Sitting of 16 November 1882

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For University of Cambridge, v. Right Hon Spencer Horatio Walpole, Manor of Northstead; for Preston, v. Right Hon. Henry Cecil Raikes, Chiltern Hundreds.
QUESTIONS.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CORONERS, COUNTY GALWAY.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, although the grand juries are bound by 44 and 45 Vict. c. 35, sub-section 3, to pay the salaries of coroners half-yearly, the Treasurer of County Galway has refused to pay Mr. Coroner Lynch accordingly; and, if he will give instructions to put a stop to the practice by which
  1530
  salaries of coroners presented for at one assize have payment deferred until the next?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There are four Coroners in the County Galway. They are all paid at the same time—namely, at the Assizes following that at which the presentment is made for their salaries. There are no funds in the County Treasurer's hands to pay presentments made at the last Assizes until the cess has been collected and lodged to the credit of the county.

  EGYPT—EMPLOYMENT OF HER MAJESTY'S FORCES.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, To be so good as to inform the House what are the numbers and proportions of sick in the different branches of the Army of Occupation in Egypt according to the latest returns; and, whether any steps are in contemplation with a view to the better accommodation of the troops?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to say that the present percentages of sick in the Army of Egypt are—for the Infantry, 7; for the Artillery, 11; and for the Cavalry, 15 per cent. The percentages are rapidly decreasing, as the sickly season has come to an end. General Sir Andrew Clarke, the Inspector General of Fortifications and Director of Works, went to Egypt a week ago to inquire whether any improvements in the barrack and hospital arrangements are desirable. In the meanwhile, no expenditure on these services has been spared to put the buildings in a fit state.

  ARMY—THE ARMY VETERINARY DEPARTMENT.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can now state, in conformity with a promise made on the 16th of March last, what decision has been arrived at with regard to the re-adjustment of relative rank and retiring pay of the Officers of the Army Veterinary Department?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that this question, as well as others affecting the Estimates of next year, have been before me; but I do not think it expedient to anticipate what will be seen in those Estimates.

  THE CONSTABULARY (IRELAND)— "FREE FORCE" OF ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY TIPPERARY.
  MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, by Order in Council of 27th July 1882, the Free Force of Royal Irish Constabulary, stationed in the county Tipperary, South Biding, was reduced by one hundred men, the same number being forthwith added to the Auxiliary or Extra Police Force, thus, by a stroke of the pen, throwing an increased burthen of taxation on the district of some £4,000 a year; what was the reason of this sudden change; and, whether the magistrates or ratepayers of the district were consulted as to its propriety?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Free Force in the South Riding in the County Tipperary was reduced by 100 men by Order in Council of the 27th of July last, and by Warrant, dated August 4, 100 men were appointed as extra force under the Act 6 Will. IV. c. 13, s. 13, thereby increasing the local taxation of the county by a yearly sum not exceeding £3,446 5s. When I say "not exceeding," I am not to be understood as considering the sum a small one. The reason for the change was, that before the re-distribution of the Free Force, made on July 27, the South Riding of Tipperary had 176 men of the Free Force more than its proper proportion, comparing its area and population with other counties and ridings in Ireland. The change cannot be said to have been sudden, as a re-distribution of the Free Force is only possible and legal every fifth year. This quinquennial re-distribution is not a matter for the consideration of the magistrates and ratepayers. It is a question of justice between one county and another, and the loss which Tipperary has suffered is compensated by the gain of other counties which had not their proper proportion before.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—BICYCLES IN RICHMOND PARK.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, having allowed hack cabs to pass through Richmond Park, he will extend a like privilege to bicycles and tri-cycles?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The use of bicycles and tricycles is forbidden by the Regulations laid down under the Parks Regulation Act in the Royal Parks. As it is very generally believed that they are a source of danger to riders and drivers, I have not thought it well to propose any change in the existing Regulations.

  ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  Sir TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for War, Why the name of Surgeon General Hanbury, commanding the Medical Branch of the Egyptian Expedition, was omitted from the Parliamentary Vote of Thanks to the General Officers and others of the Expedition; whether Surgeon General Hanbury does not hold the relative rank of Major General, and is of the same rank as the other Major Generals whose distinguished services were specially acknowledged in the despatches of the General, the Commander in Chief of the Expedition; and, why the names of Deputy Surgeon General Colvin Smith, and the Medical Officers of the Indian Contingent, were omitted from the despatches recommending the promotion of Medical Officers, in the last despatch of the General Commanding in Chief?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the first Question of the hon. Baronet, I have to say, speaking for the First Lord of the Treasury and the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, with myself, were responsible for the language of the Vote of Thanks, that we followed the precedents, according to which it is not usual to name Departmental officers, and I see no reason for enlarging the already long lists of names embodied on these occasions. In reply to the second Question, it is true that Surgeon General Hanbury does hold the relative rank of Major General; as to the third Question, it is not for me to ask the Commander-in-Chief of an Army why he either excludes or includes in his despatches the names of particular officers; but, as a matter of fact, Sir Garnet Wolseley wrote a supplementary despatch, which will appear in to-morrow's Gazette, and in which I observe the name of Deputy Surgeon General Colvin Smith.

  METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—HYDE PARK CORNER.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, as it has been found impracticable to remove the Arch at the top of Constitution Hill bodily, as originally intended, and as it is now decided to take down the Wellington Statue, and pull down the Arch, and reconstruct the same on a new site, he can state the cost of such removal and reconstruction; and, whether he will not consider the advisability (by a slight modification of the original plan) of allowing the Arch to remain in its present position, and place some handsome gates at the entrance to Constitution Hill, and thereby save an outlay of nearly £20,000?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: My hon. Friend, in the second part of his Question, has greatly over-estimated the cost of the operation of pulling down and reconstructing the Wellington Arch. The contract price for the whole improvements, including the levelling of the ground and making the new roads, is under the estimate I stated to the House in May last. It is £24,000, of which between £10,000 and £12,000 is the cost of pulling down and rebuilding the Arch. I stated in the discussion on the Vote of £3,000 that the removal of the Arch from its present position to the new place indicated in the model is an essential part of the scheme, and that I could not be responsible for the improvement unless this were agreed to. I cannot, therefore, now make any change.
  MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEasked if the Estimate included the expense of a new pedestal for the statue?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREreplied, that it did not, because it was possible that the old pedestal would do for the statue in its new position.

  EXPLOSIVES ACT, 1875—EXPLOSION OF DYNAMITE AT BURY PORT, CARMARTHENSHIRE.
  SIR JOHN JENKINSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware of the fact that about 300 tons of dynamite is stored in one room at Bury Port, Carmarthenshire, within a comparatively short distance of the shipping in the Port and of
  1534
  large works where hundreds of workmen are employed; whether an explosion of waste dynamite took place there on Saturday last; and, if he will cause inquiries to be made as to the above facts and as to the precautions (if any) taken to prevent serious accidents?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that inquiries had been made, and he had received a Report, which was too long to read to the House; but he would be happy to show it to his hon. Friend.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. MANSFIELD, R.M.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Mansfield, lately E.M. in the county Galway, has been ordered to give up his official papers to another resident magistrate, and been relieved from his duties within the past week; whether this is in consequence of his having arrested Matthew Harris, lately imprisoned as a suspect and organiser of the Land League, for seditious speaking at a public meeting; and, whether Mr. Mansfield's action is to be rewarded by temporary or permanent suspension?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The want of discretion exhibited by Captain Mansfield on the occasion of the arrest of Mr. Matthew Harris was, in the opinion of the Irish Government, such as to call for disapproval. Captain Mansfield has therefore been relieved of his duties in the Portumna district, and will shortly be appointed to another district.

  NAVY—THE ROYAL MARINES.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, considering the qualities shown by officers commanding the Royal Marines on land service, he will consider of securing to this arm of the Services a share hitherto denied of the higher commands and appointments; whether, out of the number of their officers who have passed through the Staff College with credit and honour, any have ever been employed on the Staff, or during many years been placed on any Committee for the consideration of Naval or Military matters; and, with whom does the power rest to set this right, whether with the Admiralty, the War Office, or the Horse Guards?
  MR. CHILDERS: My hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) has asked me to answer this Question. No one has a higher opinion of the Royal Marines than myself, and that opinion is derived, not only from what has come before me at the "War Office, but from my former experience as First Lord of the Admiralty. Last year I authorized the employment of Marine officers on the personal Staff of general officers, who are responsible for these selections; but the difficulty of employing Marine officers on the general Staff of the Army or military officers, which would be the necessary corollary, on the Marine Staff arises out of the circumstance that the War Department keeps no records, and the Commander-in-Chief has, therefore, no knowledge of the services and qualifications of Marine officers, and similarly the Board of Admiralty keep no records and have no knowledge of the services and qualifications of officers of the Army. The question, however, is one which I will consider with His Royal Highness and the Admiralty. Perhaps, as to the last Question, I ought to say that there is now no separate Department of the Horse Guards, and that I presume my hon. Friend means the Military Department of the War Office.
  MR. GORSTasked if the communications on the subject of the Marines which were going on between the War Office and the Admiralty were extending to the consideration of whether the Marine Force might be brought entirely under the War Office?
  MR. CHILDERSreplied, that he had not said that communications were going on. What he said was, that he would consult the Board of Admiralty, together with the Commander-in-Chief, on this particular point. He had never heard before of the suggestion of putting the Marines under the War Office, and he should not be very well disposed to entertain it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it was a question worthy of consideration, he should be happy to listen to any argument that might be privately addressed to him.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—CLONMEL POST OFFICE.
  MR. MOOREasked the Postmaster General, What steps, if any, have been taken to secure a Bite for a new Post
  1536
  Office in Clonmel suitable to the requirements of the town and district?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, the question of providing a new site for the Post Office at Clonmel was now under consideration. He hoped it would be decided in a few days.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT—CASE OF ANTHONY GALEAGHER.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that General Tisdal, investigator under the Arrears Act, heard a case at Tubbercurry, county Sligo, on Friday last, in which a tenant named Anthony Galeagher, claiming the benefit of the Act, and holding a tenancy the rents of which were payable every March and September, produced receipts dated 23rd May 1881 and 20th February 1882, each for a half year's rent, and claimed that these payments should be held to be in satisfaction for the rent of 1881, but the investigator, upon the statement of the agent, that the March rent was not called in until September, and therefore that rent paid before September 1881 could not satisfy the March gale, decided that there was upon the estate what he termed "a five months' hanging gale;" whether this decision is contrary to the instructions issued by the Land Commission to the investigators, and whether a gale "hanging" for a term less than a half year falls under the provisions of the Act; or, if so, whether it is open to an investigator to declare that a "hanging gale" exists in every case in which the rent is not called in upon the precise day on which it accrues due; whether General Tisdal, in the case in question, heard the tenant's evidence upon oath, but took the evidence of the agent without swearing him, and did not cause the oath to be administered to him until a clergyman informed him that public opinion would be brought to bear upon his conduct; who recommended General Tisdal for the office of investigator, and what his qualifications are; and, whether notice will be taken of his ruling in the case of Anthony Galeagher, and his omission to administer the oath impartially to witnesses before him?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This Question has been referred by the Land Commissioners to General Tisdal for report with

  1537
  regard to the decision referred to; but his reply has not yet reached me. The Land Commissioners inform me that they appointed General Tisdal an investigator on their personal knowledge of his fitness for the office. According to the Treasury Regulations, persons who have been officers in the Army or Navy are among those qualified to act as investigators.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT—"INVESTIGATORS."
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, considering his recent statement that the investigators in Ireland under the Crime Prevention Act have the same power as justices in petty sessions to hear solicitors, as well as counsel, in cases heard before them, and considering that Mr. David Lynch, barrister, Investigator under the Crime Prevention Act, recently refused to hear solicitors at Tralee, and persisted in his refusal, Whether, in view of another session of the investigating court at Tralee, presided over by Mr. David Lynch, and the difficulty and cost of procuring counsel in a place so remote as Tralee, the Irish Executive will convey to Mr. Lynch a direct official intimation that he has the power to hear solicitors, and that it is desirable in the public interest he should allow the option, when application is made to him to do so?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The question of hearing solicitors is one which is left to the discretion of the investigator, and no official communication with Mr. Lynch on the subject appears to me to be necessary, or, indeed, appropriate. I can hardly doubt that Mr. Lynch is aware of the legal opinion quoted by the hon. Member in favour of hearing solicitors.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF A GUARDIAN, SLIGO UNION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, as the result of several months of Correspondence with the Irish Local Government Board, Major Spaight, one of their Inspectors, held an inquiry, on the 2nd of last month, into the validity of the return of Mr. Hunter, a Guardian of the Poor for the Lakeview Division of the Sligo
  1538
  Union, in the month of March last; whether the returning officer of the Sligo Union declared Mr. Hunter elected by a majority of seven votes, and whether the Local Government Board decided, upon the Report of their inspector, that Mr. Hunter was in a minority, and there had been a majority of five valid votes on the side of Mr. M'Dermott; but, nevertheless, the Local Government Board did not declare Mr. M'Dermott to be the elected Guardian, but declared that an order for a new election would be issued; and, whether steps will be taken to withdraw the Board's letter of the 2nd instant, to the clerk and returning officer of the Sligo Union, and to declare Mr. Mathew M'Dermott the elected Guardian for the Lakeview Division?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Since the inquiry referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, Mr. Hunter has furnished to the Local Government Board some additional information, with which he was not prepared at the inquiry, with regard to six votes which it had been proposed to deduct from the number recorded for him. On testing the information thus received the Local Government Board found that the six votes in question were valid votes and ought not to have been deducted. He consequently retains a majority of votes, and the Board's instructions for a new election have been withdrawn.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—FAIR RENTS.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Land Commissioners have recently made a rule which provides that agreements for fixing fair rents shall be under the hands of the landlord and tenant; whether they have held that, in the case of the landlords being Corporations, the agreement should be under the seal of the Companies; and, whether, having regard to the inconvenience, expense, and delay that may thus be caused in the case of Companies or Corporations resident in England, it is likely that any modification will be introduced in the rule?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Land Commissioners have decided that in order to comply with the provisions of Section 8, Sub-section 6, of the Land Law Act, it is necessary that agreements for fair

  1539
  rents entered into under that sub-section must be signed by the landlord himself. In the case of the landlords being Corporations, an agreement must bear the seal of the Corporation. The Commissioners do not consider they have any power to dispense with this requirement. The necessity for it arises, not out of any rule made by them, but out of the terms of the Statute. The Commissioners do not object, where it would be impracticable or highly inconvenient to obtain the signature of the landlord to every agreement, to allow agreements to be scheduled, and to accept as sufficient the landlord's signature to the schedule, and there is no objection to the same course being followed by a Corporation affixing its seal.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—ATTEMPT ON MR. JUSTICE LAWSON—PATRICK DELANY.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the antecedents of the man Patrick Delany, and the circumstances under which he has been arrested on a charge of attempting to shoot Mr. Justice Lawson, Whether he will direct a medical examination as to the mental condition of the prisoner.
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have no intention of interfering in a matter already fully provided for by law.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—HEAD CONSTABLES.
  MR. J. W. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the fact that the head constables who were in charge at Wicklow, Arklow, and Baltinglass during the agitation for the reform of the Land Laws are all Roman Catholics; whether he is aware that they have been removed within the last twelve months to less important stations; and, whether he can state on what grounds they were thus dealt with?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Within the past 12 months the head constables who were in charge of the stations at Wicklow and Arklow, and who are Roman Catholics, were transferred to other stations, and have been replaced by head constables, who are likewise Roman Catholics. For some years past there has been no head above referred to were transferred to constable at Baltinglass. Both the men
  1540
  the vacant stations considered most suitable for them. Their transfer to other stations was carried out for the good of the service.

  EGYPT—ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION.
  MR. BIGGAE (for Mr. O'KELLY)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has been or is likely to be consulted by the Khedive in the reorganization of the Egyptian Army; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will inquire into the circumstances attending Baker Pasha's departure from Constantinople before consenting to his appointment as commanding officer of the Egyptian Army.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I have already stated in the House that Her Majesty's Government have been, and will be, consulted by the Khedive in the reorganization of the Egyptian Army; and I have also stated on a previous occasion that Her Majesty's Government are not concerned with any circumstances that may have attended Baker Pasha's departure from Constantinople; but they are not aware that it is the intention of the Khedive to make him Commander-in-Chief.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—DECREES FOR RENT.
  MR. LEWISasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether Mr. Waters, Chairman of the county Leitrim, did, at the October Quarter Sessions at Manorhamilton, on the application of defendants, stay execution on a large number of decrees for rent granted by him at the previous April and June Sessions, which were already in the hands of the sheriff, and some of which were partially executed; if he will state to the House under what statute a County Court Judge can stay decrees granted by him at previous sessions, after such decrees have passed into the hands of the sheriff for execution; and, whether, by such action, Mr. Waters has exceeded the powers conferred upon him by statute?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER),in reply, said, that Mr. Waters had been communicated with, and had replied that as the cases referred to in the Question were judicial decisions made by him as County Court

  1541
  Judge in Leitrim, he must respectfully decline to explain or justify them.

  SCIENCE AND ART—THE NATIONAL GALLERY—INSUFFICIENT SPACE.
  MR. CAINEasked the Chief Commissioner of Works, If his attention has been called to the crowded state of the National Gallery and to the objections raised to the exhibition of pictures on screens as at present; if he will be prepared to bring forward a plan next Session for increased exhibition space; and, whether such plan, before being adopted, will be submitted for the consideration and approval of the Director and Trustees?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: An applica- has been made by the Trustees of the National Gallery for increased space for the exhibitions of their pictures, and it will be considered before the preparation of next year's Estimates. I may remind my hon. Friend that the Secretary to the Treasury intends to introduce a measure to enable the Trustees to lend or dispose of some of these superfluous pictures, and this might have some bearing on the requirements of space.

