 12 by Conservatives, of which six were by the followers of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)—namely, one by the noble Lord himself, two by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), two by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) and one by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour). There were six occasions on which it was moved by Liberal Mem-

    1377
    bers. Two Motions by Irish Members occupied each a whole Sitting of the House that Session. He did not wish to minimize the opportunity which hon. Members representing Ireland should have of ventilating their grievances, or those of their constituents; but he questioned whether the debates on these Motions had tended very much to the settlement of the questions raised, and ho would further ask whether Irish Members, upon questions of the sort they raised, had not ample opportunity of obtaining information by means of Questions addressed to Ministers? ["No, no!"] Out of 45 Questions on the Paper that evening, 20 related to Ireland; they were mostly of a personal character, and had been adequately answered. Of the two occasions on which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and his followers had raised debates on Motions for Adjournment, one was on the 16th of May, when the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) raised a debate which lasted a whole Tuesday afternoon on what he described as the Kilmainham Treaty; and in that discussion he applied the term "infamy" to the conduct of the Government, and showed thereby that he alone, with the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), thought such an epithet a legitimate one in Parliamentary debate. ["Order!"]
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked if the hon. Member was in Order in referring to debates of the House in the present Session?
    MR. SPEAKERruled that the hon. Member was in Order.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, he was endeavouring to supply the information that seemed to be wanted by the Front Opposition Bench. The other occasion on which a Motion for Adjournment occupied a great deal of time was at the end of July, when it was moved by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) on the subject of Egypt, who had every opportunity, just as Irish Members had, of obtaining adequate information by putting Questions to Ministers, in which respect he (Mr. Buchanan) admired the assiduity of the hon. Gentleman, for he had a Question on Egypt every day on the Paper, and he generally asked three or four verbal Questions in addition.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that, in his opinion, the House was to be congratulated that the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had confined himself to the present Session, for if he had gone over other Sessions at equal length the whole night would have been taken up. He was not quite sure that the Government had gained much by what the hon. Member had said; for he admitted that only on four occasions had any material part of a day been taken up by those Motions for Adjournment. On two of those occasions the subjects were Irish; and, considering the engrossing character of Irish questions during the Session, two nights were not an extravagant length of time to have been taken up with those Motions. On two other occasions, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh had said, the adjournment had been moved by Gentlemen whom he absurdly described as followers of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. But what were those occasions? The first was when the adjournment was moved by himself. He did not wish to refer to the Kilmainham Treaty, as he believed that the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) had been given a day for bringing on a discussion on that subject. [Mr. Gladstone: I consented to the inquiry, but not to give a day.] Then the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to give a day. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Then the offer of the right hon. Gentleman was assuredly the vainest offer that had ever been made; because it would be impossible for any private Member to bring forward any Motion on the subject during the present Session. What was the value of the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman unless he intended to offer facilities for its acceptance? On the second occasion to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had referred, the adjournment was moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), and the subject was the bombardment of Alexandria. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) could hardly conceive of two more proper occasions for making such a Motion; and he thought they furnished the best argument for refusing to accept the proposed alteration, more particularly the former, when taken in connection with the language which had been used

    1379
    on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), and which more than justified the challenge thrown down to the Government by his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire. If he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had to select the statistics on which to rest his objections to the Government proposals as they now stood, he should select the statistics which, for a very different object, had been given to the House by the hon. Member for Edinburgh.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to explain, with reference to the suggested inquiry into what had been described by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) as the "disgraceful transactions at Kilmainham," that he(Mr. Gladstone) stated that he would offer no opposition to a proposal for such an inquiry; but to interrupt the present course of Business for the consideration of such a subject was a thing he could not at all agree to.
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he proposed to move for the inquiry as an unopposed Return—a Return including the Correspondence.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to communicate with them in the first place.
    MR. J. R. YORKEassented.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, with regard to the Kilmainham Treaty, that though he was not in the country when that document was completed, he thought that no transaction in the career of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), or in the career of the Prime Minister, did greater credit to either of them than what was known as the Kilmainham Treaty. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not quite understand those cheers. If hon. Gentlemen on that side were prepared to take upon themselves the responsibility of allowing appalling crime and heartrending eviction to continue, he did not envy them that responsibility. The Prime Minister had remarked that no Minister had ever given fuller information than the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster); but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) could say that he could not remember an occasion of controverted points in which that right hon. Gentleman gave any information that was accurate. In fact, it was his opinion that the tone and manner of the late Chief Secretary for
    1380
    Ireland were direct incentives to Motions for Adjournment. ["Oh!" and "Hear, hear!"]
    MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. Member to Order, and said it could not be allowed on a Motion of that kind to make an attack on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR,continuing, said, nothing could be more dexterous or delusive than the reply of the Prime Minister to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). It was that noble Lord's main point that Motions for Adjournment had been abused by right hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench; but to that point the Prime Minister made no allusion whatever, and though he was accompanied by the loud bassoon of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), he never attempted to justify the occasion on which the Vice President of the Council moved the adjournment. Nor had they had any explanation of the conduct of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) in moving the adjournment on another occasion with respect to the affairs of Fiji. The Prime Minister had merely contended that circumstances justified making Motions; but that was the justification they all relied upon. He believed that by passing this Resolution the House would be surrendering one of its most useful and valuable privileges. As the Resolution stood, according to the interpretation put upon it by the Speaker, a Motion for Adjournment could be prevented by the objection of a single Member of the House. That meant the taking away from Members of the entire control over a large portion of the Business of the country, and chiefly the foreign policy of the Government. In that Session they had had abundant examples of the manner in which the foreign policy of the Government was conducted. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had almost invariably declined to give any information in reply to the interrogatories addressed to him on the subject of Egypt. They had, therefore, this fact—that while Questions were the only means of getting information which was left to the House, they were absolutely futile unless they were accom-

    1381
    panied by the power of moving the adjournment of the House in case of an unsatisfactory answer. If the right of discussion on the Motion for Adjournment were abolished, it would be absolutely in the power of the Government to prevent any discussion of their foreign policy, either by refusing an opportunity or by the refusal of the materials. It was said that that House was being gradually reduced to the position of a Continental Assembly; but if that Resolution were carried, he submitted that they would be reducing it to a far lower level when they took out of the hands of Members this great and useful power of checking the Ministry when necessary. All that a Member of the French Assembly had to do in order to raise a debate upon foreign policy was to place a Notice of interpellation on the Table, and the Government were bound to find a day for its discussion. But under the proposed Rule no such opportunity of discussion would be afforded to this House.
    COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that the speech which he had made a short time ago furnished the strongest possible argument for the opposition to that Rule. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed a considerable amount of indignation, and had repudiated, with some warmth, the implied censure which had been cast against him by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) in charging him with having, on one occasion, moved the adjournment of the House. The right hon. Gentleman justified his action on the occasion in question by saying that it was in consequence of the Government of the day having announced a vital change in their policy with regard to a Bill which was then before the House. The right hon. Gentleman further said that the course he took was justified by the fact that he was followed by 18 other speakers. But the right hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that, if this Rule had then been in force, and if the Leader of the House (Mr. Disraeli) had used his majority as it was feared on the Conservative side of the House the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister might use his, the House might, upon the occasion in question, have denied to the right hon. Gentleman the right of moving the adjournment of
    1382
    the House, and he would not have been able to call attention to the change of policy which he accused the late Government of having made, and he would have had no opportunity of expressing his views upon it. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had given a very strong reason in favour of the question of adjournment being left as it was, or, at any rate, to the general feeling of the House at large. If a certain number of Members—he (Colonel Makins) was indifferent whether the number was fixed at 20, 40, 50, or 60—rose in their places in support of the Motion for Adjournment being made, it would afford a guarantee that a considerable section of the House were of opinion that there was a justification for moving the adjournment. But if it was in future to be in the power of the majority to put an end to a simple Motion for Adjournment, the rights of the minority would, in his opinion, be seriously jeopardized. He hoped the Government would be prepared to make some concession in the matter. He gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that they were prepared to consider in principle the Amendment proposed from their own side of the House by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), although they would not agree to the precise words on the Paper; and he hoped some Member of the Government would state distinctly how far their concession would go.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that a great many speeches had been made, including the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down (Colonel Makins), entirely in ignorance of the statement which had been made by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a short time ago. They all seemed to proceed from the assumption that the power of raising a debate at short notice, by moving the adjournment of the House, was to be abolished altogether. Now, Her Majesty's Government did not propose that at all; they only proposed to impose certain restrictions upon the use of the time of the House by Motions which, it was generally admitted, had been for some years, to a certain extent, abused. The Government, by the present Resolution, proposed to limit this right in a certain manner; but his right hon. Friend had stated some hours ago that, although he