  ARMY (INDIA)—QUARTERMASTERS.
  COLONEL ALEXANDERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can now state the decision of the Government of India on the subject of Pay and Allowances of Quartermasters of the British Army serving in India and holding the rank of Captain?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The Indian pay proper of Quartermasters of the British Army serving in India and holding the rank of Captain remains unaltered; but, on the recommendation of the Government of India, I have sanctioned the difference between the Indian allowances of a Lieutenant and those of a Captain being given to Quartermasters of 10 years' service and upwards who, under the operation of Royal Warrant of the 25th of June, 1881, have the relative rank of Captain. These additional allowances involve an immediate extra charge of nearly 12,000 rupees yearly on Indian revenues. I have also sanctioned the application to the Quartermasters of the provisions of the Royal Warrant laying down the period of commissioned service qualifying for increased pay.

  RAILWAYS (METROPOLIS)—WORK MEN'S TRAINS.
  MR. FIRTHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has further considered the question of the circumstances under which the Metropolitan Railways run workmen's trains; and, whether he will take means to ascertain whether the provisions and intention of the various Acts of Parliament under which such trains are run are now carried into effect by the Metropolitan Companies?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, his hon. Friend had asked a Question on that subject a few days ago, and he was then obliged to confess that he had no information regarding it. But since then he had received several letters making complaints against the way in which that service was conducted; and, as the matter seemed to him to be of considerable importance, he had thought it well that a full inquiry should be instituted into it, and he had accordingly ordered an official investigation to be made, the result of which he hoped to lay on the Table, giving the statutory obligations of all the Companies in respect to that Question, and stating how far they were carried out, both in the letter and in the spirit.

  INDIA (TRADE AND COMMERCE)—IRONWORKS.
  MR. CAINEasked the Secretary of State for India, If there is any truth in the statement made by the Indian Correspondent of the "Economist" in the issue of November 11th, that Mr. Hope, the Minister of Public Works in India, has invited capitalists to come forward to establish ironworks in the Punjab and other districts of India, under the guarantee that the great Purchasing Department of Public Works will order a certain fixed weight of iron and steel every year for ten years; and, if so, will this order be given irrespective of the price at which equal quality of iron and steel can be purchased in the open market from other non-producing countries?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Certain proposals of the nature to which the hon. Member refers were made in Resolutions of the Government of India of the 4th of August and of the 1st of September last, which were submitted for my consideration. I have informed,

  1543
  the Government of India that an engagement on their part to take fixed quantities of iron and steel at fixed prices annually for a term of years is, in my opinion, open to serious objection.

  THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE—THE CEREMONY OF OPENING.
  MR. M'LARENasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can give the House any information as to the ceremony of opening the Royal Courts of Justice; and, whether he will direct that sufficient accommodation shall be provided for Members of the Bar who may desire to witness the proceedings?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The ceremony of opening the Royal Courts of Justice will take place on the 2nd of December, at 12 o'clock. I have reason to hope that Her Majesty will be able to open her Courts in person. Every endeavour will be made, so far as the available space permits, to admit, on the occasion, an adequate representation of the various branches of the Legal Profession; and I shall communicate on the subject in a few days with the Inns of Court and with the Incorporated Law Society. I may take this opportunity of stating that it will be impossible to be so free in the distribution of tickets to Members of Parliament as on the occasion of the parade at the Horse Guards. It will not be possible to appropriate to them more than 150 places in the large Hall. Of these 50 will be for ladies. I propose, then, that Members desiring to attend shall ballot for these places, and that the first 50 shall receive a lady's ticket in addition to their own. The Members' tickets will not be transferable, and as Her Majesty will open the Courts in State, Members will be expected to appear in leée dress.
  MR. J. R. YORKE: In what costume will ladies be expected to appear?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: In morning dress.
  MR. M'LARENasked what provision would be made for members of the Junior Bar?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he could not, at present, state how many of the Junior Bar would be admitted. Of course, all Queen's Counsel would be invited, and there would be an adequate representation of the Junior Bar.

  MADAGASCAR—NUMBER OF BRITISH SUBJECTS COMPARED WITH THOSE OF FRANCE.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can give the House any information as to the number of British subjects resident in Madagascar compared with those of France, and, also, as to the total value of British trade (including that done between the above named island and the Mauritius), compared with the total value of French trade with Madagascar?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am unable to give the relative proportion of British and French subjects resident in Madagascar; but at the close of 1879 Her Majesty's Consul stated that the foreign community amounted to 250 persons. No statistics exist as to the exact value of British and French trade respectively, as, independently of the direct trade with England and the local trade with Mauritius, there is one of importance carried on with Natal and the Cape Colony, and also between the West Coast of the Island and India and England, viâ Zanzibar.
  DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any official information concerning the mission of the Malagasy Ambassadors to Europe; and, whether he has any reason to believe that they desire to visit London in order to solicit the good offices of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to the settlement of the differences between them and the Government of France?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: When the Ambassadors left Madagascar Her Majesty's Government were informed that it was their intention to visit London and Berlin; but as yet we have received no notice of their leaving Paris with that object.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—FAIR RENTS.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, previous to the discussion upon the subject of Court Valuers in Ireland, Returns will be laid upon the Table of the House showing the number and amount of fair rents fixed in each county and province since the above-mentioned Valuers were first

  1545
  attached to the Sub - Commissioners' Courts?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I expect next week to be able to present a Return giving the information asked for by the hon. Member up to the end of October.

  SPAIN—INTERNATIONAL LAW—SURRENDER OF CUBAN REFUGEES.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether General Maceo, when expelled from Gibraltar, was accompanied by his wife; and, whether both he and his wife were marched out of the British lines by police officers?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Till we receive from Gibraltar the Report of the Court of Inquiry that has been sitting—and we expect it daily—I can give no further detailed information. We have no official information as to who, besides the three refugees, composed the party that was carried across the British lines. We only know that they were seven in number in all. As to the term "marched out," contained in the Question, the party were not marched, but conveyed in carriages to their destination.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: By the police, I understand.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—PATRICK WALSH, CONVICTED OF MURDER—IRREGULARITY OF SENTENCE.
  MR. ARTHUR COHENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Return moved for by the honourable Member for Sligo, Whether, and, if so, in what manner, the report of the shorthand writer employed by the Crown is an official record of the sentence passed upon Patrick Walsh, convicted of murder at the Dublin Commission on the 22nd August last?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the shorthand writer's Report referred to in this Question, a copy of which has been presented to the House on the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), is not in any sense an official record of the sentence passed upon the prisoner Patrick Walsh. The entry of a judgment and sentence in the Crown Book is, in law, the record of the proceedings of the Court. It is conclusive as to what those proceedings were, and cannot be questioned or impugned by any
  1546
  other evidence. In the present case the shorthand writer's note is not only without authority, but, in fact, appears to be incorrect, as it omits the words usual in cases of capital convictions, which prescribe the mode of execution; which words were, in fact, used by the learned Judge in passing sentence. My reasons for supposing that the words were, in fact, used by the Judge are because that part of the sentence was not delivered extempore, but was read by the Judge from a manuscript. I am informed that this is usually done by the Judge in passing sentence of death. After delivering sentence the learned Judge handed down his manuscript to the Clerk of the Crown, who thereupon made the official entry of the sentence in the Crown Book. The Clerk of the Crown and his assistant, from their position in Court, had the best opportunity of hearing the sentence. They agree in saying that they observed no departure from the settled form of words in use on such occasions. The omission from the shorthand writer's note was apparently caused by the fact that the learned Judge read the sentence in a low tone of voice, and that there was some excitement and noise in Court owing to the exclamations of the prisoner.
  MR. CALLANasked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware whether the shorthand writer employed on the occasion was not a reporter attached to The Daily Express, the local Conservative organ, and whether he was not corroborated by the other reporters who were present for The Freeman's Journal and Irish Times?
  MR. SEXTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say whether he was aware that it had been testified before the Select Committee of the House that all the reporters present united in their testimony that the words specifying the mode of execution was not used by the Judge.
  [No answer was given to these Questions.]

  ARMY—"THE SOLDIER'S POCKET BOOK"—FLAGS OF TRUCE.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to the "Soldier's Pocket Book" (fourth revised edition), by Lieutenant General Sir Garnet Wolseley, at pages 285 and

  1547
  286, where it is stated that "one of the objects of the mission" of the bearer of a flag of truce may be
  "To gain time—say during an action, to allow of reinforcements arriving—when, of course, the longer he can postpone the resumption of hostilities the better;"
  and where it is recommended
  "Never for one moment suspend any movement or operation you may be engaged in because the enemy has sent a flag of truce; as his object may be to gain time for the arrival of reinforcements, or for the execution of some flank or turning operation;"
  and, whether he has authorised these doctrines in the British Army?
  MR. CHILDERS: The hon. Member refers me to a book which, although the composition of a most distinguished soldier, has no official character whatever. I must decline to include in my duties as Minister of War that of interpreting for the benefit of the House of Commons passages in military books, whether of the present date or composed at former periods. But out of courtesy to the hon. Gentleman I may add that I have read the passage with the context, and that so far as I can judge from the Question I do not draw from it the conclusion arrived by the hon. Member.

  RIVERS CONSERVANCY BILL—THE RECENT FLOODS—WISBECH AND LYNN.
  MR. PEELasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the great damage done by recent floods, to the serious jeopardy, for instance, in which the whole tract of country between Wisbech and Lynn has been placed, and, generally, to the state of the rivers in many counties; and, whether he is able to give any assurance that the Government will next Session re-introduce and press forward a Rivers Conservancy Bill?
  SIR ARTHUR OTWAYasked if the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to a letter from Mr. Roche Smith in reference to the condition of the town of Strood, which was constantly overflowed by the River Medway, causing not only great damage to property, but much sickness in the town?
  MR. DODSON: My attention has been called to the disastrous effects of the inundations in the tract of country between Wisbech and Lynn, and I am
  1548
  also aware of the mischief done by the recent floods throughout the country, including the case of Strood. I still continue desirous to enable the inhabitants of river basins to take measures to protect themselves against such evils by means of powers conferred on them by Act of Parliament; and I cannot now undertake, in regard to this, any more than to any other subject, to give any assurance on the part of the Government as to the course they will be able to take with regard to a Bill next Session.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—THE REPORT.
  MR. LEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How it is the Report of the Irish Land Commission has been reviewed in the newspapers, but no copies have been delivered to Members?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, the Report of the Land Commissioners was presented by command on the 9th instant, and a copy was available for any hon. Member who wished to refer to it. It was possible that the Report could have got into the newspapers through the intervention of hon. Members; but he saw a correspondence in the Irish papers—or, at all events, he saw a letter from the Secretary to the Irish Land Commission—by which it would appear that possibly it might have been by their means it was made public. He (Mr. Trevelyan) did not pass any criticism upon their action in such a case; but he was bound to say that since he had been in the Irish Office, or during the time he had been in the Admiralty, he never communicated a Paper of any sort, or the substance of any Paper to the Press. The Stationery Department was alone responsible for the delay in delivering copies to Members, and he would make representations to the Department after what had occurred.
  MR. SEXTONasked how soon would the copies be delivered?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will ascertain that.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—HONOURS AND REWARDS—VETERINARY DEPARTMENT.
  MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, If there is any reason for excluding officers of the Veterinary De-

  1549
  partment from receiving at the hands of Her Majesty the docorations to be given at the Royal Review on Saturday next to every other branch of the Service serving in the late Egyptian campaign?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that I entirely fail to understand his Question. I am not aware that Her Majesty contemplates giving any decoration at the approaching Review; nor am I aware of any intention to exclude the Veterinary Department from any distinctions of medals or decorations which Her Majesty may be pleased personally to make.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—GRANT TO THE FORCES EMPLOYED.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose a grant of money as a gratuity, in lieu of prize money, to Her Majesty's Naval, Military, and Indian Forces lately employed in Egypt, as was done in the case of the Forces employed at Algiers (1816), Navarino (1827), and Acre (1840)?
  MR. GORSTalso asked whether the attention of the Government has been called to the precedents of the grants after the Abyssinian War of some months' batta to the troops engaged, and of the grant after the Ashantee War of a month's pay to the Seamen of the Royal Navy who took part in the War?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; these Questions relate to a matter of very considerable importance in which four Departments are concerned, and therefore the case is a very complicated one. Three of these Departments are in communication with the Treasury upon the subject, and I will communicate the result as soon as they let me know.
  MR. ONSLOW: Will a portion of the money be paid out of the Indian Exchequer?
  MR. GLADSTONE: That will be part of the result to be known.

  EGYPT—MURDER OF PROFESSOR PALMER, CAPTAIN GILL, LIEUTENANT CHARRINGTON, AND OTHERS—PUNISHMENT OF THE MURDERERS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will state what steps have been taken to
  1550
  punish the murderers of Professor Palmer, Captain Gill, R.E., and Lieutenant Charrington, R.N.?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It would be, Sir, perhaps, premature if I were to attempt to answer literally the Question of the right hon. Gentleman as to what steps have been taken to punish these murderers. Of course, our first duty is to lay hold upon them, and upon all of them, if we can. I do not think that there will be any great difficulty connected with deciding the ulterior question; hut I may read a telegram containing the latest information in the possession of the Government. A telegram was received yesterday from Colonel Warren, who has been engaged in investigating the circumstances of the murder; and it is only right to say that he has performed that task, as far as we are enabled at present to judge, with great ability and judgment, as well as energy. His language before was, that he hoped to secure "some" of them; and his statement now is, that he is "very hopeful of securing most of the principal culprits."
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid he would repeat his Question on another day, when possibly the Government would be in a position to give some more definite information.

  EGYPT—THE SOUDAN.
  MR. O'KELLYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Soudan continues to form an integral part of Egypt; and, if so, whether it comes within the sphere of the military and political operations undertaken by Her Majesty's Government to support the authority of the Khedive; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will consent to the despatch of Turkish Troops to restore order in the Soudan?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think this Question would be best answered by a series of negatives. I am not aware in what sense it can be stated that the Soudan forms an integral part of Egypt. It has been a recent conquest, and has been held in political and military connection with Egypt; but I cannot undertake to declare whether it is an integral part of that country or not. It has not fallen within the sphere of the military or political operations undertaken by Her Majesty's Government; and we are not aware that there is any

  1551
  question of the despatch of Turkish troops to restore order in the Soudan.

  EGYPT—ARABI PASHA.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to a letter published in the "Times" of the 14th, purporting to be written by Arabi Pasha, in which he states that his action was
  "Consonant to a solemn decree of a Council under the Presidency of the Khedive and Dervish Pasha, the envoy of the Sultan;"
  and, if this assertion is substantiated, whether Her Majesty's Government will use their influence to procure his immediate release?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member calls my attention to a letter which was published in The Times of the 14th, which purported to come from Arabi Pasha, and in which a certain allegation on his part was contained. We are not able to say whether this is a genuine letter or not; and I am bound to say that I am particularly disposed to be cautious on this subject, after having referred on a previous occasion to a letter which came to me and purported to be from Arabi Pasha, but the authenticity of which was afterwards denied. I therefore could not undertake at the present moment to say that it was our duty to proceed on any matter contained in a letter of that description.
  MR. MACFARLANE: May I ask, whereas Arabi was at one time a prisoner in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and was handed over to the persons now having him in custody, it would not be proper for Her Majesty's Government to enter into an inquiry?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It would be quite right that we should ascertain whether the letter is a genuine letter or not, and this is being investigated in the proper quarter.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the safeguards obtained by Her Majesty's Government, in order to secure a fair and impartial trial for Arabi Pacha, have been or will be extended to the cases of all the other prisoners arrested on charges arising out of the late political and military events in Egypt; and, whether the punishment, if any, which may be accorded to each of these prisoners will be
  1552
  subject to the same friendly supervision as that mentioned by him in the case of Arabi Pacha?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No distinction is being made between the case of Arabi and that of the other prisoners.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can tell the House whether the Government, which, in arranging a Convention with the Khedive for the temporary occupation of Egypt, acted on the precedent afforded by the close of the war against Napoleon Buonaparte, took also into consideration the precedent supplied by the same period of history for the manner of dealing with the defeated military leader who surrenders himself to the clemency of England?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish to observe incidentally that the hon. Member is justified in using the words "a Convention with the Khedive," because I once used the expression myself. I should, however, have preferably used the term "arrangement" instead of "Convention." With regard to the substance of the Question, the hon. Member seems to think that the case of Napoleon Bonaparte affords a precedent which might be followed in the case of Arabi Pasha. Now, the case of Napoleon at the termination of the great war in 1815 was a very singular case, and has, I believe, been much considered as to its exact judicial character. But it is not for me to enter into a question of that kind, which, as the lawyers say, has been regarded as inter apices, and I shall avoid it. But I may state we are decidedly of opinion that the case of Arabi Pasha is not governed by the case of Napoleon Bonaparte, which, in our opinion, does not afford any precedent.

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND)—ELECTION OF A GUARDIAN AT TOWN STALLING, KENT—INQUIRY AS TO ALLEGED ILLEGAL PRACTICES.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the President of the Local Government Board, respecting a public inquiry made in August last at Town Mailing, in Kent, into alleged illegal voting and tampering with voting papers by certain influential persons in connection with the election of a Poor Law Guardian, Whether the Local Government Board have arrived at any decision upon the questions in-

  1553
  volved; and, if so, when it will be communicated to the local authorities concerned?
  MR. DODSON,in reply, said, that the decision of the Local Government Board in this case had been delayed in consequence of the absence of their legal adviser; but the inquiry had now terminated, and the result had been communicated to the parties.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT—EXTENSION OF TIME.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the difficulties which have arisen in the working of the Arrears Act, the Government will pass a Bill this Session extending the time of payment of the year's rent due 1st November, 1881, from November 30th to March 1st next.
  MR. PARNELL: Before the Prime Minister answers the Question, perhaps he will permit me to ask him another with regard to the Arrears Act. A large number of settlements under the Arrears Act have been impeded in the case of tenants who can prove their inability to pay antecedent arrears, but who are unable to pay the costs of proceedings in ejectment, or for the recovery of such arrears taken by the landlords; and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can see his way to recommend the enactment of provisions by which an order may be made for the payment of such costs out of the Church Funds where a tenant proves his inability to pay?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think probably it would be better that the hon. Member should be good enough to give Notice of that Question. The matter he has opened is one of considerable difficulty, on which I would rather speak with an opportunity of considering what I have to say. In answer to my hon. Friend behind (Mr. Dickson), I am bound to say that it would be unsatisfactory to encourage a hope that the Government will be engaged before the termination of the present Session in legislation upon any subject; and it would be extremely difficult, if we were to admit legislation on one subject, to shut out legislation on other subjects. On the other hand, we are perfectly aware how very unhappy and unfortunate it would be if the benevolent and wise intentions of Par-
  1554
  liament towards that portion of the people of Ireland who had been involved in arrears were to be frustrated from want of time or any avoidable cause; and we shall, therefore, do our best to prevent such a result. But I am able to say—speaking upon the authority of an Order of the Land Commission, dated only on Monday—that they have hopes, by the employment of a larger number of investigators, of being able to dispose of all the business before them in the course of the present month. On that subject, however, either my right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) or myself will be prepared to give a further and more definite reply in the course of three or four days.

  SIR RICHARD GARTH, CHIEF JUSTICE OF BENGAL.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for India, If he has any information as to the authenticity of an official Paper printed in the "Times" of November 13th as published by Sir Richard Garth, Chief Justice of Bengal, in which he plainly denounces the recent legislation of Parliament for Ireland as "confiscation," and "bearing terrible fruit," prays that such a policy may be averted from our Indian possessions, and seeks to 'awaken the landlords of Bengal to their own danger "from measures submitted by the Government of India to the Legislature of that Country?
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked if the Secretary of State would lay a complete set of Papers on the land in Bengal on the Library Table?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The report of the observations stated to have been made by Sir Richard Garth was contained in a telegram in The Times on Monday last. It is obvious, therefore, that it would have been impossible for me to have received any information as to the nature of the Paper said to have been published by Sir Richard Garth. Until we receive it in some official form, it will be impossible to answer any Question upon the subject. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I need hardly say that the Correspondence is extremely voluminous, and that it is not yet complete; but I will see if any portion of it can be laid upon the Table of the House.

  EGYPT—THE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE—THE REVIEW IN ST. JAMES'S PARK.
  COLONEL DAWNAYasked, What steps had been taken to enable the wives of officers who had served in Egypt to see the forthcoming Review?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have reserved 800 places for the wives of military officers, who have served in Egypt, and 400 for the wives of naval officers. We have sent the tickets to the War Office and the Admiralty for distribution. We have, in addition, received other applications, and we have been able to comply with them all.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked, If any accommodation would be given to the wives of the non-commissioned officers and men who had taken part in the service?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes; the Cambridge Enclosure, which would hold about 4,000 persons, had been appropriated to the wives of non-commissioned officers and of the soldiers and sailors who took part in the Expedition.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE (MR. ED. MOND DWYER GRAY, M.P.)—THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I wish to ask a Question of the Prime Minister with respect to the imprisonment of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlow. When the Government agreed to appoint a Committee to inquire into this case, the Prime Minister said that when the Committee reported he would consider whether a full opportunity should be given for the discussion of the subject. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman now, Whether that opportunity can be afforded, not at the close, but at the commencement of a Sitting of the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not aware that the Report is yet on the Table. In consequence of a difficulty having arisen with respect to a matter connected with the Report, it is likely to be referred back again to the Committee. The question comes on to-night; but I am bound to say that I cannot hold out any expectation that I could ask the House to interrupt the Business on which it is at present engaged for a full discussion of the subject.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENunderstood that the question was to obtain precedence of all other subjects after Procedure.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think that time is rather too far advanced to say anything upon it at present.

  IRELAND—SCIENCE AND ART MUSEUM, DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTON (for Mr. DAWSON)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, taking into consideration the great dissatisfaction which exists in Dublin as to the proposed site of, and plans for, the new Science and Art Museum and National Library, and, having in view that the opportunity afforded by the late Government
  "To constitute a separate department of Science and Art for Ireland analogous in its constitution to the existing Science and Art Department in London for the United Kingdom,"
  was rejected by the Commission which sat in Dublin in 1868 without any consultation with the Parliamentary or Municipal Representatives of the capital, the present Government, in accordance with the policy of local self-government for Ireland, would issue a fresh Commission, which would include persons acquainted with Irish feeling with regard to the undertaking?
  MR. COUETNEY: The present scheme of the Government has nearly reached a conclusion; and it was, in its essential features, published in 1880, and preferred by local public opinion to that which was, for Departmental reasons, the better one. On all grounds, the Government are not prepared to defer any longer a decision on the building question.

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

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: May I detain the House for one minute with a personal explanation? I regret extremely that I was unavoidably absent from the House yesterday morning. I wish to state that, upon reading the account of the debate, it appeared to me that, by some remarks that I made on a previous occasion with regard to the communications that passed between

    1557
    myself and the late Chairman of Committees (Mr. Raikes), I must have conveyed to the minds of hon. Members present an impression I had no intention whatever of conveying, and which I here state cannot be supported by facts. By my remarks I intended solely to refer to what might occur between the official Whip of the future and the Chairman of Committees in the future if the powers under the Resolution I was discussing were given to the Chairman of the day.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS—"LEAVE OF THE HOUSE."
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONwished to ask the Speaker, as a matter of Order, whether the expression "the indulgence of the House" was of the same significance as the "leave of the House;" and whether, if it were the wish of the House, expressed by one of its Members, that this indulgence should not be granted, the Speaker might, nevertheless, exercise his discretion and allow a Member to speak a second time, though he might not have risen to explain a material part of his previous speech?
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member and the House that it would be inconvenient to put Questions to the Chair except on points of Order as they arise. I may say, however, that there is a difference in signification between the two expressions "by leave of the House" and "with the indulgence of the House." When a Member addresses the House, as has just now been done by the right hon. Member for Mid Kent (Sir William Hart Dyke), he addresses it "with the indulgence of the House," and if it is found by the Chair that the House is not disposed to hear him, the Chair would not call upon him. The expression "the leave of the House" is well understood to be this. When a Member desires to withdraw a Motion or an Amendment he asks leave of the House, and if a single dissentient voice is raised on that occasion, leave is not granted.

NOTICES.

  MR. PARNELL, M.P., &c. (RELEASE FROM KILMAINHAM).
  MR. J. E. YORKE: On Monday next I will propose—
  1558
  "That a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into and report upon all the circumstances relating to the release of Mr. C. S. Parnell, M.P., Mr. J. Dillon, M.P., and Mr. O'Kelly, M.P., from custody in Kilmainham Prison in May, 1882."
  Perhaps I may be allowed to express a hope, inasmuch as this Notice has been submitted to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and approved by him, that he will use his influence with his Friends on that side of the House, in order that they may abstain from opposing the Resolution, or that he will take care that I may have an opportunity of bringing the matter on before half-past 12 o'clock at night. The right hon. Gentleman will see, of course, that otherwise it will be impossible for me to obtain the opportunity which I desire.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member has referred to the terms of his Notice as having been approved by me. What has been stated on my part is that I shall not offer any opposition to it; but not more than that. I have my own opinion with respect to the terms of the Motion; but I shall not offer any opposition. With respect to the contingent engagement which he asks from me to prevent opposition, on that I must wait to see what happens. So far as I am concerned, or the Government are concerned, there will be no opposition to the passing of the Motion as an unopposed Motion. If opposition be intended by Gentlemen on this side of the House, I have no doubt they will make known their intentions, and then, I think, it will be time enough to give an answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—THE PROPOSED STANDING COMMITTEES.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSgave Notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would propose to omit from the first Resolution relating to Standing Committees all the words after the word "That," in order to insert the following words:—
  "It is not expedient to consider the subject of the proposed Resolution at this period of the Session."

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—THIRD RULE(DEBATES ON MOTIONS FOR ADJOURNMENT).

    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [TWENTY-THIRD NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [15th November], as amended,
    "That when a Motion is made for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman of a Committee do Report Progress, or do leave the Chair, the Debate thereupon shall he confined to the matter of such Motion; and no Member, having moved or seconded any such Motion, shall ho entitled to move, or second, any similar Motion during the same Debate."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    Main Question, as amended, again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    (3.) Resolved, That, when a Motion is made for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman of a Committee do Report Progress, or do leave the Chair, the Debate thereupon shall be confined to the matter of such Motion; and no Member, having moved or seconded any such Motion, shall be entitled to move, or second, any similar Motion during the same Debate.

    THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—FOURTH RULE (DIVISIONS).
    MR. GLADSTONEmoved—
    "That when, before a Division, the decision of Mr. Speaker, or of the Chairman of a Committee, that the 'Ayes' or 'Noes' have it, is challenged, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places; and, if they do not exceed twenty, he may forthwith declare the determination of the House, or of the Committee."
    The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that this Resolution was not so much restrictive as addressed to the general convenience of the House, and likely to work, he thought, for the advantage of all, and for the saving of time, without its being supposed to abridge unduly the rights of private Members.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That when, before a Division, the decision of Mr. Speaker, or of the Chairman of a Committee, that the 'Ayes' or 'Noes' have it, is challenged, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may
    1560
    call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places; and, if they do not exceed twenty, he may forthwith declare the determination of the House, or of the Committee."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFmoved, in line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words "except in Committee of Supply." He had always endeavoured to establish that there was a very great difference between the exercise of the functions of legislation and the consideration of questions of finance in Committee, when it very often happened that there were only some 40 or 50 Members present; and he thought that to put the Rule in operation in Committees would simply have the effect of preventing the constituencies from knowing the views of their Members upon questions of National Expenditure. When such questions were under discussion it might be very difficult to get 20 Members to rise in their places to prevent the discussion being closed. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would view his Amendment favourably.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words "except in Committee of Supply."—(Sir H. Drummond Wolff)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the sole question raised by the Amendment was whether a distinction should be drawn between Supply and other Business of the House as to the powers proposed to be given to the Speaker or Chairman of Committees to ask 20 Members to rise in their places. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: They might not be in the House at the time.] They could not recognize the rights of absent Members in that way. He could not see the ground of any such distinction. This was not a question of freedom of debate, but whether there was to be an abandonment in Committee of Supply of a proceeding which he believed the House in general thought would be for the convenience of all parties. He did not recognize any force in the argument that Members might not be in the House at the time. It would be the business of Members to be in the House. Whatever the value of the hon. Gentle-

    1561
    man's argument, it was good for all, and if the Rule was fit to be applied in one case it ought to be applied in all. He could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. SOLATER-BOOTHsaid, he could not see that a distinction should be drawn in this case between Committee of Supply and the Whole House. There were many occasions on which it would be desirable that the Speaker or Chairman should be able to call upon 20 Members to rise in their places. But he would suggest that words might be introduced which would restrict the proceeding to cases where the Speaker or Chairman might be of opinion that a division, was challenged for purposes of Obstruction. There might, however, be many cases in which the names ought to be recorded by means of a division.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he thought there was great force in the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth.) There were many cases of a minority under 20 in which there should be a record. He would remind the House of a division which took place on a Motion in the Session of 1880, when a minority of 19 Members represented an average of more than 7,000 electors for each Member; the number of electors represented by that minority being nearly one-tenth of the whole electorate of the Kingdom. Such minorities ought to be recorded, and the Resolution would provide for this if amended in some such manner as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hampshire.
    MR. DODSONpointed out that the House was getting into an irregular discussion, inasmuch as the suggestion just made was quite distinct from the Amendment before the House, on which he indicated the Government would be ready to make a proposal if the Amendment were withdrawn.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the best mode of saving time would be for Her Majesty's Government to state, on the earliest opportunity, what course they intended to pursue in regard to the Resolution. Before they could deal properly with the Amendment, they ought to know whether the Government intended to adopt it substantially. It was desirable that, if possible, no distinction should be drawn between the House and the Committee of the Whole
    1562
    House. The same Rule ought to apply all round. He did not think his hon. Friend would press his Amendment if the Government would state their opinion that some substantial modification of the Rule as a whole would be made.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, a substantial modification would be made.
    MR. HOPWOODcalled attention to the circumstance that he had placed on the Paper an Amendment to the effect that if it appeared to the Speaker or the Chairman that his decision was challenged for the purpose of Obstruction he should so inform the House.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, that, as the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government appeared willing to make a concession, he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. MAC IVERmoved to amend the Resolution by inserting, in line 1, after the word "That," the words—
    "At any time after midnight such Members as may wish to do so may declare their votes upon any question then under discussion, by means of an instrument in writing, personally delivered to some officer of the House appointed for that purpose: Provided always, That."
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the subject-matter of the Amendment was not relevant to the Resolution.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he thought he should be able to show that the Amendment was perfectly in Order.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member desires to move any other Amendment than that the House may be disposed to hear it; but I am bound to say that he cannot proceed with the Amendment upon the Paper.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he rose to move an Amendment which he thought merited the favourable consideration of the Government and of House. It was to insert, after the first word of the Resolution, these words—"Except on a Motion 'That the Question be now put.'" What he wanted to insist on was that a division occurring on account of proceedings arising out of the 1st or Clôture Rule should be excepted from this Rule; and for this reason—that if this Rule was to be applied to the Clôture Rule, the last safeguard of small minorities in a thin House would be, if not absolutely swept

    1563
    away, at least to a great extent diminished. Suppose, in the case of a small House, there were 15 Members on one side, and 50 or 60 on the other; suppose, also, that a subject had been amply discussed, and the evident sense of the House was that the debate should close, the Speaker might then put the Question. Only the 15 Members composing the minority would rise in their places, and thus they would be silenced, without a division, by a majority of 50 or 60.
    Amendment proposed, in line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words "except on a Motion 'That the Question be now put.' "—(Mr Marjoribanks.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they proposed the Resolution because it was used under Urgency, and without any apparent objection; but, undoubtedly, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) was quite justified in pointing out that they ought to look all round a subject of this kind, especially when they were constructing a permanent regulation as to the Procedure of the House; and he thought the suggestion he had made was not an unreasonable one—namely, that they should confine the intervention of the Speaker or Chairman for this purpose to cases in which Obstruction was intended. The consideration which, led him to that conclusion was not a feeling that any wrong was done, or any question of privilege involved in calling upon Members to rise; but it was the feeling that if they adopted this as a general Rule they would be obliged to recognize the title of those Members to have their votes recorded. That would introduce a novel process of taking the votes of Members. Probably he was the only Member of the House who had seen that done; but he had seen it done. It was, he thought, in 1834, when first of all in the Reformed Parliament a feeling began to prevail that it was the duty of the House itself to have the votes of its Members recorded; and the attempt first was made to record the votes, as was then always the case when the House was in Committee, while the Members sat along the two sides of the House. There were, if he remembered rightly, two recorders—one from each side of the House. He did
    1564
    not, however, recollect who the second person was; but he remembered Mr. Hume was one of them, always forward in good works, and that certain Members very wickedly exchanged spectacles and resorted to other artifices to disguise themselves, in order that Mr. Hume might fail to detect who they were. That attempt was then made; ho did not think it could be done now; but still he believed it better they should avoid any novel process for the purpose of recording votes, and both for the sake of getting rid of that question, and of meeting the feeling expressed, he should be willing to introduce the words, after the word "Chairman," "being of opinion that his decision is challenged for the purpose of Obstruction," &c. He thought that would answer the purpose which his hon. Friend had in view, and also meet other Amendments which had been placed on the Paper.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he would suggest, now that the Prime Minister had gone thus far, that the Government should abandon this Resolution altogether, as without it there were plenty of powers against Obstruction.
    EARL PERCYsaid, he trusted the House would not agree with the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), because it was by no means certain that the House would agree to the subsequent Rules. Cases might arise in which the Speaker or the Chairman would be extremely unwilling to go to the extreme length of Naming Members.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he approved of the alteration made by the Prime Minister; the Resolution, so amended, could do no harm and might be of some service.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he rose to protest against the mixing up of Obstruction with this Rule as with those already passed, inasmuch as the Prime Minister had from the first maintained that they were intended to compress ordinary debate. He urged it would be better that the question of Obstruction should be confined to the 9th Rule. It was objectionable that the Chairman of Committees should have the power of saying that certain Members were obstructing at the moment.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Resolution became valueless if the Amendment were accepted. In his experience as a

    1565
    casual Chairman, he had found that on the second or third time of any decisions being challenged that Members challenging did not rise in their places, thus tacitly admitting that they were challenging the decision for obstructive purposes.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he supposed the reason hon. Members did not rise in their places was because they thought it useless to do so. He objected altogether to the Rule which gave the Chair great power than the Closure Rule, and he hoped the Government would see some way of leaving it out.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he entertained strong objections to altering the Resolution from its present shape to deal with Obstruction. As it stood, it would enable the House to deal with vexatious waste of time. The real difficulty was in regard to the proportion. What might be a fair proportion in a small House might become intolerable in a large House of 300 or 400 Members. He thought the matter might well be left to the discretion of the Speaker or Chairman of Committees.
    MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, he did not accept the conclusion that a small minority were necessarily obstructive. However small a minority, they were entitled to have their names recorded. It would be better to leave the Rule as it stood, and to add a Proviso at the end—
    "Provided, That, subject to the decision of the Speaker or Chairman of Committees, it shall he competent for any Member so rising to demand that the names of the minority shall be recorded."
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he thought there many cases in which it would be desirable that the names of the minority should be recorded—cases in which the conduct of the minority could have nothing of Obstruction in it, and a majority had always the right to call for a division. The difficulty might be met by restricting the Rule to cases which, although not precisely cases of Obstruction, savoured of Obstruction, like Motions of Adjournment and to report Progress, or that the Chairman leave the Chair. That would leave substantial Questions to be divided on as at present. He thought a minority of the House ought not to be compelled to rise in their places without securing a division, if they had a good case, and thought fit to call for it.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Question before the House was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks).
    MR. HOPWOODasked if the present Resolution would not come into collision with the two previous Resolutions? In the 2nd Resolution 10 Members were able to force a division; but under the present one, on 20 Members rising, the Speaker could at once declare the sense of the House. He thought, under those circumstances, the Government would find it was necessary to make some exception such as that proposed in the Amendment.
    MR. MACARLANEsaid, he saw no reason why double as many Members should be required under that Resolution to force a division as were required at Question time.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that it would be unfair and unjust, under this Rule, to deprive hon. Members of the right they had succeeded in obtaining from the Government under Rule 2.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he did not often agree with the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), but he did so on that occasion. The House was likely to get into great confusion unless it exercised great care in seeing that the Resolutions did not clash with each other. This Resolution was clearly contradictory of the 1st and 2nd Resolutions, and some words ought to be introduced to show that it did not affect the Rule of clôture. It was absurd to use the words "before a division," when the very Rules required that a division should not take place.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFappealed to the Speaker on a point of Order. The present Resolution practically repealed a portion of a former Resolution. In the latter part of the 2nd Resolution, as amended, the words were—
    "Or unless, if fewer than forty Members and not less than ten shall thereupon rise in their places, the House shall, on a Division upon Question put forthwith, determine whether such Motion shall be made."
    In the Resolution now before the House 20 Members were required to rise in their places, and that was taking away the right given by the 2nd Resolution to 10 Members to call for a division.
    MR. SPEAKER: The 2nd Resolution applies only to Motions for the Ad-