    1383
    refused to accept the precise words, he was not indisposed to adopt in principle the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The Government were willing to accept the first words of the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock) (Lord Randolph Churchill)—
    "That no Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall be made until all the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of;"
    and having announced their willingness to accept that part of the Amendment, would it not meet the views of the House generally, and save a great deal of time, if they were to dispose of that part of the Amendment of the noble Lord, and then proceed to consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), which, in principle, the Government had already announced their intention of accepting? The debate hitherto seemed to have proceeded on the assumption that the power of moving the adjournment of the House was to be done away with altogether, or, at all events, that it was only to be exercised at the will of the majority. That was not so, and the Government had, a long time ago, announced their intention of accepting an Amendment which appeared to him to concede all that was desired by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    VISCOUNT SANDONsaid, the difficulty in which the House was placed was that they were unable to induce the Government really to tell them what they meant to do in regard to the Resolution. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had repeated again that the Government did not intend to hold by their original plan, and adhere to their original proposal for preventing Motions being made for the adjournment of the House. It was manifest that the first intention of the Government, in submitting the Resolution now upon the Paper, was to provide that no Motion for the Adjournment of the House should be carried without the assent of the majority. That appeared to him to be proved to demonstration. All the House had since obtained from the Government was a statement that they would be prepared to assent, somewhat in principle, although not in words, to the proposal of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Then, why should lot the Government be frank with the
    1384
    House on this occasion, and tell them what they meant to do—seeing the extreme anxiety manifested by the House upon the matter? He would remind the House of a difficulty which occurred upon this very subject in the year 1881—at the time of the disastrous negotiations about the French Treaty, and when the Chambers of Commerce and the commercial community of this country, with which he (Viscount Sandon) was closely connected, manifested—and, as events subsequently proved, justly—a great anxiety to know what the effect of the negotiations would be. At that time, Returns of various kinds were laid upon the Table of the House. The Prime Minister would probably recollect the case, which was one of great interest. The Returns had relation to Foreign Tariffs, and he (Viscount Sandon) suggested, at the time, that they should be placed upon the Table in English. But, instead of being presented in English, they were persistently placed upon the Table in the French language. It was in vain that he tried by the ordinary means, putting Questions to the Government, and by adopting other courses, to persuade the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to give these Returns, which the commercial community demanded, and were largely interested in, in English At last he was compelled to move the adjournment of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister considered the matter of so much importance that he answered the Motion himself, and replied in these words—
    "I make no complaint of the noble Viscount moving the adjournment of the House, because I think that, under the circumstances in which he stands, he having no other means of bringing forward the matter in any other way is perfectly right in taking that course."
    Now he (Viscount Sandon) ventured to say that that was a case in point. A Member of the House, who had been connected with a former Government asked that certain Returns, which were of great importance to the English commercial community which he represented, should be laid upon the Table in the English language. This reasonable request was refused. He tried by Question and Motion, and so on, to get these Returns in English, and he was persistently thwarted by the Minister of the day blocking his Motion, so that it

    1385
    could not be brought on after half-past 12 o'clock. The only means left him of bringing the matter before the House was by moving the adjournment of the House, and he had read the words of the Prime Minister, in which the right hon. Gentleman said that he was perfectly justified in taking that course, because he had no other means of obtaining his object. He thought that was a very good case in point. He was sorry that it was one in which he should have been personally concerned; but he regarded it as a matter of interest, and that they should all contribute their quota to the discussion, in elucidating the principle which should guide them in dealing with the Resolution.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he thought that as the debate proceeded, the greatest possible encouragement was given to hon. Members on that side of the House to continue the discussion. He had been present in the House throughout the night, and he had witnessed during the course of the evening the most remarkable development which the mind of Her Majesty's Government had undergone. In the early part of the evening, they had a speech from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt), who had probably now left the House to enjoy himself in evening attire. The right hon. Gentleman, in the most sarcastic tones he could command, supported the Rule as it stood, and spoke of those who had felt it their duty to move the adjournment of the House as "pushing patriots;" and he added that when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was brought forward, the Government would state the reasons which would prevent them from adopting it. Hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House were somewhat cast down by the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but still they persevered, and they were rewarded for their perseverance. Later on, the Prime Minister said the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton would receive consideration at the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and they would not pledge themselves not to be converted by the arguments which might be addressed to the House. That announcement raised the drooping hopes of the Opposition; and now the noble Marquess the