    1567
    journment of the House before the Orders of the Day are entered upon. The last part of this Resolution applies to a diffferent state of circumstances. It states—
    "That when, before a Division, the decision of Mr. Speaker, or of the Chairman of a Committee, that the 'Ayes' or 'Noes' have it, is challenged, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places; and, if they do not exceed twenty, he may forthwith declare the determination of the House or of the Committee."
    That is when the matter is challenged.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that under that Resolution the Speaker could deny the right of division.
    MR. DODSONpointed out that the latter part of the 2nd Resolution was imperative, the word "shall" being used; whereas the 4th Resolution was permissive.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that made no difference at all.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that under the Resolution they were discussing the Speaker or Chairman had a discretion to deprive Members of a right previously conferred on them. Was such a Resolution in Order?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that the essence of a division was the ascertainment of the majority or minority. It was not necessary that Members should walk round the Lobby. The Government would be able to provide subsequently for the case contemplated by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks).
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, that if Members standing in their places were equivalent to a division, his Amendment was quite useless.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that the question was not the amount of the minority, but the amount of the majority, and the latter could only be ascertained by a division.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he should object to the Amendment being withdrawn unless the Government distinctly informed the House of their intentions.
    MR. BOURKEwished to know whether the Speaker ought to ascertain the numbers on the other side than that on which the Motion was made?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)denied that there
    1568
    was any inconsistency between the 2nd and 4th Resolutions.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that the House, having once decided that 10 Members could force a division, it was not competent for the House to go behind it.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that under those circumstances, that was, where 10 Members rose, a reference could be made to the judgment of the House.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, no doubt that was so; but how was that judgment to be delivered? Under the old Constitutional means it would be by a division. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that that Resolution took away with one hand a concession which had been made with the other. The point of Order, as he understood it, was whether the House, during the present Session, had decided that any 10 Members could insist on a division being taken if they rose in their places in support of the Motion.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that if 10 Members rose in their places the Speaker would then put the Question whether leave be given to make that Motion for Adjournment. There would be the "Ayes" and the "Noes," so that hon. Members would have the opportunity of expressing their views; and, therefore, there was nothing inconsistent in the operation of that Rule, and that of Rule 2. If upon the Question that leave be given more than 20 Members rose, of course there would be a recorded division; but if less than 20, there would be no division. But there was no inconsistency between the Rules.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFappealed to the Speaker as to whether or not there was any inconsistency.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member had spoken, and had no right to speak again.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he questioned if the Prime Minister had the right to call him to Order.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member had no right to make another speech.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he was not going to do so; but only to put a question to the Speaker. The 2nd Resolution gave a right to 10 Members to call for a Motion for Adjournment, and the 4th gave the Speaker or

    1569
    Chairman power to take away this right if less than 20 Members rose in their places to support it.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say that the Question appears to me to be not without difficulty. Under Resolution 2, 10 Members can, under certain circumstances, demand a division. I doubt whether the Speaker or Chairman of Committees would be debarred, considering that the Resolution applies to the simple question of Motions for Adjournment of the House, from preventing a division being taken in the ordinary way acting under Resolution No. 4.
    MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether the ruling of the Speaker did not necessitate the introduction of words specially excepting the condition contemplated by Resolution 2?
    MR. SPEAKER: I am not prepared to say that it would be absolutely necessary to introduce words in order to except the conditions referred to in Resolution 2 from the operation of Resolution 4. At the same time, I think it might be desirable to make some change in the wording for the purpose of making the Resolution clear.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsuggested that the difficulty would be obviated by the introduction in Rule 4, in line 1, after the word "division," of the words "after the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion have been entered upon."
    MR. MACFARLANEasked what the Speaker would do in the event of 19 Members rising, and only 15 being on the other side?
    An hon. MEMBER said, that in that case there would be no House.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that in the event of precisely 40 Members being present, the Speaker or Chairman of Committees would not vote, and, therefore, 19 Members would in that case outvote 20. He had an Amendment standing in his name lower down which would deal with this difficulty, and lie invited the attention of the Prime Minister to it.
    MR. GORSTasked if the Speaker had ruled that the Resolution as it stood was inconsistent with Resolution 2? If so, must not the Resolution be withdrawn and a fresh one substituted?
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked what would happen in the event of 20 Members not rising, but a much larger number being outside?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he presumed it would be in the discretion of the Speaker.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he felt sure that the Speaker or Chairman of Committees would be put in a difficult position under those two Resolutions, and he suggested that the Government should consent to withdraw Resolution No. 4.
    MR. C. S. PARKERsaid, he believed that this Resolution—[Cries of "Spoke!"] Well, he would point out the point to the Speaker.
    MR. SPEAKERreminded the House that the Question before it was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Speaker for a decision on the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst).
    MR. SPEAKER: I have not said that the Resolutions were inconsistent with one another. I did say that it might be desirable to introduce words which would prevent a possible conflict on the construction of the two Resolutions.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, it might be for the convenience of the House if he withdrew his Amendment. [Cries of "No, no!"]
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Amendment—
    MR. MONKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken before.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he understood the right hon. Member's previous remarks to be confined to the point of Order.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it was so. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] Would the right hon. Gentleman tell him one word he had said on the Amendment? His objection to the Resolution was that it would take away the right of having a recorded division. Yet they all knew that many great measures had begun by being supported by very small minorities. He thought that if the Amendment were to be withdrawn, they ought, in the first place, to ascertain from the Government what they intended to substitute for it.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, as had been pointed out by the Chair, some difficulty might arise from the Resolution as it stood coming into conflict with part of Resolution 2. The difficulty was entirely owing to the possible conflict or

    1571
    doubtful compatibility with Resolution 2; and it had been suggested by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) that it might be met by excluding from the purview of this Resolution everything that could fall within the operation of Resolution 2. That would be done by confining the scope of this Resolution to everything that occurred after the House had entered upon the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion. If his hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) would withdraw his Amendment, it would be possible to insert in the Resolution the words "after the House had entered upon the Orders of the Day or the Notices of Motion." That would destroy all possibility of conflict. While bowing to the ruling of the Chair, he was bound to say that it differed from what he had formerly thought was the meaning of the Resolution.
    MR. WARTON,on a point of Order, argued that the Resolution not only conflicted with Rule 2, but also with Rule 1.
    In reply to an hon. MEMBER,
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he apprehended that under Rule 1 there must be a division.
    MR. W. H. SMITHobserved that, according to his construction of what the right hon. Gentleman said, a division might be understood to be taken by 20 Members standing up and the rest remaining seated; but in that case there certainly would not be a division in the ordinary way.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to inform the House what is the meaning of a division?
    MR. SPEAKER: When the decision of the Speaker or the Chairman is challenged, then the divisions are taken in the usual way.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he would suggest that, as there seemed to be great difficulty in understanding the Rule, it should be temporarily withdrawn by the Government, and re-introduced in an intelligible form. If they went on patching it as they were now doing no one would be able to read it, or, if read, no one would be able to understand it.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the Government had fallen into a mistake which they had never anticipated, owing to the change which had
    1572
    been made in the other Rule. The Rules as originally printed did not present any point of conflict, but in the course of the discussion the Government had made certain concessions in the other Rules—and he doubted very much whether they could have passed them if they had not done so—and this had led to the present difficulty. The matter was one upon which there ought to be not the least doubt, on account of the unfairness of making the Speaker or Chairman have to decide—perhaps in a very heated House—one of the very difficult questions now under discussion. He therefore concurred in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) that the Resolution should be withdrawn, and re-introduced in an amended form. If the Prime Minister, who drew up the Resolution, put one interpretation upon it, and the Speaker put another, it was abundantly clear that the Resolution ought to be remodelled.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)pointed out that Resolution 2 referred only to the period before the Orders of the Day had been entered upon, so that the insertion of the words suggested by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker), "after the House has entered upon the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion," would entirely remove the difficulty, and there could be no possible conflict between the two Resolutions.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he desired to point out that there was a distinct conflict between the 1st Resolution and the 4th, for whereas the 1st provided for a division, although there might happen to be less than 20 opposed to the Motion, the 4th Resolution provided that before a division the Speaker might call upon the Members challenging his decision to rise in their places, and if those Members did not exceed 20, the Speaker might forthwith declare the determination of the House or the Committee.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)asked the indulgence of the House to reply to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). He (the Attorney General) submitted that the division might be taken under the 1st Resolution without reference to the 4th.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKrose to Order. Was it not entirely contrary to the Rules of the House that the hon. and learned Gentleman should make a second speech on the same subject?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) rose to a point of Order, and the Attorney General rose to speak to that point of Order.
    SIR HENRY TYLERbegged to call attention to the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth was speaking to the Amendment, and not to a point of Order.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSthought the point of Order had been raised many minutes ago by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), and had not yet been settled.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am quite clear that, under Resolution 1, the Speaker would not be at liberty to call upon Members to rise in their places as in Resolution 4.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSagain asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No!"]
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he hoped the Government would withdraw the 4th Resolution.
    MR. BRYCEpointed out that leave had not yet been given to the hon. Member for Berwickshire to withdraw his Amendment. He said that he desired to show that there was no inconsistency between the 1st and the 4th Resolution, if the point had not been finally disposed of by the ruling of the Chair; but the Speaker stated that this could not be done, as he had already given his ruling.
    Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate as the only way out of the difficulty.
    MR. BIGGARbegged to second the Motion, and for the reason that it seemed to him that the House was not in a proper frame of mind to discuss these very complicated matters. There was so much difference of opinion in all parts of the House as to the construction of these Rules that it seemed to him that it would be better that the adjournment should take place, in order that further consideration could be given to the subject, and that Her Majesty's Government might examine into the different interpretations that might be
    1574
    placed upon the several clauses that had already been passed in contrast with the one now before the House. Unless some definite interpretation was now placed on the reading of this Rule in connection with the Rules that had been passed, there might be room for all sorts of difficulties and controversies in Committee when the Speaker was not in his place to decide the matter for the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    MR. GLADSTONErose to oppose the Motion for the adjournment as useless. There was no conflict between the 4th Resolution and the 1st, and whatever conflict there might have been between the 2nd and the 4th would be removed by the introduction of certain words proposed by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker). He hoped the Motion would be withdrawn, and the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) would be allowed to withdraw his Amendment, and then the House would be in a position to see whether the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Perth would be sufficient to remove all doubt as to the meaning of the Resolution.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he supported the Motion for Adjournment on the ground that not a single occupant of the Treasury Bench was in a position to state in what form the Government intended to present the Resolution to the House. He challenged them individually and as a whole to do so. He did not believe that one of them had the slightest idea of what shape it would take if amended as proposed.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he thought the whole Resolution should be re-drawn by the Government, and placed before the House in a printed form. The House was in no way extricated from its difficulty by the interpretation which Mr. Speaker had given, because that interpretation would not be binding on a future occupant of the Chair.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that on attentively reading Resolutions 1 and 4, he thought there was a conflict in the construction of them.
    MR. BRYCE: I rise to Order. I endeavoured some time ago to submit an

    1575
    argument on this subject, and I was informed that I could not do so, because a ruling on the point had already been given.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question immediately before the House is the adjournment of the debate. The question under consideration was the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks), and I have repeatedly endeavoured to induce the House to discuss that question.
    MR. GIBSON: I have no doubt that neither you nor any of your successors in the Chair would ever hold that it was right or expedient to apply the 1st Rule without a division.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to observe to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he is not discussing the Amendment.
    MR. GIBSON: With great respect, Sir, on my construction of the Amendment, I am on the very point. I am of opinion that there may be a question, and a very serious question, as between Rule 1 and Rule 4, and which may be cured by the adoption of the Amendment.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I rise to Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has already been ruled out of Order.
    MR. SPEAKER: I understood, from the last words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that he was addressing himself to the Amendment.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that if he was not at liberty on this question of the adjournment of the debate to discuss the question of the conflict between Rules 1 and 4, he would, of course, at once resume his seat; but he conceived from Mr. Speaker's ruling that he was at liberty to do so. He believed that if he was in a position to show that in his view the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire was one that was germane to the question of whether there was a conflict between the 1st and the 4th Resolutions, he should be in Order to discuss it. [Cries of "Order! "] Hon. Members opposite were not judges of Order, and he had all through stated that he was ready at once to resume his seat if any intimation fell from the Speaker that he was not in Order. He was of opinion, having read the 1st Resolution and the 4th, that this was a question of con-
    1576
    struction, and not of administration. [Cries of "Order!"] There might be a question, and a serious question, arising out of the Rules as they now stood, and this could be cured by the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he understood that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was addressing himself to the Amendment.
    MR. GIBSON,in continuation, said, the closing words of Resolution 1 were—"If a division be taken." That rendered extremely appropriate a question which was started by his hon. Eriend—namely, what was a division? He found, upon reference to Rule 4, that the application of the Rule was to be before a division, and, therefore, reading the two Rules together, he ventured to think that it was more than questionable how they would be construed, for he thought it would be competent to apply Resolution I under Resolution 4.
    MR. DILLWYNrose to Order, and pointed out that the House had that day passed a Resolution declaring
    "That when a Motion was made for the Adjournment of the Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman of a Committee do Report Progress, or do leave the Chair, the Debate thereupon shall be confined to the matter of such Motion; &c."
    The Question before the House was the adjournment of the debate; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was now discussing an Amendment not before the House. He appealed to the Speaker whether that was not a violation of the Rule passed to-day?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Swansea having called my attention to the Resolution of the House, which has just been passed, I am bound to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is obliged to conform to that Resolution, which declares distinctly that when a Motion for adjournment of the debate is made, the subject of that adjournment should be alone discussed.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that when a Member who sought to point out both how the House had got into a difficulty and how they might get out of it was precluded from doing so, that showed how admirably these Rules had been framed for facilitating the transaction of Public Business. Prom the Rule referred to

    1577
    by the hon. Member for Swansea, the Government had expunged the word "strictly." He would submit at once to the Speaker's ruling. He had hoped to assist the course of Public Business by indicating how an adjustment could be arrived at by a reasonable consideration of topics which might induce the withdrawal of the Motion for Adjournment.
    MR. DILLWYN: I rise to Order again, and appeal to you, Sir, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not arguing the question which you have ruled out of Order?
    MR. GIBSONsaid, that, under the circumstances, he had no wish to press the matter. He would take no further part in the discussion, feeling that it was impossible for him at this stage of the proceedings to put before the House the view he honestly desired to present for the furtherance of Public Business.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, no event could have happened that had given him greater pleasure than to find his right hon. and learned Friend called to Order under the Resolution passed to-day.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to Order. I would ask you, Sir, whether the noble Lord is either facilitating Business or speaking to the Motion?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, if his right hon. and learned Friend had voted yesterday in favour of an Amendment which was moved from below the Opposition Gangway, he would not have been stopped in his speech as he had been just now. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) had been caught in his own toils. He had never known a Motion made by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor') which was so much justified as the present one. The House had been now engaged for two hours and a quarter in trying to get not only at the sense of the Resolution, but at the interpretation which the Government put upon their proposals. The Government had inserted new words at the last moment, and without Notice into each of their Resolutions, and they had landed the House in a complete fog and mystification. If they had been proceeding by Bill, there would have been opportunities for correcting mistakes; but in proceeding by Resolution the case was quite different.
    MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is not confining himself to the Question before the House.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that he was arguing for the adjournment of the debate, because it was a matter of the utmost moment that the House should proceed with due deliberation, and should not approve of the way the Government had introduced their Amendments, without even putting them on the Paper like other people. If the Government wished to get on with the Business before them it would be better to withdraw this Resolution and bring it up again in a different form. Lest there should be any silly talk by the organs of the Government about Obstruction on the Conservative Benches, he wished to point out that the whole of the discussion had been originated by a Liberal Member—by a faithful follower of the Government—and continued by the right hon. and learned Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, who differed from one another.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he should support the Motion for the adjournment, because the recommendation of the Prime Minister to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) would only get them out of one difficulty into another. In the one case a necessary number of 10 would be requisite, and in the other 20, thereby creating a distinction and a different class of offence not intended to be created by the Government.
    MR. SALTsaid, he wanted to know the real effect of the last Resolution? He was going to vote for the adjournment because he regarded these Resolutions with the greatest anxiety and alarm. He was very much afraid that by relying too much upon the letter and precise meaning of the Resolutions as about to be altered, instead of putting down Obstruction, they would legalize it. His second reason for supporting the Motion was that he believed they would proceed very much faster and better with the Business if plenty of time was taken, so that the Cabinet might make up its mind as to the effect of the words put before the consideration of the House.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 121: Majority 52.—(Div. List, No. 371.)
    MR. MARJORIBANKSbegged leave to withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of "No, no!"]
    MR. GIBSONsaid, when the hon. Members on the other side of the House had interrupted him he was about to state that there was extreme danger in allowing Resolution 4 to pass in its present shape. He believed, as a question of construction, that the Resolution could be argued most persuasively and with great power, that it would be competent for the Speaker, if he pleased, to apply Resolution No. 4, and that under Resolution No. 1 a division would not be mandatory. Therefore, before they parted with the Amendment, he would like to have it more plain that there would be no possibility of ever applying Resolution No. 4 to Resolution No. 1. He believed that the words of the hon. Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) would be sufficient for that purpose, because the Motion which would, have to be put under Resolution No. 1 were the very words which would be contained in the Amendment of the hon. Member. If the Amendment was to be withdrawn, he thought the Government should give a distinct assurance that some such words should be incorporated in the Resolution. He was of opinion that the Resolution should be amended so as no t only to exclude the possible operation of Rule 2, but also that some words should be adopted which would prevent the possibility of Rule No. 1 being applied.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, there was a latent ambiguity in the construction of the Resolution as it stood. That ambiguity might be removed by the adoption of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), which was lower down on the Paper.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 100: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 372.)
    MR. C. S. PARKERmoved to insert, after the word "That," in line 1, the following words:—"after the House has entered upon the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion." The Speaker, he said, had ruled that the 2nd Resolution and the 4th conflicted to a certain extent. His Amendment was framed for the purpose of removing that ground of objec-
    1580
    tion. Resolution 2 related only to the time before the consideration of the Orders of the Day; but his proposal would make the Resolution apply only after the House should have entered upon the consideration of the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motion.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words "after the House has entered upon the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motions."—(Mr. C. S. Parker.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he considered the Amendment childish and absurd. If it were adopted, they would have one set of Rules before half-past 4 o'clock and another after that hour. That was precisely the argument of the Prime Minister against the proposal a day or two ago of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) with respect to Business after half-past 12. The Prime Minister had also said he only wanted to limit the Resolution to those who were obstructive—[Mr. GLADSTONE: No!]—and, in order to do that, had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth; but that Amendment would allow Members to obstruct in as factious and improper a manner as could possibly be conceived, because it would be possible for five, or four, or three Members to force the House to divide on every clause of any private Bill which came on before half-past 12. That was the sort of Amendment which the hon. Member for Perth, inspired by the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister, inspired by the hon. Member for Perth, supported. He would certainly take a division against it.
    MR. WARTONsuggested that the difficulty would be avoided by introducing such limiting words as "save and except as provided by Rules 1 and 2."
    MR. GREGORYsaid, it was quite clear that the Amendment before the House did not meet the objections which had been made against the Rule. He was of opinion that the best course would be that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) should be withdrawn, and that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) accepted.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Prime Minister had appeared to dissent from the statement which had been made, to the effect that he had intended to make the Rule apply solely to cases of Obstruction. It had certainly also been understood that the right hon. Gentleman had intended, at the proper stage, to admit into the Resolution words which would confine its application to cases which, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, would be one of Obstruction. Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman adhered to that undertaking, he (Mr. J. Lowther) would point out that the Amendment under discussion in no shape or form dealt with the supposed conflict between the Resolution and Resolution No. 1. There had been a good deal of confusion upon that subject, and it appeared to exist chiefly in the minds of the learned occupants of the Treasury Bench. He thought it would effect a great saving of time if the House were informed how the Government proposed the Rule should eventually read. It was impossible for the House to give proper consideration to the Resolution, to which some scores of Amendments had been suggested, until they knew what the intentions of the Government were.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that, according to the right hon. Gentleman, it was the duty of the Government, at the beginning of a discussion, to declare what their intentions were. That would mean that they would listen to no arguments and make no concession. The right hon. Gentleman had challenged him upon the indication he had given with regard to the object of the Rule. The Government were certainly willing to have the introduction of limiting words. On consideration, he was inclined to believe that the limiting words of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) were better words than those suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth). If the words of the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker) were introduced, they would put out of the question altogether everything that related to conflict between Resolution 2 and this.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was satisfied with the declaration of the Prime Minister. He had no objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth, save that which had been
    1582
    suggested by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill). He would, however, accept the words of the hon. Member for Perth, as he understood that the Government would also embody in the Resolution the words which were to be moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh. He hoped, in that case, the House would be allowed to go on with the debate.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh were accepted, it would not meet the objections which had been put forward by his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill). If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth were carried without guard or supplement, the whole field of Private Business would be left open to obstructive action. Various authorities of the House had, from time to time, pointed out the danger which existed at time of Private Business, and the opportunity which it gave to Members for the purpose of obstructively lengthening debates. The Rules would not be successful if a loophole were left which could be taken advantage of by obstructive Members. He hoped, therefore, the Government, if they accepted the words of the hon. Member for Perth, would give a pledge that they meant to guard the House against Obstruction at the time of Private Business.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he hoped the Government would not press upon the House the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth, which, if the Government meant to adopt that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh also, would be pure mischief. Supposing it were agreed that the Speaker ought to have the power which the Rule would confer, would it not be wise to leave it unfettered in the way proposed by the Amendment?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh were accepted, then, in order to avoid the conflict they were implored to avoid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth would be absolutely necessary.
    MR. GORSTsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Perth might be necessary to prevent a conflict; but there might be a better way of doing it by adding a Proviso to the Rule.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 15: Majority 70.—(Div. List, No. 373.)
    MR. GORSTmoved, in Resolution 4, line 1, to leave out the words "before a division," and to insert the words "after the House has been cleared for a division." There were other Amendments to the same effect on the Paper, moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd). In Committee, no doubt, it was fair that only those should have an opportunity of voting who had actually Been present at the discussion. He, however, contended that when the Government had the power to summon their supporters from the Lobby or the Library to take part in a division, it would be only justice to the Opposition that they should, be allowed time to summon their forces before they were called on to stand up in their places to demand a division. As things were, the Government always had an advantage, as the Speaker or Chairman invariably decided the "Ayes" or "Noes" in favour of the Government.
    MR. HICKSseconded the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 1, to leave out the words "before a Division," and insert the words "after the House has been cleared for a Division,"—(Mr. Gorst,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'before a Division' stand part of the Question."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, he did not think the Amendment was altogether clear. He understood the Amendments of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), which raised the question much more distinctly. The House was cleared much too rapidly to effect the purpose aimed at by the Amendment, which he perfectly understood, though he did not understand the means by which that end was sought. The Government, however, could not agree to the Amendment. After the concessions already made by the Government the Resolution was confined to Motions of a dilatory character, and
    1584
    would not apply to any Motion raising a substantive question for the decision of the House. There was no reason for summoning Members into the House if there were not 20 Members present to support a Motion for Adjournment.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he could not agree with the Solicitor General that there was any ambiguity in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham. The Speaker would be precluded by the custom of the House from putting the Question until three minutes were up by the sand-glass. But, passing from that, he thought the Government would do well to reconsider the Resolution as a whole. It was one of a most offensive character to a minority, as they were compelled to stand up if they sought a division and expose themselves to the ridicule of the majority. He had repeatedly to do so himself, when he and the other Members of the Irish Party, assisted by a few stray English Members, challenged divisions when the Urgency Rules were in force last Session. There was nothing more calculated to excite feelings of indignation and irritation in the breast of hon. Gentlemen than the application of a Rule as it was applied in those days, and as the Government sought to have it applied by their refusal to agree to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). He thought it was not a very great boon to ask that hon. Members who were about the House should be informed that a division was to take place before this Rule was to be put in force. It appeared to him that if the House went on in the way it was now going the House would more and more come to be a mere machine. Such a Rule as the present, and by providing that it was not necessary that the Division Bell should be rung, distinctly held out to Members an inducement to absent themselves from the House. Tli6y knew that evil had already attained to a considerable magnitude. They knew that hundreds of Members handed themselves over bodily to the Whips without knowing anything about the merits of the question on which they were dividing.
    COLONEL STANLEYsaid, he was sorry the Government did not see their way to accept the Amendment, which he agreed with the hon. Member for the

    1585
    City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was straightforward and reasonable. The Rule now proposed was recommended many years ago by the Committee which sat on the question; but it must be remembered that all was totally altered now by the passing of the 1st Resolution. They ought to reconsider this Resolution because, under certain circumstances, it might lead to this absurdity—that while there might be a great number of Members outside who were willing to vote if summoned, yet the number of Members who stood up to challenge a division might be so small, and the other Members present so few, that the House would be counted out on an important question. It appeared to him to be little short of an injustice to require that a division might be taken without hon. Members who were outside having an opportunity of knowing what was going on. If the hon. and learned Member for Chatham went to a division he should certainly support him.
    MR. WARTONwished to point out that the word "a" in the Resolution occurred synonymous with "any," and therefore the Rule could be applied to any division, and not only to those cases to which the Solicitor General had alluded. He wished to call attention to the absurdity of retaining the words "before a division," inasmuch as the very object of the Rule was to prevent a division being taken. In order to make the Amendment clearer he begged to move as an Amendment to it to add the words "and after the lapse of two minutes as indicated by the sandglass."
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is that the words "before a Division" stand part of the Resolution. In the event of that proposition being negatived, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) will be put, and the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) will follow.
    MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that the absurdity of the Rule was made apparent by the state of the House at that very moment. Supposing the Speaker required those who demanded a division to stand up, there would not be the sufficient number on the Opposition side, although on the Front Opposition Bench were sitting no less than five ex-Cabinet Ministers. Therefore,
    1586
    unless the Amendment were adopted, great injustice might be committed.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham was demanded by the equity of the case, unless they intended to make a complete sweep of all the old Forms of the House It was a principle of the House that the Speaker never saw how many Members were present unless his attention was called to it. In most Foreign Legislatures various inducements were offered to Members to remain in the Chamber; but in that House all the allurements were outside. Abroad there were desks; there were means of writing; newspapers could be read in the House. With us there were only barely comfortable benches. The Division Bell was rang for the purpose of bringing in those Members who were in the building, but not in the House, but whose right to vote was thereby admitted. It was a great violation of the ancient law and practice of Parliament only to call upon Members to vote who happpened to be in the House at the time of putting the Question. If it were impossible to prove such a system illegal, yet it was undoubtedly contrary to the spirit of the Constitutional Parliamentary system. Motions for the adjournment were usually made either because the House was tired of the matter, or it was of too trivial a character to be further discussed. So the emptiness of the House when such a Motion was made should be an argument in favour of its opportuneness and of the adjournment being granted. He trusted that the Government would not refuse to accept this small Amendment.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he could not conceive on what principle of fairness the Government could refuse to accept this Amendment. It was conceivable that in the future a Chairman of Committees might defer putting the Question until he saw that the Opposition was so thin that it could not divide. There was an obvious way of meeting this Rule which, no doubt, would be resorted to if the Amendment was not accepted. As soon as hon. Members saw that the Speaker or Chairman was about to put the Question, they would move that the House be counted. That would cause the Division Bell to ring, and the House to become filled.
    MR. HICKSsaid, the Government, having passed a Resolution depriving hon. Members of freedom of speech, were now, by the present Resolution, going to introduce in effect the ballot, and prevent the electors from knowing how their Representatives voted. On a former occasion Her Majesty's Government refused to allow one particular vote to be taken by ballot, when the Opposition thought such a proceeding would protect the independence of Members. He had not supported that proposal because he objected to the ballot altogether; and he still hoped to see the day when we should again have honest open voting. But the Government, having opposed that modified proposal, now wished the House to adopt the ballot in all small divisions. He would draw the serious attention of the House to what the effect would be; the Resolution would have frequent operation, for he found, looking at the last Session of the last Parliament, there were as many as 46 divisions in which the minority did not reach 20, and, during one-third of the Session, the minorities were under 30. Surely constituencies ought to know who voted on these numerous divisions. Generally speaking, very few Members were in the House when a division was first called. This was an attack upon the rights of the minorities. He objected to the Resolution because the constituencies would be prevented from learning how their Members voted. Further, he would draw the attention of the House, and particularly of hon. Members opposite sitting below the Gangway, to facts which he ventured to think must be of interest to them. The minorities in former times on many important questions had been small, and yet it had been a matter of interest to see of whom those minorities consisted. For instance, the first minority for admission of Jews, in 1838, was only 52; Repeal of the Corn Laws, in 1813–14, only 42. Surely hon. Members opposite would not have wished these votes to have passed by unnoticed. Then, again, in 1830, Mr. O'Connell's proposal for Universal Suffrage received the support of only 13 votes. Then, again, on the great question of Reform, the minority in the first division in 1810 was only 15—a minority proud of being the forerunners of the great Reform Act. How would these measures even have
    1588
    attracted public attention if the debates had been cut short and the Division Lists suppressed? In order, therefore, that the interests of these small minorities might be preserved, he should vote for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped the House would understand the reasons of the Government for not accepting the Amendment. When they came to consider the occasions on which the Chairman of Committees should exercise this power, they were not unwilling to consider whether these occasions should be limited to what were aptly called "obstructive" or dilatory Motions. What they contended was that the House ought not to admit an Amendment which would cause an unnecessary waste of two minutes on every division. During a single evening half-an-hour might be wasted.
    MR. WARTON: Never!
    MR. GLADSTONE: Never! The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke as if he had sat in the House since the time of Adam. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a Parliamentary babe. He was not aware that 20 divisions of this kind had been frequently taken in the course of a night. He (Mr. Gladstone), however, was aware of it, for he had voted in the divisions, and so had other hon. Members, and he begged the hon. and learned Member not to exercise the clôture on the responsibility of a private individual happening to occupy a seat in this House. His (Mr. Gladstone's) contention was distinct, that in the case of dilatory Motions that waste of two minutes ought not to be permitted. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had pleaded Parliamentary tradition; but these rights had grown up gradually; they were not existing when he (Mr. Gladstone) first came into Parliament. He thought that the proposal now before the House was meaningless and absurd.
    LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the Amendment dealt with a matter so inconceivably small that he was astonished the Prime Minister should refuse to accept it. The allowance of two minutes, so far from wasting the time of the House, would prevent a great deal of irritation and confusion. Members who happened to be outside the precincts of the House would be irritated to find that

    1589
    they were not to have the privilege of taking part in a division simply because some Member had moved a dilatory Motion. He therefore intreated the Government not to resist the Motion. One word as to the form of the Amendment. He understood the Speaker to say that the Question would be that the words "before a Division" stand part of the Resolution. These words, he thought, were meaningless, and therefore he suggested that they should be omitted.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwished there was some method by which they could get the Prime Minister into the same frame of mind he was in on the previous day, when he had made some fairly valuable concessions. To-night, however, he did not seem in a humour to give any consideration to any Amendments whatever, no matter whether they came from one side of the House or the other. Something evidently had gone wrong. The Resolution now before them would be easily evaded, for whenever the Chairman called on Members to rise in their places, it would be easy for any hon. Member to question whether a quorum was present, and to necessitate the ringing of the Division Bell. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] He challenged the hon. Member to cite any case in which the Speaker had decided there was a quorum without ringing the bell. Why the Government should obstinately oppose that Amendment, which was intended to prevent an illegitimate artifice, he could not understand. In Committee, especially, that Rule would work very unfairly, and the Chairman might be expected to take advantage of it when the House was very thin. As an example of the thinness of the House at certain times, he mentioned that when his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) moved his Amendment during the dinner time, no other Conservative Member happened to be present, and when the Speaker asked who seconded the Amendment, an Irish Member undertook to do so. But for this, they would have had no opportunity of discussing this important point. It would be extremely hard on Members conducting the opposition to a Bill to find that owing to their brief absence from the House important questions had been decided without their having an opportunity of recording their votes. The Prime Mi-
    1590
    nister said the Resolution was to be confined to dilatory Motions; but there were no Motions for Adjournment which were not dilatory. The supporters of the Amendment had justice and right on their side, and if, unfortunately, the Goverment persisted in refusing to accept reasonable Amendments, the means might be found of compelling them to give way.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was surprised that the Prime Minister should resist that Amendment. He should have thought that the Government would have agreed to it as a matter of course, instead of quarrelling over a trumpery two minutes, and refusing to allow the Division Bell to be rung. To insist on a division being taken at a moment's notice, without giving Members time to come from the adjoining rooms, was a thing which he should have thought would never have entered the mind of anyone.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he thought the zeal for economizing public time must have reached an amazing pitch when the saving of two minutes was urged as an argument against the right of hon. Members to have their opinions recorded on a division. A large part of the Business of the House was usually transacted at a certain period of the evening, with fewer than 40, and sometimes with 15 or a dozen Members present; and under such circumstances it would be an absurdity to say that there should be no division unless 20 Members rose in their places.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that they had now been discussing that question for 100 minutes, thus occupying more time than was likely to be consumed in three years by the operation of that Amendment. The objections to the Resolution had never been answered.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, the course pursued by the Government in refusing such proposals as this looked as if they intended to render it impossible to pass these Resolutions. It might happen that if they persisted in the same line of action they would find, when they had forced their own will upon the House on all the Amendments arising on this subject, that they would be met by a resolute resistance to the Resolutions as a whole. If the Resolution before the House was not modified, a state of things would be produced which