    1386
    Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) informed them that the Government were prepared to accept in principle the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, although they would not pledge themselves to the exact details. If Her Majesty's Government would now go a step farther and tell the House what it was they really meant to do, and what it was they really meant to accept, he thought they would be able to make much more rapid progress with the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had been good enough, in his speech, to describe the Motion for Adjournment as one which had been making continual inroads upon what he was pleased to call the Business of the House. But what was the Business of the House? The idea of Her Majesty's Government seemed to be that it was to pass the Government Bills and to vote the Government Supply; but there was a large part of the Business of the House which, no doubt, was not so pleasant to the Government, and probably they were fully prepared to forget it—and that was the Business of criticizing the conduct of the Executive Government—not only criticizing their policy on great matters, but criticizing the administration of the various Departments in the minutest details. If the Prime Minister would tell the House what proposals he intended to make for enabling the House to discharge that part of its duties so that hon. Members might not be deprived of a full opportunity of criticizing the administration of the Executive Government, then a considerable portion of their opposition to the further progress of this Rule would probably cease. But he should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the various powers and privileges which Members of the House had enjoyed for criticizing the conduct of the Government had been gradually taken away from them; and it was only by discovering fresh methods and fresh means of calling the Government to account that they had been able to do their duty. Up to the year 1861 there was a Motion made every Friday that the House at its rising should adjourn until the following Monday. That Motion was always, on that day, the first Business of the House; and upon that Motion it was the weekly custom and the weekly

    1387
    opportunity of the non-official Members of the House to bring forward any grievance against the Government of the day. That custom was done away with in 1861, and in substitution for it was introduced the present practice of putting down Supply as the first Order of the Day on Friday, with the avowed object of enabling Members, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, to bring forward these Motions. But that arrangement had this fatal defect—that the House had no power over the Motions to be brought forward. They were reduced to the necessity of resorting to the ballot; and any Member by gaining priority, by means of the ballot, could, introduce a Motion of comparatively little importance, and prevent much more important Motions from being brought forward at all. The result was that the House, when it met on a Friday, might have many important matters down on the Paper for discussion; but it was, as a rule, prevented from discussing anything beyond the first and second Motions which had secured priority by the ballot. There was another thing which the Government had done of late years—they had adopted the practice of not setting up Supply again, after the first Motion had been negatived. The consequence was that no further Amendment could be moved, and the Government now-a-days attempted to utilize Friday night by getting money in Supply, and the effect was to deprive private Members of the advantage they ought to possess of being able to bring forward matters in which they were interested on the Motion for Adjournment on Friday night. At present no one with any skill in Parliamentary tactics ever thought of putting down an important Motion for Friday. And here he would ask, what it was that gave rise to these repeated Motions for the Adjournment of the House? It was the failure of the old Motion for Adjournment on Friday, and the substitution of Supply as the first Order of the Day. It was in 1861 that the Motion for the Adjournment on Friday was abolished; and he found that, as early after its abolition as 1863, the number of extraneous Motions for the Adjournment of the House had risen to nine. If he recollected rightly, from 1863 down to the present year, 1882, the number of annual Motions for
    1388
    Adjournment had grown from 9 to 13. He thought it would be admitted by the House that these figures showed there had not been any very great growth of the so-called abuse of the Privileges of the House. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister tell the House what provision he intended to make for the discharge of that most important function of the House, the criticism of the administration of the Executive Government of the country in all its details? And then, in all probability, the Opposition would be prepared to allow the Resolution to go forward. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, unintentionally no doubt, had misunderstood the argument of his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). The right hon. Gentleman was extremely angry with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock for having mentioned the adjournment which he (Mr. Gladstone) himself had moved some years ago. That Motion, said the right hon. Gentleman, was a matter of absolute necessity. No one had attempted to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of having made an improper Motion. The simple object of the noble Lord was to show that an instrument which the right hon. Gentleman had himself found it necessary to use when the Conservative Government were in power was an instrument of warfare which ought not to be improperly got rid of. If the proposed Rule had been in existence the right hon. Gentleman could not have made that Motion in the manner in which he made it in the last Parliament; at least, he could not have made it without having, in the first instance, obtained the leave of Mr. Disraeli, who was then the Leader of the House with a majority at his back. He (Mr. Gorst) did not know enough of the circumstances of the case to know whether Mr. Disraeli would have given leave or not; but, if it had been a matter on which the majority of the House was disposed to use its power, the right hon. Gentleman would have had to go as a suppliant to Mr. Disraeli, and ask him to allow him to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of enabling him to attack the policy of the Government. Surely it was a far more proper position for the Leader of the Opposition to occupy, not to be

    1389
    placed in the humiliating position of having to go to the Leader of the House, and ask the leave of his political opponent, but to be able to get up, of his own free choice and from his own sense of right, challenge the policy of the Government and of the majority of the House. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstood the argument of his (Mr. Gorst's) noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) about the Government having taken up the time of the House. It was not a matter of dates, nor a question of particular days, but the broad fact which the noble Lord asserted; and although the right hon. Gentleman contradicted some of the noble Lord's dates and figures and criticized the form of his expressions, ho (Mr. Gorst) did not think the right hon. Gentleman would venture to contradict the broad fact referred to by the noble Lord—namely, that during the existence of the present Parliament Her Majesty's Government had taken more of the time of the House and had monopolized more of the time of Parliament than in any other Parliament which ever sat in modern times. The Government, therefore, ought not to be surprised if, when by so taking up the time of the House, they suppressed the opportunities of non-official Members, those non-official Members seized other opportunities in a legitimate manner, and made Motions for the adjournment of the House more frequently than formerly, in order to bring important questions under the notice of the House. He regretted that his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock had made use of the expression "Kilmainham Treaty." He (Mr. Gorst) imagined it was because his noble Friend was not in the House in the early part of the Session that he had made use of that unfortunate expression. He (Mr. Gorst) never spoke of "the Kilmanham Treaty." He always spoke of the "understanding" or the "alleged understanding" which had taken place between the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). The right hon. Gentleman thought that an imputation had been made against him. He (Mr. Gorst) did not impute to him the slightest wrong in the matter; but, nevertheless, he still wondered—he perpetually wondered
    1390
    from day to day—what that curious understanding was. And his wonder had been greatly increased that night by the speech of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), who spoke of a document which was completed before the hon. Member's return to England. Now, that was the first time the House had ever heard that there was a document, and he should like very much to know what it was. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consent, in the shape of an unopposed Return, to lay on the Table of the House a copy of the document, which was now said to have been completed. With regard to the observation of his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock about the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, he (Mr. Gorst) did not think that his noble Friend intended to make any attack upon the right hon. Gentleman in his absence, beyond stating that, of which there could be very little doubt, the right hon. Gentleman, in the answers he gave to the Questions addressed to him, was singularly provocative of Motions for Adjournment. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, he would not advert to that matter further. He would only say, in defence of his noble Friend, that what he intended to assert, and what in point of fact he did assert, was that the manner of the right hon. Gentleman was singularly unconciliatory. Before the House consented to part with the Amendment of his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock, which was an Amendment which would very much alter the present system of moving adjournments, he thought it should be clearly understood what the Government intended to substitute in place of the Resolution which already stood upon the Paper. The Amendment of his noble Friend was an Amendment which ought to meet the views of many Members of the House; because he (Mr. Gorst) had often heard it recommended by eminent Members of the House that they should first try the experiment of not allowing Motions for Adjournment to be made until the Questions had been first disposed of. Personally, he thought it would, be a very useful experiment to see whether the privilege, which had hitherto proved so useful, even in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself, would still find

    1391
    favour with the House in a modified form. He certainly thought that before they parted with the Amendment and committed themselves to the scheme of the Government, they ought to know what it was Her Majesty's Government intended to do, and precisely what course they intended to take in regard to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Indeed, he thought, as the usual hour for adjourning the debate had now been reached, that it would be a wise course for the House to adjourn, so that the Government might have an opportunity of thinking over the matter, and explaining their intentions when the House re-assembled to-morrow.