    1591
    would be an absolute scandal to the House of Commons. The idea of a single division being "snapped" by some sincere but humble follower of the Government, at an hour when many Members were away in the Dining Room or the Smoking Room, would be a fruitful cause of irritation; and the recriminatory and angry debates which would follow would far more than swallow up the small space of time which the Prime Minister was so anxious to save. If the time which the Government desired to save was that occupied by a division, he could understand the action of the Government. The House would remember one occasion on which the whole time of the House was threatened by certain Members with dilatory Motions; and had they not caught 27 of them in one capacious net, and prevented the carrying out of their original proposal, the House would have been engaged from half-past 7 till 2 o'clock in the morning in taking divisions. The idea of two minutes being a valuable saving of time, when they remembered the length to which the speeches of hon. Members and right hon. Members ran, was a reason of no validity. It was most unreasonable to impose a burden upon hon. Members so severe as to compel them always to keep within the House—not even the Government with all their authority were always able to do that. It was a great pity that the House should be forced by the actions of the Government into a position of antagonism to them.
    SIR B. ASSHETON CEOSSsaid, he was surprised that the reference of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) to the amount of time already wasted in that discussion had had no weight with the Government. Besides, the House must know that, if necessary, a speaker would always continue to address the House until he had collected the necessary number of Friends around him, and thus no saving of time would be effected, but rather the contrary. The Prime Minister had fallen into an nnfortunate mistake of not fully explaining at the outset to what cases the Resolution did or did not apply; but he hoped the Government would still see their way out of the difficulty, since there could be no question that endless irritation would be caused if all concession was refused.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to point out that in not a few divisions taking during the last Session, the numbers dividing were within the limits now proposed. In the Payment of Wages in Public-houses Bill, the division was 33 to 4; in another Bill 12 to 11; in the Irish Constabulary Bill, 25 to 0. They were not now engaged upon such Rules as the Urgency Rules; they were discussing Rules which might last for generations. The very wording of the Rule was an indication that the Government trusted nobody. They were seeking to bind the House by hard-and-fast Rules, the effect of which would be to produce extreme irritation. They were framing them in such a way that there was great danger of inducing Members to work against instead of in support of them. The result would be that instead of diminishing they would increase Obstruction.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he regretted very much that he had not been in the House during the whole of the discussion; but the House must be aware that it was impossible for every Member always to be in his place. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had already stated that he was willing to limit the proposed procedure to cases of dilatory Motions, thinking it to be an unnecessary waste of the time of the House that the two minutes' interval should be permitted in those cases. But the debate had shown that there was very considerable difference of opinion upon that subject on both sides of the House, and that there was a general indisposition to allow the Question to be put in such a way as to exclude Members from the division. The Government would, therefore, be prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and part of the Amendment put on the Paper by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), omitting the concluding words of that Amendment, because it was clear to the Government that the procedure would be entirely covered by the first words of the Amendment. But in order to still further simplify the intention of the Government, they would also accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). The Resolution would then run as follows:—

    1593
    "That when, after the House has been cleared for Division, upon a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman of Committee do Report Progress or do leave the Chair, the decision of Mr. Speaker or of the Chairman of a Committee, that the "Ayes or "Noes" have it is challenged, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, may, after the lapse of two minutes, as indicated by the sand-glass, call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places; and if they do not exceed twenty he may forthwith declare the determination of the House, or of the Committee."
    He conceived that that would fully meet the fears of hon. Members; and although the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister thought the Amendment unnecessary, and did not regard it as one of importance, yet he was willing to defer to the wishes of hon. Members.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) had made his case very clear, and was of opinion that it would be well to accept the Amendment he had suggested. The Government had apparently realized the strong feeling which the House had shown, that while there should be no unnecessary obstruction of its proceedings, there should not be any limitation of the freedom of debate.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words inserted.
    Amendments made, by adding, at the end of the foregoing Amendments, the words—
    "Upon a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, or of the House during any Debate, or that the Chairman of the Committee do report Progress, or do leave the Chair."
    And also in line 3, by inserting after the word "may," the words "after the lapse of two minutes, as indicated by the sand glass."
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    MR. GORST,in moving, as an Amendment, in line 4, to leave out "twenty," in order to insert "ten," said, he was sorry to have the appearance of being ungracious and exacting in doing so, as he had not the least wish to be so, more especially after the cordial and candid manner in which the Prime Minister had met the objection to the Resolution by accepting his (Mr. Gorst's) Amendment; but he could not refrain from
    1594
    asking whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think 20 Members too large a number? It seemed strange that 10 Members should be able to force a division in a full House on the Motion for Adjournment, when such adjournment might be attended with great inconvenience, and a much larger number should be required when very few Members might be' present. He begged to move to leave out "twenty," in order to insert "ten."
    Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out the word "twenty," in order to insert the word "ten."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'twenty' stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought that the words "if they be not less than twenty," would meet an objection entertained on the other side; but he was opposed to going down to 10. When the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gorst) said that 10 Members would have the power to force a division on the Motion for Adjournment, it should be remembered that such division would not be of a substantive character, but would be one as to opening the door to discussion.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made, in line 4, by leaving out the words "do not exceed," and inserting the words "be less than."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he still thought that words such as those suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) ought to be inserted in the Eesolution—namely, that if it appeared to either of the authorities in question that their decision was challenged for the purpose of Obstruction, they should so inform the House or Committee, as the case might be. He also thought that the Prime Minister ought to adhere to the view he had put forward, that the action of the Speaker or the Chairman should be restrained by requiring that those authorities should convince themselves that a Motion had been made for the purposes of Obstruction.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was pressing the Government rather too hard. The Govern-

    1595
    ment had foregone an advantage, although they risked the giving of facilities for Obstruction in consideration of the fact that, without involving themselves in doubtful phraseology, they were enabled to indicate by the Amendment as proposed by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) the class of Motions which were commonly used for the purposes of Obstruction.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he would not press the matter.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he would move an Amendment providing that the Resolution should take effect only when 40 Members were in the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 4, after the word "twenty," to insert the words "in a House of forty Members."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the Amendment unnecessary, as the House could be counted; but he would agree to accept it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Amendment made, by inserting, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, the words "or upwards."—(Mr. Reginald Yorke.)
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    (4.) Resolved, That, after the House has entered upon the Orders of the Day or Notices of Motions, when, after the House has been cleared for a Division, upon a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House during any Debate, or that the Chairman of a Committee do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, the decision of Mr. Speaker, or of the Chairman of a Committee, that the Ayes or Noes have it is challenged, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman may, after the lapse of two minutes, as indicated by the sand glass, call upon the Members challenging it to rise in their places, and, if they be less than twenty in a House of forty Members or upwards, he may forthwith declare the determination of the House or of the Committee.

    THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE—FIFTH RULE (IRRELEVANCE OR REPETITION).
    MR. GLADSTONE,in rising to move the 5th Resolution, said, that it was the revival of an ancient law of Parliament which many people believed to be now in existence; but it was one which, from its nature, the Speaker or the Chairman would be slow to put in force except in very clear cases. He thought it wise that the Rule should be inserted in the Code of New Regulations.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee, may call the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition on the part of a Member; and may direct the Member to discontinue his Speech."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he was bound to inform hon. Members that the Amendment to the Resolution, which stood in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) and also that of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), could not be put, as they were in the nature of substantive Motions, and not of Amendments relating to the Resolution before the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that, in the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), he begged to move an Amendment which stood in his name. The Amendment was not contrary to the spirit of the Resolution, but merely proposed to put certain limitations on the use to be made of it by the Speaker or Chairman. The general effect of the Amendment was, that the rights of the individual Member would be hedged round with precisely the same provisions as the rights of the minority. As the Government had already sanctioned the principle in the one case, they might, perhaps, accede to it in the other. The chief objection that might be urged was, that the House might come to a conclusion different from the Speaker, and so undermine his authority; but if that argument were valid at all, it was valid against the Rule itself. He would conclude by moving the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "when it shall appear that the Member addressing the House or the Committee is using expressions which are offensive to the general sense of the House, or is speaking with continued irrelevance or tedious repetition, or for the purpose of obstruction, or that it is the evident sense of the House or of the Committee that he should discontinue his Speech, Mr. Speaker may so inform the House or the Committee, and, if a Motion is made, 'That Mr. Speaker or the Chairman do direct the Member to discontinue his Speech,' Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall forthwith put that Question, and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall direct the Member accordingly: Provided, That such Motion shall not be carried in the affirmative if a Quorum of the House be opposed to it."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'Mr. Speaker' stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had said that he considered everything at stake in these Rules, and yet such was his opinion of his own Amendment that he was not in his place to support it. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), however, had discovered the foundling, and had performed the parental office in a manner which did him the highest credit. If there was a disposition on the part of the House to accept the Amendment, it would be better to give the quietus to the Resolution at once. What was to constitute continued irrelevance or repetition that was to be deemed as requiring interruption? Was the speaker to go on until they were clear as the sun at noonday? By that time he would have got through the greater portion of his material, having only a few remaining shots in his locker; and the 15 or 20 minutes that would be cut off the tail-end of his speech, and would suffice to conclude it, was to be spent in taking a division on the question whether it was relevant or not. Then if 40 Members voted against the Motion the whole process would be completely thrown away, and the speech would be resumed in circumstances which would justify the Member, for the sake of clearness, in giving a résumé of all that he had said before.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he would submit that the Rule itself was irrelevant, because the Speaker had, and was to retain, the power of dealing with irrelevancy. The Rules against Obstruction gave him additional power.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL (for Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF)rose to move the omission from the Rule of the words "or the Chairman of a Committee." He said the Amendment was the continuation of the protest against the Chairman of Committees being invested with the same power as the Speaker; but the necessity for the protest might disappear if the status of the Chairman were to be altered, and he were to be made an officer elected by the House. The public had been impressed by the minute investigation that had been made
    1598
    with these discussions as to the position of the Chairman of Committees. His (Lord Randolph Churchill's) attention had been turned to the subject by an unfair attempt made by the present Chairman (Mr. Lyon Playfair), in the first Session of this Parliament, to silence the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver). The attempt was objected to by the House at the time, and primarily because it was unfair, and was not called for. The Prime Minister came in afterwards and naturally supported the Chairman; but the feeling of the House was strong, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole) expressed a strong opinion against the Chairman of Committees. If the Chairman could so act before this Rule was passed, what would he do under it? He (Lord Randolph Churchill) wished the Prime Minister could hold out an idea that the Office of Chairman was open to reconsideration, and would say whether the new Rules did not render it almost imperative that the Chairman should be an officer of the House, elected by both sides of the House in a bonâ fide manner, so as to possess its confidence. He had heard many opinions expressed that such a change would be desirable. If the prospect of such a change were held out, he would not press the Amendment he now moved.
    Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the words "or the Chairman of a Committee."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not find any fault with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) for renewing his protest against the Chairman having the same power as the Speaker; but he understood him to do so on this occasion with the view of eliciting an opinion as to the position of the Chairman. Well, on that point, he (Mr. Gladstone) was ready to indicate to the noble Lord what he thought was an important fact in connection with this Parliamentary Procedure, and likewise to make to the noble Lord an admission. The fact was this—that the Office of Chairman of Committees had, within the last 10 or 15 years, undergone great

    1599
    changes, all leading to elevate it. So long ago as the time of the Ministry of Sir Robert Peel, fresh duties were imposed upon him by the placing of certain Billls in his charge; but the most important change took place when he was made Deputy Speaker; and at present the House was in this position, that he was liable to be called upon to take the place of the Speaker in the event of the Speaker's illness. He was not sure, however, whether the present Speaker had ever fallen back upon that assistance, except on the occurrence of All-night Sittings. Since that important change took place, there had been a further change, as the salary of the Chairman had been considerably increased. The admission he was disposed to make to the noble Lord was this—the mode in which the Chairman of Committees was at present appointed was, perhaps, hardly worthy of the dignity which the Office now possessed. It was true, indeed, that the Chairman was elected by the House; but he was elected in an off-hand way, without Notice; and he was informed, not that he had been elected Chairman of Ways and Means and Deputy Speaker, but simply that he was to take the Chair, and the announcement sounded as if he were only to take it on that particular occasion. He was, therefore, rather disposed to admit to the noble Lord, although the Government had not yet considered this matter very particularly, that a more formal and regular appointment should he made. It would be a very suitable sequel to the changes which had been thus far made. The House had shrunk from the serious innovation of placing the Chairman of Committees, when the House was in Committee, upon a level of greater weakness than the Speaker in the House. He would not discuss that question now, as the House had already discussed it; but he trusted the noble Lord would be content with the expression of this general view that the mode of appointment should he more substantive and particular, and that the Government would endeavour to comply with it on a future occasion. In view of that declaration, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
    SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was glad the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph
    1600
    Churchill) had elicited from the Prime Minister this statement about the election of the Chairman of Ways and Means. No doubt, that official was elected by the House, though the question was never in practice put to the vote, and did not appear on the Votes. He had looked carefully into the Proceedings of the House, and he found that of late years the record had simply been that the Chairman (Mr. Lyon Play-fair) reported on such and such a Bill. The Motion that he should take the Chair was not entered on the votes at all. There was no doubt, however, that he was elected, and there had, in recent times, been divisions taken as to who should take the Oh air. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Oh, certainly.] There was, nevertheless, no doubt that, of late years, the question was put from the Chair without any Notice to the House, and that the nomination was practically in the hands of the Prime Minister. Looking at the dignity and responsibility involved in the Office, the matter deserved serious consideration, and the Chairman ought certainly to be elected in a more formal manner than he was under the existing system.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, this was really an Amendment of his own which his noble Friend had brought forward in his absence. He quite agreed with the Prime Minister as to the election of the Chairman of Committees; but he thought it ought to be an understood thing that the Chairman of Committees should not take part in a division; and that, while he held the Office, he should keep himself as much aloof from Party politics as the Speaker.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he had heard with the greatest pleasure the statement of the Prime Minister, but considered that a mere alteration in the mode of election would not attain the end desired by the House. The Chairman of Committees ought to have the same kind of official permanence as the Speaker, and his position ought not to be dependent on a mere Party vote.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, that, with regard to what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill), he wished to say how entirely he felt that the Chairman of Committees had wished honestly to do his duty on the occasion to which allusion had been made. He (Mr. Mac Iver) had no personal cause of

    1601
    complaint. What arose was simply a consequence of the false position in which, under the present system, the Chairman found himself placed; for while presiding over the deliberations of the Committee, he was, at the same time, a quasi-Member of the Government. The practical question was not whether the present Chairman of Committees intended to be impartial, but whether his position was one in which absolute impartiality was possible. Accidental circumstances, the chance overhearing of a remark in the Lobby, had placed him (Mr. Mac Iver) in possession of the right hon. Gentleman's own view of the subject; for he (Mr. Mac Iver) had caught words to the effect that the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) had, on the occasion to which the noble Lord referred, been out of Order, but that the Chairman of Committees could not very well stop a man in his position. It appeared to him (Mr. Mac Iver) that the Chairman of Committees took a perfectly reasonable course on that occasion, considering his own position as a quasi-Member of the Government. Not only the personal support of the hon. Member for Berkshire, but the support of The Times newspaper, was very valuable to the Government. For that reason the Chairman of Committees, while, no doubt, wishing to be impartial, had his duty to his Party to consider as well as his duty to the House. He was glad to hear that the Prime Minister accepted the principle of the noble Lord's (Lord Randolph Churchill's) Amendment; and he hoped that the Chairman of Committees would in future be placed in a position of absolute and unqualified and unquestioned impartiality.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid he felt bound to protest against the very unfair attack which the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver) had made upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Lyon Playfair) in his absence. He ought not to have done such a thing without Notice. If the hon. Member for Birkenhead had any charge to bring against the Chairman of Ways and Means, he ought to have brought it forward as a substantive Motion and taken the judgment of the House upon it.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, that he had no desire to make any personal attack upon anyone.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that the Resolution before the House was the most penal of all, except, perhaps, the 1st Resolution. As the Resolution stood, the Speaker or any Chairman of a Committee would be able, without the judgment of the House, to exercise the function of stopping a Member from continuing his speech, who might, as he imagined, be guilty of continued irrelevance or tedious repetition. He would move that instead of the words "Chairman of a Committee" the words "Chairman of Ways and Means" be inserted.
    Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the words "a Committee," and insert the words "Ways and Means," instead thereof.—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked leave to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the one proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. J. G. Talbot).
    MR. SHEILsaid, it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman who was their Chairman of Ways and Means for some years now (Mr. Lyon Playfair) should not be thrown overboard, but that he should be given an opportunity of denying the accuracy of the charge just made, if it was untrue; and if it was true, he (Mr. Sheil) thought it should be followed up, and that it was the duty of the Prime Minister to test it. He thought the House ought to remember that the same right hon. Gentleman who occupied the Chair on the occasion referred to suspended 15 or 16 Irish Members, some of whom were not present during the night. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; hon. Members might groan if they pleased; but it seemed to him (Mr. Sheil) that the charge which was then attempted to be brought—they were not allowed to make it—was now made by the accusation made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver). And that charge having been brought, it seemed clearly to him to be the duty of the Prime Minister to ascertain what truth there was in the charge; and if that charge was true, to call upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means to resign his position.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that the power of stopping Members who spoke irrelevantly was one which was

    1603
    inherent in the Chair, and had long ago been emphatically affirmed.
    Amendment (Lord Randolph Churchill), by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment (J. G. Talbot) agreed to.
    Words inserted accordingly.
    MR. GORST (for Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)moved an Amendment to provide that the irrelevance of speaking should be wilful and persistent, instead of continued, as mentioned in the Resolution. He thought the Rule as it stood would operate against Members who, from inexperience, and quite innocently, were speaking irrelevantly.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 2, to leave out the word "continued," in order to insert the words "wilful and persistent."—(Mr. Gorst,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'continued' stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gorst) hardly understood the meaning of the Rule. The words in the Resolution were words having prescription and authority attaching to them; and, as he (Mr. Gladstone) interpreted the Resolution, it contemplated two things which the Speaker or Chairman of Committees might do. He might call the attention of the House or of the Committee to continued irrelevance or to tedious repetition, and he might direct the Member to discontinue his speech; but that might be a separate and ulterior proceeding on the part of the Speaker or Chairman, whose duty it would be to judge whether the irrelevancy or repetition was of such a character as to cause him to discharge both functions at once, or be content, in the first place, to deal with the minor interruption, and to reserve the second for the persistent, wilful, and disobedient repetition of the offence. The hon. and learned Member seemed to think that the action of the Speaker in all cases must be one and the same, and that the first warning must be the last. He (Mr. Gladstone), however, thought the matter was one which might well be left to the discretion of the Speaker, and he should not like to bind the Speaker to stop the speech of a Member when he called attention to its irrelevance.
    MR. J. LOWTHERconsidered that words embodying the Prime Minister's interpretation of the spirit of the Rule ought to be introduced into the Rule itself. If that were done it would remove difficulties. In that case, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), which was lower down on the Paper—namely, to insert the words "if the warning be unheeded." That would meet the view both of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) and of the Government.
    MR. DODSONsaid, the insertion of those words would not be consistent with the interpretation which the Prime Minister had placed on the Rule, and which the Government attached to it. The Resolution as it stood was optional; but by inserting the proposed words the presiding officer would have no option; he would be required to call on the Member to discontinue his remarks.
    MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, he could not admit that the construction placed upon the Resolution by the Prime Minister was a correct one.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsupported the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 68: Majority 75.—(Div. List, No. 374.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to make one more effort. He would propose to omit from the Resolution the words "tedious repetition." He had not much hope of persuading the House to consent to the omission of those words; but he did not think they were necessary in order to give the Speaker or Chairman of Ways and Means the powers that were essential to stop an obstructive speech. He fancied that the object of the Prime Minister was to provide that speaking might, to some extent, be checked, and that speeches of an obstructive nature should not be allowed to be carried on, as a rule, for the purpose of Obstruction. But he thought it would be very dangerous to allow the Chairman of Committees to be the judge whether a speaker were guilty of tedious repetition or not. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had often heard speakers deliver speeches which appeared to him to enter into a very great deal of detail indeed, and such speeches