    MR. R. H. PAGETsaid, that, before the House went to a division, he should like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the position in which the matter stood. They had had it intimated to them by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) that Her Majesty's Government were not unwilling to accept the leading words of the Amendment now proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). Having had that intimation made to them, he wished to know what would be the effect of the division about to take place? The first Question which would be put by the Speaker from the Chair would be to leave out the words of the Resolution after the word "made." Was he to understand that Her Majesty's Government would assent to that as the first Question Mr. Speaker would put from the Chair, and that subsequently they would propose themselves to amend the noble Lord's proposed Amendment by substituting other words after the word "and?" He understood the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India virtually to intimate that to the House as the decision at which Her Majesty's Government had arrived; and it would be convenient, before they proceeded to a division, that there should be no mistake upon the point. If he was right in his reading of the statement made by the noble Marquess, there would be no objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the first Question which would be put from the Chair.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that perhaps the House would allow him to explain
    1392
    what it was that the Government proposed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had been good enough to point out that he thought an improvement might be effected in the drafting of the Resolution by bringing forward certain words which now appeared in the Resolution and dovetailing them in with the beginning of it, leaving the remaining part to stand distinct by itself as the concluding portion. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought the most convenient mode of raising the question would be this. He would propose to amend the Amendment of the noble Lord now before the House by leaving out the latter part of the words which the noble Lord proposed. Therefore, with the permission of the House, he would submit an Amendment in this way. The noble Lord proposed, after the word "made," to insert the words—
    "Until all the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of; and, if such Motion be decided in the negative, no other such Motion shall be made until the Orders of the Day have been entered upon."
    He proposed to retain all the words down to the word "and," exactly as had been suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin; and after the word "and," he proposed to put in the words, "and no such Motion shall be made." If hon. Members would read that Amendment in connection with the Resolution, they would see that it met the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He would, therefore, move to amend the Amendment in the way he had proposed.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he failed to see how the Resolution, as proposed to be amended by the Prime Minister, would work.
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, by leaving out all the words after the word "and," to the end of the proposed Amendment, in order to add the words "no such Motion shall be made,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said proposed Amendment."
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked how the Resolution would read if the words of the right hon. Gentleman were

    1393
    adopted amending the words of his noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)?
    MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that, if his Amendment were adopted, the Resolution would run thus—
    "That no Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall be made until all the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of, and no such Motion shall he made before the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion have been entered upon, except by leave of the House."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that, as far as he could make out, the adoption of the alteration suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would make very little difference.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he rose, with great submission, for the purpose of suggesting a course to the Prime Minister, which he thought would tend to simplify the matter very much, and would probably end the discussion at once. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) had given an intimation that the Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and, by slightly altering the words of the Prime Minister, the Resolution might be made to read in this way—"That no Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall be made"—those being the first words of the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)—"until all the Questions on the Notice Paper shall have been disposed of." He (Mr. Warton) would strikeout the words "shall have been disposed of," and insert in their place the words "and shall not then be made, unless demanded by 40 Members rising in their places." That would very much simplify the whole matter, and carry out the intentions of the Government in regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. ["Oh, oh!"]
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 113: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 365.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'no such Motion shall be made,' be there added."
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he thought the time had now arrived
    1394
    when the House should adjourn, and he would therefore move that the debate be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff.)
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was quite prepared to consent to the adjournment if the House would, in the first instance, adopt the Amendment he had submitted.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he had no desire to present himself obtrusively upon the House, after the howls with which he been received from the Liberal Benches. He understood the Government to say that they would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), which would make the Resolution read thus—
    "That no Motion for the Adjournment of the House shall be made until all the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of, and no such Motion shall be made before the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion have been entered upon except by leave of the House; the granting of such leave, if disputed, being determined upon Question put forthwith; but no division shall be taken thereupon."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government had never committed themselves, except that he had said they were quite ready to discuss the principle of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). They maintained their own views; but if there was a general desire on the part of the House, then they were quite open to proceed upon the principle of that Amendment.
    COLONEL MAKINSexpressed a hope that, in deference to what the right hon. Gentleman had said, the House would not only be ready to discuss that principle, but to discuss it that evening and settle it.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question, "That the words 'no such Motion shall be made' be there added," put, and agreed to.
    Question, "That the words 'until all the Questions on the Notice Paper have been disposed of, and no such Motion shall be made,'—(Mr. Gladstone,)—be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, proposed.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
Their Lordships met this day at Eleven of the clock for the despatch of Judicial Business only.
House adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.