    1605
    were not at all confined to private Memters. Both of the Front Benches were equally guilty; but the Prime Minister would remember that Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees hardly ever considered it his duty to check the speech of a Minister delivered from the Front Bench. Generally speaking, the occupants of those Benches were allowed an enormous amount of latitude in regard to their speeches, which was not the case with regard to a private Member. He, therefore, thought it would be better not to retain these words, "tedious repetition." An hon. Member might be perfectly honest and bonâ fide in repeating the same thing once or twice over, because he desired to impress it more clearly upon the attention of the House, and without the slightest wish to obstruct the progress of Business. He hoped the Government would consent to modify the Resolution in the way he suggested, though even then it would remain a pretty strong one. He begged to move the omission of the words he had referred to.
    MR. SPEAKERasked if the noble Lord proposed to leave out the words which followed "continued irrelevance?"
    LORD RANDOLPH CHUECHILLsaid, he moved to leave out the words "or tedious repetition."
    Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the words "or tedious repetition."—(Lord Randolph, Churchill.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government were of opinion that the progress of Business in the House was delayed at the present moment not only by continued irrelevance, but by tedious repetition; and he could not see why the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) took one offence out of the category and not the other, or why the offence of continued irrelevance should be treated with greater favour than that of tedious repetition. His (Mr. Gladstone's) own opinion was, that continued irrelevance might sometimes be much more difficult to discern in the line which marked Obstruction than tedious repetition. The power of deciding whether these offences were being committed might be safely left in the hands of the presiding Officers pf the House; and he saw no reason
    1606
    whatever for making a distinction between them by omitting one of them from the Resolution in regard to the exercise of the power by the Chairman of Ways and Means. He had no doubt that such men would always be chosen who would know how to exercise the power with proper discretion.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) wanted to strike out these words for the same reason that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had moved the last Amendment. If the House had inserted the words which the hon. and learned Member wished to insert in the last Amendment, there would only have been one offence, which could easily have been dealt with, and one in regard to which there would have been no difficulty, no matter who might be acting as Speaker or Chairman of Committees. It was quite true, as the Prime Minister had stated, that tedious repetition was one of those offences which the House had always dealt with, and, perhaps, not with too strong a hand. If a Member spoke with tediousness, the Speaker was fully entitled to remind him; and although it might be a difficult matter to decide what constituted continued irrelevance, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) apprehended that the Speaker or the Chairman would have very little difficulty in satisfying the House as to the tediousness of an argument; but as there had already been one division on this matter, and there was a great probability that the result would be exactly the same if they went to another division, he hoped the noble Lord would be satisfied with his protest, and would not put the House to the trouble of deciding it again.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. GORSTmoved, as an Amendment, in line 3, to amend the Resolution by leaving out from the word "Member" to the end of the Resolution, in order to add the words—
    "And, if a Motion be made that such Member do discontinue his speech, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such Motion; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, the Member shall discontinue his speech accordingly."
    The effect of his Amendment would be to make the Resolution as a penal Reso-

    1607
    lution analogous to the Procedure with which the House was now familiar in the case of Obstruction. The right hon. Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) said that the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees already possessed the power of stopping a tedious speech. That might be an old usage of the House, but it was not one which had been much practised in modern times. The principle upon which the Government had acted had been to give the Speaker or Chairman the power of punishing a Member of the House; but the Speaker or Chairman was not to act until the Member guilty of the offence had first been Named to the House or Committee, when it was left to the House or Committee itself to impose the punishment of stopping the speech. No doubt, in the present temper of the House, the decision of the Speaker or Chairman of Committees would be universally, as a matter of course, supported by the House. That had always hitherto been the case when a Member had been Named. The House, by a large majority, had invariably supported the authority of the Chair. But still the Speaker or Chairman had to appeal to the House for its ratification of his decision; and that, to a certain extent, rendered him more cautious in coming to a hasty conclusion. If a Speaker or Chairman was empowered to stop the speech of an hon. Member by his own motion, the result might be, in the case of a reckless Chairman of Committees, that he would be less cautious in the exercise of that power than if he had to appeal to the House to ratify his action by its vote. As the House well knew, it did not require many arguments to induce the House to support the Speaker in Naming any hon. Member who was guilty of an offence; but if they did not allow the Speaker or Chairman of Committees to Name a Member, without calling on the House for its sanction, why should they allow him to require a Member to discontinue his speech, without also requiring the sanction of the House? He wished to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, with one alteration. By some act of inadvertence it now read—
    "And, if a Motion be made that such Member do discontinue his speech, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such Motion; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative,
    1608
    by a majority of not less than fifty, the Member shall discontinue his speech accordingly."
    The words "by a majority of not less than fifty" had crept in through inadvertence. All that he desired was that the decision in support of the action of the Speaker or Chairman should be affirmed by a majority of the House.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 3, to leave out from the word "Member" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "and, if a Motion be made that such Member do discontinue his speech, Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, shall forthwith put such Motion; and, if the same be decided in the affirmative, the Member shall discontinue his speech accordingly."—(Mr. Gorst.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) might have told the House that when his hon. Friend who sat near him, the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), moved the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), he used all the arguments which had been employed by the hon. and learned Member now.
    MR. GORSTsaid, that he was not present when his hon. Friend (Mr. A. J. Balfour) moved that Amendment.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that fact showed the inconvenience of the method of relays which appeared to have been adopted by hon. Gentlemen sitting upon that opposite Bench, seeing that, in this particular instance, it had kept the hon. and learned Gentleman out of the House at a very interesting moment. Consequently, he had simply repeated, as nearly as possible, although, perhaps, not in the same words, the speech of the hon. Member for Hertford in support of a Motion which, although differing in form, was substantially the same. He (Mr. Gladstone) would not, however, imitate the example of the hon. and learned Member, and repeat the speech he had made on the previous occasion. He did not think it would be fair to the House if he did; and he hoped the House would pardon him if he left the hon. and learned Member without a detailed answer, and simply said that the House had already decided the question by declining to entertain the former Motion. The House had already arrived at the conclusion that the matter was one

    1609
    which, ought to be left in the hands of the Speaker and Chairman of Committees, and it would only be a waste of time to divide the House again.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that in this, and in several other of the Resolutions, it was difficult to know how to vote without knowing what the mind of the Government was in regard to other Amendments on the Paper, because such a knowledge might materially modify the view hon. Members entertained. He should certainly vote against the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), if he thought that Her Majesty's Government would accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), and still more that of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). This was a repetition of an old law of the House, and he did not think that the power of punishment should be included in it. If an hon. Member resisted the authority of the Chair and disputed the warning given him, the House would have brought before them presently, by the 9th Resolution, the mode in which that Member should be punished and what was to happen to him. It seemed to him (Mr. Sclater-Booth) to be a mistake to import punishment into the 5th Resolution; and if he thought the Government would favourably consider the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), he should not be inclined to support the proposal now made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). He certainly thought that one Resolution on the subject of punishment by the Chairman was enough.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had stated, somewhat inadvertently no doubt, that this was the same Motion as that which had been moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour); but the right hon. Gentleman forgot to notice the fact that the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), which his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford undertook to move, imported into this Resolution the action of one of the new mental quorums. Now, such a quorum of the House
    1610
    involved a new principle, and there was no such principle in the Amendment now submitted by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). In fact, it was nearly identical in scope with the Amendment which stood in his (Mr. Beresford Hope's) name lower down on the Notice Paper; and in supporting the present Amendment he was, therefore, really supporting his own proposal. He submitted that the proposition made by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and by himself, followed on all-fours with the famous Resolution which they had hammered out after so many weeks' labour. Indeed, he had picked and chosen the phraseology of his Amendment from that Resolution. The Resolution left the closing of a debate to the decision of the House; and he did not see why, if the clôture of a debate was ultimately to be thrown upon the House, the clôture of a private Member should not take the same course. In the latter case, the offence would be a very trifling one. It might be simply that of falling into irrelevant argument, or having a rambling way of talking, which might not be the poor Gentleman's fault, because he might have been born with it. Why, for such an offence, should the Member be exposed to the extremely penal infliction of being ordered to sit down like a naughty boy in a board school? With all the additional powers which were to be given to the Speaker and the Chairman in future, why should they give them this one in addition? If a Member was really flagrantly irrelevant, and it was considered desirable to stop his speech, the Question ought to be put to the House. The Prime Minister had dwelt very much upon the question of loss of time; but he (Mr. Beresford Hope) would, point out that in the case of flagrant irrelevance, probably the first mention of the matter would be quite sufficient to impose a check on the offender. The Member would be hardly courageous enough to challenge a division in his own behalf if the "Ayes" sounded loud enough. There would, therefore, be very little loss of time; but that loss of time would take away the idea of oppression, and the House should not forget that the Member who was silenced, however righteously, would before the end of the Session take

    1611
    out his punishment tenfold from the House.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he thought that, at that hour of the night, it was a great pity that Her Majesty's Government did not tell the House what they intended to do with regard to the Resolution. By their halting and wavering, they had already spoilt the dinners of many hon. Members with the other Resolutions; and now the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government refused to answer the question, which had repeatedly been put to him, as to what the alterations were which he intended to propose in the last paragraph of the Resolutions. It was quite impossible for hon. Members who sat below the Gangway on the other side of the House—the Paladins of the liberties of the House—such as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), to ever think of leaving it in the power of the Chairman of Committees, at any time, to order a Member to discontinue his speech. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had no wish to address any argument to the House upon that subject. [Cheers from the Liberal Benches.] Hon. Members opposite cheered that sentiment; but he should like to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), who was now sitting among them as what had been called by the late Lord Beaconsfield "an extinct volcano," rise in his place, and tell the House what he thought of the power proposed to be conferred by this Resolution upon the Chairmen of Committees. He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman approved of it or not? He was quite sure that the remarks he was now making would receive the assent of hon. Members who belonged to the Radical Party. Her Majesty's Government had already been requested by his hon. Friend the Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke), and also by his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. Sclater-Booth), to state what the intentions of the Government really were; and he thought that a clear explanation of those intentions would save the time of the House, and be a great convenience to hon. Members. All of them wished to get rid of this Autumn Session as soon as they could, and they would be able to do that more easily if the right hon. Gentleman at the head of
    1612
    the Government would make up his mind and tell the House what it was he wished to do.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHT: One thing, Sir, has struck me very forcibly during the course of the discussion upon these numerous Amendments. It seems to me that hon. Members have generally proceeded on an extreme and, I think, altogether unjustifiable and absurd suspicion of the conduct of the Speaker. [An hon. MEMBER: Or the Chairman.] Well, or the Chairman. The basis of all their arguments, as far as I can learn, or of nearly all of them, is that the Speaker will do something foolish, or that the Chairman of Committees will do something foolish. Now, you had a Gentleman who was Chairman of Committees for many years, and who has just now left the House (Mr. Raikes), simply for a short time, some people hope, but for a much longer time others hope; and I think no one ever made a complaint of the conduct of our proceedings when he was Chairman of Committees. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver), in the improper statements which he has made in the House to-night, did not dare to charge the Chairman of Committees with intentional impartiality or injustice. I do not mean to say that the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker is absolutely infallible; but if there is one thing more certain than another, and which we can rely upon more firmly than anything else, it is the absolute impartiality of the Speaker of the House of Commons, and also of the Chairman of Committees. I have here a volume of Hatsell's Precedents, and I find here, under the date 1604, a passage which I will read to the House. I am not always in favour of things that are very old, because they are old; but here is a Resolution upon the conduct and office of Speaker, and his duty of keeping order in the House. In the second paragraph, under the date April 17th, 1604, it is laid down as a general rule that—
    "If any superfluous or tedious speech be offered in the House, the party is to be directed and ordered by Mr. Speaker."
    [An hon. MEMBER: Ordered to do what?] There was apparently no appeal. It was fairly understood what the order meant, and the Speaker would have little difficulty in knowing what to do. If we are to lay down a Rule now in regard to the Speaker, we should clearly

    1613
    lay down what, it is his duty to do. What the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) proposes is, that the Speaker having come to a certain conclusion with regard to a particular speech—namely, that it was irrelevant, and consisted of tedious repetition, all he is to do is to call the attention of the House to the fact; and if, for instance, the hon. and learned Member for Chathan (Mr. Gorst) was called to Order as the offender, no doubt the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) would immediately rise and move an appeal to the House. The Speaker's decision might thus be set aside, and there would be a division. Nothing would be more easy then to promote delay in that way all the night through, because the hon. Member who was so disorderly as to be called to Order would be almost certain to have someone sitting at his elbow who would be ready to ask the House to decide the question. It therefore seems to me that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman is one that will destroy the value and efficiency of the Rule altogether; and I can only deplore that these repeated Amendments are made in pursuance of the course which these Rules are intended in future to condemn and prevent. That is my feeling in regard to the matter. I am as much in favour of freedom of speech as anyone, and also that everybody shall say what it is proper to say in this House; but I am persuaded that if the course recommended by the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Friends is agreed to, we may as well sweep these Resolutions away altogether and allow things to go on just as they have gone on, and have been condemned. I hope my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government will not consent to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member, which would make all our proceedings with regard to the matter a complete absurdity and an absolute farce.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. John Bright) had thought fit to introduce an illustration into his speech which he must have known would be offensive. Whatever might be thought of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), no one could accuse him of being
    1614
    guilty of repetition. ["Oh, oh!"] He dared say that his hon. and learned Friend often made remarks which hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like; but he was never guilty of repetition. The right hon. Gentleman had further, and in the most direct manner, accused Members on his side of the House of putting down Amendments for the purpose of Obstruction; and the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to instance, as one of them, the Amendment they were now discussing. Now, he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) desired to point out two things to the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, he would point out that many Amendments proposed from his side of the House had been accepted by the Government, and great and beneficial had been the modifications of the Rules which had resulted from the action of Members on his side of the House. In the second place, he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman, in regard to this Amendment, that it had been put down upon the Paper, in substance, by three hon. Members—by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), and by the hon. Gentleman behind him the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate)—three Members of the House of great experience, and who were emphatically more entitled to be heard on all questions connected with Procedure than many hon. Members who voted with the Government for these Rules, as having been in the House and taken part in its debates for a very much longer period. He desired, further, to remark to the right hon. Gentleman that, while he quite admitted the force of the argument used by the Prime Minister when he (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was moving the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), that it would have the effect of prolonging their debates, he did not admit that there was any force in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), that the House was to place implicit reliance on the discretion of the Speaker and the Chairman of Committees, whoever they might be. The Government had already themselves established a contrary precedent, by deliberately fencing round the clôture by pro-

    1615
    viding that the Speaker should not act solely upon his own authority, hut that he must support that authority by a deliberate declaration of the will of the House.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to reply to an observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who had mentioned his name in connection with the Amendment placed upon the Paper on this subject. All he wished to say was, that his proposition was identical with the provision of the 1st Resolution adopted by the House, in regard to the clôture, which neither of the other Amendments was. In regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), he had only one word to say. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have changed his position, and, from having hitherto attached exaggerated importance to the doctrine of self-government, he had now become the advocate of a mere Party. The quotation which the right hon. Gentleman had read to the House from Hatsell's Precedents had no application to the present state of things, because at that period, 1604, in which the Order was made, the House of Commons was accused of being blindly submissive to the Crown; and the consequence was that in 1640 a state of things, which he did not wish to see recur, was brought about in a very opposite sense.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. GIBSONmoved, as an Amendment, in line 3, after the word "and," to insert the words "if the warning be unheeded." He wished to explain that this Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), who was now absent. The present structure of the Resolution had been before the House for a considerable time, and it was, he thought, open to considerable criticism. It proposed that the Speaker or Chairman might call the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition on the part of a Member, and might direct such Member to discontinue his speech. It did that without indicating to the House that the House had any function whatever in relation to the matter. He thought if the right hon.
    1616
    Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had borne that fact in mind, he would have seen that it was entirely in point to put an Amendment on the Paper, suggesting that the House should have some function, because the earlier part of the Rule expressly pointed out that the attention of the House was to be called to the matter. If the attention of the House was to be called to the matter, he assumed that the object was to call the attention of all the Members to the way in which the time of the House was being wasted, and also to call their attention to what, as a matter of fact, ought to be their function in such a case. What he proposed to do was to treat that calling of the attention of the House as a distinct and public warning to the Member that if he did not mind himself and mend his courses he would expose himself to the penalty inflicted by the latter part of the Resolution, which gave the Speaker the power of proceeding to a further development by directing the offending Member to discontinue his speech. But, from the special way in which the Resolution was drafted, the Speaker or Chairman of Committees might get up in the middle of a debate and announce to a Member who had not been much on the alert in guarding against irrelevancy or tedious repetition that he was guilty of irrelevancy or repetition, and that he must at once discontinue his speech. He did not think that it would be fair or in accordance with our English methods to take so extreme a course without having given some warning in the first instance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "and," to insert the words "if the warning be unheeded."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Government could not agree to the Amendment. They had already stated their view of the Resolution, which was this—that in certain cases repetition or irrelevancy would have reached a certain point before it could be well interfered with by the Chair, and when it was interfered with, the matter would be fully ripe for effective action. The interference ought to be decisive and take effect at once.

    1617
    There would be very little use in the Resolution; indeed, it would be completely emasculated by any Amendment of this character. There might be other cases in which it would be right for the Speaker or Chairman of Committees to give a preliminary warning; but the Speaker or Chairman of Committees would always be in the Chair, watching the course of the debate, and would be in a position to judge whether the freedom of debate required to be treated in a more severe or in a more lenient manner. In any case, it was not likely that there would be interference except where the irrelevancy or the repetition had been very serious; and it would be very safe to leave the matter to the judgment of the Speaker or the Chairman. The Amendment proposed to give a Member one more life, which he might well afford to throw away.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was so anxious to avoid laying himself open to a charge of tedious repetition that he had abstained from taking notice of the very strong arguments which he himself had used an hour or two ago in favour of the very proposal just made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had pointed out, in opposition to the previous Amendment, that it must not be assumed that the Presiding Officer of the House for the time being would determine the Resolution in the strictest sense. [Mr. Gladstone: He would not do that always.] He would not always determine the Resolution in a strict sense? In saying that the right hon. Gentleman was assuming that the interpretation which he placed upon the Resolution would be always that which would be placed upon it by the Presiding Officer of the House. But already that afternoon they had had a direct exemplification of the fact that the interpretation placed by the right hon. Gentleman on words of his own composition was not always identical with that placed on them by the Presiding Officer of the House of Commons. It must also be remembered that they were now dealing with the Presiding Officer of the future, who would not even have had the advantage of hearing the right hon. Gentleman expound his views of the proper interpretation to be
    1618
    placed upon his own words. Under those circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the House to ask that there should be inserted in the body of the Resolution some definite expression of opinion on the part of the House as to what the Resolution meant. He imagined that the right hon. Gentleman meant the same that hon. Members on that side of the House meant, and that there was no difference in substance between them. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I am afraid there is.] He was in hopes that there was not, for the right hon. Gentleman had distinctly said the probability was that the Presiding Officer would interpret the Rule in the same sense which hon. Members on that side of the House suggested. [Mr. GLADSTONE: In the best sense.] The right hon. Gentleman most distinctly added an expression of his own opinion that the probability was the Presiding Officer would not interpret the Resolution in a strict sense. That was certainly the impression left on the mind of the House by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; and he (Mr. J. Lowther) hoped, under those circumstances, seeing the danger or probability that there might be from time to time an interpretation placed upon the Rule by the Presiding Officer which was not entirely in accordance with that of the right hon. Gentleman himself, neither the Government nor the House would object to the introduction of the words which had been proposed by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson).
    SIR. R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he wished to point out that, in this matter, it had been the invariable practice, under the Rule by which a Member might be suspended, for the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees to give warning. That had hitherto been the invariable practice, and the result was that an hon. Member was not taken by surprise; but he was warned that, if he persisted in the course he was pursuing, he would suffer the punishment which had been provided. The particular Rule to which he referred was very much of the same character as the Rule now proposed, seeing that it prevented the Member who was suspended from taking any further part in the debate; and the proposed Rule would be equivalent to the suspension of a Member from sitting in the House, or taking part in its proceedings, until the time came for him to

    1619
    record his vote. He was bound to say that he could not see why that invariable practice of the Speaker and Chairman of Committees should not be put into this Rule, by saying that it was only after due warning the punishment would be inflicted. Therefore, if his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) went to a division upon the Amendment, he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) should certainly support him, because it was only putting into the Rule that which had been the invariable practice of the House hitherto.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he could not but think that the proposed Rule was either surplusage, or mere offensiveness. It was surplusage, because already the presiding authority had got power to call a speaker to the question who was not speaking to the question; and, as far as that was concerned, there was really no necessity whatever for strengthening the hands of the presiding authority. If a Member, when addressing the House, declined to pay attention to the remonstrances of the presiding authority, he would justly lay himself open to a charge of disregarding the authority of the Speaker, or the Chairman of Committees. But, besides the objection of surplusage, it was decidedly open to the objection of offensiveness and partiality. It was a Rule that would only be brought to bear against the younger Members of the House, who might very often be struggling against mere natural embarrassment in their endeavours to express their arguments. He also wished to point out that by making this entirely depend upon the opinion of the presiding authority, he was afraid it became open to this objection. A Member of the House who might know the subject upon which he was speaking thoroughly well, and might be thoroughly well acquainted with all the bearings of his argument, might easily be misapprehended by the presiding authority; and there was no guarantee that the presiding authority would always be perfectly calm, perfectly un-flurried, and perfectly impartial. The presiding authority might mean to act justly; but, not knowing what was in the Member's mind any more than anybody else would be supposed to know, lie might deal with an argument which, in the Member's mind, was a most relevant one, as altogether irrelevant;
    1620
    and the Member, through awkwardness, or density of conviction, might desire to argue the matter out; whereupon he would be met at once by being required by the presiding authority to discontinue his speech. What was it that had occurred to himself personally? Although he believed that on every occasion the presiding authority meant to act justly towards him, he was perfectly satisfied that on three or four occasions, in the heat of past debates, the presiding authority, from natural ignorance of what was passing in his (Mr. O'Donnell's) mind, had told him that he was irrelevant in his arguments, and that they had no bearing upon the question; whereas he was perfectly aware that if he could have had time to express those arguments, the presiding authority would have recognised their perfect relevancy. Under the Rules, as they stood at present, there was no serious harm or injustice done to him, or to any other Member in his position, because he was liable to the punishment of being called upon to discontinue his speech merely because the presiding authority misinterpreted him; but, if this Rule passed, the mistake of the presiding authority would be followed by conseqences which could not be recalled; and, therefore, this Rule was a double trap—a trap for the feet of the Member, and a trap for the feet of the presiding authority. The presiding authority might be led on in a well-meaning manner to use this Rule, and might then find that he had committed a serious mistake; there would, however, be no power of remedying the mistake. He would recall to the memory of the House that, on a former occasion, the presiding authority not only considered that he (Mr. O'Donnell) was guilty of continued irrelevance, but that he was actually wilfully refusing to obey the authority of the Chair. The circumstance occurred in Committee of the Whole House; and on that occasion he was not merely told to discontinue his speech, but he was actually suspended; and yet, a few weeks afterwards, the House had, practically, to withdraw that suspension. He contended that there was no necessity whatever for this Rule. If a Member was really refusing to obey the authority of the Chair, he could be punished; he could be warned and then suspended; but this childish way of dealing with a full-grown man,

    1621
    and offensively ordering him to discontinue his speech, was a sort of punishment that was unworthy of the House. A Member addressing the House was supposed, in every Constitutional respect, to be equal to the presiding authority, as far as his knowledge of the relevancy of his argument was concerned, and his knowledge of his duty to his constituents; and as long as the presiding authority was not able to say that a Member was wilfully disobeying the authority of the Chair, in which case a distinct offence would arise, it was altogether too much for any Member of the House, or any of their hon. Colleagues, or the presiding authority, ten times over, to tell a full-grown man, who was the free-elected Representative of a constituency, that he was next door to an idiot, and must discontinue his speech. He looked upon the Rule as not only offensive and ridiculous, but also dangerous. Probably, if it were passed, it would remain a dead letter. If it were ever brought into force, he would lay the odds of 100 to 1 that it would be exercised at the wrong time.
    MR. WADDYsaid, it appeared to him that the arguments he had heard from various Members on the other side of the House were based on this—the Speaker was supposed to be lying in ambush, prepared on the first opportunity to stop some unfortunate Member, who might have wandered unwittingly into some slight irrelevancy. Hon. Members who entertained that view seemed to have forgotten that there were two or three words in the Resolution which, would prevent that, because the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees was to call the attention of the House or of the Committee to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition on the part of that Member. It was therefore provided that the irrelevancy should be continued, and that the repetition should be tedious. It was evident that it was not a first offence that was contemplated; and where there was continued irrelevance and tedious repetition, he thought the Speaker would be amply justified in directing the offending Member to discontinue his speech. He desired to say that, in another respect, the Rule was not strong enough. If it could prevent some hon. Members from speaking for more than 25 times a night, it would effect an advantageous and de-
    1622
    sirable change. At any rate, it might provide that out of the 25 times an hon. Member thought fit to address the House, he should, at all events, on one occasion, say something.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he thought the greatest fallacy came from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Waddy) himself. If the irrelevancy was continued, and the repetition tedious, why did the Government object to introduce so obvious an Amendment as that of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson)? Why did they refuse to the offending Member the right of having a warning from the Speaker or Chairman that he was transgressing? The Resolution conferred upon the Speaker arid the Chairman of Committees very dangerous power, and there ought to be some limitation imposed upon it, to prevent its being used in an arbitrary and unjust manner. The Chairman of Committees might act as a partizan, and might be desirous of closing an awkward speech, and under this Rule he would have the power of doing so absolutely. That, as the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had pointed out, was a dangerous and an offensive power. What valid grounds could the Government allege for objecting to the insertion in the Resolution of a clause which, whilst it would not impair the real efficacy of that Resolution, would insure that an hon. Member who was anxious to keep himself in Order should have fair warning before being told to discontinue his speech? The Government could give no such grounds; and he, therefore, appealed to the Prime Minister to adopt the Amendment.
    MR. BUCHANANsaid, the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had disputed the Prime Minister's statement as to the probability of Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Committees giving warning before putting this Rule in force. But they had some experience to go on. When the Rule was in force in 1881, it was used four times; three times in Committee, and once by Mr. Speaker. On each occasion warning was given.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he did not dispute the fact that it had been the practice of Mr. Speaker and Chairmen of Committees to give warning before putting the Rule in operation, or the

    1623
    probability that it would be in the time to come. But why should they not put it on record that warning must be given? The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan), who was a man of culture, research, and learning, knew that it was not the custom of deliberative Assemblies to trust to declarations by Ministers, but that it was their practice to put on record what they desired to be the law of the land, and of the Houses in which they sat. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] He believed, in spite of the Prime Minister's negative, that that was the practice of Parliament—to take care to embody in Acts of Parliament that which it wished to be done, without trusting to the declaration of Ministers. However much they might value the ability of independent Members, they should put in the words of the Rule what they desired to be done. He appealed to the Government, if they were really honest in this matter, and desirous that the Rule should be administered in accordance with their declarations, to embody words in the Rule, providing for the manner of its administration.
    MR. BRODPICKhoped the House would have some explanation from the Government of the reason which had induced them to keep up what seemed to him to be an altogether unnecessary debate, on a point on which all Parties were agreed. Hon. Members were only proposing a form of words with which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister perfectly agreed. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] He had certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to agree that the practice should be such as was provided in the Amendment. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Oh, dear, no!] In that case, then, it was necessary that the House should argue the matter out. If an hon. Member who rose to address the House, from some aberration of intellect, wandered away into paths he should have avoided, surely it was desirable that he should receive some warning before the supreme step was taken. He (Mr. Brodrick) felt very strongly on this point, because he was in entire sympathy with the Government upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Dodson), a short time ago, appeared to be on the point of rising to reply to the arguments of hon. Members in support of the Amendment; but since then he had
    1624
    abandoned the intention, and that fact itself spoke volumes for the reliability of the contention put forward by hon. Members. It seemed to him (Mr. Brodrick) impossible for anyone who had occupied the Chair in the House not to feel the absolute necessity for the putting in force of some such restriction as that proposed, even if it were not stated in the Rule. Bearing in mind what had been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. J. G. Talbot)—namely, that it was the custom of the House to settle what should be the law by distinct enactment, and not by the declarations of Ministers—he sincerely hoped his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) would go to a division.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 120: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 375.)
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to move to leave out, in line 3, all after "on the part of a Member," and insert "and may put the Question to the House that such Member be not further heard; which Question shall be decided without Debate, Amendment, or Adjournment." He had a very strong feeling that the House, in rendering its Rules more absolute than they were, and substituting these absolute Rules for the action of the wholesome public opinion which used to prevail in the House of Commons and govern its Members, was stamping itself of a lower type than the Houses which had preceded it. He had another feeling. They had heard how freely the conduct of the Chairman of Committees had been canvassed in debate. He thought some injustice had been done to the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Speaker's name had been coupled in this Resolution with that of the Chairman of Committees; and although experience had taught him (Mr. Newdegate) to place implicit confidence in Mr. Speaker's impartiality and right feeling, and though he had scarcely ever known that right hon. Gentleman to err, he could not undertake to place the same confidence in those who might succeed the right hon. Gentleman. With one exception, he would not have placed the same confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessors. "Well, he asked, how could their labours to reorganize the Business of the House be advanced

    1625
    by their Rules if there was a loss of confidence in the Chair, and in the administration of the Chair? So strong was the feeling and apprehension of the House of this danger, that when the majority passed the clôture it insisted that the decision of Mr. Speaker should be supported by a majority of the House. Had the Members of that House fallen so low that they were to be silenced, like school-boys, by the Chair, in order to restore their self-respect, which he feared they had somewhat lost? He feared that, far from this silencing of Members tending to restore their self-respect, it would have an opposite tendency—that it would tend to a still greater loss of self-respect, and to the loss of the first element of order, an element far more powerful than any authority that they could introduce. He, therefore, moved that Mr. Speaker's authority should always be supported by a majority of the House. Everything which separated the right hon. Gentleman from the House weakened the authority of his position—any suspicion that he was not one of them would weaken his position. It would destroy the principle of self-government, of which that House should be the type, and the House would lose the power of a popular Assembly, however they extended, the suffrage. They had an example of that in the United States. There they had extended the suffrage, until they had collected such an anomalous Assembly that they were from year to year placing greater and greater power in the hands of extraneous authorities. That was an example of the present day. He was unwilling at this hour of the night to detain the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: On examining the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), which was lately negatived by the House, I am bound to say that it is substantially the same as that which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) now proposes; and, in that view, I shall have to rule that the Amendment now being moved cannot be put.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he bowed to Mr. Speaker's opinion. If he had known he would be out of Order, he would not have given the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of correcting him.
    MR. GIBSONrose to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) has placed an Amendment in my hands; but he is not in the House.
    MR. WARTON: I should be happy to move it, Sir.
    MR. SPEAKER: I was about to observe to the hon. Member for Evesham, if he had been in his place, that his Amendment was really substantially the same as that of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), which the House has just now negatived; therefore I must call on the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, the Amendment he wished to bring under the notice of the House was a very short one. If the Government passed the Resolution as it stood, it would give Mr. Speaker the final power of directing the hon. Member in possession of the House to discontinue his speech. Bearing in mind that this was a Resolution aimed at continued and possibly unintentional irrelevance, and tedious but probably not obstructive repetition, it was, he thought, too severe a punishment to say that Mr. Speaker might, without a caution against such a course of conduct, direct the hon. Member to discontinue his speech. It seemed to him that the reasonable course would be to give Mr. Speaker the power of directing a Member to discontinue the conduct that had brought him under the notice of the House, and called for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. That would be not only reasonable, but sufficient; because, if a Member had had brought to his notice that he was offending, and had been distinctly ordered by Mr. Speaker to discontinue repetition and irrelevance, if he was then guilty of similar conduct, he could be at once Named as violating the orders of Mr. Speaker. The disciplinary power would be ample, bearing in mind that the Member would be erring more from constitutional infirmity or weakness of mind than anything else. That result he (Mr. Gibson) thought would be found to be quite sufficient.
    Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out the words "his Speech," in order to insert the words "such irrelevance or repetition."—(Mr. Gibson.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'his Speech' stand part of the Question."
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that his Amendment was a very short one. That was true; but there was a shorter one still, to the same effect, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have moved or uttered; and that was an Amendment which would have been signified by saying "No" to the Resolution. That word "No" was the whole meaning of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. The Amendment, if adopted, would make the Rule, in his (Mr. Gladstone's) judgment, not worth the paper it was written on. In all the less grave cases, Mr. Speaker would give warning before bringing the Rule into operation; but the Amendment would make the House suffer before the warning and after the warning; and, as a climax, the offending Member could only be directed to discontinue his tedious and irrelevant observations.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the speech just delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was a very good example of the sort of argument to which the House was constantly treated on these Resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman, who, over and over again, had refused to listen to the appeal to allow a clause, providing for a warning to be inserted in the Rule, now made the fact that a warning might be given the ground for refusing the Amendment. It should be distinctly understood that not only had the power of clôture been imposed on a bare majority, but, in addition to that, power was being conferred on the Presiding Officer of the House absolutely to close the speech of an hon. Member. That might be agreeable to some hon. Members who were able to express themselves consecutively and clearly in the House; but, however it might be viewed by those hon. Members, it was a most grave and serious, and a most novel power to confer. It was a power which had never been known in Parliament before. If the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was accepted, it would enable Mr. Speaker to put down that which he ought to put down—namely, irrelevance and tedious
    1628
    repetition; but the Rule, as it stood, would allow the Presiding Officer of the House, without warning, to compel an hon. Member to cut short his speech. In whatever light hon. Members might regard the remarks he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was addressing to the House, it was certain that what the Government proposed to give was a very great and serious power to the Presiding Officer of the House.
    MR. GIBSONasked the indulgence of the House to say that the proper course would be not to put the House to the trouble of a division. He should have preferred the Amendment of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson); and, under the circumstances, he felt bound to accept the last division as practically governing this. He should indicate his opinion when Mr. Speaker put the Question, but would not trouble the House to divide.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, put.
    (5.) Resolved, That Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, may call the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition on the part of a Member; and may direct the Member to discontinue his Speech.
    Further Consideration of the New Rules of Procedure deferred till Tomorrow.
    House adjourned at One o'clock.

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